Fearing Russia, Sweden holds biggest war games in 20 years

[webfact]

Fearing Russia, Sweden holds biggest war games in 20 years

By Johan Ahlander

 

Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces, Micael Byden, talks with U.S. soldiers during the joint NATO exercise 'Aurora 17' at Save airfield in Goteborg, Sweden September 13, 2017. Henrik Brunnsgard/TT News Agency/via REUTERS

 

GOTHENBURG, Sweden (Reuters) - Neutral Sweden has launched its biggest war games in two decades with support from NATO countries, drilling 19,000 troops after years of spending cuts that have left the country fearful of Russia's growing military strength.

 

On the eve of Russia's biggest manoeuvres since 2013, which NATO says will be greater than the 13,000 troops Moscow says are involved, Sweden will simulate an attack from the east on the Baltic island of Gotland, near the Swedish mainland.

 

"The security situation has taken a turn for the worse," Micael Byden, the commander of the Swedish Armed Forces, said during a presentation of the three-week-long exercise.

 

Sweden, like the Baltics, Poland and much of the West, has been deeply troubled by Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Black Sea peninsula Crimea and its support for rebels in eastern Ukraine.

 

"Russia is the country that affects security in Europe right now with its actions - the annexation of the Crimea and continued battles in eastern Ukraine - so it is clear that we are watching very closely what Russia is doing," Byden said.

 

Around 1,500 troops from the United States, France, Norway and other NATO allies are taking part in the exercise dubbed Aurora.

 

Non-NATO member Sweden has decided to beef up its military after having let spending drop from over 2 percent of economic output in the early 1990s to around 1 percent, and is re-introducing conscription.

 

The armed forces, which at one point could mobilise more than 600,000, stand at just 20,000, with 22,000 more Home Guard volunteers.   

 

NATO generals say the Aurora exercise is not a response to Russian exercises that start on Thursday.

 

But Byden, speaking as U.S. and French forces displayed mobile surface-to-air missile systems to be deployed during the exercise, stressed the importance of NATO for Sweden.

 

"We are a sovereign country that takes care of and is responsible for our safety. We do this together with others, ready to both support and receive help," he said.

 

The United States shipped vehicles by sea from Germany, while France brought others by train. They are to be moved via a classified route to Sweden's east coast for the exercise where U.S. attack helicopters will play the enemy during Aurora.

 

The government is determined to stick to the country's formal neutrality. Sweden has not fought a war since it clashed with Norway in 1814.

 

But like its non-NATO neighbour Finland, Sweden has been drawing closer to NATO, allowing closer cooperation with alliance troops, with a view to working together in the event of an armed conflict.

 

(Editing by Robin Emmott and Robin Pomeroy)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-09-14

[BuaBS]

The Russians ?

Shouldn't they address the enemy within first ?

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

The Russians ?

Shouldn't they address the enemy within first ?

Who is that?

[Rancid]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

Who is that?

And therein lies the problem... As to the Russians if history serves me right wasn't it the Germans, French, Swedes and Poles that invaded Russia, not the other way around? There again history can be inconvenient, even when you get to write the authorized copy.

[BuaBS]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Who is that?

You sound as clueless as the Swedes themselves.

[craigt3365]

11 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

You sound as clueless as the Swedes themselves.

Be nice.

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, Rancid said:

And therein lies the problem... As to the Russians if history serves me right wasn't it the Germans, French, Swedes and Poles that invaded Russia, not the other way around? There again history can be inconvenient, even when you get to write the authorized copy.

You mean when they invaded in the 1700's?  Good gosh.  Ancient history.

 

From the OP:

Quote

 

Sweden, like the Baltics, Poland and much of the West, has been deeply troubled by Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Black Sea peninsula Crimea and its support for rebels in eastern Ukraine.

 

"Russia is the country that affects security in Europe right now with its actions - the annexation of the Crimea and continued battles in eastern Ukraine - so it is clear that we are watching very closely what Russia is doing," Byden said.

 

 

As for Sweden:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_submarine_incidents

 

And these might be causing them concerns.  Recent history. LOL

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/full-list-of-incidents-involving-russian-military-and-nato-since-march-2014-9851309.html

 

[ilostmypassword]

24 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You mean when they invaded in the 1700's?  Good gosh.  Ancient history.

 

From the OP:

 

As for Sweden:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_submarine_incidents

 

And these might be causing them concerns.  Recent history. LOL

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/full-list-of-incidents-involving-russian-military-and-nato-since-march-2014-9851309.html

 

And what about the Soviet occupations of Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia? Actually, they even annexed the last three. I'm not sure about whether Finland was formally annexed or not and I haven't the time to look it up.

[Ace of Pop]

Who is that?

Islamics.[emoji247]


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[kamahele]

54 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

The Russians ?

Shouldn't they address the enemy within first ?

Please do tell.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And what about the Soviet occupations of Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia? Actually, they even annexed the last three. I'm not sure about whether Finland was formally annexed or not and I haven't the time to look it up.

If you read up on what Russia did while they controlled the Baltics, it'd break your heart.  Absolutely horrible stuff.  Same for Finland.  Not a good history with Russia. 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, kamahele said:

Please do tell.

Be careful or he'll call you clueless also!

 

[the guest]

Sweden is no match to the ruthless Russians.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, the guest said:

Sweden is no match to the ruthless Russians.

Given their respective sizes, ruthlessness is besides the point.

[Caps]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Given their respective sizes, ruthlessness is besides the point.

I can agree with you there, but being a big army does not make you a good army.  Any army can make use of sheers numbers and technology but it does not make you good, all it means is that you have is more money and manpower to throw at a problem.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Caps

[MadMuhammad]

Modern times. Now whole countries are in a rush to be outraged lol

 

[BuaBS]

6 hours ago, kamahele said:

Please do tell.

Ace of pop got it right .

 

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

Ace of pop got it right .

 

Not that big of a problem unless you read the wrong websites.  This is worth a read.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445169/swedens-rape-problem-truth-more-complicated-narrative

Quote

Tino Sanandaji cautions against the broad-brush depiction of Sweden’s immigration indigestion as a matter of Muslim influence. Some 17 percent of Swedes are foreign-born, but only 3 to 5 percent identify as Muslim. Many of the immigrants who sought refuge in Sweden from the Middle East were Maronite and Assyrian Christians. Others are atheists who were fleeing Islam.

 

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Given their respective sizes, ruthlessness is besides the point.

Exactly.

 

Talk about a 'puff piece'!  The Russians are going to be frightened by a military exercise by the Swedes???

 

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, Caps said:

I can agree with you there, but being a big army does not make you a good army.  Any army can make use of sheers numbers and technology but it does not make you good, all it means is that you have is more money and manpower to throw at a problem.

It depends on how big the difference is and of course, relative technological levels. . And of course, Russia is not stinting on its military spending.

Edited September 14, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Foozool]

If Mr Bush did not attack Iraq over story of mass instruction ( BS ), Europe would not have fear of Russia attack now. 

Bush greatly helped Putin to become a hero for hungry Russians by rising oil price at the begging of the gulf war. That great oil price change not only made Saudi brotherhood richer, but also Russia. This was a political victory for Putin and he became Russians hero for fixing horrible economy. 

Mr bush was not the only one, but also Mr Clinton signed and allowed factories to move overseas. That was China victory. Now a country like North Korea has become a stress for The US. Since he's a back up, China. 

[sirineou]

15 hours ago, Caps said:

I can agree with you there, but being a big army does not make you a good army.  Any army can make use of sheers numbers and technology but it does not make you good, all it means is that you have is more money and manpower to throw at a problem.

Sure, but the above also applies to small armies

Personally when in doubt of my skill I prefer to have a big one  

 

[Grouse]

18 hours ago, the guest said:

Sweden is no match to the ruthless Russians.

Finland was

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

 

while you're reading that, listen to this. Loud!

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Grouse

[Grouse]

I am also wondering if a Trump NATO is as much of a benefit as it is a risk!

 

Times move on

 

I suspect that defence in depth may be be better. 28 liberal, civilised states?

 

Just cogitating .....

[JAG]

I am also wondering if a Trump NATO is as much of a benefit as it is a risk!
 
Times move on
 
I suspect that defence in depth may be be better. 28 liberal, civilised states?
 
Just cogitating .....

The problem is that if you're one of the relatively small states which border on a much larger well armed state, which may harbour expansionist aims, then defence in depth is not really an option.
Defence in depth means trading territory for time.
Sweden and the Baltic States don't have the territory.

If you're suggesting that some form of EU defence arrangement replaces NATO, well bear in mind that without US military power NATO is pretty ineffective as a military force, weakened further by the impending departure of the UK. That only leaves France...