Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
What the fuck did you just make me watch
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Swedish authorities told to prepare 'in terms of war' amid Russia tensions
- Thread starter KernelPanic
- Start date
- Status
What the fuck did you just make me watch
Even without war they are currently in a very precarious situation. I don't see how they are in a position where they could conquer (and hold) Eastern Europe.
Putin probably knows that the only card he has is fear, not actual warfare (at least not against e.g. Poland).
Never doubt the importance of IKEA. Putin will install strict sanctions for IKEA to instigate a retaliation from the white American middle class
This is simply bullshit.
Do you think NATO will fly their planes from the US?
NATO warplanes are capable of hitting targets deep within Russia from their german and not to mention polish airbases.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
People are VASTLY overestimating Russia in general. Obviously they are a global superpower but it's not like they could just roll over Europe unopposed if they wanted to, even disregarding MAD.
Well Swedish military forces, and the defence ministry are taking the threat of Russian attack on Gotland seriously, but I guess you should go tell them that is actually just "Tom Clancy bullshit".
I'd say good for Sweden to make preparations.
Putin will use anything to weaken Europe, but I think he respects deterrence.
Some European countries could not repel a Russian invasion, but they could make it really costly for them.
I think what Putin fears most of all is rebellion inside Russia. If Russian soldiers started to die it could lead the Russian population to throw him out.
Putin will use anything to weaken Europe, but I think he respects deterrence.
Some European countries could not repel a Russian invasion, but they could make it really costly for them.
I think what Putin fears most of all is rebellion inside Russia. If Russian soldiers started to die it could lead the Russian population to throw him out.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Not overestimating Russia, rather European capability without the US is severely lacking. Take Libya for example the wide gulf on operations from when the US was leading the way with air operations and ship based sorties compared to when the US stepped back from main combat operations. Without significant changes Europe cannot stand up to Russia.
It could be better, but it's something.
Russia is almost bankrupt (granted, the oil prices helped this along). They've burned through almost all of their reserves just to keep the rouble somewhat stable.
It's not about winning, it's about maintaining a defence that makes them unable to roll over you and making an occupation unviable.
He is.
Lovely Salsa
Banned
Thank god for my russian name. They might mistake me for one of them, so I'll be alright
PdotMichael
Banned
You only need to check out what kind of uprades and modernization Russian forces received in the last 2 decades.
The air foce and navy received around 100 Su-30 and Su-35, meanwhile European NATO forces received over 400 Eurofighters, 140 Rafale aircraft and 50 Gripen aircraft in addition to several American models which also include the F-35 in the near future.
You can go through all Russian branches and the gap between Russia and the NATO only gets bigger - because unlike their aircraft the other newer military systems aren't very successful on the export market.
Saucycarpdog
Member
Russia won't invade Ukraine. Like Crimea, it will just fund and support a coup.
The question is what NATO would do about such a thing.
The question is what NATO would do about such a thing.
People thinking there is no threat/danger need to look long term.
I doubt Putin/Russia is likely to do an outright invasion of a NATO country in the near future. They do not want to trigger outright war with NATO, and so are feeling around for what they can do without inciting that.
They know the NATO countries do not want war, and some are ill-prepared for it, so that gives Russia some wiggle room to take actions. Nothing outright from the get-go, but more discrete and destabilizing like with Ukraine. Russia masked its involvement and intentions there, fearing retaliation from NATO. When it was clear NATO was going to do little or nothing and the damage was largely already done, Russia felt comfortable to step out of the shadows.
Putin will continue with similar actions, though possibly emboldened now to be more outright, with non-NATO countries. Quick actions that the slow and debating countries of NATO will be unable to respond to without massive deliberation that when finally done finds Russia has already gotten what it wants. Oh well - there's no point now. It's already over, so token action only is NATO's response so far.
Western nations have become obsessed with discussion and debate, needing to hear 'all sides' and consider things endlessly. Russia is using that against them.
In the short term - with NATO countries, Putin will redouble his efforts at destabilizing them indirectly now that his efforts in the U.S. have been so successful and installed a weak leader. Despite the intention of Putin being so clear, a sizable chunk of the U.S. population even now applauds it. Putin will try to replicate this in as many other NATO countries as he can.
