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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Germany and other countries have soldiers stationed in Lithuania on a NATO initiative. Where‘s the difference?
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.
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.
you find it weird that I asked that question?
Is that relevant to anything?
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.
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.
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.