Support NeoGAF

[Switzer]

I don't get it, why is everyone in the west freaking out over "Russian Aggression"? What aggression? Did I hit my head and go into a coma for a decade or is the propaganda machine way outta control?

Whatever your opinions about the Crimea situation, that was clearly Russian intervening on behalf of the pro-Russian Ukranians, not a land-grab. Crimea is upwards of 70% ethnically Russian, and was part of Russia until 1954.

Russian's flying jets over the Baltic sea? That is about as alarming as Canadian's flying jets over the pacific considering Russian is literally on the Baltic sea unless St. Petersberg and Kaliningrad stopped being a thing.

As for hackers, yeah no shit major eastern bloc country produces a lot of hackers. Is it excusable? No, of course not, but if it is a dangerous act of war then why isn't America sending the 7th fleet into the South China Sea?

Russia/Putin has been consistently saying that they want friends, not enemies, and have no interest invading foreign countries and yet the entire west keeps calling him a liar, pointing at Crimea as if it were fucking Florida. It's absurd.

Someone feel free to prove me wrong, though. I don't pretend to be the most informed person on the planet, but the whole English world won't shut up about "Russian Aggression" yet I've seen very little evidence of it.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I don't get it, why is everyone in the west freaking out over "Russian Aggression"? What aggression? Did I hit my head and go into a coma for a decade or is the propaganda machine way outta control?

Whatever your opinions about the Crimea situation, that was clearly Russian intervening on behalf of the pro-Russian Ukranians, not a land-grab. Crimea is upwards of 70% ethnically Russian, and was part of Russia until 1954.

Sorry, stop here. When you deploy your military to seize control of an area that is part of another country then call a vote for annexation, that's a land grab. Any demographic statistics you want to raise are irrelevant, if the area wanted more self determination there were no shortage of legal means to go through with this. Russia signed a treaty in the mid 90's guaranteeing that they would respect the borders of Ukraine, and in 2014 they violated this treaty unilaterally to increase their territorial extent. No consultation with other countries, no diplomacy, just a pure and simple act of aggression.

If that wasn't bad enough, what do you think they've been doing in East Ukraine? Why are they fueling, funding, equipping and sometimes directly intervening in a brutal civil war against their neighboring country? Do you perceive this as not aggressive? Would you consider it similarly "not aggressive" if perhaps some country started a civil war in Russia, and occasionally ran across the border to fight the rebel's battles for them? Rebels whose goal is to seek independence from Russia and integrate themselves into the country that is funding them? I believe Russia, or any other country in the world would consider this "aggression".

Russia/Putin has been consistently saying that they want friends, not enemies, and have no interest invading foreign countries and yet the entire west keeps calling him a liar, pointing at Crimea as if it were fucking Florida. It's absurd.

If Russia wanted to genuinely make friends in Europe they shouldn't have violated the peace in Europe. Now they're surprised when the other countries near them feel threatened? And yes, Putin is a liar. That's a matter of public record, not just an accusation - he initially denied any involvement in Crimea then publicly admitted it a year later.

 

[ISOM]

You're on your own Sweden. The US with Incoming Trump isn't going to defend you against Russia.

 

[Psychoward]

Russia/Putin has been consistently saying that they want friends, not enemies, and have no interest invading foreign countries

maybe they should practice what they preach

they've invaded 2 countries in the past decade not even under the guise of trying to stabilize the region or bring democracy or overthrow a dictator or whatever. Their goal in both Georgia and Crimea was to grow their empire all while lying about some key facts. That's it. It's modern day imperialism.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

yeah..

i wonder, how could you beat Russia in a real, all-out war? they have countless nukes.. you can't win against them, all they have to do is threaten to level out Stockholm, Helsinki, Tallinn and a few other European cities and then you'd either have to be crazy and suicidal enough to call their bluff, or just give up and let them win the war.

This isn't Red Storm Rising. It's also not EndWar.

Russia isn't going to invade Western/Northern Europe.

If I were any of the former Soviet Socialist Republics I would be sweating bullets right now though.

 

[kyser73]

Sweden has no resources, but simply keeping their own state in a "War" mode is going to bolster the economy, and avoid the fact they basically have no real industry. Their another country that's biggest export is oil and oil was getting closer to being on it's way out. This will delay it.

The one thing Reagan actually had right was that, they can't compete at all on the economical field.

Runs an export surplus, debt less than 40% of GDP, forecast to grow 4% this year.

Yeah, a real basket case of an economy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Sweden

 

[JP_]

In the case of hypothetical conflict, considering the military power of the Swedish army, Russia would win definitely. I don't think that any reform would have change anything.

Here is a video a found about this topic (from a Swede):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8mnaPK6Bno

That's just some guy with a funny beard complaining about feminism and Muslims.

 

[antonz]

I thought we had gotten past the Putin Apologists. Multiple Years of an Illegal Invasion of Ukraine apparently is still not enough. What aggression? Give me a break.

I mean the Russian Government has openly admitted they forced the Crimean Local Government at Gunpoint to Vote in favor of breaking away. There was no legitimate vote from the Government or its people.

Now Russia Wages war in the East using its own forces and mercenaries from all over Russia to continue destabilization within Ukraine.

 

[Sarek]

I thought we had gotten past the Putin Apologists. Multiple Years of an Illegal Invasion of Ukraine apparently is still not enough. What aggression? Give me a break.

I mean the Russian Government has openly admitted they forced the Crimean Local Government at Gunpoint to Vote in favor of breaking away. There was no legitimate vote from the Government or its people.

Now Russia Wages war in the East using its own forces and mercenaries from all over Russia to continue destabilization within Ukraine.

Also Ukraine is hardly the only case. Let's not forget Georgia. Plus tons of other smaller incidents.

You're on your own Sweden. The US with Incoming Trump isn't going to defend you against Russia.

I wish Americans would stop saying things like that. Rest of Europe isn't just going to stand by and watch Russia invade Sweden. Not that they are going to.

 

[Onlinehero]

Instead of acting like Tom Clancy armchair generals I wish people would start speculating about Russia's potential anexation methods in Sweden.

How economically viable would it be to attempt to control a different culture, speaking a different language, with their century old bureaucracy, with no history or willingness for cooperation, with all the diplomatic fallout that follows etc. People tend to not do that as it escalates to an absurd proposition where you can't rely on video game logic like you can in war scenarios.

It will not happen because it's a fucking stupid idea and something I'm sure Russia isn't willing to pay for. If it DID happen any attempt would fall apart. I've never seen anyone propose a viable scenario where a Russian invasion is anything other than OH THINK OF THE WAR BANG BANG.

 

[Funky Papa]

Instead of acting like Tom Clancy armchair generals I wish people would start speculating about Russia's potential anexation methods in Sweden.

How economically viable would it be to attempt to control a different culture, speaking a different language, with their century old bureaucracy, with no history or willingness for cooperation, with all the diplomatic fallout that follows etc. People tend to not do that as it escalates to an absurd proposition where you can't rely on video game logic like you can in war scenarios.

It will not happen because it's a fucking stupid idea and something I'm sure Russia isn't willing to pay for. If it DID happen any attempt would fall apart. I've never seen anyone propose a viable scenario where a Russian invasion is anything other than OH THINK OF THE WAR BANG BANG.

It's not about straight up annexation. It's about the political and administrative ruin of an Atlantic friendly state that happens to be part of the EU.

Something that Tiddums left aside is that Russia has been funding and promoting far right and antiestablishment parties like Greece's Golden Dawn and France's National Front. Russia won't launch an invasion against Sweden or France, but it'll be happy to destabilise them in any way it can until those nations bend the knee.

The hacking, propaganda and disinformation operations in America were a resounding success. I very much doubt Putin is going to stop now.

 

[Yagharek]

It's not about straight up annexation. It's about the political and administrative ruin of an Atlantic friendly state that happens to be part of the EU.

Something that Tiddums left aside is that Russia has been funding and promoting far right and antiestablishment parties like Greece's Golden Dawn and France's National Front. Russia won't launch an invasion against Sweden or France, but it'll be happy to destabilise them in any way it can until those nations bend the knee.

The hacking, propaganda and disinformation operations in America were a resounding success. I very much doubt Putin is going to stop now.

