Interviewer: "You think that there could be war in Sweden? [with Russia]"
Micael Bydén: "Yes." — Jan 8, 2024
Pål Jonson:
At the same time, Russia has mobilised its economy and defence industry for war.
An armed attack against Sweden cannot be ruled out. War can also come to us. — Jan 8, 2024
Aleksey Pushkov:
Following the military leaders of the Czech Republic and Holland, another one is the same - the Minister of Civil Defense of Sweden called on citizens to be prepared for war. “There could be a war in Sweden,” Carl-Oskar Bohlin said at a press conference. He was joined by the Commander-in-Chief of the Swedish Armed Forces, Micael Bydén. He is also eager to move “from words to actions.” My hands are really itching.
Sweden is one of the first countries in Europe in terms of the level of anti-Russian paranoia. Russian submarines have been fishing there for many years, and for some it has become the main occupation in life. For many years they have been telling how Russia is supposedly “preparing to capture Gothenburg”, and other nonsense. Apparently, this is how they try to give Sweden a geopolitical importance that it does not have. Sometimes it seems that some Swedish military personnel, as well as journalists, are almost dreaming of war. Apparently they can’t calm down since the defeat at Poltava... — Jan 8, 2024
Pål Jonson:
I do not engage with Russia when they use various forms of disinformation.
Russia has put both its economy and its defense industry on a war footing, and of course they continue to pressure Ukraine. — Jan 9, 2024
Putin really wanted to reach a peaceful settlement with Ukraine — Tzeentch
I think that will wake up finally Europeans put effort in their own defense industry. — ssu
At least, the Baltic States will feel the pressure.The problem is that we would still have a war in Ukraine and the risk that Russia will see the American retreat from Europe as an opportunity to become more aggressive, starting with the Baltic States. — neomac
YES!If Europe were even to remotely get its act together, there'd be no Russian threat whatsoever. — Tzeentch
The EU is the best we can make — ssu
Though, it is important to stress that even though I believe we should have a credible deterrent, we should not combine an arms build-up with antagonism towards Russia. A deterrent should have as its purpose stable relations between east and west. — Tzeentch
The Kremlin's authoritarianism regress oppression opacity irredentism posturing polemic bombing is indeed threatening, and anyone valuing democracy transparency freedom can be expected to respond — Jan 1, 2024
There should be antagonism towards that. There was towards the Third Reich. Was and is towards apartheid. — jorndoe
There should be antagonism towards that. There was towards the Third Reich. Was and is towards apartheid. And this. ... What would you think not standing up does? (Would that be cowardice, complicity, assent, something else?) — jorndoe
The West should get its own house in order before it starts lecturing and antagonizing other countries, because currently it has zero credibility. — Tzeentch
There's plenty of evil in the world the West condones and profits from and there's plenty other evil any Western decision maker or policy analyst will giddily explain at some length how we don't have practical means to do anything about it and so "making a stand" would be counter productive.
The West has created a theatrical performance in Ukraine (at a severe cost to Ukraine) of pretending to be "standing up" to something, because it serves US interest. — boethius
The US has defeated the Euro as a competitor to the dollar, with plenty of money to throw at the defence industry in the process, which is also now rebranded as intrepid peace warriors almost overnight (rather than the corrupt military industrial congressional complex that ruined Afghanistan and then fled like cowards when it turned into a liability). — boethius
I agree with this.Though, it is important to stress that even though I believe we should have a credible deterrent, we should not combine an arms build-up with antagonism towards Russia. A deterrent should have as its purpose stable relations between east and west. — Tzeentch
Everyone is a hypocrite, so what? Hypocrisy is an ad hominem charge. — Echarmion
The US military has always been both. The real rebranding is that of the European militaries, which suddenly have gone from necessary evil to integral part of the state again. — Echarmion
The Nordics do cooperate very well. However, in security policy there's always the problem that in the end, "going alone/opting out" can be beneficial. Not to fully commit your country to defend another country. Sweden in the end is the perfect example of this: It did send volunteers and many aircraft to help Finland in the Winter War. It didn't help Denmark or Norway when attacked by Germany. It survived WW2 intact, only with few stray Russians bombers accidentally bombing Stockholm thinking it's Helsinki. It's military deterrence and foreign policy kept it out from the war, not being occupied by either side, just like the Swiss managed to do. Is that a bad thing?Maybe if there's a common, increasing clear and present danger...? At least some parts of Europe (like Scandinavia / the Nordics, the Baltics) typically tend to cooperate reasonably well. Not that this by itself will do, though. — jorndoe
the reason for not giving Ukraine the best weapons there are, has been exactly the worry of escalation to a nuclear war. — ssu
The real question is, how much Europeans have that will to fight in the first place? Because that's where your deterrence starts from. — ssu
So yes, that US policy makers are hypocrites and aren't making any sort of "stand" in Ukraine is essential to understanding the conflict. — boethius
As for Europe ... what's the evidence of that European change in sentiments. A lot of people like cheering on the war in Ukraine, that's for sure, but the current protests spreading over Europe: Netherlands, Germany, Poland, France and so on, are not to insist on a mad dash to rearm to fight the Russians but on subjects like wages and the cost of living and fuel and so on. — boethius
I suspect that it's less the actual military staffs that are worried about nuclear escalation, and more the politicians that worry about the fears of their voters. — Echarmion
Putin's trump card in this conflict appears to ultimately be the right wing movements that Russia has sponsored in the West for years. — Echarmion
Yet that credible deterrent can be viewed always by the Kremlin as a threat that is out to get them. It needs an enemy to justify it's authoritarian grip. — ssu
Lithuania surely will ask for defense assistance of article 5. The real issue is how treaty members will react to this. How will their populations far from Lithuania respond?
