Finland and Sweden do in fact have militaries. They don’t have to spend nearly as much money on them because the US exists as a global deterrent. If the US was not a global deterrent, then Finland and Sweden would have to spend more money on their militaries.
Social Democracy is not when the US spends money on military. Social Democracy is just Capitalism but the government does some stuff, which solves none of the actual problems of Capitalism.
Social Democracy as found in the Nordic Countries only exists because these countries do not have to spend as much on their militaries, and practice economic Imperialism a la Nestlé where these companies practice brutal Imperialism of developing countries.
This isn’t a difficult concept to understand. Yes, Social Democracies are generally better for their own citizens, but are parasitic in nature.
A. The US spends more money and has a much larger military force than Sweden and Finland
B. US presence in the geopolitical space serves as a deterrent against possible aggression against any countries on good terms with the US
C. If a deterrent like the US did not exist, other countries would have to spend more money to continue protecting themselves effectively
D. Just because Finland and Sweden have militaries and neutrality practices does not mean that the US no longer exists as a global peacemaker against aggression towards countries on friendly terms with it
Please tell me which of these is an alternative reality. I can then educate you on why you’re wrong and we can move on.
A: rus*ia spends more money on military, thus making Sweden its protectorate. Finland’s welfare is provided by the philippines who also spend more money on defense (probably, idk, you get my point)
B: like the time US deterred winter war that didnt happen
C: false. Countries like Finland and Sweden have always upheld militaries to protect themselves, alone, like we have done. Alone. Without US help despite relations, since neutrality is a thing. Look it up
D: god I wish, that would have meant my grandfather wouldnt have had to evacuate from karelia as a little boy while communists were raining arty on the train he managed to get himself into while his father stayed, fought and died. But actually US spent more money on military so it didnt happen. Actually no wars have been fought in countries allied with the US.
So you can’t actually challenge the premise of anything I’ve said, you just say “you’re wrong” then mald.
A. The US is on friendlier terms with Sweden and Finland and serves as a peacemaker. You didn’t challenge this, you added unrelated bullshit.
B. Not an actual challenge, US presence is a dominant force in the world of geopolitics, and denial of that is delusional.
C. No, not false. The fact that Finland and Sweden have militaries doesn’t mean US presence isn’t a deterrent against conflict. You have a child’s understanding of geopolitics and the role of NATO.
D. Again, not what I said, so again, not a challenge.
You’re delusional and have a child’s understanding of geopolitics.
You are saying Finland and Sweden had no deterrence during their respective times of neutrality.
And social democracy is when US spends money on military? Yo what?
No, I said precisely neither of those.
Finland and Sweden do in fact have militaries. They don’t have to spend nearly as much money on them because the US exists as a global deterrent. If the US was not a global deterrent, then Finland and Sweden would have to spend more money on their militaries.
Social Democracy is not when the US spends money on military. Social Democracy is just Capitalism but the government does some stuff, which solves none of the actual problems of Capitalism.
Social Democracy as found in the Nordic Countries only exists because these countries do not have to spend as much on their militaries, and practice economic Imperialism a la Nestlé where these companies practice brutal Imperialism of developing countries.
This isn’t a difficult concept to understand. Yes, Social Democracies are generally better for their own citizens, but are parasitic in nature.
I have no idea how you speak to me like thay when you are unaware what neutrality means.
I’m being trolled
Yes, Finland and Sweden both spend money and effort as deterrence. Not as much as they would have to if the US didn’t exist.
Is global politics a mutually exclusive game to you? Does “nuance” not exist in your vocabulary?
Sources: alternative reality that came to me in a dream
Which of the following is false?
A. The US spends more money and has a much larger military force than Sweden and Finland
B. US presence in the geopolitical space serves as a deterrent against possible aggression against any countries on good terms with the US
C. If a deterrent like the US did not exist, other countries would have to spend more money to continue protecting themselves effectively
D. Just because Finland and Sweden have militaries and neutrality practices does not mean that the US no longer exists as a global peacemaker against aggression towards countries on friendly terms with it
Please tell me which of these is an alternative reality. I can then educate you on why you’re wrong and we can move on.
A: rus*ia spends more money on military, thus making Sweden its protectorate. Finland’s welfare is provided by the philippines who also spend more money on defense (probably, idk, you get my point)
B: like the time US deterred winter war that didnt happen
C: false. Countries like Finland and Sweden have always upheld militaries to protect themselves, alone, like we have done. Alone. Without US help despite relations, since neutrality is a thing. Look it up
D: god I wish, that would have meant my grandfather wouldnt have had to evacuate from karelia as a little boy while communists were raining arty on the train he managed to get himself into while his father stayed, fought and died. But actually US spent more money on military so it didnt happen. Actually no wars have been fought in countries allied with the US.
So you can’t actually challenge the premise of anything I’ve said, you just say “you’re wrong” then mald.
A. The US is on friendlier terms with Sweden and Finland and serves as a peacemaker. You didn’t challenge this, you added unrelated bullshit.
B. Not an actual challenge, US presence is a dominant force in the world of geopolitics, and denial of that is delusional.
C. No, not false. The fact that Finland and Sweden have militaries doesn’t mean US presence isn’t a deterrent against conflict. You have a child’s understanding of geopolitics and the role of NATO.
D. Again, not what I said, so again, not a challenge.
You’re delusional and have a child’s understanding of geopolitics.
A: being friendly does not prevent existential wars, please check, uhh, idk, reality?
B: lmao alright, if the voices in your head say so
C: nato actually means not nato. What a take bro
D: Hahaha