KJ
Active member
I have stayed out of this thread intentionally to see your discussion and your conclusions..
Here is my opinion, it is in all parts mine and does NOT reflect the official standpoint of the Swedish government in any way, shape or form.
The reality is this.
The USSR, The soviet union, Russia..Whatever you decide to call it never really stopped being a threat towards at least the smaller nations in it´s hemisphere.
Sweden, Norway, Iceland or by all means the Baltic states and Chechnya are all examples of nations that never can afford to view the huge neighbour to the East anything but a military threat.
A failure to do so would be inviting Russia to get it´s way using threat of military force.
Now, the threat of a seaborne/Airborne invasion may have decreased together with the rusting invasion fleets in Russian harbors, but Russias ability to deliver a decisive first strike towards any of these nations is still enough to label them a real and present military threat.
As I stated in another thread a while back.
To americans a war over fishing rights/ oil rights and the use of Iceland may seem rediculous.
But to some nations it is a huge chunk of the economy, present and future.
A Russian government that decides to use military power to enforce whatever right to these natural resources they might think they have COULD and I stress the word COULD could turn into a hot conflict very very quickly.
Norway, GB, Denmark and as an extension Sweden would not let the Russians use military strength to enforce their policies.
Nukes are a thing of the past between nations (not counting terror attacks).
What I see as more serious is that the Russian are making the point: Our air assets can and will reach this far if they have to.
They are ready and able.
This will undoubtedly put more pressure on Norway and as an extension it´s neighbours that might or might not have interceptors on stand by during these sorties.
Cynical again..
//KJ.
Here is my opinion, it is in all parts mine and does NOT reflect the official standpoint of the Swedish government in any way, shape or form.
The reality is this.
The USSR, The soviet union, Russia..Whatever you decide to call it never really stopped being a threat towards at least the smaller nations in it´s hemisphere.
Sweden, Norway, Iceland or by all means the Baltic states and Chechnya are all examples of nations that never can afford to view the huge neighbour to the East anything but a military threat.
A failure to do so would be inviting Russia to get it´s way using threat of military force.
Now, the threat of a seaborne/Airborne invasion may have decreased together with the rusting invasion fleets in Russian harbors, but Russias ability to deliver a decisive first strike towards any of these nations is still enough to label them a real and present military threat.
As I stated in another thread a while back.
To americans a war over fishing rights/ oil rights and the use of Iceland may seem rediculous.
But to some nations it is a huge chunk of the economy, present and future.
A Russian government that decides to use military power to enforce whatever right to these natural resources they might think they have COULD and I stress the word COULD could turn into a hot conflict very very quickly.
Norway, GB, Denmark and as an extension Sweden would not let the Russians use military strength to enforce their policies.
Nukes are a thing of the past between nations (not counting terror attacks).
What I see as more serious is that the Russian are making the point: Our air assets can and will reach this far if they have to.
They are ready and able.
This will undoubtedly put more pressure on Norway and as an extension it´s neighbours that might or might not have interceptors on stand by during these sorties.
Cynical again..
//KJ.
Last edited: