5 ms·

It's pretty disheartening to know that the Swedish press won't touch this with a 10-foot pole; they're busy digging/drumming up the "good ole" Russian Scare fro

by moogly 10y ago

It's pretty disheartening to know that the Swedish press won't touch this with a 10-foot pole; they're busy digging/drumming up the "good ole" Russian Scare from the 60s/70s right now amidst the sabre-rattling coming, frankly, largely from the West.

berntb 10y ago
>> sabre-rattling coming, frankly, largely from the West Uh, the Western democracies have started to do wars in Europe for territory? :-) After Soviet fell, the NATO forces (and the neutral countries) in Europe melted away; the US/Canadian units in Germany went home and so on. This changed after Russia started to rebuild and do wars. Edit: This was about the new "sabre rattling". Long, long after the Balkan horrible tragedies. (And I'd really argue if the "West" rattled any sabers there, but it isn't relevant anyway.)
- kushti 10y ago
  Wrong, Balkan wars were after Soviet fell
krona 10y ago
The anti-NATO propaganda in Sweden is also tearfully inaccurate at times.
- jacobush 10y ago
  Yes. Unfortunately any "team" gets embarrasing supporters. However, both sides (pro/anti) should by now agree on the need to HAVE a military of substantial size. One side, to credibly stay out of NATO. The other, to credibly expect an application be granted.
  - sebcat 10y ago
    > However, both sides (pro/anti) should by now agree on the need to HAVE an military of substantial size. What seems to be happening is that priority is given to projects that benefit certain companies, rather than increasing military capabilities. Investments are made in platforms such as Gripen[1], A26[2], Visby[3], PRIO (licensed SAP system) rather than giving priority to training and maintaining personnel. The mentioned projects are relatively expensive and low volume and there are a lot of people in the armed forces who would rather see the focus shifted from those projects to the armed forces. Unless you're air force or navy and get to play with new toys, I guess. Meanwhile, the army and the amphibious corps are less happy. It is not likely that we'll see the size needed for quite some time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette
    - jacobush 10y ago
      This is what is happening. I still hope (maybe in vain) that the rest will ramp up too and that will build political clout for the army and the civil defence that will need to be rebuilt. But it's not surprising that the first initiatives would be money heavy corporate spending. After all, the last couple of decades, "government doing military duties" has increasingly translated to "selling fortifications cheaply and spend time with industry lobbyists". The toys are nice but we need boots on the ground. And civil defence. Do I repeat myself?
  - moogly 10y ago
    Switzerland spends half as much as Sweden on its annual military spending as percentage of GDP (also less in absolute terms), and they can credibly stay out of NATO, so why couldn't Sweden? Geographics? I don't buy it. Also, if Sweden wanted to join tomorrow morning, they would have the application granted after lunch the same day. NATO has been salivating at the thought for decades now, and considering Sweden's military is already running on NATO standards, its officers take all the NATO courses, and the military partakes in all major NATO war games, it's not ridiculous to say that for all intents and purposes, Sweden is basically already a member, just not officially. The pro-NATO side's argument tends to be that since Sweden's already basically a member, at least it should have voting rights by the merit of being an official member. That's their top argument IMO. Joining NATO would be a massive provocation towards Russia that I don't think neither Sweden nor the surrounding nation states would benefit from. I'd rather not choose sides in a Second Cold War, since either side in such a conflict would be rather contemptible. Now, it's pretty clear "we" already did, however.
    - durandal1 10y ago
      > Switzerland spends half as much as Sweden on its annual military spending as percentage of GDP (also less in absolute terms), and they can credibly stay out of NATO, so why couldn't Sweden? Geographics? I don't buy it. I think you should go look at that map again and think about the strategic value of Sweden vs Switzerland.
      - logfromblammo 10y ago
        There are five other countries on the Baltic Sea for whom that is their only ocean access, Russia's northern ports may not be open year round, and their Black Sea ports are behind the straits of Bosporus, Dardanelles, and Gibraltar. Sweden and Turkey can both make naval operations more difficult and expensive for Russia, particularly those operations it might prefer to keep secret. Switzerland isn't exactly a place you might ordinarily want to go through on your way to somewhere else, unless you really like climbing over mountains (or digging under them). Militarily, it's almost always easier to go around Switzerland than through it. So you would only ever attack Switzerland if they, specifically, had something that you wanted, or were threatening your flanks or rear. Sweden-Denmark, Egypt, Panama, and Turkey, and to lesser extents, Malaysia, Canada, and Spain-Morocco-Gibraltar all preside over strategic bottlenecks to aquatic vessels. They have huge strategic value.
widforss 10y ago
Well, it is not exactly news is it? It has been known since Snowden that the FRA is working closely with the NSA. And it is really hard for journalists to write something constructive about the FRA because of the secrecy [1]. [1]: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2519&artikel=5318984 https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2519&ar... EDIT: The link covers an incident where one of FRA's planes were shot down in 1952. Everything were successfully covered up for more than 50 years, and a lot of the reports are still unavailable. The FRA _really_ likes to not talk about themselves, more so than many other intelligence agencies. The FRA claims that the now 65 year old reports could still pose a threat to current operations.
lostlogin 10y ago
The west hasnt invaded anyone or shot down any airliners though has it?
- chinathrow 10y ago
  Well, not or on purpse, a few airlines has indeed been shut down over the time, including "by the west": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc... E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 "Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating on this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes under the command of William C. Rogers III. " 290 casualties.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    I thought we were talking in the context of Russia V west at the moment and examples of aggression (which it's not hard to argue Russia is out of bounds). Your cited incident is truly atrocious and it sounds like the captain was a known tool in the navy too.
- tsukikage 10y ago
  We've been invading random places in the middle east for decades. We're invading some right now.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    In the context of Russia and aggression, who is more aggressive, the West or Russia? I said Russia was invading and attacking, the west isn't.
    - ionised 10y ago
      but the west is doing that

by moogly 10y ago

berntb 10y ago

>> sabre-rattling coming, frankly, largely from the West Uh, the Western democracies have started to do wars in Europe for territory? :-) After Soviet fell, the NATO forces (and the neutral countries) in Europe melted away; the US/Canadian units in Germany went home and so on. This changed after Russia started to rebuild and do wars. Edit: This was about the new "sabre rattling". Long, long after the Balkan horrible tragedies. (And I'd really argue if the "West" rattled any sabers there, but it isn't relevant anyway.)

