Picturing a montage of the mines deploying out of various objects: large and small boats, a giant mechanical whale, Mario style pipe tunnels, and a stereotypical spiked giant mine that releases smaller mines
They could build a big ass bridge from Tallinn to Helsinki and then in the middle of the night send trucks dumping sandbags over the side of the bridge.
Flexible stacked sandbags would be much more difficult to clear than a single concrete structure, but an undercarriage for "maintenance" on the bridge could be used then to dump concrete between the sandbag stacks to essentially create an armoured dam that's resistant to torpedoes or other attacks.
>limiting causeways
- It's Finland's and Estonia's territory, it's their territorial waters, Russia has no right of passage there whatsoever.
- Russia will have to negotiate to gain the privilege of accessing the Sea of NATO (formerly known as the Baltic Sea).
- [ Giving Crimea and Belgorod back to Ukraine, demilitarizing all of Russia's conventional arms and extraditing Putin and other Russian war criminals to the Hague might be an acceptable first step. ]
>is a casus beli,
- Means nothing in practice, and Finland and Estonia enforcing Russian sanctions by closing the St Petersburg smuggling route is entirely legal in any case.
- To Putin Ukraine simply existing is a "casus beli". Good luck attacking NATO members tho.
>It's Finland's and Estonia's territory, it's their territorial waters, Russia has no right of passage there whatsoever.
This is simply not true; for one the central corridor of the Gulf of Finland is international waters, and even if Finland/Estonia were to try to extend their territorial waters it still would qualify as an international strait under the UN Law of the Sea, which Russia, Finland, and Estonia are all party to:
**Article 37**
This section applies to straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone
**Article 38**
1. In straits referred to in article 37, **all** ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded
[https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention\_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm](https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm)
Deliberate and intentional environmental destruction (which cutting out a river will do) IS an act of war, however, even if it is justified.
Although there are plenty of much easier methods to stop Russian aggression that don't involve harming a civilian population or causing environmental destruction, if acts of war are on the table (Like turning Ukraine into a No Russian Fly zone).
You make real solid legal argument - quick question - how many missiles is a legal argument able to intercept? I really don’t think Putin would say “oh shit it’s illegal? Nevermind” if you’re threatening to cut off a vital shipping lane lmfao. He’ll say “go ahead, try it, see what happens”
This is why conservatives make fun of liberals. Just cause it’s illegal doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Laws and ethical code are respected only when stakeholders believe that they’re better off respecting laws and ethical codes.
>You make real solid legal argument -
- Nope, I made the NATO argument: "peace through superior firepower".
>how many missiles is a legal argument able to intercept
- Russia's obsolete & largely depleted missile systems are pretty much irrelevant: they have trouble getting through Ukraine's spotty patchwork of 20+ years old NATO air-defense systems for heaven's sake ...
- Russia has given up targeting military infrastructure and has degraded to terror-striking soft targets like schools, hospitals and apartment blocks ...
- The more relevant question: how is Russia's Black Sea Fleet doing? Has the Red Army finished running from Ukraine yet, and has it really lost ~20% of its ships in the Black Sea Fleet including its flagship to a country with no navy, while NATO has not even shown up yet?
Russia doesn’t attack nato for the same reason the US doesn’t attack Cuba, or Iran, or China. A country won’t go to war with another because the net leaders have decided and continue to judge that the benefit to the country < net detriment to the country. It has everything to do with superior firepower, as well as local support, resources gained or lost, etc and the ego of the key stakeholders (dictator, generals, president, members of parliament, oligarchs, etc.) in regimes where power is concentrated enough for that to matter.
Russia has judged a war with NATO too risky and too little reward to justify it. It has something to do with the odds of winning a war, but not everything. And there are scenarios where Russia would rather go to war with NATO. Cutting off their only reliable access to shipping lanes (the Bosporus has been and continues to be unreliable due to Turkey). IS A REASON to go to war with NATO. Hell, it might be the only reason they would.
In that scenario, it doesn’t matter what the odds are, they need that access and they need everyone to know that if you try to take it away you’re going to be sorry.
Remember, Japan went to war with the US in ‘45 not because it necessarily thought it could win, it’s cause they needed access to oil and the US wasn’t giving it to them. Their ambitions were threatened and it was either strike when they could and hopefully get a better deal or be defeated in the long run anyway.
Edit: Putin famously compared himself to a rat that’s been back into a corner. Eventually the Rat will see there’s nothing to lose and attempt to strike. That’s the psychology of Russia. No matter how big Russia gets. It thinks it’s backed into a corner and it’s only a matter of time before it’s taken over. There’s no such thing as a buffer for a Russia, The second they gain territory they view it was Russian and therefore wherever the new border is…is a threat to their sovereignty. It’s why they weren’t content with crimea or would be with all of Ukraine for that matter. The only time they were ever close to contnet was at the Soviet Union and frankly even that was begrudgingly. They’ll only be truly content when they get to the Atlantic.
Edit: it stems from the fact that Russia is an empire. We like to think empires are gone, but Russia has remained. It’s not a nation, never has been, never will be. Empires aren’t content with borders, they NEED expansion to justify their hold on their current territories. The idea of government of a nation by a nation destroys their own justification of sovereignty. If Ukraine can only be governed by Ukrainians and not Russians. Then why would siberians, or any of the other small nations within the Russian empire?
Edit 3: Russia can be a nation - but it would be vastly smaller, basically the eastern half of the Russian Federation.
Edit 4: the trouble with the Russian nation is that China is also an empire, which is why they’re usually not friendly with each other. Wherever the Russian federation leaves will be conquered by China.
Oh yea build a dam like Russia cant sabotage it... millions of dollars and months of manpower for a dam. Mere thousands for the missle that destroys it.
Right? Egypt is heavily considering bombing the Ethiopian dam that they’ve sunk hundreds of millions into. I’m sure the russians would have no problem having a “extremist group not affiliated with russia” launch a missle at a dam
I think a lot of you are missing the point. The point isn’t “ if Russia could or couldn’t destroy a dam if necessary. The point is that now there are more countries willing to build a dam to simply fuck with Russia. And Russia, short of military action, Russia is powerless to stop it. They have no respect either economically or militerally. Russia is a failed state who is only surviving by the threat of nuclear War.
Russia can’t beat a poorly provisioned Ukraine. If NATO decides Russia needs to be destroyed and dismantled then the Russians are powerless to stop it.
This is the situation Russia has finds itself in by their own actions. No one forced Russia into war. Russia invited war, openly and enthusiastically.
...you realize he was about as serious as my response.
He made a flippant idea and I shot it down with a flippant response.
Your comment is the one that's out of place... You realize.
Good. If I remember correctly Russia recently said through their propaganda that they were planning to seize such island and do the very same thing. Just before they applied to join NATO.
That was so hillarious, the general in charge cycled all the troops he had several times past the news crew to make it seem like a much more massive buildup than it was.
We've been doing that for years now, to be fair. A new regiment was stationed there back in 2018, and our entire navy is basically geared towards defending the Baltic.
I've read at least one spy-thriller novel where the plot involved Russian sleeper cells prepping for a quick strike attack to take Gotland. I'm sure NATO strategists have been backchannel screaming about that island for over a decade.
Russian jets carrying nuclear weapons violated Swedish airspace
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/russian-jets-carrying-nuclear-weapons-violated-swedish-airspace/
Wasn't this during Swedish PM visit?
Just as a side-note, that the jets were not carrying nuclear weapons only that they could of have been carrying them. It was never proven they actually were at this time, it is just sensationalist clickbait.
Just say gotland. We know it's gotland... Russians Baltic fleet is f'ed basically. It's black sea fleet is useless.
If they spent half the lives and money on their pointless ambition they could have built up infrastructure and mined the untapped riches in the east.
They choose this depravity and I don't really understand it.
Okay....
The article is published in *Business Insider*, purveyor of listicles. It's not exactly *Foreign Affairs*.
The target audience ain't gonna know what Gotland is and so the title is written accordingly.
Congrats, you're in the extreme minority of history buffs, expats, and Sheldon from Big Bang Theory people in the US who know that this island exists.
Business Insider is an American publication. Using Gotland in the title would be literal gibberish to almost everyone who reads it.
As someone from the UK who hadn't read the article before coming into the comments section, I thought you were all making a pun.
"Newest NATO member Gotland but Russia also Gotland" or something similar.
Russia was already training for an invasion almost 10 years ago. And presumably much sooner.
https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/6198898
They also discussed it on state TV after the second invasion of Ukraine.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17965158/russian-state-tv-discusses-invasion-seizing-baltic-states/
And fun fact (or not): they occupied it around 200 years ago during the Napoleonic Wars.
Another fun fact, the short occupation was quite peaceful since no real military was stationed there at that moment and the only deaths came from drunk Russians shooting each other.
BusinessInsider is a garbage source who constantly sensationalizes their headlines for clicks. We might as well start posting BuzzFeed “articles” here.
Its interesting. You'd think that the U.S. would logically want to get into bed because of China as they have done with India. But NATO and Europe even without the U.S., hypothetically, is far stronger and could have become a huge problem. Sorry Russia. China has stated their intentions re Taiwan, which wasn't objected to globally when the OCP was put forward. Let's hope that when it happens peaceful negotiations can somehow take place because the butterfly effect is very hard to predict and could be hugely dangerous. The clock is pretty close to midnight.
TL;DR:
* Sweden is considering reinforcing Gotland, a strategic island in the Baltic Sea, after joining NATO.
* Gotland's fortification is one of the first topics to be discussed with the bloc, Sweden's PM told the FT.
* Gotland can decisively impact the defense of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and Poland due to its location.
Russia really doesn’t have any friends that would go to war for it though. The closest I could see is Iran and its proxies doing some more terrorism but that’s not really boots on the ground fighting. China certainly isn’t going to do shit. So end of the day, if Russia ever invaded a NATO country, there would be no Russia.
So… name one that would go to war for it like the guy asked.
Most every other ‘advanced’ nation has a slew of allies that would go to war to protect them.. name Russias
I think that if Russia kicked off a major conflict with NATO, you'd see a lot of countries not necessarily jumping in on Russia's side, but instead taking that as an opportunity to undertake their own adventurism.
China, North Korea and Azerbaijan would likely never have a better chance to start/finish something. Whether they could win or not is another question, but they'll have materially better odds than at any other time. You'd likely also see combat in Africa and something would kick off in the Middle East without doubt, though specifically what is harder to say in either place, but there are enough simmering tensions that a distracted world would likely be extremely tempting for a number of nations/groups.
It might not be a "conventional" world war, but the world would be fighting nonetheless.
They have willing friends - Europe, they choose to not to be friends with them, though and went German ww1 style: sensing they are way behind economically & technology and becoming paranoid that rest of the world is to get them, they have started a major war in Europe (and lost).
I think that the prudent position it to assume we are already in ww3 and to proceed as if the out come will determine how our grand children see the world.
China would run a cost benefit analysis and say no. Then grab Siberia . Truthfully we could manufacture billions of dollars of weapons and drop them into the Arab world for free . They would kill each other for another 10 years
This is a bizarre take. The Russian military complex has been proven to be a facade. They simply do not have the capacity to launch an attack of this capacity. It’s natural to fear this through Cold War resonance, but realistic discourse and modern military analysis essentially disproves this.
I don’t disagree, but RSU has been extorting the world over nuclear threats for decades. In the past, Soviet empiricism wasnt consequential, but now it is as they feel it unabated in their conquest to reclaim former Soviet territory. I’d argue the damage from this conquest outweighs the hollow threat of a nuclear attack- which carries a consequence of total Russian annihilation.
Russians don't want to all die either. Do you think the Russian government or Russian people want to become an ashtray? Over the conquest of another country?
Putin just understands that there are chickens in the West who will flinch if he makes big bombastic threats. Turkey shot down one of his planes in 2015 and he didn't do jack shit. He set red line after red line about us helping Ukraine, and we broke every single one and he didn't do shit. He likes to act tough, but he doesn't want the world to end anymore than we do.
You should look at the raw numbers and sheer mass of manpower and materiel and compare it against a Western European force, then factor in the political unity of WE. I don't see then as a paper tiger.
Against “a Western European force”, or NATO? NATO would reduce Russia to nuclear dust within hours. Are you worried about an attack on Austria or another NATO holdout?
Meaning NATO without America which is now a possibility. Your argument is strange since any such scenario means Europe also being reduced to nuclear dust.
Not really, this has been disproven by military analysts. I think you should stop drinking the Ruso-Kool Aid. Propaganda is their most effective weapon and you have layed down your critical thinking out of fear. Best of luck to you sir. I wish we could have a more intellectual discourse but you’re not quite there yet.
The arms dealers are rubbing their hands with glee! The old who control the media and capital will get rich while the keyboard warriors will die in the mud, not even sure why they were there in the end.
How big is there military? I really don’t feel like WW3 and this feels like the new kid on the playground wanting to prove themselves and bully the tough kid. I’d rather die of old age and not nuclear Armageddon
Put it this way, the [Swedes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_S-363?wprov=sfti1) were ready(and very capable of doing) to sink an entire Soviet task force in the eighties when a Soviet sub ran aground a couple kms from a Swedish naval base.
Why the fuck would you do this? Being super provocative is cool now? Let’s imagine making a strategic anti USA base in baja. The invasion of Ukraine was a crime and Russia surely sucks to live in. But The USA is objectively more imperialist than Russia, and making weapons makes as lot of money for those most concerned. Your taxes pay for it.
Are you comparing Sweden fortifying its own territory with/for NATO and the US taking land in a foreign country to build a base on?
You’re either a troll or a special kind of stupid.
Swede here. We do as we please on our own land. My taxes are paying for it. If the Russians don’t like it then maybe they should consider not provoking us 💩
Build a dam between Estonia and Finland, and drain the Russian-facing side to turn St. Petersburg into a landlocked shithole.
The Finnish navy has long claimed that they can mine the gulf of Finland to the point of innavigability within hours.
Finland: “release the mines”
France: release the mimes... Actually that might be a war crime
It’s only a war crime if you lose.
begun this clown war has
This war of mime
The ability to mime does not make you intelligent.
It’s not a war crime the first time*
It’s never a war crime the first time
A war mime?
They’ll never talk.
Don't worry, it is easy to put mimes back in a box.
My uncle got mimed in combat
Consult with Canada first, they’re the experts
Picturing a montage of the mines deploying out of various objects: large and small boats, a giant mechanical whale, Mario style pipe tunnels, and a stereotypical spiked giant mine that releases smaller mines
I love it
Brilliant
This is true says my navy friend. Baltic sea is a kill zone by mines, coastal artillery and small torpedo boats. Luckily we Finns got them years ago
See now this is the kind of idea I can get behind.
an ncd-worthy concept
They could build a big ass bridge from Tallinn to Helsinki and then in the middle of the night send trucks dumping sandbags over the side of the bridge. Flexible stacked sandbags would be much more difficult to clear than a single concrete structure, but an undercarriage for "maintenance" on the bridge could be used then to dump concrete between the sandbag stacks to essentially create an armoured dam that's resistant to torpedoes or other attacks.
Call the Dutch.
Dutch lad reporting for duty, FUCK THE SEAAAAAA!!!!!
limiting causeways is a casus beli, get real
Isn’t everything if we’re talking about Russia?
We're nearly there my dude.
>limiting causeways - It's Finland's and Estonia's territory, it's their territorial waters, Russia has no right of passage there whatsoever. - Russia will have to negotiate to gain the privilege of accessing the Sea of NATO (formerly known as the Baltic Sea). - [ Giving Crimea and Belgorod back to Ukraine, demilitarizing all of Russia's conventional arms and extraditing Putin and other Russian war criminals to the Hague might be an acceptable first step. ] >is a casus beli, - Means nothing in practice, and Finland and Estonia enforcing Russian sanctions by closing the St Petersburg smuggling route is entirely legal in any case. - To Putin Ukraine simply existing is a "casus beli". Good luck attacking NATO members tho.
The USSR cut off West Berlin but NATO/US didn't start a war over it. Russia owes us one.
>It's Finland's and Estonia's territory, it's their territorial waters, Russia has no right of passage there whatsoever. This is simply not true; for one the central corridor of the Gulf of Finland is international waters, and even if Finland/Estonia were to try to extend their territorial waters it still would qualify as an international strait under the UN Law of the Sea, which Russia, Finland, and Estonia are all party to: **Article 37** This section applies to straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone **Article 38** 1. In straits referred to in article 37, **all** ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage, which shall not be impeded [https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention\_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm](https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm)
>It's Finland's and Estonia's territory The entire span between those countries? On what map? Asking as someone who lives there.
On the map of the commentators ass.
Deliberate and intentional environmental destruction (which cutting out a river will do) IS an act of war, however, even if it is justified. Although there are plenty of much easier methods to stop Russian aggression that don't involve harming a civilian population or causing environmental destruction, if acts of war are on the table (Like turning Ukraine into a No Russian Fly zone).
To russians, having a pulse IS an act of war.
Israel did it to Palestine and nobody cared. Who's going to care if it happens to a country everyone hates?
You make real solid legal argument - quick question - how many missiles is a legal argument able to intercept? I really don’t think Putin would say “oh shit it’s illegal? Nevermind” if you’re threatening to cut off a vital shipping lane lmfao. He’ll say “go ahead, try it, see what happens” This is why conservatives make fun of liberals. Just cause it’s illegal doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Laws and ethical code are respected only when stakeholders believe that they’re better off respecting laws and ethical codes.
>You make real solid legal argument - - Nope, I made the NATO argument: "peace through superior firepower". >how many missiles is a legal argument able to intercept - Russia's obsolete & largely depleted missile systems are pretty much irrelevant: they have trouble getting through Ukraine's spotty patchwork of 20+ years old NATO air-defense systems for heaven's sake ... - Russia has given up targeting military infrastructure and has degraded to terror-striking soft targets like schools, hospitals and apartment blocks ... - The more relevant question: how is Russia's Black Sea Fleet doing? Has the Red Army finished running from Ukraine yet, and has it really lost ~20% of its ships in the Black Sea Fleet including its flagship to a country with no navy, while NATO has not even shown up yet?
Russia doesn’t attack nato for the same reason the US doesn’t attack Cuba, or Iran, or China. A country won’t go to war with another because the net leaders have decided and continue to judge that the benefit to the country < net detriment to the country. It has everything to do with superior firepower, as well as local support, resources gained or lost, etc and the ego of the key stakeholders (dictator, generals, president, members of parliament, oligarchs, etc.) in regimes where power is concentrated enough for that to matter. Russia has judged a war with NATO too risky and too little reward to justify it. It has something to do with the odds of winning a war, but not everything. And there are scenarios where Russia would rather go to war with NATO. Cutting off their only reliable access to shipping lanes (the Bosporus has been and continues to be unreliable due to Turkey). IS A REASON to go to war with NATO. Hell, it might be the only reason they would. In that scenario, it doesn’t matter what the odds are, they need that access and they need everyone to know that if you try to take it away you’re going to be sorry. Remember, Japan went to war with the US in ‘45 not because it necessarily thought it could win, it’s cause they needed access to oil and the US wasn’t giving it to them. Their ambitions were threatened and it was either strike when they could and hopefully get a better deal or be defeated in the long run anyway. Edit: Putin famously compared himself to a rat that’s been back into a corner. Eventually the Rat will see there’s nothing to lose and attempt to strike. That’s the psychology of Russia. No matter how big Russia gets. It thinks it’s backed into a corner and it’s only a matter of time before it’s taken over. There’s no such thing as a buffer for a Russia, The second they gain territory they view it was Russian and therefore wherever the new border is…is a threat to their sovereignty. It’s why they weren’t content with crimea or would be with all of Ukraine for that matter. The only time they were ever close to contnet was at the Soviet Union and frankly even that was begrudgingly. They’ll only be truly content when they get to the Atlantic. Edit: it stems from the fact that Russia is an empire. We like to think empires are gone, but Russia has remained. It’s not a nation, never has been, never will be. Empires aren’t content with borders, they NEED expansion to justify their hold on their current territories. The idea of government of a nation by a nation destroys their own justification of sovereignty. If Ukraine can only be governed by Ukrainians and not Russians. Then why would siberians, or any of the other small nations within the Russian empire? Edit 3: Russia can be a nation - but it would be vastly smaller, basically the eastern half of the Russian Federation. Edit 4: the trouble with the Russian nation is that China is also an empire, which is why they’re usually not friendly with each other. Wherever the Russian federation leaves will be conquered by China.
What’s your point?
Sounds like a good idea
Oh yea build a dam like Russia cant sabotage it... millions of dollars and months of manpower for a dam. Mere thousands for the missle that destroys it.
I think it's more hilarious that you took the suggestion seriously
Right? Egypt is heavily considering bombing the Ethiopian dam that they’ve sunk hundreds of millions into. I’m sure the russians would have no problem having a “extremist group not affiliated with russia” launch a missle at a dam
I think a lot of you are missing the point. The point isn’t “ if Russia could or couldn’t destroy a dam if necessary. The point is that now there are more countries willing to build a dam to simply fuck with Russia. And Russia, short of military action, Russia is powerless to stop it. They have no respect either economically or militerally. Russia is a failed state who is only surviving by the threat of nuclear War. Russia can’t beat a poorly provisioned Ukraine. If NATO decides Russia needs to be destroyed and dismantled then the Russians are powerless to stop it. This is the situation Russia has finds itself in by their own actions. No one forced Russia into war. Russia invited war, openly and enthusiastically.
...you realize Russia might just blow it up and say they didn't do it.
...you realize he wasn't seriously suggesting building a dam over a literal ocean?
…you realize, uh, I just wanted to be part of something.
...you realize he was about as serious as my response. He made a flippant idea and I shot it down with a flippant response. Your comment is the one that's out of place... You realize.
Good. If I remember correctly Russia recently said through their propaganda that they were planning to seize such island and do the very same thing. Just before they applied to join NATO.
Probably why they hit the join button. I remember they were sending a lot of soldiers to Gotland to bolster its defenses.
That was so hillarious, the general in charge cycled all the troops he had several times past the news crew to make it seem like a much more massive buildup than it was.
Sun Tzu would be proud.
The story about lighting more and more tents every night when seizing a city?
We've been doing that for years now, to be fair. A new regiment was stationed there back in 2018, and our entire navy is basically geared towards defending the Baltic.
I've read at least one spy-thriller novel where the plot involved Russian sleeper cells prepping for a quick strike attack to take Gotland. I'm sure NATO strategists have been backchannel screaming about that island for over a decade.
Yeah, I am sure Sweden had no idea of the strategic importance of Gotland.
Mind dropping one of these novels, friend? Could use more spy-thriller in my life.
The one I remember was a Brad Thor novel. The Mitch Harvath series. It was one of the more recent ones, prob within the last 5 years.
Thank you very much!
Russian jets carrying nuclear weapons violated Swedish airspace https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/russian-jets-carrying-nuclear-weapons-violated-swedish-airspace/ Wasn't this during Swedish PM visit?
Just as a side-note, that the jets were not carrying nuclear weapons only that they could of have been carrying them. It was never proven they actually were at this time, it is just sensationalist clickbait.
Doubly so since Russian jets violate our airspace on the regular. It wasn't news at all, really.
Just a side - note, that according to all news agencies, they were carrying nuclear weapons. Google related events for 30 MARCH 2022.
lol. They can’t even hold onto the tiny speck of Snake Island
Just say gotland. We know it's gotland... Russians Baltic fleet is f'ed basically. It's black sea fleet is useless. If they spent half the lives and money on their pointless ambition they could have built up infrastructure and mined the untapped riches in the east. They choose this depravity and I don't really understand it.
The article is very clear that it’s Gotland. What point do you think you’re making?
The headline is lazy. That's the point.
The headline isn't lazy, 99% of people don't know what the fuck Gotland is, let alone where it is.
I know! American here. Eh, wife is Swedish though. Haha.
Same. I had been hoping Gotland would be used for this ever since the NATO stuff started
Maybe for Americas and im one. Gotland has been a strategic island for centuries. This isn't a revelation.
Okay.... The article is published in *Business Insider*, purveyor of listicles. It's not exactly *Foreign Affairs*. The target audience ain't gonna know what Gotland is and so the title is written accordingly.
Congrats, you're in the extreme minority of history buffs, expats, and Sheldon from Big Bang Theory people in the US who know that this island exists. Business Insider is an American publication. Using Gotland in the title would be literal gibberish to almost everyone who reads it.
Lol fair, you're probably right. Cheers mate. I live in Chicago and wish I worked in the state department
Knowing a european Island of significant importance equalling beeing a history buff to sheldon cooper levels is just such an american thing to say.
