Andrew Wallace skrev på Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademin följande, bland mycket annat (som ett svar på generalmajor Jonny Lindfors m.fl. senaste artikel):
”When the Soviet Union collapsed, Sweden cut back it’s defences and we had a “strategic time out”. When Russia reasserted itself, Sweden goes into panic mode as it rushes to rebuild its defence.”
Nej Andrew, ingen har fått panik! Du drar samma felaktiga slutsats som Winston Churchill en gång drog om svenskarna under det kalla kriget. Det gör du för att till ditt förtret så ligger inte UK lokaliserat granne med Ryssland som det gör med Finland, Baltikum och Sverige. Du vill helt enkelt att UK ska vara i hetluften och inte Sverige. Men i det här artikelsvaret av dig så förolämpar du åtminstone inte vår intelligens. Dock så antyder du, nej säger att NATO har beslutsrätt i hur Sverige utformar sitt försvar. För det första så har inte NATO det enligt NATO-stadgarna. För det andra så förväntar man sig att NATO hyser förtroende för att Sverige har NATOs behov i åtanke när vi bygger upp försvaret. Om du Andrew hade brytt dig om att studera Jonnys m.fl. senaste artikel så hade du märkt att författarna specifikt ingående tog upp frågan om hur vi ska bygga försvaret av Sverige så att det anpassas även till NATOs behov. För det tredje, vad NATO-stadgarna däremot säger är att medlemsländerna ska kunna försvara sitt eget revir. Andrew skrev:
”When we have something implemented we have moved from the fluffy, fuzzy, cloud to the wibbly wobbly jelly of an idea and on to something that has solidified and become concrete. Now we need to test it. And that’s part of the function of exercise. We need to take what we have out into the field and see if it can do what it is supposed to do. See what it takes to break it. More lessons are to be learnt here and fed back through the previous stages.”
Men han kom inte med ett enda förslag på vilka vapensystem, vilka vapen som vi skulle implementera och som skulle passa med vårt taktiska tillvägagångssätt. Inget konkret alls kom han med. Han nämnde kanske nåt med drönare i förbigående. Duh! Den kunde vi räkna ut själva. Så varken fluffy, fuzzy cloud eller wibbly wobbly jelly presenterade han något förslag till. Vi klarar det här bäst själv om det är vad hjälp vi kan få.
Norge bidrog tidigare med den största försvarsbudgeten per capita i Norden. 2024 den näst minsta efter Finlands och Sveriges, men fortfarande över Danmarks. Norge bidrar med bara ~2% (det exakta talet har jag inte kunnat fastställa, men minst 2%) av BNP för att de är ett litet land, hårt trängt av Ryssland i Barents hav. De har det tuffare än vad Sverige har det. Den ekonomiska biten av en försvarsekonomi är viktig men befolkningsmängden är minst lika viktig. Är man färre som kan försvara sitt land så kommer man kanske inte att kunna uppnå tillräckliga förstärkningar när man har en övermäktig fiende. Men de baltiska länderna har ovanligt höga försvarsbudgetar i procent av BNP ska jag medge. Men dessa länder är nästan i ett konstant gråzon krigstillstånd med Ryssland, mer så än Norge och Sverige. Men visst, det går att göra. Säg det till danskarna vars försvarsminister beklagade sig över Norges lilla bidrag i förhållande till sina oljepengar!
Finlands försvarsbudget är 2.3% av BNP (2024)
Sveriges försvarsbudget är 2.2% av BNP (2024)
Norges försvarsbudget är ~2% av BNP (2024)
Danmarks försvarsbudget når 2% av BNP först år 2030
Norge har en BNP per capita på 118,470 USD (2022)
Danmark har en BNP per capita på 77,370 USD (2022)
Sverige har en BNP per capita på 67,630 USD (2022)
Finland har en BNP per capita på 59,570 USD (2022)
Sverige har en BNP på 591.2 miljarder USD (2022)
Norge har en BNP på 579.4 miljarder USD (2022)
Danmark har en BNP på 400.2 miljarder USD (2022)
Finland har en BNP på 282.9 miljarder USD (2022)
Estlands försvarsbudget ligger på 2.73% av BNP (2024)
Lettlands och Litauens försvarsbudgetar ligger på en bra bit över 2% av BNP (2024)
Thank you UK, it was very kind of you! We love you for it. But we have to defend ourselves, I think. It would be better if the UK could give us guarantees that Sweden will not be isolated from trade with the outside world and the purchase of ammunition, in a near war situation. At least guarrantees from the British part concerning Britain’s policies. I believe that we do not need ”boots on the ground” of a foreign power in the event of a Swedish defensive war against Russia. It would have been another thing if it was a Swedish defensive war against Germany.
Sweden will never go Viking against the UK as long as I have anything to say about that. I do not believe in war of aggression, war of aggression punishes itself as through divine intervention it seems. So live and let live, please Britain.
So, Ukraine, a state by Kreml and Putin called a pseudo state, is a part of Russia? If you had your family riding in a bus in the vicinity, would you violently, with certainty of collateral damage on your own family members, attack that family because they were riding in a bus together with a corrupt bus driver? Or because there was a known right wing Nazi connection of one of the forty other passengers riding in the bus, way in the back of the bus? Is that what you do with family members in Russia?
Putin is the new Hitler!
That’s it. There is nothing more to say.
Why did he do it?
Because he could? Yes, partly. But also, maybe, because his military, his transport aircraft fleet, his helicopters among other, needs spare parts from the Ukrainian military industry, former USSR military industry. And he needs the money, i.e. the women, that lives in Ukraine for the amusement of Russian men, since he cannot get to the women in the West. Whaaat? ”Did you just say what I thought you said?” Yes I did.
What can Ukraine do?
They can perhaps move their governmental institutions away from Kiev and to the south and let the Russian tanks roll deep into Ukraine, but not let the Russian support vehicles far into their country, by attacking the support vehicles in big scale ambushes with grenade rifles. But I don’t know what the environements look like in Northern Ukraine.
They can also, under controlled forms, demolish totally the industry that can be used for Russia’s nuclear capabilities.
Why did Putin not strike Ukrainian electricity first?
The infrastructure enables rapid operation in Ukraine. The road and railway network is well developed in the country. Russia and Ukraine have the same track gauge on the railway. As far as the road network is concerned, there are 103,150 miles of paved roads and 2,200 miles of unpaved roads. The railway network covers 13,400 miles, 6,400 miles is electrified railway. The railway network is mainly well developed in central and eastern Ukraine and somewhat less developed in western Ukraine. Roads and railways goes in all directions. Economic priorities within Ukraine are mainly its industry, which is mainly located in its eastern area.
What can Ukraine expect?
We need to first look at the near time history. In 2014, Russia launched a ”humanitarian” aid convoy to eastern Ukraine. Ukraine opposed this but eventually agreed to let the aid in if it was reloaded into other vehicles before the border crossing and escorted by the Red Cross. The inspection of the Russian trucks showed that many were almost empty except for a few sacks of flour. Russia chose to drive the convoy into Ukraine without the assistance of the Red Cross and in a completely different place than the one reluctantly approved by Ukraine. This is where the interesting really begins.
After the aid convoy crossed the border, it set course for the industrial city of Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, which Russia identified as in dire need. In for example Luhansk, the trucks were unloaded again without international supervision, but did not return immediately and definitely not empty. Instead, extraction of parts for Russia’s war-critical industry began. During the time the Russian convoy spent in eastern Ukraine, machinery, parts and products were loaded from e.g. a factory in Donetsk that manufactures radar and telecommunications warfare systems, a factory that manufactures parts for some of the Russian nuclear missile systems, and the factory that is the only one in the former Soviet Union, which manufactures turbine blades for aircraft engines and engines for helicopters, and other critical components for some combat aircraft engines.
Don’t know if there is something else the Russians still needs from Ukraine. They would most likely want to control the Ukrainian energy sector and their agricultural sector in order to sell energy and crops to the West and other countries in the world.
Is Russia backed by God?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, not at all! They’re backed by Satan. It’s Satan’s country now. We wash our hands.
Russia is like a mad dog that has grabbed your child and chews on your child’s arm at a distance of ten yards from you. As soon as you make an attempt to move towards the mad dog to grab and pull your child to safety or attack the dog, the crazy dog stops chewing and stares you in your eyes, still with its jaws around your child’s arm, clearly threatening to instantly tear your child in pieces with his jaws if you continue to move forward. So you stop, and the mad dog starts chewing on your baby’s arm again, slowly chewing your baby to death observing all your movements. Your baby will either be eaten slowly or torn to death quickly, it’s up to you, even if the procedure is resumed.
Will Russia quit after Ukraine
No! As a matter of fact, the big Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea is probably next. And then the Baltic states. And then Finland. And then Northern Sweden through Finland. And then Scania, the South end of Sweden. And then parts of Norway and Denmark. And then Romania and Bulgaria perhaps. Something like that.
Where is Putin now?
Probably his palace in Gelendzjik near the Kertj strait between Ukrainian Crimea and Russia is thought to be like an ”Eagles Nest” by Putin and FSB and GRU in a situation like this.
To ship cheap-line articles like beers through the Panama Canal I imagine is not very cost effective. But neither is shipping them to Europe all the way around Canada’s northern waters alt. around the south of Americas. I don’t even think they construct any ships, at any shipyard, that can travel such a long journey without refueling the ship’s fuel tank on fuel oil at least once.
Refueling ships’ fuel tanks is done often relatively far from the existing oilfield, but virtually always close to existing refineries around the world, which can complicate things, and it gets important for those extra miles that one has friendly ports one can use to refuel ones ships with fuel oil.
This is one of the main reasons why classical American conservatives have been all for globalism, since a nation with higher living standard is a nation that is less likely to cause any troubles, because they rely on American products to maintain their relatively high living standards.
Countries connect logistically, and new ports for selling American merchandise and buying the up-and-coming countries’ raw materials are built.
Another upside is that with more US friendly fuel oil supplying ports, the US gains an advantage over each single port, because the American ships can easily redirect their shipping routes to bypass, sanction or blockade a specific trouble making port nation.
But globalism isn’t so dandy in the US politics any longer since many countries are partly surpassing America economically and/or getting means to process their own raw materials in order to sell the finished product, instead of the unprocessed product, making America lose money, influence and power.
Albeit, this is not a zero sum game and it has never been one. The world economy grows long term, and with that the American economy grows. Till we run out of raw materials and oil that is. We are close.
You may come back with a rebuttal that America buys a lot of technical stuff from China now, and why would they do that if it is like I claim? That is exactly my point! This is a struggle over control.
Det Tyska Kriget 