Are Russians Probing for Weaknesses?

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: wings7

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Yes. I've heard a few intriguing scenarios vis a vis the Baltic states and the prospective NATO response. Some of these scenarios have even included Russian "escalation to de-escalation" use of nuclear weapons following a Blitzkrieg-type attack.

Particularly troubling would be the hypothetical attack on a non-NATO state in Northern Europe. What would the rest of NATO do in that case?

NATO would not sit idly by...

I always thought so.

But lately some statements have been troubling. Although going into them would get this thread locked. All I am saying is that signals do matter. Sometimes a lot.

I read about a war-game where Russian forces moved into one of the Baltic countries and at the same time occupied Gotland and placed air defences there. The result of these wargames were not all that positive for NATO.

If you mean statements from the United States, it's questionable in my humble opinion.

[MakeeLearn]

House of Mirrors.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I always thought so.

But lately some statements have been troubling. Although going into them would get this thread locked. All I am saying is that signals do matter. Sometimes a lot.

I read about a war-game where Russian forces moved into one of the Baltic countries and at the same time occupied Gotland and placed air defences there. The result of these wargames were not all that positive for NATO.

Yes. I've read about this scenario as well. Furthermore-like the sundae with a cherry on top, a tactical nuclear device was delivered and detonated onto a non-nuclear NATO target marshalling ground to signal the earnestness of the Russian conquest. The 'escalation to de-escalation' I spoke of earlier.

"We have this territory now ('ground truth') and are going to use nuclear weapons to keep it. What are you going to do about it?" I'm not at all sure of the response merited or delivered. I know it would take some strong leadership to respond to such a nasty scenario. I don't see that leadership anywhere around the world, quite frankly.

I don't know that NATO would do anything for Sweden. Sorry, but that's the fact. We have no legal or treaty defense responsibilities with them that would merit our engagement in a broader war for their defense. Sweden has played the 'unaligned' 'neutral' card for many, many years. It's served them well for the most part. They've declined NATO membership repeatedly, so they've 'made their own bed."

[Orm]

Sweden and NATO, mainly USA, have co-operated for a long time. And recently there is a memorandum of understanding between Sweden and NATO.

The sad thing, however, is that Sweden currently has no defence worth mentioning. Gotland have had no defence at all for a while and now they have a reinforced platoon there.

http://www.riksdagen.se/en/news/2016/ma ... ort-ufou4/

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Sweden and NATO, mainly USA, have co-operated for a long time. And recently there is a memorandum of understanding between Sweden and NATO.

The sad thing, however, is that Sweden currently has no defence worth mentioning. Gotland have had no defence at all for a while and now they have a reinforced platoon there.

http://www.riksdagen.se/en/news/2016/ma ... ort-ufou4/

With all due respect, "Host Nation Support" is a diplomatic nicety, not a mutual defense agreement. I understand that there has been long-term 'cooperation' and drilling together, but I don't know what that will mean if there's shooting involved.

Do we (US and NATO) put our men and material at risk for a non-aligned nation, even if we are sympathetic to them? Doubly so if there's nukes involved at any stage.

I'd recommend a path of self-reliance and self-defense. Sweden has recently increased its military expenditures significantly. I only hope that there's enough time...[:(]

[VPaulus]

If Sweden would be invaded by Russia, EU would have to be involved, and the whole European geostrategic balance would completely fall.
That would mean war and NATO sooner or later would end up to be involved.
Find very hard to believe that this could happen now or in the near future...

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

If Sweden would be invaded by Russia, EU would have to be involved, and the whole European geostrategic balance would completely fall.
That would mean war and NATO sooner or later would end up to be involved.
Find very hard to believe that this could happen now or in the near future...

+1, I agree!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

If Sweden would be invaded by Russia, EU would have to be involved, and the whole European geostrategic balance would completely fall.
That would mean war and NATO sooner or later would end up to be involved.
Find very hard to believe that this could happen now or in the near future...

As we've seen several times over the last decade or so, efforts to build a "European Army" have failed. Repeatedly. There *is* no European Army that is tasked with the common defense of EU members.

Yes, Russia invading Sweden would mean war. For Sweden. Do you think that Italians would voluntarily declare war against Russia on Sweden's behalf when they're not bound by a mutual defense pact? Would the Portuguese? I'm thinking that maybe Norway, Finland and Denmark might do something to help a Nordic neighbor, but I don't see a greater call Europe wide for a distant non-aligned country.

NATO would not be drawn into a war because Norway (or Denmark) unilaterally attacked Russia or put their forces in harm's way defending Sweden.

I can see a Machiavellian Russia effectively 'dividing and conquering' in this manner.

[Orm]

The idea is not that an attack on Sweden is the main event. The theory is that there is a conflict brewing in the Baltic area and Gotland is occupied as a 'pre-emptive' measure before a conflict begins with a NATO country. And if Gotland is occupied then the NATO air superiority is seriously hampered.

[Orm]

I am not sure of anything any more. People and nations seems to act more and more selfish as time goes by. Not all nations and not all people by all means. But to many for comfort.

[VPaulus]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
As we've seen several times over the last decade or so, efforts to build a "European Army" have failed. Repeatedly. There *is* no European Army that is tasked with the common defense of EU members.

Unfortunately that's true (and this is something that must be seriously addressed after Brexit), but still we have our national armies and if needed we will use stick and stones. [;)]
This is besides the point. If EU didn't react, this would be the end of the EU and of all balance between East and West.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Yes, Russia invading Sweden would mean war. For Sweden. Do you think that Italians would voluntarily declare war against Russia on Sweden's behalf when they're not bound by a mutual defense pact? Would the Portuguese?

Yes. As a Portuguese, and a member of EU, I would see it as a direct declaration of war to my country.
I'm pretty sure it would be unacceptable, at least to any Western European country, and even UK would have to react.
All EU would be involved. Look, we are talking about Sweden, not Ukraine or any Baltic states.
That's the way I see it.

ORIGINAL: Orm

The idea is not that an attack on Sweden is the main event. The theory is that there is a conflict brewing in the Baltic area and Gotland is occupied as a 'pre-emptive' measure before a conflict begins with a NATO country. And if Gotland is occupied then the NATO air superiority is seriously hampered.

Isn't Gotland part of the Swedish national territory? Wouldn't this be a direct attack on Sweden?

[Orm]

Isn't Gotland part of the Swedish national territory? Wouldn't this be a direct attack on Sweden?

It would.

But it was the premise of a NATO war game. (The theory, I suspect, that in a conflict with a NATO country they wouldn't be much concern about a undefended, or lightly defended, Gotland that Sweden lack capacity to retake if lost. Once Gotland was occupied the anti air there and in Kaliningrad controlled the sky around the Baltic countries effectively stopping NATO air support)

And the Swedish defence on Gotland was dismantled after the end of the cold war. There has been no Swedish military there at all. Now it has been decided to put some defence there. Currently 200 men (infantry), I think.

[VPaulus]

Let me be clear, everything is possible, of course.
But it would be a highly risky manoeuvrer for Russia, for any gains that it might get.
I don't dispute the lack of leadership on Europe, and that we are more in a selfish mood than we were before 2008, but my perception is that we are not at the same stage as we were on 1938.
Again, I'm referring to Sweden, not the Baltic States or Ukraine.

[Orm]

Indeed.

[CGGrognard]

This is a game that both sides (U.S. & Russia) have been playing for years. The tempo died down for a while but is definitely picking back up. Here's a recent article that illustrates why the U.S. does it.
Probing Russian Defenses

[Jagdtiger14]

People and nations seems to act more and more selfish as time goes by.

I agree. The US has been very generous with Europe for a very long while and for good reason while the cold war was on. Once the Soviet Union dissolved, the US continued to be extremely generous and should have drastically re-arranged its costs and commitments to Europe (far more so than we did). Many NATO members have for a long while fallen short on the agreed upon minimum GDP spending (2%). Only Greece, Poland, UK, and Estonia are meeting the 2% MINIMUM...each member realistically should spend at least 4%. If Europeans are un-willing (or less willing) to defend themselves, why should the US come to the rescue for a 4th time? Weakness = war.

As for non-NATO members such as Sweden (my wife is Swedish, and her father is in the upper echelons of the Swedish military)...why should the US come to its defense, or to the defense of their island Gotland? Sweden chose to not be a member of NATO...reveling in their neutral status during the cold war and since, now I see a lot of fear and concern coming from there and possibly joining NATO. During the cold war Sweden defended itself very well against violators of its territorial waters (vs subs), why cant they continue this on a grander scale? I don't want Sweden in NATO now until they prove to be an asset (spend 4%). The US is not obligated to get involved in a war vs Russia if certain NATO members come to the assistance of Sweden...then they are on your own. The US should reconsider the structure and rules for NATO. And if member states do not live up to their obligations, then they are removed from the alliance, or the US leaves.

In my opinion, if Russia makes a move on NATO, it will be the Baltic States since there are a huge number %-wise of Russians living there. But Russia has other concerns/opportunities (besides Syria): Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia. With Winter coming on, Russia can use natural gas diplomacy. They have moved nuclear weapons closer to western Europe. They claim to be able to deliver nuclear weapons by drone now.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[wings7]

A bump to get rid of the spam bot name.