3 ms·

Exactly, there's no logic behind that. No point of attacking Finland or Norway, and they protect Sweden's border. And to attack Sweden you need to go through ha

Exactly, there's no logic behind that. No point of attacking Finland or Norway, and they protect Sweden's border. And to attack Sweden you need to go through harsh environment, going through another country, facing world's anger etc to gain exactly what? No logic behind that. Seems more probably Norway would attack Sweden :)

Scramblejams 9y ago
You have to understand that Russia is highly expansionist because it has no natural barriers to invasion. Its only option is to create buffer zones, exactly as it did, massively, in the Cold War. Plenty of motivation there. There are other imperatives at work as well. For example, in a fight against NATO, Russia's number one concern is to prevent NATO's reinforcement via the Atlantic. To close those sea lanes, they have two weapons: subs and planes. Those planes can't fly over Europe, they'd be massacred. So they have to fly north from the Murmansk area, keep clear of Finland, Norway, Sweden, go west for a while, then turn south and fly down to find and kill the convoys. That's a huge, wasteful dogleg. Invading north Finland, Sweden and Norway allows their bombers to cut across that land, giving them a much straighter shot at all that shipping and keeps them further from the NATO forces that would be on Iceland. They use less fuel to get to the sea lanes, which means they carry more weapons and have more time to look for targets. These countries aren't building defenses against Russia because it's politically convenient or just for the fun of it.
- XorNot 9y ago
  "Buffer zones" are the biggest bullshit excuse for holding geographically concentrated foreign populations hostage by major, undemocratic powers. Russia is expansionist because it suits the government just fine to blame their massive internal problems on anyone but the kleptocrats in power.
- aquadrop 9y ago
  Yeah, nice scenario for a game or scary movie, but has 0 potential in reality. Russia - NATO war? Really? And you want to spend huge amount of money and return conscription in Sweden to protect from this? Maybe Europe should also spend billions for creating a special system against attack from, I don't know, let's say Burundi, maybe they also can be bad guys in some game.
  - Scramblejams 9y ago
    Zero potential in reality? Tell us then, why did Russia build a huge force of Backfire bombers designed to carry out exactly the attack I described?
  - petre 9y ago
    Russia has attacked other European countries in the past, so spending money to defend themselves isn't that unusual. The Russian way of invading countries with no or weak armies is to send little green men w/o signs on their uniforms, hold elections and install a puppet government, many times without a fight.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > Maybe Europe should also spend billions for creating a special system against attack from, I don't know, let's say Burundi, Burundi hasn't threatened Germany and Poland with military invasions, even going as far as announcing that they could have their tanks in their capitals in a couple of days. I really don't understand how someone as clueless as you insists in commenting on issues you clearly know nothing about, particularly with such strongly-worded unsound beliefs.
    - aquadrop 9y ago
      > I really don't understand how someone as clueless as you insists in commenting on issues Maybe it's because that's you who's clueless, and I'm ready to hold conversation with unpopular opinion trying to bring a little more peace in this world.
- petre 9y ago
  They should build aircraft carriers and airplane tankers. Less expensive than invading Scandinavian states.
doktrin 9y ago
> Exactly, there's no logic behind that. No point of attacking Finland And yet, Russia has in the past done just that. The Finns don't maintain their extremely vigilant conscripted military for shits and giggles. More generally, your hyper-active argumentation all over this thread is just weird : all countries develop military contingency plans, and everyone within artillery range of Russia's border is legitimately concerned about the threat of Russian military action. Plain and simple.
- aquadrop 9y ago
  > And yet, Russia has in the past done just that. The Fins don't maintain their extremely vigilant conscripted military for shits and giggles. And in the past Sweden attacked Russia. We're talking about current situation. In 1930s whole world was preparing for a big war (even regular people 1935 were discussing and guessing when the war will erupt) and it has nothing to do with modern situation. > More generally, your hyper-active argumentation all over this thread is just weird I'm just trying to hold civil discussion, what's the problem here? > all countries develop military contingency plans, and everyone within artillery range of Russia's border is legitimately concerned about the threat of Russian military action. Plain and simple. That's the point of discussion - only Sweden has become lately very worried about being attacked by Russia. And my point is there's no any possibility of such attack, and protecting from this is just waste of resources. Also, Sweden is out of artillery range from Russian border.
  - doktrin 9y ago
    > only Sweden Patently false. Literally every country along or near Russia's border is concerned about Russia. > Sweden has become lately very worried about being attacked by Russia. And my point is there's no any possibility of such attack Sweden is neutral with a capital N, and yet they just reinstated conscription resulting from years of aggressive Russian military exercises along their borders and airspace[1][2], threats against neighboring countries[3] not to mention overt and well publicized Russian military action against sovereign nation along its border. Frankly, your bias is palpable and I doubt this discussion will lead anywhere constructive. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/world/europe/sweden-draft-conscription.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/world/europe/sweden-draft... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12139943/Russia-simulated-a-nuclear-strike-against-Sweden-Nato-admits.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1213... [3] https://www.ft.com/content/646064c8-d07a-11e4-a840-00144feab7de https://www.ft.com/content/646064c8-d07a-11e4-a840-00144feab...
geezerjay 9y ago
> there's no logic behind that. Only to people who are completely clueless, and entirely oblivious to events in contemporary history. I suggest you educate yourself, or in the very least discover Sweden's move to join NATO and the subsequent response by Russia.

