• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 year ago

    I have read a few different takes in the last week. That this war shows how much an army needs to be able to fight a war of attrition if they want to fight Russia and that Sweden with its relatively small numbers heavy equipment might run into problems.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      We have never believed that we could stand up against Russia. The plan has always been to delay an attack as long as possible to allow troops to head to the woods for guerilla operations. Oh and to blow up our own harbours.

      That’s also why the Swedish military is trained to be flexible and make their own decisions. Even our air force is designed to work like that, with small ground crews capable of serving a plane out in the field. Jas39 gripen is able to land on roads and is low enough that you can perform service standing on the ground.

    • @Zpiritual
      link
      English
      5
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That has been an issue for many years now and will take many years to change. The previous supreme commander even stated that the armed forces could only sustain a limited operation for one week. That stated was highly controversial at the time for some reason. He was even investigated for treason by the police.

        • @Zpiritual
          link
          English
          31 year ago

          Worst case we’ll still need to hold our own until any reinforces would arrive so not really.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Usually the NATO countries have temporary and sometimes permanent deployments in other countries. So it is to expect that in the near future, there will be e.g. US, French, Italian troops stationed in Finland or Sweden for some combined exercise over a few months and in rotation with other NATO countries. After the Russian invasion in Ukraine, the US moved troops of the 101st airborne to Romania, close to the border to Ukraine.

            Which is the super cool living proof of NATO article 5. If one would the start an attack on Romania or in the example on Finland or Sweden, he would also attack other countries’ forces at the same time that are stationed there. So it’s not just a combined defence because of some letters on a paper. The troops are already there and would get attacked as well.

            • @Zpiritual
              link
              English
              21 year ago

              Unless they deploy tens of thousands of troops most of the time that is more of a complement in the beginning and doesn’t really change what I said.

              The type of deployment we see in Romania is more to show that “attack our friends you attack us too” in the spirit of article 5 as you said.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            NATO will probably make sure that Finland and Norway are supplied with enough material/manpower so that they are able to buffer against any eastern flank attacks.

        • Chaotic Entropy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Joining NATO comes with a certain commitment to maintaining levels of military spending. Depends on if they reach the GDP bar or not.

    • BobVersionFour
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      But nobody is fighting russia now they defend themselve sure but no attack on russia really who know how long russia can stand a full front attack from top military