Russia's foreign minister warns Sweden off Nato

[Crispin]

I've always quite liked Lavrov, he seems to stand up for Russia but not in the reckless way, sadly he'll never be the Russian President.

[Slant]

Point still stands.

Nope, it doesn't. See that middle pillar? That's the bit with our military in it.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok nice stuff, but I don't understand, weren't we talking about poor Sweden? :P

You don't get it. NATO would protect any EU country. That basically means, poor Sweden gets to tap into the military toybox of the US. Figuratively, of course, since the US will be using all the toys, but they'll be using them to defend Sweden on Sweden's behalf. So what Skroe posts about US toys? Relevant enough to appear in this thread here.

It's like people think just because Sweden and Finland are neutral in this that they are without protection. They're not. The EU won't let Finland fight another winter war on their own, even if they looked super capable of kicking Russia's ass the last time we checked.

[Crispin]

Nope, it doesn't. See that middle pillar? That's the bit with our military in it.

- - - Updated - - -



You don't get it. NATO would protect any EU country. That basically means, poor Sweden gets to tap into the military toybox of the US. Figuratively, of course, since the US will be using all the toys, but they'll be using them to defend Sweden on Sweden's behalf. So what Skroe posts about US toys? Relevant enough to appear in this thread here.

It's like people think just because Sweden and Finland are neutral in this that they are without protection. They're not. The EU won't let Finland fight another winter war on their own, even if they looked super capable of kicking Russia's ass the last time we checked.

Surely Sweden will replay WW2



<3

[Skroe]

Nope, it doesn't. See that middle pillar? That's the bit with our military in it.

- - - Updated - - -



You don't get it. NATO would protect any EU country. That basically means, poor Sweden gets to tap into the military toybox of the US. Figuratively, of course, since the US will be using all the toys, but they'll be using them to defend Sweden on Sweden's behalf. So what Skroe posts about US toys? Relevant enough to appear in this thread here.

It's like people think just because Sweden and Finland are neutral in this that they are without protection. They're not. The EU won't let Finland fight another winter war on their own, even if they looked super capable of kicking Russia's ass the last time we checked.

Exactly. Think about it like this too: if Russia attacked Sweden, Russia would be attacking a highly developved, advanced, Western democracy.

It would mean, officially, no one is safe. Nobody. It would change everything from being hypothetical to very, very real.


The US, EU and NATO would consider Russia's actions to be a precursor to an existential threat. There would be no other way to look at it.

Would NATO intervene to save Sweden right away? Perhaps not that day. But within no time at all, NATO would respond, probably by destroying the Russian war machine in a weaker flank and circling back to Sweden later.

It wouldn't be like Ukraine. NATO simply could not turn the other cheek, Sweden being official part of it or not. And this goes for Finland as well.

I mean this is the World War II-lead up, with some different actors, all over again (this scenario I described). It is actually the exact same story.

[Deleted]

Nope, it doesn't. See that middle pillar? That's the bit with our military in it.

EU is a decaying organization that consists of 28 unique countries who`s national interests are not in sync with each other.
In itself, EU has no military force.

It has failed to adress and find solutions to refugee crisis. It`s silly to expect it to do anything about Russian aggression towards Baltics/Poland (when, not if), especially considering the ambigious state of Germany and Southern Europe.

[Deleted]

EU is a decaying organization that consists of 28 unique countries who`s national interests are not in sync with each other.
In itself, EU has no military force.

It has failed to adress and find solutions to refugee crisis. It`s silly to expect it to do anything about Russian aggression towards Baltics/Poland (when, not if), especially considering the ambigious state of Germany and Southern Europe.

Totally different issues. Refugee crisis is not something that has a direct solution. Militarisation of the EU is something that will probably happen in due time.

[Slant]

EU is a decaying organization that consists of 28 unique countries who`s national interests are not in sync with each other.
In itself, EU has no military force.

It has failed to adress and find solutions to refugee crisis. It`s silly to expect it to do anything about Russian aggression towards Baltics/Poland (when, not if), especially considering the ambigious state of Germany and Southern Europe.

What are you talking about? I've said this before and I'll say this again: Anytime a crisis happens to the EU, they emerge stronger from it. The stuff you said? I heard it when we bailed Greece out. Heck, I heard it when the financial crisis started in 2008. Guess what, the EU dealt with the immediate problem (by throwing money at it) and tried to fix the underlying causes in the banking sector and installed a proper safety net in case something like this goes wrong again. That's how the EU operates. It's a new thing, and we're all in one giant test drive, fixing problems as we find them.

And the more years pass, the better we become at it.

The EU is not decaying. It's growing. It's still a baby and it hasn't even begun tapping into the actual potential for reals, yet. Trust me, those 28 countries with national interests? Once one of them is under threat, you can bet your sweet ass that the others will notice. And while you might say the EU doesn't care too much about the northeastern borders, it would put Russia right on the doorstep of the core EU countries, Germany, Benelux and a bit further, France and England. Suddenly, everyone is affected. You'd be surprised how quickly countries diverging national interests magically align once they are under actual threat.

Refugee crisis? One big proof that the EU is working. We are dealing with a super high influx of refugees. And we're dealing well with how chaotic the situation was. Terrorist attacks? We're coping with them just fine. And one thing you can be sure of... Germany won't let anyone invade Poland. You think Germany let those refugees in to make up for WW2?

