4 ms·
Stockholm is ~300mi from both St Petersburg and Kaliningrad. That's cheap cruise missile range.
by AWildC182 6y ago
Stockholm is ~300mi from both St Petersburg and Kaliningrad. That's cheap cruise missile range.
- cpach 6y agoAnd we’re connected in a way via the Baltic Sea.
- torwayburger 6y agoIt shouldn't have to be explained at all. It makes perfect sense that the US spends money to protect itself from adversaries it shares no borders with for example. The above argument makes no sense, objectively.
- c-smile 6y ago"It shouldn't have to be explained at all" Why not? People shall chew that gum without any criticism? Otherwise you will have another round of believing in Lebensraum because that corporal did say so ...
- cpach 6y agoI mentioned it as a bit of context since perhaps not all HN readers are familiar with the geography of the area in question. People here are from all around the world so I don’t expect every reader to be familiar with Sweden, Russia and the Baltic Sea. For example, some reader might think ”okey but to reach Sweden, Russia will first have to go through Finland or Norway”. Nope. They simply have to send their military fleet over the sea. Case in point: A lot of Sweden’s military resources during the WW2 and cold war was focused on the island of Gotland, home to less than 60000 persons. If Russia would attack Sweden it would make a lot of sense to first gain control of Gotland and then use that as a base for taking Stockholm, the capital.
- temp-dude-87844 6y agoAlso, the pipelines Nord Stream (2011) and Nord Stream 2 (incomplete) run through Sweden's EEZ. These pipelines deliver Russian-produced natural gas to Germany. Sweden was uneasy about the pipeline, speculating and believing Russia's own suggestions that this would motivate a Russian naval presence, but couldn't find a lasting legal reason to not grant approval.
- c-smile 6y agoIf to follow the logic then Finland or Norway are closer to Russia (have common borders) so they shall increase its spending 10 times more. Or what? Why not just to say "we have outdated forces, let's make them better". Why they need so cheap excuse?
- skinkestek 6y ago> If to follow the logic then Finland or Norway are closer to Russia (have common borders) so they shall increase its spending 10 times more. Finland probably already has higher spending than Sweden, at least that is my guess based on talking to Finnish friends. Norway should IMO increase its spending to avoid repeating the blunders from 1930ies.
- stefanfisk 6y agoFinland actually spends less than Sweden: https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Data%20for%20all%20countries%20from%201988%E2%80%932019%20as%20a%20share%20of%20GDP.pdf https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Data%20for%20all%2...
- skinkestek 6y agoWow, thanks, that was completely unexpected!
- dagw 6y agoAre you sure? the document you linked to shows that Sweden spent 1.1% in 2019, up from 1.0% in 2018 and 2017. While Finland spent 1.5% in 2019, up from 1.4% in 2018 ans 2017
- stefanfisk 6y agoYou’re correct. I see now that I was looking at the wrong year, probably because I was visually scanning the document but didn’t notice that the column headings changed.
- sudosysgen 6y agoSweden doesn't seem to be investing in anti-SEAD. I don't understand how these investments would help against such a threat profile.
- dagw 6y agoOr, more relevant, it's 150 miles straight line across international water from Kaliningrad to Gotland, which is the most likely initial target for an invasion. So Russia can easily get ships and planes to Sweden without crossing any other countries waters or entering their territorial waters.