5 ms·

One thing that isn't mentioned a lot in connection to this: Sweden and Denmark has a VERY violent history. Hundreds of years of wars. It is said to be the wors

by u320 3y ago

One thing that isn't mentioned a lot in connection to this: Sweden and Denmark has a VERY violent history. Hundreds of years of wars. It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history. Now we are allied and committed to defend each other. That's a huge thing for peace.

nikolay 3y ago
[flagged]
- luuurker 3y ago
  Good luck to those launching Sarmats too as they'll have to stop the Tridents, Minutemen, M51, etc. It's important to remember that while they don't make weekly threats, there are three NATO countries with land/sea based nuclear weapons. Realistically, there's no defending from nuclear weapons. That's why MAD, while crazy, works.
  - nikolay 3y ago
    It doesn't have to be even Sarmat; it could be Poseidon - options are plentiful. I doubt anyone would have the balls to respond to a nuclear attack. The issue is who's crazier to do the first one, and if one truly believes Russia and Putin are crazy evil, then one should act respectively! So far, I don't see intelligent behavior from the West - I see arrogance, which always has a high cost!
    - luuurker 3y ago
      You expect everyone to bend over because Putin/Russia decided to go down the "I'm a mad man, give me what I want or I'll nuke you" route... that's just not how the world works. I hope you don't use this tactic yourself, because you'll end up with a broken nose (or worse) if you do it to the wrong guy. There is certainly arrogance from the west, but what do you call what Russia is doing? They literally make threats to nuclear powers as if they're untouchable. The fact you don't see this should tell you that you're biased here. Sarmat and Posidon are "doomsday" weapons. Use them against a small country like the UK or France and they have little to lose. Use them against the US and you're likely to be wiped out. As you've said, options are plentiful, so we should all be very careful and do our best to avoid war (all = includes Russia).
      - nikolay 3y ago
        No, Putin is not a madman - he was cornered. These are the facts! The West is slowly but surely bringing us at least WWIII, if not extinction! The West is always greedy and salivates over Russia's colossal territory and resources! And always gets hurt! This time, it could hurt the entire civilization, though!
        luuurker 3y ago
        Is this the "she made me do it" excuse wife beaters use, but for international relations? Three facts (not opinions) for you: - The revolution in Ukraine, which often is blamed by Russians and tankies on the "west", happened after the then president Yanukovych decided to abandon the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement and join Russia's Eurasian Economic Union instead when most of Ukraine was getting more pro-European Union. - Russia started a war with Ukraine in 2014 when they invaded Crimea, breaking international law and the the Budapest Memorandum they signed. Everything - from Azovs to war crimes - came after. Russia then decided to expand that war in 2022, after being warned privately and publicly that the west would help Ukraine if they did so. - Ukraine has been trying to join NATO since the early 2000's. NATO's open door policy is there from the start and will continue to be, but Ukraine didn't join back then and [opinion ahead, based on real numbers] wouldn't be accepted in 2014 either because they were too corrupt, bloated and incompetent. Putin invaded, not because he was cornered, but because he saw an opportunity and took it. And let's be honest, it worked. A few hundred unmarked soldiers and people with guns (eg: Igor Girkin) transporting politicians around to vote to join Russia... there were some protests, some sanctions, but nothing serious. He tried to do the same again in 2022, but it didn't work. I don't know why people like you try to come up to excuses when even Putin himself from time to time drops the BS and just says he did it because he could. Want to support Russia? Fine, but cut the bullshit. You like seeing them attacking and stealing land from a neighbour, you just lack the balls to admit it. My eyes rolled when you mentioned Russia's resources. We have the money to buy their resources. Europe depended on their gas and, to a lesser extent, their oil. It was fine, everyone - including Russia - was getting richer, we had strong economies, we used their gas and they used our planes and technology. No reason at all to start a war. What do we need their land for? Who was calling for an invasion/annexation/controlling of Russian land or a war with Russia (a nuclear power!)? Most countries in Europe don't even want to spend 2% of their GDP now (post invasion)... but they want a conflict with Russia? Again, you only blame one side for that WW3 that is surely about to happen (lol). Russia, which as you've said is not governed by a madman (or a bunch of amateurs that are easily played), decided to start a war in Europe. Can't you see that they have so much power and that they could stop it all? They could also stop making threats like the ones that mention that Sarmat you talked about, but they don't. And where's the "we'll leave Ukraine if we they don't join NATO" proposal? Anyway, while it "takes two to tango", you can only blame one side. And that's the problem with your position.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