By that logic, you'd be surprised at the response if Russia so much as spit on Polish soil.

[shise]

Why would they want to join NATO anyway? So the US can drag them into a new conflict every 5 years?

What´s the difference now tho? Sweden is slowly dooming it´culture by taking every single refugee they can, and even can´t, handle.

Don+t take me wrong, but I´m using it as an example of NATO countries... pretty much the same, really, and none even asked them to do so!

[Slant]

Totally different issues. Refugee crisis is not something that has a direct solution. Militarisation of the EU is something that will probably happen in due time.

It is happening already. We have entire brigades made up of units from different countries. On a super small scale, we are already test driving how we would do something like that.

Here's a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...al_cooperation

I've recently seen a piece about German officers working aboard French Helicopter carriers. This is going on all the time without the public taking much notice of it. But just because we don't hear news about it doesn't mean it's not happening. In fact, it's happening so often that it's not considered news anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

What´s the difference now tho? Sweden is slowly dooming it´culture by taking every single refugee they can, and even can´t, handle.

Don+t take me wrong, but I´m using it as an example of NATO countries... pretty much the same, really, and none even asked them to do so!

Just because you're in NATO doesn't mean anyone can drag you into anything. There's only one automatic "dragging" into a conflict, that's Art 5, the common defense clause. Germany has refused to go to Iraq and except a few snide remarks from the US gouvernment, we've had no repercussions whatsoever. When Sweden goes somewhere to blow shit up, it's always because Sweden wants to, not because someone forces them to.

See, that's the difference between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. NATO is actually a voluntary organisation. You can leave anytime you want. Nobody forces anyone to stay in. France did just that. And they came back, because nothing speaks against being in NATO. Unless you're Russia, of course.

[Blobfish]

Lots of Russians like ABBA too

I remember some Russian Oligarch offering them $1 Billion to reform

http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...ribute-concert

[Deleted]

Of course slant. I mean its just the natural evolution of things.

[Slant]

Just illustrating your point. I think it's a good thing, not because of Russia, but because it aligns with the original purpose of the EU. The tighter our cooperation within the EU, including military cooperation, the less there is a chance of one of us starting a war again. Yes, I'm looking at Germany. :P

[Hound Archon]

If Sergey Lavrov were President of Russia, most of the past two years probably would never have happened.

I'd vote for him. I like the guy.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. Think about it like this too: if Russia attacked Sweden, Russia would be attacking a highly developved, advanced, Western democracy.

I don't understand why NATO enforcing is borders is seen as "preventing Russian agression" and Russia just mentioning that it would enforce its borders in response to these actions is "agression".

Who said anything about attacking Sweden?

[Slant]

I'd vote for him. I like the guy.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't understand why NATO enforcing is borders is seen as "preventing Russian agression" and Russia just mentioning that it would enforce its borders in response to these actions is "agression".

Who said anything about attacking Sweden?

The difference is that NATO usually doesn't use rhetoric straight out of The Godfather...

[Marcellus1986]

Funny you talk about short term when your long term solution to a threat that doesn't exist is increasing tensions and subsequently damaging long term security? Want long term security? Look what Italy Germany France and Benelux did a few years after bombing each other. This is political will to achieve peace.

A threat that doesn't exist? Keep telling yourself that you delusional buttercup you.

[Deleted]

The difference is that NATO usually doesn't use rhetoric straight out of The Godfather...

Erm... Have you heard NATO talking about Russia lately. They really aren't using diplomacy at all.

- - - Updated - - -

A threat that doesn't exist? Keep telling yourself that you delusional buttercup you.

There's only one delusional field of buttercups. And its the one you or anyone thinking Russia will attack EU is firmly planted on.

[kaid]

Speaking for Finland, really hope we won't. I have no interest in seeing my sons potentially sent off to some war the Americans decide to start where-ever. There's no point for Russia to attack us as we are, if there ever was a larger conflict (like happened in WW2) where we ended up on different sides NATO couldn't do shit for us anyways.

We're a tiny country next to a huge one, our economy depends on being friends with Russia. To join NATO and piss them off would be idiotic.

It's not like russia has ever been hostile to Finland I am sure it will be fine frankly the US is hauling enough load defending europe already.

[Shibito]

Only an idiot could interpret NATO relationships with its member states as serfdom.

Its Djalil all he does is talk in Russia threads about how west sucks and russia stronk while living in britain

[Deleted]

Its Djalil all he does is talk in Russia threads about how west sucks and russia stronk while living in britain

Disclaimer: none of the above actually happened.

[Deleted]

I'd vote for him. I like the guy.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't understand why NATO enforcing is borders is seen as "preventing Russian agression" and Russia just mentioning that it would enforce its borders in response to these actions is "agression".

Who said anything about attacking Sweden?

Context. Just three years ago, and well before the Ukraine crisis, Russia ran a massive mock bombing run over Sweden. Naturally, the Swedes weren't pleased. Understandably, since then Swedes jump the gun on every aggressive notion (or perception of such) to lambast the Kremlin.

In the wider context, as you may have gathered, that incident is not an isolated one.