'Russia is seriously running out of cash'

Regardless of the ins and outs of it - it would be a strategic mistake for either NATO forces or Russia not to respond (which unfortunately tends to become a bit circular) in kind which sort of leaves Russia no choice. Not sure what triggered the thing with Gotland.
 
Re Gotland IIRC it was something like a very large and unusual number of military age Russian men arriving as tourists, asking atypical questions and knowing things that your average tourist wouldn't (apparently at least one knew who was in charge of the existing Swedish garrison commander, and about his background/family).

Given the island has been disputed by Russia in the past and what happened in the Ukraine I wouldn't blame the Swedish in such a situation to want to put more troops on it.

didn't the Russian airforce simulate an attack on Sweden a few years back as well?
 
Werewolf said:
Re Gotland IIRC it was something like a very large and unusual number of military age Russian men arriving as tourists, asking atypical questions and knowing things that your average tourist wouldn't (apparently at least one knew who was in charge of the existing Swedish garrison commander, and about his background/family).

Given the island has been disputed by Russia in the past and what happened in the Ukraine I wouldn't blame the Swedish in such a situation to want to put more troops on it.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't put it past Russia to do some trolling of that nature either :S
 
Werewolf said:
IIRC the NATO "troop build up" is in two forms.
Troops who have been there for decades, or on routine exercises that have gone on for decades at regular intervals, and those that have been moved there because of what has happened in the Ukraine, and the Russian activity along the borders of Nato countries (was it Sweden that has increased it's Garrison on one of it's islands after a large number of suspicious Russian "tourists" started arriving?).
Click to expand...

Sweden, of course, is not a NATO member.
 
The Chinese have been building artificial islands to be used as military outposts off mainland China, obviously both China and Russia see an external threat even if people who get all of their information from the news don't. I don't think ISIS in rowing boats is who these islands are aimed at.

NATO originally agreed never to expand as far east as it has done for the very reason that it would threaten Russian security and probably worsen the arms race.
 
dowie said:
Why not, NATO is hardly the aggressor here - no imminent risk of invading/annexing Russian territory from our side.
Click to expand...

Regardless it is bad military strategy even if Russia was 99% sure we wouldn't invade - and recent events certainly haven't encouraged the Russians that there isn't a potential threat.
 
mmj_uk said:
The Chinese have been building artificial islands to be used as military outposts off mainland China, obviously both China and Russia see an external threat even if people who get all of their information from the news don't. I don't think ISIS in rowing boats is who these islands are aimed at.

NATO originally agreed never to expand as far east as it has done for the very reason that it would threaten Russian security and probably worsen the arms race.
Click to expand...

That's more about claiming huge swathes of territory no where near mainland china. They're basically acting like a schoolyard bully.

NATO as an aggressive force is a threat to no-one. No western government has any interest in an armed conflict.
Issue is Russia REALLY doesn't want former bloc countries getting cosier to the west, to the point they'll literally attack those that do.
 
Rroff said:
Regardless it is bad military strategy even if Russia was 99% sure we wouldn't invade - and recent events certainly haven't encouraged the Russians that there isn't a potential threat.
Click to expand...

Spin that on it's head though. Who's more likely to invade/attack whom based on recent events?
 
Washout said:
That's more about claiming huge swathes of territory no where near mainland china. They're basically acting like a schoolyard bully.

NATO as an aggressive force is a threat to no-one. No western government has any interest in an armed conflict.
Issue is Russia REALLY doesn't want former bloc countries getting cosier to the west, to the point they'll literally attack those that do.
Click to expand...

Yes and no - most European countries have little interest in anything other than their border security but the US has certainly engaged in a certain amount of belligerence and baiting.

End of the day flip the perspective and even if we were fairly sure someone building up forces near us wasn't a threat to us we'd still take precautions.

Washout said:
Spin that on it's head though. Who's more likely to invade/attack whom based on recent events?
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter - there are certain things that are strategically important regardless of who is and isn't the aggressor when it comes to military matters.
 
mmj_uk said:
The Chinese have been building artificial islands to be used as military outposts off mainland China, obviously both China and Russia see an external threat even if people who get all of their information from the news don't. I don't think ISIS in rowing boats is who these islands are aimed at.

NATO originally agreed never to expand as far east as it has done for the very reason that it would threaten Russian security and probably worsen the arms race.
Click to expand...

Aye from memory China is using such artificial reefs to try and beef up their old disputed claims over the area where other countries previously had better claims.

They're also using them to try and reduce the areas in which other countries can pass through by air or by sea without infringing on territory.
From what I remember the likes of the US have been doing flights near the new reefs/islands specifically to make the point that the routes being used are and have been recognised by the rest of the world as international and free to use for decades.
Although it takes a certain amount of courage to do so knowing that the likes of the Chinese pilots are more than happy to basically get within spitting distance of your aircraft and have caused at least one accident in the past (which the Chinese tried to blame on the Americans, despite the fact the Chinese fighters had a documented history of risky flybys and buzzing the American aircraft, and that the Chinese craft were having to fly at something near stall speed to remain slow enough to pace the American aircraft).
 
Werewolf said:
Aye from memory China is using such artificial reefs to try and beef up their old disputed claims over the area where other countries previously had better claims.

They're also using them to try and reduce the areas in which other countries can pass through by air or by sea without infringing on territory.
From what I remember the likes of the US have been doing flights near the new reefs/islands specifically to make the point that the routes being used are and have been recognised by the rest of the world as international and free to use for decades.
Although it takes a certain amount of courage to do so knowing that the likes of the Chinese pilots are more than happy to basically get within spitting distance of your aircraft and have caused at least one accident in the past (which the Chinese tried to blame on the Americans, despite the fact the Chinese fighters had a documented history of risky flybys and buzzing the American aircraft, and that the Chinese craft were having to fly at something near stall speed to remain slow enough to pace the American aircraft).
Click to expand...

The Chinese will happily sacrifice as many of their pilots,if it would merely stop what they probably think is humiliation.

The US won't risk their very very expensive pilots to make a point, if eventually enough die to "politically acceptable deaths".
 
Moses said:
It's not about 'humiliation' and 'making a point', it's about strengthening or undermining territorial claims. To understand it you only need a very basic understanding of international law/UNCLOS.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, whatever... Unfortunately international law only variably applies to nations who can easily make a crater out of a continent.
 
Washout said:
Spin that on it's head though. Who's more likely to invade/attack whom based on recent events?
Click to expand...

Well, the West expanded its reach into the Middle East with invasion of Afghanistan. And then Iraq. Overthrew the government of Libya. Has been pretty aggressive against Iran... Certainly the West and NATO have been aggressors often enough in recent times. So if large numbers of them turn up on your border armed to the teeth, getting your own army in position is pretty justifiable, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom