Putin vows military response if Sweden joins NATO

[Deleted]

You're right, all of those 100+ incidents of Russian jets flying into Swedish airspace were actually US spy planes.

We have the classic "Wisky on the rock" Russian submarine deep inside the Swedish archipelago.... "navigation error" they say.

[Deleted]

I dont know if Trump is going to allow Sweden to join.

Or did anyone forget about the Bowling Green massacre in Sweden?

[Skroe]

Hmm, so how far is your PGS program right now?

Because our Zircon hypersonic missile is already undergoing tests, year ahead of schedule...

Looking at current PGS program state... hmm, you have years, if not decades of catching up to do...

You mean the cruise missile with just 370 mile range, Russian? How big is global to Russians? 370 miles is not "Prompt Global Strike". It is throwing a fast rock into your backyard.

Hypersonic weapon designs have been around for over thirty years. Some have even been built. You don't understand the different types. I will explain them to you.

There are 3 major classes.

The first kind you linked are maneuverable short range cruise missiles. BrahMos for example, gets most of it's range (and speed) from it's first stage booster. It's scramjet engine comes into play largely during the terminal phase of flight to make it difficult to intercept and does little to extend range or speed. It's better to think of it as a hypervelocity kill vehicle on top of a short range ballistic missile.

The US, for it's part, has not been concerned about this class of weapon, because their range is so limited that the launching platforms would be intercepted before any would be fired. Russia could, in theory, put it on ever larger boosters, but that makes the weapon little different than the second trype.


The Second type, is essentially a hypersonic glider to replace a conical nuclear warhead re-entry vehicle used by all nations. The second type looks like this:



The point of these weapons is to make them difficult for missile defense to intercept and do a hypersonic terminal dive. For these, the launch vehicle is an ICBM. Flight profile is ballistic. The fins allow for a dive at the end. Most Russian and Chinese hypersonics work is of this type.


The type of Hypersonic weapon the US is primarily working on has little to do with the first two kinds. It is a high endurance cruise missile... one that can be launched from many thousands of miles away (and eventually, North America). This is a fundamentally greater challenge. Unlike the first kind, the range and velocity come principally from the scramjet engine. The booster is designed to get the airflow of the scramjet engine supersonic, not provide range or sustain speed. The range (and acceleration) comes from the scramjet engine.

It looks like this:





Here is an image showing some of the different types:



The US toyed with building both a US-analog of Zircon or a US-analog of a hypersonic glider to replace the re-entry vehicles on ICBMs. It's decided to focus almost the entirety of its energies on the extremely long range hypersonic cruise missile, because development of that engine is a road map to a hypersonic bomber in the 2040s.


You cannot develop a reusable hypersonic engine fromthe first type types. The third type is in effect, a conceptual proving ground.

Oh yes, that's being worked on.



The take away is that although the US, China and Russia are all working on "hypersonic weapons", they're working on fundamentally different types. Russia and China are mostly concerned with making missiles difficult to intercept through great burst of speed at the end of their flight profile. The US is mostly concerned with creating a weapon that allows launching attacks anywhere in the world in an hour from North America, without the use of a ballistic missile.


Sorry Russian, air and space are our domain.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure if NATO can be treated as "military defense organization". Actually it didn't defended any country ever in history. But it had a great success in ruin several countries without UN permission.
NATO is very close to its failure, united EU military forces is the thing which should be Europe defence.

This is not true.

Immediately after 9/11, the US State Department and Pentagon were swamped preparing for the Invasion of Afghanistan (which let's remind everybody, is on literally the other side of the planet, in the middle of Asia, surrounded by or near Russia, Pakistan, China, Indian and Iran, and without easy sea access). The US handed responsibility for many diplomatic and logistical preparations over to NATO while it and the UK prepared for the invasion.

The UN resolutions that enabled the legal case for war? That was our NATO allies.

Preparing the logistics train across Europe and into central Asia? NATO.

By the way, you know who assumed responsibility for North American aerospace security against conventional threats for a period? NATO.

NATO offered, under Article V, within a few days of the 9/11 attacks, to make the military operation itself a NATO operation. The US declined that offer because the NATO-US experience just a few years prior in Kosovo was frustrating and complicated, instead making it most a US-UK-French show. But a few years later, NATO overtook primary responsibility for the stabilization of Afghanistan under ISAF.

In other words, 9/11 stands as a monument of exactly what NATO was intended to do: collective defense. Was the execution perfect? Hell no. But even the world's only superpower needed help responding to something on the scale of 9/11. NATO may have not been breaking down any doors - again, because we declined their offer - but they essentially did everything they could short of that.

[Azadina]

Then why Sweden just not shooting them down like Turkey did?

P.S. Why are you trying to bash people for their position? I'm personally against joining NATO, because each action you take leads to both positive and negative consequences. And in my opinion joining NATO (especially in it current version) causes more problems than it solves.

Yeah, because Russia has so greatly respected neutral countries in the past. Damn Finland joining Nato in 39 must have been why Russia attacked. Ukraine joining Nato couple years ago must have also been why they attacked (nevermind it was Ukraine giving up their nukes for Russia guaranteeing their sovereignty. Goes to show how much one should trust them, when it wasn't them protecting Ukraine, but attacking it instead.)

Yup, would totally trust Russia.

[Aracs]

Yeah, because Russia has so greatly respected neutral countries in the past. Damn Finland joining Nato in 39 must have been why Russia attacked. Ukraine joining Nato couple years ago must have also been why they attacked (nevermind it was Ukraine giving up their nukes for Russia guaranteeing their sovereignty. Goes to show how much one should trust them, when it wasn't them protecting Ukraine, but attacking it instead.)

Yup, would totally trust Russia.

Now read again what you are wrote. It is clear, even from what you are posted, that not joining NATO causes much less problems than trying to join. You might also remember Georgia 2008 (lost 1/3 of their territory), there was no problem before they started "NATO-joining" process. Why? Because of simple reason, country can't join NATO if it has unsolved territorial problems with neighbours.

[Skroe]

Angara's point isn't as much cost as non-Baiconur launch (namely Vostochniy).

No. Half of Angara's purpose NOW is to allow for launch from Vostochniy. But remember: Angara is yet another vintage late-Soviet design that Putins' Russia finally built. It is a product of when access to Baikonur was considered assured.

The ENTIRE original purpose behind Angara, and about half of it now - a perfectly valid and good one - was to replace the Proton and Soyuz families (eventually all manned and unmanned Soyuz variants) with a modular "Common booster core" design... essentially being a Russian version of the US Atlas V and Delta IV. Which makes an entire amount of sense, because when Angara was first conceptualized, it was the contemporary of the, then planned Atlas V / Delta IV US Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program).

They both had exactly the same goal: replace a large number of legacy second and third generation launchers that were hugely expensive with a modern, easier to build, more efficient design that would be subject to economies of scale through the Common Booster Core design.

See the family resemblence?





The first stage's engine are even RD-191, which is a close cousin of the RD-180 used the Atlas V, both being derived from the RD-170 used on Energia. The RD-180 is basically a half-RD-170 (two combustion chambers instead of four) and the RD-191 is basically a quarter-RD-170 (one chamber instead of four).

THe problem with Angara is that it arrived about 15-20 years too late. Had it first flown in 1998 or 2000, and had it replaced the entirety of the Russian legacy launcher family (as the US EELVs did), then it would have been a successufl program. Instead it first flew in 2014, after the retirement date for the Atlas V and Delta IV was announced.

SpaceX's engine technology + landing + reuse-ability + additive manufacturing (instead of machining) have made the EELV model, which includes Angara, insufficient and obsolete on it's own. The Falcon 9 design exploits economies of scale to a far greater degree than even the EELVs (thanks to the Merlin 1D engine design), and landing is causing a cataclysmic fall in price drops.

The Atlas V/ Delta IV successor, Vulcan, will be partially reusable.
The Blue Origin New Glenn rocket, will be reusable.
The ESA's Ariane 6 will get a reusable first stage after 2025.

But hanging onto Angara, Russia is marrying itself to an expensive rocket that was obsolete before it first flew. Unlike the SLS it is not big enough to justify its costs. It's several times as expensive as a Faclon 9. It's a dead end.

[Azadina]

Now read again what you are wrote. It is clear, even from what you are posted, that not joining NATO causes much less problems than trying to join. You might also remember Georgia 2008 (lost 1/3 of their territory), there was no problem before they started "NATO-joining" process. Why? Because of simple reason, country can't join NATO if it has unsolved territorial problems with neighbours.

I'm sorry to tell, but 10 year olds have more history knowledge than this, if you seriously couldn't detect the sarcasm of obviously false statements that never happened. Good lord.

Did you seriously think Finland had joined Nato in 1939, and that being the reason Russia attacked? Or that Ukraine ever joined it either?

[Skroe]

I would not say that I was defending the act as much as the necessity for it's annexation for procuring Russia United's global interests. I don't defend the act itself as I do not agree with those interests; in fact, I would consider the annexation and the scuttling of Ukraine to be forefront in my decision to obtain permanent residency in the US.

I believe you are drastically understating the importance of Crimea because you're looking at it from an American v Russian perspective, in which the black sea naval power is largely useless. Crimea is one of the single largest focuses in Russian military development, and has been significantly expanded in recent years. Even if you were right and at the end of the day such expansions are moot, it is obviously important to them because that is where the money is going.

And it's an entire waste of money. That's the point. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from Crimea to advances Russia's strategic interests.

Second, it was a very important part in scuttling the Ukraine. While obviously not a massive interest, it was obviously an attractive enough partner for the EU to consider financially roping it in. Ukraine offered a large working populace compared to many other European countries, a potential untapped resource that was enticing if spoiled by a horrendously degraded infrastucture and minimal internal economic stability, but had the massive bonus of Crimea if Russia could be peeled off as Ukraine became more and more economical entangled with the EU. Now what is it? No economic prospects, no Crimea, a shotgunned populist leadership who obtained power in manner that makes Western leaders more than a little uncomfortable, deeply divided factions, and no prospective future of getting any better. Russia cut off what benefitted it and made the rest largely useless, in a time where the EU would have benefitted by a large and robust working populace.

But how long will that be the case? Russia bought what? A pause on EU-Ukranian relation's getting closer and closer? Meanwhile Russia lobbed off a portion of Ukraine. What is likely to happen first: Ukranian's forget about that, and make peace with Russia, or the EU and Ukraine start moving forward together?

Again, Russia did something incredibly short term.

Third, Putin is ultimately all powerful because he is perceived as all powerful, and thus those who might oppose him will be trodden underfoot. The Russian president actually has quite a few checks and balances. Toe to toe, the American president has more legislated powers and freedom to operate than the Russian president. What Putin's power based is established on is that he controls those checks and balances, mostly by being the one who influences that they stay in power. If the rest of the party really wished to, they could depose him in an afternoon. His omnipotence is based purely on his perspective of being omnipotent. What we saw leading up to the annexation was a long lull in his image. Purely outside of a military perspective, the loss of Crimea to the west would have been a devastating blow to the base of his power.

And it's still going to happen again. one day. The West will never legitimize Russia's hold on Crimea. It didn't the Baltics for 50 years.

In other words, prior history is on our side. We'll wait Russia out, and some future Russian leader will oversee a humiliating withdrawl from Crimea. In exchange for something that Russia desperately needs in the future.

[Aracs]

Did you seriously think Finland had joined Nato in 1939, and that being the reason Russia attacked? Or that Ukraine ever joined it either?

(Sarcasm) No, Finland instead joined Hitler (NATO of 1939) and lost that territories forever, instead of exchanging them to much bigger territories of Karelia as it was suggested before war. That was a very good deal I can say. (/Sarcasm)

And it's an entire waste of money. That's the point. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from Crimea to advances Russia's strategic interests.

But how long will that be the case? Russia bought what? A pause on EU-Ukranian relation's getting closer and closer? Meanwhile Russia lobbed off a portion of Ukraine. What is likely to happen first: Ukranian's forget about that, and make peace with Russia, or the EU and Ukraine start moving forward together?

Again, Russia did something incredibly short term.

And it's still going to happen again. one day. The West will never legitimize Russia's hold on Crimea. It didn't the Baltics for 50 years.

In other words, prior history is on our side. We'll wait Russia out, and some future Russian leader will oversee a humiliating withdrawl from Crimea. In exchange for something that Russia desperately needs in the future.

You are treating things from US point of view, which I can say far away from reality in case of Crimea.
1) Crimea is a point from which you can control whole Black Sea region (also US bases in Romania are now under 24/7 direct control) by itself it is already huge gain.
2) If not Russia then US will eventually appear there, which is treated as catastrophe by the most of Russians
3) Legitimisation goes from people living on that territory not from US or EU (Kosovo precedent as it is).
4) I know Russians, no one of their leader will let Crimea go back, most of them even complaining on why Putin not fucked up the whole country into pieces with bombs (yeah also as Americans usually doing).
Overall, Crimea from strategic point of view is only interesting part of Ukraine and US lost it, forever.

I also think that Putin made a perfect trap for, even not US, but EU in Ukraine. Before the crisis Russia gave them a lot of money for just being loyal. And now we should pay that money for their corrupted elites to be loyal. And also now we have over 40 millions of people that will crush our labour market. And we can't throw them away, because then "New Afghanistan" will appear at the EU border, but with neonazis instead of isis and taliban.

[Skroe]

(Sarcasm) No, Finland instead joined Hitler (NATO of 1939) and lost that territories forever, instead of exchanging them to much bigger territories of Karelia as it was suggested before war. That was a very good deal I can say. (/Sarcasm)



You are treating things from US point of view, which I can say far away from reality in case of Crimea.
1) Crimea is a point from which you can control whole Black Sea region (also US bases in Romania are now under 24/7 direct control) by itself it is already huge gain.

The US has anti-missile systems in Romania and never keeps warships in the Black Sea for long. Strikes on Russia would be launched from the North Sea, the Medditerranian, Italy, Germany, Turkey, the UK and the Continental US. This is not a "blocking manuever" for Russia.

2) If not Russia then US will eventually appear there, which is treated as catastrophe by the most of Russians

The US is already in Romania, The liklihood of, in a different world, the US ever stationing troops or materiel in Crimea was remote. To the US, it's a square on the grid of next to no value.

3) Legitimisation goes from people living on that territory not from US or EU (Kosovo precedent as it is).

Not at all. The enormous sum of the international community do not regonize Russian control of Crimea. Far more recognize Kosovo. It's entirely different.

Russia cannot be allowed to change a border by military force, period.

4) I know Russians, no one of their leader will let Crimea go back.

You mean just like the Baltics would never be free of Russian control?

Overall, Crimea from strategic point of view is only interesting part of Ukraine and US lost it, forever.

It wasn't even valuable to us. Ukraine as a whole, has a certain value that makes the West continuing to draw it closer important. But Crimea? It's a gigantic nothing-burger.

Want to know why? Let me show you a map. A map explains everything.




This is a map of Russia's major nuclear weapon sites. During the Soviet Union, Ukraine was Russia's military-industrial heartland. Post indepnedence, Russia has had a difficult time replicating what it spent decades building up within its own territory, and even last decade, imported an enormous amount of arms from Ukranian factories. Crimea was also left with thousands of nuclear weapons in it's hands in 1992, that it handed over to Russia.

Russia didn't move them far. It moved them pretty much right across the border into Russia. The Ukranian-Russian border is lined with bases (not just nuclear ones). Not for territorial defense, but for logistics.

If the US wanted to use Ukraine to militarily assault Russia, the most valuable part of Ukraine is the North and North East. In other words, Crimea wouldn't be a factor, except as a target with one entrance and one exit.

I also think that Putin made a perfect trap for, even not US, but EU in Ukraine. Before the crisis Russia gave them a lot of money for just being loyal. And now we should feed them with money for their corrupted elites to be loyal. And also now we have over 40 millions of people that will crush our labour market. And we can't throw them away, because then "New Afghanistan" will appear at the EU border, but with neonazis instead of isis and taliban.

That's ridiculous. You're telling me that the 600 million person EU is somehow radically changed by introducing a labor force of 22 million into it? Especially when the 70% of that labor force is the domestic Ukrainian service industry?

I thought European schools were supposed to be better than American schools. It seems to me though there is a... how shall I say... a complicated relationship in understanding the sheer size of the EU and relating that to the minuscule "barbarian hordes" that are besieging your little paradise. A couple million muslims. Ukranians. Eastern Europeans. The same crap argument time and time and time again.

[Anon56]

Nice use of words and great translation job from Newsweek. And after that they call Russian news agencies propaganda tools. Yes Russia will respond to that it is normal, but their "military action" will not involve "eliminating" Sweden. They will simply reposition their troops and continue the arms race like they're doing since the end of WWII. Arms race that Truman the manipulated weakling started.

[Muzjhath]

1) Crimea is a point from which you can control whole Black Sea region (also US bases in Romania are now under 24/7 direct control) by itself it is already huge gain.

As it stands too tired to comment on the rest of your post. But this is false. You can only control the Black Sea region from one point proper. The Bosphorus. Crimea comes with a tactical port that I'll assume is deeper than any other locations Russia could build a new BS port is (as they do have quite a bit of coastline) along the black sea. And while it is in a position so you can dominate the Black Sea itself, in modern scales that's practically a nothing goal. It's too small and the only thing you block is invasion by boat into the Russian underbelly along with the option to blockade and bombard from the sea a few minor European port cities.
(Also, considering that Ukraine was pretty much the single most important province of the Soviet Union. You're somewhat wrong on your overall part as well).

[Aracs]

I thought European schools were supposed to be better than American schools. It seems to me though there is a... how shall I say... a complicated relationship in understanding the sheer size of the EU and relating that to the minuscule "barbarian hordes" that are besieging your little paradise. A couple million muslims. Ukranians. Eastern Europeans. The same crap argument time and time and time again.

I thought that "educated" Americans know what the word "discussion" means.
However you seems not willing to do so. Well than I should say goodbye and let the history show who was right.

As it stands too tired to comment on the rest of your post. But this is false. You can only control the Black Sea region from one point proper. The Bosphorus. Crimea comes with a tactical port that I'll assume is deeper than any other locations Russia could build a new BS port is (as they do have quite a bit of coastline) along the black sea. And while it is in a position so you can dominate the Black Sea itself, in modern scales that's practically a nothing goal. It's too small and the only thing you block is invasion by boat into the Russian underbelly along with the option to blockade and bombard from the sea a few minor European port cities.
(Also, considering that Ukraine was pretty much the single most important province of the Soviet Union. You're somewhat wrong on your overall part as well).

You forgot one very important thing: Black Sea is a point where many trade routes are located (especially food routes). Russia fought for the Black Sea since middle ages and Crimea always was a key point in that region.

[Skroe]

I thought that "educated" Americans know what the word "discussion" means.
However you seem not willing to do so. Well than I should say goodbye and let the history show who was right.

There is no "discussion" to be had about what you're writing on. There are facts and there are things-that-are-not-facts.

