Can we give Putin a special award for expanding NATO?
Let's just institute an award show in the Hague
Now awaiting the last signature from Hungary...(...).
Orbán is Putin's butt plug and will be until he dies of old age. As much as I would love my country to stay in the EU, the only way to stop this raging toddler from destroying other kids' Lego castles is to lock him out of the room.
The problem is, once the country is out of the EU's protection, daddy Russia will be happy to raise him an alcoholic, racist scumbag.
I really don't know how the country can be saved from sinking even deeper in the mud it finally emerged from in 1989.
The problem is, once the country is out of the EU’s protection, daddy Russia will be happy to raise him an alcoholic, racist scumbag.
Oh no, Hungary could do so much damage on their own! /s
And honestly, it's a question how long Putinism is even going to survive. If the West can keep it's shit together the answer is not very long.
We're still waiting for Erdogan to sign too.
Ah yes, though he submitted the bill, he is expected to sign the bill into law in the coming days.
I believe it when I see it. Not that I care, but still.
I wonder what we gave up for Turkey to sign it. Maybe it was enough for Kristersson to celebrate his 60th birthday with a purposefully made confidential bill to taxpayers.
Funny how his government always seem to transform things that were or should be public to confidential.
Like the secret electricity support, so the ones who used much electricity when the grid was strained got a cashback. I forget the name but some people apparently had to keep their mansions and fifteen swimmingpools heated. Guess we aren't equal after all..
As best I can tell, nothing. He held it up to be the strong guy for their next election, then let it go after.
First we gave out some Kurds, be it right or wrong, then I know there were different opinions regarding our freedom of speech and burning books. And that's just what the public knows. The real deals are made behind closed doors
It's what we voted for (I didn't vote for them, I mean as a collective).
NATO should've been put as a separate issue public vote, whatever it's called in English. To make an international example, in the US they can vote for big shit or the lesser shit, so people vote for lesser shit, but that doesn't mean they want lesser shit policies.
Imo it's a big wrangled to say we voted for this, when we vote for packages and our options are severely limited. Maybe you agree?
We have representative democracy meaning we elect politicians to make decisions for us. While we do have the option to vote on single issue topics it's unusual, and there are more and less suitable topics for the public to vote on. Voting on the NATO issue is probably the least suitable. Much of the basis for entering NATO are secrets not revealed to the public. And considering Russia managed to tamper with the us election, can you imagine what impact they could have on a vote like this?
We've had public votes for single issues before, like nuclear power, euro, and EU.
Russian and in extension Chinese influence is mostly astroturfing opinions. They give money to entities like PragerU and others to push any conflicting information. Hence the MAGA cult.
Better believe in information war, herr Vaniljkram, you're in one.
Did you want to explain why it would be a good idea to have a public vote on NATO?
Because then we'd at least have the option, and the people who are to be sent to wars get to actually weigh what they feel.
It's not perfect, but it'd be better
you mean it should be settled out in a referendum?
That's the word 👍 (direct translation is people vote)
What I meant was we did vote for the current government and their behaviour when it comes to financial policy is no surprise to me. In fact it is so unsurprising that I'm more surprised that anyone is surprised.
Them being elected on the NATO question is kind of moot IMO since the Social Democrats already initiated. I think it's fine to want to have a separate vote on the issue though I personally do not believe the public can be fully informed to make such a decision in our current world of nation states. That decision, and decisions on most national security issues, should be made on the basis of facts that you and I do not have access to.
You can apply that to any issue. People will often vote against their best interest but it shows whether or not it was wanted.
My brother in Carl XVI Gustaf they obviously had better information that the plebian, but still systematically dismantled the military to five guys, a bucket, and a goat. I wouldn't trust them to put their boots on the right foot
As I said, it's fine to want the vote. I am not against it, but I'm not invested in it either. In the end our elected politicians are just human beings like all of us citizens, because they are citizens just like us. They're bound to make mistakes like anyone else. Blind trust isn't healthy but neither is contempt.
Sure sure. I didn't mean so. It's just that we had multiple governments that apparently "didn't see it coming" on anything.
In gymnasium evidently we did a better world analysis after the Russian invasion of Crimea and subsequent illegal annexation. Placing Russian controlled agents of chaos and ruski green men in the Eastern regions.
There was no question it would continue. Trump wants to get out of NATO, we'll see how it ends. Not only this, but we have the CCP blatantly extending their territory and tricking other nations into shitty infrastructure deals that never amount to what's promised.
This rustles me so sorry if I'm just going on tangents
I don't disagree that these issues are very real and have been for a long time. We just have to trust that human beings can change their outlook when they're proven wrong and that our politics are starting to align with the reality of our eastern neighbor attacking countries.
Quick, someone call out Hungary's lack of democracy again! Still time to avoid this shitty alliance. Don't want to be in an alliance with criminal countries like the US and Turkey.
Not like Russia is a threat when they can't even take Poland. We've got enough defense with our EU and Nordic treaties.
Nice try, Russian troll
This is a fairly common opinion in Sweden among people.
Lol I'm Swedish. It's possible to be against NATO without being a paid actor. Jävla jänkare är helt korkade.
I think he's American, and has suffered due to their inferior educational system (AU here, nice job negotiating with Turkey's dictatorship for your own security SE!)
They made it an election promise to join NATO. It's so sus that our own defence has been dismantled for 20 years, and when Russia is flailing we're rushing through a NATO membership. No public vote on that one.
Red army's stationed in Berlin at the end of WWII, but Sweden doesn't consider that a big enough threat to join NATO. Russian army is now in eastern Ukraine, which would've been deep within the Soviet Union at the end of the WW, and suddenly we have to join NATO to keep safe. You know, protect ourselves against imperialism by joining the chief imperialist block and give the top imperialists access to 17 military bases on our soil. We've become so pathetic compared to the swedes from the fifties. They valued true independence, we gargle uncle Sam's balls instead to feel safe. Sweden was uniquely independent, we're now in alliance with Turkey and the US. That's quite a fall from grace and it makes me sad. Like I'm losing what made my country special.
Sweden wasn't as uniquely independent as you think, nor as special. Countries' leaders act in the country's interest. The circumstances are different this time - Sweden, like Ireland, was notionally independent in WWII but we all knew whose side they were on, even if non-combatants.
Yes. Sweden was somehow on the Nazi's side first and then the Allies'
Masel tov!
Now it's time for Sweden to let Turkey in the EU
Steady on. Erdoğan's Islamifying the place as a populist, undoing Atatürk's vision. Turkey belongs in the GCC rather than the EU if it's on its way to theocracy.
I guess that answers the question.
The EU is not about to let Turkey join, and the main reason is that Turkey don't really want to.
So, they submitted an application in 1999 and then suddenly revoked it?
It's not revoked. It's stalled. There's a huge list of things they'd need to do to join, and they basically haven't completed any of it.
Cyprus is a major sticking point, along with Erdogan, who while not quite being a dictator in name, is probably only a little way off it.
Noted
Sweden has generally been pretty supportive of Turkish EU accession. Cyprus is a far bigger issue.
The Cyprus problem is just sad.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Turkish parliament has given its long-awaited approval to Sweden’s membership of Nato, bringing the Nordic country significantly closer to joining the western military alliance after months in limbo.
Three months after Recep Tayyip Erdoğan submitted a bill on approving membership to parliament, MPs voted in favour of ratifying it late on Tuesday night.
In a letter, he wrote: “I believe that a more intensive dialogue could contribute to reinforcing trust between our countries and institutions thus allowing to further strengthen our political and security arrangements.”
Sweden applied to join Nato in May 2022, at the same time as Finland, in a historic shift in its security policy prompted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February earlier that year.
Finland finally joined last year but Ankara pressed Stockholm to toughen its stance on members of the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK) based in Sweden, which the US and the EU as well as Turkey deem a terrorist group.
While the decision is formally up to parliament, Orbán’s tight grip on his ruling Fidesz party means that the ratification, de facto, is in the hands of the prime minister.Hungarian officials have in the past presented different narratives domestically about Sweden’s bid, while insisting to western allies that Budapest would not be last to sign off.A senior European diplomat said: “It is crucial this dossier moves forward sooner rather than later and there are indeed signals all remaining allies understood the importance of having Sweden in Nato as soon as possible.
The original article contains 685 words, the summary contains 248 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/