Putin puts troops in western Russia on alert in drill 1.1

[Bakis]

Latvia going west yet again.

[MerinPally]

Latvia going west yet again.

(Go west) Life is peaceful there
(Go west) Lots of open air
(Go west) To begin life new
(Go west) This is what we'll do

(Go west) Sun in winter time
(Go west) We will do just fine
(Go west) Where the skies are blue
(Go west) This and more we'll do

?

[Bakis]

yea they could go more North Korean... like well yea pick a certain direction.

[Jackmoves]

Never underestimate the power of boobies.

True dat. lol

Bruce Acker the former US defense attache to Sweden(June 2007 to May 2011) has had a couple of good debate articles published on Sweden and NATO. (he works as a consultant here now), they've been published in for example SvD(big morning broadsheet) and the Daily Industry(economic newspaper).

Many people here still live in, I don't know, denial or ignorance. Neutrality is passed on gone, if it ever really existed... we are pretty much unofficial NATO members... without actually having any real influence and say. Kind of like Norway and the EU: lol

“I believe Swedes have been living in a world where neutrality has been a very positive, almost religious concept of moral standing,” he said, But outside observers may not agree with how it has played out.

“A senior analyst back home once said ‘It’s very difficult to be sanctimonious if you’ve been neutral about Hitler and Stalin’,” Acker recalled. “I don’t want to dredge up old history, but if that old history becomes a pattern it becomes relevant.”

Indeed, while many believe Sweden still to be neutral, others argue that joining the EU in 1995 put an end to neutrality.

Also, Sweden has taken part in Nato operations since the Bosnian war in the early nineties. Nowadays, Sweden even has an army that’s more compatible with Nato than some actual Nato members’ armies.

Acker has pointed out that Sweden outperformed many Nato countries in Afghanistan, Libya, and the Balkans, and that Nato commanders surely don’t doubt that Sweden will deliver. But will its people be up for the challenge again?

“What (outsides observers) see is a divided electorate (many of whom) still believe in outdated war-fighting concepts, who cling to a concept of self-defence rather than collective defence, and see jobs, welfare, and economy as much higher priority issues than security,” he wrote.

The American was not surprised to hear that his text got people talking, as earlier revelations by defence reporter Mikael Holmström and author Robert Dalsjö similarly got people’s attention. Both men have argued that despite “neutrality” Sweden has relied on Nato.

“They describe it as a hoax(…) Swedes have to admit they were duped by their government – and that’s painful,” Acker said.

He said it was unlikely that Sweden would apply to join Nato in the next few years.

“Popular opinion in Sweden doesn’t support this,” he said.

“I also believe both Nato and the US have been quite careful not to presume to know what is best for the Swedish people, but they are both quite clear now that if you believe we have a common problem, then the common solution is Nato.”

Here is one of his articles.

Sometimes seeing clearly requires not only a professional eye, but a bit of professional distance from the issue. This article seeks to examine some of the common Sweden-related NATO questions and hypothesis from an outsider’s perspective, admittedly, heavily influenced by an American view. My comments should not be considered answers to the posed questions but rather stimulus for further study and perhaps the long overdue debate on NATO membership. It is important to point out however that the following observations reflect personal observations, and in no way seek to represent either NATO or the US Government.

Will NATO assist Sweden in the event of an attack? At Sälen, NATO General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen answered this question as clearly as a politician at his level likely ever will. Article 5 applies to NATO members and only to NATO members, not partners. But the right question is just as important as the answer. Let’s be clear, the foundation for Sweden’s unilateral solidarity declaration is completely correct. There exists no remotely conceivable scenario of an attack on Sweden where NATO’s vital interests are not threatened, likely at an unacceptable level to the alliance. If the question were, will NATO react militarily if Russia, for example, seizes key nodes in Swedish territory like Göteborg harbour, or Gotland, the answer is most likely yes, with all haste. While NATO is not obliged to aid, Sweden and NATO’s interest coincide to a great degree—though defending the rear of the NATO-member Baltic States and the flanks of member Scandinavian nations are the decisive factors for NATO, not defending Swedish territory. The main point, however, remains: Without membership, Swedish interests are supported by coincidental NATO interests.

