Why Russia FEARS Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland Alliance
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 кві 2024
- 🚨"All Swedes should mentally prepare for war."🚨 Supreme Commander Micael Bydén's stark warning on TV4 about 🇸🇪 Sweden's readiness amidst rising tensions with 🇷🇺 Russia shook the nation. With a surge in interest in bomb shelters and crisis info, the question arises: Is Scandinavia bracing for conflict? This video delves into the preparedness of Scandinavian nations for war, examining military capabilities against Russia's formidable forces and exploring the potential impact of NATO alliances. 🌍💣#SwedenPreparesForWar #scandinavia #ScandinaviaVsRussia #MilitaryReadiness #NATO #NATOAlliance #GeopoliticalTension #Denmark #Norway #Sweden #Finland #Russia #militaryanalysis
#themilitaryshow - Наука та технологія
Since you're including russian WW2 tanks, you should include viking longboats to our navy.
Touche! Valhalla awaits!
good one
We are berserkers! Posion mushroomsfor breakfast. Valhalla, here I cone! 😅
As a Swede I'm offended
👍 from a dane 🇩🇰 😂
Scandinavian can't stand up to Russia??
Seriously???
That's what was said about Ukraine! Two and a half years ago!
Norway will be out sugar mamma if it comes to that. ;)
@@TheAlkochef Well you can run or ski to the front in no time.
Well Ukraine was getting and loosing 80 billion worth help in arms every month, take it into account
@@jj4774ns-te5px 80 billion what? Tanks, Mb, bitcoin, kg, zloty? The total aid package 📦 from the US ads up to about 4 billion dollars per month. 80 billion a month is 960 billion a year. That's half the pre-war gdp of Russia. Wouldn't be much left of any Russian military in Ukraine with such numbers.
Gotta remember, if it wasn't for all the aid they've gotten throughout the years, not only ammo, tanks, aircrafts, etc etc, they'd be fucked 2 years ago.
I doubt that Russia has 12,000 tanks anymore.
They don't
Neither that much functional aircaft
According to many other sources, 12,000 tanks are an inflated figure, as many of these tanks are models that are several decades old, tanks kept for parts or pure wrecks. The most likely truth is that Russia had 1/3 to 1/2 of this amount of tanks (if we are generous on the count) before attacking Ukraine, which explains why they are now sending old T-54s to the frontline.
Everything listed in this video they have/had on paper at somepoint not factoring in if any of these are in working condition
Well. It has more than 12000.
Having ZERO aircraft carriers is far superior to having one Admiral Kuznetsov.
Yea the Russians should give that Aircraft carrier to its enemies . Its definitely a drain on Russia's navy
@@dreinhard52 Most of them would literally be capable of refurbishing it into a somewhat-capable carrier, to say the least.
@@bookman7409 considering it was actually built in Ukraine by Ukrainians, back when they were part of the Soviet Union. Could argue it actually belongs to Ukraine😏
😂😂😂
@@bookman7409 Yeah, they'd scrap it and build a brand new one with the metal.
At less than 7 minutes in, I have to say the Scandinavians combined military budgets goes to the military. Russia"s budget goes into the black market and pockets of corrupt officials.
Yep. Didn't a female journalist in Russia get thrown out a window recently because she reported that either 1/3 or 2/3 of the budget for the Ukraine war was stolen by corrupt military bureaucrats?
Finland has stored weapons allready 80years. So there are plenty of them. And also Finns have buy new stuff regulary. So nobody knows exatly how much weapons Finns have. I know artillery is even bigger than told.
The Danish budget certainly doesn't. Hell we didnt even have enough ammunition for live fire training exercises at one point. Our defense budget goes straight to bureaucracy...
@@justarandompally it is quite sad our government ain't paying more into the military, imo, we shoudn't 100% rely on the US to save our butts, us scandinavians should come together and form our own "alliance" of some sort, if u know what i mean.
Orbán and Erdogan, to me, are two-faced. Both are in NATO. Personally, as a native from Hungary, I'm quite pissed off of Orbán.
You have all the reasons to be.
Please brother, vote that Vatnik out of office before he completely ruins your international reputation. 🇫🇮♥️🇭🇺
Two faced, yes... but this is how diplomacy works. As a swede, i don't hate them for doing their job. I dislike them for entirely different - personal - reasons 😜
So you prefer complete surrender of your country's national sovereignty and foreign policy over to the USA and Brussels instead of standing up for their country? How as a better patriot are you than Orban?
Some would call you a collaborator.
You are in no position to judge considering you agree with being subservient to countries other than your own.
Its up to patriots duty to keep their government in place and not allow their country to be subservient to the biggest war machine called NATO which attacked Syria, Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan. Knowing this why do you still support NATO?
Is this not hypocrisy?
VERY poorly researched video, you're too obsessed with raw numbers instead of actual effectiveness and strategic impact. The only aspect where Russia is genuinely ahead is manpower (questionable quality) and nuclear weapons, that's why Nordic countries are NATO members.
Russia has 12K tanks, half of them in pieces in Ukraine, the other half rusting away and unusable.
Come see for yourself😁😂
@@potatosalad1081 They might as well do! Be carefull what you wish for!
@@potatosalad1081 Oh, you mean T-34s. I get it.
When you list the aircraft for each country, you use F16 as the background footage of Sweden. This is completely wrong, as Sweden uses their own "Gripen" multirole jets. They look nothing alike.
And he did not say how many aircraft sweden has
Swedish fighter jets are actually pretty impressive. It'll be interesting to see how they integrate into NATO.
They are great planes. Paired with F35s they are a real force to be reckoned with.
@@kristiansandsmark2048 In a video I saw that Gripens has an interesting missile/drone-like electronic warfare device. It can represent itself as a juicy slow moving transportation/bomber.
When a Russian fighter jet approach the juicy target, it would find one or more warplanes who can easily kill it (Gripen's radars detect the Russians before they can detect the Gripen).
@@hanrockabrand95 seeing as both Czechia and Hungary already operate Gripens, shouldn't be much of a problem. With Sweden joining NATO, i'd guess they now have a better chance at selling some more to their new allies. Market share can't all be gobbled up by Rafale and F-16...
War is expensive, and Russia is burning money faster then they can count it. As a Norwegian i see the horror they commit in Ukraine and i don't want that on my doorstep. The thing we in Scandinavia have that Russia does not is a well trained army, and better logistics. Also every combat unit are trained buttom up instead of top down. This makes them able to take command, when command is not given. Also remember an invading force has a huge disadvantage. The invading force must in general have 3 times the force of the enemy to gain any ground.
