After Crimea, Sweden Flirts With Joining NATO - Polidicks

everyone is NATO this NATO that ... if Russia rolls over Ukraine, Belarus and take over some Baltic state (Estonia, Lithuania) and NATO does nothing (even while Baltic states are in NATO) then NATO will crumble because all of sudden the 'protective' effect of "attack on one of us is attack on all" cease to exist :) NATO will dissolve afterward let's see if Putin can play this strategy game better than i expect ;)

[QUOTE=GunFox;44306886] If they have a dedicated proper gunship, then they probably also have a real military. If they have some transport that they stuck guns on and called a gunship, then they have a mediocre military at best. If they don't even bother, then they are Canada and nobody blames them for not bothering with a military.[/QUOTE] Japan has Apaches and Cobras but I wouldn't consider the JSDF to be a real military. North Korea has Hinds, as do a bunch of third world African countries, but I wouldn't consider them to have an effective army. And you're basically saying since a lot of NATO members don't have attack helicopters they don't have real armies either which is pretty damn offensive in my opinion.

about fucking time, we're just a sitting duck here.

Sweden will never join NATO nor do anything to increase our military, it's election year so they're simply saying this to stay in government; The fact that the whole Crimea crisis came now couldn't have come at a more opportune time for the sitting government.

[QUOTE=kiloy;44306909]Nah mythbusters proved that you can't[/QUOTE] The design done by the Mythbusters is not akin to design done in Project Habakkuk. The idea was to have a large aircraft carrier that is cooled from the inside to prevent melting, and the outside would be cooled by the natural coldness of the North Atlantic.

I know this guy who had a company that commercially spied on the Warsaw-pact with satellites during the 80ies. Through this he gained lots of connections with western politicians and militaries. A few months ago he was talking about how we will join NATO within the next five years and reinstate conscription within ten.

[QUOTE=itak365;44304218][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9WhOinh.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Is there a phase 2 where all Ikeas combine into a giant robot if you follow the confusing instructions

[QUOTE=mchapra;44307638]Is there a phase 2 where all Ikeas combine into a giant robot if you follow the confusing instructions[/QUOTE] The opposite, they build it and give confusing instructions on how to defeat it, therefore rendering it invulnerable.

[QUOTE=Dwarden;44306984]everyone is NATO this NATO that ... if Russia rolls over Ukraine, Belarus and take over some Baltic state (Estonia, Lithuania) and NATO does nothing (even while Baltic states are in NATO) then NATO will crumble because all of sudden the 'protective' effect of "attack on one of us is attack on all" cease to exist :) NATO will dissolve afterward let's see if Putin can play this strategy game better than i expect ;)[/QUOTE] W-wrong? The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is 100% military in nature. If one member-nation is attacked, they've all been attacked. NATO has absolutely no reason to "crumble", and there are no reasons for NATO to dissolve, either. Do you know what you're talking about or not?

[QUOTE=ewitwins;44307659]W-wrong? The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is 100% military in nature. If one member-nation is attacked, they've all been attacked. NATO has absolutely no reason to "crumble", and there are no reasons for NATO to dissolve, either. Do you know what you're talking about or not?[/QUOTE] That's not what he's saying. His claim is that the rest of the NATO countries won't start WW3 over a Baltic country, effectively nullifying the treaty.

[QUOTE=Chrille;44307774]That's not what he's saying. His claim is that the rest of the NATO countries won't start WW3 over a Baltic country, effectively nullifying the treaty.[/QUOTE] This is the general nature of the fear, yes. Past wars have given Eastern Europe reason to fear history could repeat itself in the grand game of politics and appeasement between big players, but I'm rooting for the best. Surely in today's day and age...right? But on the (hopefully) extremely unlikely off-chance Putin and his warboner make a move and NATO indeed does remain idle, fuck you all. At least I die trying to protect my family and loved ones.