[Kreo]

It wasn't even valuable to us. Ukraine as a whole, has a certain value that makes the West continuing to draw it closer important. But Crimea? It's a gigantic nothing-burger.

You're forgetting one thing: Crimea is base for a Black Sea Fleet, which in turn their one and only non-freezing port.
Rest of them control by NATO or NATO allied countries.
With Ukraine pointing towards West, their Sevastopol lease would be gone and with their base.
I would say this was one of the key points towards annexation.

[Aracs]

There is no "discussion" to be had about what you're writing on. There are facts and there are things-that-are-not-facts.

Let it be. /10chars

[Skroe]

You forgot one very important thing: Black Sea is a point where many trade routes are located (especially food routes). Russia fought for the Black Sea since middle ages and Crimea always was a key point in that region.

The fuck? No.





You'll notice a... well... lack of lines in the Black Sea.


And as far as food is concerned:
(open image below in new tab via right click. It's enormous).


Russia is not a significant agricultural power.

Yeah. No. Basically, you're lying.

- - - Updated - - -

You're forgetting one thing: Crimea is base for a Black Sea Fleet, which in turn their one and only non-freezing port.
Rest of them control by NATO or NATO allied countries.
With Ukraine pointing towards West, their Sevastopol lease would be gone and with their base.
I would say this was one of the key points towards annexation.

For Russia yes. That is a valid reason. But Russia's never been, nor is ever going to be a significant naval power. It's power is in Land Forces.

The Black Sea Fleet (really more like a flotilla) would be sitting ducks to US air power from Turkey and Romania. It would be wiped out in short order.

[Aracs]

Your map with food routes is wrong. Almost all of the arrow which is pointing out of Russia should go through Black and Azov Seas (not through the Caspian Sea). Rostov and Novorossiysk are one the biggest ports in the whole Russia and through them major food export is going.

P.S. Actually all your maps are from 2011 and earlier and they are not right as Russia became the largest wheat exporter last year. You should be more careful with bashing another people as you are too much inside CNN propaganda and too far away from Russia.

[Skroe]

Your map with food routes is wrong. Almost all of the arrow which is pointing out of Russia should go through Black and Azov Seas (not through the Caspian Sea).
Rostov and Novorossiysk are one the biggest ports in the whole Russia and through them major food export is going.

PffffttahHAhahahahahah. Oh god help me.

Okay. Look man. That map was put together by Rabobank.

https://www.rabobank.com/en/home/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabobank

Rabobank (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈraːboːbɑŋk]; full name: Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A.) is a Dutch multinational banking and financial services company headquartered in Utrecht, Netherlands. It is a global leader in food and agriculture financing and sustainability-oriented banking. The group comprises 129 independent local Dutch Rabobanks (2013), a central organisation (Rabobank Nederland), and a large number of specialised international offices and subsidiaries. Food and agribusiness constitute the primary international focus of the Rabobank Group.[2] Rabobank is the second-largest bank in the Netherlands in terms of total assets.[3]

Here is there contact web page.

https://www.rabobank.com/en/contact/index.html

Let the major Agricultural bank know their agricultural map is wrong.

...

Moments like this make MMO-OT worth it.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and because I want to twist the knife.



Where's Russia?!?



Who knows?!

Russia is not an agricultural power, period.

[Aracs]

PffffttahHAhahahahahah. Oh god help me.

Okay. Look man. That map was put together by Rabobank.

https://www.rabobank.com/en/home/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabobank


Here is there contact web page.

https://www.rabobank.com/en/contact/index.html

Let the major Agricultural bank know their agricultural map is wrong.

...

Moments like this make MMO-OT worth it.

You are now start to fight against the reality. As I said no point to prove something which is easily googlable like the fact that Russian food export goes through the Black Sea not Caspian Sea like on your map.
As example https://cereals.ahdb.org.uk/markets/...er-record.aspx

If this not enough then Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...arvest-exports