Scandinavia also have 4th and 5th gen planes. F 35 and JAS Gripen witch are considered to be some of the greatest jets in the world.
Based on the invasion of Ukraine think about this. Russia failed to gain air superiority against a country with little to no airforce, and Ukraine managed to somehow destroy the Russian navy to such a point that they had to pull back to the Crimean Peninsula.
This is very impressive considering Ukraine does not have a Navy.
It is also a good indication that the Russian army is extremely mismanaged, undertrained, with bad morale, and few resources.
Russia is already on your doorstep.. the historically and geographic Finnish territories of Kola Peninsula and Karelia are part of the Scandinavian Peninsula . Norway and Sweden didn't came to Finland's aid when Stalin annexed Kola Peninsula and Karelia and took it from Finland
@@hilgardlinks3160 Yes. This is 80 years ago, and it does not support your argument at all.
Russian historian Grigoriy Krivosheyev calculated 126,875 dead and 264,908 wounded. In 1999, Yuri Kilin, professor at Petrozavodsk State University, calculated 63,990 dead, and 207,538 wounded and frostbitten, making total casualties 271,528.
Remember these are Russian historians, and Finland at the time did not have the military they have today. they have been preparing for a confrontation with Russia for more than 80 years. Besides, the territory gained by Russia was abysmal.
They had to give up when Finland was fighting them alone. Now consider combined forces of Scandinavia after Russia draining their advanced equipment in Ukraine.
@@hilgardlinks3160a lot of Swedes fought for Finland in the winter war.
The Russians also have a huge corruption problem.
@@hilgardlinks3160 Swedes and Norwegians sent volunteers to Finland in the Winter War, who did contribute to the defence efforts of the Finns, in particular in Northern Finland.
It is estimated that around 126,000 Soviet soldiers were killed or went missing during the conflict, with an additional 264,000 wounded or sick. Around 25,000 Finnish soldiers were killed or went missing during the war, with an additional 44,000 wounded.
Now however things are quite different because Finland who did not have a strong military at the time managed to fend of the soviets regardless.
However they have now been preparing for a new conflict for around 80 years. And have had mandatory military service as part of their constitution.
In short the winter was a massive failure on the side of the russians/soviets, and i'm not sure how it exactly support your argument?
There is a ready term for Scandinavia and Finland and Iceland, the Nordic countries.
Americans like the word Scandinavia, so that's the end of it. The language is how people use it. Tomato is a fruit, but is generally called vegetable, so it is grammatically correct. People often use the word "jealous" when they mean "envious", but it's okay, people use them interchangeably.
Apparently this Brit thinks he can tell us Nordic people how we should identify ourselves.
@@atklm1 While the language is how people use it, like you said, it still doesn't take away the fact that... It's wrong, and people should instead educate themselves. It's like saying ''Canadians are Americans, because Canada is located in North America.'' SCANDINAVIA is Norway, Sweden and Denmark (These are the countries where SCANDINAVIANS are from), the NORDICS are Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland and some may even consider Estonia, Orkney Island, Greenland and Faroe Island in the mix. While the SCANDINAVIAN PENINSULA (in geographical terms) is Norway, Sweden and the northern parts of Finland.
@@Onnarashi I'm Finn.
@@bobmalibaliyahmarley1551 Some say that Russia or Turkey is are located in Europe, beucase part of those countries are on the continent. Same way part of Finland is in Scandinavian peninsula.
Ukraine has no nuclear weapons, no navy, and all of its armed forces are and were miniscule compared to Russia...
Finland alone could resist the Russian military as it is now known to be ... And Russia would be automatically be fighting all of Scandinavia and NATO... So it would lose
...NATOs air supremacy. UA had about 70 old planes, and Russia has not claimed air dominance yet.
@@FRIPPE_THE_GREAT Because of AA not because of old planes. NATO would surely have air supremacy over Russia. Oh and that 900 000 reserve we as Finland have is in paper not reality at all, maybe 200 000 - 300 000 max.
@@RoopeFromFinland Intti käyty ?
@@qrewEi ku mä oon ryssä.
@@RoopeFromFinlandMuista Roope että lähes jokainen mies käy Suomessa armeijan. On käynyt viime sodasta saakka. 230 000 reservi. Laajempi reservi 900 000 (mukaan lukien 230 000), eikä vain paperilla. Ja jos kaikki armeijan käyneet huomioitaisiin niin 1 750 000. Vielä 90-luvun vaihteessa koulutettiin vuosittain lähes 10 000 enemmän kuin nyt. No ei ole enää onneksi Neuvostoliittoakaan.
@TheMilitaryShow This is absolutely nonsense. Russia does not have 12.000 main battle tanks. They had about 7.500 at the beginning of the war and have lost about 3.000 in an assessment from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). They are already resupplying with T-63's from 2023 and T-55's from 2024. Get your facts straight before publishing.
They're also rolling out artillery pieces from (and this is no joke) World War II! Literally the same pieces they might have used during Stalin's time.
And their stats on the Russian Air Force blatantly ignores that the VDV has been conspicuously absent from the air campaign in Ukraine. Where are those 4,000 aircraft? Should they not be dominating the skies? (Stingers, Patriots, and other anti-air assets alone should not be able to counter Russia's ability to target saturate and overwhelm with sheer volume with those numbers)
Agreed but anyone who makes a living "predicting the future," will always speaks in contexts and probabilities. Inferences that could be facts. This past year, the Kremlin has been looting the War Museums for equipment.
@@davidford3115 how many of those air frames can actually be flown without major overhauls? Number of capable pilots is another factor. They lost a few...
Russia's navy would be useless in the Baltic, their air force would hardly stand a chance either. And where could they attack with their ground forces without extreme losses? The danger is what we see in Ukraine, missiles, chemical weapons, drones, artillery...
There are a couple of items missed out. 1) Naval force - what Russia needs are landing crafts; air carriers are quite useless in the Baltic Sea; 2) about half of the defence budget in Russia disappears in corruption; 3) the Finish borderland. A single rail line goes between Murmansk and along the coast down towards the south. That make a military build-up/supply lines difficult. Much of the land between Russia and Finland are lakes and marchland which makes tanks useless; 4) the Nordic countries have more sophisticated hardware and nimbler military used to the local conditions.
This guy seems to disregard the last two years losses of heavy equipment, and ignores article 5 ?
@@chrisevans2686 Don't forget the abysmal performance of the Russian Air Force. With 4,000 aircraft, they should be able to saturate air defenses, yet have not done so.
@@davidford3115 If you just do a search of youtube videos, you'll find that the Russians have a huge fuel shortage, spare parts shorage, and most of their jets are old. The SU-57 is a great plane but there are only ELEVEN that CAN ACTUALLY FLY. Most of their aircraft are older and out of 4,000 airframes maybe 25-30 percent are able to fly.
@@knoahbody69 Fuel shortage also means the pilots flying the planes wont have nearly as much training experience as the pilots they're facing.
The main question is "How much of what could Russia commit to a Scandinavian Front?" not "How much total forces does Russia have?"
The Scandinavic countries might have relatively small militaries but they are modern and they have a huge home turf advantage. The territory of the Nordic countries is very defensible not friendly to the movement of armored vehicles. Finland is mostly lakes, woods and swamps, while Sweden and Norway have significant mountain areas and a lot of rivers.
sweden has almost 100 000 lakes. finland has almost 200 000 lakes. both numbers are epic
@@krisstopher8259 Sweden have more lakes than Finland.
@@jimraslov3586 nope i googled it
@@jimraslov3586 Who cares who has the most! The only rational conclusion is that there's to many.
The whole southern Sweden is a god damn mosquito mayhem. Dammit why did we buy a summerhouse there!
@@jimraslov3586islands yes, lakes no
The Russian figures are not correct at all.
absolutely - 12000 tanks?
Yep, years old pre war and does not take into account much of it is ancient crap
The ruskis still have quite a few tanks in storage depots which may lead to around 10,000 but that’s pushing it and of those 10,000 it’s highly likely that only a fraction of those actually run/function so my guess is likely closer to 4,000-5,000 tanks
They have thousands of outdated Cold War era tanks and basically scrap (rusty shells barely even fit for parts).
@@Barnie-pi7mk I hope you guys know tha these numbers people often talk about dont really have the older tanks. And the newer ones are not in open storage.
Why bring up Russias 2400 aircraft if they have only 700 fighter and multi role which is close to being on par with Scandinavian fighter/multi role. Its not like 1400 helicopters can operate in a contested airspace.
His analysis is not good
The Nordic countries (Finland isn't Scandinavian, no matter what a Brit thinks) also have capable air defence systems, much like the Ukrainians have been given. They'll end up losing a lot of aircraft in any attempted aerial assault.
This video was disappointing in it's laziness.
Slava Ukraini! 🌻💪From Finland!🇫🇮
Sisu
@@darrenskjoelsvold Totta Perkeleessä Ne Ukrainalaises painaa kuin Suomalaisella Sisulla.
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
jewahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahha
@@FullSugarBrahruski, why your army it so useles, like everything else there?
There is absolutely no chance Russia still have 12000 battle ready tanks. I believe they only have around 6000-9000 left and hardly any of them are modern nor battle ready.
Their losses have been horrendous. They didn't have 12000 to start with. Maybe a little over half that number. Now they're driving mostly T-55's and T-62's and even those are in short supply.
@v-damaged2097
lol even if you were right production on war machines can speed up alot during war times if that what you want to bring the world into, u be surprised how different things can turn out then expected
@@CGplay186 Russia with their economy going to ruin and suffering sanctions lacks the parts necessary to produce a lot of modern hardware. They have to sneak everything through the back door, and the loopholes keep getting plugged.
There was only one lonely tank in the Russian Victory Day parade and Russia uses in Ukraine obsolete T-54, T-55 (1948) and T-62 (1961) tanks
He just reads of globalfirepower index like many other UA-cam "analysts". Sweden and Denmark have doubles it's defense spending since they updated it's site and Norway have increased it as well.
These figures for Russia's arsenal are suspect. They sound like the totals on paper before the war and they lost a lot of those since then. In addition, not every piece of kit is actually working. A lot of the kit is broken and used only for parts.
Yup, a lot of their inventory (probably thousands of vehicles) are either rusty shells or woefully outdated, in addition to the thousands of vehicles they've lost in Ukraine. I saw one report claiming they'd seen a Russian tank in Ukraine that took part in the 1956 uprising in Hungary. They'd identified it by its unique number markings. 1956!
And it's pretty easy to understand WHY these numbers are so suspect. Because these videos are made with AI and most current systems like ChatGPT do not take into consideration the last few years of history.
@@Onnarashi And lets not forget that the Russian's don't keep all their military hardware and personnel in one area. Pretty sure their navy is split into three and they wouldn't be able to fight with their full force in Scandinavia, I also don't think they have any air force carriers in the Baltic seas.
This video is lazy and presents a very incomplete narrative. Russia is a nation actively at war, and claiming that its military budget "dwarfs" the combined peace-time military budgets of the Nordic countries is very disingenuous. The Nordic countries have a similar GDP to Russia, and they also have a strong defense industrial base. In a total war situation, the military spending would shoot up drastically. These numbers are already outdated, all Nordic countries have committed themselves to spend 2% of GDP on defense in 2024. Also, just looking at equipment numbers means very little. It is very questionable how Russia would manage to utilize its forces in a possible invasion. Look at the marshland of the Finnish-Russian border and compare that to the planes in Ukraine. Russia getting thousands of tanks over the border is a pipe dream. Russia is probably stronger than the combined Nordics, but not by as big of a margin as you claim in this video.
Well, Russia was supposed to be much stronger than Ukraine and would steamroll Ukrainian foeces and enter Kyiv within 3 days (2 weeks at most), and look how that worked out for them.
Not saying they're not a threat and I'm not suggesting we underestimate them, but damn if they haven't shown their weaknesses by now. Incompetence, logistics failures, poor equipment, aging vehicles, widespread corruption, outdated tactics, competition and infighting within the Russian military, poor training and planning.
he even says that we Swedes think Russia will invade us, we know they will not do that, we arm up beause of the situation in the world, not just for a war against Russia. If Russia even dare to invade Sweden they would have hard logistical problems, doesn't matter if it's land or air. We are fewer but our technology and top tear defences, we know our land and know how to fight in it, it would be a nightmare to fight us on home turf and Russia should know that. Sweden isen't plains like in Ukraine, it's thousands of island, mountains and tough terrain everywhere and our army/navy/air is built around it.
Russia is losing 7/1 against ukraine so...
There are many ways to calculate defense spending. Should you include coast guard stuff? How about civilian bomb shelters? The video pegs my country, Sweden, as spending 1.3% but mind you Sweden already meets the 2% NATO target, going by NATO spreadsheets.
Also, why the bloody hell would any Nordic country want an aircraft carrier? Especially a Russian one that keeps braking down. We don't aim to project power over blue water distances. We have Gotland, it's right there and hard to sink.
In 1975 Sweden's armed forces changed name from Krigsmakten (Armed force) to Försvarsmakten (Defense force), because that's the mission. A mission much cheaper than, say, keeping logistics and what not for an invasion of Iraq.
Say what you want about lacking military spending, but the Nordic countries have World leading social trust, which amounts to a willingness to defend each other, low corruption and general effectiveness. Especially Finland and Sweden can boast a lot of civil defense, preparations for preventing landings and a mentality to never ever surrendering. Russia would dominate with artillery, men and vehicles, so the strategy here was to also offer up guerilla tactics with no end in sight. But today they would outright lose the air war even if they bombed all our air bases. The VKS can't even handle Ukraine and would find itself up against F35's from Norway, Finland and Denmark together with 100 dispersed Gripens from Sweden. Armed with a thousand helicopters and that formidable wonder of reliability Admiral Kuznetsov, stationed in Murmansk. Ok bro.
On a last note, if Russia attacks Finland it would find itself in war with Sweden no questions aksed and probably Norway and Denmark too. Finland was a part of the same country for over 600 years. There are family ties, history, passport free travelling since 1957 across all the countries - I could go on. These vids made by people from other places just don't get it. There is no attacking Finland INSTEAD of Sweden. Sounds positively deranged to me and I'd dare say to most swedes.
2/10, wouldn't watch again, but I still had to write and give the creator the attention because I figure people might want to know.
Regarding the naval powers you need to remember that a lot of Russia’s ships, including its flagship, was sunk by a country without a navy 🇺🇦
Swedish subs ”sunk” American warships in war games. The Americans had no clue the sub was even there. And American ships are infinitely better than Russian ones
Like where do you pull the military spending numbers?!? You have Sweden 2020 number, Denmark 2014 was closest to 4B but 2020 was 5B, Norway 2020 number and Finland was at 3.3B in 2007 their 2020 number is 4.1B.
2021 Fin 5.9B, Swe 7.9B, Den 5.4B and Nor 8.3B. This hard it was to find the numbers from at least the same year....
Edit:And for Russia you used 2021 number, like wtf...
Then you haven't even included the tax they have over in Russia. Like they planned to invest 65.9B but how much of that did they really add to their existing numbers and how much was sold and how much fell into someones pocket instead of getting something and and and....
The real prep for Scandinavia should be to defend the 3 Baltic states, which have serious exposure long-term due to small populations. Sweden and Finland in addition to Poland need more large air bases in case large numbers of NATO air forces need to operate from them to defend the Baltics in any conflict.
Yeah, or you could turn it around - NATO needs more JAS, so that they don't need more airbases.
Before the Invasion of Ukraine, NATO had only one option: to reinforce the Baltic States via Polan and Lithuania's border. With Finland and Sweden now part of NATO, the option to strike out from Helsinki and push into St. Petersburg and take the land route around is a viable option. As is opening a front to capture Murmansk and restarting the Artic Convoys.
Som Nato-medlem ska Sverige nästa år sända 800 soldater till Lettland
Sweden is quite protected from Russian aggression after Finlands accession into NATO. Most Swedes are mostly positive about joining for the sake of showing our Finish brothers that we will stand by them in case Russia tries to invade. The Baltic states are more like newly discovered cousins. We didn't consider joining NATO to show solidarity with them. I do, however, agree with you that protecting the Baltic states should be one of our top priorities, and I do believe that the attitude shown by our Baltic states neighbours after the invasion of Ukraine, has strengthened our sense of solidarity with them.
If I'm not wrong Sweden will send a battalion to Latvia in 2025 to aid in their defense. A good move. Let's aid our Baltic brothers. They weren't really mentioned in this video, but I believe they would be the first to fall if Putin starts looking westward.
Russia's performance in Ukraine make these numbers suspect.
Vikings weren’t very forgiving back in the days with just an axe, imagine one with an arsenal full of deadly rockets
When are you folks going to recalibrate the whole Russian military equipment thing? Russia is down to less than 7000 tanks and I bet only about 20% are modern. They have also lost thousands of artillery guns and AFVs. You all really should rethink your numbers...
Yes, but people rely on the Russians to report their equipment numbers, and for obvious reasons they don't want to report any factual numbers during a war that they up until very recently didn't even call a war. They know their losses are heavy, but reporting on it would mean admitting the Ukrainians are being effective opponents.
Russia cannot be stopped in defending her homeland from the West.
@@FullSugarBrah Sure thing, Kremlin boy.
You missed the swedish airforce? We do not have dedicated attack or bombers, but that is an offensive role, we only plan on defense, the F35, on paper is an air superiority 5th gen fighter - again on paper the best out there. The F16 and the F18's are fighter/intercepters and the swedish gripen is a gen 4 multi role fighter/intercepter with ground support capability, all fully integrated in the Nato system, it latest iteration also boast electronic warfare suits, bridging the gap somehwat to a gen 5 capable fighter as the F35. Loadout, and battlefield intel/awareness is superior to Russia. Naval power equal, maybe.. Did you see how the swedish gotland class submarine, single handed got passed an american carrier group and sank their carrier, over and over again, never was found in the excersises, to the point that the US leased the entire sub and crew for 2 years to try and come up with a way to beat it.. Also We got the island of Gotland, it is a huge stationary carrier in the baltic sea, you cant sink it either, meanwhile Russian carrier will most likely have to be towed into action..
The Russians only have one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov. It's a floating disaster of a ship and Russian crew consider it a punishment to be stationed on it. It runs on mazut (a low quality oil that causes terrible smoke) and can't even move and keep heating on at the same time, so you can imagine how terible it it must be to be stationed on it during cold temperatures.
That´s why Sweden has to step up the military protection on the island of Gotland. Unfortunately the county of Gotland are more focused on protecting flowers, butterflies and bugs which they think an invader will care about.
situational awareness for russian aircraft is mostly being shot down by their own AA crews...
@@OnnarashiThe carrier that needs its own tugboat. You just can’t make this stuff up
F/A 18 is not a multi role fighter? F means fighter and A means assault.
9:24 none of those are in the Baltic Sea though. Germany dominates the Baltic Sea. Second is Sweden. Third is Russia. In number of vessels.
Swedish subs are the best
Germany has to cover the North and Baltic Seas, while Sweden can concentrate on the Baltic Sea alone.
However, the Russian Baltic fleet is done now. They have no hope of survival in case of a conflict. It is not only about navel units.
The Baltic Sea can also be covered by air and coastal batteries from all sides by NATO.
@@hermes7587 UK can provide some coverage of the North Sea.
Your numbers on Russia are out of date!
Russia's numbers for their military are also out of date. Of course, we know why that is...
When it comes to the number of tanks and artillery, Russia does not have 12.000 Tanks available to fight nor do they have 18,000 artillery piece in fighting condition. They have thousands of 1950's tanks sitting in their junkyards with seized engines and rust bolts.
The Norwegian government has just announced an 57 billion USD boost, an 83 % increase in defence spending over the next 12 years. The plan avaits approval in the Parliement.
Veldig bra
Et museskritt i riktig retning.
12,000 tanks? Seriously doubt it, unless you’re counting dilapidated and half blown up WWII era tanks.
Did @TheMilitaryShow simply grab pre-Ukraine war numbers for Russia? Not to mention the hardly existent talk of how Russian weapons are under performing in Ukraine... it doesn't seem like a good comparison for many other reasons as well.
I would suggest using 'the Nordic countries' rather than the 'Scandinavian countries' for all intergovernmental connections. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland meet in the Nordic council.
Finland must not be used as subset of Scandinavia.
are these Russian military count pre or post Ukrainian conflict?
Me thinks Russia might be down a few tanks on these numbers....
Yep he takes nothing current into account
Down a few thousand tanks, in fact.
And a few ships 😂
@@swedishmake-upgeek5650 More submarines though :)
@@chrisb9279 very true! Ukraine is giving Putin plenty of those. Very thoughtful of them 🤭
1917 and 1991 will return to russia but 100X worst...
And, like in 1991, it will seemingly come out of nowhere.
Will you make sure of that personally?
The Swedish JAS39 Gripen is designed and built to take out Russian planes. If you do your homework a bit better you will see how well they perform "despite" not being stealth. Besides, the Swedish submarines are also built to take out Russian ships. They are silent and custom made for shallow or deeper waters. The Gotland class submarine has even taken out a US aircraft carrier in a war game that took place outside of the US coast. Even the US Navy was so impressed by its performance that they rented a Swedish sub and its crew for a year to try to understand why it performed so well. Swedish subs are not intended for sailing the big global oceans, they are built to operate in the Baltic sea to take out Russian vessels.
It doesn't matter if Russia has aircraft carriers, they will never dare to let them sail in the Baltic sea where they would be sitting ducks waiting to be sunk by the Swedish navy or helicopters based on the "unsinkable aircraft carrier", the Gotland island, with sink bombs. Getting an aircraft carrier into the Baltic sea will also come with maneuverability issues. It's like parking a semi truck with a full length trailer on a bike parking. Good luck with that.
Add to that that two NATO countries, Sweden and Denmark, now controls the entrance to the Baltic sea. If Russia for some reason would want to get additional ships to be brought into the Baltic sea (to also be sunk by the Swedish subs :) ), then they first have to pass the Öresund or the Stora Bält passages between Sweden and Denmark. They will be sunk there too. It will become a Russian ship graveyard there.
I do agree to that Swedish ground troops is most likely a weakness, but please keep in mind that Sweden depends on conscripts and that number is increasing fast now.
Then I must comment the military budgets. Yes, indeed, Russia spends a lot more on their military budget compared to the Nordic countries, but Russia is also a far bigger country and they have to defend their entire country. If they would move their military from the huge area just north of China, you can rely on that China will invade that part of Russia due to the vast amount of natural resources; forests and most of all oil and minerals. Then Russia has to keep the defense towards Alaska/USA and towards the Arctic region, so in reality what looks like an excessive military budget isn't that great anyway. Their only ace is their nukes especially since they are likely operated by drunk Russians who are having one of their hand on the "Launch Nuke" button and the other hand holding a bottle of Vodka. :)
Putin made a major mistake to try to invade Ukraine so even IF they would win it, their military has proven to be far weaker than anyone could imagine just a few years ago. Russia's best move now would be to put a bullet in Putin's head and withdraw their forces from Ukraine and blame Putin for the war. That would at least be a diplomatic victory to Russia.
It's quite entertaining to see how you think that each vehicle/vessel or person to person is a 1 to 1 relationship. It's not. I DO agree though that the military spend in at least Sweden needs to go beyond the 2.1% of its GDP now (it's not 1.3% as you mentioned in the video).
Then finally, why invade Sweden? What is there that is so attractive? Millions of welfare tourists who are loved only by so called feminists? Blonde women? Russia already has a surplus of young women due to the masses of killed men in Ukraine.
Especially now after joining NATO there is too little for Russia to gain. They are interest in the Gotland island to invade the Baltic countries Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, but that is now a NATO island.
Initially, I was skeptical of the Gripen, particularly against the F-22. But on seeing its performance in the Red Flag exercises, I put more faith in that airframe than I do the F-35.
The last time Sweden was close to a war with Russia or USSR was in 1981 and that is also the closest we have been to see a nuclear explosion on European soil by an enemy power as U-137 had Nuclear Torpedos that they had orders to detonate if we tried to storm the Submarine.
Luckily the USSR fleet decided to turn back about 5 minutes from the Swedish national Waters and thus the storming operation was stopped.
It is also worth noting that the airforce had been given orders to at all cost hold the Border which meant if needed they would be expected to use themselves and the airframe as missiles against the invader.
Sweden is currently spending 2.1% of GDP on Defence which hase been increased from the all time low of 0.9% in 2017.
Most likely There will be an increase up and above 3-4% GDP soon.
Also Sweden preparing for a war against Russia is to us and especially everyione above 25 more back to regularity than something new and worrying.
it is good practice to actually look up all airshelters and bunkers just incase.
This was regular for us until 2008 when Lumpen was dissolved.
infact to us the last 30 years has been the weird times.
Such nonsense. First, you can’t compare raw numbers of equipment without discussing whether it’s new or old and what state of maintenance it’s in. A T14 Armada turns out to be junk even if it’s 100% fully mission capable. And then a piece of equipment is worthless without a well trained crew to employ it, so even a Leopard 2 isn’t much use without a highly trained crew to operate it, and that T-14 Armada with new recruits inside? Worthless except to be target practice for the Leopard crew. Then, even if you have a good tank (APC, etc.) with a good crew, it’s not effective without a well trained and coordinated
combined arms team to work with and protect it, like infantry, ADA, artillery, etc. Lastly, you talked about how big the Russian forces are compared to the Nordic armies, but of course they have 11 time zones to defend and way more borders than the Nordic countries, so of course they have more. What matters is what they might bring to bear in a battle with the Nordic countries and what their logistical lines of resupply are (quite long for the Russians and subject to interdiction as we saw in the beginning of the Ukraine war.) The analysis in this video is on the 3rd grade level. Stick to what you know.
Is the T14 Armada related to the Spanish Armada?
Finland almost was able to defeat the combined Soviet Union by itself in 1939-40 Winter War and Finland was nowhere near as prepared for war then as they are now. Technologically and in training the Nordic countries far outclass Russia, they would likely be surrounding Murmansk and near St Petersburg within a month even without the rest of NATO, especially with so much of Russia's forces in Ukraine. The only thing Russia has is nukes, it has long been rumored Sweden had nukes just hours or minutes from completion ready during the cold war, they have the technology to do it very rapidly again. With NATO the Nordic countries will walk over Russia.
I think the Nordic advantage lays in not only better quality training and equipment, but also in its strategic position. The Nordic countries could create several choke points both on sea and land, and set up air defences to decimate any aerial assault.
A smaller and more nimble force can always use the terrain to its advantage and do a series of quick hit and run attacks on slow moving enemy convoys, like we saw in the early days of the Russo-Ukrainian war, where the Ukrainians managed to decimate the Russian convoy towards Kyiv.
While the Russians shouldn't be underestimated, they have several weak points that can be exploited, like a lack of logistics, poor training, systemic corruption, a splintered military leadership competing for victories on the battlefield, and an over-reliance on artillery and mass assaults.
To me it seems like the modern Russian military still follows the old Stalin quote: “Quantity has a quality all its own.”
@@Onnarashi This argument isnt true tho. Finland lost that war, they surrendered when Russia was about to destroy their army. Its a historicla fact.
@@attilamarics3374 And yet you ignore the horrific loss ratios. Finland knew it couldn't win, but endeavored to make the affair as bloody and messy as possible to the Soviets so as to minimize what they would have to give away at the negotiation table.
@@attilamarics3374 The Soviets only got 10% of Finish territory in the peace deal though. No matter how you look at it, the war was an absolutely astounding failure from the Soviets.
@@JeffPar50 But that was more than what their original demands were. Not to mention that wasnt the entire deal at the end. The Soviets won.
This kind of comparison is nonsense since all 4 countries are NATO members.
Russia would not fight a full scale war against any NATO or EU country (because of nukes and also because of conventional nilitary Plpower of NATO).
However there is some risk of limited actions to "test" NATO, like russian troops "accidential" occupying some lands with very low population density like Lappland. If NATO response Russia could easily move back and avoid a bigger conflict, if NATO not response over such "unimportend lands" Russia might gain some strength.
That booklet was also sent to every Swedish household in 2018. One of the messages is
"The total war must be met with total defense.
We must defend ourselves against whatever attacks and pressures we are exposed to. It is about our freedom and our independence, our existence as an independent nation.
Sweden wants to defend itself, can defend itself, and must defend itself!
Resistance must be made constantly and in all situations. It depends on you - Your effort, Your determination, Your will to survive.
We never give up! Any message that the resistance should be seized will be false"
If true what is it not addressing the Islamic problem!
Respect for that!
Meanwhile, where I live our politicians doesn't even talk about Russias invasion of Ukraine.
@@thedrvn These Russian bots bro 🤣
This video is so full of errors that it's not even funny!
Interesting presentation , but I was fascinated by the depth of the intelligent comments ! Finding an intelligent conversation on you tube is an incredible pleasure !
There is so much wrong with this video. Saying that these four countries could never withstand a Russian attack is absolute rubbish. The Ukraine conflict has proven that Russia, with all its overwhelming numbers, is not the force we were told to fear. They may have triple the munber of vehicles and planes but 80% or those numbers are cold war era assets. And their tank and IFV stocks will be next to useless invading the forests, lake lands and mountains of Scandinavia. Their airforce has been kept mostly silent by Ukraine, who have none of the capabilities the Nordic countries have and you mentioned an aircraft carrier..... Russia no longer have one. The kuznetsov is done.
Bad backgroud check
Aircraft carriers are not relevant for a war between Russia and the Nordic countries though. In a defensive war, the nordic countries have big advantages and great chokepoints to breakdown a Russian invasion. Just looking at raw military numbers does not tell the full story of such a scenario.
Last week Norway announced that it will spend 160 bllion NOK on defence in the next 12 12 years. And increase of about 60 billion from previous plans.
The army will increase from just one, to 3 Brigades + a new missile artillieryu batallion.
ANd more Combat vehicles, long range precise artillery, new helicopters for the army and the Home Guard wil increase from 4000 to 45000
Train 4600 more conscripts per year, add 13500 soldiers to the reserve, and hire 4600 NCO's, officers and specialists.
The Navy will recieve 5 new frigates with maritime ASW helicopters + 10 large and 18 smaller other vessels , and buy one aditional sub from Germany in addition to the 4 on order.
The air force will recive long range AA missiles (think Patriot or similar), and double the number of of NASAMS systems. Existing systems will be updated:
ANd a general buildup of situational awareness trough drones and satelites
If I am correct, the Nordic countries will soon have around 150 Gripen figthers and around 150 F-35 fighters. That will be more than a handfull for the incompetent Ruzzian air force to deal with. And I am sure the Finnish and Swedish navies quickly will promote the Ruzzian Baltic fleet into a "submarine service".
Russia having 12000 tanks is the overstatement of the century. Firstly most of these tanks have been standing outside without maintenance for 40 years making them to rustbuckets. Second Russia has lost most of their somewhat modern tanks (T-90, T-80, T-72) and are now down to T-62 and and T-55 variants. Russia have not produced any new tanks - T-90 is just a refurbished T-72, all these tanks are from the Soviet era. Also the Soviet era airforce of Russia have not even gained air superiority in Ukraine - And in this case Russian air crafts would face Gripens and F-35, shredding them to mulch... Really bad video!
...Russian tank in the middle of Sweden--where does it get fuel and ammo from ? .. burning Russian supply trucks ?
"Can never stand up"? I am sure that the same was said about Finland in the winter war, or Ukraine now.
A few remarks, concerning the speakers, somewhat "careless", describing of Finns feelings, for Ruzzians: My ethnic group, from Karelian Isthmus, don`t exactly "love", those bastards!
Among all other Finns, but especially Karelians.
And, it hurt my ears, to be bundled up, with Scandinavians. No hard feeling for "swedes", though.
Ok, for the "greater good"= Video.
So, as a conclusion: "swedes" can remain calm, "Ruzzians" have to go over Finland, to get to Sweden. And we kicked in their teeth, back in WW", quite a bit.
And the other way to Sweden, goes over Finland, partly though Norway, and is scrutinized, and deemed as impossible.
So, sleep tight, so far, we`ll quard for You. 😉
What goes for Ruskies Navy, they don`t have all the vessels presented in the video.
Only a very small part of those, are "present" in the Baltic.
And Ukraine is decommissioning them, as we can see.
from a Finn in Diaspora
I might be wrong, but isn't Finnish defence budget over 6billion, not 3,3B?
These numbers are mostly based on pre Ukrainian invasion statistics.
Russia is on its 3rd year of losing much more equipment than it can produce.
If things keep going this way for Russia, it will take them at least a decade before reaching former strength again, and by that time most European countries will be much stronger than they are today.
When comparing armies, you MUST take into aspccount that Russia must spread its military across its entire country meaning Scandinavia will NEVER face all, or even most, of Russia’s military
What is recent history? Russia invaded Finland. It is called the Winter War.
I wish the age of military equipment was compared. The nordic countries has better tec. I agree that the nordics are underdogs, but not as dark as it appears
Indeed. Finland fought the winter war WITHOUT any outside assistance. This time they WILL have backup.
@@davidford3115 except for the 10000 Swedish volunteers who fought in Finland, and all the weapons and ammunition Sweden sent, oh last we forget Sweden also sent 12 fighters and 4 bombers.
But other than that, Yes Finland was totally alone
@@gambit8766 Yeah, those volunteers do not get counted when it comes to international support. And 12 fighters don't actually make a difference when you talk about the scale.
Nice, all these big numbers for Russia. But how much of all that material is actual ready for action....? How much of that is 50+ years old?
"Si vis pacem, para bellum ", "If you want peace, prepare for war."
It is a bit simplistic to just go by numbers... Number are important but so is how they are used. Swedish weapons and forces are defensive and specialized for our conditions. Russia's are not. Scandinavian weapon systems are modern where Russia's are not. The Swedish air force doctrine equals ten times of Russia's specially with the STRIL 90 and the Meteor...
A Finn here. Before the full scale war in Ukraine I didn't see a reason to join NATO. The main issue I had was that we still thought that Russia is entity we can reason with and drive to build relationship with. When the attack happened everything changed. I and I believe many other almost feel betrayed by the Russians. You see, in Europe during the EU era we are used to solving issues via diplomacy and trying to eliminate possible destrictions countries have, and in this way build a safer Europe to all. I know, how ideological. I think after the war European nations need to take a deep look at themselves and realize that even though we don't believe in wars and spheres of influence, there still are countries with populist and nationalist leaders who use real politics when related to us. The betrayal what Russia did was that it made us believe that Russia as an entity would change and so we started doing programs together; build energy relianses, infrastructure, open business and remove citizen restrictions and then when the time was right Kremlin shows its true face, that it wipes its ass with the systems we have build our whole continent, and uses these acts of friendship against us underlying the fact that it is not European country but its own egoisitic entity. I'm not sure if even Putin has fully understood what he has done, but making a war to again be "a thing" in Europe and at the same time betraying its neighbours doesn't really give it an escape route from the situation it has found it self in. How can we ever trust Russia again?
Being nuclear weapon free is the advantage the Nordics have and it is so by design. The entire strategy to fight off a Russian attack will depend on it. The principles is rather easy. If Russia attacks the Nordics the Nordics will escalate the conflicts immediately with conventional means against non civilian infrastructure to such a degree that Russia will have to invoke their doktrin and use a nuclear weapon to "escalate to de-escalate". This is most likely done by Norway and Finland attacking Murmansk while Sweden and Denmark attacks Kaliningrad. Russia simply can't amass enough forces in those regions to actually fight of the entire Nordic offensive navy and air force due to territorial limitations for the Russians and a combination of stealth, speed weapons and geographical advantage for the Nordics. So an initial penetration is more or less guaranteed. The concept is to actually force Russian nuclear forces to respond or Russia will lose essential strategic points. And if Russia predictably responding that way they will drag the entire world into the conflict. With Russia using nuclear weapons against non nuclear weapon states, with less military capacity and actually being the part that initially attacked the Nordics without any valid reason, they would more or less lose any little moral impetus they have among it's own allies. All these states understands the outcome and the implication of opening the Pandoras box of nuclear weapon in a state of the world where many actors have nuclear weapons. If Russia deems they themselves are justified to use them even asymmetrically the world would go into full paranoia mode where nothing is certain anymore. So in the end Nordic allies would be forced to step in during the Russian troop build up try to deter both the Russians and the Nordics from escalating to prevent the scenario from above because they would be dragged into it anyway.
So, yeah the Nordic strategy to deter Russia is more or less based on the readiness of absorbing a nuclear strike while being a non nuclear existential threat to Russia. War sure is crazy.
Russia doesn't spend on defense, it spends on offense
From their imaginary enemies. Yes, no one likes Russia, which also means no one wants anything to do with them. If they could only leave countries alone, not invade them, and live in peace, then NATO wouldn’t be preparing to potentially go to war with them. Russia IS the crazy neighbor that needlessly causes headaches for everyone and makes up problems where none exist.
I think your numbers are kinda wrong
The numbers does not add up when we look at how much they have lost in the war so far...
And we add up how much of the stuff they do have that does not work or work at 100%
So would wish you would take those number in...
And I know even with all that Russia still have much more.
But Rememeber Scandinavia still have 10 times better Stuff
But still far less to do anything big
Btw. Russia do not have a Airrcarft carrier...
Its under repair and will mostly stay that way for many years to come
So thats why I see it like they dont have one
And the ship is a battleship with Aircrafts on. But still suck
And whats the point in using Nuclear weapons if you want the LAND! But you can't use it for the next 100 year and even more (;
And we dont Dislike Russia. We just dont like Putin! And most of the leaders up to World War 2 And after
Slava Ukraini! From Denmark
Norway has those stealth subs. The ones that sunk the Ronald Reagan in war games
*Sweden.
Also, the conditions set in that excersize was a joke like saying Americans can't use sonar.
Särskilt i Östersjön är det mycket svårt att hitta en ubåt på grund av det skiktade vattnet.
The US loses almost every single wargame, but it's by design. The losses are made to show where your weakest points are.
@@user-cl8ux3iu9i Ja. Det kan man säga :)
This entire video is implying that Ukraine alone is stronger than 4 combined nations because they’ve withstood almost 3 years of war with Russia
Did you forget that Russia also has to keep at least some military presence in their eastern front, It will never get to the point that all their military equipment you counted up that Russia has to ever be all in Scandinavia regardless of a war or not and unlike Russia, Scandinavia only has Russia to worry about since rest of neighbors and nearby countries are allies.
