Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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:

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

Which fighters would that be?

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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...)

 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.

 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.

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?

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.

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

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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

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

Hardly.

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.

 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?

 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.

 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.

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.

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).