[QUOTE=Gurant;51074997]No seriously, why would Russia attack? It's all fear mongering to get us Swedes to support joining NATO.[/QUOTE]
Hold on here, why is joining NATO a bad thing? We're on such good terms with the US and all the other NATO members (which we do military excercises with) that we might as well be a member.
[QUOTE=DeEz;51075065]Hold on here, why is joining NATO a bad thing? We're on such good terms with the US and all the other NATO members (which we do military excercises with) that we might as well be a member.[/QUOTE]
I guess joining NATO would technically mean our official neutral stance would be stripped from us, since it means we have to participate in every battle the EU takes on.
Not that it matters. We're tight with NATO anyway. Not too long ago we had our forces in Kosovo, helping NATO troops on location. My granddad was there as a field medic.
[QUOTE=Gurant;51074997]No seriously, why would Russia attack? It's all fear mongering to get us Swedes to support joining NATO.[/QUOTE]
if anyone should join nato it should be austria just to piss off russia
[QUOTE=maeZtro;51073666][IMG]http://65.media.tumblr.com/0ee24f6a5e47896aa049785dba1c7343/tumblr_nmeiafgoVO1td3346o1_1280.jpg[/IMG]
[URL="http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article23548340.ab"]Swedish source[/URL]
[URL="http://www.thelocal.se/20160919/did-a-russian-threat-lead-to-swedish-troops-on-island"]English source[/URL]
The Swedish Armed Forces press secretary has denied that this is because of one specific event but the supreme commander has changed his official opinion on whether a Russian attack is likely from "unlikely" to "somewhat likely". I personally don't think anything will happen but perhaps a Russian attack isn't as unlikely as many of us believe.[/QUOTE]
If i remember correctly the russians during the cold war made a huge point to plan around gotland being as major tipping point into europe and a nuclear attack would be far easier from there.
Control Gotland, Aland and some Danish islands in the South and you control Baltic Sea, and they already control the aerospace. Cut of Suwalki Gap, and you control Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, because no NATO personnel would be able to get to them.
[QUOTE=DeEz;51075065]Hold on here, why is joining NATO a bad thing? We're on such good terms with the US and all the other NATO members (which we do military excercises with) that we might as well be a member.[/QUOTE]
It's an issue of committing to something which we aren't certain will always work in our favor in the future. Joining NATO would officially mark the end of our neutrality (however historically questionable) and would equate deepening our west-wards relations while consequently burning all our bridges with Russia.
Russia in turn would feel threatened by having another nation close to their borders come under strong US influence and would probably react somehow, possibly making the situation in the Baltic region even more precarious.
The question is if it might be a fair price to pay to avoid having Russia stomping around our backyard.
"Hello Finland don't mind us, just passing by to wreck your pal Sweden real quick"
Nordics would stick together because Russia contesting any land would be a huge threat to all of us, and our peacetime relations are incredibly sweet.
[QUOTE=Cructo;51074051]Might be a good time to join NATO.[/QUOTE]
We don't need another emasculated military in NATO who refused to spend the required GDP percentage.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51075351]We don't need another emasculated military in NATO who refused to spend the required GDP percentage.[/QUOTE]
We don't need another Ukraine either.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;51073813]don't they have plans for a new missile base on that piece of land that they have between Poland and Lithuania, one that when completed would grant them almost total cruise missile overwatch of the Baltic Sea region? i mean it's not the same as having a proper shoreline but it's something
also why is Sweden so concerned right now? i'm not sure if Russia can directly attack them without going through Five Million Meatshields AKA Finland first unless they somehow slam their carrier battlegroup straight into the harbor of Stockholm
(note: i'm not a military strategist so i may be talking out of my large intestine)[/QUOTE]
I'm sure the Russians have a contingency plan to invade Sweden without going through Finland.
Plus even with Sweden not being a member I doubt NATO would stay on the sidelines if Russia was serious about attacking Sweden.
But what exactly does Russia have to gain from taking Gotland? Is it like in a strategic location or something?
