Swedish navy sends 200 people to hunt for 'foreign underwater activity'

Egginacup wrote: »

The Soviet Baltic Fleet? Really? Did you read it in The Evening Press?

Is Super-Trouper still #1

Why do you always defend Russia? Are you Russian?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, they are still neutral.
(Though EU membership nay muddy that interpretation.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_neutrality_%28international_relations%29#List_of_neutral_states

You sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_neutrality#Today

After the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, Sweden has officially dropped the principle of neutrality, but continues to be non-aligned.

biko

Gatling wrote: »

Funny it was the swedes who intercepted the original hunt for red October incident back in the 80's

Are you referring to when a Soviet sub ran around and the Swedes after 12 hours noticed them?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?26687-Soviet-submarine-U137

Egginacup wrote: »

In fairness, I'd probably do the same myself if I was leader of Russia and I made a promise to the West to reunify Germany if they [The West] promised not to move NATO further east onto my doorstep.....but then they went back on their promise and shifted their military right beside me. Then they started installing missile batteries on my border but called them a defense shield. Then they trained a bunch of knuckleheads in Israel and then had them attack and kill my fellow countrymen in Georgia and then have these guys invade South Ossetia and try to annex it. Then topple a government in Kiev, unleash neo-nazi thugs to kill civilians and try to draw me into war and if I didn't take the bait then tell the world that I was bullying smaller nations and arming terrorists and shooting down passenger planes and loads of other spurious lies to get people to think I was a terrible chap...then I'd get the feeling that they [The West] weren't people who kept their word and who had the ultimate goal to attack my country which of course is pretty damn sick of foreign invasions, to be honest.

So yeah, I'd patrol my borders too.

So much propaganda in one post; Russia is perfect - everyone else is always to blame

ThisRegard

Egginacup wrote: »

In fairness, I'd probably do the same myself if I was leader of Russia and I made a promise to the West to reunify Germany if they [The West] promised not to move NATO further east onto my doorstep.....but then they went back on their promise and shifted their military right beside me. Then they started installing missile batteries on my border but called them a defense shield. Then they trained a bunch of knuckleheads in Israel and then had them attack and kill my fellow countrymen in Georgia and then have these guys invade South Ossetia and try to annex it. Then topple a government in Kiev, unleash neo-nazi thugs to kill civilians and try to draw me into war and if I didn't take the bait then tell the world that I was bullying smaller nations and arming terrorists and shooting down passenger planes and loads of other spurious lies to get people to think I was a terrible chap...then I'd get the feeling that they [The West] weren't people who kept their word and who had the ultimate goal to attack my country which of course is pretty damn sick of foreign invasions, to be honest.

So yeah, I'd patrol my borders too.

Prozac might help.

biko wrote: »

Are you referring to when a Soviet sub ran around and the Swedes after 12 hours noticed them?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?26687-Soviet-submarine-U137

I'm referring to the incident involving a russian vessels mutiny that inspired the book and movie behind the hunt for red October

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_frigate_Storozhevoy

SeanW

I wonder if the OP thought that it was a conspiracy theory when the Swedes reported a mass of radiation coming from the Soviet Union in April 1986, or indeed the original "hunt for red October" incident, which someone above also said was detected by the Swedish?

BoJack Horseman

blackwhite wrote: »

You sure about that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_neutrality#Today

Fair enough.

I defer.

Elmer Blooker

SeanW wrote: »

You could ask the Belgians, (invaded by Germany in both World Wars 1 and 2), or the Baltic States (invaded and almost obliterated as nations by the Soviet Union), or indeed Tibet. "Neutrality" doesn't protect a country from aggression unless that neutrality is backed by enough military force to obliterate any potential invader.

It has not been forgotten. The Germans have released a report confirming that pro-Russian rebels shot down the airliner, but cleared the Russians of direct involvement in so much as the missile they used to kill those on-board was stolen from the Ukrainian military. Whether or not Russia has been assisting the murderers in other ways though, remains an open question.

Neutrality: The Swedes haven't fired a shot in anger for something 200 years so they're not doing too badly.
Would an Irish passport holder be beheaded in Syria or Iraq? Probably not.

The German report says "we believe" and "we've concluded" that pro-Russian rebels shot the plane - as usual there's no evidence, if there was it would be getting shoved down our throats!!

The BND has found that the Donbas militia is responsible for shooting down the Malaysian Boeing using a Buk missile system, he stated, though no official evidence proving this claim has been made publicly available.

It will be July or August before we get the full explanation for MH17.

But as we know that's two separate threads

iDave

Aren't these dick measuring contests fairly commonplace? Seems to be an incursion from the air that's quickly intercepted every week. Just looks to be a naval version of that.

iDave wrote: »

Aren't these dick measuring contests fairly commonplace? Seems to be an incursion from the air that's quickly intercepted every week. Just looks to be a naval version of that.

Except the submarine and the man in black would suggest something different to the usual airspace incursions

SeanW wrote: »

You could ask the Belgians, (invaded by Germany in both World Wars 1 and 2), or the Baltic States (invaded and almost obliterated as nations by the Soviet Union), or indeed Tibet. "Neutrality" doesn't protect a country from aggression unless that neutrality is backed by enough military force to obliterate any potential invader.

It has not been forgotten. The Germans have released a report confirming that pro-Russian rebels shot down the airliner, but cleared the Russians of direct involvement in so much as the missile they used to kill those on-board was stolen from the Ukrainian military. Whether or not Russia has been assisting the murderers in other ways though, remains an open question.

Really?

This is big news. Do you have a link to that report? I haven't heard anything about it?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why do you always defend Russia? Are you Russian?

Someone mentioned that they "read" somewhere that a signal was traced the "Soviet" naval headquarters.

The Soviet Union hasn't existed for decades. I've brought that up. How is that defending Russia? And what's my nationality got to do with anything?

blackwhite wrote: »

So much propaganda in one post; Russia is perfect - everyone else is always to blame

No.....that George HW Bush promised Gorbachev that NATO would not be expanded eastwards if Gorbachev facilitated the reunification of Germany is NOT propaganda. It's a fact. That Clinton broke this promise and brought Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into the organisation is not propaganda. It's also a fact. That George W. Bush further compounded the betrayal by bringing the Baltics, Romania and Bulgaria into the organisation is not propaganda. It's a fact.
So I'm not certain what your definition of propaganda is but I'd be interested to hear it.

Clinton didn't bring any country into NATO one man doesn't run the show ,

The fact is the countries who have joined or associated with NATO specifically asked to join and and met the requirements to become a members/s
And what was the main reason they joined fear of future russian aggression a point proved in Ukraine

SeanW wrote: »

You could ask the Belgians, (invaded by Germany in both World Wars 1 and 2), or the Baltic States (invaded and almost obliterated as nations by the Soviet Union), or indeed Tibet. "Neutrality" doesn't protect a country from aggression unless that neutrality is backed by enough military force to obliterate any potential invader.

It has not been forgotten. The Germans have released a report confirming that pro-Russian rebels shot down the airliner, but cleared the Russians of direct involvement in so much as the missile they used to kill those on-board was stolen from the Ukrainian military. Whether or not Russia has been assisting the murderers in other ways though, remains an open question.

And this was reported in RT. So now is it true or is it bullsh!t if it was reported in RT?

http://rt.com/news/197316-germany-blames-militia-crash/

None of the usual suspects has chimed in calling RT a kremlin mouthpiece regarding this German revelation. Wonder why.

Egginacup wrote: »

No.....that George HW Bush promised Gorbachev that NATO would not be expanded eastwards if Gorbachev facilitated the reunification of Germany is NOT propaganda. It's a fact. That Clinton broke this promise and brought Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into the organisation is not propaganda. It's also a fact. That George W. Bush further compounded the betrayal by bringing the Baltics, Romania and Bulgaria into the organisation is not propaganda. It's a fact.
So I'm not certain what your definition of propaganda is but I'd be interested to hear it.

Since when does the USA get to dictate what NATO does? NATO is an organisation of nations that decide COLLECTIVELY on who to admit.

I know that, for someone who seems to idolise the way Putin likes to try and bully his neighbours into doing whatever Russia demands, this must be hard for you to comprehend.

Anyway - the propaganda in your posts is blatant - trying to paint Putin's land-grabs as always the fault of somebody else.

DeadHand

Gatling wrote: »

Clinton didn't bring any country into NATO one man doesn't run the show ,

The fact is the countries who have joined or associated with NATO specifically asked to join and and met the requirements to become a members/s
And what was the main reason they joined fear of future russian aggression a point proved in Ukraine

Ok, but the main cause of Russian aggression is NATO's continued existence and expansion into former Soviet territory. It's a vicious circle.

blackwhite wrote: »

Since when does the USA get to dictate what NATO does? NATO is an organisation of nations that decide COLLECTIVELY on who to admit.

I know that, for someone who seems to idolise the way Putin likes to try and bully his neighbours into doing whatever Russia demands, this must be hard for you to comprehend.

Anyway - the propaganda in your posts is blatant - trying to paint Putin's land-grabs as always the fault of somebody else.

Your naivety is almost endearing. NATO does what Washington says, plain and simple. To demonstrate just how at odds with reality Nato's alleged raison d'etre is consider the facts on the ground. NATO was supposedly established to provide a protective alliance against perceived soviet expansion. That threat disappeared in 1990/91. Why is Nato expanding if it is a defensive alliance? Why is the attack and occupation of Afghanistan, a country thousands of miles from Europe, a Nato mission? Or the attack on the sovereign nation of Libya.....another Nato act of aggression.

You talk of putin bullying his neighbours yet can't come up with a single example of this rubbish except to parrot some nonsense about Georgia and Ukraine and completely ignore the facts even when they ate staring you in the face.

You talk of mythical Russian "landgrabs" like some evangelical constantly repeating the same dross even though it's long been discredited.

And when all else fails you call people names like putinbots or something equally immature instead of actually admitting your increasingly ridiculous and untenable position.

Egginacup wrote: »

Your naivety is almost endearing. NATO does what Washington says, plain and simple. To demonstrate just how at odds with reality Nato's alleged raison d'etre is consider the facts on the ground. NATO was supposedly established to provide a protective alliance against perceived soviet expansion. That threat disappeared in 1990/91. Why is Nato expanding if it is a defensive alliance? Why is the attack and occupation of Afghanistan, a country thousands of miles from Europe, a Nato mission? Or the attack on the sovereign nation of Libya.....another Nato act of aggression.

You talk of putin bullying his neighbours yet can't come up with a single example of this rubbish except to parrot some nonsense about Georgia and Ukraine and completely ignore the facts even when they ate staring you in the face.

You talk of mythical Russian "landgrabs" like some evangelical constantly repeating the same dross even though it's long been discredited.

And when all else fails you call people names like putinbots or something equally immature instead of actually admitting your increasingly ridiculous and untenable position.

Time to grow up a little you only post this Garbage to get some attension

Egginacup wrote: »

Someone mentioned that they "read" somewhere that a signal was traced the "Soviet" naval headquarters.

The Soviet Union hasn't existed for decades. I've brought that up. How is that defending Russia? And what's my nationality got to do with anything?

You always slavishly and often logically defend Russia no matter what they do. Asking whether you're Russian nationality is a valid question.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You always slavishly and often logically defend Russia no matter what they do. Asking whether you're Russian nationality is a valid question.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Iwafrozen, but I'm not defending anybody. And if you can prove otherwise I would like to hear your angle.
What I AM doing, and I'll gladly admit to it, is questioning lies, hyprocrisy, double standards and a plethora of baseless innuendo that have heretofore gone as a narrative framing a dialogue that is completely and utterly indefensible.

If you are honestly interested in facts, from an objective viewpoint, then you might voice that interest.
What we have here, within the confines of these written debates, is a squall of slurs against Russia. Not just against Putin, but when the discourse thickens, the screeching goes to something like Stalin or The Russo-Finnish War or Pussy Riot.
There's never a smidgen of objectivity. There's only this embarrassing, entrenched bleating about Russia.

So for you to think that I'm "defending" Russia (and many thinking that I'm Russian) is blinkered and obtuse.... for me to point out that those lambasting Russia for something such as flying reconnaissance aircraft along their border as "aggression", whilst Washington and NATO have done nothing but attack countries in the last 70 years, is somehow a defence of Red Square Tyranny and a thorn in the side of "Washingtonian" freedom, is a bit rich.

If Russia is to be held to a standard that you and many others hold as sacrosanct then I would ask you to elucidate those values. To simplify, what has Russia done wrong or is doing wrong?

Is Russia bombing 7 countries as we speak?
Is Russia violating territorial sovereignty as we speak?
Is Russia violating the universal ban on torture?
Is Russia arming terrorists in contravention to their own mandate?
Is Russia providing safe haven to terrorists?
Is Russia spying on and intimidating every government?

I probably could go on.

But I won't except that Crimea voted to be rejoined with Russia after 70 years?

In the interim, there are 1.5 million dead Iraqis, 4 million Iraqi refugees, 250,000 Syrian dead, 6 million displaced, 50% of Syria's 23 million living in dire humanitarian conditions according to the UN. 2.2 Million Libyans now either homeless or on the breadline (before, they were actually the most comfortable people on the African Continent). We have close to a MILLION refugees wallowing in their own waste in Lebanon. A similar figure in Turkey.

But .... you're right. The Russian people are the biggest threat to the world.

Son Of A Vidic

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You always slavishly and often logically defend Russia no matter what they do. Asking whether you're Russian nationality is a valid question.

