Nothing new. Keep waving your dick Russia you're our best recruiter for NATO.
Sabre; To answer your question. Yes.
Here lets paint a picture of Russia's bullshit. If Sweden Joins NATO and they attack a NATO member they get smacked around by the rest of NATO. It sounds like nothing more then Russian bloviating.
edited 29th Apr '16 5:04:58 AM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?Typical Russian hypocrisy. I don't recall them thanking us for allowing them to exist either.
So, military history trivia: On this day in history, famous race car driver Eddie Rickenbacker scored his first aerial kill in 1918. He would go on to be the American Ace of Aces for WWI.
Unrelated: CAP recruiting video.
Aah, I see why Russia might have made the warning. You see, the committee for researching the possible pros and cons of Finland joining NATO was released today. They even made some comments about tactical nukes and neutron bombs in the Baltic region.
For those wondering I'm going to translate 15 points from the report (from a news article):
2. NATO has estimated that Finland is cooperative and highly capable of integrating into NATO systems.
3. NATO has made clear that Article 5 only applies to memeber states.
4. Finnish membership would cost roughly 3,4 billion euros and would be 1,64% of the GDP. Defence spending will increase regardless as new hardware has to be purchased, joins Finland or no.
5. NATO-membership would strengthen the immediate security of Finland. Article 5 would act as a deterrent.
6. Membership would bring Finland into conflict with Russia for an undetermined time period.
7. The reaction towards Finland would be different than towards Georgia or Ukraine. Russian economic and political reactions could be harsh, but military action unlikely.
8. Membership would not affect the conscription based territorial defence system.
9. In case of a conflict, NATO would expect Finland to contribute to collective defence, especially in the Baltics. However, Finland has its own sovereign territorial defence, which is the most important military resource Finland has. Regardless, Finlands ability to contribute to operations abroad is limited.
10. NATO membership would not include in any circumstance stationing nuclear weapons on Finnish soil.
11. If Finland and Sweden would be members, it would turn the entire Baltic into one strategic region.
12. It would be best if Finland and Sweden would both decide to join together.
13. Problems would occur if Finland and Sweden used different options, as that would leave Finland defenceless.
14. If Sweden joins and Finland does not, Finland would be isolated. Finland would not be protected, and Sweden would have to return to the "Finnish question" of the Cold War. Finland would also have to carefully balance between Russia and NATO (i.e. "finlandization" era).
15. If Finland joins and Sweden does not, Finland would be the frontline with no direct land link to NATO, excluding the mountain road to Norway. The alliance would have considerable difficulties supporting Finland, if not done through Sweden. The Russian Navy would be a constant threat to the sea route to Estonia. NATO might suggest storing military equipment and rotating NATO forces on Finnish soil.
Surely Russia isn't stupid enough to attack Sweden? I literally can't think of a single reason that'd be a good idea. That's the definition of high risk, no reward
edited 29th Apr '16 8:21:36 AM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!Well...
Sweden is a known area where Soviet/Russian and Western (US/British) submarines operate covertly.
edited 29th Apr '16 8:08:27 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
High risk politically and economically, cake walk militarily.
But no, Russia has always been concerned of the safety of Kaliningrad and sea routes to St. Petersburg. The Baltic region completely in the hands of NATO is a nightmare scenario for Russia, militarily speaking. They would see the expansion as a hostile move.
edited 29th Apr '16 8:37:54 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleThen NATO should expand into the Baltics, if keeping Russia out is wrong, I don't want to be right...
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48I dunno, it sorta feels like needless escalation. We gotta keep them in check but we gotta be careful with how tight we put the screws to them.
Oh really when?Do they have nukes in Kalingrad?
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Yes. Some medium-range missiles, in the form of tactical nukes and neutron bombs. Also submarines.
Well you see, that's one of the fears here. Joining NATO will instead invite Russia to retaliate during the membership proceedings, as they feel they're forced to, lest they are brought to a position of weakness against a perceived hostile power.
Who knows what they'll do. Probably sanction us to oblivion or just inflame the refugee situation to the point we're near collapse. We're fucked either way, NATO or no NATO.
edited 29th Apr '16 11:08:10 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele@ Tiara: NATO is in the Baltics — there's a computer centre in one of the States, and there's a rotating Air Defence deployment (as none of the Baltic states have fighters).
Keep Rolling Onthe Soviets thought the same during the Winter War
advancing the front into TV Tropes
And they won. Not easily, but they did.
Sweden is in an absolutely pathetic state in terms of its military. Either they defend Gotland, which is vital for controlling the Baltics or Stockholm. They've already admitted they'd have to default to Stockholm. So they haven't got anything. Whether they'll be alone is another matter.
Swedish soldiers are of high quality and I've no doubt they'll try their best. There just isn't enough of them.
edited 29th Apr '16 11:20:02 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleMoving into the Baltic States was escalation enough. Don't need to add to NATO's liabilities (not that Finland or Sweden are liabilities in the same way the three sisters are, but just expansion in general increases strains no one actually wants).
EDIT-
Since we're on the subject of Baltic Security, thought I'd post this paper from the British government on the subject.
edited 29th Apr '16 11:20:05 AM by FFShinra
Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...Many of the military guys rarely even care about NATO Article 5. They think it's a neat bonus, but would really like that logistics system. Essentially, the thought starts from being alone and staying alone.
Neat. I still hate Ă…land for existing.
edited 29th Apr '16 11:29:57 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleIf Russia doesn't want escalation maybe they should try to stop it themselves by not invading their neighbors and inciting rebellions. I am sorry but Russia started this shit show with the invasion of Georgia and then the Ukraine. The Baltics have every right to seek protection and Russia has no right to react. If they don't want NATO to get bigger they need to get their greedy mits out of the Baltics.
Who watches the watchmen?I'll give you Ukraine but the Russians were well within their rights dealing with the Georgians. The Georgians were the aggressors in that war and didn't have shit for validation.
Oh really when?Garcon: No they weren't. The Russians started it by starting and backing a rebellion just like they did in Ukraine. They were out to seize some territory and the threat of the west jumping in made them cool their heels.
edited 29th Apr '16 12:15:32 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?I'm fairly certain everyone expected something overt to happen, but not for Georgia to start it. Took military intelligence here by surprise.
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleLeaving aside the question of who started what, I think closer links between Finland and Sweden and NATO are almost a given now, unless domestic anti-EU politics derail it. I think we'll also see escalation around K-grad; it's the most probable flashpoint, and it'll be followed by modernization by the Nordic powers.
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.The Russians didn't start that rebellion though I'm sure they were quietly supporting it. I know it doesn't sound quite right but there are more than a few places that genuinely want to join up with the Russians, they're not all plants and astroturf.
And even then the Georgians invaded Russian territory with no solid proof of their involvement or any direct provocation.
For a bit of a comparison, would the Soviets have been justified in invading the mainland US over Afghanistan back in the 80s?
edited 29th Apr '16 12:22:12 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?Eastern Ukraine being one of those places.
Yea, Russia does suport, back, and create astroturf once it gets going, but there not the ones starting these things.
Like Garcon says, some places legitmatly want to join them.
x3
Modernization?
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
So Russia has decided that the only reason other nations exist is because they allow it?
"Yup. That tasted purple."