Sweden was an unofficial NATO member anyways. Everybody knew this. They just didn't officially join in order to pretend to be a 'neutral' actor on the world stage, but anyone with a brain should know whose side they are on.
In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another.
No. They are the most indepedentest of the independent. They only serve one lunatic dictator and his family. And developed nuclear weapons against the wishes of US, china and russia. Can't get more independent than that. It's a country that literally starved itself to stay independent.
NK exists at the behest of China. China wants a buffer between it and South Korea. If that wish were to change, I'd expect NK to be either gobbled up by China or allowed to rejoin with SK.
Who's preventing it from rejoining South Korea? I can infer that China wants it as a buffer to South Korea; but how can China disallow it from joining South Korea?
No. China and NK was created with the backing of the soviet union. They were vassals of the soviet union until they decided not to be. Both china and north korea have been independent actors for a while now. Even before the soviet union collapsed.
> China wants a buffer between it and South Korea.
Why would china want a buffer between it and south korea? You mean between china and the US?
> If that wish were to change, I'd expect NK to be either gobbled up by China or allowed to rejoin with SK.
SK is a vassal of the US. You don't "rejoin" a vassal state. It'll be more likely north korea will one day liberate south korea than anything. South korea has a foreign occupation force. North korea doesn't. Think about it.
> It'll be more likely north korea will one day liberate south korea than anything. South korea has a foreign occupation force. North korea doesn't. Think about it.
LOL. IIRC, about all North Korea has for it (militarily) is MAD with South Korea (thousands of bunkered artillery pieces aimed as Seoul and nukes).
Russia's got a far better military than North Korea, and it's getting torn up in Ukraine. North Korea, in anything resembling its current state, is never going to "liberate" South Korea.
The only dictatorship in South America right now is Venezuela. Bolivia is the next closest country, but I'd be hard-pressed to call it a dictatorship.
Neither of those countries are remotely anything that could be called a US vassal. If anything, they are some of the most reflexively anti-American countries in South America.
No. South korea is a vassal. A vassal of the US. It has american troops occupying it. North korea is opposite of what south korea is. They have no foreign troop occupying it. And if north korea was a chinese vassal, they wouldn't have nuclear weapons. It's funny how people want to ignore the obvious.
> South korea is a vassal. A vassal of the US. It has american troops occupying it. North korea is opposite of what south korea is. They have no foreign troop occupying it.
That's one of your many misunderstandings. The presence of troops does not imply an occupation. If you mistakenly think it does, then (among other things) you'll be unable to perceive alliances.
> The presence of troops does not imply an occupation.
70 years "presence" of troops does.
> If you mistakenly think it does, then (among other things) you'll be unable to perceive alliances.
That's a nice way of saying vassalage.
If it was china occupying south korea for 70 years, we'd call that occupation. If it was russia occupying south korea for 70 years, we'd call that occupation. Somehow, when we do it, it's an "alliance".
> And if north korea was a chinese vassal, they wouldn't have nuclear weapons. It's funny how people want to ignore the obvious.
I agree with this view unfortunately. I find it a very harsh view. It's too harsh for my taste and I have the strongest wish that I didn't view things this way. With that said, the evidence is too strong in my opinion.
The evidence that supports it is that Ukraine was invaded by Russia, because they didn't have nuclear weapons. Ukraine used to have them and they were not invaded then. This means that nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. It also means that promises are not made forever (since Russia promised not to invade Ukraine if they'd give back their nuclear weapons). More importantly, you don't know how long such a promise lasts.
Based on how Russia treated Ukraine we can state:
* Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. It doesn't matter what treaties and promises are in place. Nuclear weapons will fail as a deterrent if there's a proper defense against it. Currently, there is no proper defense against it. It will be unknown when there will be or if there ever will be.
* Promises and treaties show an intention. That intention may not be acted upon at any given point in time.
We know that North Korea has nuclear weapons. This means that North Korea has a deterrent against any other country including China. Moreover, North Korea has made this deterrent more potent by showcasing it is willing to starve its own population. This means they care less about having nuclear weapons targeted at them than the other way around. To see why this strategy is effective one could read up on the mentality Swiss pikemen in the 15th century [1].
If China invades North Korea, then they better have a way to defend against nuclear weapons. If they don't, then I estimate that they they risk about 50 million to 100 million people directly dying to being severely injured [2], not to mention the nuclear fallout would cause second order effects.
[1] In short: because they were willing to go on suicidal charges against other pikemen of other nations, they became the most feared pikemen to fight against. Fighting against a Swiss unit would mean certain death for both groups of pikemen.
India is still part of the british empire/commonwealth. They gained independence and left the british empire. A few years later, they rejoined it. They actually claim the british queen as their head of state - even if it is ceremonial only.
> This is false. There is a distinction between the Commonwealth in the broader cultural sense (Commonwealth Games, etc.) and the Commonwealth realm.
Look a map of the british empire and see which it resembles - commonwealth realm or the commonwealth? The commonwealth was originally called the british commonwealth and was the successor of the british empire. It was actually an nehru I believe who asked the named be changed from british commonwealth to commonwealth as a face-saving gesture.
Commonwealth realm are the british descendent nations - canada, australia, etc. Commonwealth is the british empire - descendents nations + colonized nations like india.
India is a _republic_ with a president as its head of state. Maybe look into the history of India post-WW2. The Commonwealth of Nations is a _loose_ grouping of independent nations. Not all of which actually had/have any historical association with the United Kingdom.
> No truly independent nation would be part of the commonwealth of nations
In that case no truly independent nation should be a part of the United Nations. The UN has more "power" over its members than the Commonwealth.
> The Commonwealth of Nations is a _loose_ grouping of independent nations. Not all of which actually had/have any historical association with the United Kingdom.
It's the successor of the british commonwealth which is the successor of the british empire. It's pretty much the british commonwealth renamed to the commonwealth because nehru apparently thought it would be too humiliating. The head of the commonwealth is the queen. The leaders of it are the leaders of britain. It is headquartered in london. It's official language is english.
> In that case no truly independent nation should be a part of the United Nations.
Did the UN invade and colonize india for 200 years?
The question is why india would even join the commonwealth? Why are they still in it? No independent nation would ever be part of it. Especially a nation of india's size, history, culture, etc shouldn't be in a "club" led by its former colonial master. Can you imagine china or russia being part of the commonwealth with the british queen as the head?
I'm sorry but this is blatantly false also. The Commonwealth of Nations is a political association as stated in that article you posted but the member nations are not vassals and the queen does not serve as head of state for any of them except the UK
The idea that India is a British vassal state is probably one of the funnier things I've read here recently. I'd love to know the real justification behind why you believe this, but I suspect it's just a combination of ignorance and conspiracy theory
Literally had to log back in after years to state that this is an outrageously wrong claim. India is as independent in its foreign policy and heads of state as it can be. Please stop spreading false information
This seems clearly false for any useful concept of vassaldom. Which of those states dictates the foreign and domestic policies of India, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria, or...
In the modern world, there are only 4 independent states - US, china, russia and north korea. Everyone else is a vassal to some degree or another.