[QUOTE=DeEz;51075065]Hold on here, why is joining NATO a bad thing? We're on such good terms with the US and all the other NATO members (which we do military excercises with) that we might as well be a member.[/QUOTE]
We lose our neutrality and become forced to enter any conflict where NATO is attacked. I rather us stay out of it. If Turkey or Romania gets invaded, it doesn't concern us enough to send our military there.
[editline]19th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;51075933]I'm sure the Russians have a contingency plan to invade Sweden without going through Finland.[/QUOTE]
Invading Finland would unnecessary by the way, what would Russia even gain from it? Gotland would be important but it doesn't need to go through Finland to get it.
All of these scenarios keep operating under the assumption if Russia deemed it worthy enough a cause to mobilize and assume control of any patch of land in/around the Baltic Sea, all parties but the victim would just sit idly by and mumble "yeah nah, they wouldn't do that HERE". Russia would only be able to get so far until attrition fucks em up. Conventional or (probably mostly) guerilla, if the Russian warmachine meets resistance, their advances will grind to a crawl.
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;51085215]All of these scenarios keep operating under the assumption if Russia deemed it worthy enough a cause to mobilize and assume control of any patch of land in/around the Baltic Sea, all parties but the victim would just sit idly by and mumble "yeah nah, they wouldn't do that HERE". Russia would only be able to get so far until attrition fucks em up. Conventional or (probably mostly) guerilla, if the Russian warmachine meets resistance, their advances will grind to a crawl.[/QUOTE]
Everyone did fuck-all military-wise when they annexed Crimea, can't see why it'd be any different if they decided to do the same to Gotland or any other non-NATO territory.
EDIT:
If Russia literally declared WAR then they wouldn't get very far, but grabbing just a small nibble of land every now and then is something they can, has and might well continue to get away with due to the western aversion to open conflict in general.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;51085233]Everyone did fuck-all military-wise when they annexed Crimea, can't see why it'd be any different if they decided to do the same to Gotland or any other non-NATO territory.
EDIT:
If Russia literally declared WAR then they wouldn't get very far, but grabbing just a small nibble of land every now and then is something they can, has and might well continue to get away with due to the western aversion to open conflict in general.[/QUOTE]
And how exactly Russia would go about grabbing these small nibbles of land from Sweden, or Norway, or idk, any other country? Grabbing Crimea was easy because Ukraine couldn't do anything due to turmoil and the entire military structure being pissed away - it sure wouldn't be as easy [i]today[/i], when Ukraine actually has something strongly resembling proper military forces. The fact that sizeable parts of Crimean populace actually wanted to go independent/join Russia didn't help.
I don't know of any European country that has the same kind of problems, from where I'm standing it doesn't look like Sweden is going to go kick its government out and go retarded any time soon.
Don't listen to our media. SAF moved resources back to Gotland because 1) there's key military installations on the island and 2) we haven't had military permanently stationed on the island for years.
It would be very disgusting internationally if Russia attacked a historically neutral state. I don't think Sanctions would be the most that would be enacted in my opinion.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;51085649]It would be very disgusting internationally if Russia attacked a historically neutral state. I don't think Sanctions would be the most that would be enacted in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
You underestimate western aversion to conflict.
The effect of going to Iraq left a lasting impression on open warfare in the states. I wouldn't be surprised if our generation completely opposed going to war for any reason short of being invaded on our own soil.
Maybe we would supply Sweden, but that would be it.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;51085649]It would be very disgusting internationally if Russia attacked a historically neutral state. I don't think Sanctions would be the most that would be enacted in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Russia isn't going to attack anyone. Realistically a modern annexation of a valid state (re: not a Ukraine still figuring out who's doing what in Kiev) would lead to WW3 which in turn would lead to a fuckton of problems.
People far too often have this over-the-top fear for Putin which is, IMO, misplaced.
Not saying he's your average Joe but he's not a psycho either.
This whole "Russia will take Sweden"-thing is just generations of fearmongering, a relic from the Swedish view of the Cold War.
The Russian Armed Forces could easily take Sweden. Then what? In the long-term they wouldn't have enough resources to keep the situation under control across the other side of the Baltic Sea.
A good portion of our elders have basic military and survival training. We have thousands of homeguard reservists.
Not only that but few people, even fewer world leaders, are retarded enough to annex a country so busy slolwy digging its own grave.
It's time that the swedish people learn this but no, 90% of our media outlets just continue pushing this unrealistic nightmare scenario.
How far inbetween Sweden and 8 hours from Kiev are they now?
[QUOTE=Viper123_SWE;51085913]Russia isn't going to attack anyone. Realistically a modern annexation of a valid state (re: not a Ukraine still figuring out who's doing what in Kiev) would lead to WW3 which in turn would lead to a fuckton of problems.
People far too often have this over-the-top fear for Putin which is, IMO, misplaced.
Not saying he's your average Joe but he's not a psycho either.
This whole "Russia will take Sweden"-thing is just generations of fearmongering, a relic from the Swedish view of the Cold War.
The Russian Armed Forces could easily take Sweden. Then what? In the long-term they wouldn't have enough resources to keep the situation under control across the other side of the Baltic Sea.
A good portion of our elders have basic military and survival training. We have thousands of homeguard reservists.
Not only that but few people, even fewer world leaders, are retarded enough to annex a country so busy slolwy digging its own grave.
It's time that the swedish people learn this but no, 90% of our media outlets just continue pushing this unrealistic nightmare scenario.[/QUOTE]
Russian army wouldn't be able to "easily take Sweden". Our army is heavily home defence-oriented (contrary to popular belief that it's this huge scary monster capable of anything), which means it's very infrastructure-heavy, very clumsy and depends on combined arms tactics and strategy. It's only effective in big numbers - not because of the quality, but because of its command structure: the smallest possible combat-effective unit can't be less than a battalion, smallest unit capable of independent manoeuvres - brigade. This is a very large amount of troops, vehicles and supplies that need means of delivery. From what angle can Russia possibly attack Sweden with the concentration of forces necessary to engage in conventional warfare against Swedish armed forces (that are AFAIK nothing to laugh about), considering that Baltic fleet has extremely limited transport capabilities and moving transport/landing vessels from other fleets would require extensive logistical operations that can't possibly be kept in secret?
Unless Putin goes full retard, that's not happening. And if he would - well, military higher-ups are by nature eager to use their toys, but they much rather just continue playing in Syrian sandbox. There's no way Russia attacks anyone but it's weak direct neighbours, and even that won't happen openly, as we know.
[QUOTE=gudman;51085489]The fact that sizeable parts of Crimean populace actually wanted to go independent/join Russia didn't help.[/QUOTE]
Is there an independent source for that? I really do not trust Russia telling me that the land they annexed wanted it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51086140]Is there an independent source for that? I really do not trust Russia telling me that the land they annexed wanted it.[/QUOTE]
It's a pretty well known and established fact. You can only claim that polling data is corrupt so many times before a true pattern emerges.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51086383]It's a pretty well known and established fact. You can only claim that polling data is corrupt so many times before a true pattern emerges.[/QUOTE]
If it's a pretty well known and established fact, then you shouldn't have any trouble sourcing it.
Basically, if Putin decides to do anything as stupid as attack Sweden, his own government will shut him down. And if they can't, someone's going to take him out. He must know that as well.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51086140]Is there an independent source for that? I really do not trust Russia telling me that the land they annexed wanted it.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2013%20October%207%20Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf]Public Opinion Survey, Residents of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, May 16 – 30, 2013[/url], page 17: 33% in 2011, 24% in 2013*. That looks like an unbiased source, plus it's kind of well known (but I can't find any direct sources in English) that since '05-'06 quite a lot of Russian officials have visited Sevastopol to organize meetings and pretty much give out Russian state passports.
* - I find it kind of strange how the given options don't include "Sovereign state", so it's worth noting that those 33/24% probably include both "Want to join Russia" and "Go independent".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.