In the longer term, and only once NATO has been destabilized to the point of the alliance coming into question (beyond Trump's wishy-washiness) will Putin test out aggressive action against a NATO country. If the alliance teeters and falls from that push, he will then have open season on that test NATO country, and then who knows how far beyond before the West comes to its senses and bands together to fight him.
This is something like how things will go unless Putin (and any successors like him) are removed from power in Russia, or Putin's efforts receive heavy reactions from the West instead of the weakness they have so far displayed.
I doubt Putin/Russia is likely to do an outright invasion of a NATO country in the near future. They do not want to trigger outright war with NATO, and so are feeling around for what they can do without inciting that.
They know the NATO countries do not want war, and some are ill-prepared for it, so that gives Russia some wiggle room to take actions. Nothing outright from the get-go, but more discrete and destabilizing like with Ukraine. Russia masked its involvement and intentions there, fearing retaliation from NATO. When it was clear NATO was going to do little or nothing and the damage was largely already done, Russia felt comfortable to step out of the shadows.
Putin will continue with similar actions, though possibly emboldened now to be more outright, with non-NATO countries. Quick actions that the slow and debating countries of NATO will be unable to respond to without massive deliberation that when finally done finds Russia has already gotten what it wants. Oh well - there's no point now. It's already over, so token action only is NATO's response so far.
Western nations have become obsessed with discussion and debate, needing to hear 'all sides' and consider things endlessly. Russia is using that against them.
In the short term - with NATO countries, Putin will redouble his efforts at destabilizing them indirectly now that his efforts in the U.S. have been so successful and installed a weak leader. Despite the intention of Putin being so clear, a sizable chunk of the U.S. population even now applauds it. Putin will try to replicate this in as many other NATO countries as he can.
In the longer term, and only once NATO has been destabilized to the point of the alliance coming into question (beyond Trump's wishy-washiness) will Putin test out aggressive action against a NATO country. If the alliance teeters and falls from that push, he will then have open season on that test NATO country, and then who knows how far beyond before the West comes to its senses and bands together to fight him.
This is something like how things will go unless Putin (and any successors like him) are removed from power in Russia, or Putin's efforts receive heavy reactions from the West instead of the weakness they have so far displayed.
ClosingADoor
Member
Onlinehero
Member
Again, that's Gotland, it's not an invasion of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia like Nivesh is describing (i.e. a suicide move), read again. Even Gotland would likely be a stupid move for Russia today.
Still much better than it used to be. They're far away from where they were in the 90s, but it's not exactly in the most robust state. I don't see how their economy wouldn't drastically suffer in case of an actual war.
You're comparing the defense of Libya to Europe. The British will ring the war bells if Russia tries to start shit in Western Europe, even if the US really didn't intervene in this scenario
They would stop with the Baltics. That's all that's needed. If the west folds, NATO and the EU dissolves.
Sure. It's in Swedish, but page 16: "In cooperation with Ireland, Austria and Finland, Sweden succesfully clarified the treaty to ensure that it does not affect national military neutrality".
http://www.regeringen.se/contentass...aget-lagradsremiss-del-1-inklusive-bilaga-1-3
I thought the reason is obvious. The EU is the main economic rival for Russia in Europe. NATO is the main military rival. If they can be destroyed, Russia has greater opportunity to bind eastern European countries closer to them economically and greater military leeway to make sure they don't step out of line. The positive ramificiations for Russia are massive. You keep looking at the war as some kind of pure expense vs immediate gain equation, you need to step back and see how this would reshape Europe in favor of Russia for the rest of the century and beyond. As the Russian "counter-sanctions" to the EU sanctions show, they prioritise security over economic gain.
Again, invading Gotland only makes sense against the backdrop of an invasion of the Baltic states. It would likely precede it.
Are you under the impression that Russia lacks air defences? NATO air would have to run a gauntlet between Russian SAM systems - the most advanced in the world - while simultainously fighting Russian aircraft over Russian territory. It's a nightmare scenario. Not to mention that most airports in Poland are already in range of Russian SAMs and all NATO airports as far as Germany are in range of Russian Iskanders and Kalibr missiles. It's not a cakewalk by any means.
