The Baltic region - future influence and power

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chrom

New Member
But nothing wrong for EU to diversify their sources for energy. And it certainly doesn't have a high feel good factor to see money they pay for Russian energy go to arms at their borders, considering the rethoric from Moscow.

The enviro argument is correct seen from a CO2 perspective. Burning NG to produce electricity is not helpful, be the NG Russian or not.
Sources - of course not. But there is only 1 big source here - Russia. No matter how you put piplines...

Also, CO2 is not the worst thing around. There are far, far worse things - and some of them associated with "high-tech alternative" sources like Wind or Solar batteries.

And biodisel...what a financial and propaganda soap-bubble! Reminds me of dot-coms in 2000... Cant believe serious people spended serious money for that thing. Sure, small quantities of this thing, produced from various rubbish is ok - but specially convert food to fuel??? Were they THAT shortsighted? Couldnt they foresee consequences 5 years ago, when all hype started?

And on top of that biodisel, again, put far more strain on ecology....
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Sources - of course not. But there is only 1 big source here - Russia. No matter how you put piplines...

Also, CO2 is not the worst thing around. There are far, far worse things - and some of them associated with "high-tech alternative" sources like Wind or Solar batteries.

And biodisel...what a financial and propaganda soap-bubble! Reminds me of dot-coms in 2000... Cant believe serious people spended serious money for that thing. Sure, small quantities of this thing, produced from various rubbish is ok - but specially convert food to fuel??? Were they THAT shortsighted? Couldnt they foresee consequences 5 years ago, when all hype started?

And on top of that biodisel, again, put far more strain on ecology....
There are more sources than Russia. But the issue is to diversify sources of energy, not NG only.

Agree, that it doesn't matter for EU as a whole wether the pipe goes through Poland or the Baltic Sea.

CO2 emissions are a real issue. Renewable energy techs are viable, but imv there is no way around nuke power. Case in point, Germanys/Italys move from nuke power to NG from Russia. The demand for energy is too high.

Lastly, do agree on 1st gen biofuels. It is plainly insane and the greenies are only realising this now, but 1st gen has political momentum for the time being because of this. 2nd gen produced from biowaste in cogen plants looks very promising and is only a few years away.

Anyway, this is getting too OT. Strategic implications of new energy techs is referred to the tech section of DT.
 

Dalregementet

New Member
Thank you for a considered an well thought out reply. :)



re US capability to project mil power. They are as great as ever in absolute terms. True, relatively they face pressures from Asia etc.. This will only be diluted in case the US enters a prolonged war in SEA. Not likely. Russia is simply not going to match the threat that USSR posed.

The US does not need a physical presence in the Baltics, as the their influence in the region is as a power in being. The de facto drawdown of US mil power in Europe has been a fact for a decade now, however their interests wrt Russia hasn't changed, ie interests and political influence has not one away. This will remain, as it is a matter of will of the regional states (Denmark, Estonia, Lativia, Lithuania, Poland in particular) and the US. It is clear that the newest eastern NATO/EU members does seek their core security in NATO (and to a lesser extent EU for softpower protection), and *not* in formal bilateral alliances with neighbours.

The US is relevant to discuss as it is the ultimate guarantor of NATO military capability. Because NATO is the only credible guarantor of security in the region. In operational terms, all high intensity warfighting capability is politically, de jure and physically vested in NATO. No other entity has the ability to deliver this. The EU is decades upon decades from being able to deliver any such package.

Which is why Eastern Europe went straight to NATO for security and didn't go non-aligned or chose other bi- or multilateral approaches.

That being said, in wider terms, the US is investing less in Europe and EU will have a more significant role to play. However I note that on the political level, if Afghanistan is a credibility killer for NATO, then it is even more so for the large EU members.

This begs the question: is Afghanistan relevant as an indicator of the strength of the core mission of NATO? I would contend not, as succes of the A'stan is so extremely marginal on the security horizon of the countries in the region wrt core security. ISAF was Europes gift to the US post 9/11.




American Cold War influence in Europe was a function of a belligerent and powerful Sov Union. A resurgent Russia will increase US relevance as that power in being. The only alternative on the distant horizon is the EU, as no country in the region has the power to guarantee each others security.

Mr. Gates letter to the German defmin was a grave mistake; he should not be asking for something he is obviously not going to get, though it may please elements of the US admin and Congress. Much to my surprise, as Mr. Gates is supposed to be one of the clever boys in the incumbent US admin.

Nonetheless, A'stan is ultimately (and even less than in a wider NATO context) not a test of NATOs role in the Baltic region. I point to that the most high profile continental Europe particapants in A'stan are - Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia!

As per the Ellemann-Jensen Doctrine. ;)

The Ellemann-Jensen doctrine is a Danish idea specifically aimed at promoting small countries' ability to gain influence in the world order.

The doctrine is not a written document but rather inspired by the former Danish Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen's term of office in which he promoted the notion that a small country can gain influence by supporting those greater countries that share the same values and ideas, which the small country itself embraces.

[...]

The Ellemann-Jensen doctrine is thus, that a small country - like Denmark - can affect world politics through successfully building alliances to promote its foreign policy goals. An unstated implication of this is obviously that a small country should therefore also be willing to adopt and support the goals of its allies in a quid pro quo (something for something) for them supporting its own goals.

[...]


I know UK and Holland (plus Canada) is playing an extremely important role too, but they were already extremely Atlanticist (like Denmark).

Basically when a nation has to survey for a security constellation to work with, that potential arrangement has to be able to deliver. NATO, because it can deliver the full package in the military end of the spectrum. And can do so credibly.


If the oil in Norway was to disappear, they might face a situation where GDP/capita could drop to Swedish levels.

The current trend is that demand for energy is on the increase and will continue to increase.

Fossils can only partially be replaced by renewables/alternatives, as the renewables, despite getting cheaper to produce, do hit a point of dimishing returns (applies to wind & solar power, biomass). Transportation fuels are going to be very hard to replace. Some of the alternatives are not politically viable in many countries (nuclear power). Reality kicks in, as opposed to a sound bite for the purpose of shaping opinion in Norway.

I note that Norway has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds on this planet.

So I have absolutely no worries on behalf of Norway.



I think this getting a bit far flung. ;) Malthus.



Nope. NATO military power is primarily vested in the region by virtue of the locals, and backed by the US/W Europe as a power in being.



I disagree. Globalisation has kicked in plus EU relative power is on the increase. Some of your examples has always been an issue, others have not. Despite this European nations and Europe as a whole have had no problems in becoming important power(s). Malthus has been disproved over and over again.



Ignoring Greenland would be a very selective thing to do, but for the sake of argument ok. Here's the thing: having the raw materials on your territory is not important. Having acces to raw materials is. Hence Denmark as an example is in no worse position than Sweden is.

Wrt to industry base. I have already contended that it is only important if you have the entire portfolio. Sweden does *not* have that today. Swedish defence industry is de facto on its way to becoming a subcontractor to a consolidated European market. Industry base is not important geopolitically (unless you can deliver the entire package, Swedish defence industry is primarily a commercial operation) - having acces to technology and defence product is - and the best way to ensure that is through an alliance system.

As Sweden is weak on alliances and does not have a truly independent arms industry, it would be unable to deliver a complete security package to countries threatened by a power like Russia.



IMV your arguments are way too one-dimensional. The focus on industry base and raw materials for countries the size of Denmark and Sweden is all wrong, when both lack the critical mass anyway. ;) The limiter is not those.



Yes, I expect Swedish defence industry will do well.



Nice read. Here is the thing. It confirms that the enviro review is a proxy. Policy networks that establish legitimacy for decision making are only relevant if the ultimate decisions are actually made on basis on values or normative power. They rarely are. Otherwise they are a proxy. That is fine, but they are weighed against realpolitik. The "system" has to accept it. When Sweden has to make a decision, it also has to consider the yardstick by which it will have its own projects measuered and if it restricts its own ability to maneuver. By restricting others on basis of an essentially normative power NGO argument, they create a Damocles sword for themselves. And Sweden is aware of this.

Making a poor argument can return as a boomerang anytime.

Proof is in the pudding. My bets are on that raison d'etat will kick in. Btw, except for a flaring station off a Swedish island, the environmental concerns seem to have been met on the technical level. The pipes have been ordered.



Agreed.



Short on time, so only one comment. Russia would like to get the Shtokman field in order to prevent Europe from diversifying.


-------------------------------------

You wrote many good things!

Uffe Elleman-Jenssen was a competent politician and I think that he and Carl Bildt went along well, working together about Baltic independence and tying in the Baltic countries to EU/Nato.

I have never heard about the "Uffe Ellemann-Jenssen doctrine" but nevertheless, that is the doctrine that Sweden also follows.

Regarding Norway, Oil & Gas and Norways sovereign wealth funds, if the Oil & Gas ends in s shorter time frame than expected, it will have a huge impact on Norway. The Norwegian "Oljefonden" is on about 150 BEuro. That seems much but then you have to take into consideration that they will only be able to use a part of the returns from that fund. If they are successful and, over time, get a return on about 10% per year, that makes 15 BEuro per year. That´s not much. Also, they would be far below Sweden in GDP. It´s alos in this context a Swedish fighter aircraft comes into picture. Sweden through Investor is wel suited to assist Norway in building up a broader industry base and that is actually happening right now. This will of course strenghten the Swedish fighter bid and I think the US have a hard in responding with a similar package. Sweden and Norway held a joint business/political meeting at Hammerfest last fall and the cooperation has intensified since then. Influence!

Regarding raw material, Oil & Gas, Metals etc - the russians doesn´t seem to agree with you since Putin now want russian companies to buy just that type of assets world wide. However, they wouldn´t be able to buy something in Sweden , besides Eon of course, because the state is the biggest shareholder in that type of companies and they won´t sell, especially not to russians.


No european country has the full range of defence technologies and no one is truly unindependant, if so - who?


Is Chrom russian? Just wonder... I don´t understand why he´s reaction to what I wrote is that russia needs a large defence??? I have never implied that Sweden has (again) an ambition to invade russia? :)


Also, I truly have the highest thoughts about the danish contribution in afghanistan, pity though that BBC doesn´t highlight that better.

In this article, BBC didn´t put the danish flag on the map that showed the countries contributing to the ISAF force.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7231909.stm
 

Chrom

New Member
-------------------------------------



Regarding raw material, Oil & Gas, Metals etc - the russians doesn´t seem to agree with you since Putin now want russian companies to buy just that type of assets world wide. However, they wouldn´t be able to buy something in Sweden , besides Eon of course, because the state is the biggest shareholder in that type of companies and they won´t sell, especially not to russians.
Why not? Russians are just as everyone else - they want MORE money and MORE influnce. Cant see how they are different or more dungerous than China, Japan, USA, or Germany for that matter... Sell or not to sell is entirely internal Sweden matters - just do not accuse Russians if THEY dont sell something vital to Sweden.

No european country has the full range of defence technologies and no one is truly unindependant, if so - who?
And? Doesnt prevented UK or France goings "small wars" in the past.
Is Chrom russian? Just wonder... I don´t understand why he´s reaction to what I wrote is that russia needs a large defence???
No personal questions :)
I have never implied that Sweden has (again) an ambition to invade russia? :)
Sure. But then, noone states Russia want to invade Sweden, or for that matter, Baltic states. No? So WHY then they are so worried about russian armed forces and russian income?
Besides, piplines in international waters NEED to be protected - and here armed forces serve as very good deterrent, cool down many heads...
But on objective

Also, I truly have the highest thoughts about the danish contribution in afghanistan, pity though that BBC doesn´t highlight that better.

In this article, BBC didn´t put the danish flag on the map that showed the countries contributing to the ISAF force.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7231909.stm
I heard there is scandal recently between EU (mainly Germany) and (USA) command - german forces do not want to be relocated to more dungerous part of Afganistan. This was never a part of they agreement after all. Still, i dont know about danish forces in Afganistan - how dungerous is the part they are stationed?
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Still, i dont know about danish forces in Afganistan - how dungerous is the part they are stationed?
In the thick of the heaviest fighting, right next to the British in Upper Gereshk, Helmand. The Danish per capita contribution of troops is one of the highest.


Moving day Helmand style: how to turn a farm into a fortress
Anthony Loyd in Budwan, Helmand


The Times
January 21, 2008

The soldiers' knock on the gate came just after 8am on a bitter morning of freezing rain. The Afghans were already awake and tending their livestock inside the compound. There were nearly 50, the extended family of five brothers. Farmers, they had lived in their area for generations. Their ancestors lay buried in a cemetery on a knoll above their home.

“I told them there was bad news,” Warrant Officer Les Bering, the Danish soldier, said. “That they had to go.”

Unknown to the Afghans, their home was the focal point of Operation Thunder, an ambitious British and Danish plan to seize, hold and build on a chunk of territory in the Taleban heartland of the Upper Gereshk Valley, central Helmand. Their spacious compound just happened to be the intended base for FOB Armadillo, a new base of Nato troops. So they had to move. That very day.

There was compensation. After two hours of negotiation, with British troops keeping watch, the Danes agreed to pay the brothers a four-figure sum in dollars, followed by a relatively handsome monthly rent. Even so, the experience left a bitter aftertaste for many of the soldiers.

“It was not a high point to see an eight-year-old girl walk out of her home into January rain, clutching a watering can in one hand and a chicken in the other, knowing that you have been somehow responsible for that,” Captain Jamie Russell, commander with the Coldstream Guards, said. “A lot of the blokes felt bad about it.”

The Afghans departed with good grace. No sooner was the last out of the gate than British engineers and more Danish troops were inside it. As Warrior and Leopard tanks silhouetted the ridgeline above, bulldozers arrived to begin transforming the farm into a defensive and expansive strongpoint, complete with battlements, sangars, accommodation, artillery positions, an aid post and helicopter landing site.

The operation is the latest and most significant in a new strategy by a British-led brigade in Helmand that is tired of launching yet another offensive in the valley from which they later withdraw only to have the Taleban reoccupy cleared ground.

The area, known as the Green Zone because of the vegetation on each bank of the Helmand River, is regarded as the main Taleban sanctuary in the province and runs north from Gereshk up to Sangin and eventually Kajaki. Nato commanders want to build bases on both banks right through the region so that they can deny it to the Taleban and conduct reconstruction operations for the population. FOB Armadillo is the latest and farthest up the valley and leaves the gap to Sangin only nine miles (15km) wide.

Colonel Kim Kristensen, the Danish commander of the battle group, said: “We are getting very close to closing the final gap. It's a golden opportunity that we shall not miss.”

The Taleban appeared to have disappeared as the new Nato camp was constructed in their midst. Some of their absence could be explained by the extreme cold and vile conditions of the Afghan winter.

“It's the same for them as it is for us in these conditions, only worse,” said Sergeant Nunn, leading a patrol of Scots Guards into the valley below the nascent base. “Their vehicles, kit and ammunition get bogged down too.”

Attrition was another factor in the Taleban's reluctance to fight. They have suffered fearful losses in the valley over the summer and autumn, and as Royal Engineers shored up FOB Armadillo's defences, radio chatter revealed that some demoralised insurgents were abandoning their nearby positions, while a significant internal dispute brewed among Taleban commanders over how best to motivate their reluctant men to fight.

The Danes have brought 52-tonne Leopard II tanks to the area. Their sighting system is accurate enough to put a shell through the door of a Taleban-held compound with 95 per cent accuracy at a range of 2.5 miles (four kilometres), negating much of the reliance on close air support. Three weeks ago the tanks savaged a strong Taleban ambush, killing two senior commanders and many fighters.

“The Leopards have had exactly the psychological effect that I hoped they would, both on the Taleban and my men,” Colonel Kristensen added. “The Taleban know that when they start a contact they have between five and ten seconds before it's over. And far from frightening the locals, the elders in the shuras tell us that tanks are the best tools against the Taleban.”

Doubtless the arrival of spring will bring Taleban reinforcements, but they will find the valley a very different place from the one they left behind. In the areas controlled by Nato, officers spoke of a bounty of intelligence from locals returning to their homes and of a growing groundswell of anti-Taleban sentiment.

Some of this was apparent when a patrol below FOB Armadillo encountered a teacher.

The man's school was closed by the Taleban, and he had tears in his eyes when he greeted the Nato troops, before warning them of a Taleban position two compounds farther on across the fields.

For the five brothers whose farm once lay beneath FOB Armadillo, Nato's new push up the Helmand Valley was one of mixed reward.

“The Danes treated us in a kind and humanitarian way when they asked us to leave our home,” Pir Mohammed, one of the brothers, said.

“And it is better than the Russian time - they would kill all the animals and people. But no one likes to be told to leave their home.

“We are farmers. Even though they gave us money we can no longer till our fields or work here.”
 

Chrom

New Member
In the thick of the heaviest fighting, right next to the British in Upper Gereshk, Helmand. The Danish per capita contribution of troops is one of the highest.

