Swedes are waiting for Moscow attack

In early July, the chairman of the Swedish People’s Party, J. Berklund, stated that his country was in danger. The strategic island of Gotland, located in the middle of the Baltic Sea, is now completely defenseless. And so that the Russians do not conquer it, Sweden must place a permanent brigade in 5 of thousands of people on Gotland. “If an island is taken away from us, we can never return it,” he said.

One could ignore such fantasies, but recently the Swedish Military Academy published a remarkable book. In it, experts examine the question of how Sweden and Finland should act if the Baltic states are attacked by aggressive Moscow. According to the authors, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are too weak. In addition, these countries have an unfavorable geographical position - the Russian army is able to occupy the Baltic States almost a week without preparation. Therefore, the Baltic countries should come to the aid of Sweden and Finland.

The Swedish general K. Neretnieks believes that in the event of a Russian attack, one battalion of his paratroopers should occupy the Estonian islands of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa. At the same time aviation Finland needs to start destroying targets outside the Estonian islands. Then the forces of the United States and NATO will enter the battle. But in this case, the authors of the study do not exclude that Moscow will use nuclear weapon.

As Russian experts note, such plans of the Swedish military have little in common with reality. Swedes would have to study the foreign policy of Russia conducted by our country in recent years more closely. Moscow is not something that is not ready to seize foreign territories, but on the contrary, it distributes its own. And without any war. As a result of the peace negotiations with Norway, this country gained vast territories. 25 March The Russian State Duma ratified the treaty on the delimitation of maritime spaces in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. Under this agreement, almost 90 thousand square kilometers of the disputed territory were ceded under the rule of Oslo.

Comments

[Max79]

These "friends" of the Baltic and not only have some kind of phobia or mania, or something. They probably have seen enough of American fantastic films !? Russia has never attacked for the sake of conquering new territories, but only fought back its own! in other countries. It hurts not logical everything looks. She's head is not to eat and drink, but also to think ...

[Civil]

strengthening political positions at the expense of an imaginary external enemy is the slaughter of poltotechnology)

[jamert]

That is, both Kamchatka and Kaliningrad are "primordially Russian territories?"

[Superduck]

In fact, yes, at least so far no one disputes this.

[jamert]

And the Russian campaigns on Constantinople-is also the liberation of the ancestral lands?

[Superduck]

jamert, do not bother with horseradish with radish. What does the original land have to do with it, here we are talking about the lands that were acquired as part of the expansion of the empire and not because they are original. And Constantinople went to rob purely, but to show themselves.

[PSih2097]

And the Russian campaigns on Constantinople-is also the liberation of the ancestral lands?

These are the same crusades, only exclusively for the Slavs.

That is, both Kamchatka and Kaliningrad are "primordially Russian territories?"

You forgot about Alaska.

[Joker]

First, find out the history of the transfer of Kaliningrad and then confirm.

[jamert]

I read the story. The question was not whether Russia (more precisely) the USSR took East Prussia away from Germany, but whether it was a "primordially Russian land." Read carefully.

[PSih2097]

It became "the primordially Russian land" after the campaigns of the Teutonic Order against Russia.
one more thing:

During the Seven Years War, January 11, 1758, Russian troops entered Königsberg. Residents of the city, including Kant, swore allegiance to Empress Elizabeth. Until 1762, the city was part of Russia.

[jamert]

During the Seven Years War, military operations were carried out in Silesia, Pomerania, the Czech Republic, Poland, North America, and India. But not in the territory of the Russian Empire. That is, the Russian army did exactly that in Germany that it conquered foreign territories. That in the case of Koenigsberg and she was given at least for a while.
And the fact that they swore - they would try not to swear.

[Joker]

Quote: jamert

I read the story.

- Well done.

[jamert]

The conversation was that:

"Russia has never attacked for the sake of conquering new territories, but only fought back its own!"

I personally do not understand how then Russia increased from the size of the Moscow principality to the present.

[PSih2097]

Like the Americans, they started on the east coast and ended up mainland North America.

[jamert]

And I do not deny that the amers are aggressors. But these are our aggressors, at least for the time being they are killing mousses.

[DAGESTAN333]

... while you say someone is being killed jamert..? - answer, if you are at least something of yourself ...

[svvaulsh]

So they advised you to read the story, so that it becomes clear. Or

Quote: jamert

amers are aggressors. But these are our aggressors

do not teach history?

[Kazakh]

jamert we’ll be strong, take whatever we want and it will be our ancestral territories and you will go to demonstrations with a map of Russia and shout bravo or lie quietly in a damp grave

[svvaulsh]

Interestingly, the battalion of Swedish paratroopers on the island in how many minutes will destroy the Su-25th?

[Superduck]

Despite what they will have with air defense, I think that a dozen stingers will not let him fly there very much, and if the corvette covers it, then even more so

[APASUS]

Again another attack of paranoia! News in a circle Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Finland ...................... there is no end and no edge, this topic is a bastard !
Russia at 65 percent, not mastered at all! Why the heck is Gogland for us?

[figwam]

At first glance, the story is funny, but ...
In the Baltic States, the United States has been conducting exercises for a long time to repulse the attacks of Russian troops and to destroy them. As well as a strike by NATO forces into the interior of our country, namely Tallinn-St. Petersburg and Riga-Moscow, more is not necessary. In the Baltics, bases are being created for reception a large number of equipment and soldiers.
Now we see the preparation of the Scandinavian countries for a conflict with us.
All wars begin with provocations, remember August 2008.
And if there is a need to protect the Russians in the Baltic states (it is not in vain that the Nazis are supported there), then the situation will repeat itself as in Ossetia, here’s the war!
Gaddafi was friends with the West, where is he now?

[Evgan]

You might think that in the RF Armed Forces there is no development of operational plans to repel the invasion of neighboring states / invasion of neighboring states. This is the normal combat work of headquarters and troops.
Gaddafi has never been particularly friendly with the West. He was more of a "friendly enemy" or "enemy friend", but not a "passionate friend".

[Stiffmaister]

I will convey the words of one great man: "Russia expanded its territories only with the help of just wars"

[Superduck]

Very fuzzy definition.

[Evgan]

Hmm ... Would you call the war with the Finns in 1939-1940 "fair"? And what about the war in Afghanistan, which, although it was not waged with the aim of directly expanding its territory, was intended to keep Afghanistan in its zone of influence? And the Polish campaign of the Red Army in 1939?

[Joker]

If viewed from the perspective of a geopolitical situation, then yes, it was justly and vitally necessary.

On the eve of the "big war", the early start of which was quite obvious, it was necessary to move the border from St. Petersburg, the Finns were offered very good conditions (vast lands to the north-east of St. Petersburg were offered if I am not mistaken), they refused.

[Evgan]

Regarding the Finnish war, I agree that this was vital. But if the Finns refused those - really good - conditions, then this still does not give a reason to call this war fair.
Well, there is nothing to say about Afghanistan - if the pro-Soviet regime had fallen there, the USSR would not have lost much.
Therefore, I do not agree that Russia / USSR has always fought fairly. But compared to some other countries (the same UK), we seem to be angels. Although, of course, is it possible to deny that the conquest of Afghanistan after the conquest of India was not vital to the British Empire? Well, that's me, a little joke.

[Superduck]

Great Britain started many wars and most of them were caused by the need to push the enemy and link him in a war with another country away from the borders of Britain, of course there were exceptions, but basically it was. Is this a good goal for the country?

[Superduck]

Well, after reading the forum you can make sure that an emergency war is inevitable, doesn’t it Joker that Russia needs to push the borders to the state of at least the USSR. The next question is, will it provoke a war? Where is the chicken and where is the egg, I don’t get it. I do not like whining about the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact, and generally evaluations of history in syllabic moods, but I still think that all the wars of this civilization were justified by something correct, but none of them was completely fair for all its participants.
In short, I do not believe in the righteousness of wars. Crusaders invaded Palestine to free the coffin, and were engaged in robbery and expansion of zones of influence. The USSR attacked Finland because the border is too close to Peter. And there is still an opinion that the USSR gravitated towards restoring the borders of the Russian empire as an idea, and this did by the way. And whether he received many bonuses from this is a question. Or do you think that the Balkan campaigns of the Russian empire were beyond the protection of the Orthodox Serbs ?!

[Joker]

SuperDuck, I evaluated specific actions under specific conditions and I consider my conclusion regarding that situation to be correct. And it is unlikely that this action provoked the 2nd World War, and if it had a relationship, it is extremely insignificant, somewhere around the 7th order.

[Superduck]

it is concrete - certainly not. But the reason for the Second World War was not that Hitler did not like Jews. The complex of unsolved problems in Europe, namely the complex. Was there a Finnish and Polish company in this complex - certainly. Or ask a provocative question. Why does everyone think that the USSR was not interested in this war, well, as always removing the snot, thinking with your head? The first answer begs about the following: Yes, because the USSR lost 40 million dead and then on. The First World War did not begin because the Principle soaked Ferdinand, and this was also an insignificant event if it had not provoked a war.
But the question is not what the USSR lost, but could he take advantage of the situation? Of course he could. Did you use it? Yes, of course (the presence of the Warsaw block is an example of this).
So why then the USSR was asked to not want that war? Is it only because it started a couple of months earlier than he was ready for it? Would the USSR achieve greatness in the 50-60s without a second war? Of course not, well, or with the help of another war, but not a good word for sure.
In short, all this snot and drool about the correctness of wars. The strong will always want to start a war, the weak either surrenders to mercy or retains honor and usually dies or wins.

[Joker]

The USSR war would be much more profitable a year or two later, rearmament would be partially completed, and army reform would be carried out.