This is categorically untrue. NATO significantly reduced their force strength in Europe up until just recently while Russia greatly increased theirs. You're citing cherry picked examples and leaving how, for instance, the Bundeswehr decreased their tank inventory from over 2,000 in 1990 to barely over 200 today.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/germanys-military-dying-13748
The fact that NATO strength in Europe has dropped off a cliff is so generally accepted that I shouldn't even have to cite a source, but have a few anyway:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2342127
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303802104579449571957045910
My argument is that with the force disparity in the Baltics and Trump as CiC of the US, we have already reached this point.
PdotMichael
Banned
Germany alone has right now 250 Leopard 2 tanks in service upgraded to A6 and A7 - which will increase to over 300 again in the near future.
Meanwhile Russia has 350 T-90 tanks in active service and not that the T-90 tank is even close to the combat value of a single Leopard 2 tank - its autoloader and two part ammunition limits the max penetrator length aka T-90 isn't capable of penetrating any modern NATO tank frontal at any range.
It's incredible how people are overselling Russia's Europa conquering abilities. There is no economic power behind Russia to back it up.
Maybe. I think Putin/Russia knows Trump is an idiot, but I doubt they will be so brazen as to assume he actually will let the U.S. fail the NATO alliance.
Watch for a testing motion from Russia. How NATO/the U.S. responds to that will impact how far along the line of Putin's plans Russia judges itself to be. In the meantime I think they will focus on destabilizing other major partners. The U.K. is already a mess. France is looking wobbly from what I recall, though I don't know that much about their current politics. An election there is coming up soon-ish if I recall? Germany is another major piece to destabilize.
AuthenticM
Member
What does Russia gain by invading its neighbouring countries? The economy does not like political and social instability. Putin should strive to make his economy grow with talks and treaties instead. Or is it not about the economy but a blind patriotic desire to "get back what's ours" despite the cost?
The Leo 2 A6/7 isn't some kind of wonder weapon, it's just a slightly superior tank. In battlefield conditions, any advantage it might have would depend on factors outside its control, like fire support. Russia has the advantage in other areas. One being artillery for fire support. Another being air defense systems and, like I mentioned, medium range tactical missiles - something NATO doesn't even have a counterpart to. Then there's matter of doctrine. Most NATO countries don't practice or plan for large-scale combined arms fighting anymore but focus on peacekeeping and intervention missions instead. Russia does practice for that and has its military geared for that mission. Advantage Russia. And so on and so forth.
And again, I'm not saying that Russia will conquer Europe. They'd get bogged down in Poland even without US intervention. I'm saying they have enough strength to quickly subdue the Baltic countries and that this would have world changing geopolitical consequences and that we need to take this possibility seriously.
The Putin government wants security and to dominate their neighbors more than they want economic growth, because the believe that this will benefit Russia more in the long run. The entire world isn't wedded to the western obsession over growth numbers. Russia takes a more old fashioned view of what a country should be and act like.
Russia has been testing the west since Georgia and we've folded every single time, with the one exception being the sanctions levied after the annexation of Crimea. But yes, they're fully engaged with destabilisation efforts parallel to their military antics too.
Frankfurter
Member
I read an opinion piece about how Russia wants to get rid of Merkel in the Washington Post. What I am wondering though is what they'd like to achieve with that? There is no Trump in Germany. If Merkel doesn't win, the only other party that has a shot at the chancellor is the SPD (social democrats). They'd have to achieve a miracle (say Trump times 100) to get the AfD into power.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Funny, it's like people forget Trump is the president. As long as Russia gives Trump an excuse for letting them do what they want, they can do what they want.
And like I said before, if I was Putin I'd invade some country on inauguration day, or the day before. Being newly sworn-in would give Trump the excuse to take things slowly.
And like I said before, if I was Putin I'd invade some country on inauguration day, or the day before. Being newly sworn-in would give Trump the excuse to take things slowly.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
I understand this argument, but it has not constrained Russia internationally and it also hasn't caused any significant domestic discontent due to privation. Granted, all that could be on the way.
But you have to admit, if all this Syria stuff happened on Trump's watch, he would get killed for it.