baxtr 3y ago
I have many Serbian friends going for holidays in Croatia. Unthinkable 30 years ago. So maybe, in 50 years from now, Russia will join NATO, too?
- AlGrothendieck 3y ago
  While Secretary General, Ismay is also credited as having been the first person to say that the purpose of NATO was "to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down," a saying that has since become a common way to describe the dynamics of NATO
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    the irony is that NATO is pushing Germany to aggressively and quickly re-arm if NATO wants America in then they need to do something about an angry orange political candidate...
    - rainworld 3y ago
      >aggressively and quickly re-arm On top of that, there's inflation and the value-added tax, which mean that, once all the extra costs have been covered, only about €50 to €70 billion will be left over to spend on actual hardware. "The longer you have this money sit around somewhere, the longer factors like inflation and interest payments have to eat away at this pile," Loss said.[0] There has been some criticism from European allies, and within Germany, that so many big orders have been placed in the United States. Depriving local industry. And of what use is this anyway. Why on earth would Germany need ballistic missile defense etc. >quickly Two years in, the entire West still cannot outproduce Russia. Let alone Russia plus friends. For the most part, dependable large orders—necessary for expansion—aren’t coming. Overall, deindustrialization is only accelerating. Italy just ordered 132 L2s for 2027–2037. Pathetic timeframe. These tanks will be obsolete by then. >NATO wants America in There is no NATO without the US. Something could conceivably carry the same name but it would not be the same thing. NATO is and has always been an instrument of American control over Europe. >angry orange political candidate Remember when Trump ordered a reduction of the occupation force in Germany (35k then)? Well, Serious People got Very Nervous and the military stalled the order. In fact, the generals were in a state of barely concealed mutiny then. And now there’s 50k. So, rest assured: Germany will be Kept Down for the foreseeable future. [0]: https://www.dw.com/en/what-happened-to-the-german-militarys-100-billion-fund/a-64846571 https://www.dw.com/en/what-happened-to-the-german-militarys-...
gerikson 3y ago
> It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history. By who? Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavism
MasterYoda 3y ago
"It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history." No it is not, that is incorrect. I really dont know where you get that from. And I dont agree that there have been a VERY violent history. Yes there have been wars, and all war are voilent, but not anything special for that era. Between 1200-1800 there was 15 wars. From 1-10 years and the majority of them lasted just 1 or 2 years. And fun facts: Of the 15 wars Denmark started 11 of them and Sweden won 11 of them. Sug på den danskjävlar ;) Sweden is a peaceful coutry and that contry that have lived longest in the world without war, over 200 years. All nordic countries are very similar in so many ways and our language are almost the same so we can understand, "almost" each (except the Danish people (rest of the nordic countries understand what I mean :), maybe that why there have been conflicts ;) We, the nordic countries see ourself more like a family, like siblings that love each outer but also love to tease each other :D
- MasterYoda 3y ago
  I have to correct my self, the war length was not between 1-10 years, it was between 1-12 when I checked again. And about "Hundreds of years of wars." I counted for fun how many years in total Sweden and Danmark was in war with each other between 1207 when the first war started to 1814 when the last one ended, and it was around 54 years in total, over a period of 4 centuries. (54 years are dependent how you count, if a war started 1207 and ended 1208 it could have been both 1 and 2 years long, so I counted 1,5 for all wars. So at best it was 47 years or at worst 64 with a mean time of 3,6 year per war).
- hagbard_c 3y ago
  > Sug på den danskjävlar ;) I feel a new war brewing and just started stacking cannon balls at Bohus fästning [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohus_Fortress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohus_Fortress
  - AbstractH24 3y ago
    I feel a new war brewing just by reading this back and forth
gitaarik 3y ago
Don't all countries have a very violent history? (:

by u320 3y ago

nikolay 3y ago

[flagged]

luuurker 3y ago
Good luck to those launching Sarmats too as they'll have to stop the Tridents, Minutemen, M51, etc. It's important to remember that while they don't make weekly threats, there are three NATO countries with land/sea based nuclear weapons. Realistically, there's no defending from nuclear weapons. That's why MAD, while crazy, works.
- nikolay 3y ago
  It doesn't have to be even Sarmat; it could be Poseidon - options are plentiful. I doubt anyone would have the balls to respond to a nuclear attack. The issue is who's crazier to do the first one, and if one truly believes Russia and Putin are crazy evil, then one should act respectively! So far, I don't see intelligent behavior from the West - I see arrogance, which always has a high cost!
  - luuurker 3y ago
    You expect everyone to bend over because Putin/Russia decided to go down the "I'm a mad man, give me what I want or I'll nuke you" route... that's just not how the world works. I hope you don't use this tactic yourself, because you'll end up with a broken nose (or worse) if you do it to the wrong guy. There is certainly arrogance from the west, but what do you call what Russia is doing? They literally make threats to nuclear powers as if they're untouchable. The fact you don't see this should tell you that you're biased here. Sarmat and Posidon are "doomsday" weapons. Use them against a small country like the UK or France and they have little to lose. Use them against the US and you're likely to be wiped out. As you've said, options are plentiful, so we should all be very careful and do our best to avoid war (all = includes Russia).
    - nikolay 3y ago
      No, Putin is not a madman - he was cornered. These are the facts! The West is slowly but surely bringing us at least WWIII, if not extinction! The West is always greedy and salivates over Russia's colossal territory and resources! And always gets hurt! This time, it could hurt the entire civilization, though!
      - luuurker 3y ago
        Is this the "she made me do it" excuse wife beaters use, but for international relations? Three facts (not opinions) for you: - The revolution in Ukraine, which often is blamed by Russians and tankies on the "west", happened after the then president Yanukovych decided to abandon the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement and join Russia's Eurasian Economic Union instead when most of Ukraine was getting more pro-European Union. - Russia started a war with Ukraine in 2014 when they invaded Crimea, breaking international law and the the Budapest Memorandum they signed. Everything - from Azovs to war crimes - came after. Russia then decided to expand that war in 2022, after being warned privately and publicly that the west would help Ukraine if they did so. - Ukraine has been trying to join NATO since the early 2000's. NATO's open door policy is there from the start and will continue to be, but Ukraine didn't join back then and [opinion ahead, based on real numbers] wouldn't be accepted in 2014 either because they were too corrupt, bloated and incompetent. Putin invaded, not because he was cornered, but because he saw an opportunity and took it. And let's be honest, it worked. A few hundred unmarked soldiers and people with guns (eg: Igor Girkin) transporting politicians around to vote to join Russia... there were some protests, some sanctions, but nothing serious. He tried to do the same again in 2022, but it didn't work. I don't know why people like you try to come up to excuses when even Putin himself from time to time drops the BS and just says he did it because he could. Want to support Russia? Fine, but cut the bullshit. You like seeing them attacking and stealing land from a neighbour, you just lack the balls to admit it. My eyes rolled when you mentioned Russia's resources. We have the money to buy their resources. Europe depended on their gas and, to a lesser extent, their oil. It was fine, everyone - including Russia - was getting richer, we had strong economies, we used their gas and they used our planes and technology. No reason at all to start a war. What do we need their land for? Who was calling for an invasion/annexation/controlling of Russian land or a war with Russia (a nuclear power!)? Most countries in Europe don't even want to spend 2% of their GDP now (post invasion)... but they want a conflict with Russia? Again, you only blame one side for that WW3 that is surely about to happen (lol). Russia, which as you've said is not governed by a madman (or a bunch of amateurs that are easily played), decided to start a war in Europe. Can't you see that they have so much power and that they could stop it all? They could also stop making threats like the ones that mention that Sarmat you talked about, but they don't. And where's the "we'll leave Ukraine if we they don't join NATO" proposal? Anyway, while it "takes two to tango", you can only blame one side. And that's the problem with your position.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

baxtr 3y ago

I have many Serbian friends going for holidays in Croatia. Unthinkable 30 years ago. So maybe, in 50 years from now, Russia will join NATO, too?