Yes, our country took advantage of the situation and gained a foothold around the borders of the Russian Empire, but the machinations of Pindos are very clearly traced. The most striking example was when Hitler sent a resolution in the ass to limit the army, nobody pickled and didn’t block his loans ..

[Superduck]

Well, you yourself answered your question, if only a year later the USSR would have reached the English Channel, do you think that this would not have found heroic reasons?
An empire is born in expansion, lives in expansion and dies in its absence. Such is the harsh truth of the life of children and the USSR is just one example from hundreds and not the unique tragedy of the best country in the world.

[Joker]

Profitable does not mean to start.

Germany started the war with the aim of expanding living space, the need for which was caused, among other things, by colonies selected based on the results of the 1st World War.

The USSR and the resources and territory was enough, to protect their own as they say.

[Superduck]

Then the USSR after the war got into Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and Yemen, and even dofig where, probably in order to see from afar how much wealth it has. The issue is not in wealth but in spheres of influence, an empire cannot sit on its wealth for more than 20 years without collapsing. To be honest, I do not quite understand why, apparently the question is the possibility of effective mobilization of human and material resources, the expansion of the empire makes the blood flow in its veins.

[Joker]

I do not agree about the role of personalities in history. A lot depends on them, corny, the level of passing the route depends on the level of preparation of the rider, and here, in fact, a short-sighted man stood at the helm of the empire. This, of course, does not mean that the USSR model was flawless, but there were punctures in the western model of the economy, and the current crisis is proof of this (one can recall the great depression in Pindostana among the most famous).

[Joker]

Nevertheless, without going into theoretical prerequisites, let us look at the facts, the union could occupy (or at least try to occupy) the country of Suomi, but did not.

By the way, our cabinet of ministers did not start Korea, but was absolutely against the outbreak of hostilities.

And if in general - it is the Pindos policy that consists in rocking the boat and setting fire to conflicts, being, in fact, the most aggressive.

[Stiffmaister]

You need to understand that in 39, the Finns were inclined in their political considerations to Germany, they were a potential opponent

[Evgan]

So what? If suddenly someone is inclined to become a potential adversary, a preventive strike against him will be morally justified? :)

[avdkrd]

Finland, in general, was part of the Russian Empire until 1917 and was proudly called CHUKHNEY, like the Baltic independent states (in the sense of included), with varying degrees of autonomy. Any Russian "occupation" has and remains a big difference from the Western "progressive" democratisation (or what was it called before democracy?). There is one rule that was observed even during the councils - the Russians never imposed their cultural values. When the same Germans or Poles "annexed" a foreign country to their Fatherland, the original ones were destroyed first and their values, mainly religion, were implanted. There was no place for religious tolerance in Europe. The Poles in the twenties, mastering Ukraine, surpassed even Hitler, so methodically Orthodox churches were destroyed, the culture of the Ukrainian people was erased and their own culture was born (together with resettlement and genocide).

[Stiffmaister]

But it was said so

[datur]

Superduck- Well, like the ROMANS, they attacked the enemy to push the boundaries of the threat. And nothing more!

[Evgan]

SuperDuck, well, in this way, and NATO can be justified - they say they are expanding to make a buffer with their main enemy - Russia - more ...

[Superduck]

And what is unnatural for them? They have the strength to do this - they do it, the Russian Federation has no strength to resist - it has Rogozin. When the USSR had forces, then Poland and Afghanistan received troops on their territory, also by right of a strong one. In geopolitics, everything is simpler than it seems, the right of the strong.

[Evgan]

SuperDuck, yes, I’m just saying that it’s very incomprehensible to me when many forum participants curse Pendostany and satellites for trying to expand their zone of influence, so they say how bad they are, and we, so good, must resist them. But is it worth it to shout about it when, as was rightly said, geopolitics is mainly built not on abstract morality, but on the right of the strong.
Perhaps it is worth recognizing the same Americans not as enemies, but as rivals, moreover, rivals that deserve respect, because they really could a lot? Maybe you should not call the countries of Eastern Europe Pendos litter, given their size, natural and human resources?
SuperDuck, this is not a complaint to you, but ... to some here.

[Max79]

datur,
Sparingly said

[dobrik10]

As you noticed, all these "Napoleonic" plans of Sweden were published in official sources and, in my opinion, they are just a test of the reaction of Russia to these statements, and of their public.
And what, did these statements provoke any resonance? Personally, I have not heard.
It’s just that some people in this country wanted to play big politics, at least in words ...

[Black Colonel]

It would be time for corrupt Duma members to stand up against the wall for giving away what had been going for centuries (Ivan Vasilyevich Bunsha was ready to give half of Russia to the Swedes: "... but it's a pity, or what?"). As for today's Swedes (like almost all of Europe), these are all podpindosniki, scaring each other and pounding themselves in the chest - what kind of politicians they are, that they saw Moscow's insidious plans (here at least to equip their territory!)