Resident_UA
Member
People who are saying that Putin won't do something couldn't be more wrong. I used to think that Russia will never touch Ukraine. We were "brother nations" with Russia. I was wrong. Putin will do whatever he wants and there's very little logic to it. Crimea is a money dump and Russia still took it...
I mean a (discrete) test directly involving a NATO country. Non-NATO countries are pretty vulnerable right now, as it's been made clear NATO will do little or nothing to help them against Russian aggression.
I don't know German politics, so I can't say if there's any sort of 'Trump-like' individual in Germany right now that could be propped up with Russian influence. These changes don't have to be in one fell swoop though. By exerting influence, you can take advantage of the normal evolutions and changes that happen and slowly shift countries and their politics over years until they are warped versions of what they once were.
Though not (necessarily or fully) to external influence, look at how much the GOP in the States has warped over time. The party that hated Russia now cheers Putin.
Depends on your threshold for "test", but Russia have directly provoked the Baltic countries plenty of times. They've trespassed on their territory. The 2007 cyber attacks on Estonia - although never directly proven to be Russian, as such things are difficult to prove (like the current debate of the US election hacks show) were very aggressive. And then there was the case of Eston Kohver, the Estonian intelligence officer who Russia kidnapped from inside Estonia and sentenced to 15 years for espionage against Russia (only to trade him for a Russian spy a year later)
All of these are severe enough to be grounds even for war, yet Russia received no particular pushback on any of them beyond some harsh words.
I guess the next "test" could be little green men in Narva or something, but at that point it would essentially be a declaration of war anyway. No one would believe that they weren't Russian after what we saw in Ukraine.
PdotMichael
Banned
And your endgame for that scenario is that everyone in Europea and in the world would accept it and implode.
That narrative is silly at beast. Especially the time is running out for Putin and Russia.
Well, if the choices are between putting your own country first right now or risking total nuclear annihilation to save Riga, are you really that sure that the US and Europe would jump at the latter? Especially in the current political climate?
The Brits left the EU without even needing an excuse beyond perceived self interest. Western resolve isn't that iron clad, it would seem. And again, the fact that time is running out for Russia is part of the problem. That could be a driving motivator for why they would consider the risk of an invasion escalating to nuclear war to possibly be worth it.
If time is running out, what do they have to lose?
Did you actually watch the video? Are any other racist videos that you would like to share with us?
Onlinehero
Member
And that's what makes it so silly. Russia conquering Gotland is a likely scenario, and yes it has strategic value, but the end goal makes it unlikely. Quoting Försvarsmakten that they're concerned about the defence situation says little when it's their agenda to defend Swedish sovereignty and react against any threat with military power. Their needs are always going to be unrealistic and easily effected even by empty threats from Russia when the scenario is no reliable ally against a superior military might, that’s why the defence is “undercut” compared to what they need. What we really need is defence against misinformation and cyberwarfare as that's a proven method to destabilize a nation (without the risk of yourself getting nuked, yay!), but that’s not your scenario or indeed what the main part of the defence budget is targeted at currently. Another way to look at it is that Russia is happy if they can get their rivals to revert the trend of sinking less of their GDP into defence, furthering the gap economically between east and west. The latter seems to be successful.
At this stage I would expect something impacting on a country-wide scale rather than small incidences like individuals people don't know about. It would likely be to a neighboring nation, and be able to be conducted in such a manner as to fuel the fires of uncertainty and indecision in the responding countries. Not boots on the ground in NATO territory without pretense.
Maybe something to an individual, but of a significant public position?
I honestly don't know. I don't think Russia is interested in annexing NATO countries or things like that. Moreso destabilize and weaken to the point of gaining influence over and directing resources towards itself. Territorial acquisition only when necessary and prudent towards that end.
PdotMichael
Banned
Then why isn't Putin attack the Baltic states and Gotland right now? The amount of NATO states presence will only increase in the next month.
Putin isn't doing anything because it doesn't make sense from his perspective. Ukraine made sense because it was the main base for his black sea fleet. Syria made sense because Russian Navy's only Mediterranean repair and replenishment spot is in Syria.
Herr Schwarz
Banned
Brits leaving the EU doesn't mean they wouldn't defend EU allies. Not even the same thing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked