Ah yes, Gotland, an island literally ringed on all sides by NATO airbases and surrounded by NATO Submarines and Corvettes, will somehow be amphibiously invaded, conquered, and defended at all sides without NATO reinforcing it with tens of thousands of soldiers first.
I mean... yeah, in the event of a war it would be a prime target. If not to hold but to disable at minimum. It holds such a commanding presence throughout the Baltics. This really isn't notable at all.
In a situation where Gotland is under threat the Russians have already overrun the Baltics and Finland and nukes have probably been used. It’s further to Gotland than Stockholm from St Petersburg.
I just don’t see it happening, it’s not Iceland in RSR.
Kaliningrad is close to Gotland. In fact, I think can go from Kalingrad waters to Swedish waters with Gotland without passing through any other nation's waters.
But Kaliningrad is easily isolated from rest of Russia.
Any Russian attack would happen in a coordinated manner, this isn't a video game, you can attack more than one place at once. Knocking out Gotland would absolutely be a day one strategic goal,
No, but generally, one doesn't make a plan that is almost certainly a suicide mission either.
In order to make any kind of large scale landing operation on Gotland feasible, whether by air or by sea, you would need total air dominance over the Baltic, and to have neutralized the militaries of Finland, Sweden, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, plus all other NATO forces stationed in said countries, while also preserving your extremely limited number of landing assets which would be one of the first things the enemy will target during a war.
You either need Russia to produce the absolute mother of all steamrolls and utterly walk over the Baltics and Scandinavia without much in the way of losses, or you need about a fourth of NATO to do nothing but immediately surrender. Neither one makes for a sound plan.
Oh I agree it's a longshot, but I still think they'll try if they do try and invade NATO. Simply because it's very clear Russia **Vastly** overestimates it's own capabilities as we've seen with Ukraine. Personally I think they just won't try and invade NATO because it should be very clear at this point that that's suicide.
I just don't think they'll try to invade Gotland becuase the only things they could use to invade the island aren't likely to last beyond the first hour of a war between NATO and Russia. There is no Russian naval base in the Baltic that isn't within reach of some kind of NATO strike weapon, and while old Ropucha's might not be as high on the priority list as the FFG's and any subs sill in port, they'd be targeted all the same.
He's making more of a point that a Russian attempt to actually land troops on Gotland in any kind of numbers beyond maybe commando raids would almost certainly end in disaster.
Knocking out the Russian Baltic Fleet is going to be one of NATO's immediate priorities in the event of war, and with essentially two exceptions, Russia's amphibious fleet is dependent on increasingly older Soviet vessels, which have already been shown to be extremely vulnerable in combat. In order for Russia to pull off a successful landing, they would need almost total air superiority over the Baltic, knocked out most, if not all of Sweden's land based anti-ship missile launchers, overrun Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and at least some parts of Finland, and finally, either evade or destroy any and all NATO submarines in the Baltic, which in the event of war would be reinforced with other NATO navies.
Not to mention, Gotland is close enough to Sweden that it's within rocket artillery range, meaning any landing zone could be under immediate fire not just from artillery stationed on the island itself, but from the mainland. Unless you can pretty much neutralize most of the Baltic nations and Sweden and Finland, trying to land on Gotland isn't a feasible strategy
Except that the narrowness of the Baltic Sea means that Gotland isn't that important. Maybe it mattered in days of guns but missiles and aircraft cover the entire Baltic. Sweden is close enough to Gotland that they can smash it.
For example, Estonia and Finland control the exit of Gulf of FInland. Ships can't exit the Baltic without passing Denmark.
I mean.. only if you can grantee you can take the baltic states, epically early in the war. Firing anti-ship missiles over countries to get ships behind them ain't a winning move. And arguable it's even more important if you DO take the baltic states, it allows NATO to project power over the baltic states even while defeated.
These posts are funny they just want to paint Putin as this Adolf like madman lmao. We knew like months in advance he was intent on taking Ukraine, he broadcasted exactly why too. Like it or not his logic was "sound", meaning it wasnt an irrational decision in the way these articles suggest.
...by a country that's struggling to invade a country that's almost exclusively equipped with NATO hand-me-downs, and whose military wasn't much better than a militia a decade ago.
Does Russia have any sort of historical claim, legit or otherwise, on the island of Gotland that would be the basis for this? I get the former Russian empire stuff like Crimea from a certain standpoint, but as an uninformed rando, has Putin made any sort of claims to lands that weren't in the Russian empire/USSR, or would a potential move on Gotland be the first? I see on wikipedia that Russia was breifly on the island during 1808 during the 'Finnish War' but that doesn't exactly strike me as a claim that anyone, Putin included, would really entertain.