“We are farmers. Even though they gave us money we can no longer till our fields or work here.”
Sadly, this article lack any objective comparison or facts - it is pure emotions if you ask me.

I want to know: how large is the area controlled by danish forces?
How often they engage taliban supporters? With what weapon?
How often they are being shot at? With what weapons they are being shot at?
How much losses they are suffering (both danish forces and taliban)?
How all that compares to other NATO members - USA, Germany, etc?
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Sadly, this article lack any objective comparison or facts - it is pure emotions if you ask me.

I want to know: how large is the area controlled by danish forces?
How often they engage taliban supporters? With what weapon?
How often they are being shot at? With what weapons they are being shot at?
How much losses they are suffering (both danish forces and taliban)?
How all that compares to other NATO members - USA, Germany, etc?
You didn't ask me to provide stats on engagements etc. I just posted the most recent article I had seen. So you actually have no reason to demand such. Most sources are in Danish and I would have to do extensive collation and translation work to provide it. I don't have that kind of time. The Danes are working with the UK contingent in Helmand, they do the same tasks, man similar FOBs, do similar patrols and work, integrated with the British.

Basically you can take the British experience and use it as a measure. The picture is the same.
 

Chrom

New Member
You didn't ask me to provide stats on engagements etc. I just posted the most recent article I had seen. So you actually have no reason to demand such. Most sources are in Danish and I would have to do extensive collation and translation work to provide it. I don't have that kind of time. The Danes are working with the UK contingent in Helmand, they do the same tasks, man similar FOBs, do similar patrols and work, integrated with the British.

Basically you can take the British experience and use it as a measure. The picture is the same.
This have nothing to do with demands - sorry if it looked that way. I just wanted to stress what this article didnt answered my inital question in the slightest, and didnt contribute anything significant to our discussion.

Initial question still remains:
I heard there is scandal recently between EU (mainly Germany) and (USA) command - german forces do not want to be relocated to more dungerous part of Afganistan. This was never a part of they agreement after all. Still, i dont know about danish forces in Afganistan - how dungerous is the part they are stationed?
In essence - this:
How all that compares to other NATO members - USA, Germany, etc?
 

Dalregementet

New Member
Russia

Why not? Russians are just as everyone else - they want MORE money and MORE influnce. Cant see how they are different or more dungerous than China, Japan, USA, or Germany for that matter... Sell or not to sell is entirely internal Sweden matters - just do not accuse Russians if THEY dont sell something vital to Sweden.

And? Doesnt prevented UK or France goings "small wars" in the past.
No personal questions :)
Sure. But then, noone states Russia want to invade Sweden, or for that matter, Baltic states. No? So WHY then they are so worried about russian armed forces and russian income?
Besides, piplines in international waters NEED to be protected - and here armed forces serve as very good deterrent, cool down many heads...


I heard there is scandal recently between EU (mainly Germany) and (USA) command - german forces do not want to be relocated to more dungerous part of Afganistan. This was never a part of they agreement after all. Still, i dont know about danish forces in Afganistan - how dungerous is the part they are stationed?
-------------------

Sweden and many other countries have a bad experience of russia. Throughout history you can see many comments from swedes and finns about russia and russians that are quite negative. The same comments doesn´t exist in the same degree regarding norwegians, danes, germans etc.

The experience gathered through centuries makes countries like Sweden less entusthiastic about russia. Russia and many russians, not all, are unaware of this fact or they don´t care about it and that can create a clash.

Not evereybody wants more money and more influence just for the sake of it.
I would say that there is a difference in russian and Swedish mentality in general so no - we are not the same. Physically yes but not mentally. It´s different cultures with different core values, different management styles, different food etc.

The differences is due to history and how our countries have evolved. For example, Sweden has a long tradition of democracy, in russia that´s just a word without a clear meaning.

And... I would never expect russia to sell something "vital" to Sweden or anyone else for that matter. In fact, if that happened, I would be shocked. :D

Just for your information. We don´t want russian armed forces in our exclusive economical zone - we take care of the protection ourselves if neccesary. Just by stating that the russian fleet would "protect" the pipeline in the Swedish zone, Putin made sure that this pipeline would never be built. It was ignorant and stupid, but then again helpful for Sweden in getting together against the pipeline. Putin could have put this forward in dozens of better ways but he couldn´t understand better... because we are different!