Sweden’s Armed forces are so weak, it hasn’t even the capability to receive help. This is an interesting concept, founded in a military logistics planner’s competence in the complexity of reception, staging, and onward movement. Unfortunately, this thesis also falls victim to the logical flaw of overestimating enemy capabilities while underestimating one’s own. Here is the conundrum. A hypothetical enemy force lands in one or more places in Sweden, presumably in a contested entry, for the assumed purpose of exploiting key transportation notes and strategically advantageous positions. It is assumed that this will succeed not only without the assistance of Sweden, but in fact while exposed to all the resistance Sweden can assemble. By this argument, NATO on the other hand apparently needs a well-prepared Swedish reception in order to succeed. Compared to any foreseeable enemy to Sweden, NATO and the US have far greater experience assembling an effective fighting force in the most barren of environments.

Arriving uncontested in the midst of one of the most developed infrastructures on earth would be simple compared to the places they have been in the past decades. The reality of course is that NATO would much prefer to be well received upon arrival, with a well-rehearsed plan to execute, but it is not a necessary condition. The purveyors of this theory are completely correct in one decisive aspect, at least from a Swedish perspective: Without the capability to receive and host assisting forces, command of the situation, and with it sovereignty, is significantly diminished.

Does NATO have the resources to defend Sweden? Of course this question is unanswerable without first identifying against what and with how much warning; and this is often taken out of context as was ÖB’s statement mentioned at the start of this article. Certainly NATO does not have the capacity in current combat readiness to repel an initial and then sustained attack wherever, whenever. Obviously the forces have reduced over the recent years, and there is no rebuilding on the horizon commensurate with the stated Russian re-armament plan. These kinds of questions though often overlook a critical element of planning, and that is assessing the enemy’s strategic objectives. One likely strategic objective from Sweden’s perspective is to defend all of its territory. As long as Sweden is not a member, NATO will not likely place that objective in the strategic category, but as an operational or tactical objective. It seems unlikely an enemy in the foreseeable future will have a strategic objective to take Swedish territory, but rather will see that as a means to some other end.

Most discussions within the limited Swedish debate argue that a likely end will probably be either securing a platform for action in the Baltics or, as some claim, to secure economic lines of communication. I rather strongly dispute the latter in the context of a NATO debate as it implies a split in NATO, since those economic lines go to NATO-member Germany among others. So from a NATO perspective, what is needed is sufficient capacity to prevent the enemy from achieving its strategic objectives, that is using Swedish territory for its advantage. This will require a sizable capability, but does not necessarily require immediately ejecting soldiers from Sweden. Any ground forces occupying Sweden would likely not directly threaten the Baltics, rather it is the air and sea power they support that are the threat. It is also important to note that without Swedish assistance, any invading enemy will have vulnerable logistics paths to defend. Commanding or disputing the air over and the seas around Sweden would probably suffice and it is likely possible for NATO to rapidly deploy that capability. What this scenario implies then is an enemy ground force present in Sweden, removal of which will be much higher on Sweden’s list of objectives than it will be on NATO’s, though it is likely both will desire to see the occupation end eventually.

What can Sweden offer that NATO wants? In this regard, it perhaps is not nearly as bleak as one might think from what appears in some media. By and large, when Sweden contributes something, it is well-equipped, well trained, compatible and complete. The Swedish Air Force, for example, is at the head of the class in the region, and amongst the best of the world. Don’t be confused by the occasional pessimistic review of Gripen performance in Libya. NATO recognizes from Swedish participation in that operation and a variety of comprehensive exercises that the airplanes, crews and logistics capabilities integrate into modern warfare essentially seamlessly. There is little doubt that the Swedish-led EU Nordic battle group both in 2008 and 2011, met expectations at least as well, if not better than any other EU battle group since the idea was conceived. When Sweden deploys soldiers, they are high-end, mature soldiers, well suited to mentoring and assisting organic fighting forces. Sweden has invested in strategic and tactical mobility in their airlift and medium lift helicopter programs. Abroad, the Swedish Navy has proven it has the ships, leadership and crew to participate and lead international flotillas. In the event of a Baltic crisis, Sweden possesses superb underwater capability, not to mention its proven skills to attack and sink US aircraft carriers, undetected, in the Pacific. Most importantly, Sweden possesses geography and arguably a unique appreciation of its geography. Nearly all arguments of a military threat to Sweden start with geography.

Will Sweden save money on defense by joining NATO? As stated earlier, the force necessary to defend a small nation alone is outrageously large and therefore expensive. Cooperation yields economic as well as operational efficiencies. However, motivating a NATO membership campaign on the basis of cost savings alone risks NATO’s welcoming attitude toward Swedish membership. Arguments about the affordability of defense in NATO are not well received, especially in the US, and within Europe surely few are willing to subsidize Sweden’s defense, as the Swedish economy is perceived as being well above the norm within NATO.

