Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 14:00:02


Post by: KTG17


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42733539

I know we have some peeps here in Sweden, and I haven't heard a lot about this. I know they were in hysterics about a possible Russian sub in their waters a few years ago, and I am sure Russia does some fly-bys, but what is their worry? At the worst, Russia is just poking them. I highly doubt Russia is ever going to invade them.

Anyone know why Sweden isn't a member of NATO? Seems like an easy decision to be made. I know Sweden has worked alongside NATO on some things.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 14:45:44


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Meh, it's just a standard leaflet that was distributed regularly during the Cold War being put back into circulation. It's got a bunch of stuff on how to prepare for natural disasters or other major accidents as well, so it's not made too much of a splash.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 14:56:16


Post by: KTG17


Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 15:01:22


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.

Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 15:13:41


Post by: KTG17


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


Is aligning yourselves with Russia really a consideration? They seem like the bully in the region to be honest.

BTW, we didn't invade South Vietnam. We were there to defend it from the North.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 15:25:21


Post by: ChargerIIC


KTG17 wrote:
Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?


Sweden has a long history of not directly involving themselves in conflicts that don't need to be in. Even in the age of the Swedish Halberdier - when the entire nation was military trained - Sweden would allow it's citizen to hire themselves out (the source for the famous vatician papal guard) but wouldn't directly involve themselves if it could avoid it. You can hem and haw over the world wars, but the policy has largely worked for the country for centuries.

In its defense, despite having pretty advanced military hardware, Sweden doesn't have the population base to make a huge impact in a multi-nation war. It does maintain it's UN commitments, if I remember correctly, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


Is aligning yourselves with Russia really a consideration? They seem like the bully in the region to be honest.

BTW, we didn't invade South Vietnam. We were there to defend it from the North.


They seem like a bully if you don't agree with their politics. They are a strong ally if you do agree, which is how the Ukraine mess got underway. They couldn't agree which was the better ally.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 15:41:08


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 ChargerIIC wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?


Sweden has a long history of not directly involving themselves in conflicts that don't need to be in. Even in the age of the Swedish Halberdier - when the entire nation was military trained - Sweden would allow it's citizen to hire themselves out (the source for the famous vatician papal guard) but wouldn't directly involve themselves if it could avoid it. You can hem and haw over the world wars, but the policy has largely worked for the country for centuries.



That's the SWISS guard, not the Swedish guard. The hint is in the name...


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 15:43:47


Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That


 ChargerIIC wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?


Sweden has a long history of not directly involving themselves in conflicts that don't need to be in. Even in the age of the Swedish Halberdier - when the entire nation was military trained - Sweden would allow it's citizen to hire themselves out (the source for the famous vatician papal guard) but wouldn't directly involve themselves if it could avoid it. You can hem and haw over the world wars, but the policy has largely worked for the country for centuries.

In its defense, despite having pretty advanced military hardware, Sweden doesn't have the population base to make a huge impact in a multi-nation war. It does maintain it's UN commitments, if I remember correctly, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


Is aligning yourselves with Russia really a consideration? They seem like the bully in the region to be honest.

BTW, we didn't invade South Vietnam. We were there to defend it from the North.


They seem like a bully if you don't agree with their politics. They are a strong ally if you do agree, which is how the Ukraine mess got underway. They couldn't agree which was the better ally.


From the top of my head, Sweden was heavily involved in the 30 years war (their intervention set it off on a new course) King Charles invaded Russia, and of course, in two world wars, Sweden was selling weapons to anybody who wanted to buy them.

How is that a history of not getting involved?


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 15:50:54


Post by: jhe90


Better to be prepared than with your pants down at the end of the day.

Sweden are right on some things taking sensible precautions, preperations, and adjustments to make sure you have everything in place should the worst happen is not a bad idea.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 18:03:09


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 ChargerIIC wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?


Sweden has a long history of not directly involving themselves in conflicts that don't need to be in. Even in the age of the Swedish Halberdier - when the entire nation was military trained - Sweden would allow it's citizen to hire themselves out (the source for the famous vatician papal guard) but wouldn't directly involve themselves if it could avoid it. You can hem and haw over the world wars, but the policy has largely worked for the country for centuries.

In its defense, despite having pretty advanced military hardware, Sweden doesn't have the population base to make a huge impact in a multi-nation war. It does maintain it's UN commitments, if I remember correctly, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


Is aligning yourselves with Russia really a consideration? They seem like the bully in the region to be honest.

BTW, we didn't invade South Vietnam. We were there to defend it from the North.


They seem like a bully if you don't agree with their politics. They are a strong ally if you do agree, which is how the Ukraine mess got underway. They couldn't agree which was the better ally.


From the top of my head, Sweden was heavily involved in the 30 years war (their intervention set it off on a new course) King Charles invaded Russia, and of course, in two world wars, Sweden was selling weapons to anybody who wanted to buy them.

How is that a history of not getting involved?


Russia attacked Sweden, not the other way around. We haven't been at war since the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, that's 200 years of neutrality.

And to answer a previous question: the odds of Sweden aligning with Russia is somewhere between no and nooo, I just mentioned it as a theoretically possible "out".


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 18:20:10


Post by: Iron_Captain


Sweden is being like Finland and Switzerland I guess. They just don't want to get dragged into any wars by joining alliances like NATO.
I don't think Sweden will ever align itself with Russia though. Not unless the political climate of Russia would suddenly drastically change. Afaik, Sweden does tend to see Russia as a threat. Maybe that is one more reason they never joined NATO? It would turn them into a target if there was ever a war.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Russia attacked Sweden, not the other way around. We haven't been at war since the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, that's 200 years of neutrality.

Hey, that was only because the Swedish king issued a claim on Russian territory. Russia had to defend itself. Sweden was a pretty aggressive, expansionist empire back in those days.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 19:02:24


Post by: Cream Tea


Sweden has long pursued a policy of neutrality, though there are many in Sweden who argue for joining NATO. The NATO proponents have been more active in the years since the war between Russia and Georgia, and especially since the Russian annexation of Crimea and their war in eastern Ukraine.

In reality, the policy of neutrality hasn't been all that strict, especially in later decades. Indirect Swedish involvement in the Second World War is an interesting and sensitive topic, especially the deal that allowed German troops to travel between Germany and the German-occupied Norway through Sweden. During the Cold War, Sweden was clearly more on the Western side of things, even though official policy was to stay neutral. Sweden's entry into the European Union wasn't very neutral, and the same goes for various agreements signed since then, including a partnership with NATO.

Up until the Napoleonic Wars, Sweden was an active participant in wars on a fairly regular basis, mostly against its close neighbours Denmark, Russia, Poland and several smaller German states. The traditional Swedish animosity toward Russia has its roots here, Russia ended the Swedish Empire with the conclusion of the Great Northern War in 1721, and Russia essentially broke Sweden in half when they conquered Finland in 1809. The second of Sweden's traditional "archenemies", Denmark, was less successful in its wars against Sweden, and large parts of today's southern Sweden historically belonged to Denmark. This, and the fact that Denmark today isn't much of a threat to anybody, is probably why Denmark is seen in such a positive light in Sweden compared to Russia.

Simply put, Sweden's been burned by Russia a number of times, and the fear that it might happen again never went away completely. The fall of the Soviet Union eased tensions, but the recent actions by Putin's regime have been seen as quite concerning by many.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Hey, that was only because the Swedish king issued a claim on Russian territory. Russia had to defend itself. Sweden was a pretty aggressive, expansionist empire back in those days.

Can you provide a source for that? The Great Northern War was initiated by a coalition of Sweden's neighbours, Russia, Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland-Lithuania, and the goal was to strike when the new king Charles XII was still young and hopefully weak. Both Sweden and Russia were expansionist empires, and finding a pretext for war was easy back then.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 20:12:10


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Sweden is being like Finland and Switzerland I guess. They just don't want to get dragged into any wars by joining alliances like NATO.
I don't think Sweden will ever align itself with Russia though. Not unless the political climate of Russia would suddenly drastically change. Afaik, Sweden does tend to see Russia as a threat. Maybe that is one more reason they never joined NATO? It would turn them into a target if there was ever a war.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Russia attacked Sweden, not the other way around. We haven't been at war since the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, that's 200 years of neutrality.

Hey, that was only because the Swedish king issued a claim on Russian territory. Russia had to defend itself. Sweden was a pretty aggressive, expansionist empire back in those days.


Bullgak. It's because Carolus was 15 years old and Peter saw an opening. It wasn't just Russia mind you, Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland-Lithuania joined in on the attack as well. I'm pretty sure none of these were afraid of Swedish claims on Russian territories.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 20:36:04


Post by: Iron_Captain


Cream Tea wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Hey, that was only because the Swedish king issued a claim on Russian territory. Russia had to defend itself. Sweden was a pretty aggressive, expansionist empire back in those days.

Can you provide a source for that? The Great Northern War was initiated by a coalition of Sweden's neighbours, Russia, Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland-Lithuania, and the goal was to strike when the new king Charles XII was still young and hopefully weak. Both Sweden and Russia were expansionist empires, and finding a pretext for war was easy back then.

Sweden was controlling several areas that it had conquered from Russia in previous wars, and the Swedish kings had claims on several other areas that were controlled by Russia. At this point, Russia wasn't expanding, it was seeking to retake its areas that it had lost to Swedish expansionism. That is one of the main reasons Russia decided to strike back at Sweden when the tsar sensed weakness. Not that Russia, wasn't an aggressive expansionist empire back then, it was of course. In fact, Russia has always been and still is an aggressive expansionist empire, something which Sweden thankfully has been able to let go. But this war did not start because of Russian expansionism. From a Russian point of view it started as a defensive war.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Sweden is being like Finland and Switzerland I guess. They just don't want to get dragged into any wars by joining alliances like NATO.
I don't think Sweden will ever align itself with Russia though. Not unless the political climate of Russia would suddenly drastically change. Afaik, Sweden does tend to see Russia as a threat. Maybe that is one more reason they never joined NATO? It would turn them into a target if there was ever a war.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Russia attacked Sweden, not the other way around. We haven't been at war since the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars, that's 200 years of neutrality.

Hey, that was only because the Swedish king issued a claim on Russian territory. Russia had to defend itself. Sweden was a pretty aggressive, expansionist empire back in those days.


Bullgak. It's because Carolus was 15 years old and Peter saw an opening. It wasn't just Russia mind you, Denmark-Norway and Saxony-Poland-Lithuania joined in on the attack as well. I'm pretty sure none of these were afraid of Swedish claims on Russian territories.

Denmark, Saxony and many others all had their own issues with Sweden though. Sweden did not exactly make a lot of friends during its empire-building phase...

Damn it. Now I want to play Europa Universalis IV again, but I am too poor to afford all the new DLC. First world problems


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/19 21:18:29


Post by: Cream Tea


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Sweden was controlling several areas that it had conquered from Russia in previous wars, and the Swedish kings had claims on several other areas that were controlled by Russia. At this point, Russia wasn't expanding, it was seeking to retake its areas that it had lost to Swedish expansionism. That is one of the main reasons Russia decided to strike back at Sweden when the tsar sensed weakness. Not that Russia, wasn't an aggressive expansionist empire back then, it was of course. In fact, Russia has always been and still is an aggressive expansionist empire, something which Sweden thankfully has been able to let go. But this war did not start because of Russian expansionism. From a Russian point of view it started as a defensive war.

I see, you're referring to the Ingrian War, which ended in 1617, 83 years earlier. I don't think it's reasonable to call a war "defensive" if that amount of time has passed since the offence. I'm not trying to take sides in a centuries-old conflict. Even though I'm Swedish I don't approve of the kind of behaviour Sweden engaged in during the time of the Swedish Empire, and neither do I approve of what Russia has been doing during its periods of expansionism. Still, if, for instance, Japan attacked Russia tomorrow trying to take back the Kuril Islands from Russia, you wouldn't call that a defensive war from Japan's perspective, would you? It would clearly be Japanese aggression towards Russia, even though the Soviet Union took them from Japan less than 80 years ago.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/20 00:13:43


Post by: Relapse


 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 ChargerIIC wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?


Sweden has a long history of not directly involving themselves in conflicts that don't need to be in. Even in the age of the Swedish Halberdier - when the entire nation was military trained - Sweden would allow it's citizen to hire themselves out (the source for the famous vatician papal guard) but wouldn't directly involve themselves if it could avoid it. You can hem and haw over the world wars, but the policy has largely worked for the country for centuries.

In its defense, despite having pretty advanced military hardware, Sweden doesn't have the population base to make a huge impact in a multi-nation war. It does maintain it's UN commitments, if I remember correctly, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


Is aligning yourselves with Russia really a consideration? They seem like the bully in the region to be honest.

BTW, we didn't invade South Vietnam. We were there to defend it from the North.


They seem like a bully if you don't agree with their politics. They are a strong ally if you do agree, which is how the Ukraine mess got underway. They couldn't agree which was the better ally.


From the top of my head, Sweden was heavily involved in the 30 years war (their intervention set it off on a new course) King Charles invaded Russia, and of course, in two world wars, Sweden was selling weapons to anybody who wanted to buy them.

How is that a history of not getting involved?


Not to mention the trainloads of Nazi troops Sweden gave access to.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_German_troops_through_Finland_and_Sweden


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/20 00:39:07


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


What do you suppose would have happened if we said no, considering we bordered Germany, Germany and Finland at the time?
That wasn't a "request".


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/20 01:06:42


Post by: Iron_Captain


Cream Tea wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

Sweden was controlling several areas that it had conquered from Russia in previous wars, and the Swedish kings had claims on several other areas that were controlled by Russia. At this point, Russia wasn't expanding, it was seeking to retake its areas that it had lost to Swedish expansionism. That is one of the main reasons Russia decided to strike back at Sweden when the tsar sensed weakness. Not that Russia, wasn't an aggressive expansionist empire back then, it was of course. In fact, Russia has always been and still is an aggressive expansionist empire, something which Sweden thankfully has been able to let go. But this war did not start because of Russian expansionism. From a Russian point of view it started as a defensive war.

I see, you're referring to the Ingrian War, which ended in 1617, 83 years earlier. I don't think it's reasonable to call a war "defensive" if that amount of time has passed since the offence. I'm not trying to take sides in a centuries-old conflict. Even though I'm Swedish I don't approve of the kind of behaviour Sweden engaged in during the time of the Swedish Empire, and neither do I approve of what Russia has been doing during its periods of expansionism. Still, if, for instance, Japan attacked Russia tomorrow trying to take back the Kuril Islands from Russia, you wouldn't call that a defensive war from Japan's perspective, would you? It would clearly be Japanese aggression towards Russia, even though the Soviet Union took them from Japan less than 80 years ago.

Yeah it would. A defensive war is still aggressive as well. A war being 'defensive' only refers to the justification for it. It is a bigger version of the pre-emptive strike.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:What do you suppose would have happened if we said no, considering we bordered Germany, Germany and Finland at the time?
That wasn't a "request".

No. But that doesn't make what Sweden did right. Other countries did not bow to the Nazis, even if it got them invaded.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/20 01:08:29


Post by: Cream Tea


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
What do you suppose would have happened if we said no, considering we bordered Germany, Germany and Finland at the time?
That wasn't a "request".


While the threat of invasion was clearly there, the agreement was cancelled later (it was secret at first, but later became known to the public, and it wasn't very popular) and Germany didn't invade. Norway and Denmark were of greater strategic importance to Germany than Sweden was, which was why they were occupied in the first place while Sweden wasn't. Sweden is also larger than both of those countries, and would have required many more troops to keep under occupation. Germany was clearly happy to utilise Swedish railways, but that doesn't mean they would've necessarily invaded had Sweden refused.

However we put it, Sweden aided Nazi Germany in a way that was clearly in violation of the official neutrality policy. It probably wouldn't had happened if Sweden had had the military might to actually resist a German invasion, but that doesn't make it non-problematic. It was clearly not something the prime minister Per Albin Hansson or the Social Democratic Party were proud of.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yeah it would. A defensive war is still aggressive as well. A war being 'defensive' only refers to the justification for it. It is a bigger version of the pre-emptive strike.


With that kind of reasoning, any war is defensive. As I see it, the party that initiates hostilities is the aggressor, and in the Great Northern War that was the Russian-Danish-Saxon-Polish alliance. Sweden has been the aggressor in plenty of other wars, such as the Hats' Russian War (1741-43), which was fought to reclaim territory conquered earlier by Russia (it failed).


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/20 01:29:41


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


It's possible for something to be both distasteful and the least bad option at the same time. Germany didn't invade because they had Zhukov, Konev, and Rokossovsky to deal with by then.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/20 04:41:50


Post by: daedalus


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's possible for something to be both distasteful and the least bad option at the same time.


I didn't think we were supposed to talk about US politics here anymore.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/20 07:27:22


Post by: Freakazoitt


Can we see that leaflet?


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/20 07:53:23


Post by: tneva82


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.

Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


Of course joining nato isn't actually quarantee of useful help if invaded. Quaranteed increased bills to pay though.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/20 13:22:26


Post by: thekingofkings


just keep sweden the way it is, while they are socialist, they are calm, without it....vikings.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/21 06:03:14


Post by: MrMoustaffa


KTG17 wrote:
Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?

Realistically any conflict where Sweden would want help from NATO is going to be WWIII, and they're going to get "help" from NATO whether they want it or not. It's not like allies really matter in a situation like that, they're dead no matter who they choose to back if the bombs start flying. They're also not bordering Russia like Ukraine is so they're not at as much of a risk for those shenanigans like some other countries would be. I would imagine by staying out of NATO, they keep at least a slightly better relationship with Russia than say the USA does, and if they're like Finland, let's them have access to cheaper/sometimes superior combloc gear, like those MIGs Finland got a ways back.

Joining a group like NATO does have downsides, and by staying out let's them avoid such wonderful things we got up to like the Vietnam war and the War on Terror unless they actually want to join in. It also gives them the freedom to standardize on whatever military equipment they wish, so they don't even necessarily have to use NATO approved rounds like 9mm, 5.56, and .308 if they don't want to.

In addition, just because you're in an alliance like that is no guarantee that they would even get help should some catastrophic conflict kicked off. Poland was Allied with France and Britain at the start of WWII for example and we saw how well that worked for them. No initial help for their invasion, allowed to fight for the allies only to find their country absorbed into the USSR, their fighting essentially being for nothing. We like to think we're better than this kind of thing but let's be honest, if WWIII kicked off and NATO had to make that kind of choice again, countries like Sweden would be the ones most likely thrown under the bus to protect major players like Britain, France, and Germany. So you can't really blame them for being less than enthusiastic to join NATO. Their situation changes little in the worst case scenario and in the most likely scenario, really only drags them into messes they don't want to deal with. If they do decide to get involved in some Podunk brush war, they can always pen a temporary alliance with other countries, so it's not even like they lose out on much.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/21 13:18:42


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 MrMoustaffa wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
Any idea why Sweden isn't in NATO? I know they were pretty neutral during WWII. Are they just avoiding taking sides with anyone?

Realistically any conflict where Sweden would want help from NATO is going to be WWIII, and they're going to get "help" from NATO whether they want it or not. It's not like allies really matter in a situation like that, they're dead no matter who they choose to back if the bombs start flying. They're also not bordering Russia like Ukraine is so they're not at as much of a risk for those shenanigans like some other countries would be. I would imagine by staying out of NATO, they keep at least a slightly better relationship with Russia than say the USA does, and if they're like Finland, let's them have access to cheaper/sometimes superior combloc gear, like those MIGs Finland got a ways back.


That's another reason, really: we make (and sell) a bunch of weapons like the JAS-39 Griffon multirole fighter, the Archer self-propelled artillery, and various types of submarines and stealth corvettes (although the subs is currently quite a convoluted history, don't make me go in-depth (no pun intended) on them). There's no pressure on us to overpay for fighters that don't work, and we can (in theory) avoid being entirely reliant on the US military-industrial complex for national defense.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/21 14:18:32


Post by: Relapse


tneva82 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.

Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


Of course joining nato isn't actually quarantee of useful help if invaded. Quaranteed increased bills to pay though.


Sweden's defense has been basically subsidized by the west, allowing it to allocate funds for social programs over military.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/21 15:26:53


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Relapse wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.

Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


Of course joining nato isn't actually quarantee of useful help if invaded. Quaranteed increased bills to pay though.


Sweden's defense has been basically subsidized by the west, allowing it to allocate funds for social programs over military.


Yeah no. Up until 1997 (in Swedish, but percentages should be self-explanatory) we met the NATO goal of spending 2% of GDP on the defense. We've obviously halved that since, but the idea that NATO historically has "subsidized" Swedish defense is originally a pathetic attempt by people who don't like the fact that Sweden is more socialist than they would like and successful at the same time to grasp at some sort of straws to avoid having to admit that their ideological assumptions are wrong.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 00:17:47


Post by: thekingofkings


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Relapse wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.

Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


Of course joining nato isn't actually quarantee of useful help if invaded. Quaranteed increased bills to pay though.


Sweden's defense has been basically subsidized by the west, allowing it to allocate funds for social programs over military.


Yeah no. Up until 1997 (in Swedish, but percentages should be self-explanatory) we met the NATO goal of spending 2% of GDP on the defense. We've obviously halved that since, but the idea that NATO historically has "subsidized" Swedish defense is originally a pathetic attempt by people who don't like the fact that Sweden is more socialist than they would like and successful at the same time to grasp at some sort of straws to avoid having to admit that their ideological assumptions are wrong.


I think he is more saying that it was a side benefit of being surrounded by countries that are not hostile. Canada could get away with spending next to nothing on defense and would still be fine, it has one neighbor and the US is not hostile.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 13:48:06


Post by: ulgurstasta


Spoiler:
 thekingofkings wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Relapse wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.

Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


Of course joining nato isn't actually quarantee of useful help if invaded. Quaranteed increased bills to pay though.


Sweden's defense has been basically subsidized by the west, allowing it to allocate funds for social programs over military.


Yeah no. Up until 1997 (in Swedish, but percentages should be self-explanatory) we met the NATO goal of spending 2% of GDP on the defense. We've obviously halved that since, but the idea that NATO historically has "subsidized" Swedish defense is originally a pathetic attempt by people who don't like the fact that Sweden is more socialist than they would like and successful at the same time to grasp at some sort of straws to avoid having to admit that their ideological assumptions are wrong.


I think he is more saying that it was a side benefit of being surrounded by countries that are not hostile. Canada could get away with spending next to nothing on defense and would still be fine, it has one neighbor and the US is not hostile.


But thats the thing, up until the early 90's we spent a lot of money on defence. The idea that Sweden disregarded the military for social programs is just flat out false.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 15:30:53


Post by: Frazzled


Interesting. I thought Sweden was part of NATO.

They have some cool tank destroyers.
Neutrality has appeared to have worked for quite some time. Keep it up.

Also this:




What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 16:53:12


Post by: KTG17


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's no pressure on us to overpay for fighters that don't work


Which fighters would that be?


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 18:02:56


Post by: feeder


KTG17 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's no pressure on us to overpay for fighters that don't work


Which fighters would that be?


Privates Steve and Dave. They really don't pull their weight.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 19:00:35


Post by: Orlanth


 Iron_Captain wrote:

No. But that doesn't make what Sweden did right. Other countries did not bow to the Nazis, even if it got them invaded.


And sometimes they carve up Poland in conjunction with them.

Norway didnt cooperate enough and was invaded, I cannot fault Sweden's actions in WW2.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 22:13:26


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Orlanth wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

No. But that doesn't make what Sweden did right. Other countries did not bow to the Nazis, even if it got them invaded.


And sometimes they carve up Poland in conjunction with them.

Norway didnt cooperate enough and was invaded, I cannot fault Sweden's actions in WW2.

To add, not a lot of countries actively opposed the Nazis either. The whole Benelux and Denmark got invaded out of German necessity, not because they were itching to oppose Germany. Between many Eastern European countries ready to side with Germany and Western European countries preferring to stay neutral I don't think Sweden can be faulted that much.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 22:17:29


Post by: thekingofkings


Its not like Sweden has been a great power since the 1700's. Population alone means it doesnt really matter how much they spend, at best they could delay Russia a few days, maybe even weeks, but with no help coming it would matter if they spent 100% of their money on weapons, they would still fall.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 22:23:20


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Relapse wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
We stayed out of NATO because we weren't very interested in the whole invading random nations part (Swedish PM Palme was very much a vocal critic of the Vietnam war, for instance) and because we didn't want to get involved in a war. The fact that Finland have declined to join NATO also plays a part, as we've got a very close co-operation, as well as historical ties, with Finland.

Of course, there's a pretty strong argument to be made that short of building a nuclear arsenal of our own there's no feasible way for us to defend ourselves other than either joining NATO or aligning ourselves with Russia.


Of course joining nato isn't actually quarantee of useful help if invaded. Quaranteed increased bills to pay though.


Sweden's defense has been basically subsidized by the west, allowing it to allocate funds for social programs over military.

Most European countries with social programs spend a considerable amount of GDP on defense during the Cold War. Between 4-3% on average and well above NATO norms (Sweden was also on this level). After the end of the Cold War defense spending dropped noticeably, but so did it for the US. The only reason US defense spending went above 3% (it having dropped to 2.9% from 1999-2001) again is because of the War on Terror. So its not really about preferring social programs over military, both were built up simultaneously. After the Cold War defense spending just dropped and money went elsewhere, but so did it in the US. Other NATO allies just didn't see a reason to increase spending again as a consequence of 9/11.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 22:23:32


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 thekingofkings wrote:
Its not like Sweden has been a great power since the 1700's. Population alone means it doesnt really matter how much they spend, at best they could delay Russia a few days, maybe even weeks, but with no help coming it would matter if they spent 100% of their money on weapons, they would still fall.


The one option is a nuclear umbrella of our own, which carries its own problems.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 22:45:07


Post by: thekingofkings


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
Its not like Sweden has been a great power since the 1700's. Population alone means it doesnt really matter how much they spend, at best they could delay Russia a few days, maybe even weeks, but with no help coming it would matter if they spent 100% of their money on weapons, they would still fall.


The one option is a nuclear umbrella of our own, which carries its own problems.


potentially enough to provoke the very invasion nuclear weapons are designed to deter.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/22 23:18:18


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 thekingofkings wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
Its not like Sweden has been a great power since the 1700's. Population alone means it doesnt really matter how much they spend, at best they could delay Russia a few days, maybe even weeks, but with no help coming it would matter if they spent 100% of their money on weapons, they would still fall.


The one option is a nuclear umbrella of our own, which carries its own problems.


potentially enough to provoke the very invasion nuclear weapons are designed to deter.

That seems highly unlikely, the only power interested in doing so in the region would likely provoke an even larger counterproductive reaction just to prevent Sweden from getting some nukes.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 04:12:01


Post by: Iron_Captain


I don't think Russia would worry much about Sweden getting nukes. Nobody would ever dare to launch a nuke at Russia anyways. Sweden doesn't need to waste a lot of money on nukes of its own though. It is probably one of the countries that is safest from a Russian (or any other) invasion. There is literally nothing there that the Russians or anyone else could possibly want. Or at least, unless you really like forests, moose and Ikea and don't have enough of that in your own country (Russia has more than enough of all three...)


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 11:58:28


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think Russia would worry much about Sweden getting nukes. Nobody would ever dare to launch a nuke at Russia anyways. Sweden doesn't need to waste a lot of money on nukes of its own though. It is probably one of the countries that is safest from a Russian (or any other) invasion. There is literally nothing there that the Russians or anyone else could possibly want. Or at least, unless you really like forests, moose and Ikea and don't have enough of that in your own country (Russia has more than enough of all three...)


On the other hand, Gotland, along with Kaliningrad, is in a good spot for Russian anti-air to prevent NATO air assets coming in across the Baltic to stop a Russian attack on the Baltic states. Plus, we're kind of in the way if Russia wants to go for Denmark and Norway.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 12:05:25


Post by: tneva82


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think Russia would worry much about Sweden getting nukes. Nobody would ever dare to launch a nuke at Russia anyways. Sweden doesn't need to waste a lot of money on nukes of its own though. It is probably one of the countries that is safest from a Russian (or any other) invasion. There is literally nothing there that the Russians or anyone else could possibly want. Or at least, unless you really like forests, moose and Ikea and don't have enough of that in your own country (Russia has more than enough of all three...)


On the other hand, Gotland, along with Kaliningrad, is in a good spot for Russian anti-air to prevent NATO air assets coming in across the Baltic to stop a Russian attack on the Baltic states. Plus, we're kind of in the way if Russia wants to go for Denmark and Norway.


Which assumes Russia is aiming to get whole Europe. Which assumes Russia is willing to eat nukes.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 12:14:04


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


tneva82 wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think Russia would worry much about Sweden getting nukes. Nobody would ever dare to launch a nuke at Russia anyways. Sweden doesn't need to waste a lot of money on nukes of its own though. It is probably one of the countries that is safest from a Russian (or any other) invasion. There is literally nothing there that the Russians or anyone else could possibly want. Or at least, unless you really like forests, moose and Ikea and don't have enough of that in your own country (Russia has more than enough of all three...)


On the other hand, Gotland, along with Kaliningrad, is in a good spot for Russian anti-air to prevent NATO air assets coming in across the Baltic to stop a Russian attack on the Baltic states. Plus, we're kind of in the way if Russia wants to go for Denmark and Norway.


Which assumes Russia is aiming to get whole Europe. Which assumes Russia is willing to eat nukes.


That, in turn, assumes that NATO would launch nukes without Russia having done so first.

Put it this way: it'd rely on Trump, May, and Macron. Trump's crazy and May's incompetent, which leaves Macron; would he be willing to launch nukes at Russia in defense of Norway? Of Denmark?


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 12:46:13


Post by: tneva82


And in defence of German, France etc. US willing to let all those fall? France willing to fall itself?

Russia has no real interest or nothing to gain from denmark unless it's going for full Europe.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 12:55:59


Post by: ulgurstasta


I could see EU/US be willing to sacrifice the baltic states, but I dont think a Germany led EU would be willing to sacrifice Denmark as that would give them a land border with a (in this scenario) super-aggressive Russia


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 14:20:40


Post by: djones520


 ulgurstasta wrote:
I could see EU/US be willing to sacrifice the baltic states, but I dont think a Germany led EU would be willing to sacrifice Denmark as that would give them a land border with a (in this scenario) super-aggressive Russia


The US has a not insignificant amount of forces stationed in the Baltic States right now (FYI, apparently they find being called the Baltic States offensive). I don't think we tend to place our troops in harms way for area's we're willing to sacrifice.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 14:30:30


Post by: KTG17


I don't think the US would want to sit by and watch the Baltic states fall. I mean, if Russia was serious about it, they could over-run the region in a couple of days. The question would be, would the US liberate them? I believe they would want to. The shame is that I don't see the Europeans wanting to.

I see Europe as a loose knit group who is looking out for each of themselves first, who don't think anyone is as important as themselves. So while Germany wouldn't do anything about Ukraine falling, and I doubt would offer much assistance to Poland, they would scream like crazy if they themselves were in danger. I feel that's the way it is across Europe. No one would really want to get their hands dirty unless they themselves were in immediate danger. I think as a continent they economically could be pretty impressive in sanctioning others, but in 2018 I just see Europe as soft. Not trying to troll here, its just the way that I see it.

And I can't fault Europeans. They are, by their nature, made up of numerous different cultures and languages, who rightly so look out for themselves first. Its not like what we have in the US. Imagine if the US was made up of 50 individual countries with their own languages loosely bound together by trade deals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
The US has a not insignificant amount of forces stationed in the Baltic States right now (FYI, apparently they find being called the Baltic States offensive). I don't think we tend to place our troops in harms way for area's we're willing to sacrifice.


Well, for awhile this was the plan in South Korea. We used to have troops stationed pretty much on the DMZ, where anyone with some common sense knew they would be obliterated in the opening days of a major conflict. The idea was, that the loss of those troops would ensure full support of military action by the US public its commitment to war in South Korea. It wasn't until fairly recently were they pulled back farther from the border, which I am glad to see.



What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 14:37:14


Post by: djones520


Well sure, our purpose out here is as a meat shield, and nothing more (I'm in Romania doing the same thing those guys up there are).

We aren't supposed to stop the screaming hordes of the Huns. We're supposed to die gloriously so that our sacrifices will galvanize the nation to open up that can of Grade A Pure Murican Whup Ass.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 14:43:09


Post by: Iron_Captain


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think Russia would worry much about Sweden getting nukes. Nobody would ever dare to launch a nuke at Russia anyways. Sweden doesn't need to waste a lot of money on nukes of its own though. It is probably one of the countries that is safest from a Russian (or any other) invasion. There is literally nothing there that the Russians or anyone else could possibly want. Or at least, unless you really like forests, moose and Ikea and don't have enough of that in your own country (Russia has more than enough of all three...)


On the other hand, Gotland, along with Kaliningrad, is in a good spot for Russian anti-air to prevent NATO air assets coming in across the Baltic to stop a Russian attack on the Baltic states. Plus, we're kind of in the way if Russia wants to go for Denmark and Norway.

Why the hell would Russia want to go for Denmark and Norway? Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore which wanted to spread the World Revolution across Europe. The Russian Federation has zero interest in any parts of Europe that are not former parts of Russia/USSR.

 djones520 wrote:
Well sure, our purpose out here is as a meat shield, and nothing more (I'm in Romania doing the same thing those guys up there are).

We aren't supposed to stop the screaming hordes of the Huns. We're supposed to die gloriously so that our sacrifices will galvanize the nation to open up that can of Grade A Pure Murican Whup Ass.

Gloriously? I don't think American troops in the Baltics will get a lot of time to be heroic. It is not like the Russians are going to be announcing their attack. That is not the Russian way. The Russians will make use of maskirovka, probably by disguising the invasion force as a military exercise (the Russian army is predictable in that it is often going to be using deceit). American troops will suddenly find themselves hit by cruise missiles and that is the end of that. Would probably still succeed in making the US of A really damn angry though. Therefore an invasion of the Baltics isn't something Russia is going to do unless they feel they can get away with it. A war between the US and Russia is not something anyone wants. I think that is the real reason those American troops are there in the Baltics. The Pentagon knows that Russia isn't going to be risking a war, and therefore even a marginal American presence is very effective in keeping the Baltics safe. Romania is pretty safe anyhow. Nothing there that Russia wants.

KTG17 wrote:
I don't think the US would want to sit by and watch the Baltic states fall. I mean, if Russia was serious about it, they could over-run the region in a couple of days. The question would be, would the US liberate them? I believe they would want to. The shame is that I don't see the Europeans wanting to.

I see Europe as a loose knit group who is looking out for each of themselves first, who don't think anyone is as important as themselves. So while Germany wouldn't do anything about Ukraine falling, and I doubt would offer much assistance to Poland, they would scream like crazy if they themselves were in danger. I feel that's the way it is across Europe. No one would really want to get their hands dirty unless they themselves were in immediate danger. I think as a continent they economically could be pretty impressive in sanctioning others, but in 2018 I just see Europe as soft. Not trying to troll here, its just the way that I see it.

And I can't fault Europeans. They are, by their nature, made up of numerous different cultures and languages, who rightly so look out for themselves first. Its not like what we have in the US. Imagine if the US was made up of 50 individual countries with their own languages loosely bound together by trade deals.


You are pretty much right. Just like Russia can't afford to risk a war with the US, so can European states not afford to risk a war with Russia. Europe isn't unified, militarily it consists of a jumble of small, disparate and mostly neglected armies that do not really coordinate with each other all that much. So militarily, it would be very difficult for European countries to make a fist and effectively resist Russia. If Russia would roll into the Baltics, European countries would probably bark and growl a lot but not really bite. Exception may be Poland which for historical reasons is terrified of Russia and will probably do anything it can to stop them. Europe can really hurt Russia economically through sanctions, but Russia being Russia, if they went as far as invading the Baltics the economy is no longer of any concern.
This is why (Eastern) European countries such as the Baltic states are so eager to have a presence of American troops. They know that Europe isn't going to be much of help, whereas the US can commit much more to defending its allies and is actually capable of standing up to Russia militarily and deterring them.

 djones520 wrote:
 ulgurstasta wrote:
I could see EU/US be willing to sacrifice the baltic states, but I dont think a Germany led EU would be willing to sacrifice Denmark as that would give them a land border with a (in this scenario) super-aggressive Russia


The US has a not insignificant amount of forces stationed in the Baltic States right now (FYI, apparently they find being called the Baltic States offensive). I don't think we tend to place our troops in harms way for area's we're willing to sacrifice.

Only Estonia finds being called 'Baltic' offensive afaik. Apparently they prefer to be called Finnish (it is because they speak a language related to Finnish). Latvia and Lithuania are fine with being called Baltic afaik. They also speak Baltic languages.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 14:50:37


Post by: KTG17


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore which wanted to spread the World Revolution across Europe. The Russian Federation has zero interest in any parts of Europe that are not former parts of Russia/USSR.


Uhh, no.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 15:13:15


Post by: Iron_Captain


KTG17 wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore which wanted to spread the World Revolution across Europe. The Russian Federation has zero interest in any parts of Europe that are not former parts of Russia/USSR.


Uhh, no.

Please explain your in-depth knowledge of Russia's plans for world domination.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 15:25:34


Post by: Freakazoitt


They think that the Russians are something like robots INVADE KILL EXTERMINATE with no reason required


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 15:32:33


Post by: djones520


 Freakazoitt wrote:
They think that the Russians are something like robots INVADE KILL EXTERMINATE with no reason required


Hardly.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 15:42:19


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Today I learned that Marine le Pen is a politician in an ex-USSR nation. I mean, sure, I like flipping France to Communism in Hearts of Iron as much as the next guy, but come on.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 15:55:26


Post by: Iron_Captain


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Today I learned that Marine le Pen is a politician in an ex-USSR nation. I mean, sure, I like flipping France to Communism in Hearts of Iron as much as the next guy, but come on.

Afaik, Marine le Pen has never been a politician in any country but France? I don't think she even has any non-French nationality. In what country of the former USSR has she been a politician?


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 16:01:10


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Today I learned that Marine le Pen is a politician in an ex-USSR nation. I mean, sure, I like flipping France to Communism in Hearts of Iron as much as the next guy, but come on.

Afaik, Marine le Pen has never been a politician in any country but France? I don't think she even has any non-French nationality. In what country of the former USSR has she been a politician?


I was hoping you could explain that to me actually.

A: Russia had no European interests outside the ex-USSR.

B: Russia loaned money to Marine le Pen's party.

C: le Pen has only ever been active in France.

From these three facts I drew the conclusion that France is, in fact, an ex-Soviet nation in Europe.

EDIT: And this is where you deny that the loans had anything to do with the Russian state whatsoever and the conversation grinds to a screeching halt l.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 16:21:52


Post by: Iron_Captain


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Today I learned that Marine le Pen is a politician in an ex-USSR nation. I mean, sure, I like flipping France to Communism in Hearts of Iron as much as the next guy, but come on.

Afaik, Marine le Pen has never been a politician in any country but France? I don't think she even has any non-French nationality. In what country of the former USSR has she been a politician?


I was hoping you could explain that to me actually.

A: Russia had no European interests outside the ex-USSR.

B: Russia loaned money to Marine le Pen's party.

C: le Pen has only ever been active in France.

From these three facts I drew the conclusion that France is, in fact, an ex-Soviet nation in Europe.

EDIT: And this is where you deny that the loans had anything to do with the Russian state whatsoever and the conversation grinds to a screeching halt l.

Oh, that is easy. Front National is more friendly to Russia than most political parties in France. Russia wishes to see a party friendly to Russia in power in France because that will be good for business between the two countries and it will probably give Russia more diplomatic negotiating power with the EU. So yeah, Russia does have interests in France, but they are nothing different from the interests any country has in any other country of the world. It doesn't mean that Russia has any interest in invading France. That is the kind of interest we were talking about. In case you missed it, this discussion was about military/security interests regarding NATO, Sweden and Russia, not about business or other interests.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 16:36:48


Post by: Disciple of Fate


Just to note, even during the Cold War European armies weren't meant to take the war to the Soviets but move into defensive positions and hold out for US reinforcements to arrive. Budgets are going back up after Ukraine and training more heavily emphasizes inter-state warfare again. While still not super prepared, Germany, France and the UK still have sizeable militaries that together are quite significant. Of course Spain, Italy, Poland and other larger European nations aren't that far behind the big European three.

Besides its very likely Europe would join the US if NATO needs so. Afghanistan got all NATO countries afaik to go along even though that was a much less clear cut case of article 5. An invasion of the Baltics, both a NATO and EU member is a slippery slope that can't be so easily ignored as Ukraine sort of is.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 19:03:50


Post by: Frazzled


This thread has gone for two pages without discussion of the Swedish Bikini Team.

Because...Sweden is awesome.

(am I the only one who thinks Russian is the scariest language ever? When Grandpa talked to me as a kid in Russkie it sounded like he was threatening to invade a country).


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 19:22:10


Post by: feeder


 Frazzled wrote:
This thread has gone for two pages without discussion of the Swedish Bikini Team.

Because...Sweden is awesome.

(am I the only one who thinks Russian is the scariest language ever? When Grandpa talked to me as a kid in Russkie it sounded like he was threatening to invade a country).


Alternatively, he could have used it to get into Jamie Lee Curtis's pants

It's all in the inflection.




What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 20:07:35


Post by: Iron_Captain


 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just to note, even during the Cold War European armies weren't meant to take the war to the Soviets but move into defensive positions and hold out for US reinforcements to arrive. Budgets are going back up after Ukraine and training more heavily emphasizes inter-state warfare again. While still not super prepared, Germany, France and the UK still have sizeable militaries that together are quite significant. Of course Spain, Italy, Poland and other larger European nations aren't that far behind the big European three.

Besides its very likely Europe would join the US if NATO needs so. Afghanistan got all NATO countries afaik to go along even though that was a much less clear cut case of article 5. An invasion of the Baltics, both a NATO and EU member is a slippery slope that can't be so easily ignored as Ukraine sort of is.

The big difference in going to war against terrorists in Afghanistan and going to war against Russia is that the first carries virtually no risk to European countries while the second is likely to result in a total disruption of European society as cities are reduced to rubble and millions of military and civilian lives are lost. European countries are going to be a lot more hesitant (or rather, entirely unwilling, because the notion that countries like Germany or France would ever want to get involved in that is simply ridiculous in the modern world) to joining in a destructive war against Russia than they are to joining in an inconsequential war against terrorists in some far-away place. I think it is likely that European countries would limit themselves to providing logistical support to the US, and that the US would have to do all the fighting. Of course, Poland is the exception. I could see them willing to risk a war if they get enough support from the US.
Luckily, it is unlikely they will have to face this dilemma in the near future, because as I said, Russia is unlikely to invade anything that is garrisoned by US troops. A war with the US is not something the Kremlin is willing to risk yet.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 20:25:49


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


The "yet" part in that statement is why European countries so heartily dislike Russia at the moment. Everyone knows Russia hasn't invaded yet not because it theoretically couldn't, but because the threat of military defeat is too great. Couple that with a history of authoritarianism and it boggles the mind that Russia can't see why most of its European neighbours are sceptical at best.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 20:41:29


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Just to note, even during the Cold War European armies weren't meant to take the war to the Soviets but move into defensive positions and hold out for US reinforcements to arrive. Budgets are going back up after Ukraine and training more heavily emphasizes inter-state warfare again. While still not super prepared, Germany, France and the UK still have sizeable militaries that together are quite significant. Of course Spain, Italy, Poland and other larger European nations aren't that far behind the big European three.

Besides its very likely Europe would join the US if NATO needs so. Afghanistan got all NATO countries afaik to go along even though that was a much less clear cut case of article 5. An invasion of the Baltics, both a NATO and EU member is a slippery slope that can't be so easily ignored as Ukraine sort of is.

The big difference in going to war against terrorists in Afghanistan and going to war against Russia is that the first carries virtually no risk to European countries while the second is likely to result in a total disruption of European society as cities are reduced to rubble and millions of military and civilian lives are lost. European countries are going to be a lot more hesitant (or rather, entirely unwilling, because the notion that countries like Germany or France would ever want to get involved in that is simply ridiculous in the modern world) to joining in a destructive war against Russia than they are to joining in an inconsequential war against terrorists in some far-away place. I think it is likely that European countries would limit themselves to providing logistical support to the US, and that the US would have to do all the fighting. Of course, Poland is the exception. I could see them willing to risk a war if they get enough support from the US.
Luckily, it is unlikely they will have to face this dilemma in the near future, because as I said, Russia is unlikely to invade anything that is garrisoned by US troops. A war with the US is not something the Kremlin is willing to risk yet.

No, the big difference between Afghanistan and Russia is that Afghanistan poses no risk, but Russia might have you on its shortlist of next victims. Its the security dilemma that falls heavily in favour of teaming up and standing up to the agressor next door.

Afghanistan more being brought up as an invasion of a state in response to a group who's actions led to the invocation of article 5. So the level of support for invading a country halfway around the world, that had only a small part in the responsibility of 9/11 at best, shows European countries try to uphold their commitment even in the vaguest of circumstances.

We have heard all the arguments about unwilling before, hell they even bandied them about before WW2: "Why die for Danzig?". Problem is that letting the Russians 'have' the Baltics so to speak is that it presents the slippery slope of where it will end. Sure Germany might be less excited to intervene, but Poland wouldn't. But once Poland goes it becomes a serious interest to Germany (because if Poland loses suddenly Russia is Germany's next door neighbour again) and so on. Providing logistical support for the whole US army alone would already present a de-facto declaration of war, one that Russia can't ignore as Europe would function as a safe base for the US that the Russians couldn't touch. But it is also in the best geopolitical interest to Europe to make sure the US wins and Russia loses in an invasion of the Baltics situation. The idea of all being in it together disappeared for a while after 1989, but its making a comeback. Thinking Europe would just step aside is a very unrealistic expectation if the wider consequences of not intervening are taken into account.

But I agree on that it won't happen anywhere in the near future. Direct conflict is of no interest to either party. Ukraine is a safe option so to speak, but the Baltics aren't worth it.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 20:47:48


Post by: Iron_Captain


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "yet" part in that statement is why European countries so heartily dislike Russia at the moment. Everyone knows Russia hasn't invaded yet not because it theoretically couldn't, but because the threat of military defeat is too great. Couple that with a history of authoritarianism and it boggles the mind that Russia can't see why most of its European neighbours are sceptical at best.

Oh, I am pretty sure most Russians perfectly understand why many Europeans don't like them. Certainly the Kremlin does. The feelings are mutual, after all. Russians fear a Western invasion, the West fears a Russian invasion. I guess this has been this way since at least the 19th century:


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 21:14:01


Post by: feeder


Interesting cartoon. Europeans are all people while Russia is an animal. And who is the chap on the porch having a wonderful time watching the hostilities supposed to represent?


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 21:16:01


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 feeder wrote:
Interesting cartoon. Europeans are all people while Russia is an animal. And who is the chap on the porch having a wonderful time watching the hostilities supposed to represent?

Based on the flag (Chinese dragon on a yellow field) and the caricature on the porch I would guess Qing dynasty China.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/23 21:29:55


Post by: Cream Tea


That cartoon is about the Russian attempts to seize parts of Manchuria from Qing China to expand its influence in the East. The other powers are standing between the Russian bear and its target. The original title is "The Latest Chinese Wall", and it's clearly anti-Russian, hence why only Russia is an animal.

In the end, the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 was fought largely as a result of both countries having an interest in Manchuria. Japan won, which ended the Russian ambitions depicted in the cartoon for the time being.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/24 02:40:35


Post by: thekingofkings


 Frazzled wrote:
This thread has gone for two pages without discussion of the Swedish Bikini Team.

Because...Sweden is awesome.

(am I the only one who thinks Russian is the scariest language ever? When Grandpa talked to me as a kid in Russkie it sounded like he was threatening to invade a country).


try hungarian, ....and as for sweden, IKEA is a reason to invade, to halt it once and for all!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore which wanted to spread the World Revolution across Europe. The Russian Federation has zero interest in any parts of Europe that are not former parts of Russia/USSR.


Uhh, no.

Please explain your in-depth knowledge of Russia's plans for world domination.


Anna Kournikova...thats pretty much it,.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "yet" part in that statement is why European countries so heartily dislike Russia at the moment. Everyone knows Russia hasn't invaded yet not because it theoretically couldn't, but because the threat of military defeat is too great. Couple that with a history of authoritarianism and it boggles the mind that Russia can't see why most of its European neighbours are sceptical at best.

Oh, I am pretty sure most Russians perfectly understand why many Europeans don't like them. Certainly the Kremlin does. The feelings are mutual, after all. Russians fear a Western invasion, the West fears a Russian invasion. I guess this has been this way since at least the 19th century:


maybe because russia is rarely the one who starts the fight??


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/24 15:47:59


Post by: ChargerIIC



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "yet" part in that statement is why European countries so heartily dislike Russia at the moment. Everyone knows Russia hasn't invaded yet not because it theoretically couldn't, but because the threat of military defeat is too great. Couple that with a history of authoritarianism and it boggles the mind that Russia can't see why most of its European neighbours are sceptical at best.

Oh, I am pretty sure most Russians perfectly understand why many Europeans don't like them. Certainly the Kremlin does. The feelings are mutual, after all. Russians fear a Western invasion, the West fears a Russian invasion. I guess this has been this way since at least the 19th century:


maybe because russia is rarely the one who starts the fight??


Russia did start that one - not that there were [sarcasm]any problems[/sarcasm] stemming from imperial Japan's involvement that would come back to bite the world in the nether regions later.

Your stance surprises me, because having talked to Russians about the very subject, the people tend to view Russia's 'strong' actions on the world stage very favorable. Compared to the traditional American stance, Russians seem to take pride in the power their country can exert. They certainly have a more favorable view of the Syrian war than Americans do. Likewise it's hard to find anyone who feels like Russia shouldn't take the entrity of the Ukraine or Georgia just to demonstrate how much you shouldn't mess with their country.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/24 19:06:28


Post by: jouso


 djones520 wrote:
 ulgurstasta wrote:
I could see EU/US be willing to sacrifice the baltic states, but I dont think a Germany led EU would be willing to sacrifice Denmark as that would give them a land border with a (in this scenario) super-aggressive Russia


The US has a not insignificant amount of forces stationed in the Baltic States right now (FYI, apparently they find being called the Baltic States offensive). I don't think we tend to place our troops in harms way for area's we're willing to sacrifice.


So do a rotating contingent of other NATO armies.

Plus we're running their air policing, too (currently it's Italian typhoons, who took over a couple weeks ago from Belgian F-16s).



What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/24 22:05:21


Post by: Iron_Captain


 ChargerIIC wrote:

Your stance surprises me, because having talked to Russians about the very subject, the people tend to view Russia's 'strong' actions on the world stage very favorable. Compared to the traditional American stance, Russians seem to take pride in the power their country can exert. They certainly have a more favorable view of the Syrian war than Americans do. Likewise it's hard to find anyone who feels like Russia shouldn't take the entrity of the Ukraine or Georgia just to demonstrate how much you shouldn't mess with their country.

They do. Russia a very militaristic place. A lot of Russians are great fans of having the Russian army invade places just to show everyone who is boss. But most Russians also understand that this kind of behaviour doesn't really make other people like them. Not that they care about being disliked of course. Most Russians tend to dislike many other countries as well, for various reasons.
It does vary from place to place though. Muscovites for example are (relatively speaking) very liberal and cosmopolitan, while the place where I grew up, Sevastopol, is probably one of the most xenophobic, hardcore nationalist places in all of Russia. Seriously, when the referendum happened, people started to go out in the streets to beat up Tatars and Ukrainians. I am ambivalent towards Russian nationalism. One one hand I I love Russia and want to see it restored to greatness, I take pride in displays of Russian strength. But on the other hand I am really frightened by the more extreme things that happened in Crimea and how quickly nationalism of any kind can devolve to extremism and hate of others. I am half Dutch and have lived in the West for more than half of my life. What if once they are done with the Tatars they decide that I am 'foreign' too and come after me next? (okay, that may not be entirely likely, but you get the point.)


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/24 22:40:47


Post by: jouso


 Iron_Captain wrote:

They do. Russia a very militaristic place. A lot of Russians are great fans of having the Russian army invade places just to show everyone who is boss. But most Russians also understand that this kind of behaviour doesn't really make other people like them. Not that they care about being disliked of course. Most Russians tend to dislike many other countries as well, for various reasons.
It does vary from place to place though. Muscovites for example are (relatively speaking) very liberal and cosmopolitan,


So much that they look down on people from "lesser" parts of Russia to the point of racism. God forbid if you look too Asian or from the Caucasus.

I know urban elitism is a thing in all major cities, but Moscow takes the prize.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/24 22:57:37


Post by: Iron_Captain


jouso wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:

They do. Russia a very militaristic place. A lot of Russians are great fans of having the Russian army invade places just to show everyone who is boss. But most Russians also understand that this kind of behaviour doesn't really make other people like them. Not that they care about being disliked of course. Most Russians tend to dislike many other countries as well, for various reasons.
It does vary from place to place though. Muscovites for example are (relatively speaking) very liberal and cosmopolitan,


So much that they look down on people from "lesser" parts of Russia to the point of racism. God forbid if you look too Asian or from the Caucasus.

I know urban elitism is a thing in all major cities, but Moscow takes the prize.
Looking down on people from other parts of Russia is not limited to Muscovites though. And it should be noted that Muscovites themselves are looked down upon in most of the rest of the country. Really, it is kinda a miracle that Russia ever managed to become and stay a unified country. Which is why we need a strong leader like Putin to keep it that way.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/24 23:18:47


Post by: jouso


 Iron_Captain wrote:

Really, it is kinda a miracle that Russia ever managed to become and stay a unified country.


Looking down on those hicks with the funny accent is OK but openly hating foreigners is the real thing.



What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/25 02:16:07


Post by: LordofHats


 Frazzled wrote:
This thread has gone for two pages without discussion of the Swedish Bikini Team.

Because...Sweden is awesome.

(am I the only one who thinks Russian is the scariest language ever? When Grandpa talked to me as a kid in Russkie it sounded like he was threatening to invade a country).


IDK. I've always thought that anything in translated into German inherently suddenly becomes much more sinister sounding


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/25 03:51:05


Post by: thekingofkings


 ChargerIIC wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The "yet" part in that statement is why European countries so heartily dislike Russia at the moment. Everyone knows Russia hasn't invaded yet not because it theoretically couldn't, but because the threat of military defeat is too great. Couple that with a history of authoritarianism and it boggles the mind that Russia can't see why most of its European neighbours are sceptical at best.

Oh, I am pretty sure most Russians perfectly understand why many Europeans don't like them. Certainly the Kremlin does. The feelings are mutual, after all. Russians fear a Western invasion, the West fears a Russian invasion. I guess this has been this way since at least the 19th century:


maybe because russia is rarely the one who starts the fight??


Russia did start that one - not that there were [sarcasm]any problems[/sarcasm] stemming from imperial Japan's involvement that would come back to bite the world in the nether regions later.

Your stance surprises me, because having talked to Russians about the very subject, the people tend to view Russia's 'strong' actions on the world stage very favorable. Compared to the traditional American stance, Russians seem to take pride in the power their country can exert. They certainly have a more favorable view of the Syrian war than Americans do. Likewise it's hard to find anyone who feels like Russia shouldn't take the entrity of the Ukraine or Georgia just to demonstrate how much you shouldn't mess with their country.


Lots of Russians have differing opinions, there are well over 100 million of them. But the Issues in China were not caused by Russia. Europeans had been carving it up for quite a while, so had the US. Something about that cartoon, there is a reason all those other soldiers were there facing the bear, and it was not out of any compassion for China. The Russo-Japanese war was just waiting to happen, unfortunately for Russia it was not at a really optimal time, and its duration was short enough for Japan to win. Throughout its history Russia has been invaded more often by its neighbors than the other way around. I have no love for Russia or its people, but I do respect them, they are proud and rightly so.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/25 05:50:52


Post by: Freakazoitt


The Russians are tired of being "proud" of tanks, bombs and guns. Yes, this is a return of strength after the collapse of the 90s. But weapons must serve the people, not the oligarchs. What is the use of saber rattling, if this does not help improve your their life? People's thoughts are too confused by the lack of ideology. We are celebrating the victory parade. But we condemn Stalin's time, planned economic system and bolshevism. We officially have a government that destroyed old one with the tanks in 1993. On November 7 in Moscow, we had a parade in honor of the parade that was in 1941. But it can not be called a parade in honor of the 1917 revolution. This is hushed up. Parade in honor of parade? Pfff... It turns out that pieces of our history are torn out. Putin talks about patriotism. But why patriotism, if the government does not provide its functions properly and life is more like an under occupation?
Well, only fools and fascists in such conditions will rejoice if Russia openly yearns for war with someone just for the sake of war.
Of course, with the exception of efforts to oppose the NATO bases surrounding it and countries influenced by the Russophobic US policy which specifically provoke conflict.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/25 14:51:46


Post by: Disciple of Fate


 thekingofkings wrote:
Lots of Russians have differing opinions, there are well over 100 million of them. But the Issues in China were not caused by Russia. Europeans had been carving it up for quite a while, so had the US. Something about that cartoon, there is a reason all those other soldiers were there facing the bear, and it was not out of any compassion for China. The Russo-Japanese war was just waiting to happen, unfortunately for Russia it was not at a really optimal time, and its duration was short enough for Japan to win. Throughout its history Russia has been invaded more often by its neighbors than the other way around. I have no love for Russia or its people, but I do respect them, they are proud and rightly so.

To be fair, the decades before and after the Russo-Japanese war weren't optimal either. Russia sort of underwent its own 'sick man of Europe' phase due to the lack of modernization/industrialisation for such war efforts. On that note even if the war had lasted longer its unlikely Russia would have won from Japan. The war was virtually next door to Japan while Russia had to transport everything over the Trans-Siberian railroad. Now the Japanese war effort was far from perfect, but it would have taken some effort for them to make themselves lose. Both sides were pretty overstretched by the end of the conflict, but Russia was in no position to really make a comeback in 1905 (kind of reflected in WW1). In fact, the Tsar even prolonged the war for just long enough to suffer some more heavy defeats.

Also has been invaded more often by its neighbors than the other way around? What period are you thinking of? Or just from roughly the Muscovy period? Because taken from Tsarist Russia the number of invasions versus being invaded are pretty even.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/26 12:54:45


Post by: Spetulhu


 Freakazoitt wrote:
The Russians are tired of being "proud" of tanks, bombs and guns. Yes, this is a return of strength after the collapse of the 90s. But weapons must serve the people, not the oligarchs. What is the use of saber rattling, if this does not help improve your their life?


But sadly that saber rattling (and occasional military interventions) is what you're being offered. Soviet military hardware is nothing if not durable so the great leaders can easily use some of it in a foreign land to make the people forget that there's stuff to fix at home. That fixing would cost real cash though, not Soviet Rubles. It's cheaper to get involved in a little foreign conflict compared to giving war veteran widows a jar of salted gherkins each month.

It's even sadder when you live next door and actually meet ordinary Russians who happen to work here or own a little summer place. Generous, helpful and polite people, to my knowledge, even if my Russian language is non-existent. Fine people put to shame by leaders needing to show power by causing troubles in poorer neighboring countries, to put it politely. We all would be better off if Russia was run well, especially the poor Russians who have to put up with all the mismanagement! It could use it's power so much better than wasting men and gear on silly border conflicts, but the leaders saw a greater benefit (for them) in making a show of force of the great Russian Empire! And yet almost all of the former USSR republics and Warsaw Pact members still have reason to work with Russia in some way - why not make that way interesting and worth doing instead of showing muscles and forcing them? Who knows how great chiefs in Kremlin think...


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/26 21:06:04


Post by: Iron_Captain


Spetulhu wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
The Russians are tired of being "proud" of tanks, bombs and guns. Yes, this is a return of strength after the collapse of the 90s. But weapons must serve the people, not the oligarchs. What is the use of saber rattling, if this does not help improve your their life?


But sadly that saber rattling (and occasional military interventions) is what you're being offered. Soviet military hardware is nothing if not durable so the great leaders can easily use some of it in a foreign land to make the people forget that there's stuff to fix at home. That fixing would cost real cash though, not Soviet Rubles. It's cheaper to get involved in a little foreign conflict compared to giving war veteran widows a jar of salted gherkins each month.

It's even sadder when you live next door and actually meet ordinary Russians who happen to work here or own a little summer place. Generous, helpful and polite people, to my knowledge, even if my Russian language is non-existent. Fine people put to shame by leaders needing to show power by causing troubles in poorer neighboring countries, to put it politely. We all would be better off if Russia was run well, especially the poor Russians who have to put up with all the mismanagement! It could use it's power so much better than wasting men and gear on silly border conflicts, but the leaders saw a greater benefit (for them) in making a show of force of the great Russian Empire! And yet almost all of the former USSR republics and Warsaw Pact members still have reason to work with Russia in some way - why not make that way interesting and worth doing instead of showing muscles and forcing them? Who knows how great chiefs in Kremlin think...

Sadly enough, Russia would need to fundamentally change before that can become reality. Russia has never been run well, it has been focused on military might ever since a nice Muscovite called Ivan Grozny tore down the Veche bell of Novgorod, symbol of participatory government and legal rights, to establish a ruthless, hegemonic empire based on conquest (he also massacred the entire city). Many Russian leaders have come and gone, empires have risen and fallen, but the basic nature of Russian government has never changed since that time. And the ordinary people? Well, the vast majority of Russians approve of their leaders. Putin is the most popular leader in Russian history... They say every nation gets the government it deserves, and I am afraid for Russia that is true. As my grandfater always said: "Kiryushka! Can you believe it? The whole country is going to hell! We are a strong people! Strong people need strong leaders!" after which he would inevitably go in a long rant about how kids like me don't get disciplined enough anymore. Great man he was...


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/26 23:01:54


Post by: thekingofkings


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Spetulhu wrote:
 Freakazoitt wrote:
The Russians are tired of being "proud" of tanks, bombs and guns. Yes, this is a return of strength after the collapse of the 90s. But weapons must serve the people, not the oligarchs. What is the use of saber rattling, if this does not help improve your their life?


But sadly that saber rattling (and occasional military interventions) is what you're being offered. Soviet military hardware is nothing if not durable so the great leaders can easily use some of it in a foreign land to make the people forget that there's stuff to fix at home. That fixing would cost real cash though, not Soviet Rubles. It's cheaper to get involved in a little foreign conflict compared to giving war veteran widows a jar of salted gherkins each month.

It's even sadder when you live next door and actually meet ordinary Russians who happen to work here or own a little summer place. Generous, helpful and polite people, to my knowledge, even if my Russian language is non-existent. Fine people put to shame by leaders needing to show power by causing troubles in poorer neighboring countries, to put it politely. We all would be better off if Russia was run well, especially the poor Russians who have to put up with all the mismanagement! It could use it's power so much better than wasting men and gear on silly border conflicts, but the leaders saw a greater benefit (for them) in making a show of force of the great Russian Empire! And yet almost all of the former USSR republics and Warsaw Pact members still have reason to work with Russia in some way - why not make that way interesting and worth doing instead of showing muscles and forcing them? Who knows how great chiefs in Kremlin think...

Sadly enough, Russia would need to fundamentally change before that can become reality. Russia has never been run well, it has been focused on military might ever since a nice Muscovite called Ivan Grozny tore down the Veche bell of Novgorod, symbol of participatory government and legal rights, to establish a ruthless, hegemonic empire based on conquest (he also massacred the entire city). Many Russian leaders have come and gone, empires have risen and fallen, but the basic nature of Russian government has never changed since that time. And the ordinary people? Well, the vast majority of Russians approve of their leaders. Putin is the most popular leader in Russian history... They say every nation gets the government it deserves, and I am afraid for Russia that is true. As my grandfater always said: "Kiryushka! Can you believe it? The whole country is going to hell! We are a strong people! Strong people need strong leaders!" after which he would inevitably go in a long rant about how kids like me don't get disciplined enough anymore. Great man he was...


I like him already.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/27 05:08:43


Post by: Freakazoitt


I think Putin is not a very strong leader. In words, he says one thing, but does something else. He's a shield between the various forces outside and inside, which he holds back and does not let him clash with each other.
In order to be strong, he lacks a clear political line. It is blurred, his actions are not predictable. Censorship and the creation of the Russian Guard say that he is preparing for something.
A strong politician must have allies. Now everyone around is angry. In response - Swaying weapons and anti-American demagoguery. And did not the Russian government destroy its country, its heritage, destroy its army, its idea and principles, and give the Americans their allies, territories before that? What can Russia offer to other countries now? Nothing. What did Putin do in 15 years? Nothing.
World media is completely lost and controlled from America. They can say anything, and this is immediately perceived as truth. Attempts to show another point of view or refutation are called as "fake from Kremlin bots". Obviously, the exercises in Sweden are preparations for a fictional Russian invasion. The reason is not required. In media, Russia is already so blackened that it is already perceived as an "evil" of legends that does not require the motivation of its actions. It is obvious that in a hypothetical conflict, Sweden will be used by NATO. And if there is Sweden, Sweden also uses Finland.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/27 05:47:17


Post by: motyak


Let's keep "America is in control of everything convincing the world Russia are evilx10000000" posts to a minimum. Or better yet, to 0. This thread is already a trainwreck of random ramblings about whether or not Russia is going to invade and I'm tempted to close it, don't tip my hand.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/29 20:18:10


Post by: KTG17


I think you might have to define 'strong' too. Its fairly easy to be a dictator. Anyone who is ruthless and doesn't care about people can be one. Lock up opposition, censor the media, etc etc, all easy to do if you lack morality.

Being strong is able to face criticism. Be open about your successes and failures, air the dirty laundry so to speak. Allow others to suggest, and even replace you, and for you to go gracefully. That is a strong person.

So no, Putin is not a strong person. He is as frail and weak of a person as he looks.

Some people seem to admire him. I do not. I admire those like Washington who could have very well been our first King, but never forgot what he was fighting for, and turned his sword into Congress.

On the other hand, Putin is so corrupt that he HAS to remain in office for his own well being. God forbid a more liberal leader were to come into power and review what Putin has stolen from his country, Putin's ass would probably end up in jail. He knows this. The Chinese communist party knew this during the Tiananmen Square riots, and the fear of themselves being arrested is why they sent in the troops. Decisions like these do not show a strong individual, but a fearful one.



What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/29 21:19:27


Post by: Iron_Captain


Frail and weak people do not become head of the secret services and leader of Russia. Navigating the byzantine labyrinth of Russian politics to reach the top requires a very strong person. The system automatically weeds out the weak. It is a system in which you simply can not admit failure. To do so would be suicide.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/29 21:37:48


Post by: KTG17


Then he is a slave to the system.

It is far easier to dismiss someone's life with a wave of a hand than it is to opening debate the pros and cons of your decisions. Putin takes the easy one.






What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/30 08:20:40


Post by: Blackie


KTG17 wrote:
I think you might have to define 'strong' too. Its fairly easy to be a dictator. Anyone who is ruthless and doesn't care about people can be one. Lock up opposition, censor the media, etc etc, all easy to do if you lack morality.

Being strong is able to face criticism. Be open about your successes and failures, air the dirty laundry so to speak. Allow others to suggest, and even replace you, and for you to go gracefully. That is a strong person.

So no, Putin is not a strong person. He is as frail and weak of a person as he looks.

Some people seem to admire him. I do not. I admire those like Washington who could have very well been our first King, but never forgot what he was fighting for, and turned his sword into Congress.

On the other hand, Putin is so corrupt that he HAS to remain in office for his own well being. God forbid a more liberal leader were to come into power and review what Putin has stolen from his country, Putin's ass would probably end up in jail.



You perfectly described Donald Trump with your post.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/30 14:21:07


Post by: KTG17


You are saying if Trump had he freedom to do as he chose? I guess we can speculate.

its a good thing the US public is strong enough to ensure presidents don't have that power.

I guess that also says something about Russia.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/30 14:25:31


Post by: djones520


Saw a story today about how Russia has outlawed the only real candidate against Putin from running. How... quaint.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/30 14:46:17


Post by: Iron_Captain


KTG17 wrote:
You are saying if Trump had he freedom to do as he chose? I guess we can speculate.

its a good thing the US public is strong enough to ensure presidents don't have that power.

I guess that also says something about Russia.

Russia and the US have very different systems. The US is a democracy. A very flawed one, but a democracy nonetheless. Russia on the other hand is a police state. It may be democratic on the surface, but underneath that surface every single thing is controlled by the secret services. Good luck trying to oppose the government when at least two of your neighbours are spies for the secret service and reporting your every move so that the authorities can find something to throw you in jail. That is a big difference between the US and Russia. In the US you can bluntly oppose the government. But in Russia, if you oppose the government without working with the secret services, that gets you in jail or a nice little spot on the local graveyard. What is the difference between the constitution of the US and the constitution of Russia? Both of them guarantee freedom of speech. The difference is that the US constitution also guarantees freedom after the speech...
Government, opposition, activists, press. The secret services want to control everything. And if they don't control you they will get rid of you. You can't blame it on the people if there is nothing the people can do about it.
So yes, Putin is a slave to the system. Everyone in Russia is, and this has always been so.

 djones520 wrote:
Saw a story today about how Russia has outlawed the only real candidate against Putin from running. How... quaint.

Navalny, yes. Funny thing though is that it wasn't even necessary. That shows just how much the secret services feel the need to control everything. The one candidate they do not control gets banned, even though he is so unpopular he never stood a chance against Putin either way. All of the other people are in the secret services' pockets so they could replace Putin without anything significant really changing. Not that they will replace Putin. Putin is still massively popular with the people. Although if the only remaining independent polling center of Russia is an indication, it does seem his popularity is past the high point.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/30 14:56:44


Post by: A Town Called Malus


KTG17 wrote:
You are saying if Trump had he freedom to do as he chose? I guess we can speculate.

its a good thing the US public is strong enough to ensure presidents don't have that power.

I guess that also says something about Russia.


The aspects that describe a weak person apply 100% to Trump whether or not he is a dictator. He is already incapable of taking criticism, he attempts to censor the media (labelling those he dislikes fake news and not letting them into press conferences etc.), he is certainly not open about his failures (still awaiting those tax returns).


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/30 15:00:39


Post by: jouso


 Iron_Captain wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
You are saying if Trump had he freedom to do as he chose? I guess we can speculate.

its a good thing the US public is strong enough to ensure presidents don't have that power.

I guess that also says something about Russia.

Russia and the US have very different systems. The US is a democracy. A very flawed one, but a democracy nonetheless. Russia on the other hand is a police state. It may be democratic on the surface, but underneath that surface every single thing is controlled by the secret services. Good luck trying to oppose the government when at least two of your neighbours are spies for the secret service and reporting your every move so that the authorities can find something to throw you in jail. That is a big difference between the US and Russia. In the US you can bluntly oppose the government. But in Russia, if you oppose the government without working with the secret services, that gets you in jail or a nice little spot on the local graveyard. What is the difference between the constitution of the US and the constitution of Russia? Both of them guarantee freedom of speech. The difference is that the US constitution also guarantees freedom after the speech...
Government, opposition, activists, press. The secret services want to control everything. And if they don't control you they will get rid of you. You can't blame it on the people if there is nothing the people can do about it.
So yes, Putin is a slave to the system. Everyone in Russia is, and this has always been so.


This might be a bit unpopular in these boards, but since I started traveling regularly to Russia in the fallout of the Yeltsin years people were tired of obscure oligarchs running the show and shameless corruption.

Russia now is a Putinarchy which is awful by most developed world standards but still an improvement over the 90s to early 00's

I have no doubt that when the younger generation who weren't traumatised over those years will demand more participation, but it has to come from within as external interference will be met with stubborn resistance.



What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/31 08:58:52


Post by: ulgurstasta


KTG17 wrote:


its a good thing the US public is strong enough to ensure presidents don't have that power.

I guess that also says something about Russia.


Real classy blaming the situation Russia is in today on the Russian people


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/01/31 15:00:17


Post by: KTG17


Who else would I blame? The Hungarians or Romanians?


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/03 03:08:27


Post by: thekingofkings


KTG17 wrote:
Who else would I blame? The Hungarians or Romanians?


The Romans, after all, what have they ever done for us?!?


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/03 06:02:55


Post by: djones520


 ulgurstasta wrote:
KTG17 wrote:


its a good thing the US public is strong enough to ensure presidents don't have that power.

I guess that also says something about Russia.


Real classy blaming the situation Russia is in today on the Russian people


Ummm... so are you saying an outside force should intervene to effect change in Russia? Cause that's about the only way I'm seeing this.

Russia needs to change from the inside, so if it's not, is is the Russian people who are responsible.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/03 11:08:53


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


To be fair, the way the West treated Russia after the USSRs collapse is partially to blame.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/03 12:11:33


Post by: jouso


 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
To be fair, the way the West treated Russia after the USSRs collapse is partially to blame.


With the collaboration of Russia's own government who just played along and folded to all the West demands because they were too busy dismantling the whole state apparatus to share among their oligarch buddies.



What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/04 00:59:09


Post by: Iron_Captain


jouso wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
To be fair, the way the West treated Russia after the USSRs collapse is partially to blame.


With the collaboration of Russia's own government who just played along and folded to all the West demands because they were too busy dismantling the whole state apparatus to share among their oligarch buddies.


The oligarchs were the state. The Yeltsin government was not a democratic government (they were the government that shelled the white house and the democratic government in it with tanks). Just because the corrupt Yeltsin clique was happy to sell the country out to the West does not relieve the West of its guilt. That is like saying the West is not guilty of the slave trade because African warlords cooperated with Western slave traders.
The 1990's was the perfect opportunity for the West to help the Russian people build up a stable, democratic state. Instead of helping however, the West only made things worse. The West should have opposed Yeltsin and press for democratic reforms, while guiding Russia on transitioning to a capitalist economy. Instead, it just made deals with the oligarch mafia. Which as we all know resulted in the siloviki stepping in and breaking the oligarchs, resulting in the police-state Russia we all know and love today. Then the West did a whole lot more of stupid stuff and now Russia hates the West more than the Soviet Union did... Congratulations. Considering how much the Soviets hated the West, that is quite an achievement.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/04 01:06:23


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


 thekingofkings wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
Who else would I blame? The Hungarians or Romanians?


The Romans, after all, what have they ever done for us?!?


The aqueducts?


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/04 01:37:12


Post by: Cream Tea


Russia has had a really tragic history, and the 20th-21st centuries have been very clear examples of that so far. The First World War was disastrous for Russia, the Russian revolution deepened the wounds even further, and then the USSR oppressed its people on an unprecedented scale. Partly because it could, 20th century technology made oppression possible that was previously unimaginable.

The Second World War also hit Russia hard, yes they won, but the price was terribly high. Once again the world was shown what can be accomplished with numerical superiority, and what it looks like when you really make use of that advantage.

The Cold War wasn't very fun for the West either, with the threat of nuclear war never far away, but the Russians had both that and the disaster that was Soviet society and economics.

And when the USSR finally crumbled, what did they get? The oligarchs, and what Iron_Captain describes above. I can see why the Russians like Putin, because Putin's Russia isn't bad in the same way as Yeltsin's Russia. I can see it, but I don't have to like it. I think Russia deserves better than Putin. After all these years of tsars, serfdom, war, dictatorship, more war, oligarchs, chaos and repression, they could use a break.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/04 01:55:29


Post by: Ketara


 Iron_Captain wrote:
The West should have opposed Yeltsin and press for democratic reforms, while guiding Russia on transitioning to a capitalist economy. Instead, it just made deals with the oligarch mafia. Which as we all know resulted in the siloviki stepping in and breaking the oligarchs, resulting in the police-state Russia we all know and love today.


So....because the West didn't force itself on Russia (like after WW1) and make it mimic Western models of government, its partially their fault it turned out the way it did? Since when was it the job of the West to 'guide Russia'? Why can't its own people do that? Nobody had to 'guide' Britain, France, America, or any of that lot to being a capitalist economy; we all just kind of groped our way towards it collectively. Some took longer than others, but it's not the West's job to do it for Russia, any more than it is Latin America's. Russia has spent a lot of time and money making sure they had enough nukes that nobody would meddle domestically. The fact that the Russian people defaulted to yet another totalitarian regime isn't the fault of their neighbours.

I suspect the truth is that the Russian cultural psyche is simply very partial to overblown xenophobia and strongman authoritarianism. Putin is just the latest in a very, very long line. If the West somehow pressured Putin out of office tomorrow, there'd be another one hanging up his coat in the lobby five minutes later. The Germans and Japanese had similar inclinations once upon a time; but it got beaten out of them so thoroughly, and their countries subsequently micromanaged to such a degree for a period of time that it hasn't come come back. Without that sort of direct action, the Russian people will simply have to grope their way to democracy and capitalism like the rest of the world had to. If indeed, they want to. Which I suspect they don't.

If they carry on the way they are now though; Russia will end up in the same position it was in under the Romanovs. Little liked, backward, and rich in nothing but pride. It's already two thirds of the way there. Jacking up your military spending North Korea style to try and pretend you're bigger than you are doesn't fool anyone; not when the Netherlands and Belgium combined could match it if they really felt like it. Christ, Britain or France alone could spend double what Russia does if they had a mind to. They just prioritise things like healthcare and pensions instead.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/04 05:50:34


Post by: Freakazoitt


del


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/04 08:18:24


Post by: djones520


 Freakazoitt wrote:
Without that sort of direct action, the Russian people will simply have to grope their way to democracy and capitalism like the rest of the world had to.

But in the Soviet Russia, capitalism and democracy seize power, make dictatorship and steal all peope's property.





I'm not sure if you're trying to make a joke, it's a failure of translation, or if you're serious...


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/04 10:03:23


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Iron_Captain wrote:
Just because the corrupt Yeltsin clique was happy to sell the country out to the West does not relieve the West of its guilt.


It wasn't the west buying control of Russia's resources at basement prices thanks to Russian corruption. It was Russians buying them.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/04 13:19:26


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Ketara wrote:

I suspect the truth is that the Russian cultural psyche is simply very partial to overblown xenophobia and strongman authoritarianism.



Actually, history is explained through dialectical materialism, not through race mysticism.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/04 13:41:14


Post by: Ketara


Rosebuddy wrote:
 Ketara wrote:

I suspect the truth is that the Russian cultural psyche is simply very partial to overblown xenophobia and strongman authoritarianism.



Actually, history is explained through dialectical materialism, not through race mysticism.


Who mentioned race? You're so sharp you'll cut yourself.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/04 14:03:50


Post by: Rosebuddy


 Ketara wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 Ketara wrote:

I suspect the truth is that the Russian cultural psyche is simply very partial to overblown xenophobia and strongman authoritarianism.



Actually, history is explained through dialectical materialism, not through race mysticism.


Who mentioned race? You're so sharp you'll cut yourself.


You started going on about how The Essence of The Russian disposes them to xenophobia. It's exactly the part I quoted. That's a bunch of nonsense.


What the heck is going on in Sweden? @ 2018/02/04 14:21:06


Post by: Ketara


Rosebuddy wrote:

You started going on about how The Essence of The Russian disposes them to xenophobia. It's exactly the part I quoted. That's a bunch of nonsense.


If you're conflating what I'm saying with concepts of race, you don't quite grasp what's under discussion well enough to be dubbing anything 'nonsense'. Seriously guv, in the several times I've discussed things with you before, you've always had a really bad habit of jumping to project what you /think the other party is saying without stopping to reread and check if it actually is. And you're doing it again here.

I'm making no comments about 'race'. I'm talking about culture; the more ephemeral social constructs which are regularly shared (and just as often not) between people of different ethnicities across a specific geographic region. In this case, Russia. The concept of the historical dialectic is really quite peripheral to what I'm talking about. To put it in a metaphor, you're looking at the equation 'A+B=C' and arguing about the theory behind the formula whilst I'm discussing what makes up 'A'.