Is this a reason to go to a conflict which can lead to full scale nuclear war? — ssu
YES!
But sorry. I'm an European, I know these people.
The EU is the best we can make. Non-US NATO would be a shadow of the former organization. Or if Russia bombed with cruise missiles EVERY European Capitol, that could make us work together. But that's not going to happen. — ssu
So does the UK, which is still taking part in the defence cooperation.But doesn't the fact that NATO exist in itself cause the EU not to successfully cooperate militarily? There's simply no real need. I think if EU countries could centralise command and simply have all the countries current armies merge into a single force we would easily have an adequate defensive force. France already has the nukes for deterrence. — Benkei
(See German Intelligence Reports: NATO Prepares for War with Russia.)In a recent revelation by the German newspaper Bild, the Bundeswehr, Germany's armed forces, are reportedly gearing up for a possible hybrid attack by Russia on NATO's eastern flank. This anticipated offensive could commence as early as February 2024, as per a classified document from the German Federal Ministry of Defence.
The document, marked "Top Secret – For Official Use Only," outlines a detailed scenario named "Alliance Defence 2025." It predicts a series of events starting in February 2024, where Russia is expected to initiate another wave of mobilization, drafting an additional 200,000 individuals into its army. This move is set to precede a spring offensive against Ukraine, pushing the Ukrainian forces back by June.
The scenario escalates in July with Russia's transition from covert to increasingly overt attacks against Western interests, particularly targeting the Baltic states with cyberattacks and other forms of hybrid warfare. These actions are anticipated to provoke clashes, which Russia could use as a pretext for large-scale military exercises on its territory and in Belarus.
A significant escalation is projected for October when Russia might deploy troops and medium-range missiles to the strategically important region of Kaliningrad. From December 2024 onwards, the scenario foresees an artificially induced "border conflict" and "clashes with numerous casualties" in the vicinity of the Suwałki Gap, a critical corridor between Belarus and Kaliningrad.
In a concerning development, the scenario suggests that Russia, with Belarusian support, could replicate its 2014 invasion tactics used in Ukraine but this time on NATO territory. This is speculated to occur at a time when the United States might be politically vulnerable due to the presidential election transition.
In my opinion, that was a perfect template for long-term stability, and it's hard to see why the Russians would have wanted to break that status quo by arbitrarily warmongering. — Tzeentch
The membership of one Superpower would make it more easy to coordinate any actions. It's basically that the US proposes an operation and countries either commit or not. Otherwise you would have to have the "Troika" of France, UK and Germany. They should work together, have an unified objective. Otherwise it is improbable that EU will act in coordination. Germany has huge problems in creating and operating an effective armed forces in the current situation. Not only has it difficulties creating that "bang for buck" in defense spending, it has (like Japan) huge sensitivities in using military force. Only France and the UK have capabilities to project power out of the area. They also do have the "can do" spirit of a Great Power. All other nations are basically supportive. — ssu
I agree. Military people can understand escalation. The public doesn't. Indeed, the politicians are more afraid than the military.I suspect that it's less the actual military staffs that are worried about nuclear escalation, and more the politicians that worry about the fears of their voters. — Echarmion
That is true, good remark!Don't write off Poland. Poland may well be a very important player in the EU of the future. — Echarmion
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.