A healthy NATO debate would address these questions thoroughly and certainly uncover many more. Although Sweden’s choices appear rather limited indeed and fairly well known, it is the analysis of the outcome of the various paths that must be explored to make a rational decision. From my vantage point, most common arguments made to date lack depth, credibility, and analysis.

Bruce Acker

[Cybran]

?

Wasn't Britain's official motto "We're full"?

[Whatsnew]

Political candidates for one of the 30 seats (out of 450) in the Ukrainian parliament for the Donbass area are excluded from the parliamentary elections at the end of the month, says Yuriy Lutsenko (leader of Petro Poroshenko Bloc). The Crimean constituencies were already excluded before.

[dozor]

Political candidates for one of the 30 seats (out of 450) in the Ukrainian parliament for the Donbass area are excluded from the parliamentary elections at the end of the month, says Yuriy Lutsenko (leader of Petro Poroshenko Bloc). The Crimean constituencies were already excluded before.

Temporarily, for period those areas are hold by separatists. It will be resumed when Ukrainian government will establish control in those areas.

[Shalcker]

Temporarily, for period those areas are hold by separatists. It will be resumed when Ukrainian government will establish control in those areas.

So, basically never?

[Kellhound]

So, basically never?

Then those regions have no reason to complain by that reasoning.

[Rukentuts]

Mejlis. The tatars want to have a parallel power structure based on religion and remain segregated. "Separation of Church and State" doesn't only apply to Churches.

That's right. Only the Orthodox Church is allowed political power in Russia.

[Haven]

Hah, a funny one.

[dozor]

Hah, a funny one.

Prepare your tinfoil hats!

[Kellhound]

Prepare your tinfoil hats!

I prefer titanium hats myself.

[Cybran]

That's right. Only the Orthodox Church is allowed political power in Russia.

Apart from the fact that they are nothing alike the Majlis, which acts as an executive branch of power and court, sure. Keep repeating your nonsense.

[Deleted]

Meanwhile in Crimea Tatars keep on dying.

In an abandoned sanatorium in Yalta found dead 25-year-old Eden Assanov who disappeared under mysterious circumstances on 29 September. Perhaps young Crimean Tatar was accused of the case directed Sentsova indicate pro-Ukrainian media. Assanova initials coincide with the data of alleged members of the terrorist organization only partially.

Assanova body taken to the local morgue, said the publication "Krym.Realii." Funeral to be held on Tuesday, October 7, at Saki. According to TSN, Eden is not involved in political activities, he was calm and non-controversial man and lifeguard at one of the resorts.

Meanwhile, said the channel, in the Crimea lost for the fourth young Crimean Tatar this week.

http://newsru.com/russia/07oct2014/crimea.html

As one thinker once said : ''There can be no humane occupation'''.

- - - Updated - - -

Apart from the fact that they are nothing alike the Majlis, which acts as an executive branch of power and court, sure. Keep repeating your nonsense.

I knew you werent bright so to speak but this is the last nail in the coffin - the only reason why Russ Orthodox Church exists is because its another schism of Putins regime - it has barely anything to do with religion at all.I`ve always bee uneasy with Orthodoxy as such but its precisely that in Russia it has shown its true colours - it can exist and be potenent only when its completely fused with current regime,no matter how shitty it is.And that means being a splinet in everything - be it social matters,state budget etc. .


------------------------------

The inconvinient truth about Russia-EU gas relations : (DW.de) http://tinyurl.com/ozytu6e

And the only un-biased analyst about gas/oil sector about Russia in Russia.

Giggled when he started talking about China and how freaked the the other guy was.

[Whatsnew]

Temporarily, for period those areas are hold by separatists. It will be resumed when Ukrainian government will establish control in those areas.

So what happened to the proposed three years of autonomy, that was just an empty gesture then? I can understand if they can't vote for representation of the autonomous regions in the Rada.

- - - Updated - - -

Hah, a funny one.

You should enable English subtitles, never seen them this bad

[Rukentuts]

Keep repeating your nonsense.

The fact that the Orthodox Church has political power in Russia is "nonsense"? Or only "nonsense" in the scope of hypocrisy?

[Cybran]

Russians were evil when they were godless. Now they are evil when they are religions. You are just grasping at straws to justify your bigotry.

[Rukentuts]

Yeah, stating that, correctly I might add, that the Russian Orthodox Church has massive political weight makes me such a bigot :P

Victim routine a bit harder (although I'm unaware on how much more straw is left). We can ignore how wrong you are.

[Cybran]

We can ignore how wrong you are.

For me to be wrong you would have to prove that the ROC is an extremist organization that tries to undermine the federal government. Same as the Mejlis.