12k Tanks?
T34?
They've literally been taking tanks out of their museums, so maybe T34's are next.
@@Onnarashi And the museum curators will be sent along with them. What's the point in running a museum with no items left?
@@Onnarashi Wonder how long until we see Russian T26 and T28 on the battle field.
The video is talking total rubbish, Russia have lost their best forces, have a military strategy that was obsolete 80 years ago, most of the military budget is lost to corruption.
They would appear to have the third best military in Ukraine behind both the Ukrainians and the free Russian / Siberian battalion.
@@mikitz Well, maybe they also figured their soldiers should be the same age as their tanks.
@@richarddavies7728 Yeah, you know things are bad when the Russian navy loses ships to a supposedly "inferior" military force WITHOUT A NAVY! The Russians were so embarassed by the sinking of the Moskva they'd rather make up a story about sailors taking a smoke break that blew up the entire ship.
Uh their navy and air force are shot to shat😂 with no navy Ukraine is dominating the water and denying Russia in the air that’s why they stay within Russia when flying
It won't be just the Scandinavian country's fighting putin alone
No, Finland isn't Scandinavian no matter what people think about the matter. Just say Nordic countries if you want to include Finland. How hard is that?
Yep, sometimes it's hard to take the rest of the video seriously when they mess up even with the basics.
I'm a Dane, and including the Finns in our common Scandinavian siblinghood is no brainer. That viewpoint is a hill most Danes are willing to die on!(Looking at you mighty Sky mountain of Jylland)
He literally said exactly what you wanted. Did you even watch it?
I don't think most people even know that's a thing.
Very true
Slava ukraini 💪
Once again we have a dire prognostication of war for PART of NATO, completely disregarding that these are all NATO member states and that Article 5 of the NATO treaty applies, bringing the military, industrial, and logistical strengths of the rest of NATO. No one in Russian would try this, though that does not mean NATO can ignore what is going on in Ukraine and within Russia itself.
They've all been part of the Joint Expeditionary Force since 2012.
Not much in this video that is correct
Come'on Pootin we are ready!😊
I'd say we have extremely friendly relations with each other in Scandinavia with a healthy dose of sibling rivalry. Tho just a quick google search on how many times and how long Sweden and Denmark has been at war in the past would surprise many.
Without watching the video: The Finns.
Boring outdated statistics
The biggest difference between Sweden and Finland in this regard is that while the Finns have been doomsday prepping for the past eight decades, Swedes had their previous war back in 1809 (which was consequently against Russia and which they lost).
Well, Sweden was "doomsday prepping" just as much as Finland (if not more) but then stopped doing that in the 1990's because of the fall of the Soviet union. "Everlasting peace" and all that, yeah that didn't work out.
Russia invded Ukraine, Finland then applied for Nato membership while Russia promised military/techical reactions, still both Finland and Sweden are now in Nato. Most countries would have been scared to death in simolar situation, but nothing happened althought Ukraine war happened because of the so-called 'NATO enlargement'.
I am from Moose Factory, ON Canada, recently the Canadian Armed Forces were training along side the Norways best of the best.
Sweden more then 2% gdp in deffens budget
Isn't it around 2.4% right now? Or is it 2.3% perhaps? Don't really remember.
@@vincentivarsson1818 In 2024, Sweden will spend around 2%. Finland will spend around 2.3%
Russias army is incompetent, this is ignored in this vid.
1/3 of Russia fleet has become subs also. Nothing in this video is correct
@@anderskarlsson5910 The black sea fleet is Russias smalles fleet. You dont know what you are talking about.
@@attilamarics3374 Does the Moskva mean anything to you?
@@davidford3115 The blakc sea fleet isnt Russias entire fleet.
@@attilamarics3374 And yet it is a very good measurement of the entire fleet. Tell me, does the Kursk submarine disaster mean anything to you?
Citizens from Denmark and Sweden and Norway speak almost the same language. Finland's language is very different, and incomprehensible to the citizens of the other countries. But the 4 different countries in Scandinavia stick together and cooperate in many ways beyond the military.
Dont forget. 300 000 hunters in Sweden. Beware if they gets angry. 👍
And 350000 hunters in Finland as well.
Russia doesn't really have 12,000 tanks. Ukraine has destroyed most of their best ones and most of the rest are more or less egg cartons in two senses; 1) they are vulnerable to the Nordic countries enhanced Leopard2 tanks due to that leading staff in Russia sold vital parts of the newer ones and the rest are WWII and cold war tanks and 2) they are operated by egg heads since those who knew how to operate them died in Ukraine.
If Russia would try to invade Finland with ground troops they are up to a major hell due to the many lakes in Finland.
Then when it comes to Scandinavia you are wrong. The Scandinavian peninsula consists of Norway and Sweden. When mentioning Scandinavia, Denmark is often included, while Finland is not. Finland is part of the Nordic countries together with Sweden, Norway, Denmark AND Iceland.
Technically Russia has a lot of tanks, but they don't work and the tanks are rusting behind the Urals.
no wars in the close history? winter war?
Depends on how "close" history we are talking. No wars for 79 years or so.
@@patrickuotinen 79 years is nothing in history
@@tememaster17 the question was about "close" history not about history in general. As a historian I know, that in general people use the term "close history2 (lähihistoria in Finnish) in different meanings, but among historians it is currently usually used about the time since WW II. It will change, but with close history we are usually talking about a time period, from which there are some witnesses left.
The defense spending for Sweden is way off. They spend 11.3 billion dollars this year, which is a little bit over 2% of GDP.
some serious overstating of Russia's capabilities here.
what a load of crap
Unsubscribing
As if Russia has any functioning aircraft carriers anymore :)
Sweden has increased it’s military spending to 2.1% of their GDP
I believe that Russia would have serious problems ferrying troops and equipment over the Baltic sea. A lot of it would probably end up on the bottom of the Baltic Sea.
The US and allies would hunt things like Russian tanks and missile defenses like they were rabbit round-ups. The Shock and Awe show would be a tea party versus what offensive and border Russian facilities and forces would see, and Putin knows this too. Even Trump would be hard pressed to wait at all, as his base is still mainly law and order folk, who couldn't abide a Putin, doing as he pleases, to old allies, and countries the US admires.
Difference is Scandinavian gear isn't rusted or cracking at the seams. And their soldiers aren't constantly drunk or molesting each other with foreign objects.