Russia's foreign minister warns Sweden off Nato

[stevenho]

Are you or are you not having new weapons and troops being sent to your countries?

And you think this has anything to do with being "afraid" of a russian invasion?

[Deleted]

interconnectivity breeds conflict?! Where in the name of the holy fucking trinity did you pull THAT from?!

Educating myself by reading books and theories that have previously suggested the idea of interconnected economies. And the subsequent failure of such ideas when they smash against the hard reality of national interests. Which is exactly what what`s happening right now.

Start with Norman Angell and analysis of his works applied to 21st century.

You are clearly an ignorant human being - start today and maybe in a few years you`ll realize how wrong you were.

[Deleted]

-


Like what exactly? Operational combat readiness of Eurofighters that is below 50%? German APC`s that use brooms as training props for troops?



So what is the EU doing. Explain yourself and bring examples.


False. Read some Normal Angell and his ''The Great Illusion''.

Enough for what we need.
EU learned its lesson after ww2 and not even a decade after bombing each other they decided to work on long term security. That is what is behind the treaty of paris of 1951 and the European Coal and Steel Community.

The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible" which was to be achieved by regional integration, of which the ECSC was the first step. The Treaty would create a common market for coal and steel among its member states which served to neutralise competition between European nations over natural resources, particularly in the Ruhr.

This is what actually MADE the European Union possible. Interconnected economies. This was 1951 and was signed by benelux germany italy and france. Enemies only a few years before. THIS is how you achieve long term security. By making war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.
Interconnectivity and trading have done that for us in europe and has already done it with Russia. Our economies are ALREADY way too connected to even think about the possibility of anything happening. It would SERIOUSLY damage both our economies. Banks collapsing and all the stuff.

I dont know the guy. Will look into it.

- - - Updated - - -

Educating myself by reading books and theories that have previously suggested the idea of interconnected economies. And the subsequent failure of such ideas when they smash against the hard reality of national interests. Which is exactly what what`s happening right now.

Start with Norman Angell and analysis of his works applied to 21st century.

You are clearly an ignorant human being - start today and maybe in a few years you`ll realize how wrong you were.

You mean apart from the historical success a united Europe that is. Sure Ill make sure I'll read theories of how something that has actually worked in our own continent actually doesnt work.

- - - Updated - - -

And you think this has anything to do with being "afraid" of a russian invasion?

Oh you just enjoy having foreign armies landing on your territory? To each his own I guess.

[Slant]

There's "condemning" and there's "throwing petrol on fire".

Condemning did jack shit for the Ukraine. I think the fact that Russia feels the need to posture like this is a sign that NATO is doing the right thing in showing presence on the eastern border. Now it's up to Russia to not overfly countries they don't belong to, not to send bombers across NATO territory and pretty much stay within their borders. That's the extent of the influence they can have. If it doesn't suit them, they should ask themselves why nobody is allowing them flyover rights. Why countries are actually concerned about a Russian invasion. Why the hell does nobody in Belarus say "Oh noe, NATO is at our borders, they are going to invade us?" Ah, because everyone knows NATO is not in the business of invasion. Who is? Ah, Russia is...

[Deleted]

A thing of the past. I hate to use the CURRENT YEAR argument but honestly, get a grip - it`s not February 2014 anymore.

Uh? So youre willingly overlooking couple decades long history of trading? Why?

[Slant]

Nice try attempting to get Djalil out of the fairy tale la la land he finds himself dreaming in, where everyone holds hands and doesn't have an agenda. He will be one of the first to die when Russia finally starts overstepping their bounds.

You might wanna reel in the crazy. It's not doing you any good. And Djalil doesn't deserve that.

[stevenho]

Oh you just enjoy having foreign armies landing on your territory? To each his own I guess.

It has 99% to do with economics and 1% with "security".
Also do not put Poland in the same basket as baltic former soviet republics, the difference is huge.

[Deleted]

Sweden wont join NATO, no use in even talk about it. Even if the politicians wants to do it, the population wont. And to make that decision they would need to get the support from the public.

Im Swedish and rather pro-NATO, but im also a realist and sweden got nothing to gain from joining NATO and we know it.

[Deleted]

Enough for what we need.
EU learned its lesson after ww2 and not even a decade after bombing each other they decided to work on long term security. That is what is behind the treaty of paris of 1951 and the European Coal and Steel Community.

This is what actually MADE the European Union possible. Interconnected economies. This was 1951 and was signed by benelux germany italy and france. Enemies only a few years before. THIS is how you achieve long term security. By making war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.
Interconnectivity and trading have done that for us in europe and has already done it with Russia. Our economies are ALREADY way too connected to even think about the possibility of anything happening. It would SERIOUSLY damage both our economies. Banks collapsing and all the stuff.

I dont know the guy. Will look into it.

- - - Updated - - -



You mean apart from the historical success a united Europe that is. Sure Ill make sure I'll read theories of how something that has actually worked in our own continent actually doesnt work.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh you just enjoy having foreign armies landing on your territory? To each his own I guess.

You do realize Europeans resisted the idea of Union until Americans pushed them to the table (later on supported by France thinking it could counter-balance Germany - US - USSR).
The origins of EU came from the place of where Americans needed strong Western Europe that could pay it`s own military bills.

By making war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.
Interconnectivity and trading have done that for us in europe and has already done it with Russia. Our economies are ALREADY way too connected to even think about the possibility of anything happening. It would SERIOUSLY damage both our economies. Banks collapsing and all the stuff.

Yeah, The Great Illusion went in-depth arguing exactly for this point, using mathematical formulas and examples arguing for the same thing. The book was published in 1913. The author later won Nobel Prize for it. A year before World War 1 began. Amusing, right?

You mean apart from the historical success a united Europe that is. Sure Ill make sure I'll read theories of how something that has actually worked in our own continent actually doesnt work.

The last 25 years were an anomally. Russia is back back from the operating table looking out to fix it`s strategic nightmare issue in the Eastern Europe, German economy has exhausted itself, Soutern Europe is hot mess with Italy going sideways fast and France not growing at all for the last decade.

Truly remarkable.

Oh you just enjoy having foreign armies landing on your territory? To each his own I guess.

Cool narrative. Great to see you exposing your bias. Spoiler alert : they are allies and friends. And no one is ''landing'' on their territory. They`re invited and welcomed.

[Slant]

?????

How was it hard to predict after Iraq, Kosovo and Libya happened? USA did whatever the fuck it wanted, Russia followed suit. USA much outraged.

I think we're all a bit surprised Russia managed to get a jet off the ground. Let alone a whole swam of them. :P

[Deleted]

You might wanna reel in the crazy. It's not doing you any good. And Djalil doesn't deserve that.

aww give us a hug.

[Flurryfang]

Just throw one of the bigger warheads somewhere in the middle.
No one will start a fight or retaliate after that.

If somebody starts throwing nukes, everybody will start throwing nukes.

[Deleted]

It has 99% to do with economics and 1% with "security".
Also do not put Poland in the same basket as baltic former soviet republics, the difference is huge.

How is having foreign armies, that will lead to nothing but increasingly tense relation with a major trading partner, an "economic" choice?

[Deleted]

Uh? So youre willingly overlooking couple decades long history of trading? Why?

So I see you`ve chosen the OMGAMGOMG TRADE THIS TRADE THAT OMGZUMGOMG argument as your last line of defense.

Pathetic. No, I`m not overlooking it. Quite on the contrary, I see what`s happening and where it`s going. Spoiler alert : your narrative breaks down.

According to the data, trade between Russia and the European Union fell by 34.3 percent to $38.2 billion. Among the hardest hit were Poland, whose trade with Russia slumped 48.9 percent, Britain, which saw trade shrink 51.9 percent, and France, where trade was down 42.6 percent year-on-year.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/busine...ns/519412.html

[Deleted]

Sweden wont join NATO, no use in even talk about it. Even if the politicians wants to do it, the population wont. And to make that decision they would need to get the support from the public.

Im Swedish and rather pro-NATO, but im also a realist and sweden got nothing to gain from joining NATO and we know it.

Cheers from common sense for the love of god.

[Easo]

One would assume that "don't do this or we might shoot you" would have adverse effect. I suppose Russia doesn't think that thinly veiled threats will actually have the opposite effect in Swedes actually thinking more about joining NATO. Also, there is no land border between them. Planning to make a visit to Norway/Finland?
P.S.
Djalil, I do wonder how much you know about Baltics and why Russia is not considered friendly neighbor there.

[Deleted]

So I see you`ve chosen the OMGAMGOMG TRADE THIS TRADE THAT OMGZUMGOMG argument as your last line of defense.

Pathetic. No, I`m not overlooking it. Quite on the contrary, I see what`s happening and where it`s going. Spoiler alert : your narrative breaks down.



http://www.themoscowtimes.com/busine...ns/519412.html

Uh? So youre willingly overlooking couple decades long history of trading? Why?

[Deleted]

How was it hard to predict after Iraq, Kosovo and Libya happened?

As a foreigner who lived in Ukraine for 4 years - it was hard to predict. You see, the two were - notice the use of were - sister nations that have been together in one way or another for the last 1500 years.

Unlike US with it`s relations to Kosovo, Iraq and Lybia.

[Orange Joe]

Make a decision upon how beneficial would X be for your own country based on facts instead of politician talks?
That is what I meant. Russia says shit. Big deal. Wouldn't expect anything different to be honest.

Why is it ok for Russia to talk shit, but not NATO?

[Independent voter]

trade between Russia . Britain, which saw trade shrink 51.9%

Britain is where the Russian oligarchs have dual citizenship and where they keep all their money.