>Sweden's ports are beneficial in a potential Arctic conflict

How? Norway (long a member) has Arctic ports, Sweden does not touch the Arctic.

Indeed. Plus Finland is already in the club, and they're def. on the arctic.

They are not.

Not since the 1940s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Armistice

Things are looking up for NATO!

Except the part where Trump said he'd pull the US out of NATO if elected.

> Except the part where Trump said he'd pull the US out of NATO if elected.

Congress blocked his ability to do that without their approval: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/16/...

EDIT: since other commenters don't know, yes it was signed into law, Sec 1250A of the 2024 NDAA:

>The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.

If the commander in chief says that Russia can do 'whatever the hell they want' with NATO countries, it doesn't really matter if the US is still officially in NATO.

They made it illegal for him to do so, but Trump has made it clear that he does not view himself as accountable to the law, especially for any acts while President, so...

I'm too lazy to look this up. Can he do that?

Maybe. Countries can leave the treaty. Congress and the Senate are trying to make it impossible for the president to unilaterally do this, but I don't know if that bill has passed yet. It's a bipartisan effort believe it or not, because even the most politic Republicans are not stupid. I expect it should pass before January 2025.

But who knows, maybe he can sabotage the alliance in other ways, or find some other way out.

I understand what you say is true in theory, but does this mean the US will deploy fewer troops in NATO theaters, in practice?

No, it has already increased, but not due to Sweden and Finland joining. the increase was a direct response to Russia invading Ukraine.

https://www.uso.org/stories/3518-one-year-later-how-the-uso-...

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...

But in same time European allies has also increased their NATO soldiers.

Yes, I am asking: all else equal, would more NATO members reduce the number of US soldiers deployed.

There is no all else equal here. If your new member is the Democratic Republic of Congo the number would go up considerably. With Sweden/Finland it might very well go down since the border is far more defensible. But the US has a global footprint and those troops in Europe are nearer to potential conflicts in the middle east and northern Afrika, so it might make logistical sense to park them there anyway.

IMO it's still not certain NATO will hold together if Putin decides to attack the Baltic states or Poland. Many NATO countries will have sizeable factions of their electorate saying to not get involved.

The fact that Ukraine hasn't been easy for him makes it less likely that Putin will attempt that, but it's clearly been on his mind.

Yep, Putin will absolutely try to grab new land whenever he thinks he can get away with it, no matter how many young Russian men die in the process. To him it's just a game to fulfill his fantasies of being a great conquering czar, and for that reason credibility of NATO's article 5 is vital.

Even the good relations between EU and Russia pre-2014 were just theater on Russia's part. Here in Finland during those years shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations. They have never acted in good faith.

> shady Russian businessmen kept buying properties that made no financial sense, but were located close to critical infrastructure or military locations.

AFAICT this topic has been mostly avoided by the Finnish media. I guess everyone just kinda trusts that the government is on top of the situation.

> IMO it's still not certain NATO will hold together if Putin decides to attack the Baltic states or Poland.

There is a reason forces of core NATO states farther from the Eastern flank are deployed to Poland and the Baltic states; it is practically impossible for Russia to attack them without attacking the forces of core NATO states, not just in a "legally, under Article 5, we must treat this as an attack" way, but in a "Russian troops are killing troops of those states" way.

I think Putin would not invade Poland, it's just as strong or even stronger than Ukraine, with less corruption, better economy and defense treaties.

Baltics have always been the biggest risk. They are very small population-wise and can be "easily" cut off (Suwalki gap). But the addition of Sweden and Finland to the alliance will significantly improve the defense posture (airfields, maritime logistics).

I think if he is successful in Ukraine, Transnistra/Moldowa are the logical next step. Then he most likely would use his stooges like Orban and radicalized Russian minorities to create problems and wait for an opportunity.

But also, a bigger alliance creates a larger amount of territory to defend.

For example if the US were to leave NATO, they miss out on all the benefits that European NATO members provide, but also would not need to defend Europe, which is where any war involving NATO members is likely to happen.

It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.

NATO is the greatest power projection project the in the history of the world, and is in no small part why the US has achieved hegemonic status. The ability for the US to wage wars on the opposite side of the globe without major logistical issues is greatly aided by NATO bases that are simultaneously in very friendly territory, and much closer to the action.

NATO membership also means NATO equipment, which the US's military-industrial complex disproportionate benefits from, but also serves as lock-in: those extremely expensive aircraft are basically scrap without the appropriate service contracts and part availability, meaning any military that aligns itself with the US's tech is far less likely to be able to wage wars we don't approve of.

NATO also brings stability: nuclear red-line borders are unlikely to be invaded, reducing the chances of conflicts that are bad for business. A peaceful world is a profitable world, and those profits disproportionately go to the US.

NATO also provides soft power projection: NATO membership is a huge boon to its members, which grants the US leverage politically to encourage member states to adopt pro-US policies.

The US benefitted from NATO because if the Soviets has overrun Western Europe, there would have been what was essentially a single country (or a country and its satellites which it dominates militarily) stretching from the North Atlantic to the North Pacific, a country that probably would have become wealthier than the US and consequently eventually stronger militarily (if it had the political will to do so, which it probably would have). It was probably worth the expense for the US to have tried hard to prevent the formation of such a wealthier peer, just as it was worth the expense to prevent Germany from uniting most of Europe under its system during WWII (even ignoring the moral reasons for getting involved): being the wealthiest country in the system with the strongest military makes it less likely the country's civilians will get hurt or killed (by e.g. an invasion or a naval blockade).

In other words, there has been a strong streak of national self-interest (correctly calculated IMHO -- at least until the end of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union) in the US's contributions to NATO.

Where are you going to sell your Pepsi Cola to?

That’s silly to say considering the one and only time article five was invoked was by the USA after 9/11.

the US believes Russia invading more of Europe is not in their interest. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand.

feedin the trolls mon ami, they be shillbots. they be putting out literal russian, like on RT, talking points.

> It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.

NATO is the only reason why the EU buys so much US weapons in the first place, the benefit to the US is enormous.

>it seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.

So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?

From me a Romanian, feels very shitty that our soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan for America but now if we will need help Trumpists will not help back.

>So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?

Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.

>Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.

1 That was not an Article 5 thing,

2 how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa?

3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.

>3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.

The American strategy in WWII was "Germany First" despite it having been the Japanese that attacked us.

And that strategy was somehow altruistic ? Explain? And explain why waiting to defend "Europe"

Anyway we talking about NATO, USA used Art5 and Europeans died for USA, but now Trumpists complain that we are not doing enough and USA will not return the favor

This history on this is well documented. The US was helping the allies before entering the war by providing weapons and resources. Before being attacked the US was isolationist (like “Trumpists”). It took getting punched in the mouth to muster the resolve to join the war. The attack on Pearl Harbor brought the UK to war with Japan and solidified allied resolve.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_W...

> how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa?

Based on a quick wiki scan looks like two. This accounts for all NATO casualties. No Romanians were killed in Kosovo.

A combined total of 30 Romanians were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.