The Rødt party is against NATO membership across the board, so their representatives were against it
The ones that don’t want to make Russia attack them? The ones that know all the bad things NATO has done?
Being brainwashed and ignorant must be really scary. People aren’t even aware of it.
Some radical leftists who would rather see Sweden and Finland conquered by Russia than allied with the US.
Our repulsive commies did.
Much love from Finland, glad to be on the same team with you peeps!
Probably Rødt
As a Rødt voter, I will say that i have full solidarity and understanding for our neighbours need for security.
However I’m so angry at the concessions given to Turkey and Erdogan. Selling out our Kurdish comrades who have been instrumental in defeating isis. I view Erdogans action in Kurdistan equal to Putin in Ukraine.
This just suck. I can’t put it in other words. It’s just terrible.
Rødt wants to join the revived Soviet Union, preferably while being taken by Russian military force, and NATO stands in their way.
If 98 MPs voted for, and four voted against, that means 67 abstained 🤨
Finland is fine, we remember the swedish “neutrality” to this day.
As far as I know, three of those are grounded in the thought that expanding NATO in the way NATO is conducting itself now – does not serve Norway’s security-political interests. Which is what the vote is about, and why approval from member states is required: the inclusion of new members is not supposed to be a unilateral decision from the bigger states, or the member state wanting to join.
Voting in your self interest here should not be controversial, in either NATO article context or in terms of any democracy. But hey, what do I know, right? Surely not voting with the majority here is denying Finland and Sweden their right to choose, right?
In what universe this argument makes sense, I do not know.
In any case: We joined NATO with several special conditions, in particular that there should be no foreign bases in our country in peace-time. This has recently been changed, in spite of having had a broad political consensus since the 60s and until about 10 years ago. And NATO has expanded, since 2001, with somewhere around 20 countries. We have seen a series of very unfortunate military escalations since then. And Norway has been roped into wars that we would not have been involved in if it was not for what is called “expectations and commitments under NATO”. This involves, according to entirely serious politicians, anything from providing bombing runs on sovereign nations outside specific UN missions, to allowing recruitment of soliders from the defense force to what is essentially private security forces not even directly under the command of an allied nation. In the same way, providing military materiel to a warzone is something that only was done, for the first time, for the nordic countries (except for Denmark, obviously, who loves to assist with transportation to blacksites), without actual debate in any of the parliaments. How is this arrived at, and why is this so important right now? Well, it’s not exactly a secret that fueling the war in Ukraine to bog down Russia – costing as many Ukrainian lives as necessary – is the first strategy the US foreign department has. And that this is why “team Europe” literally had the same suggestions, at the same times, pushed past parliament and blessed by the government unilaterally.
So there are many questions that can be asked about how wise it is for Norway, never mind Finland and Sweden, to further entrench themselves into what NATO is currently doing right now. As the character of NATO’s mission is changing very rapidly, at least compared to what it was from approximately 1950 to 1999.
Sadly, these questions are not asked. And certainly any answers are not to be had. Because the majority will not allow it to be discussed. But the way Finland and Sweden around joining now, and how we are currently engaged in NATO, is not how we joined NATO while Soviet was actually right next door. There was more restraint and focus on the political importance of the alliance then that it is now. And frankly the way Finland and Sweden both dragged the decision past their parliaments is not something that either took the new context of the Russian invasion in Ukraine seriously, nor the supposed urgency of joining right now – never mind each of their parliaments and any discussion around it.
Please note that this comes from someone who until 1999, and to a certain extent until 2003, still was in favour of the existing foundation for Norway’s membership. In short: I served in the military, I have nothing against having a defense force. I know history, I know why and how we joined NATO, and I find that decision reasonable. But I have very little in common with people who now think provoking wars is good for business, or just good for domestic PR in the live-steamed democratic slow-motion trainwreck of a TV show that is the USA.
Aside from that, the future defense posture the Nordic countries are going to have to arrive at together will not be settled with just the NATO membership. Unlike what sadly most of you seem to think, having impressed your average CNN-viewer is not actually useful as a defensive deterrent. The logistical issues, the differences of opinion, etc., can of course just be replaced with laminated folders from intrepid generals educated at West Point. And we will certainly be seeing many exceptionally good suggestions for placement of missile bases soon.
But the question still remains: what is in the best interest of each of these countries, given that we don’t want the biggest military escalation in history, with the only possible end in an open war, where our countries then are – by our own design – at the front line.
This is not an easy question, and it is not resolved in any way by the NATO memberships being drawn up now. This is going to take years and years to sort out. And I’m afraid that the arrogance and the sheer stupidity of the way the US is conducting itself now is going to cause serious problems for us, both political and defense-technical. It won’t be settled, no matter how many concessions are made, and we will sit and watch what we normally see from a distance happening in our back yard.
In addition: trying to convince conservatives from Norway who have dreamt up a scenario where they can cut further in the military spending because Finland and Sweden is a buffer now – that they have to cooperate and fund materiel to get the Swedes up and running. Good luck with that.
I’m impressed by the success the US State Department drones have had making this happen, though. But you don’t have a clue what you’re doing. This is going to end badly in so many ways that I sincerely hope you will be there when the series of disasters actually happen.
But by all means: DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS! QUESTIONS ARE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA! All negative things that challenge the narrative are from Russian bots. So lalalalala all is great!
I m still waiting for an alliance against Nato aggressions… What would be a fit name for it?
15 comments
>Seher Aydar, Rødt
>
>Geir Jørgensen, Rødt
>
>Marie Sneve Martinussen, Rødt
>
>Bjørnar Moxnes, Rødt
The Rødt party is against NATO membership across the board, so their representatives were against it
The ones that don’t want to make Russia attack them? The ones that know all the bad things NATO has done?
Being brainwashed and ignorant must be really scary. People aren’t even aware of it.
Some radical leftists who would rather see Sweden and Finland conquered by Russia than allied with the US.
Our repulsive commies did.
Much love from Finland, glad to be on the same team with you peeps!
Probably Rødt
As a Rødt voter, I will say that i have full solidarity and understanding for our neighbours need for security.
However I’m so angry at the concessions given to Turkey and Erdogan. Selling out our Kurdish comrades who have been instrumental in defeating isis. I view Erdogans action in Kurdistan equal to Putin in Ukraine.
This just suck. I can’t put it in other words. It’s just terrible.
Rødt wants to join the revived Soviet Union, preferably while being taken by Russian military force, and NATO stands in their way.
If 98 MPs voted for, and four voted against, that means 67 abstained 🤨
Finland is fine, we remember the swedish “neutrality” to this day.
As far as I know, three of those are grounded in the thought that expanding NATO in the way NATO is conducting itself now – does not serve Norway’s security-political interests. Which is what the vote is about, and why approval from member states is required: the inclusion of new members is not supposed to be a unilateral decision from the bigger states, or the member state wanting to join.
Voting in your self interest here should not be controversial, in either NATO article context or in terms of any democracy. But hey, what do I know, right? Surely not voting with the majority here is denying Finland and Sweden their right to choose, right?
In what universe this argument makes sense, I do not know.
In any case: We joined NATO with several special conditions, in particular that there should be no foreign bases in our country in peace-time. This has recently been changed, in spite of having had a broad political consensus since the 60s and until about 10 years ago. And NATO has expanded, since 2001, with somewhere around 20 countries. We have seen a series of very unfortunate military escalations since then. And Norway has been roped into wars that we would not have been involved in if it was not for what is called “expectations and commitments under NATO”. This involves, according to entirely serious politicians, anything from providing bombing runs on sovereign nations outside specific UN missions, to allowing recruitment of soliders from the defense force to what is essentially private security forces not even directly under the command of an allied nation. In the same way, providing military materiel to a warzone is something that only was done, for the first time, for the nordic countries (except for Denmark, obviously, who loves to assist with transportation to blacksites), without actual debate in any of the parliaments. How is this arrived at, and why is this so important right now? Well, it’s not exactly a secret that fueling the war in Ukraine to bog down Russia – costing as many Ukrainian lives as necessary – is the first strategy the US foreign department has. And that this is why “team Europe” literally had the same suggestions, at the same times, pushed past parliament and blessed by the government unilaterally.
So there are many questions that can be asked about how wise it is for Norway, never mind Finland and Sweden, to further entrench themselves into what NATO is currently doing right now. As the character of NATO’s mission is changing very rapidly, at least compared to what it was from approximately 1950 to 1999.
Sadly, these questions are not asked. And certainly any answers are not to be had. Because the majority will not allow it to be discussed. But the way Finland and Sweden around joining now, and how we are currently engaged in NATO, is not how we joined NATO while Soviet was actually right next door. There was more restraint and focus on the political importance of the alliance then that it is now. And frankly the way Finland and Sweden both dragged the decision past their parliaments is not something that either took the new context of the Russian invasion in Ukraine seriously, nor the supposed urgency of joining right now – never mind each of their parliaments and any discussion around it.
Please note that this comes from someone who until 1999, and to a certain extent until 2003, still was in favour of the existing foundation for Norway’s membership. In short: I served in the military, I have nothing against having a defense force. I know history, I know why and how we joined NATO, and I find that decision reasonable. But I have very little in common with people who now think provoking wars is good for business, or just good for domestic PR in the live-steamed democratic slow-motion trainwreck of a TV show that is the USA.
Aside from that, the future defense posture the Nordic countries are going to have to arrive at together will not be settled with just the NATO membership. Unlike what sadly most of you seem to think, having impressed your average CNN-viewer is not actually useful as a defensive deterrent. The logistical issues, the differences of opinion, etc., can of course just be replaced with laminated folders from intrepid generals educated at West Point. And we will certainly be seeing many exceptionally good suggestions for placement of missile bases soon.
But the question still remains: what is in the best interest of each of these countries, given that we don’t want the biggest military escalation in history, with the only possible end in an open war, where our countries then are – by our own design – at the front line.
This is not an easy question, and it is not resolved in any way by the NATO memberships being drawn up now. This is going to take years and years to sort out. And I’m afraid that the arrogance and the sheer stupidity of the way the US is conducting itself now is going to cause serious problems for us, both political and defense-technical. It won’t be settled, no matter how many concessions are made, and we will sit and watch what we normally see from a distance happening in our back yard.
In addition: trying to convince conservatives from Norway who have dreamt up a scenario where they can cut further in the military spending because Finland and Sweden is a buffer now – that they have to cooperate and fund materiel to get the Swedes up and running. Good luck with that.
I’m impressed by the success the US State Department drones have had making this happen, though. But you don’t have a clue what you’re doing. This is going to end badly in so many ways that I sincerely hope you will be there when the series of disasters actually happen.
But by all means: DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS! QUESTIONS ARE RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA! All negative things that challenge the narrative are from Russian bots. So lalalalala all is great!
I m still waiting for an alliance against Nato aggressions… What would be a fit name for it?
Finnish is ok but Swedish? Nah
Why not call it the Big Thing?