Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Sweden supports NATO membership, Finland also moving toward membership with growing Russian threats cited by PM Stubb


Mr. Ambien

Recommended Posts

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/29/us-sweden-nato-idUSKBN0II1XN20141029

http://www.thelocal.se/20141029/support-swells-for-swedish-nato-membership

Swedish support for joining Nato swells

More Swedes are now in favour of their country joining Nato than are against the idea, according to a new survey by pollsters Novus.

37 percent of Swedes questioned said they supported joining Nato compared with 36 percent who were against the idea.

It is the first time a survey has suggested that a larger proportion of Swedes back joining Nato as opposed to keeping out of the organisation.

In May 2014, just 28 percent of Swedes polled wanted to join Nato, compared with 56 percent of people who rejected the idea of signing up.

Nato (which stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is an international organisation that includes various European countries as well as the United States and Canada.

It was formed in 1949, after the end of the Second World War.

Nato's aim is to ensure that its members don't fight each other, rather that they work together to safeguard security and cooperate on defence and security issues.

If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the capacity to organise and carry out joint defence operations when urgent military action is needed, for example in Afghanistan.

The organisation has recently expanded its presence in the Baltics, as tensions continue in the region as a result of the Ukraine crisis.

Crucially, member states are obliged to come to the aid of fellow members if they are subject to a military attack.

Sweden already has strong links to Nato and takes part in joint training exercises with Nato troops as part of the Partnership for Peace programme. Some see this as being Nato members in all but name, while others point out that Sweden isn't covered by security guarantees.

The Novus study, which was commissioned by TV4 News, comes less than a week after the Swedish military carried out its largest military operation in years in Stockholm's archipelago.

There were concerns that a foreign vessel - possibly from Russia - was in Swedish waters, but after an extensive search, Sweden's military said it thought that the suspected submarine had moved on.

The hunt, alongside more general concerns about the conflict in Ukraine, may have affected public opinion ahead of the Novus survey, reported news agency TT.

Another recent survey found that Swedes were more willing to risk conflict with Russia by helping Ukraine than people from any other European country.

The Swedish military's ability to defend the country if it came under attack has been under scrutiny since Supreme Commander Sverker Göransson said in 2013 that Sweden could hold its own for more than a week.

If Finland were to look more seriously at joining Nato the issue would likely rise further up Sweden's agenda.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-129456841.html (German)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/finnish-prime-minister-discusses-possible-nato-membership-a-994356.html (English)

Finnish Prime Minister: 'Moscow Is Provoking a Number of Its Neighbors'


SPIEGEL: Mr. Stubb, Moscow is following with great concern just how sympathetic you are to the idea of Finland joining NATO. Do you see it as a threat when President Vladimir Putin speaks of the "special attention" he devotes to economic relations with your country?

Stubb: Russia for us is a large, powerful neighbor with which we share a 1,300 kilometer-long (810-mile) border and against which we have waged war in the past. We know how the Kremlin speaks and acts. But I'm not anxious or afraid, because Finland is an integral part of the European Union.

SPIEGEL: Putin confidant Sergei Markov has explicitly warned of the consequences of NATO membership, saying it could trigger a World War III.

Stubb: Rhetoric can be razor sharp, and just as one needs to take some comments seriously, others should not be.

SPIEGEL: Currently, though, you're playing down tensions even though Russian jets have repeatedly breached Finnish air space recently.

Stubb: Finland is not an isolated case in that regard. Moscow is provoking a number of its neighbors. The most dismaying example is Ukraine. The message is: "Look, Russia is still a superpower."

SPIEGEL: Putin wouldn't simply accept Finland joining NATO.

Stubb: That may well be. But for us the question has to be whether this step would increase our security. And if doing so would provide us with greater influence over European security policy. This is a decision we will make without asking for permission.

SPIEGEL: In contrast to you, many in your country are critical about joining NATO.

Stubb: We should have become a member in 1995 when we joined the EU. Nevertheless, we are very satisfied with the close partnership we maintain with NATO -- even if things like the security guarantee in the event of an attack are formally missing. Still, even though we are paying great attention to the issue, for the time being I don't see any broad majority for joining soon.

SPIEGEL: During the Cold War, Finland remained neutral in order to keep from provoking the Soviet Union. Does intimidation by the Kremlin still have an effect today?

