Sweden detect foreign presence in it's archipelago. Mobilise it's largest submarine hunt since the cold war

[Caelifer_1991]

Thank you for your brilliant strategic insight. You should call the British Army and tell them to take you on at once.

So... you defend Russia invading Sweden's territorial waters then, and don't see it as unfounded aggression against its neighbours at all? Don't talk as if I'm a militarist, what I want is for everyone to not invade each other's territorial waters, be happy and skip through the daisies together, but the world is what it is, and if Russia's gonna be a dick then we must act accordingly.

[Phier]

I'd be really amused if it turned out to be a whale or basking shark....

[Aikanár]

Gentlemen,

Greece, Turkey and members of TWC are as far off-topic to this thread as rainbow colored happy unicorns mating on Mars.

Consider this a warning.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

AS I said Before the delete?

We can't really be sure its Russia, but they are the likely suspects, because of resent events.

[King_Porus]

I'm not getting why this is being made out to be such a big deal. Russian jets and bombers have been violating Canadian (and probably Alaskan) airspace for decades and there has still been no WW3. The Russians just like poking around and testing reaction times, no need to lose our heads yet.

[Stavroforos]

AS I said Before the delete?

We can't really be sure its Russia, but they are the likely suspects, because of resent events.

What would happen if it was Russian? Like, what could Sweden do?

[Phier]

What would happen if it was Russian? Like, what could Sweden do?

Sink it as an unidentified, unauthorized submarine in their territorial waters.

[Stavroforos]

Sink it as an unidentified, unauthorized submarine in their territorial waters.

Haha haha, okay.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

Sink it as an unidentified, unauthorized submarine in their territorial waters.

Or force the crew to surrender the sub, and arrest them for "insert random reason the Swedens make up"

[Aanker]

I'm not getting why this is being made out to be such a big deal. Russian jets and bombers have been violating Canadian (and probably Alaskan) airspace for decades and there has still been no WW3. The Russians just like poking around and testing reaction times, no need to lose our heads yet.

1. These events show that, indeed, Russia is actively acting as an agressor again. This has been neglected by Swedish politicians for a long time, until the Ukrainian crisis. The recent events (of which this could easily be said to be the most exposed and significant) have finally put the nail in the coffin of the idea that Russia really is an amicable neighbour.

2. The Swedish defense budget has been shrinking ever since the Cold War ended. However, this is going to change now, especially since the public has been reminded of the inadequacy of our current maritime capabilities. It goes without saying that Swedish territorial integrity needs to be upheld and that cannot be done without the equipment or soldiers to use it.

3. Taken together, the two above points also generate the picture that any increasing defense expenditures will likely be invested in materials intended to disrupt or destroy Russian equipment in the event of an attack. Seeing as Russia has no qualms about attacking non-NATO members, Sweden's position on NATO membership could/should change; not only to further surround Russia strategically but also to avoid another Ukraine scenario where an 'independent' state was caught with its pants down. Also, if we're going to rearm with the intent of fighting back, we might as well realize that Russia is going to be the one we will fight against and join a bloc of likeminded nations to stand any chance in that event.

This is not just about one submarine or a bunch of bombers. It's about the revival of the Cold War in the Baltic and a potential paradigm shift in Sweden (and maybe also Finland) as a result, because the circumstances in terms of defense potential in Sweden are entirely different than they were back in the day.

Or force the crew to surrender the sub, and arrest them for "insert random reason the Swedens make up"

If the sub really is damaged as some reports indicate then the crew might scuttle it (boom!) and exfiltrate by some discrete means i.e. motorboat owned by an activated Russian agent. It sounds like a spy movie plot but that's what they do. Alternatively the crew is found, rescued and interrogated and then who knows.

If not, and those reports are inaccurate, then I am mildly pessimistic that we will ever find the sub. Finding this kind of vessel requires a search on an order of magnitude and sophistication that at present I doubt we can muster. We don't even have anti-sub helicopters! If the Navy is lucky enough to find it then I suspect they'll actually try to destroy it. There is historical precedence for that and during the U-137 confrontation Swedish vessels and coastal batteries were given the order to 'hold the border'. For all we know they could already be authorized to fire.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

3. Taken together, the two above points also generate the picture that any increasing defense expenditures will likely be invested in materials intended to disrupt or destroy Russian equipment in the event of an attack. Seeing as Russia has no qualms about attacking non-NATO members, Sweden's position on NATO membership could/should change; not only to further surround Russia strategically but also to avoid another Ukraine scenario where an 'independent' state was caught with its pants down. Also, if we're going to rearm with the intent of fighting back, we might as well realize that Russia is going to be the one we will fight against and join a bloc of likeminded nations to stand any chance in that event.

This is not just about one submarine or a bunch of bombers. It's about the revival of the Cold War in the Baltic and a potential paradigm shift in Sweden (and maybe also Finland) as a result, because the circumstances in terms of defense potential in Sweden are entirely different than they were back in the day.

Well I believe a better focus a unified EU military, instead of Nato, I mean don't most Nato country struggles to fund military these days?

[Biggles]

Thing is, Sweden has such relations with the other members of NATO and the West in general that Putin would have to think twice and then twice again before trying a real military expansion against us. I find it very hard to imagine NATO just standing around watching if Russia were to attack Sweden.

[Nikitn]

So... you defend Russia invading Sweden's territorial waters then, and don't see it as unfounded aggression against its neighbours at all? Don't talk as if I'm a militarist, what I want is for everyone to not invade each other's territorial waters, be happy and skip through the daisies together, but the world is what it is, and if Russia's gonna be a dick then we must act accordingly.

No I just thought your post was the typical crap marked by russophobia. To think the EU should 'make a stand' against the 'Russian threat' over a normal spying mission (assuming there is a sub) is ridiculous. Perhaps Sweden and the EU should 'make a stand' against the US also, then? Nah, would be better if the EU made a stand against imbeciles like Carl Bildt and their foreign policy.

1. These events show that, indeed, Russia is actively acting as an agressor again. This has been neglected by Swedish politicians for a long time, until the Ukrainian crisis. The recent events (of which this could easily be said to be the most exposed and significant) have finally put the nail in the coffin of the idea that Russia really is an amicable neighbour.

2. The Swedish defense budget has been shrinking ever since the Cold War ended. However, this is going to change now, especially since the public has been reminded of the inadequacy of our current maritime capabilities. It goes without saying that Swedish territorial integrity needs to be upheld and that cannot be done without the equipment or soldiers to use it.

3. Taken together, the two above points also generate the picture that any increasing defense expenditures will likely be invested in materials intended to disrupt or destroy Russian equipment in the event of an attack. Seeing as Russia has no qualms about attacking non-NATO members, Sweden's position on NATO membership could/should change; not only to further surround Russia strategically but also to avoid another Ukraine scenario where an 'independent' state was caught with its pants down. Also, if we're going to rearm with the intent of fighting back, we might as well realize that Russia is going to be the one we will fight against and join a bloc of likeminded nations to stand any chance in that event.

This is not just about one submarine or a bunch of bombers. It's about the revival of the Cold War in the Baltic and a potential paradigm shift in Sweden (and maybe also Finland) as a result, because the circumstances in terms of defense potential in Sweden are entirely different than they were back in the day.

Yup, because Russia randomly decided to invade Ukraine and now Sweden is next. But honestly, what makes yo think a higher defense budget would be a good ROI? Sweden's involvement in a potential West vs Russia war would be negligible. Perhaps Stockholm would get the honor of a nuke but that's it tbh.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

No I just thought your post was the typical crap marked by russophobia.

Perhaps Stockholm would get the honor of a nuke but that's it tbh.

okey now I am Russophobia

[Aanker]

Well I believe a better focus a unified EU military, instead of Nato, I mean don't most Nato country struggles to fund military these days?

I agree, a united EU military would in my view be better than to have 20ish Air Forces, Navies and Armies trying to cooperate across different command structures, equipment and priorities. But an EU military would be an even more difficult poject than just making certain individual NATO member military spending is up to par. And there's another issue as well, although you might get across lingual barriers by virtue of the fact that English is the lingua franca of our world, a united military would have to make judgements on which areas (including entire EU members) are more important than others. Where will you yield to get a better foothold further back? Where will you concentrate your forces? Where do you not anticipate an enemy attack and thus leave that area less protected? Be certain that such decisions would be too rational for some to swallow.

Thing is, Sweden has such relations with the other members of NATO and the West in general that Putin would have to think twice and then twice again before trying a real military expansion against us. I find it very hard to imagine NATO just standing around watching if Russia were to attack Sweden.

I think both Georgia and Ukraine thought that way. Yes, Sweden is more tightly knit into the western world than either of those two countries but we do not know where Vlad's limits are. For all we know he could be riding on overconfidence boosted by his gains in Ukraine. You can't anticipate the moves of your enemies and the extra layer of deterrence gained through NATO membership - in my opinion - outweighs any potential costs.

It's also a nice you, Putin.

[Caelifer_1991]

No I just thought your post was the typical crap marked by russophobia. To think the EU should 'make a stand' against the 'Russian threat' over a normal spying mission (assuming there is a sub) is ridiculous. Perhaps Sweden and the EU should 'make a stand' against the US also, then? Nah, would be better if the EU made a stand against imbeciles like Carl Bildt and their foreign policy.



Yup, because Russia randomly decided to invade Ukraine and now Sweden is next. But honestly, what makes yo think a higher defense budget would be a good ROI? Sweden's involvement in a potential West vs Russia war would be negligible. Perhaps Stockholm would get the honor of a nuke but that's it tbh.

You assume that I am Russophobic? Having studied the region in detail between the 1800s to the late 1900s I am actually kind of fond of what was the Soviet Union, and within it, Russia, at least sentimentally. As a resident of a member state of the E.U. however, and with Russia being in an overtly aggressive stance, the only logical position is to ensure that we are fully prepared for all contingencies, and that no matter the extent to which Russian expansionism is extended, that we are prepared to deal with it in the interests of national security. This includes not just the countries of the E.U. and NATO, but also aspiring member states and close allies, such as the Ukraine and Sweden. The surest way to achieve this is through consolidation of our current national militaries into a unified body, and of the supporting logistical supply network to support such.

If you think that my position is in some way unreasonable then I can only wonder if the same would be true if you were a citizen of the E.U..

[Stavroforos]

I'm not getting why this is being made out to be such a big deal. Russian jets and bombers have been violating Canadian (and probably Alaskan) airspace for decades and there has still been no WW3. The Russians just like poking around and testing reaction times, no need to lose our heads yet.

I always thought the Russians skirted around Canadian and American airspace, not actually violating it.

Thing is, Sweden has such relations with the other members of NATO and the West in general that Putin would have to think twice and then twice again before trying a real military expansion against us. I find it very hard to imagine NATO just standing around watching if Russia were to attack Sweden.

Oh, so we've gone from "maybe a Russian sub in Swedish waters" to "Russia is trying to annex Sweden." Probably a bit extreme.

[Nikitn]

You assume that I am Russophobic? Having studied the region in detail between the 1800s to the late 1900s I am actually kind of fond of what was the Soviet Union, and within it, Russia, at least sentimentally. As a resident of a member state of the E.U. however, and with Russia being in an overtly aggressive stance, the only logical position is to ensure that we are fully prepared for all contingencies, and that no matter the extent to which Russian expansionism is extended, that we are prepared to deal with it in the interests of national security. This includes not just the countries of the E.U. and NATO, but also aspiring member states and close allies, such as the Ukraine and Sweden. The surest way to achieve this is through consolidation of our current national militaries into a unified body, and of the supporting logistical supply network to support such.

Too bad, because you are basing your strategy on the assumption that

1) Russia is overly aggressive
2) That your knowledge of the geopolitics is complete and correct
3) That a war, a Russian attack on the EU is a markable possibility

What if your media has brainwashed you by spewing only one POV? Isn't it strange that Russia has not been fighting for its interests in central Europe, Sweden or so on, but deep on its home turf, Ukraine? Doesn't much fit the notion of Russia being an expansionist aggressor. What do you base your conviction of a Russian threat on anyways; Hawk Polish/Baltic politicians?

Besides a united EU military is completely pointless even if Russia would decide to suicide itself by attacking western countries, as NATO (you know, the thing already binding the western militaries together) would be forced to step in. To put it simply, what you are talking about makes no sense.

If you think that my position is in some way unreasonable then I can only wonder if the same would be true if you were a citizen of the E.U..

Due to my background I actually have the privilege of knowing both the EU and Russian POV. So don't worry I think I understand well why you think like you.

[Aanker]

So in other news, an app tracking maritime vessels is now trending in Sweden as curious individuals seek to follow the movements of the Russian oil tanker NS Concord, which in spite of having the stated destination of Denmark/the Oresund Straight lay still outside Swedish territorial waters before abruptly steaming northeast after the news of the suspected sub started to surface.

My custom user title has been Concordant for a year or so now... Coincidence? I think not

[alhoon]

I would like to point here, that Sweden declined joining NATO.

In any case, as Stav has mentioned before... Russia violated the territorial waters of Sweden once. So what? It happens all the time between NATO countries and nobody cares.
I don't think it's important nor that it means annexation is imminent and "little Green Men" will start showing up in Sweden.