Edward Lucas has decribed russian policy against Estonia in a quite good way and if you read it you will understand why many in the west treats russia as a retarded child.

Enjoy!

edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2007/05/russias-blunder-estonias-recovery.html

Quote from the article:

Estonia’s biggest advantage is Russia’s stupidity. Had the demonstrators in Tallinn pitched a peaceful tent city round the war memorial’s original location, aping the tactics of the “Orange Revolution” in Kiev, the Estonian police would have risked looking heavy-handed when they cleared it away. But instead, the assembled riff-raff quickly dropped the boring business of political protest in favour of smashing windows, looting shops, destroying “fascist bus shelters” and revelling in other acts of hooliganism. That blurred hopelessly the image that the Russian spooks in Tallinn had hoped to get across: of peaceful, idealistic young people standing up for their rights.

Crashing the Estonian government’s servers by swamping them with millions of bogus clicks may have also seemed like a good idea at the time. But the result has been to alarm NATO, which is now drawing on Estonian computer geeks’ expertise in dealing with possible threats elsewhere.

Russia remains a rather ineffective bully. But the unsettling question remains—not just for Estonia, Georgia and Poland, but for everyone—what happens if once, just once, Russia played its cards wisely and well?
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Dalregementet,

Fine. You've made your views clear on Russia and it doesn't contribute with much but flaming.

Keep the tone sober and treat other posters and third parties with respect!

2nd warning!
 

Dalregementet

New Member
Dalregementet,

Fine. You've made your views clear on Russia and it doesn't contribute with much but flaming.

Keep the tone sober and treat other posters and third parties with respect!

2nd warning!
I treat others with respect! I think it is of interest for other people in this forum to understand the swedish stance even if it´s unpleasant. In not my personal view that I´m conveying. If we can´t be straight forward and speak about things without implying too much - then whats the meaning?

If the "general" stance, and I mean "general", is known then you can work to change it. However, right now, Russia, as a state, are acting in an aggressive and unpleasant way and that´s a fact. If Russia changes tone and behavoiur - Great!
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
This have nothing to do with demands - sorry if it looked that way. I just wanted to stress what this article didnt answered my inital question in the slightest, and didnt contribute anything significant to our discussion.

Initial question still remains:
In essence - this:
How all that compares to other NATO members - USA, Germany, etc?
At least 650 personnel of which more than 550 in Helmand. There are in real terms no restrictions.

If Germany had the same per capita engagement they would have 9.500 troops in A'stan. If US had the same per capita engagement they would have 35.500 troops in A'stan.

The actual numbers are probably available on the net.
 

Dalregementet

New Member
Freedom of speach!

If I insult an other person directly with false claims or without any reason whatsoever, then I would understand the above comment - the so called 2nd warning. If I, as in this case, convey a general national view, as information, then that is information. I don´t think it´s appropriate to execute some sort of censorship due to that somebody may take offense because what is written about a certain country. The things I state, everything can be verified, especially the historic comments that I mentioned - they are taken from historical sources. I expect you to redraw that warning unless I have put in information that is not correct.

Also, who is Edward Lucas:

Edward Lucas is the Central and Eastern Europe correspondent for The Economist. He has been covering the region for more than 20 years, witnessing the final years of the last Cold War, the fall of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the Soviet empire, Boris Yeltsin's downfall and Vladimir Putin's rise to power. From 1992 to 1994, he was the managing editor of The Baltic Independent, a weekly English-language newspaper published in Tallinn. He holds a BSc from the London School of Economics, and studied Polish at the Jagiellonian University, Cracow. The New Cold War is his first book.
 

Chrom

New Member
If I insult an other person directly with false claims or without any reason whatsoever, then I would understand the above comment - the so called 2nd warning. If I, as in this case, convey a general national view, as information, then that is information. I don´t think it´s appropriate to excute some sort of censorship due to that somebody may take offense because what is written about a certain country. The things I state, everything can be verified, especially the historic comments that I mentioned - they are taken from historical sources. I expect you to redraw that warning unless I have put in information that is not correct.
You know, every country can bring exactly as much grudges and insults against any neighborhood country - Russia also suffered a lot of invasions from Sweden, Poland or Baltic states. And what?
Or should we now remember endless France-Germany conflict, going other thousand years? Stupid.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
From the rules.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

4. Monitoring.

We shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor the content of the bulletin boards to determine compliance with this Agreement and any other operating rules established by us. We shall have the right in our sole discretion to edit, refuse to post, or remove any material submitted to or posted on the bulletin boards. Without limiting the foregoing, we shall have the right to remove any material that we, in our sole discretion, find to be in violation of the provisions hereof, otherwise objectionable or stale. Notwithstanding this right, users shall remain solely responsible for the content of their messages. Each user acknowledges and agrees that neither we nor any third party content provider shall assume or have any liability for any action or inaction by us or any third party content provider with respect to any conduct, communication or posting on the bulletin boards.


Basically freedom of speech means you can set up your own outlet to convey your perspective. It is the prerogative of the mods & webs to manage this particular forums editorial line.

You are allowed to discuss (and criticize) defence related subjects, current or historic. You should do so with manners and diplomacy. And to the point.

A general disregard permeating too many posts does not qualify as such.
 

Dalregementet

New Member
You know, every country can bring exactly as much grudges and insults against any neighborhood country - Russia also suffered a lot of invasions from Sweden, Poland or Baltic states. And what?
Or should we now remember endless France-Germany conflict, going other thousand years? Stupid.
I don´t expect you to forgive the nazi invasion that easy. You still have many people alive that experienced that. Time heal but not everything. It´s one thing that a country/state has carried out an atrocity in the past. It can be forgiven but then the state that carried out the atrocity first has to admit that an atrocity has taken place. Germany has acknowled that they where responisble for an atrocity, russia hasn´t admitted that attacking Finland and the Baltic countries was a crime. That´s the difference. Thanks!
 

Dalregementet

New Member
Influence...

Well, well.

The Swedish government sent back Nord Stream application because the application was incomplete... That means that a great number of Swedish agencies haven´t even started to look at Nord Stream application.

Quting the Swedish environmental minister:

"Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren told reporters on Tuesday that the application was so incomplete that he did not consider it worthwhile sending it on to the relevant authorities.

"Effectively we're just sending it straight back to them," he said.

As well as a gas pipeline running from Russia to Germany, Nord Stream also intends constructing a service platform some 40 kilometres east of the Swedish island Gotska Sandön.

Nord Stream hopes to begin work on the pipeline in 2009 but the Swedish government said it was refusing to make any decision until a full environmental impact analysis had been carried out.

"We're not even going to begin considering the matter until the application has been completed," said Carlgren."


In parallell, Poalnd and the Baltic states proposed the "Amber" pipeline for Russia.

I just wanted you to see where the wind is blowing :) Anyone that would like to make a bet. I say, that the Amber pipeline will be built not Nord Stream.

This would then be a show case on how Sweden, together with Finland, the Baltic states can impose their will on russia. It is also an example on how a state like russia, suffers setbacks because of bad communication, lack of transparency and bad attitude.

Also, Sweden is strengthening it´s influence by linking it´s power grid to Lithuania, it has already done this with Finland. And as you see, Nord Stream is mentioned here also. Swedish influence is of course extensive since Sweden is the World leader in electrical power distribution, a strategic technology.

Sweden's economy minister, Maud Olofsson, will visit Vilnius on February 5 and 6. Diversification of power sources and reduction of its dependence on Russia for energy involves Lithuania building power links to Sweden and Poland.

Quote by the President of Lithuania:

President Underlines the Importance of Lithuanian-Swedish Cooperation in Energy and Environmental Protection
06.02.2008

Wednesday, February 6, Vilnius – President Valdas Adamkus received Mrs. Maud Olofsson, Swedish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Energy.
Valdas Adamkus and Maud Olofsson discussed the Lithuanian-Swedish electricity bridge project, the Baltic Sea region environment problems, and the threats posed by the Nord Stream gas pipeline to the ecosystem of the Baltic Sea.
“Lithuania is greatly concerned about the negative impact of an off-shore gas pipeline on the ecological system of the Baltic Sea. Therefore we cannot find viable arguments for not choosing the Amber land pipeline project across the Baltic States and other EU countries,” Mr. Adamkus said.
Mrs. Olofsson underlined that all issues relating to the ecosystem of the Baltic Sea should be analyzed and evaluated in a highly professional manner.
It was stated that Sweden and its companies were willing to share their technological experience in generating energy from renewable sources and in reducing climate pollution.
Maud Olofsson pointed out that Sweden was prepared to assist Lithuania in every possible way in dealing with energy problems. She said that the completion of a feasibility study for the Lithuanian-Swedish energy link would speed up its implementation.
Valdas Adamkus said that a rapid construction of a power bridge between Lithuania and Sweden was a matter of great importance to Lithuania. “The approaching closure of the Ignalina nuclear power plant makes this project not only valuable in commercial terms, but also strategically significant for Lithuania and the whole of the region,” Mr. Adamkus said.
It was agreed that the Baltic States and the Nordic countries should act in unison when tackling energy security and environmental protection issues within the European Union.