I never knew that, and assume you have sources (really).

It would be interesting to see just how many they are funding. Wilders' party as well, perhaps?

 

[Nivash]

Instead of acting like Tom Clancy armchair generals I wish people would start speculating about Russia's potential anexation methods in Sweden.

How economically viable would it be to attempt to control a different culture, speaking a different language, with their century old bureaucracy, with no history or willingness for cooperation, with all the diplomatic fallout that follows etc. People tend to not do that as it escalates to an absurd proposition where you can't rely on video game logic like you can in war scenarios.

It will not happen because it's a fucking stupid idea and something I'm sure Russia isn't willing to pay for. If it DID happen any attempt would fall apart. I've never seen anyone propose a viable scenario where a Russian invasion is anything other than OH THINK OF THE WAR BANG BANG.

The scenario that both military experts are talking about the most, and now the Swedish people at large as well, is an invasion and occupation of the island of Gotland. Not annexation, just a quick strike followed by Russia moving in heavy anti-air and anti-ship assets. This would allow them dominance in the Baltic and pave the way for action in the Baltic states because it would essentially block NATO from using the Baltic Sea to reinforce them.

Gotland is still largely undefended. We now have a small contingent of about 150 men defending the island but suffice to say, they could be swept away with ease. Russia has no interest in the island beyond its strategic location. They could be perfectly able to simply set up no-go zones where they keep their forces and threaten to shoot anyone going near them while allowing the civilian population to carry on something resembling normal life. This is an option if they only want the island for a short time, such as when supporting the above mentioned invasion of the Baltic states. Alternatively, they could also simply evict the island's population back to mainland Sweden. There's only 60 000 or so permanent residents and if given an ultimatum, most would probably leave voluntarily.

 

[Carcetti]

I never knew that, and assume you have sources (really).

It would be interesting to see just how many they are funding. Wilders' party as well, perhaps?

These things are well documented and been covered in the respected newspapers here for a while now. It's not a secret or something that's in doubt anymore.

 

[KAOz]

Nobody fucks with the ultimate OG King Gurra

 

[gconsole]

Sweden has no resources, but simply keeping their own state in a "War" mode is going to bolster the economy, and avoid the fact they basically have no real industry. Their another country that's biggest export is oil and oil was getting closer to being on it's way out. This will delay it.

The one thing Reagan actually had right was that, they can't compete at all on the economical field.

Russia should have just fusion with China, and we will have US ultimate enemy.

 

[Funky Papa]

I never knew that, and assume you have sources (really).

It would be interesting to see just how many they are funding. Wilders' party as well, perhaps?

Take a look.

There's much more out there, but the article does a good job rounding some of the most important stuff up.

 

[TheWasTheJoke]

I mean... surely not..right?

People actually care about Sweden there's no way the west will be as apathetic as they were about Ukrain

 

[Guileless]

Trump will let Russia roll right over them.

What did Pres. Obama do to stop Russia from pursuing its goals in Ukraine and Syria? Sanctions and stern speeches by Samantha Power didnt change things.

 

[Condom]

Nobody is going to war lol, Russia can't touch EU or NATO countries and that is why they want to limit the amount of NATO/EU countries. Just another fight for influence.

 

[Onlinehero]

It's not about straight up annexation. It's about the political and administrative ruin of an Atlantic friendly state that happens to be part of the EU.

Something that Tiddums left aside is that Russia has been funding and promoting far right and antiestablishment parties like Greece's Golden Dawn and France's National Front. Russia won't launch an invasion against Sweden or France, but it'll be happy to destabilise them in any way it can until those nations bend the knee.

The hacking, propaganda and disinformation operations in America were a resounding success. I very much doubt Putin is going to stop now.

But that's usually not what's discussed when talking about the threat from Russia. We have SD and our variants of nazis that are if not in cahoots then at the very least infiltrated by Russia already (several party members have been excluded and seen as a security risk by the Swedish state). We know this. People ARE still talking about annexation like it's the Soviet era, people want a larger standing army with more tanks, planes, soldiers and ships to act as a deterrent. Increased military spending is not about countering propaganda (though it is a part of it), it's for regular warfare capabilities. It's absurd.