AlGrothendieck 3y ago
While Secretary General, Ismay is also credited as having been the first person to say that the purpose of NATO was "to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down," a saying that has since become a common way to describe the dynamics of NATO
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  the irony is that NATO is pushing Germany to aggressively and quickly re-arm if NATO wants America in then they need to do something about an angry orange political candidate...
  - rainworld 3y ago
    >aggressively and quickly re-arm On top of that, there's inflation and the value-added tax, which mean that, once all the extra costs have been covered, only about €50 to €70 billion will be left over to spend on actual hardware. "The longer you have this money sit around somewhere, the longer factors like inflation and interest payments have to eat away at this pile," Loss said.[0] There has been some criticism from European allies, and within Germany, that so many big orders have been placed in the United States. Depriving local industry. And of what use is this anyway. Why on earth would Germany need ballistic missile defense etc. >quickly Two years in, the entire West still cannot outproduce Russia. Let alone Russia plus friends. For the most part, dependable large orders—necessary for expansion—aren’t coming. Overall, deindustrialization is only accelerating. Italy just ordered 132 L2s for 2027–2037. Pathetic timeframe. These tanks will be obsolete by then. >NATO wants America in There is no NATO without the US. Something could conceivably carry the same name but it would not be the same thing. NATO is and has always been an instrument of American control over Europe. >angry orange political candidate Remember when Trump ordered a reduction of the occupation force in Germany (35k then)? Well, Serious People got Very Nervous and the military stalled the order. In fact, the generals were in a state of barely concealed mutiny then. And now there’s 50k. So, rest assured: Germany will be Kept Down for the foreseeable future. [0]: https://www.dw.com/en/what-happened-to-the-german-militarys-100-billion-fund/a-64846571 https://www.dw.com/en/what-happened-to-the-german-militarys-...

gerikson 3y ago

> It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history. By who? Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavism

MasterYoda 3y ago

"It is said to be the worst conflict in all of human history." No it is not, that is incorrect. I really dont know where you get that from. And I dont agree that there have been a VERY violent history. Yes there have been wars, and all war are voilent, but not anything special for that era. Between 1200-1800 there was 15 wars. From 1-10 years and the majority of them lasted just 1 or 2 years. And fun facts: Of the 15 wars Denmark started 11 of them and Sweden won 11 of them. Sug på den danskjävlar ;) Sweden is a peaceful coutry and that contry that have lived longest in the world without war, over 200 years. All nordic countries are very similar in so many ways and our language are almost the same so we can understand, "almost" each (except the Danish people (rest of the nordic countries understand what I mean :), maybe that why there have been conflicts ;) We, the nordic countries see ourself more like a family, like siblings that love each outer but also love to tease each other :D

MasterYoda 3y ago
I have to correct my self, the war length was not between 1-10 years, it was between 1-12 when I checked again. And about "Hundreds of years of wars." I counted for fun how many years in total Sweden and Danmark was in war with each other between 1207 when the first war started to 1814 when the last one ended, and it was around 54 years in total, over a period of 4 centuries. (54 years are dependent how you count, if a war started 1207 and ended 1208 it could have been both 1 and 2 years long, so I counted 1,5 for all wars. So at best it was 47 years or at worst 64 with a mean time of 3,6 year per war).
hagbard_c 3y ago
> Sug på den danskjävlar ;) I feel a new war brewing and just started stacking cannon balls at Bohus fästning [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohus_Fortress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohus_Fortress
- AbstractH24 3y ago
  I feel a new war brewing just by reading this back and forth

gitaarik 3y ago

Don't all countries have a very violent history? (: