this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
42 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
poVoq@slrpnk.net
42
Swedish MPs green-light controversial US defense deal (www.lemonde.fr)
submitted 5 months ago by solo@slrpnk.net to c/europe@feddit.de
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Because this deal gives US access to military based starting now. And can place soldiers there.

Just because Sweden is in NATO doesn't mean other NATO countries can place soldiers in Sweden during peacetime

[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Germany and other countries have soldiers stationed in Lithuania on a NATO initiative. Where‘s the difference?

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

It’s all done on a case-by-case basis. Joining NATO isn’t like Civ’s “your armies can travel in my territories” negotiation perk that applies to all of NATO. It needs to be a bilateral agreement. NATO is a mutual defense alliance, but it is absolutely not intended to undermine any member’s sovereignty.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Very difficult for me to tell you the difference because we are not privy to that type of information. Seeing as it is incredibly sensitive. I didn't strike the deal with Lituania. And I didn't strike the deal with Sweden and USA. (Sorry)

But the similarity, is that Lithuania agreed to it.

[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

you find it weird that I asked that question?

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is that relevant to anything?

[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

to our conversation, yes. I ask a question, not necessarily to you, you know, and you derail the conversation with: how should I know, I didn‘t make the deal with Lithuania? yeah it‘s relevant to my appreciation of you, I guess.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes it does.

This NATO treaty already lays out the rights of troops and host countries:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17265.htm

There are plenty of provisions in NATO for stationing troops on each others' territory that don't require massive, far-reaching agreements. This DCA treaty goes above and beyond NATO standards, to the detriment to Swedish security and rule of law.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago

Ok let me clarify. It does not mean they can place soldiers however and wherever they want.

This deal gives US access to specific bases and they can put soldiers there and work alongside Swedish military.

If that was already included in NATO. They obviously wouldn't have made a separate deal about it.

Why you think it's to Swedens detriment is something only known to you. I strongly disagree.