The scenario that both military experts are talking about the most, and now the Swedish people at large as well, is an invasion and occupation of the island of Gotland. Not annexation, just a quick strike followed by Russia moving in heavy anti-air and anti-ship assets. This would allow them dominance in the Baltic and pave the way for action in the Baltic states because it would essentially block NATO from using the Baltic Sea to reinforce them.

Gotland is still largely undefended. We now have a small contingent of about 150 men defending the island but suffice to say, they could be swept away with ease. Russia has no interest in the island beyond its strategic location. They could be perfectly able to simply set up no-go zones where they keep their forces and threaten to shoot anyone going near them while allowing the civilian population to carry on something resembling normal life. This is an option if they only want the island for a short time, such as when supporting the above mentioned invasion of the Baltic states. Alternatively, they could also simply evict the island's population back to mainland Sweden. There's only 60 000 or so permanent residents and if given an ultimatum, most would probably leave voluntarily.

Even if Russia were to take Gotland, its strategic value isn't mainly a Swedish interest, it's NATO. Engaging in all out war for Gotland would be a disaster for Sweden and a political disaster for Russia since, as you say, it's a major threat for NATO. We don't want NATO and we don't want war with Russia, if the Russians want Gotland the reality is they can have it, and if NATO thinks it's of such huge strategic value then they'd be free to take it back. None of these things are happening of course, because all of it would be an insane net loss move for Russia.

Like Funky Papa said the threat isn't war with Russia, it's disinformation and Russia-backed native fringe parties like the Sweden Democrats.

 

[Nivash]

Even if Russia were to take Gotland, its strategic value isn't mainly a Swedish interest, it's NATO. Engaging in all out war for Gotland would be a disaster for Sweden and a political disaster for Russia since, as you say, it's a major threat for NATO. We don't want NATO and we don't want war with Russia, if the Russians want Gotland the reality is they can have it, and if NATO thinks it's of such huge strategic value then they'd be free to take it back. None of these things are happening of course, because all of it would be an insane net loss move for Russia.

Like Funky Papa said the threat isn't war with Russia, it's disinformation and Russia-backed native fringe parties like the Sweden Democrats.

I disagree, I think we're arguably closer to conventional war than we've been since WW2. I think you're underestimating the huge gains Russia could make by challenging NATO. If they succesfully take the Baltics and prevent NATO from being able to respond before they have time to reinforce their positions, NATO would be faced with starting a total war or to accept it as a fait accompli and cede the nations to avoid nuclear annhilation.

This would effectively destroy both NATO and the EU. Russia would achieve complete dominance in central and eastern Europe. You don't think this is tempting to the Russians - especially with Trump in the US, being all wishy washy on supporting NATO?

If Sweden had a proper military, like we did during the Cold War, we would be a stabilising force by making the threshold high enough that Russia couldn't commit enough spare force to fight both us and NATO. Because we're not, they can easily just capitalise on our strategic areas and fight NATO there rather than closer to home, turning us into a battlefield. That's what happens when you can't defend your own territory.

Not that it matters. It takes at least a decade to restore military capability, by that time we are either going to have had the war or gotten lucky and seen Russia back off. Not that we shouldn't increase our military capabilities to at least be able to defend ourselves anyway - there could be other war threats later this century.

 

[Onlinehero]

I disagree, I think we're arguably closer to conventional war than we've been since WW2. I think you're underestimating the huge gains Russia could make by challenging NATO. If they succesfully take the Baltics and prevent NATO from being able to respond before they have time to reinforce their positions, NATO would be faced with starting a total war or to accept it as a fait accompli and cede the nations to avoid nuclear annhilation.

This would effectively destroy both NATO and the EU. Russia would achieve complete dominance in central and eastern Europe. You don't think this is tempting to the Russians - especially with Trump in the US, being all wishy washy on supporting NATO?

If Sweden had a proper military, like we did during the Cold War, we would be a stabilising force by making the threshold high enough that Russia couldn't commit enough spare force to fight both us and NATO. Because we're not, they can easily just capitalise on our strategic areas and fight NATO there rather than closer to home, turning us into a battlefield. That's what happens when you can't defend your own territory.

Not that it matters. It takes at least a decade to restore military capability, by that time we are either going to have had the war or gotten lucky and seen Russia back off. Not that we shouldn't increase our military capabilities to at least be able to defend ourselves anyway - there could be other war threats later this century.

I won't counter your scenario because you just did exactly what I described, a Tom Clancy world where no one thinks of the repercussions. Describe instead Russia's long term plan and how they will recover after delving into a suicide mission.

 

[Guileless]

Nobody is going to war lol, Russia can't touch EU or NATO countries and that is why they want to limit the amount of NATO/EU countries. Just another fight for influence.

This has been true for so long that it's hard to imagine it not being true. But unless you believe in a utopian Star Trekesque future, one day it won't be true. Based on current events, Nivash makes a good case.

 

[PdotMichael]

Russia doesn't have the troops nor the logistics to control the Baltic states.
Russia's combat readiness makes a badly funded European army appear like an elite troop.

People like to count the incredible amount of tanks or aircraft but forgetting that most of them are second or third row units which would take months to get mobilized.

It's somehow disturbing that since the Bomber Gap - the West has the tendendy of overselling Russia's capacities.

 

[Guileless]

I think something like Ukraine is more likely than an actual invasion. Collaboration with "rebels" "protecting" ethnic Russians with the help of unacknowledged Russian soldiers not in uniform. Something to give Pres. Trump plausible deniability.

 

[Nivash]

I won't counter your scenario because you just did exactly what I described, a Tom Clancy world where no one thinks of the repercussions. Describe instead Russia's long term plan and how they will recover after delving into a suicide mission.

It wouldn't be a suicide mission. They could take their time reincorporating the Baltic states and wouldn't ever need to fight the bulk of NATO, who would be too fractured by political infighting to gather the resolve to respond. Or maybe they would gather the resolve needed and end up triggering WW3 and kill us all. We lose in either scenario, Russia wins big in the first. If it ever gets to the point where the Russians get desperate for one reason or another, it might look like a gambit worth taking to them.

Calling it a "Tom Clancy scenario" is extremely dismissive. I'm not making this up myself, I'm literally describing a scenario military experts are very concerned about.

http://www.horisontmagasin.se/2016/05/30/hotet-mot-gotland/

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=94&artikel=6519508

Russia doesn't have the troops nor the logistics to control the Baltic states.
Russia's combat readiness makes a badly funded European army appear like an elite troop.

People like to count the incredible amount of tanks or aircraft but forgetting that most of them are second or third row units which would take months to get mobilized.

It's somehow disturbing that since the Bomber Gap - the West has the tendendy of overselling Russia's capacities.

This view is about a decade out of date. Russia operates several quick reaction forces, that's how they could act in Georgia and Ukraine. They regularly demonstrate this fact in large-scale military excersises.

http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-large-military-exercises/27945761.html

 

[ClosingADoor]

I mean... surely not..right?

People actually care about Sweden there's no way the west will be as apathetic as they were about Ukrain

People care about Sweden, until they actually need to do something. There are no defense treaties there as far as I know. It is an EU country though, so that is something at least. But I don't think any country is obliged to defend Sweden.

So Russia can do the same bullshit tactics there, quickly move into Gotland if they can and then the rest of the EU will be "well, we don't actually want full on war with Russia, so...."

 

[PdotMichael]

I think something like Ukraine is more likely than an actual invasion. Collaboration with "rebels" "protecting" ethnic Russians with the help of unacknowledged Russian soldiers not in uniform. Something to give Pres. Trump plausible deniability.

That would trigger article 5 as well - if we are talking about the Batlic states, there aren't many etnic Russians on Gotland.

 

[Übermatik]

Surely a Russian advance near Sweden via the Baltic Sea would be a ridiculous mistake considering how close by Germany and Poland are? Seems a little too cramped down there...

 

[PdotMichael]

Surely a Russian advance near Sweden via the Baltic Sea would be a ridiculous mistake considering how close by Germany and Poland are? Seems a little too cramped down there...

Putin would also need to attack German, Britsh, American and other NATO forces there. It's a pretty silly plan just to gain the control of the Baltic sea.

The Soviets moved away from the Baltic sea as their main base for their fleet because it would be too easy to contain Russian navy forces there.