kushti 10y ago
Wrong, Balkan wars were after Soviet fell

krona 10y ago

The anti-NATO propaganda in Sweden is also tearfully inaccurate at times.

jacobush 10y ago
Yes. Unfortunately any "team" gets embarrasing supporters. However, both sides (pro/anti) should by now agree on the need to HAVE a military of substantial size. One side, to credibly stay out of NATO. The other, to credibly expect an application be granted.
- sebcat 10y ago
  > However, both sides (pro/anti) should by now agree on the need to HAVE an military of substantial size. What seems to be happening is that priority is given to projects that benefit certain companies, rather than increasing military capabilities. Investments are made in platforms such as Gripen[1], A26[2], Visby[3], PRIO (licensed SAP system) rather than giving priority to training and maintaining personnel. The mentioned projects are relatively expensive and low volume and there are a lot of people in the armed forces who would rather see the focus shifted from those projects to the armed forces. Unless you're air force or navy and get to play with new toys, I guess. Meanwhile, the army and the amphibious corps are less happy. It is not likely that we'll see the size needed for quite some time. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette
  - jacobush 10y ago
    This is what is happening. I still hope (maybe in vain) that the rest will ramp up too and that will build political clout for the army and the civil defence that will need to be rebuilt. But it's not surprising that the first initiatives would be money heavy corporate spending. After all, the last couple of decades, "government doing military duties" has increasingly translated to "selling fortifications cheaply and spend time with industry lobbyists". The toys are nice but we need boots on the ground. And civil defence. Do I repeat myself?
- moogly 10y ago
  Switzerland spends half as much as Sweden on its annual military spending as percentage of GDP (also less in absolute terms), and they can credibly stay out of NATO, so why couldn't Sweden? Geographics? I don't buy it. Also, if Sweden wanted to join tomorrow morning, they would have the application granted after lunch the same day. NATO has been salivating at the thought for decades now, and considering Sweden's military is already running on NATO standards, its officers take all the NATO courses, and the military partakes in all major NATO war games, it's not ridiculous to say that for all intents and purposes, Sweden is basically already a member, just not officially. The pro-NATO side's argument tends to be that since Sweden's already basically a member, at least it should have voting rights by the merit of being an official member. That's their top argument IMO. Joining NATO would be a massive provocation towards Russia that I don't think neither Sweden nor the surrounding nation states would benefit from. I'd rather not choose sides in a Second Cold War, since either side in such a conflict would be rather contemptible. Now, it's pretty clear "we" already did, however.
  - durandal1 10y ago
    > Switzerland spends half as much as Sweden on its annual military spending as percentage of GDP (also less in absolute terms), and they can credibly stay out of NATO, so why couldn't Sweden? Geographics? I don't buy it. I think you should go look at that map again and think about the strategic value of Sweden vs Switzerland.
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      There are five other countries on the Baltic Sea for whom that is their only ocean access, Russia's northern ports may not be open year round, and their Black Sea ports are behind the straits of Bosporus, Dardanelles, and Gibraltar. Sweden and Turkey can both make naval operations more difficult and expensive for Russia, particularly those operations it might prefer to keep secret. Switzerland isn't exactly a place you might ordinarily want to go through on your way to somewhere else, unless you really like climbing over mountains (or digging under them). Militarily, it's almost always easier to go around Switzerland than through it. So you would only ever attack Switzerland if they, specifically, had something that you wanted, or were threatening your flanks or rear. Sweden-Denmark, Egypt, Panama, and Turkey, and to lesser extents, Malaysia, Canada, and Spain-Morocco-Gibraltar all preside over strategic bottlenecks to aquatic vessels. They have huge strategic value.

widforss 10y ago

Well, it is not exactly news is it? It has been known since Snowden that the FRA is working closely with the NSA. And it is really hard for journalists to write something constructive about the FRA because of the secrecy [1]. [1]: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2519&artikel=5318984 https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2519&ar... EDIT: The link covers an incident where one of FRA's planes were shot down in 1952. Everything were successfully covered up for more than 50 years, and a lot of the reports are still unavailable. The FRA _really_ likes to not talk about themselves, more so than many other intelligence agencies. The FRA claims that the now 65 year old reports could still pose a threat to current operations.

lostlogin 10y ago

The west hasnt invaded anyone or shot down any airliners though has it?

chinathrow 10y ago
Well, not or on purpse, a few airlines has indeed been shut down over the time, including "by the west": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc... E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 "Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating on this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes under the command of William C. Rogers III. " 290 casualties.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  I thought we were talking in the context of Russia V west at the moment and examples of aggression (which it's not hard to argue Russia is out of bounds). Your cited incident is truly atrocious and it sounds like the captain was a known tool in the navy too.
tsukikage 10y ago
We've been invading random places in the middle east for decades. We're invading some right now.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  In the context of Russia and aggression, who is more aggressive, the West or Russia? I said Russia was invading and attacking, the west isn't.
  - ionised 10y ago
    but the west is doing that