3 ms·

Sweden has been close to NATO for decades. There is not much to explain. It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. It's d

Sweden has been close to NATO for decades. There is not much to explain. It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. It's different for the baltic states. They were lucky to be able to join NATO without any major trouble from Russia. Russia was still weak in 2004. I think it was in 2007 that Putin felt strong enough to oppose NATO enlargements in eastern Europe (his speech at Munich security conference). Georgia caved in in 2008, they don't like dying for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The nationalists in Ukraine are less pragmatic, even Minsk 2 was too much for them. https://www.thelocal.se/20220314/explained-what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-sweden-joining-nato https://www.thelocal.se/20220314/explained-what-are-the-argu...

mopsi 3y ago
> It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. Swedish military experts think otherwise. If Russia were to invade Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, then one could reasonably expect that they would close the Suwalki gap that connects Lithuania and Poland, to cut the land route between them end rest of Europe, and invade the Swedish island of Gotland, to prevent any supply over sea or air routes. It would require an effort comparable to Normandy landings to liberate the invaded countries; unlikely to happen. Hence the Swedish reaction, to prevent that chain of events from starting in the first place: > During the 20th century, infantry, artillery, air force and naval elements were stationed on Gotland as part of Sweden's defense system, until all permanent military units were stood down in 2005. With tensions in Northeastern Europe and Russia escalating in 2014–2015, the Swedish government has taken a new interest in remilitarizing the island. And in September 2016 regular troops were once again stationed on the island, albeit as an interim measure until a permanent garrison could be reestablished. As of 1 January 2018 Gotland has re-established the Gotland Regiment. And even larger policy shift followed the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, from entry into NATO to establishment of joint air force command for Norway, Sweden and Finland - because the scale of Russian aggression against Ukraine made abundantly clear that none of them would be equipped to fight something like that off alone, and that Putin was willing to unleash it without provocation. The typical "america bad" narrative pushed by useful idiots completely fails to explain these developments.
- hackandthink 3y ago
  Ok, technically the occupation of Gotland would be an invasion of Sweden. My intuition is that in the event of a war with Russia, the Baltic would be a no go area for warships anyway. Attacking ships with missiles and drones is quite popular und succesful at the moment. We can be glad that it was much harder for the Germans in WW II.
me_me_me 3y ago
As a person born in one of the ex soviet countries, i hate the narrative of 'nato expansion'. NONE of those countries were acquired,forced, or coersed by Nato, they all 'beg, borrowed and stole' in order to get into the Nato. Because all of them knew acactly what will happen otherwise. Precisely to avoid what was happening to Ukraine (russia defacto controlling it via puppet politicians) and now being actively invaded by russia. Russia complaining about 'nato expansion', is akin to wife-beater complaining his wife run away and got a restraining order.
- hackandthink 3y ago
  >NONE of those countries were acquired,forced, or coersed by Nato, they all 'beg, borrowed and stole' in order to get into the Nato. I agree and it worked for many countries. Though it did not work any more for Georgia and Ukraine. The Ukrainian nationalist course may have been morally correct, but it was definitely risky and failed.

mopsi 3y ago

> It just does not matter very much, Russia would not have invaded Sweden anyway. Swedish military experts think otherwise. If Russia were to invade Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, then one could reasonably expect that they would close the Suwalki gap that connects Lithuania and Poland, to cut the land route between them end rest of Europe, and invade the Swedish island of Gotland, to prevent any supply over sea or air routes. It would require an effort comparable to Normandy landings to liberate the invaded countries; unlikely to happen. Hence the Swedish reaction, to prevent that chain of events from starting in the first place: > During the 20th century, infantry, artillery, air force and naval elements were stationed on Gotland as part of Sweden's defense system, until all permanent military units were stood down in 2005. With tensions in Northeastern Europe and Russia escalating in 2014–2015, the Swedish government has taken a new interest in remilitarizing the island. And in September 2016 regular troops were once again stationed on the island, albeit as an interim measure until a permanent garrison could be reestablished. As of 1 January 2018 Gotland has re-established the Gotland Regiment. And even larger policy shift followed the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, from entry into NATO to establishment of joint air force command for Norway, Sweden and Finland - because the scale of Russian aggression against Ukraine made abundantly clear that none of them would be equipped to fight something like that off alone, and that Putin was willing to unleash it without provocation. The typical "america bad" narrative pushed by useful idiots completely fails to explain these developments.

hackandthink 3y ago
Ok, technically the occupation of Gotland would be an invasion of Sweden. My intuition is that in the event of a war with Russia, the Baltic would be a no go area for warships anyway. Attacking ships with missiles and drones is quite popular und succesful at the moment. We can be glad that it was much harder for the Germans in WW II.

me_me_me 3y ago

As a person born in one of the ex soviet countries, i hate the narrative of 'nato expansion'. NONE of those countries were acquired,forced, or coersed by Nato, they all 'beg, borrowed and stole' in order to get into the Nato. Because all of them knew acactly what will happen otherwise. Precisely to avoid what was happening to Ukraine (russia defacto controlling it via puppet politicians) and now being actively invaded by russia. Russia complaining about 'nato expansion', is akin to wife-beater complaining his wife run away and got a restraining order.

hackandthink 3y ago
>NONE of those countries were acquired,forced, or coersed by Nato, they all 'beg, borrowed and stole' in order to get into the Nato. I agree and it worked for many countries. Though it did not work any more for Georgia and Ukraine. The Ukrainian nationalist course may have been morally correct, but it was definitely risky and failed.