 

[Frankfurter]

I disagree, I think we're arguably closer to conventional war than we've been since WW2. I think you're underestimating the huge gains Russia could make by challenging NATO. If they succesfully take the Baltics and prevent NATO from being able to respond before they have time to reinforce their positions, NATO would be faced with starting a total war or to accept it as a fait accompli and cede the nations to avoid nuclear annhilation.

This would effectively destroy both NATO and the EU. Russia would achieve complete dominance in central and eastern Europe. You don't think this is tempting to the Russians - especially with Trump in the US, being all wishy washy on supporting NATO?

If Sweden had a proper military, like we did during the Cold War, we would be a stabilising force by making the threshold high enough that Russia couldn't commit enough spare force to fight both us and NATO. Because we're not, they can easily just capitalise on our strategic areas and fight NATO there rather than closer to home, turning us into a battlefield. That's what happens when you can't defend your own territory.

Not that it matters. It takes at least a decade to restore military capability, by that time we are either going to have had the war or gotten lucky and seen Russia back off. Not that we shouldn't increase our military capabilities to at least be able to defend ourselves anyway - there could be other war threats later this century.

Putin isn't crazy enough for that I think. He'll trigger article 5 and knows that he is doomed once that happens. Keep in mind that NATO has soldiers in the Baltics, so it's not "only" about those 3 small countries. An attack on, say, a French, American, British, or German soldier will surely be seen as a casus belli.
For example Germany will have ~500 soldiers and Leopard 2 tanks (!) in Lithuania starting Feb 2017.

 

[Frankfurter]

People care about Sweden, until they actually need to do something. There are no defense treaties there as far as I know. It is an EU country though, so that is something at least. But I don't think any country is obliged to defend Sweden.

So Russia can do the same bullshit tactics there, quickly move into Gotland if they can and then the rest of the EU will be "well, we don't actually want full on war with Russia, so...."

There is article 42 (7) of the Lisbon treaty!

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.


Again, I don't think Russia is crazy enough to do that.

 

[Nivash]

Putin isn't crazy enough for that I think. He'll trigger article 5 and knows that he is doomed once that happens. Keep in mind that NATO has soldiers in the Baltics, so it's not "only" about those 3 small countries. An attack on, say, a French, American, British, or German soldier will surely be seen as a casus belli.
For example Germany will have ~500 soldiers and Leopard 2 tanks (!) in Lithuania starting Feb 2017.

Triggering article 5 would be the point. If they do that, smash the NATO speed bump forces in the region (which they will easily do, Leos or not), then NATO will be forced to make a decision - engage in total war to retake the Baltics, or concede them. If they choose the latter, NATO will effectively cease to exist. An alliance that doesn't honor its responsibilities is pointless.

There is article 42 (7) of the Lisbon treaty!

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.


Again, I don't think Russia is crazy enough to do that.

Ironically, Sweden made sure to to get assurances that article 42 isn't a defense treaty. We're a "neutral" country after all. No one is obligated to defend us.

 

[entremet]

I just...don't understand what Russia hopes to gain here

Like what is the motivation other than dick waving? Seizing economic hubs to boost Russia's GDP? Does Sweden have oil? What do they want?

They have a mired economy and an idiot leading them that relishes the Cold Wars days, which has a penchant for starting shit.

 

[PdotMichael]

Triggering article 5 would be the point. If they do that, smash the NATO speed bump forces in the region (which they will easily do, Leos or not), then NATO will be forced to make a decision - engage in total war to retake the Baltics, or concede them. If they choose the latter, NATO will effectively cease to exist.

Putin knows that the best case for him regarding to the Baltic States would be a pyrrhus victory.
It would be mean the economic death of his country.

So for Putin it wouldn't be about getting access to the Baltic states but running a total war against Europe.

 

[Kurdel]

Can,t believe in 2016 we still have Putin sympathisers on gaf, with everything we know.

 

[ferrasvansen]

Can,t believe in 2016 we still have Putin sympathisers on gaf, with everything we know.

Most of them are likely operating out of some PR factory, filled with recruits scanning forums all over because in all honesty seeing what's happening in Aleppo no normal human being would defend Putin.

 

[Xando]

Triggering article 5 would be the point. If they do that, smash the NATO speed bump forces in the region (which they will easily do, Leos or not), then NATO will be forced to make a decision - engage in total war to retake the Baltics, or concede them. If they choose the latter, NATO will effectively cease to exist. An alliance that doesn't honor its responsibilities is pointless.

War with Nato and only pushing into the baltic makes zero sense for Putin. If his forces stop shy of Poland or other eastern nations NATO will just bomb putins forces to hell. Any attempt to take the baltics would also feature a invasion of Poland at which point NATO forces would deploy tactical nukes.

Ironically, Sweden made sure to to get assurances that article 42 isn't a defense treaty. We're a "neutral" country after all. No one is obligated to defend us.

Even if Sweden is considered a "neutral" country any agression made in Gotland (or any other strategic location in the baltic sea) will prompt NATO/EU military action simply because they can't allow russia to create a no fly/no ship zone in the middle of the baltics.
Kalinigrad is already a nightmare for NATO forces and i doubt they'll allow russia a second Kalinigrad effectively allowing them to stop any supplly by sea.

 

[Nivash]

Putin knows that the best case for him regarding to the Baltic States would be a pyrrhus victory.
It would be mean the economic death of his country.

So for Putin it wouldn't be about getting access to the Baltic states but running a total war against Europe.

Successfully breaking the EU and NATO would essentially introduce a new world order. Normal economic calculations wouldn't really apply, not to mention that Russia is actively working to isolate its economy from western pressure since the sanctions after Crimea.

And again the gamble is that it wouldn't trigger a total war. If it does, we're all dead anyway.

War with Nato and only pushing into the baltic makes zero sense for Putin. If his forces stop shy of Poland or other eastern nations NATO will just bomb putins forces to hell. Any attempt to take the baltics would also feature a invasion of Poland at which point NATO forces would deploy tactical nukes.

Even if Sweden is considered a "neutral" country any agression made in Gotland (or any other strategic location in the baltic sea) will prompt NATO/EU military action simply because they can't allow russia to create a no fly/no ship zone in the middle of the baltics.
Kalinigrad is already a nightmare for NATO forces and i doubt they'll allow russia a second Kalinigrad effectively allowing them to stop any supplly by sea.

Sure. And while NATO deals with Gotland, the NATO forces in the Baltics can't be reinforced and are wiped out. By the time NATO is in control of Gotland, Russia fortifies the Baltics and tells NATO that they can either back off or go nuclear.

EDIT: And no, NATO doesn't have the level of air supremacy in eastern Europe that they could simply bomb Russia with impunity. Russia isn't Serbia. They have more than enough air defences and enough of an air force themselves to make that a suicide mission, NATO air is superior to Russian air, but not that superior. They can't win on their own without NATO ground support.

 

[Cynar]

Not with my taxes. Let those white European nations use their privilege to defend themselves

The fuck?

 

[PdotMichael]

Successfully breaking the EU and NATO would essentially introduce a new world order. Normal economic calculations wouldn't really apply, not to mention that Russia is actively working to isolate its economy from western pressure since the sanctions after Crimea.

And again the gamble is that it wouldn't trigger a total war. If it does, we're all dead anyway.

Russia doesn't even have the GDP of Italy. And the economy is shrinking with nothing of worth in the high tech fields.
If your narrative is that Putin can do whatever he wants and everyone will just accept a new world order there isn't much to discuss anymore.

 

[Frankfurter]

Triggering article 5 would be the point. If they do that, smash the NATO speed bump forces in the region (which they will easily do, Leos or not), then NATO will be forced to make a decision - engage in total war to retake the Baltics, or concede them. If they choose the latter, NATO will effectively cease to exist. An alliance that doesn't honor its responsibilities is pointless.

Oh I know Russia would smash these NATO troops with ease, that's not my point. As you said, NATO (or EU) can't afford to not act once this happens. The best case, Putin could hope for is that NATO would engage into some kind of guerilla warfare like thing. Basically doing what Russia currently does in the Eastern Ukraine. With the difference being that NATO has far superior tanks, planes, ships etc. There is no way Russia could win this conflict long term, unless they are ready to drop nukes.

Ironically, Sweden made sure to to get assurances that article 42 isn't a defense treaty. We're a "neutral" country after all. No one is obligated to defend us.

Mind citing a source? As far as I know, Sweden is part of that treaty per definition by being a member of the EU.

 

[Xando]

Sure. And while NATO deals with Gotland, the NATO forces in the Baltics can't be reinforced and are wiped out. By the time NATO is in control of Gotland, Russia fortifies the Baltics and tells NATO that they can either back off or go nuclear.

Any agression in Gotland would prompt mobilization all over europe. Do you think Nato will send 500k troops to gotland? Nato is capable of deploying at multiple locations at once. Any agression from Russia and they have atleast 300k soldiers on their and belarus border within 5 days. Not to mention the strongest air forces on the planet.

 

[Jackpot]

I don't get it, why is everyone in the west freaking out over "Russian Aggression"? What aggression?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Russian's flying jets over the Baltic sea? That is about as alarming as Canadian's flying jets over the pacific considering Russian is literally on the Baltic sea unless St. Petersberg and Kaliningrad stopped being a thing.

I hope you realise that these "jets" are not passenger planes taking people on holiday but actually nuclear bombers on missions that take them minutes away from targeting major cities. It is supposed to be alarming. That is the only reason why they would do these missions. To alarm people and remind them that they are a threat.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

One has to believe that a unprovoked Russian attack on Sweden is something even a guy like Trump can't ignore.

I don't get it, why is everyone in the west freaking out over "Russian Aggression"? What aggression? Did I hit my head and go into a coma for a decade or is the propaganda machine way outta control?

Whatever your opinions about the Crimea situation, that was clearly Russian intervening on behalf of the pro-Russian Ukranians, not a land-grab. Crimea is upwards of 70% ethnically Russian, and was part of Russia until 1954.

Cool, I go tell Hungary that they belong to us again now.

 

[koji kabuto]

In the case of hypothetical conflict, considering the military power of the Swedish army, Russia would win definitely. I don't think that any reform would have change anything.

Here is a video a found about this topic (from a Swede):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8mnaPK6Bno

Feminists and genders studies ? What does that have to do with War? This guy sounds like member of Swedish Alt-Right group and probably he is.

 

[Onlinehero]

It wouldn't be a suicide mission. They could take their time reincorporating the Baltic states and wouldn't ever need to fight the bulk of NATO, who would be too fractured by political infighting to gather the resolve to respond. Or maybe they would gather the resolve needed and end up triggering WW3 and kill us all. We lose in either scenario, Russia wins big in the first. If it ever gets to the point where the Russians get desperate for one reason or another, it might look like a gambit worth taking to them.

Calling it a "Tom Clancy scenario" is extremely dismissive. I'm not making this up myself, I'm literally describing a scenario military experts are very concerned about.

http://www.horisontmagasin.se/2016/05/30/hotet-mot-gotland/

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=94&artikel=6519508



This view is about a decade out of date. Russia operates several quick reaction forces, that's how they could act in Georgia and Ukraine. They regularly demonstrate this fact in large-scale military excersises.

http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-large-military-exercises/27945761.html

Your sources are talking about Gotland, you're talking about the Baltic states, you're still talking about warfare and nothing about what the gain would be after war. Russia's economy is in shambles, a kleptocracy. The amount of force and rebuilding it would take to restore order after any war is a substantial cost for them even if there is a cultural growing ground since the soviet era. Your new world order scenario is Tom Clancy bullshit until you can state any reason other than "lol Putin crazy yo".

 

[Nivash]

Russia doesn't even have the GDP of Italy. And the economy is shrinking with nothing of worth in the high tech fields.
If your narrative is that Putin can do whatever he wants and everyone will just accept a new world order there isn't much to discuss anymore.

Nominal GDP is a poor measure of strategic capability. I agree though - Russia is an economic basket case. In the long run they can't keep functioning in their current state without slipping behind.

The problem is that they have a window of 5-10 years where they have near-complete military dominance over the Baltic states and a strong military advantage in eastern Europe in general. The worry is that they know this and will play this card, seeing how it's pretty much their only.