I never understood that. People claim "Sweden has links to NATO". Well the UK co-founded NATO and has a "special relationship" with the USA ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship ). Why go the UK if you're worried about extradition to the USA?

He wasn't leaving Sweden to avoid US extradition at that point. If I recall correctly, Wikileaks was particularly busy at that time working with the Guardian on several large stories. Hence, Assange would want to be in London for that reason.

Yep. But that is often left out. (No accusation intended. It's just something people forget.)

They don't forget. They leave it out on purpose because it destroys their argument.

Oh. If only he'd have done this thing that I'm telling you, without mentioning the well known reason why he is against doing that thing!

Well he became afraid of extradition conveniently at the point at which he was facing extradition. Before then he was quite happy to spend lots of time in the West apparently unconcerned by the threat. Something that is often left out...

The UK was happy to extradite him to Sweden, we extradite people to the US as long as they aren't going to be executed. So quite why the UK extraditing him to Sweden who would then extradite him to the US is a plausible conspiracy never really gets explained.

In the UK extraditions, especially ones to the US, are usually won or lost in the court of public opinion. I suspect that Assange feels he would have a better chance of resisting extradition in the UK than in Sweden.

See the case of Gary McKinnon as an example (although McKinnon had much stronger grounds to appeal on than I expect Assange would)

Particularly since he could still appeal back to the UK if Sweden tried to extradite him.

Also weird this wasn't an argument he brought up while fighting the initial extradition to Sweden.

In fairness, most people only become afraid of something when they're facing it.

As for the conspiracy theory, maybe it was the product of paranoid thinking. A more obvious conspiracy theory to me is that the US saw an opportunity to smear Assange and lent on Sweden to trump up the charges.

And yet the best they could do was 'these girls who said that he had quasi consensual ('I was sleeping') sex with them and want him to do a HIV test'?

That's a pretty low bar for a smear campaign.

He was at more risk of extradition to the US from the UK than he was from Sweden

Says who? Sweden? The UK? Assange? The US?

UK is in Five Eyes, Sweden is not. The UK is a co-founding member of NATO, Sweden is not in NATO. The USA & UK have a "special relationship", Sweden & USA don't. UK helped the USA invade Iraq, Sweden did not.

Half of which if not all of which had absolutely no bearing on whether or not Sweden were more or less likely to extradite Assange as a result of pressure to do so by the US.

The "special relationship" is not a cover-all term for the US & UK to do anything on a promise like a teen couple in love. It covers a lot of military and trade stuff, which wikileaks is a part of, but in this case Sweden clearly acted as a player in a larger game. Assange seems to have presumed an ulterior motive in the charges brought against him and proceeded accordingly.

People have claimed that "Sweden has links to NATO" as a reason why Sweden might extradite Assange to USA[1]. So, yes, the fact that the UK co-founded NATO is very definitly relevant.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7988782

Is Sweden a member of "Five Eyes" ?

No, it is made up of anglophone countries (Canada, UK, US, New Zealand, Australia)

But is still a close ally of the US when it comes to intelligence.