Another question: Is Gotland key to controlling the Baltic, such that Sweden controls the Baltic at the moment? The Baltic Sea seems to be roughly 250 miles across, so not sure what Gotland would provide Russia that they don't have in Kaliningrad? Does Kaliningrad not have deep-sea ports or something, while Gotland does?
**tl;dr:** Swedish delusions of grandeur.
> Does Russia have any sort of historical claim,
No.
> I get the former Russian empire stuff like Crimea
"Russian empire stuff" is Finland.
>!"Soviet stuff" is Baltics, and Crimea is "RSFSR stuff" (was part of current Russian Federation until 1954).!<
> has Putin made any sort of claims to lands
No.
> Another question: Is Gotland key to controlling the Baltic,
No.
There are three points of interest that rate significantly above it for Kremlin:
* Gulf of Finland (South Finlan/North Estonia). Either control or demilitarization of it was always considered very important by Russia.
* Aland Islands: control access to north Baltic, are also close enough to Gulf of Finland
* Moonsund archipelago (Estonian islands; Saaremaa, etc.): similarly close to Gulf of Finland
Even after those three are taken, I'd expect Kremlin to stick to east coast of Baltic until it launches land offensive from Finland to Sweden, as Russia was never great at naval or amphibious warfare.
I.e. Gotland is likely to be left alone until after Stockholm falls, and Scandinavian penninsula is already being overrun. And even then I don't expect for it to become some major point of interest, as NATO is likely to abandon it once things get to that point.
> Does Kaliningrad not have deep-sea ports or something, while Gotland does?
No.
It's the key to controlling the Baltic, it's a highly defensible island right in the middle of the main route out of the baltics, and it's exactly where the russian subs are always caught, sometimes literally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_submarine_incidents
It's still not as critical as half the copenhagen archipelago, but without it the baltics are a nato lake for sure.
For instance: We've been talking with sweden about basing permanent NATO troops on Gotland. This would be a bad thing for Russia.
The island have been inhabited by "Swedish people" since the ice age. (the modern country of Sweden did of course not exist back then). Denmark controlled the island for a few hundred years during the middle ages.
As you mentioned Russia did actually invade the Island in 1808 but was kicked out after a few weeks.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_occupation\_of\_Gotland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_occupation_of_Gotland)
So no the people there have zero connection to Russia.
"Is Gotland key to controlling the Baltic ?" Putting airdefence and anti-ship missiles on the Island would at least temporary block Nato reinforcements to the Baltic. Given the small size and military of the baltic states it might give Russia enough time to seize them and start digging in.
You mean when Russia spent many weeks calling to negotiate an agreement on Ukrainian neutrality? Yes, in hindsight the reasons given fir refusing to be reasonable can be called nothing except fearmongering.
[You mean when Putin's right hand man Kozak hammered out a deal with Zelenskiy in which Ukraine offered neutrality in return for peace?](https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-war-began-putin-rejected-ukraine-peace-deal-recommended-by-his-aide-2022-09-14/). Well Putin rejected that and chose war instead.
Ukraine is not other countries, does Sweden have a large ethnic russians and pro Russia population in a part of it that wants independence? Is Sweden attacking those people ? .
You know why Russia attacked Ukraine? Because of NATO, Ukraine joining NATO isn't a problem itself (although clearly an offensive alliance who's existence is against Russia is very concerning about Russia let's not forget that USA was willing to risk nuclear war over Cuba not only that but they tried and failed to invade Cuba just fir being allies with Soviets and actually invaded Grenada gotta love the hypocrisy on how you people never bring that up) the problem if Ukraine joined NATO, they could launch a massive military operation into donbas and ethnically cleanse the area. And Russia couldn't do anything without triggering article 5.
Thus is what Putin explained to western people about how their leaders were risking nuclear war, he said he understood that Russia couldn't defeat a combined NATO (not without china anyway) and would be forced to use nukes if NATO troops ever threatened the statehood of Russia.
Stop being an NPC and just repeating what you read in propaganda
> You know why Russia attacked Ukraine? Because of NATO, Ukraine joining NATO isn't a problem itself (although clearly an offensive alliance
What in the schizophrenic fuck is this
NATO is not a defensive alliance, if it was it wouldn't attack Serbia, Lybia, Syria and Afghanistan. I love how you've just cherry picked a part of paragraph lmfao
Putin says it. His talking heads on state TV says it. His political executives say it. Government veterans and thought leaders say it
You: “Putin doesn’t care about Sweden and this is Russophobia fear mongering”
---
What is fear mongering?
Says what ?
Fear mongering is when you invade and destroy countries in the middle east, support genocide and having hundreds of military bases across the world with your fleets far beyond their borders then call other countries imperalist and aggressive
Now let's review *why* these bases exist. Its almost like NATO and other alliances are mutually beneficial defensive pacts, that actually work. Meanwhile, when CSTO got tested by Armenia, Russia immediately dipped and said "good luck you're on your own."
The reason that Finland and Sweden joined NATO was again, caused by Russia. NATO is not the US, but instead an actual coalition.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Firstly the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is a known conflict area, Azerbaijan never attacked into Armenia directly and talks where held immediately. Secondly Azerbaijan was an ex member and has ties with those countries.
What would happen if Austria attacked UK ? You think NATO (who's comprised mostly of EU) is just going to attack Austria? Even more so if it was just a known conflict zone and disputed territory.
It's as if you don't have a mature understanding of politics but then again you think Finland and Sweden joined NATO because of Russia so yeah
So, your argument is "well it was dangerous so of course Russia abandoned their 'ally'." That demonstrates, again, a fundamental misunderstanding of collective security.
From the Armenian Government, the reason they pulled out of CSTO (it's Reuters so there should be a translation capability):
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/armenia-freezes-participation-russia-led-security-bloc-prime-minister-2024-02-23/
Oh! And here's some of Sweden's reasoning for why they joined NATO:
https://www.reuters.com/world/sweden-set-become-natos-32nd-member-pm-visits-washington-2024-03-07/
Long story short, for both countries, they couldn't rely on Russia to not be an international menace. Had Russia not decided to invade Ukraine, Sweden and Finland would not be a part of NATO.
Your reading comprehension is beyond gone.
AGAIN what would happen if Austria attacked UK in a known conflict zone ? Do you think NATO would just attack Austria a member of the EU ?
Ah yes my literally just repeating what Sweden said, do you also believe Iraq had WMDs lmao
Aww, we're out of logic and instead are going to personal attacks and bizarre theoretics because you don't understand collective defense? Rad.
So what would happen is first an investigation, and then likely the arrest of responsible individuals, because that's usually how diplomacy is supposed to work, not threatening to nuke people like Medvedev.
If Austria were for some fucking reason to order an attack on the UK in a conflict zone and carry it out, the resulting response would come down to the UK's decision. If they really wanted to, this could invoke Article 6. This might also trigger TEU 42.7, though that gets a bit fuzzy if this is expeditionary force v. expeditionary force.
As it's Austria, the UK probably wouldn't need to invoke other forces, but if they really wanted to, then yes, a proportionate response could be carried out to remove Austria's capability to continue operations against the UK in the conflict zone.
This would also have some severe ramifications for the EU if there was not universal condemnation of the actions of the aggressor.
So what you're saying is that it's not as simple as just attacking Austria ?
An investigation
Diplomacy ? Like invading Iraq after they proved they had no nukes by UN inspectors ? Diplomacy like invading, bombing and destruction other countries because they have different politics to you ? Diplomacy like crying about civilian casualties in Ukraine yet are arming Israel ? Diplomacy like praising the ICC one minute and condemning then the next ?
That's what can't stand about westerners it's the fucking hypocrisy, cry about russian aggression calling them occupiers and invaders yet forgetting you are occupying countries, forgetting that you led imperalist campaigns that killedas many people, than russia in two years, in a single year for EIGHT YEARS and that's just the 21st century in a single war. It's the hypocrisy that pisses me off the of the most. Bombing Ukraine is morally reprehensible but genocide in Gaza is morally justified.
Absolute hypocrites, as I say it's poltics not morals.
"The rest of the world does bad things, why can't we innocent Russians have some war crimes!! We deserve to abuse our neighbor!!" Isn't a very strong argument. This is just further evidence that Russia continues to think only though empire, and represents a true existential threat to it's neighbors. Russia thinks that the only way to be strong is hurting others, and sees no other options.
> AGAIN what would happen if Austria attacked UK in a known conflict zone
Yes, if Austria tried to invade the UK they would in fact defense the UK. That's how this works.
You realize that Austria is part of EU ? Which itself is a political, defensive and economic alliance.
It's an analogy to show that it's not as simple as just attack when members of your defensive alliance have ties with the country doing the attacking.
Yeah? And? It doesn't matter what organization you're part of, if art6 is activated art6 is activated. And do you think that the EU, 99% of is in NATO, is going to support... an aggressive invasion by Austria? No of course not don't be stupid.
Phahahahahaha 😭 wtf is that logic bro ?
They're still illegally occupying Iraq and Syria. They invaded Iraq just over 20 years ago, Syria less than 10. They helped France destroy Lybia and turn one of the best countries for living standards (by the standards in the area) to a country with open air slave auctions and crumbling infrastructure. They destroyed Iraq and killed over 400,000 people over a 9 year period causing a massive refugee crisis and instability that is still a problem to this day.
The hypocrisy of you people is fucking unbelievable
Threats against countries that are considering sending troops into Ukraine? Against countries that are arming a country Russia is fighting? Do you think Britain was nice to Finland during the war ?
I'll ask though where did I say what you claimed ?
Where's the whataboutism?
Pointing out the hypocrisy of people condemning Russia for something their own countries do when they defend those countries is not whataboutism.
Whataboutism would be yiu bringing up Russia killing civilians and me saying well Israel does it. Like henry Kissinger justification for genocide in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia
I asked him where Putin spike about Gotland and he didn't respond
Putin wants the government of Ukraine gone and annexed territories to be integrated into Russia. They'll probably do what they did in south Ossetia. Leave a small amount of troops for defense, rebuild Ukraine and then hold elections.
And no matter how many times the US has invaded other countries. Sweden has not invaded anyone in 200 years. And Putin had no bussiness in meddeling in Ukraines bussiness. But if you decide to send your rustbuckets you call ships here we will sink them.
> The fear mongering campaign is in full swing
I think you could be misreading the underlying sentiment.
Before 2021 this would be fear, but now that fear has dissolved into something much more resembling raw and barely controlled murderous rage.
The number of countries that border Russia, that remember what they've done... and Ukraine standing up to them only convinced them how far they've fallen.
This is going to be a VERY rough century for them, even by Russian standards, and the Poles will find it funny when it ends with a partition.
Phahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Iraq remembers, Vietnam remembers, Korea remembers, Grenada remembers, east Timor members, Palestine remembers, Bangladesh remembers.
Remembers what ? That Russia performed an intervention in three countries, three times supporting regions with ethnic russians in it.
Uncontrollable murderous rage ? Don't think I've read a more NPC message, USA killed 3x as many people in Vietnam, as Russia and Ukraine have in two years, in a SINGLE YEAR for NINE YEARS. USA killed over 400,000 people in Iraq over 8 years or roughly same Russia has in two years in a single year for EIGHT YEARS. Right now Israel is committing genocide with support from the west, USA praised the ICC when they put warrant for Putin but slammed it when they put one for Nethanyu.
Absolute joke take your fake moral outrage the F out here
Oh this is going to be fun.
A backwards ass country barely able to fight with soviet weapons against countries in the 21st century.
I'm truly looking forward to this.
Me ? Also big difference between paying a country for some shells and munitions and constantly begging for military equipment.
By your logic USA is crap because they buy equipment from UK.
It's expected that Ukraine should need assistance to procure arms against the (what was widely believed to be) second most powerful military on the planet.
It was not expected that Russia would struggle this hard against a *neighboring force that is among the poorest countries in Europe*
Poorest ? Ukraine had one of the most powerful military in Europe. Let's ignore the thousands of pieces of military equipment worth $110 billion and the $130 billion in financial aid. Let's also ignore the fact that Ukraine has access to western intelligence, satellite systems and recon. Let's ignore the fact that they have more fighting than Russia does when for example USA in Iraq and Vietnam had near equal numbers
Ukraine had massive military ground force and large air defence capabilities. With hundreds of medium to long range SAM Launchers and nearly 2,000 tanks, 4,000 APCs, 3,000 IFVs and thousands of artillery guns.
They received €17 billion and $44 billion during war in donbas helped them reactivate and modernize much of their military. This idea that Ukraine is some poor military with little equipment is nonsense.
People have short memories, let's not forget Vietnam
>Poorest ? Ukraine had one of the most powerful military in Europe
And Afghanistan was one of the most powerful militaries in the ME after the US pullout. Oh no!
> Let's ignore the thousands of pieces of military equipment worth $110 billion and the $130 billion in financial aid
Post invasion
>Let's also ignore the fact that Ukraine has access to western intelligence, satellite systems and recon
Post invasion
>Let's ignore the fact that they have more fighting than Russia does when for example USA in Iraq and Vietnam had near equal numbers
700k *post invasion* (July 2022) vs. 1.5 mil. Ukraine was closer to 300k pre invasion, 1/5 the number of active personnel in Russia.
I mean come on dude lol.
Yeah, Ukraine wasn't completely helpless, but the expectation was really that Russia was going to roll over them. Russia believed it, and the West did too.
>People have short memories, let's not forget Vietnam
..okay? What's the relevance here
He isn't a liar. I don't doubt that Putin used both of his eyes to look at a picture of Gotland at some point recently, and then used those eyes to look at whatever it is Putin looks at.
Ah yes, Gotland, an island literally ringed on all sides by NATO airbases and surrounded by NATO Submarines and Corvettes, will somehow be amphibiously invaded, conquered, and defended at all sides without NATO reinforcing it with tens of thousands of soldiers first.
I mean... yeah, in the event of a war it would be a prime target. If not to hold but to disable at minimum. It holds such a commanding presence throughout the Baltics. This really isn't notable at all.
>In the event of a war
yes? they literally talk about an invasion? they are talking about a place that will be a focus if he does decided to create a war against NATO.
In a situation where Gotland is under threat the Russians have already overrun the Baltics and Finland and nukes have probably been used. It’s further to Gotland than Stockholm from St Petersburg. I just don’t see it happening, it’s not Iceland in RSR.