Press Service of the President


and

Lithuania to build energy link with Sweden

Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus said Wednesday it is important for Lithuania to build an energy link with Sweden as soon as possible.

"As the closure of the Ignalina nuclear power plant is drawing nearer (2009), the project assumes not only commercial but also strategic importance for Lithuania and for the whole region," the press service quotes the president as saying after his meeting with Swedish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry and Energy Maud Olofsson.

Adamkus and Olofsson stressed the need of joint actions of North European and Baltic countries on energy security matters. Sweden is ready to give Lithuania all assistance in the solution of energy problems, Olofsson said.

The parties discussed the situation regarding the Nord Stream gas pipeline.

"We see no reason why the variant of laying out the Amber gas pipeline over the territories of Baltic and EU countries has not been chosen," Adamkus said, noting that "Lithuania is particularly concerned over the impact of the (future) gas pipeline on the ecology of the Baltic Sea."

Olofsson said all the matters connected with the ecology of the Baltic Sea must be analyzed and assessed professionally.


This tyes in the Baltic countries to Sweden, economically, politically and trade wise.

Last but not least, the Swedish Defence minister said that a Swedish Nato membership was a "natural" step but that he expected a coordinated membership application together with Finland. :cool:

I think all this shows Sweden "soft power" that of course is concrete "hard" influence. The swedish defence is of course always a back bone that support this "soft power".
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Re Nordstream. That the enviro impact analysis isn't finished yet is no secret, making it a non story. The enviro minister is thumping his chest for show as he knows it is a free ride a this point. The real thing is when Sweden actually has to make a decision.

Re the proposed Baltic power line. It is a secondary to the Polish-Lithuanian-Latvian. Also, when Ignalina shuts down, Lithuania will import electricity from Russia or NG to produce electricity. That is until the replacement nuclear plant goes online in 2015. Tender should be out in 2008-09.

It seems this power line is for load balancing or for electricity export to Sweden. Hence the Swedish interest.

Not much soft power in this.
 

Dalregementet

New Member
We are two lunetics blogging this saturday evening :D . I´m renovating a house in the northern part of Sweden, just taking a break...

Well, in order to make a prediction about what decision Sweden is going to take, you need the facts and I´ve been trying to present them in a number of texts. Sweden will say no. This government will loose the next election (if they don´t do it anyway...) if they say yes. Sweden have little to loose and much to win on a no. Russia will be pist but Germany and others will get the gas anyway just with a little delay. Russia has a rethorik that doesn´t correspond to their actual power and that´s a gamble. It´s like with Kosovo, the russians may have got serbia to believe that they can prevent a independent kosovo and now they face a setback, one of many coming.

Technology and industry wise, Sweden is a major power with companies like Ericsson, Volvo, Saab, Electrolux, Scania, Atlas Copco, H&M, SKF, IKEA, our IT industry, Metals industry, the mines, the energy sector and the Pulp and Paper industry just to mention the "tip of the iceberg. We can act with great leverage in all situations. In my work, I can support Saab's push for Gripen sales to Norway, I have an influence on Swedish security research, I can attend industry consortias, consortias that interact with the swedish state in pursuits world wide. The power that these companies have are unique and it´s difficult to mathch their resources and know how. No other country in the Nordic countries can match it. Would even be difficult for Germany...

Russia can´t match that - they don´t play in this league.

The company I work for is not based in Sweden, though it´s swedish operations are quite significant, it still act as a Swedish company and supports the Swedish government in it´s pursuits.

Right now, Swedish companies are going after the surging market for security systems and also here, I foresee that Sweden will be a global market leader.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top