I'll admit I haven't been following all of this thread and have just landed upon this post. But what you said intrigues me. Who do you think you are questioning anyone on here about their nationality? So what if another poster has pro-Russian leanings, isn't this a democracy and isn't that their right? Do you want to suppress differing opinions altogether and those who fail to conform? You know, not everyone swallows the Sky News/Fox News fueled hype and their same old tabloidesque crap does become tiresome. One doesn't need to be a Professor in Geopolitical history, to see how badly The West has conducted itself during the last 60 years. God knows we've see millions die with that same old bullshít mantra " We are'The West', we always right. Our war is just, our intentions are noble."

If there's one thing people should have learned in the last 12 years. It's to open their eyes, think for themselves and question everything. Geopolitical ignorance is unforgivable in this digital age. Do I trust Putin? Not really. But I trust Obama, his approval seeking sidekick Cameron and western leaders even less. In fact, I welcome a strong Russia, so it can add a counterweight against aggressive NATO expansionism right up to its Borders. I also welcome a strong China, to add a similar counterbalance to The West and its war seeking tendencies. So if someone takes an anti-western/anti-NATO stance, what's the problem with that? And what makes you think they are wrong? Indeed who could blame them, especially when you look at the military debacles the righteous West has inflicted upon the many innocents around the globe.

Egginacup wrote: »

Is Russia bombing 7 countries as we speak?
Is Russia violating territorial sovereignty as we speak?
Is Russia violating the universal ban on torture?
Is Russia arming terrorists in contravention to their own mandate?
Is Russia providing safe haven to terrorists?
Is Russia spying on and intimidating every government?

Yes to all of those except the first.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I'll admit I haven't been following all of this thread and have just landed upon this post. But what you said intrigues me. Who do you think you are questioning anyone on here about their nationality? So what if another poster has pro-Russian leanings, isn't this a democracy and isn't that their right? Do you want to suppress differing opinions altogether and those who fail to conform? You know, not everyone swallows the Sky News/Fox News fueled hype and their same old tabloidesque crap does become tiresome. One doesn't need to be a Professor in Geopolitical history, to see how badly The West has conducted itself during the last 60 years. God knows we've see millions die with that same old bullshít mantra " We are'The West', we always right. Our war is just, our intentions are noble."

If there's one thing people should have learned in the last 12 years. It's to open their eyes, think for themselves and question everything. Geopolitical ignorance is unforgivable in this digital age. Do I trust Putin? Not really. But I trust Obama, his approval seeking sidekick Cameron and western leaders even less. In fact, I welcome a strong Russia, so it can add a counterweight against aggressive NATO expansionism right up to its Borders. I also welcome a strong China, to add a similar counterbalance to The West and its war seeking tendencies. So if someone takes an anti-western/anti-NATO stance, what's the problem with that? And what makes you think they are wrong? Indeed who could blame them, especially when you look at the military debacles the righteous West has inflicted upon the many innocents around the globe.

A strong China or Russia won't end war, just as it didn't during the Cold War when Russia was very powerful.

The former Soviet and Warsaw pact nations are now independent countries. As independent countries they have a right to join NATO if they wish. Problems only arise when this is viewed as an aggressive act by Russia.

NotASheeple

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A strong China or Russia won't end war, just as it didn't during the Cold War when Russia was very powerful. .

Don't be ridiculous, of course it will. Bullies usually behave themselves when they meet an opponent who can give them a serious bloody nose. The other poster was clearly talking about a counter balance. Do you know what that means? It means it should grant some stability. Rather than having an out of control war mongering NATO doing as it pleases.

And your response was a predictable and deliberate misinterpretation of what the other poster said. Of course who could argue with what they said. Western military misadventure has created a lot of death, misery and turmoil in this World. And swallowing the usual western hype and media propaganda line is never a good thing. So let me ask you again, the question you deliberately ignored from the other poster. What gives you the right to question anyone's nationality here?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The former Soviet and Warsaw pact nations are now independent countries. As independent countries they have a right to join NATO if they wish. Problems only arise when this is viewed as an aggressive act by Russia.

Why does NATO still exist? It is a relic of the Cold War so why wasn't it disbanded like the Warsaw pact was? Why has it been provocatively expanding into Eastern Europe? Oh and save me they have a right to join nonsense. Now imagine if the Canadians and the Mexicans joined a military alliance with Russia? Christ, you could be sure Uncle Sam wouldn't tolerate it and would treat it as provocative & aggressive act. No doubt you'd probably be sitting on the fence offering your full apologist support.