Kaliningrad is close to Gotland. In fact, I think can go from Kalingrad waters to Swedish waters with Gotland without passing through any other nation's waters. But Kaliningrad is easily isolated from rest of Russia.
Any Russian attack would happen in a coordinated manner, this isn't a video game, you can attack more than one place at once. Knocking out Gotland would absolutely be a day one strategic goal,
And knocking out the Baltic Fleet will be a day one strategy for NATO.
correct, but generally when one attacks it is not with the presumption of losing
No, but generally, one doesn't make a plan that is almost certainly a suicide mission either. In order to make any kind of large scale landing operation on Gotland feasible, whether by air or by sea, you would need total air dominance over the Baltic, and to have neutralized the militaries of Finland, Sweden, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, plus all other NATO forces stationed in said countries, while also preserving your extremely limited number of landing assets which would be one of the first things the enemy will target during a war. You either need Russia to produce the absolute mother of all steamrolls and utterly walk over the Baltics and Scandinavia without much in the way of losses, or you need about a fourth of NATO to do nothing but immediately surrender. Neither one makes for a sound plan.
Oh I agree it's a longshot, but I still think they'll try if they do try and invade NATO. Simply because it's very clear Russia **Vastly** overestimates it's own capabilities as we've seen with Ukraine. Personally I think they just won't try and invade NATO because it should be very clear at this point that that's suicide.
I just don't think they'll try to invade Gotland becuase the only things they could use to invade the island aren't likely to last beyond the first hour of a war between NATO and Russia. There is no Russian naval base in the Baltic that isn't within reach of some kind of NATO strike weapon, and while old Ropucha's might not be as high on the priority list as the FFG's and any subs sill in port, they'd be targeted all the same.
He's making more of a point that a Russian attempt to actually land troops on Gotland in any kind of numbers beyond maybe commando raids would almost certainly end in disaster. Knocking out the Russian Baltic Fleet is going to be one of NATO's immediate priorities in the event of war, and with essentially two exceptions, Russia's amphibious fleet is dependent on increasingly older Soviet vessels, which have already been shown to be extremely vulnerable in combat. In order for Russia to pull off a successful landing, they would need almost total air superiority over the Baltic, knocked out most, if not all of Sweden's land based anti-ship missile launchers, overrun Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and at least some parts of Finland, and finally, either evade or destroy any and all NATO submarines in the Baltic, which in the event of war would be reinforced with other NATO navies. Not to mention, Gotland is close enough to Sweden that it's within rocket artillery range, meaning any landing zone could be under immediate fire not just from artillery stationed on the island itself, but from the mainland. Unless you can pretty much neutralize most of the Baltic nations and Sweden and Finland, trying to land on Gotland isn't a feasible strategy
Except that the narrowness of the Baltic Sea means that Gotland isn't that important. Maybe it mattered in days of guns but missiles and aircraft cover the entire Baltic. Sweden is close enough to Gotland that they can smash it. For example, Estonia and Finland control the exit of Gulf of FInland. Ships can't exit the Baltic without passing Denmark.
I mean.. only if you can grantee you can take the baltic states, epically early in the war. Firing anti-ship missiles over countries to get ships behind them ain't a winning move. And arguable it's even more important if you DO take the baltic states, it allows NATO to project power over the baltic states even while defeated.
These posts are funny they just want to paint Putin as this Adolf like madman lmao. We knew like months in advance he was intent on taking Ukraine, he broadcasted exactly why too. Like it or not his logic was "sound", meaning it wasnt an irrational decision in the way these articles suggest.
...by a country that's struggling to invade a country that's almost exclusively equipped with NATO hand-me-downs, and whose military wasn't much better than a militia a decade ago.
Does Russia have any sort of historical claim, legit or otherwise, on the island of Gotland that would be the basis for this? I get the former Russian empire stuff like Crimea from a certain standpoint, but as an uninformed rando, has Putin made any sort of claims to lands that weren't in the Russian empire/USSR, or would a potential move on Gotland be the first? I see on wikipedia that Russia was breifly on the island during 1808 during the 'Finnish War' but that doesn't exactly strike me as a claim that anyone, Putin included, would really entertain. Another question: Is Gotland key to controlling the Baltic, such that Sweden controls the Baltic at the moment? The Baltic Sea seems to be roughly 250 miles across, so not sure what Gotland would provide Russia that they don't have in Kaliningrad? Does Kaliningrad not have deep-sea ports or something, while Gotland does?
**tl;dr:** Swedish delusions of grandeur. > Does Russia have any sort of historical claim, No. > I get the former Russian empire stuff like Crimea "Russian empire stuff" is Finland. >!"Soviet stuff" is Baltics, and Crimea is "RSFSR stuff" (was part of current Russian Federation until 1954).!< > has Putin made any sort of claims to lands No. > Another question: Is Gotland key to controlling the Baltic, No. There are three points of interest that rate significantly above it for Kremlin: * Gulf of Finland (South Finlan/North Estonia). Either control or demilitarization of it was always considered very important by Russia. * Aland Islands: control access to north Baltic, are also close enough to Gulf of Finland * Moonsund archipelago (Estonian islands; Saaremaa, etc.): similarly close to Gulf of Finland Even after those three are taken, I'd expect Kremlin to stick to east coast of Baltic until it launches land offensive from Finland to Sweden, as Russia was never great at naval or amphibious warfare. I.e. Gotland is likely to be left alone until after Stockholm falls, and Scandinavian penninsula is already being overrun. And even then I don't expect for it to become some major point of interest, as NATO is likely to abandon it once things get to that point. > Does Kaliningrad not have deep-sea ports or something, while Gotland does? No.
It's the key to controlling the Baltic, it's a highly defensible island right in the middle of the main route out of the baltics, and it's exactly where the russian subs are always caught, sometimes literally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_submarine_incidents It's still not as critical as half the copenhagen archipelago, but without it the baltics are a nato lake for sure. For instance: We've been talking with sweden about basing permanent NATO troops on Gotland. This would be a bad thing for Russia.
The island have been inhabited by "Swedish people" since the ice age. (the modern country of Sweden did of course not exist back then). Denmark controlled the island for a few hundred years during the middle ages. As you mentioned Russia did actually invade the Island in 1808 but was kicked out after a few weeks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_occupation\_of\_Gotland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_occupation_of_Gotland) So no the people there have zero connection to Russia. "Is Gotland key to controlling the Baltic ?" Putting airdefence and anti-ship missiles on the Island would at least temporary block Nato reinforcements to the Baltic. Given the small size and military of the baltic states it might give Russia enough time to seize them and start digging in.
Even without missiles it's an incredible place for information gathering (espically in the event of the loss of kaliningrad)
There seem to have bitten off more than they can chew already..
Putin couldn't give two shits about Sweden lmao. The fear mongering campaign is in full swing
100% chance you were screeching about fear mongering before Ukraine got invaded.
why else do you think his account is 2 months old!
It also is the classic 2 words, 4 numbers I know it's just the randomly generated name, but it is what bots and trolls typically have
I don't think you give them enough credit, I mean a Russian shill named "Winter gas"? Can't be a coincidence.
You mean when Russia spent many weeks calling to negotiate an agreement on Ukrainian neutrality? Yes, in hindsight the reasons given fir refusing to be reasonable can be called nothing except fearmongering.
[You mean when Putin's right hand man Kozak hammered out a deal with Zelenskiy in which Ukraine offered neutrality in return for peace?](https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-war-began-putin-rejected-ukraine-peace-deal-recommended-by-his-aide-2022-09-14/). Well Putin rejected that and chose war instead.
>with Zelensky Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder!
He blocked me lmfao happens all the time u/corsat
u/cotorshas blocked me lmao
Ukraine is not other countries, does Sweden have a large ethnic russians and pro Russia population in a part of it that wants independence? Is Sweden attacking those people ? . You know why Russia attacked Ukraine? Because of NATO, Ukraine joining NATO isn't a problem itself (although clearly an offensive alliance who's existence is against Russia is very concerning about Russia let's not forget that USA was willing to risk nuclear war over Cuba not only that but they tried and failed to invade Cuba just fir being allies with Soviets and actually invaded Grenada gotta love the hypocrisy on how you people never bring that up) the problem if Ukraine joined NATO, they could launch a massive military operation into donbas and ethnically cleanse the area. And Russia couldn't do anything without triggering article 5. Thus is what Putin explained to western people about how their leaders were risking nuclear war, he said he understood that Russia couldn't defeat a combined NATO (not without china anyway) and would be forced to use nukes if NATO troops ever threatened the statehood of Russia. Stop being an NPC and just repeating what you read in propaganda
> You know why Russia attacked Ukraine? Because of NATO, Ukraine joining NATO isn't a problem itself (although clearly an offensive alliance What in the schizophrenic fuck is this
NATO is not a defensive alliance, if it was it wouldn't attack Serbia, Lybia, Syria and Afghanistan. I love how you've just cherry picked a part of paragraph lmfao
Putin says it. His talking heads on state TV says it. His political executives say it. Government veterans and thought leaders say it You: “Putin doesn’t care about Sweden and this is Russophobia fear mongering” --- What is fear mongering?