Scramblejams 9y ago

You have to understand that Russia is highly expansionist because it has no natural barriers to invasion. Its only option is to create buffer zones, exactly as it did, massively, in the Cold War. Plenty of motivation there. There are other imperatives at work as well. For example, in a fight against NATO, Russia's number one concern is to prevent NATO's reinforcement via the Atlantic. To close those sea lanes, they have two weapons: subs and planes. Those planes can't fly over Europe, they'd be massacred. So they have to fly north from the Murmansk area, keep clear of Finland, Norway, Sweden, go west for a while, then turn south and fly down to find and kill the convoys. That's a huge, wasteful dogleg. Invading north Finland, Sweden and Norway allows their bombers to cut across that land, giving them a much straighter shot at all that shipping and keeps them further from the NATO forces that would be on Iceland. They use less fuel to get to the sea lanes, which means they carry more weapons and have more time to look for targets. These countries aren't building defenses against Russia because it's politically convenient or just for the fun of it.

XorNot 9y ago
"Buffer zones" are the biggest bullshit excuse for holding geographically concentrated foreign populations hostage by major, undemocratic powers. Russia is expansionist because it suits the government just fine to blame their massive internal problems on anyone but the kleptocrats in power.
aquadrop 9y ago
Yeah, nice scenario for a game or scary movie, but has 0 potential in reality. Russia - NATO war? Really? And you want to spend huge amount of money and return conscription in Sweden to protect from this? Maybe Europe should also spend billions for creating a special system against attack from, I don't know, let's say Burundi, maybe they also can be bad guys in some game.
- Scramblejams 9y ago
  Zero potential in reality? Tell us then, why did Russia build a huge force of Backfire bombers designed to carry out exactly the attack I described?
- petre 9y ago
  Russia has attacked other European countries in the past, so spending money to defend themselves isn't that unusual. The Russian way of invading countries with no or weak armies is to send little green men w/o signs on their uniforms, hold elections and install a puppet government, many times without a fight.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > Maybe Europe should also spend billions for creating a special system against attack from, I don't know, let's say Burundi, Burundi hasn't threatened Germany and Poland with military invasions, even going as far as announcing that they could have their tanks in their capitals in a couple of days. I really don't understand how someone as clueless as you insists in commenting on issues you clearly know nothing about, particularly with such strongly-worded unsound beliefs.
  - aquadrop 9y ago
    > I really don't understand how someone as clueless as you insists in commenting on issues Maybe it's because that's you who's clueless, and I'm ready to hold conversation with unpopular opinion trying to bring a little more peace in this world.
petre 9y ago
They should build aircraft carriers and airplane tankers. Less expensive than invading Scandinavian states.

doktrin 9y ago

> Exactly, there's no logic behind that. No point of attacking Finland And yet, Russia has in the past done just that. The Finns don't maintain their extremely vigilant conscripted military for shits and giggles. More generally, your hyper-active argumentation all over this thread is just weird : all countries develop military contingency plans, and everyone within artillery range of Russia's border is legitimately concerned about the threat of Russian military action. Plain and simple.

aquadrop 9y ago
> And yet, Russia has in the past done just that. The Fins don't maintain their extremely vigilant conscripted military for shits and giggles. And in the past Sweden attacked Russia. We're talking about current situation. In 1930s whole world was preparing for a big war (even regular people 1935 were discussing and guessing when the war will erupt) and it has nothing to do with modern situation. > More generally, your hyper-active argumentation all over this thread is just weird I'm just trying to hold civil discussion, what's the problem here? > all countries develop military contingency plans, and everyone within artillery range of Russia's border is legitimately concerned about the threat of Russian military action. Plain and simple. That's the point of discussion - only Sweden has become lately very worried about being attacked by Russia. And my point is there's no any possibility of such attack, and protecting from this is just waste of resources. Also, Sweden is out of artillery range from Russian border.
- doktrin 9y ago
  > only Sweden Patently false. Literally every country along or near Russia's border is concerned about Russia. > Sweden has become lately very worried about being attacked by Russia. And my point is there's no any possibility of such attack Sweden is neutral with a capital N, and yet they just reinstated conscription resulting from years of aggressive Russian military exercises along their borders and airspace[1][2], threats against neighboring countries[3] not to mention overt and well publicized Russian military action against sovereign nation along its border. Frankly, your bias is palpable and I doubt this discussion will lead anywhere constructive. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/world/europe/sweden-draft-conscription.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/world/europe/sweden-draft... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12139943/Russia-simulated-a-nuclear-strike-against-Sweden-Nato-admits.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1213... [3] https://www.ft.com/content/646064c8-d07a-11e4-a840-00144feab7de https://www.ft.com/content/646064c8-d07a-11e4-a840-00144feab...

geezerjay 9y ago

> there's no logic behind that. Only to people who are completely clueless, and entirely oblivious to events in contemporary history. I suggest you educate yourself, or in the very least discover Sweden's move to join NATO and the subsequent response by Russia.