Stubb: On the contrary. Each threatening gesture strengthens those who support NATO membership. But of course some of my compatriots become cautious when Moscow falls back into the tone that prevailed during the Soviet era.

SPIEGEL: Russia is Finland's third most important export market after Sweden and Germany. Do the EU sanctions and Russia's counter boycott threaten to create an economic crisis in your country?

Stubb: The sanctions aren't the problem. We're suffering from the crisis in the Russian economy. Instead of modernizing it, Putin has placed his bet on profits from the natural gas and oil industries. This crisis is being amplified by the sanctions and we Finns are going to feel the effects. When the Russian economy does well, the Finns also do well. That's why we are stressing a diplomatic solution of the Ukraine conflict.

SPIEGEL: If Finland isn't suffering existentially over the sanctions, then why did you so vehemently resist their tightening recently?

Stubb: I first have to make something clear here. My government did not fight against this new round of sanctions.

SPIEGEL: But your foreign minister …

Stubb: ... didn't consider the timing to be very good and he stated this publicly.

SPIEGEL: He said it was "a question of war and peace."

Stubb: The cease-fire (in eastern Ukraine) had just been negotiated and it was a very delicate period. The foreign minister would have preferred to wait a bit.

SPIEGEL: The impression nevertheless came across that good relations with Moscow might be more important to you than unity in the EU.

Stubb: My government's position is that we are working in line with the EU. Nothing would alarm us more than a divided union. As a government, we have never wavered in that regard.

SPIEGEL: Finland obtains 90 percent of its natural gas and 70 percent of its oil from Russia. What would happen if Moscow were to cut off the supplies?

Stubb: Gas doesn't even constitute 10 percent of our total energy needs. We could absorb that. We import the oil cheaply, we refine it and we resell some of it. Overall, we're quite diversified and less dependent than others.

SPIEGEL: Is it conceivable to you that Putin could adopt a measure as drastic as that?

Stubb: The EU and Moscow have excluded energy deliveries from the sanctions. If we were to drag our gas and oil supplies into the conflict, it would mean an escalation that would be almost impossible to reverse. Even without this escalation, the winter could still be long and bitterly cold.

SPIEGEL: You are visiting Berlin this week. Is this also due to the Ukraine crisis?

Stubb: The visit is the start of a European tour. We will discuss many issues, but Chancellor Angela Merkel and I are also frequently in contact. And just to put you at ease: I won't be asking for money. Finland does fine on its own.

While it's a little far off to tell, if Russia keeps up the belligerence against it's neighbours, could see both of these countries in NATO by the end of next year, with some other additions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get them into NATO and buy Grippens instead of that piece of junk Lightning II F-35.

The US variant of the F-35 is fatally flawed, which in turn makes the Foreign variants even worse. There's a reason why pilots still prefer and are using the F-16 and F-18 planes.

The military is not happy with Lockheed-Martin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US variant of the F-35 is fatally flawed, which in turn makes the Foreign variants even worse. There's a reason why pilots still prefer and are using the F-16 and F-18 planes.

The military is not happy with Lockheed-Martin.

Might want to read up on the Grippen. It's Swedish designed and built. It has nothing to do with the US. The only issue is combat range. Other than that we should build our own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why there was a very questionable Russian sub in Swedish waters last week. NATO is so irrelevant that they need fear monger nations into joining. This also boosts their bottom line, more nations, more funds. IMF is worried that Sweden and Finland may be joining the Eurasian Economic Union with Russia. I was all but certain Finland was heading in that direction, Sweden maybe not. And now all of a sudden the Finns want the opposite. My guess is there won't be a referendum on this as soooooooo many Swedish and Finish people are in favor of it :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Nato? What is this, 1986?

I grew up in the 1980s. Cold war was as real as it gets. Russias bringing it back so NATO is back in the news.

I wonder if we will start seeing NATO creeping into non-european countries soon?

That would be crazy. Canada and the US will be wanting in next thing you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might want to read up on the Grippen. It's Swedish designed and built. It has nothing to do with the US. The only issue is combat range. Other than that we should build our own.

Variant = A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

You may want to read up on the F-35. It has a domestic design and a foreign design i.e. variants. The US sells the inferior version to it's allies. One of the key differences being that the F-35's foreign version "stealth" cross section shows up as several times the size of a soccer ball whereas the US version the cross section shows up smaller than an egg.

Nonetheless the F-35 is a horrible plane. Foreign and domestic versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Variant = A form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard.

You may want to read up on the F-35. It has a domestic design and a foreign design i.e. variants. The US sells the inferior version to it's allies. One of the key differences being that the F-35's foreign version "stealth" cross section shows up as several times the size of a soccer ball whereas the US version the cross section shows up smaller than an egg.

Nonetheless the F-35 is a horrible plane. Foreign and domestic versions.

The Grippen is nothing like a variant. Might as well say an F35 is a variant on the F111. The only thing they are in common is they are both sinkholes of defence dollars.

Joint Strike Fighter concept came about in 1993. The Grippen first flew in 1988 before they even had the concept of the JSF.

The JSF was to replace the A10, F18, and F16, and the Harrier. What they've managed to build is a fighter that's no where near as good as any of those airframes. The SAAB Grippen is a straightforward fighter aircraft.

So how can it be a variant of something that wasn't even built yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Grippen is nothing like a variant. Might as well say an F35 is a variant on the F111. The only thing they are in common is they are both sinkholes of defence dollars.

Joint Strike Fighter concept came about in 1993. The Grippen first flew in 1988 before they even had the concept of the JSF.

The JSF was to replace the A10, F18, and F16, and the Harrier. What they've managed to build is a fighter that's no where near as good as any of those airframes. The SAAB Grippen is a straightforward fighter aircraft.

So how can it be a variant of something that wasn't even built yet?

You just aren't getting what the word variant means. I'm not talking about the Grippen because I know next to nothing about it so I'm taking your word for it's worthiness. Just about any modern plane is better than the F-35. They still can't even get the helmet display to work properly, not to mention they can't even put the planes together properly while making them.

See if this helps you to understand what I'm saying. A CF-18 Hornet is a Canadian version/variant of the American F-18. To even take that further the CF-18A is a one seat variant/version of the CF-18, while a CF-18B is a two seat version/variant of of the CF-18.

In short: I'm talking about different versions of just one plane (F-18) when I say the word variant. I know very little about the Grippen so I'm pretty much taking your word that it's an excellent fighter.

Even shorter: The F-35 sucks and even US fighter pilots have said that they don't want to fly it. I've been angry for years about the JSF program and even the Pentagon is getting fed up with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why always when something involves NATO/OTAN theres always a fight involving F-35 vs Avro Arrow?

I also can´t stop thinking one of the very first things that comes to my mind after hear "SAAB GRIPEN" is "Sedin´s Official Jet"

SAAB GRIPEN

800px-Czech_JAS-39_Gripen_over_the_Curon

Program cost US$ 13.54 billion (2006)

Unit cost US$ 68.90 million (2006)

General characteristics

  • Crew: 1 (2 for JAS 39D)
  • Payload: 5,300 kg (11,700 lb)
  • Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in); two-seater: 14.8 m (48 ft 5 in)
  • Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
  • Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
  • Wing area: 30.0 m² (323 ft²)
  • Empty weight: 6,800 kg[294] (12,600 lb)
  • Loaded weight: 8,500 kg (18,700 lb)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Volvo RM12 afterburning turbofan
    • Dry thrust: 54 kN (12,100 lbf)
    • Thrust with afterburner: 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf)
  • Wheel track: 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in)

Performance

Armament

F-35

763px-CF-1_flight_test.jpg

Program cost US$1.0165 trillion (projected over 55 years)

Unit cost F-35A: US$114M (low rate initial production, full production in 2018 to be $85M)

F-35B: US$142M (low rate initial production)

F-35C: US$132M (low rate initial production)

General characteristics

Performance

Armament

well. I can talk about the SAAB GRIPEN since the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) bought them and will make them under license (GRIPEN BR)...

744px-COA_of_Brazilian_Air_Force.svg.png

and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Brazilian squadrons equiped with the Gripen will be trained by the F 7 Såtenäs, Skaraborgs Flygflottilj. in Sweden

301px-Skaraborgs_flygflottilj_vapen.svg.

basically the F-35 sounds nice BUT looks like and it´s VERY EXPENSIVE. sure the VTOL has it´s advantages but the program cost sounds absurd.

is up to the Canadian government develop a new fighter if they don´t want buy expensive USA fighters. Lockheed created a nice product but way to expensive...

F-35_A_B_C_Config.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...