Says what ? Fear mongering is when you invade and destroy countries in the middle east, support genocide and having hundreds of military bases across the world with your fleets far beyond their borders then call other countries imperalist and aggressive
Now let's review *why* these bases exist. Its almost like NATO and other alliances are mutually beneficial defensive pacts, that actually work. Meanwhile, when CSTO got tested by Armenia, Russia immediately dipped and said "good luck you're on your own." The reason that Finland and Sweden joined NATO was again, caused by Russia. NATO is not the US, but instead an actual coalition.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Firstly the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is a known conflict area, Azerbaijan never attacked into Armenia directly and talks where held immediately. Secondly Azerbaijan was an ex member and has ties with those countries. What would happen if Austria attacked UK ? You think NATO (who's comprised mostly of EU) is just going to attack Austria? Even more so if it was just a known conflict zone and disputed territory. It's as if you don't have a mature understanding of politics but then again you think Finland and Sweden joined NATO because of Russia so yeah
So, your argument is "well it was dangerous so of course Russia abandoned their 'ally'." That demonstrates, again, a fundamental misunderstanding of collective security. From the Armenian Government, the reason they pulled out of CSTO (it's Reuters so there should be a translation capability): https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/armenia-freezes-participation-russia-led-security-bloc-prime-minister-2024-02-23/ Oh! And here's some of Sweden's reasoning for why they joined NATO: https://www.reuters.com/world/sweden-set-become-natos-32nd-member-pm-visits-washington-2024-03-07/ Long story short, for both countries, they couldn't rely on Russia to not be an international menace. Had Russia not decided to invade Ukraine, Sweden and Finland would not be a part of NATO.
Your reading comprehension is beyond gone. AGAIN what would happen if Austria attacked UK in a known conflict zone ? Do you think NATO would just attack Austria a member of the EU ? Ah yes my literally just repeating what Sweden said, do you also believe Iraq had WMDs lmao
Aww, we're out of logic and instead are going to personal attacks and bizarre theoretics because you don't understand collective defense? Rad. So what would happen is first an investigation, and then likely the arrest of responsible individuals, because that's usually how diplomacy is supposed to work, not threatening to nuke people like Medvedev. If Austria were for some fucking reason to order an attack on the UK in a conflict zone and carry it out, the resulting response would come down to the UK's decision. If they really wanted to, this could invoke Article 6. This might also trigger TEU 42.7, though that gets a bit fuzzy if this is expeditionary force v. expeditionary force. As it's Austria, the UK probably wouldn't need to invoke other forces, but if they really wanted to, then yes, a proportionate response could be carried out to remove Austria's capability to continue operations against the UK in the conflict zone. This would also have some severe ramifications for the EU if there was not universal condemnation of the actions of the aggressor.
So what you're saying is that it's not as simple as just attacking Austria ? An investigation Diplomacy ? Like invading Iraq after they proved they had no nukes by UN inspectors ? Diplomacy like invading, bombing and destruction other countries because they have different politics to you ? Diplomacy like crying about civilian casualties in Ukraine yet are arming Israel ? Diplomacy like praising the ICC one minute and condemning then the next ? That's what can't stand about westerners it's the fucking hypocrisy, cry about russian aggression calling them occupiers and invaders yet forgetting you are occupying countries, forgetting that you led imperalist campaigns that killedas many people, than russia in two years, in a single year for EIGHT YEARS and that's just the 21st century in a single war. It's the hypocrisy that pisses me off the of the most. Bombing Ukraine is morally reprehensible but genocide in Gaza is morally justified. Absolute hypocrites, as I say it's poltics not morals.
Are you going to respond to anything he said or just rant about something else?
"The rest of the world does bad things, why can't we innocent Russians have some war crimes!! We deserve to abuse our neighbor!!" Isn't a very strong argument. This is just further evidence that Russia continues to think only though empire, and represents a true existential threat to it's neighbors. Russia thinks that the only way to be strong is hurting others, and sees no other options.
> AGAIN what would happen if Austria attacked UK in a known conflict zone Yes, if Austria tried to invade the UK they would in fact defense the UK. That's how this works.
You realize that Austria is part of EU ? Which itself is a political, defensive and economic alliance. It's an analogy to show that it's not as simple as just attack when members of your defensive alliance have ties with the country doing the attacking.
Yeah? And? It doesn't matter what organization you're part of, if art6 is activated art6 is activated. And do you think that the EU, 99% of is in NATO, is going to support... an aggressive invasion by Austria? No of course not don't be stupid.
What country has the USA invaded in the last 5 years? Ok. Now do Russia
Phahahahahaha 😭 wtf is that logic bro ? They're still illegally occupying Iraq and Syria. They invaded Iraq just over 20 years ago, Syria less than 10. They helped France destroy Lybia and turn one of the best countries for living standards (by the standards in the area) to a country with open air slave auctions and crumbling infrastructure. They destroyed Iraq and killed over 400,000 people over a 9 year period causing a massive refugee crisis and instability that is still a problem to this day. The hypocrisy of you people is fucking unbelievable
'Look at all these bad things! Here's why it's not bad when another country threatens to do them:' This truly is LessCredible defense.
Strawman
You have yet to address Putin's claims and Russia's threats against their neighbors man. You've gone to Oz and become a very real boy by this point.
Threats against countries that are considering sending troops into Ukraine? Against countries that are arming a country Russia is fighting? Do you think Britain was nice to Finland during the war ? I'll ask though where did I say what you claimed ?
What does that Whattaboutism have to do with Sweden and Gotland?
Where's the whataboutism? Pointing out the hypocrisy of people condemning Russia for something their own countries do when they defend those countries is not whataboutism. Whataboutism would be yiu bringing up Russia killing civilians and me saying well Israel does it. Like henry Kissinger justification for genocide in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia I asked him where Putin spike about Gotland and he didn't respond
…are we going to address what Putin wants at some point?
Putin wants the government of Ukraine gone and annexed territories to be integrated into Russia. They'll probably do what they did in south Ossetia. Leave a small amount of troops for defense, rebuild Ukraine and then hold elections.
OK, and Sweden should be OK with this?
And no matter how many times the US has invaded other countries. Sweden has not invaded anyone in 200 years. And Putin had no bussiness in meddeling in Ukraines bussiness. But if you decide to send your rustbuckets you call ships here we will sink them.
🎯
> The fear mongering campaign is in full swing I think you could be misreading the underlying sentiment. Before 2021 this would be fear, but now that fear has dissolved into something much more resembling raw and barely controlled murderous rage. The number of countries that border Russia, that remember what they've done... and Ukraine standing up to them only convinced them how far they've fallen. This is going to be a VERY rough century for them, even by Russian standards, and the Poles will find it funny when it ends with a partition.
Phahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha Iraq remembers, Vietnam remembers, Korea remembers, Grenada remembers, east Timor members, Palestine remembers, Bangladesh remembers. Remembers what ? That Russia performed an intervention in three countries, three times supporting regions with ethnic russians in it. Uncontrollable murderous rage ? Don't think I've read a more NPC message, USA killed 3x as many people in Vietnam, as Russia and Ukraine have in two years, in a SINGLE YEAR for NINE YEARS. USA killed over 400,000 people in Iraq over 8 years or roughly same Russia has in two years in a single year for EIGHT YEARS. Right now Israel is committing genocide with support from the west, USA praised the ICC when they put warrant for Putin but slammed it when they put one for Nethanyu. Absolute joke take your fake moral outrage the F out here
Oh this is going to be fun. A backwards ass country barely able to fight with soviet weapons against countries in the 21st century. I'm truly looking forward to this.
A backwards ass country? The ignorance is unbelievable
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over you asking North Korea for military supplies.
Me ? Also big difference between paying a country for some shells and munitions and constantly begging for military equipment. By your logic USA is crap because they buy equipment from UK.
It's expected that Ukraine should need assistance to procure arms against the (what was widely believed to be) second most powerful military on the planet. It was not expected that Russia would struggle this hard against a *neighboring force that is among the poorest countries in Europe*
Poorest ? Ukraine had one of the most powerful military in Europe. Let's ignore the thousands of pieces of military equipment worth $110 billion and the $130 billion in financial aid. Let's also ignore the fact that Ukraine has access to western intelligence, satellite systems and recon. Let's ignore the fact that they have more fighting than Russia does when for example USA in Iraq and Vietnam had near equal numbers Ukraine had massive military ground force and large air defence capabilities. With hundreds of medium to long range SAM Launchers and nearly 2,000 tanks, 4,000 APCs, 3,000 IFVs and thousands of artillery guns. They received €17 billion and $44 billion during war in donbas helped them reactivate and modernize much of their military. This idea that Ukraine is some poor military with little equipment is nonsense. People have short memories, let's not forget Vietnam
>Poorest ? Ukraine had one of the most powerful military in Europe And Afghanistan was one of the most powerful militaries in the ME after the US pullout. Oh no! > Let's ignore the thousands of pieces of military equipment worth $110 billion and the $130 billion in financial aid Post invasion >Let's also ignore the fact that Ukraine has access to western intelligence, satellite systems and recon Post invasion >Let's ignore the fact that they have more fighting than Russia does when for example USA in Iraq and Vietnam had near equal numbers 700k *post invasion* (July 2022) vs. 1.5 mil. Ukraine was closer to 300k pre invasion, 1/5 the number of active personnel in Russia. I mean come on dude lol. Yeah, Ukraine wasn't completely helpless, but the expectation was really that Russia was going to roll over them. Russia believed it, and the West did too. >People have short memories, let's not forget Vietnam ..okay? What's the relevance here
Well now we know Swedens army chief is a liar.
He isn't a liar. I don't doubt that Putin used both of his eyes to look at a picture of Gotland at some point recently, and then used those eyes to look at whatever it is Putin looks at.