Russia's foreign minister warns Sweden off Nato

[Gorgodeus]

Most wars in the history of mankind have been over resources......

Not reading the thread at all I see. Read the post above yours.

[Skroe]

And yet, for 70 years the European Community (now the EU) is a living breathing example of Europe doing just that. I cannot stress enough what a monumental historical achievement this is. Again, for the n-thousandth time on this forum, Europe is at peace for the first time in 2000 years.

I kinda wish I could take a sledgehammer to bludgeon this into people's head, because it is just that enormous that only a sledgehammer would provide the physical impract to drive the point home. Alas, you'll have to digest it for yourself. Look through any history book you can find, this... is as unprecedented as it can be. And the EU is the main factor for that.

And not only that, as I wrote before, the EU is the model for integration in other regions around the world, and then global integration after that. Not the US (which is a great model for Federalized government, which is more specialized this day in age now that so many countries are established). And not the UN.

If the EU model can succeed in Europe, it can succeed almost anywhere, which is yet another reason why it must be protected.

The "United Earth" or "United Federation of Planets" some people dream about is, more than anything else, the EU-model gone global. Considering the US's hand in creating that, it would be a very worthy successor well into the future to the American hegemony we're likely to enjoy up to that point.

I consider this the Optimists-Corallary to the "All Empires Fall" truism. Sure, in a rough reading of history, that may be the case. But more than a few of them gave way to spiritual successors that were even better.

[Slant]

Not reading the thread at all I see. Read the post above yours.

Neither are you, apparently.

[Orange Joe]

Not reading the thread at all I see. Read the post above yours.

Well I reply as I read them. So I read you next post AFTER then one I quoted.

[Skroe]

First of all NATO is done. It was a pact designed to "keep Germans under the heel, Americans in Europe and Soviets out of Europe". Soviet Union is no more. Americans (which military is NATO basically) are slashing their land forces and shifting to pacific to counter chinese growing influence there. Putin knows this, and that is why he is pulling his stunts here, especially towards Sweden and Eastern Europe to make them question "Where are your Americans?".

You're out of date. That was the plan. Then Putin invaded Ukraine.

Now US forces are going back into Europe. In a very big way.

This is exhibit A of Putin's strategic incompetence

http://www.businessinsider.com/nato-...old-war-2016-2

BRUSSELS (Reuters) — Backed by an increase in US military spending, NATO is planning its biggest build-up in eastern Europe since the Cold War to deter Russia but will reject Polish demands for permanent bases.

Worried since Russia's seizure of Crimea that Moscow could rapidly invade Poland or the Baltic states, the Western military alliance wants to bolster defenses on its eastern flank without provoking the Kremlin by stationing large forces permanently.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) defense ministers will next week begin outlining plans for a complex web of small eastern outposts, forces on rotation, regular war games, and warehoused equipment ready for a rapid-response force. That force includes air, maritime, and special operations units of up to 40,000 personnel.

The concern over NATO's eastern flank has only intensified following the outcome of simulations by think tank RAND Corp. showing that, in the most dire scenarios, Moscow would be able to conquer all the way to Estonia's capital, Tallinn, in 36 hours.

As current NATO force structures stand in Europe, the military organization "cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members," RAND found. In the best-case scenarios for NATO, Russia was prevented from reaching the outskirts of the Latvian or Estonian capitals for 60 hours.

This report from RAND echoes similar concerns held by Gen. Petr Pavel, current chairman of the NATO Military Committee. On May 27, 2015, Pavel warned that Moscow would be able to conquer the three Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia within two days despite their NATO membership. Pavel believed this would be largely possible because of NATO's relatively slow-moving command structure.

Beyond increasing forces in Europe, NATO is also expected to offer Moscow a renewed dialogue in the NATO-Russia Council, which has not met since 2014, about improved military transparency to avoid surprise events and misunderstandings, a senior NATO diplomat said.

US plans for a fourfold increase in military spending in Europe to $3.4 billion in 2017 are central to the strategy, which has been shaped in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.


The plans are welcomed by NATO, whose chief, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, says it will mean "more troops in the eastern part of the alliance ... the pre-positioning of equipment, tanks, armored vehicles ... more exercises and more investment in infrastructure."

Such moves will reinforce the message from US President Barack Obama, in a speech he delivered in Estonia in 2014, that NATO will help ensure the independence of the three Baltic states, which for decades were part of the Soviet Union.

Lithuanian Defense Minister Juozas Olekas openly described Russia as a threat in comments to Reuters last June, but many European countries in the NATO are wary of upsetting the continent's biggest energy supplier.

With such concerns paramount, diplomats and officials say NATO will not back requests for permanent bases by Poland, which has a history of fraught relations with Russia.

"I am a great proponent of strong deterrents and to improve our resilience, but I do think that the best way to do it is to do it on a rotational basis," Dutch Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert told Reuters.

Stoltenberg has also said he will not be "dragged into an arms race."

Russia has made clear it would regard any moves to bring NATO infrastructure closer to its borders a threat and the Kremlin has warned it would take "reciprocal steps."

Western powers' relations with Russia have deteriorated over the almost two-year-old conflict in Ukraine, but the West also needs Russia's help in dealing with terrorism and the battle against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Gorgodeus]

And yet, for 70 years the European Community (now the EU) is a living breathing example of Europe doing just that. I cannot stress enough what a monumental historical achievement this is. Again, for the n-thousandth time on this forum, Europe is at peace for the first time in 2000 years.

I kinda wish I could take a sledgehammer to bludgeon this into people's head, because it is just that enormous that only a sledgehammer would provide the physical impract to drive the point home. Alas, you'll have to digest it for yourself. Look through any history book you can find, this... is as unprecedented as it can be. And the EU is the main factor for that.

The reason Europe is peaceful is more due to other factors: NATO, common interest in not seeing Russian expansion. Trade is not much of a factor, when you can simply take over a country and add their resources to yours.

[Ripster42]

And yet, for 70 years the European Community (now the EU) is a living breathing example of Europe doing just that. I cannot stress enough what a monumental historical achievement this is. Again, for the n-thousandth time on this forum, Europe is at peace for the first time in 2000 years.

I kinda wish I could take a sledgehammer to bludgeon this into people's head, because it is just that enormous that only a sledgehammer would provide the physical impract to drive the point home. Alas, you'll have to digest it for yourself. Look through any history book you can find, this... is as unprecedented as it can be. And the EU is the main factor for that.

I don't think it's trade keeping the EU peaceful. That's been common all across europe for a long, long time. I believe it's NATO that makes the EU largely look at security problems from a communal position that's kept them from warring with each other. They've been in NATO together since they've had the ability to make war post wwii.

[Slant]

The reason Europe is peaceful is more due to other factors: NATO, common interest in not seeing Russian expansion. Trade is not much of a factor, when you can simply take over a country and add their resources to yours.

You're literally opposing historically accepted fact, the informed opinions of economists and politicians alike. Everyone who dabbled in European politics a little bit will tell you that you are massively downplaying the effect the EU has on peace on this continent.

European countries always had aligning interests in one way or another. Pacts and treaties? We've done that shit before Russia come out of their swamp and the US was even discovered. We've tried that approach. But notice how Europe was always splintered up? It was England vs. France, Spain vs. Prussia, Habsburg vs. French kings... in the end, what tipped Europe into the horror of two world wars was something Napoleon started and ended up in probably one of the lower key feuds between Germany and France, except... this time there was no sea channel dividing them. And the power imbalance wasn't big enough for one to decidedly win that war. They were equally strong and nothing between them to stop the conflict.

After those two world wars, they combined the most important industrial branches and historically everyone agrees that it put to rest once and for all the cause of every French/German rematch: Who owns the iron ore and coal deposits of the border area between France and Germany? Because that is essentially what it was about in the end, steel and coal. By combining the exploitation of those deposits, suddenly all reasons to fight over them were gone. And behold, the countries realised, hey... once we stop arguing about resources, they're not so bad after all!

We have tried a shitton of things to stop wars, the last thing we tried was the EC. And until now, it works. I don't believe in coincidences and while the cold war certainly helped the cause, it was never the main motivation for the EC. Neither was NATO. NATO was always rather independent from the EU. Mainly because it is a purely militaristic alliance having zero interest in politics or economics. If there had never been an EC, there still would be a NATO. The response to the Russian threat was NATO, not the EC.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think it's trade keeping the EU peaceful. That's been common all across europe for a long, long time. I believe it's NATO that makes the EU largely look at security problems from a communal position that's kept them from warring with each other. They've been in NATO together since they've had the ability to make war post wwii.

NATO had zero influence on the European process. If NATO decides tomorrow that they don't want the EU, they couldn't do a thing about it. When the EC was founded, NATO was not a topic. Europe was. I think you're mixing up the purpose of a military alliance that remains passive until attacked and a political system that tries to proactively prevent war in its territory. I mean, literally it's in their preambles... you're basically ignoring what both constructs have written into their codex and twist it all around.

NATO is the safety net against Russia. But if Germany and France decide to duke it out tomorrow, I have no idea what NATO would do. Are there even provisions for two NATO countries fucking each other up? I know Greece and Turkey are causing a lot of headaches in NATO HQs everytime they do something stupid, but by and large, NATO tries to ignore it.

[Deleted]

And not only that, as I wrote before, the EU is the model for integration in other regions around the world, and then global integration after that. Not the US (which is a great model for Federalized government, which is more specialized this day in age now that so many countries are established). And not the UN.

If the EU model can succeed in Europe, it can succeed almost anywhere, which is yet another reason why it must be protected.

The "United Earth" or "United Federation of Planets" some people dream about is, more than anything else, the EU-model gone global. Considering the US's hand in creating that, it would be a very worthy successor well into the future to the American hegemony we're likely to enjoy up to that point.

I consider this the Optimists-Corallary to the "All Empires Fall" truism. Sure, in a rough reading of history, that may be the case. But more than a few of them gave way to spiritual successors that were even better.

The EU model doesn't need protection. It needs to burn in a fire. Biggest mistake ever for Sweden to join EU.

[Ripster42]

NATO had zero influence on the European process. If NATO decides tomorrow that they don't want the EU, they couldn't do a thing about it. When the EC was founded, NATO was not a topic. Europe was. I think you're mixing up the purpose of a military alliance that remains passive until attacked and a political system that tries to proactively prevent war in its territory. I mean, literally it's in their preambles... you're basically ignoring what both constructs have written into their codex and twist it all around.

NATO is the safety net against Russia. But if Germany and France decide to duke it out tomorrow, I have no idea what NATO would do. Are there even provisions for two NATO countries fucking each other up? I know Greece and Turkey are causing a lot of headaches in NATO HQs everytime they do something stupid, but by and large, NATO tries to ignore it.

I'm not talking about the EU really. I'm talking about peace in europe. I think the fact that nato countries (and a few non-nato countries, like sweden) largely approach security problems from a communal position is the reason they don't war with each other: doing that would only decrease their security.

- - - Updated - - -

The EU model doesn't need protection. It needs to burn in a fire. Biggest mistake ever for Sweden to join EU.

I thought the biggest mistake for sweden was letting in the immigrants/refugees.

[Deleted]

I thought the biggest mistake for sweden was letting in the immigrants/refugees.

Why would it be?

[Ripster42]

Why would it be?

Oh, I'm just going off what my impression of your posting position has been.

[Deleted]

Oh, I'm just going off what my impression of your posting position has been.

Then you don't know anything about my position.

[Deleted]

Yeah let's keep this thread about geopolitics and leave Sweden's social engineering for another threads.

[Skroe]

The EU model doesn't need protection. It needs to burn in a fire. Biggest mistake ever for Sweden to join EU.

No. You need to understand. I've been to Sweden. I love Sweden. I love Swedes. Some of my oldest, best friends are from Swedes.

But Sweden minus the EU would never and could never be the equal of the United States. I'm sorry, but there is no world where a economic, political and military superpower of 320 million can engage on an even playing field of a country of 9.5 million and a GDP 1/34th ours. Frankly, it wouldn't be fair to us. This goes for most countries in the world.

Size matters. The EU creates an assemblage of states that is greater than the sum. If Sweden, or any other small country wants an outsized voice in regional and global governance, it is only through things like the EU.

The EU and things like it is the only means by which the smaller and comparatively weaker countries can play a large role in global affairs. Without these types of organizations, it will be worse than the law of the jungle. Sweden and countries like it would constantly be victimized, not just by the US and China and Russia and India, but also by Germany and Japan and relatively larger powers.

The EU and things like it protects you and is very favorable to small countries because it binds larger countries that really, don't have to follow rules, to a system of rules.

And the EU is the only means by which Europeans can engage with non-Europeans as equals. Sorry, that's the way history worked out: for lots of reasons, our country has 320 million people, China's has 1.2 billion, Japan has 120 million, and so forth, all within fixed borders. While Europe is lots of 5-20 million person countries with some heavyweights scattered around.

Think about it like this. A US-European Free Trade Agreement will happen one day. It may be TTIP. It may be son-of-TTIP, 15 years down the line. It is an inevitability. Under what circumstance do you think Europeans will get a better deal, dealing with America, which is notorious for driving a hard bargain: a world in which the EU negotiates as one entity, or a world where Sweden, and Belgium and Portugal and Ireland and the Netherlands and Italy all negotiate independently.

Most Americans love America. But many Americans detest "Washington". It's perfectly okay to like the EU, but detest "Brussels". In fact, I'd call it normal.

[Deleted]

No. You need to understand. I've been to Sweden. I love Sweden. I love Swedes. Some of my oldest, best friends are from Swedes.

But Sweden minus the EU would never and could never be the equal of the United States.

We don't need to be equal to USA. Sweden didn't join EU until like, mid 90s, yet we weren't "victimized" like you say we would be. EU can burn in a fire for all I care, they should stop getting involved in other states doings. It should've remained solely a trade union but instead it has become an attempt to make a european state instead of staying a trade union.

[Skroe]

We don't need to be equal to USA.

You do. Or you will be intrinsically victimized whenever we sit across the the table. Or worse, you'll sit across the table from someone less gracious, liberal and democratic than us.

You'll constantly find Sweden the recipient of bad deals or subject to rules it had no part in making.

Let me give you an example The Doha Round of the WTO has been a 16 year failure. The previous rounds, which involved far fewer (but progressively more over time) countries, took a few years for the most part, the emergence of the WTO coming from the Uraguay round, which took 8 years to negotiate. The fact that the Doha round has taken 16 years is being taken as an indication that global governance, involving now 192 countries (WTO is slightly smaller), is too unweidly and too complex. Getting 192 countries to agree is asking too much.

So what's been the alternative? The rise of bi-lateral, tri-lateral and multi-lateral deals between the powerful countries in the world. At the 2009 G-20 in Pittsburgh, Obama attempted to basically supplant the G-20 and G-8 with a G-2 of the US and China. China wasn't interested for it's own reasons. But it goes to show you, if the opportunity arises, the mighty of the world will start rulemaking without regard for the meek.

It comes down to this. There will be rooms in which the future of the world will be decided. Now and for decades to come. Sweden, with 9 million people and a GDP of ~$500 billion has no right to be in that room. The EU, with a population of 508 million and GDP of $17 trillion, gets to be at the head of the table alongside the US. So what do you want? To have influence in what goes on inside the room? Or hear about it later?

In our highly integrated, globalized society, no country of 9 million gets to decide it's own fate.

[Deleted]

You do.

No. That didn't happen before we joined EU and it won't happen without EU. I'm certainly not okay with some lolworthy EU politicians deciding the fate of people without us even electing them, that's not democracy.

[Skroe]

No. That didn't happen before we joined EU and it won't happen without EU.

The world's changed a lot since the EU was born. American power expanded. China has risen. Russia has declined. 2 billion people have risen out of poverty and form the core of an emerging global middle class. SOme countries have seen their populations double or triple. Global GDP has surged. Technology has changed everything and climate change has brought new urgency to global policymaking solutions.

The old pre-EU approach won't work. It is obsolete. 25 years ago, most problems were regional and demanded regional solutions. Sweden played a part in regional solutions in Europe. Today problems are global and demand global solutions. 9 million person countries anywhere on earth will play no role. But larger blocs acting as force multipliers will play a leading role.

[Deleted]

The world's changed a lot since the EU was born. American power expanded. China has risen. Russia has declined. 2 billion people have risen out of poverty and form the core of an emerging global middle class. SOme countries have seen their populations double or triple. Global GDP has surged. Technology has changed everything and climate change has brought new urgency to global policymaking solutions.

The old pre-EU approach won't work. It is obsolete. 25 years ago, most problems were regional and demanded regional solutions. Sweden played a part in regional solutions in Europe. Today problems are global and demand global solutions. 9 million person countries anywhere on earth will play no role. But larger blocs acting as force multipliers will play a leading role.

Sure, I'm ok with a trade union but I'm not ok with EU and the way it is now. It should be destroyed. Bunch of politicians who weren't even elected by us deciding what happens here? They can fuck right off. This is akin to a one-party state more and more with people losing the ways to influence the direction they want their country to go in and more and more power is given to EU politicians(who we haven't even elected) to dictate it instead.