[QUOTE=GunFox;44306886]No they don't. They have 60 Gripen with one early warning aircraft and one tanker. Everything else is either horribly outdated, transport, or training. That is a speed bump, not an air force, to Russia. Here is a fun metric for determining if a country has a military that is worth a damn: Look at their gunship helicopter. [B]If they have a dedicated proper gunship, then they probably also have a real military. [/B]If they have some transport that they stuck guns on and called a gunship, then they have a mediocre military at best. If they don't even bother, then they are Canada and nobody blames them for not bothering with a military.[/QUOTE] That's a massive oversimplification. While having a proper gunship means they probably have a decent military, not having one doesn't mean the opposite. Problem with Sweden is, while they produce a tonne of good weapons, those weapons rarely go to Sweden thanks to terribly shitty military budget. That said Russia has a terrible, dysfunctional, and decrepit military that nowadays isn't even that large anymore (mind you still better than Sweden's handful of tanks and jets). [editline]21st March 2014[/editline] Also Russia doesn't want a war with NATO, it can't defeat the big 3 European countries, let alone all of them, let alone them plus the US. Not to mention the US is the only country with real power projection, they could take out China and Russia alone. This isn't the cold war anymore (and even the cold war was favoring the west militarily towards the end).

international politics get absolutely retarded when normal people try to get involved and have opinions about it. so much beautiful feelings. edit: I guess it comes down to whether you want to be a minion of the US or a minion of Russia. I wish Europe could just become more politically integrated.

[QUOTE=Falchion;44308422] edit: I guess it comes down to whether you want to be a minion of the US or a minion of Russia. I wish Europe could just become more politically integrated.[/QUOTE] Well, there's the hypothetical "United States of Europe" some have been going on about for a while...

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;44308623]Well, there's the hypothetical "United States of Europe" some have been going on about for a while...[/QUOTE] Maybe one day. For now EU will savor economical power even if it makes it appear politically meek. Can't put too hard sanctions on Russia or the recession will reach Europe too. edit: Even now EU has an agreement in the treaty of Lisbon that if a member state is under attack the other member states are obliged to "provide assistance" (with the exception that "traditionally unallied" countries don't need to provide military assistance to others). The question is: would the agreement be followed? Would the EU or NATO start world war 3 over, for example, Estonia even if a treaty compelled them? If Russia actually decided to conquer X neighboring state would anyone in their right mind take that relatively minor conflict and make it grounds for probably the most destructive war ever?

[QUOTE=Lord Fear;44300777]We already have a partnership with NATO in the Partnership for Peace program, we supply military aid for peace keeping purposes. But I guess a full membership wouldn't be so bad.[/QUOTE] Partnership with Peace doesn't provide you with the Nuclear Umbrella that being a full member gets you. Ukraine is also in the Partnership for Peace, and we see what kind of action you get from NATO with that. (Not much, sanctions on politicians and Visa bans).

[QUOTE=mchapra;44307638]Is there a phase 2 where all Ikeas combine into a giant robot if you follow the confusing instructions[/QUOTE] it's the final state of Metal Gear IKEA, rumored to be able to take on the world

For those in Europe, if there had to be one European Country to be 'de facto' leader of Europe issues (Lets say being the 'leader' of NATO) who would it realistically be? What country has the military/political might to be able to speak for Europe's interests? France? Italy? UK?

probably germany to be honest

[QUOTE=acds;44307998] That said Russia has a terrible, dysfunctional, and decrepit military that nowadays isn't even that large anymore (mind you still better than Sweden's handful of tanks and jets).[/QUOTE] Well, don't get me wrong, i'm not some crazy patriotic guy, but our millitary is not even nearly as bad as it was in about 6-7 years ago. For example, my uncle serves as a pilot at millitary airport at Voronezh (it's a pretty big city in central Russia), and he said they recieved about 12 new fighter planes only in 2013 and they keep coming. I heard the same about tanks and soldiers equipment.

[QUOTE=superdeluxe;44309118]For those in Europe, if there had to be one European Country to be 'de facto' leader of Europe issues (Lets say being the 'leader' of NATO) who would it realistically be? What country has the military/political might to be able to speak for Europe's interests? France? Italy? UK?[/QUOTE] Germany.

Two of Americas fleets could take out the combined fleets of Russia and China. We have six of them.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;44309293]probably germany to be honest[/QUOTE] I mean I'm likely biased (<--) but not even a consideration for France?

[QUOTE=Mbbird;44310100]I mean I'm likely biased (<--) but not even a consideration for France?[/QUOTE] I wanted to say I read an op ed piece where the United States needs to take a step back in regards to NATO and let a European country 'lead' NATO and he suggested France. I'm guessing if Sarkozy was still in office he would be definitely spearheading that. It was my understanding that Germany was a Economic power, but perhaps not a Military Power/Political Power.

