6 ms·

Of all the countries Russia fears, Sweden is _way_ towards the bottom of the list. Source: have a brain, am a Russian.

by m0zg 7y ago

jessaustin 7y ago
ISTM the editor wrote this headline. TFA only mentions Russia in the context of being a threat to Sweden. Also why present tense when "Sweden’s two A26s should be completed between 2022 and 2024, at which point it will be possible to gauge whether they can meet their ambitious performance parameters." Or at least that was the case in 2018 when TFA was published; do we have any idea whether construction even started?
- kryptiskt 7y ago
  They are being built and have delivery dates in 2024 and 2025.
lb1lf 7y ago
-The very problem Sweden causes for Russia is described in the story; Sweden can effectively prevent the Russian Baltic fleet from exercising power in the Baltic or, for that matter - keep it holed up in the Baltic sea if the Russian admiralty should order it to brave the Kattegat and Skagerrak straits to venture into the North Sea. The Russians aren’t concerned that Sweden are going to invade them anytime soon; they are concerned that, should the Russians get a bit carried away in their geopolitics-by-force games, the Swedes may be a heck of a nuisance.
- erdos4d 7y ago
  The Russians could also lob a tactical nuke at Malmo and take their ships out into the Atlantic as well. For sure the US isn't going to risk a major US city to defend Sweden, so there's also that. Also, if memory serves, flattening the Copenhagen/Malmo area was considered an obvious Russian opening move during the cold war, if things had gotten hot.
  - kryptiskt 7y ago
    There is no such thing as tactical nuke warfare.
    - erdos4d 7y ago
      Wiki disagrees with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
      - Talanes 7y ago
        Actually, I think the last line of the intro makes their case pretty well: "No tactical nuclear weapon has ever been used in a combat situation." Yes, the weapons exist, but suggesting that they could just be casually employed without massive global repercussions is absurd.
  - lb1lf 7y ago
    -As kryptiskt has already pointed out, tactical nuking... isn't. Besides, if things were getting hot, the Swedes (or anyone!) would be fools to keep their naval assets in port; doubly so when those assets are largely autonomous and easily hidden, like submarines. The Norwegian navy also operates a few diesel-electric subs; in cold war days, the plan was to let the Soviet surface fleet enter the fjords, then give them hell - the point being that just about any Norwegian population center or strategic asset is - drumroll - by a fjord. Hence an invading navy would have to venture into the fjords to support the land forces - the fjords packing subs, coastal artillery, torpedo batteries and lots of observation posts to make the stay interesting. Noone thought the Norwegian armed forces could repel a determined aggressor - the idea was to keep the foe busy (bleeding profusely in the process) until NATO allies could arrive. The other Nordic countries probably had similar strategies.
  - csomar 7y ago
    Nuking Malmo doesn't take out the subs though. These subs can stay there underwater for 6 months sabotaging Russian activity. Nuking their city will give them a good reason to fight until death.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Sweden can do jack shit if Russia _really_ decides it needs to go somewhere, even without the nukes. Their submarine fleet is 4th largest by vessel count, and likely 2nd strongest (after the US) by strength. Much of it is also nuclear, so you don't really know where it is at any given time - a few subs are always parked in the Atlantic just in case. Sweden also has 1/14th the population of Russia, and 1/4th the population of Ukraine. I don't see what Sweden could do with this (im-)balance of power with a few puny conventional submarines and why anyone in the Russian Navy would be afraid of anything they can possibly do.
  - NicoJuicy 7y ago
    It's army is mostly old gear. The USSR was way bigger, stronger and still everything crumbled. Russia is more scared than you think, since their capital literally became in firing range in a short period. The enemy is not an army, but internal unrest.
  - avianlyric 7y ago
    I don’t think a big submarine fleet really helps you if you can’t get them out of port. Have a country next door with a bunch of subs you can’t detect is a threat. Remember these “puny conventional” submarines are the ones that ran circles around an entire US carrier taskforce, the crown jewels of the US navy. I doubt Russia has anything significantly better.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    This is the same Russian Navy that, less than a year ago, managed to sink a floating drydock while refitting their sole aircraft carrier, damaging the latter and keeping it out of commission for longer. Like the rest of the Soviet military assets, it suffered heavily in the collapse of the USSR, but there hasn't been the revitalization effort in Putin's administration that there has been in the Army and Air Force.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Navy does not "refit" anything - shipyards do that. Russia doesn't have much of an above-water Navy - it doesn't really need it. What's the point of spending billions on something that will be sunk wholesale in the first few hours of any armed conflict with any capable adversary? Its submarine fleet, however, is formidable, as are its anti-ship rocket and torpedo capabilities.
dang 7y ago
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN? I feel like we've asked you this a zillion times. It doesn't take much mozgi to figure out how to do this, or why.
- jimbob45 7y ago
  mozgi=brain(s) in russian for anyone else who was wondering.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  This comment criticizing the exaggerated headline seems more substantive than the headline itself.
  - dang 7y ago
    That comment wasn't criticizing the actual headline, which never said Russia fears Sweden. Even if I don't fear you, I might fear your deadly submarines. Headline criticisms are unsubstantive to begin with, but it's particularly unsubstantive to make up a different headline and criticize that instead.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      With all due respect, that's an exceedingly fine distinction to draw, particularly with a HN user whose first language might not be English. If I fear a nation's military, it isn't an abuse of idiom to abbreviate that fear to one of the nation itself. Besides which, as mentioned ITT, when one reads TFA, the only mention of Russia is as a threat to Sweden: "simulating attacks", "infiltrating territorial waters", etc. There is no support in the text for any Russian fear of anything. Let us not go so far overboard in defending sensationalist headline-writing editors.
      - dang 7y ago
        Ok. The main point is: the GP was an obviously bad comment for HN, shouldn't have been posted, and we've cut that user an incredible amount of slack already about posting bad-for-HN comments.
erdos4d 7y ago
Not sure why you are downvoted, I completely agree with you, Russia isn't afraid of Sweden.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  Well perhaps 'afraid' is not the right word to use here ('fear' sounds more neutral). Having a neighbor, and not a particularly friendly one, calls for counter-balancing actions on either side. Simple as that.

Of all the countries Russia fears, Sweden is _way_ towards the bottom of the list. Source: have a brain, am a Russian.

by m0zg 7y ago

Of all the countries Russia fears, Sweden is _way_ towards the bottom of the list. Source: have a brain, am a Russian.

ISTM the editor wrote this headline. TFA only mentions Russia in the context of being a threat to Sweden. Also why present tense when "Sweden’s two A26s should be completed between 2022 and 2024, at which point it will be possible to gauge whether they can meet their ambitious performance parameters." Or at least that was the case in 2018 when TFA was published; do we have any idea whether construction even started?

kryptiskt 7y ago
They are being built and have delivery dates in 2024 and 2025.

lb1lf 7y ago

-The very problem Sweden causes for Russia is described in the story; Sweden can effectively prevent the Russian Baltic fleet from exercising power in the Baltic or, for that matter - keep it holed up in the Baltic sea if the Russian admiralty should order it to brave the Kattegat and Skagerrak straits to venture into the North Sea. The Russians aren’t concerned that Sweden are going to invade them anytime soon; they are concerned that, should the Russians get a bit carried away in their geopolitics-by-force games, the Swedes may be a heck of a nuisance.

erdos4d 7y ago
The Russians could also lob a tactical nuke at Malmo and take their ships out into the Atlantic as well. For sure the US isn't going to risk a major US city to defend Sweden, so there's also that. Also, if memory serves, flattening the Copenhagen/Malmo area was considered an obvious Russian opening move during the cold war, if things had gotten hot.
- kryptiskt 7y ago
  There is no such thing as tactical nuke warfare.
  - erdos4d 7y ago
    Wiki disagrees with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
    - Talanes 7y ago
      Actually, I think the last line of the intro makes their case pretty well: "No tactical nuclear weapon has ever been used in a combat situation." Yes, the weapons exist, but suggesting that they could just be casually employed without massive global repercussions is absurd.
- lb1lf 7y ago
  -As kryptiskt has already pointed out, tactical nuking... isn't. Besides, if things were getting hot, the Swedes (or anyone!) would be fools to keep their naval assets in port; doubly so when those assets are largely autonomous and easily hidden, like submarines. The Norwegian navy also operates a few diesel-electric subs; in cold war days, the plan was to let the Soviet surface fleet enter the fjords, then give them hell - the point being that just about any Norwegian population center or strategic asset is - drumroll - by a fjord. Hence an invading navy would have to venture into the fjords to support the land forces - the fjords packing subs, coastal artillery, torpedo batteries and lots of observation posts to make the stay interesting. Noone thought the Norwegian armed forces could repel a determined aggressor - the idea was to keep the foe busy (bleeding profusely in the process) until NATO allies could arrive. The other Nordic countries probably had similar strategies.
- csomar 7y ago
  Nuking Malmo doesn't take out the subs though. These subs can stay there underwater for 6 months sabotaging Russian activity. Nuking their city will give them a good reason to fight until death.
m0zg 7y ago
Sweden can do jack shit if Russia _really_ decides it needs to go somewhere, even without the nukes. Their submarine fleet is 4th largest by vessel count, and likely 2nd strongest (after the US) by strength. Much of it is also nuclear, so you don't really know where it is at any given time - a few subs are always parked in the Atlantic just in case. Sweden also has 1/14th the population of Russia, and 1/4th the population of Ukraine. I don't see what Sweden could do with this (im-)balance of power with a few puny conventional submarines and why anyone in the Russian Navy would be afraid of anything they can possibly do.
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  It's army is mostly old gear. The USSR was way bigger, stronger and still everything crumbled. Russia is more scared than you think, since their capital literally became in firing range in a short period. The enemy is not an army, but internal unrest.
- avianlyric 7y ago
  I don’t think a big submarine fleet really helps you if you can’t get them out of port. Have a country next door with a bunch of subs you can’t detect is a threat. Remember these “puny conventional” submarines are the ones that ran circles around an entire US carrier taskforce, the crown jewels of the US navy. I doubt Russia has anything significantly better.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  This is the same Russian Navy that, less than a year ago, managed to sink a floating drydock while refitting their sole aircraft carrier, damaging the latter and keeping it out of commission for longer. Like the rest of the Soviet military assets, it suffered heavily in the collapse of the USSR, but there hasn't been the revitalization effort in Putin's administration that there has been in the Army and Air Force.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Navy does not "refit" anything - shipyards do that. Russia doesn't have much of an above-water Navy - it doesn't really need it. What's the point of spending billions on something that will be sunk wholesale in the first few hours of any armed conflict with any capable adversary? Its submarine fleet, however, is formidable, as are its anti-ship rocket and torpedo capabilities.

dang 7y ago

Would you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN? I feel like we've asked you this a zillion times. It doesn't take much mozgi to figure out how to do this, or why.

jimbob45 7y ago
mozgi=brain(s) in russian for anyone else who was wondering.
jessaustin 7y ago
This comment criticizing the exaggerated headline seems more substantive than the headline itself.
- dang 7y ago
  That comment wasn't criticizing the actual headline, which never said Russia fears Sweden. Even if I don't fear you, I might fear your deadly submarines. Headline criticisms are unsubstantive to begin with, but it's particularly unsubstantive to make up a different headline and criticize that instead.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    With all due respect, that's an exceedingly fine distinction to draw, particularly with a HN user whose first language might not be English. If I fear a nation's military, it isn't an abuse of idiom to abbreviate that fear to one of the nation itself. Besides which, as mentioned ITT, when one reads TFA, the only mention of Russia is as a threat to Sweden: "simulating attacks", "infiltrating territorial waters", etc. There is no support in the text for any Russian fear of anything. Let us not go so far overboard in defending sensationalist headline-writing editors.
    - dang 7y ago
      Ok. The main point is: the GP was an obviously bad comment for HN, shouldn't have been posted, and we've cut that user an incredible amount of slack already about posting bad-for-HN comments.

erdos4d 7y ago

Not sure why you are downvoted, I completely agree with you, Russia isn't afraid of Sweden.

Koshkin 7y ago
Well perhaps 'afraid' is not the right word to use here ('fear' sounds more neutral). Having a neighbor, and not a particularly friendly one, calls for counter-balancing actions on either side. Simple as that.