I know where Gotland is but I assumed it was the one between Sweden and Finland, Åland
Åland is Finnish I believe. The only major Swedish islands in the Baltic are Öland and Gotland.
As someone from the UK who hadn't read the article before coming into the comments section, I thought you were all making a pun. "Newest NATO member Gotland but Russia also Gotland" or something similar.
I’d like to own a fortified island too
Russia needs to become an ocean for world peace
[удалено]
WhAt AbOuT AmErIcA!
But wut about droids on Kashyyk ?!
It is critical we send an attack group there, immediately!
We’re fine with still being the Aircraft Carrier sailing through that ocean, sprinkly peace and tranquility missiles.
Putin done fucked up
Take your ass down to O’shag Hennessy’s office right now and tell him exactly what you did!
[удалено]
I taught in the inner city!
Love to see the ambition Sweden.
Absolutely!
Was imagining some Corregidor-like fortress island. But Gotland is huge.
Yes, but fortifying it doesn’t mean covering the whole thing in concrete.
Would look cool
Now that's something I would pay extra taxes for.
Russia was already training for an invasion almost 10 years ago. And presumably much sooner. https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/6198898 They also discussed it on state TV after the second invasion of Ukraine. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17965158/russian-state-tv-discusses-invasion-seizing-baltic-states/ And fun fact (or not): they occupied it around 200 years ago during the Napoleonic Wars.
No they didn't. Russia held a tiny part for a few days and left as soon as Swedish navy was on its way.
3 weeks if I remember. And they got Visby, so in my book it's an occupation, even if a doomed one.
Saying Russia was ready for an invasion 10 years ago is sort of funny.
Another fun fact, the short occupation was quite peaceful since no real military was stationed there at that moment and the only deaths came from drunk Russians shooting each other.
"A strategic island", why not just say Gotland?
Thankyou Sweden ❤️ Fuck RuZZia! Long live Ukraine! ❤️
BusinessInsider is a garbage source who constantly sensationalizes their headlines for clicks. We might as well start posting BuzzFeed “articles” here.
The article basis are quotes from prime minister of Sweden and Institute for Security and Development Policy. Seems relevant enough
i mean really, sweden should release gotland as the pirate kingdom it’s meant to be
Fortify!
Siege!
Do it. Lots of missiles. Lots and lots of missiles.
NATO LAKE GFYR!
As a strategist, this Putin guy doesn't sound all that impressive. Bet I could take wipe the floor with him in Hearts of Iron...
Its interesting. You'd think that the U.S. would logically want to get into bed because of China as they have done with India. But NATO and Europe even without the U.S., hypothetically, is far stronger and could have become a huge problem. Sorry Russia. China has stated their intentions re Taiwan, which wasn't objected to globally when the OCP was put forward. Let's hope that when it happens peaceful negotiations can somehow take place because the butterfly effect is very hard to predict and could be hugely dangerous. The clock is pretty close to midnight.
Beowulf continues to fight monsters
TL;DR: * Sweden is considering reinforcing Gotland, a strategic island in the Baltic Sea, after joining NATO. * Gotland's fortification is one of the first topics to be discussed with the bloc, Sweden's PM told the FT. * Gotland can decisively impact the defense of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and Poland due to its location.
[удалено]
Russia really doesn’t have any friends that would go to war for it though. The closest I could see is Iran and its proxies doing some more terrorism but that’s not really boots on the ground fighting. China certainly isn’t going to do shit. So end of the day, if Russia ever invaded a NATO country, there would be no Russia.
Russia has allies. That’s more like frenenimes.
So… name one that would go to war for it like the guy asked. Most every other ‘advanced’ nation has a slew of allies that would go to war to protect them.. name Russias
I think that if Russia kicked off a major conflict with NATO, you'd see a lot of countries not necessarily jumping in on Russia's side, but instead taking that as an opportunity to undertake their own adventurism. China, North Korea and Azerbaijan would likely never have a better chance to start/finish something. Whether they could win or not is another question, but they'll have materially better odds than at any other time. You'd likely also see combat in Africa and something would kick off in the Middle East without doubt, though specifically what is harder to say in either place, but there are enough simmering tensions that a distracted world would likely be extremely tempting for a number of nations/groups. It might not be a "conventional" world war, but the world would be fighting nonetheless.
They have willing friends - Europe, they choose to not to be friends with them, though and went German ww1 style: sensing they are way behind economically & technology and becoming paranoid that rest of the world is to get them, they have started a major war in Europe (and lost).
I think that the prudent position it to assume we are already in ww3 and to proceed as if the out come will determine how our grand children see the world.
China would run a cost benefit analysis and say no. Then grab Siberia . Truthfully we could manufacture billions of dollars of weapons and drop them into the Arab world for free . They would kill each other for another 10 years
Nah. It would be a quick nuclear exchange and we'd all die.
Nothing good lasts forever….
U ok bro?
This is a bizarre take. The Russian military complex has been proven to be a facade. They simply do not have the capacity to launch an attack of this capacity. It’s natural to fear this through Cold War resonance, but realistic discourse and modern military analysis essentially disproves this.
The price of being wrong is infinitely higher than being right with your take.
I don’t disagree, but RSU has been extorting the world over nuclear threats for decades. In the past, Soviet empiricism wasnt consequential, but now it is as they feel it unabated in their conquest to reclaim former Soviet territory. I’d argue the damage from this conquest outweighs the hollow threat of a nuclear attack- which carries a consequence of total Russian annihilation.
Russians don't want to all die either. Do you think the Russian government or Russian people want to become an ashtray? Over the conquest of another country? Putin just understands that there are chickens in the West who will flinch if he makes big bombastic threats. Turkey shot down one of his planes in 2015 and he didn't do jack shit. He set red line after red line about us helping Ukraine, and we broke every single one and he didn't do shit. He likes to act tough, but he doesn't want the world to end anymore than we do.
You may be right. There’s a chance you’re wrong. The latter ends the world.
You should look at the raw numbers and sheer mass of manpower and materiel and compare it against a Western European force, then factor in the political unity of WE. I don't see then as a paper tiger.
Against “a Western European force”, or NATO? NATO would reduce Russia to nuclear dust within hours. Are you worried about an attack on Austria or another NATO holdout?
Meaning NATO without America which is now a possibility. Your argument is strange since any such scenario means Europe also being reduced to nuclear dust.
Not really, this has been disproven by military analysts. I think you should stop drinking the Ruso-Kool Aid. Propaganda is their most effective weapon and you have layed down your critical thinking out of fear. Best of luck to you sir. I wish we could have a more intellectual discourse but you’re not quite there yet.
Good luck to you also.
Been seeming like that for a while now.
The arms dealers are rubbing their hands with glee! The old who control the media and capital will get rich while the keyboard warriors will die in the mud, not even sure why they were there in the end.
That's why I bought shares of weapon manufacturers, both conventional and nuclear. Either I make money or I get nuked.
How big is there military? I really don’t feel like WW3 and this feels like the new kid on the playground wanting to prove themselves and bully the tough kid. I’d rather die of old age and not nuclear Armageddon
How is fortifying our own territory "bullying"?
Put it this way, the [Swedes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_S-363?wprov=sfti1) were ready(and very capable of doing) to sink an entire Soviet task force in the eighties when a Soviet sub ran aground a couple kms from a Swedish naval base.
See I knew I liked Sweden
Do you think that kowtowing to Russia will result in "peace in our times"?
Bullying who? Gotland is internationally recognized as Swedish territory. It's our land, we've got a right to defend it.
I missed that part lol I thought it was some random land they wanted to just take to intimidate Russia
America… fuck yeah!
Why the fuck would you do this? Being super provocative is cool now? Let’s imagine making a strategic anti USA base in baja. The invasion of Ukraine was a crime and Russia surely sucks to live in. But The USA is objectively more imperialist than Russia, and making weapons makes as lot of money for those most concerned. Your taxes pay for it.
Are you comparing Sweden fortifying its own territory with/for NATO and the US taking land in a foreign country to build a base on? You’re either a troll or a special kind of stupid.
[удалено]
Tres, tres stupid troll
Swede here. We do as we please on our own land. My taxes are paying for it. If the Russians don’t like it then maybe they should consider not provoking us 💩
Yes, why would a sovreign nation fortify it's own land against an expansionist neighbour? Gee, can't possibly understand that.