[QUOTE=Falchion;44308860]Even now EU has an agreement in the treaty of Lisbon that if a member state is under attack the other member states are obliged to "provide assistance" (with the exception that "traditionally unallied" countries don't need to provide military assistance to others). The question is: would the agreement be followed? Would the EU or NATO start world war 3 over, for example, Estonia even if a treaty compelled them? If Russia actually decided to conquer X neighboring state would anyone in their right mind take that relatively minor conflict and make it grounds for probably the most destructive war ever?[/QUOTE] If you don't intend to keep a promise, don't make promises. Why precisely do you think people joined NATO? Cause it certainly wasn't for shits and giggles. It was for the promise of collective defense. It's a transaction of military resources and assets between member nations to facilitate collective defense. Estonia has respected our end of the deal. We have, and continue to, fight and die in the wars of others because that is what is expected. What you are suggesting is abandoning your brothers in arms. Think about this for a second. We're a full-fledged member state of NATO. This is precisely what we are hoping serves to deter Russia. But it's not much of a deterrent if NATO starts flicking members aside. If this happens, you [I]all[/I] should probably start reevaluating the safety of your nations. Even Germany will fall if nobody comes to your aid out of fear. Jesus fucking christ, my Euro bros, the tone of some of you is REALLY getting me concerned here. Please, [I]don't[/I] give me and [B]millions of others[/B] further reason to fear history repeating itself. Please be more than this. [QUOTE=superdeluxe;44310135]I wanted to say I read an op ed piece where the United States needs to take a step back in regards to NATO and let a European country 'lead' NATO and he suggested France. I'm guessing if Sarkozy was still in office he would be definitely spearheading that. It was my understanding that Germany was a Economic power, but perhaps not a Military Power/Political Power.[/QUOTE] IMHO Germany is the driving force behind the Union, always was since the early days. Economically, there is no doubt. The military may be debatable, but seeing as quite a lot of the gear in Europe is German engineering at it's finest, I'd wager on Germany here as well.

[QUOTE=just-a-boy;44311478]If you don't intend to keep a promise, don't make promises. Why precisely do you think people joined NATO? Cause it certainly wasn't for shits and giggles. It was for the promise of collective defense. It's a transaction of military resources and assets between member nations to facilitate collective defense. Estonia has respected our end of the deal. We have, and continue to, fight and die in the wars of others because that is what is expected. What you are suggesting is abandoning your brothers in arms. Think about this for a second. We're a full-fledged member state of NATO. This is precisely what we are hoping serves to deter Russia. But it's not much of a deterrent if NATO starts flicking members aside. If this happens, you [I]all[/I] should probably start reevaluating the safety of your nations. Even Germany will fall if nobody comes to your aid out of fear. Jesus fucking christ, my Euro bros, the tone of some of you is REALLY getting me concerned here. Please, [I]don't[/I] give me and [B]millions of others[/B] further reason to fear history repeating itself. Please be more than this. [/QUOTE] we're almost in the same boat except that you have way more russians. personally i think that people should stick to the treaties. i'm just speculating.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyPsqsH8I4M[/media]

[QUOTE=itak365;44304218][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9WhOinh.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Off topic as fuck, but I love trying to translate stuff out of languages close to those I'm learning. "Hallå" is pretty obviously "Hello"; but "Det är dags" would be "it's time/today's the day", right?

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;44311689][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyPsqsH8I4M[/media][/QUOTE] Atleast if Russia conquers we will receive the gift of funky propaganda songs in exchange for freedom. [MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlQ6KqTlyfk[/MEDIA]

[QUOTE=antianan;44309356]Well, don't get me wrong, i'm not some crazy patriotic guy, but our millitary is not even nearly as bad as it was in about 6-7 years ago. For example, my uncle serves as a pilot at millitary airport at Voronezh (it's a pretty big city in central Russia), and he said they recieved about 12 new fighter planes only in 2013 and they keep coming. I heard the same about tanks and soldiers equipment.[/QUOTE] Well yes that was the point of their recent downsizing I think, a smaller, but actually well kept military rather than the huge thing of the cold war. People think that Russia has massive battalions of tanks, jets, and troops, and while that is true, those are mostly relics from the cold war that would bog down the country to try and maintain. I imagine Russia is trying to move away from that and into a more modern, but less humongous military. Well that depends on Putin's ambitions really. Not that any of that matters since for Sweden its more about "how fast can the rest of NATO get here" rather than "can we hold out?" because at the moment, no we can't, even if Russia only had ancient cold war equipment. You guys should just land a squad on Gotland, might wake up Sweden on the fact that we can't sit here expecting NATO to protect us while contributing jack shit.