4 ms·
That is an argument, but it has to be weighed against the cost of re-acquiring the planes that will either be lost or on permanent loan to Ukraine after the war
by gerikson 4y ago
That is an argument, but it has to be weighed against the cost of re-acquiring the planes that will either be lost or on permanent loan to Ukraine after the war is over. A defeated Russia can still strike back with isolated terror attacks and a Bear with a nuke is a good way to effect those.
Sweden has come a very long way in regards to international security operations since the war began, but there are still Putin-lovers who'd love nothing more than to turn public opinion against Ukraine. Asking Swedes to give up the "crown jewels" of our defense is one way.
- actionfromafar 4y agoI agree it's a hard sell. I have to say though, the cost of re-acquiring the planes is not a simple thing to evaluate, at least if you think strategically what is best for the country. The cash cost is irrelevant compared to the cost to society if we actually had to use them. I guess what I'm trying to say is, using them now has a known, huge cost. Not using them, can have a much higher cost later on. But if we are disregarding what is feasible, and just playing RISK, Sweden should just send its own figher pilots and planes to the Ukraine, right now. It wouldn't be a NATO attack, and what is Russia going to do? Bleed on us? It's either that or nukes, but they always threaten with nukes for everything. I see no signs the Kremlin wants to be martyred themselves, just send others that way.