3 ms·

Russia didn't attack and annexed part of Georgia, those are self-managed unrecognized entities. Also if you support that Kosovo shouldn't be part of Serbia, the

Russia didn't attack and annexed part of Georgia, those are self-managed unrecognized entities. Also if you support that Kosovo shouldn't be part of Serbia, then Abkhazia and South Ossetia shouldn't be part of Georgia, it's absolutely de-facto separate entities (source: my grandparents lived in Abkhazia) and those small nations fought with Georgia by themselves. Yes, Crimea was annexed and that's totally wrong, but it has complex history and you need to look at the whole string of events which triggered this. Who exactly shot down the plane is still not 100% clear. Even though I think it was on DNR rebels, Ukrainain army wasn't angels as well. Also Russian backed rebels and Russia itself is a big difference (al qaeda was USA backed at some point). And even rebels I'm sure weren't trying to shot down passenger plane, same as when USA shot down passenger plane in 1988 (and George Bush said that he'll never apologize for that, even though it was clear they were responsible for destroying civilian plane). And speaking of USA, at the recent time they attacked a lot of countries (like with Iraq, on false pretense, 0 consequence later) and dropped a lot of bombs, so if we go just by numbers and don't look deeper in the each situation Sweden should be more afraid of USA, as I said before... Politics is hard and dirty, but my original point was, that there's no political or any point of Russia attacking Sweden.

Swenrekcah 9y ago
Fair enough, I'll admit I don't know much about Georgian history, and it's absolutely true that many (most?) large countries have very bloody track records. And you won't hear me defending US oil wars. But Sweden doesn't have to fear the US or UK as they are allies and also neither US nor UK particularly need Sweden as a strategic location. Some people in this thread have provided a number of reasons why Russia could make good use of Sweden in the event of a larger conflict. So I don't think the Swedes are just playing some internal politics in beefing up their defences.
- aquadrop 9y ago
  > Some people in this thread have provided a number of reasons why Russia could make good use of Sweden in the event of a larger conflict I don't really think those are good use, Sweden is pretty large and doesn't really hold water passage alone, it's not like Panama canal or Turkey's Bosporus. But anyway, do you think, but really honestly, that large scale NATO - Russia war is possible? With all those nukes etc. It didn't even happen during cold war, so I don't see any possibility of that. (Also Russians are not that blood-thirsty as western media shows them, so there's 0 desire of that as well).
  - eveningcoffee 9y ago
    I am not a military expert but I my opinion annexing Sweden would be strategically reasonable: 1) attacking Sweden does not trigger NATO article 5 (because Sweden in not in NATO), 2) Sweden will give close proximity to Germany and to the rest of central Europe, 3) Finland would become cut out and would very likely just surrender (or surrender sooner), 4) complete control over Baltic Sea makes helping Baltic states considerably harder by other NATO members. In many cases it makes seriously more sense for Russia to first attack Sweden than countries next to its border. I am not saying that Russia will just do it, but it may seriously consider it within a larger conflict. I therefore believe that there are serious reasons for Sweden to have considerable deterrence against it just happening when Russia just pleases it.
    - aquadrop 9y ago
      > 2) Sweden will give close proximity to Germany and to the rest of central Europe, Russia already has Kaliningrad which is already very close to Germany and the rest of central Europe, for whatever reason you think it's good. It also all involves some larger conflict with western war, large scale war. But it's a suicide for Russia, this won't happen. Russia isn't a blood-thirsty monster that each day thinks how to conquer the world or die trying to... There's a lot of problems with Russia, but mostly poeple of Russia are the victims...
      - eveningcoffee 9y ago
        >Russia already has Kaliningrad It was called Königsberg. It was once Germany but it is no where near Germany today - there is still this pesky Poland in between. Having control over Sweden also helps to deal with the Polish question... Let me stress it again. At current state attacking Sweden probably (and hopefully) will be suicide for Russia, but only thanks to respectable deterrence by Sweden. Otherwise, if Russia would consider attacking one of its western neighbours, it would make much more sense to attack Sweden first. I hope it makes it clear why it is ridiculous to ridicule Sweden for having a serious army. >mostly poeple of Russia are the victims... ... of their own delusions (i.e. NATO countries are trying to encircle them etc)?

Swenrekcah 9y ago

Fair enough, I'll admit I don't know much about Georgian history, and it's absolutely true that many (most?) large countries have very bloody track records. And you won't hear me defending US oil wars. But Sweden doesn't have to fear the US or UK as they are allies and also neither US nor UK particularly need Sweden as a strategic location. Some people in this thread have provided a number of reasons why Russia could make good use of Sweden in the event of a larger conflict. So I don't think the Swedes are just playing some internal politics in beefing up their defences.

aquadrop 9y ago
> Some people in this thread have provided a number of reasons why Russia could make good use of Sweden in the event of a larger conflict I don't really think those are good use, Sweden is pretty large and doesn't really hold water passage alone, it's not like Panama canal or Turkey's Bosporus. But anyway, do you think, but really honestly, that large scale NATO - Russia war is possible? With all those nukes etc. It didn't even happen during cold war, so I don't see any possibility of that. (Also Russians are not that blood-thirsty as western media shows them, so there's 0 desire of that as well).
- eveningcoffee 9y ago
  I am not a military expert but I my opinion annexing Sweden would be strategically reasonable: 1) attacking Sweden does not trigger NATO article 5 (because Sweden in not in NATO), 2) Sweden will give close proximity to Germany and to the rest of central Europe, 3) Finland would become cut out and would very likely just surrender (or surrender sooner), 4) complete control over Baltic Sea makes helping Baltic states considerably harder by other NATO members. In many cases it makes seriously more sense for Russia to first attack Sweden than countries next to its border. I am not saying that Russia will just do it, but it may seriously consider it within a larger conflict. I therefore believe that there are serious reasons for Sweden to have considerable deterrence against it just happening when Russia just pleases it.
  - aquadrop 9y ago
    > 2) Sweden will give close proximity to Germany and to the rest of central Europe, Russia already has Kaliningrad which is already very close to Germany and the rest of central Europe, for whatever reason you think it's good. It also all involves some larger conflict with western war, large scale war. But it's a suicide for Russia, this won't happen. Russia isn't a blood-thirsty monster that each day thinks how to conquer the world or die trying to... There's a lot of problems with Russia, but mostly poeple of Russia are the victims...
    - eveningcoffee 9y ago
      >Russia already has Kaliningrad It was called Königsberg. It was once Germany but it is no where near Germany today - there is still this pesky Poland in between. Having control over Sweden also helps to deal with the Polish question... Let me stress it again. At current state attacking Sweden probably (and hopefully) will be suicide for Russia, but only thanks to respectable deterrence by Sweden. Otherwise, if Russia would consider attacking one of its western neighbours, it would make much more sense to attack Sweden first. I hope it makes it clear why it is ridiculous to ridicule Sweden for having a serious army. >mostly poeple of Russia are the victims... ... of their own delusions (i.e. NATO countries are trying to encircle them etc)?