Ukraine Redux

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Wait, you have more confidence in Al-Jazeera than in RT? 

 

I mean really, whose sock puppet account is this? really?

ShadySands'.

[Agiel]

As I said before I really wish someone compare Russia propaganda to the situation in Russia itself over the last decade, which has huge rise in nationalism, from neo-nazi (for white power, Russia for Russians etc), to attacks on immigrants, to several political parties who had far larger voter base then anything in Ukraine etc. (There is a reason why some called Russia "Weimar Russia" comparing the situation there to post ww1 Germany, because even though it is officially against fascism it is headed there) for perspective sake.

 

 

+1

 

As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime.

[obyknven]

 

As I said before I really wish someone compare Russia propaganda to the situation in Russia itself over the last decade, which has huge rise in nationalism, from neo-nazi (for white power, Russia for Russians etc), to attacks on immigrants, to several political parties who had far larger voter base then anything in Ukraine etc. (There is a reason why some called Russia "Weimar Russia" comparing the situation there to post ww1 Germany, because even though it is officially against fascism it is headed there) for perspective sake.

 

 

+1

 

As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime.

 

What your problem, seriously? Society today have two choices - be socialistic, or be  a fascist (any modern capitalism tends to this). West don't want socialistic Russia and support  right-wing movements in Russia many years for this, but now they blaming Russia as  a fascist state. It's just typical Western hypocrocity. If you don't want ressurection of USSR then shut up and be tolerant with Right-wing Russia (as all major Western businessmen do, Western corporations like Putin so much IRL).

All these childish talks about "democracy", "human rights"  and other populistic bull**** leave to yourself - Russians too pragmatic for this.

[213374U]

 

As I said before I really wish someone compare Russia propaganda to the situation in Russia itself over the last decade, which has huge rise in nationalism, from neo-nazi (for white power, Russia for Russians etc), to attacks on immigrants, to several political parties who had far larger voter base then anything in Ukraine etc. (There is a reason why some called Russia "Weimar Russia" comparing the situation there to post ww1 Germany, because even though it is officially against fascism it is headed there) for perspective sake.

 

 

+1

 

As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime.

 

 

Not that I disagree in principle... but drawing a parallel between some nobody Soviet nostalgic "activist" on the street and the Minister of Defense of Ukraine is not the best way to make your point. No, Euromaidan wasn't necessarily a far-right movement as a whole, but they did effectively relinquish control to the neo-nazi minority element by standing behind them when things took a nosedive in the streets, after they decided to abrogate the Feb 21 agreement, and most importantly, by excluding more moderate political figures from it:

 

 

It's a common element in the rise to power of fascist movements that, early on, they enjoy the support (or at least the acquiescence) of the generally more moderate majority sectors of society.

 

It's also funny that people will soil themselves at the though of "Russian boots on their necks again", but the strategy of systematic encirclement of Russia by NATO is, on the other hand, just fine.

Edited March 20, 2014 by 213374U

[BruceVC]

 

 

As I said before I really wish someone compare Russia propaganda to the situation in Russia itself over the last decade, which has huge rise in nationalism, from neo-nazi (for white power, Russia for Russians etc), to attacks on immigrants, to several political parties who had far larger voter base then anything in Ukraine etc. (There is a reason why some called Russia "Weimar Russia" comparing the situation there to post ww1 Germany, because even though it is officially against fascism it is headed there) for perspective sake.

 

 

+1

 

As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime.

 

 

It's also funny that people will soil themselves at the though of "Russian boots on their necks again", but the strategy of systematic encirclement of Russia by NATO is, on the other hand, just fine.

 

 

I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO.

 

But then in this debate lets acknowledge this, these spurious justifications that Russia moved into the Crimea because of the illegal removal of Yanukovych and the threat from Fascists are moot. Lets discuss the real reason the Crimean annexation

[Tagaziel]

I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO.

 

But then in this debate lets acknowledge this, these spurious justifications that Russia moved into the Crimea because of the illegal removal of Yanukovych and the threat from Fascists are moot. Lets discuss the real reason the Crimean annexation

There's also the little issue of Crimea having large deposits of gas and oil. Like eastern Ukraine. Now guess where "ethnic Russians" are campaigning for a return to the motherland...

 

Of course i wasn't that serious, but on the other hand they seem to thrive on the very same old anti-communist propaganda that existed before the war.

Russia does appear to aim for a restoration of the Soviet Union, so it should come as no surprise. Particularly for Poland, who had plenty of interactions (read: war) with the USSR.

 

This crisis does give the opportunity for my country to show off its proficiency in dealing with the east. <3 Radek Sikorski <3

 

Exactly. I do think that there were people who thought it might be a better idea to invade Iraq because of the oil, but it was probably not the deciding factor in itself. But let's look at the politicians who took the decisions here and here. Note that in the memo, they talk about manufacturing a threat towards the Kurds, a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, or some dispute over WMDs. "Unlike in Afghanistan, important to have ideas about who will rule afterwards". Note that the timeline mentions Rumsfeld selling a "War on Terror" with PR efforts even before 9/11, and that small-scale CIA operations to smear Saddam to (indirectly) garner support in the US for a regime change had been in place already in the early nineties. The PNAC think-tank, which is in all but name synonymous with the GWB administration, had existed earlier (since 1997), as had the JINSA think-tank which also had a significant overlap with the GWB administration. The people who made the decision to invade Iraq had all held their views that Iraq should be invaded long before the actual invasion.

 

Certainly oil was a part of it, but among the actual politicians most did not have direct connections to the oil industry. They were essentially the people who always advocated more military expenditures against the SU during the eighties and late seventies (if they were politically active at the time), and who supported every shady US-backed coup during the Cold War. Good old fashioned jingoists, chauvinists or "neocons" - the label for these people always seem to change during the periods their opinions fall out of fashion. I would encourage anyone who is interested to simply take a look at all the people close to Bush on Wikipedia and see what they have been doing earlier, it's really the best thing to do if you're interested in why they wanted the war in Iraq. The similarities between the US neocons and Putin's following in Russia (yes, the people who actually vote for him and think he's good) is probably marginal or none, it's just that they have different nations as a starting point for their ideologies.

 

 

I can offer no other reply, as you phrased what I wanted to say in an excellent way. I can have no hope of improving on it.

 

What? I would beg to differ... Also, what does it matter what you wrote about ethnic connections in 30000 BCE? Almost none - certainly none I can think of - of the peoples whom we make distinctions between today existed, or lived where they currently do. I would say there is no traceable culture left from that era, so what happened back then has no connection to today's cultures. Russians are a Slavic people, whose culture descends from the Indo-European culture, which pretty much every culture in Europe also descends from. They are pretty much just as European as most of eastern Europe.

You also have to define the term Europa. Whose definition do we use? The Greeks, centered around the Aegean? The Romans', centered around Rome? The concept of a common European heritage is relatively recent and excluding countries basing on their location is fairly arbitrary. Peter the Great specifically modernized the Russian Empire to bring it in line with contemporary European powers, is that enough? Or not?

 

If we go by culture and society, I wouldn't say Russians are non-European. Even if they have a strange government pursuing the Eurasian ideology (which would make sense centuries ago), regular Russians are still predominantly European.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Tagaziel

[Nepenthe]

 

 

 

As I said before I really wish someone compare Russia propaganda to the situation in Russia itself over the last decade, which has huge rise in nationalism, from neo-nazi (for white power, Russia for Russians etc), to attacks on immigrants, to several political parties who had far larger voter base then anything in Ukraine etc. (There is a reason why some called Russia "Weimar Russia" comparing the situation there to post ww1 Germany, because even though it is officially against fascism it is headed there) for perspective sake.

 

 

+1

 

As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime.

 

 

It's also funny that people will soil themselves at the though of "Russian boots on their necks again", but the strategy of systematic encirclement of Russia by NATO is, on the other hand, just fine.

 

 

I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO.

 

That depends on what his grasp of reality is and how much he believes his own propaganda. If the latter, he's reconstructing the Russian empire and Crimea makes a good starting point for that. Baltics, Finland, mebbe Poland etc. next.

 

For the Forgotten Realms fans, we have yet to see whether we are dealing with Bane or with Cyric after he read the Cyrinishad.

[Nepenthe]

 

I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO.

 

But then in this debate lets acknowledge this, these spurious justifications that Russia moved into the Crimea because of the illegal removal of Yanukovych and the threat from Fascists are moot. Lets discuss the real reason the Crimean annexation

There's also the little issue of Crimea having large deposits of gas and oil. Like eastern Ukraine. Now guess where "ethnic Russians" are campaigning for a return to the motherland...

 

 

I hadn't actually realised it was the old oil and gas game, like with Chechnya.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

As I said before I really wish someone compare Russia propaganda to the situation in Russia itself over the last decade, which has huge rise in nationalism, from neo-nazi (for white power, Russia for Russians etc), to attacks on immigrants, to several political parties who had far larger voter base then anything in Ukraine etc. (There is a reason why some called Russia "Weimar Russia" comparing the situation there to post ww1 Germany, because even though it is officially against fascism it is headed there) for perspective sake.

 

 

+1

 

As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime.

 

 

It's also funny that people will soil themselves at the though of "Russian boots on their necks again", but the strategy of systematic encirclement of Russia by NATO is, on the other hand, just fine.

 

 

I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO.

 

That depends on what his grasp of reality is and how much he believes his own propaganda. If the latter, he's reconstructing the Russian empire and Crimea makes a good starting point for that. Baltics, Finland, mebbe Poland etc. next.

 

For the Forgotten Realms fans, we have yet to see whether we are dealing with Bane or with Cyric after he read the Cyrinishad.

 

Nep you do realize that in a world dominated by Russian hegemony and geographical ambitions Finland should be part of the Russian empire. There is a positive to this, I imagine there would be interminable legal disputes...so work for lawyer would be easy to find....but how is your Russian by the way

[Tagaziel]

I hadn't actually realised it was the old oil and gas game, like with Chechnya.

It makes sense in perspective. Russia's economy is heavily based on exporting resources. Ukraine could compete a fair bit with its reserves in the eastern parts of the country and Crimea, so Russia seeks to tear these parts of the country away and annex them to reduce competition.

 

This is a strategy that will backfire, as Putin just reminded Europe that relying on a hostile foreign power to supply gas and oil is pretty crazy. EU member countries will diversify and reduce their reliance on Russia. Then again, as Sochi shows, Pootyn ain't the most rational planner.

[213374U]

 

 

 

As I said before I really wish someone compare Russia propaganda to the situation in Russia itself over the last decade, which has huge rise in nationalism, from neo-nazi (for white power, Russia for Russians etc), to attacks on immigrants, to several political parties who had far larger voter base then anything in Ukraine etc. (There is a reason why some called Russia "Weimar Russia" comparing the situation there to post ww1 Germany, because even though it is officially against fascism it is headed there) for perspective sake.

 

 

+1

 

As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime.

 

 

It's also funny that people will soil themselves at the though of "Russian boots on their necks again", but the strategy of systematic encirclement of Russia by NATO is, on the other hand, just fine.

 

 

I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO.

 

But then in this debate lets acknowledge this, these spurious justifications that Russia moved into the Crimea because of the illegal removal of Yanukovych and the threat from Fascists are moot. Lets discuss the real reason the Crimean annexation

 

 

Because it's either/or, right? That is convenient as that way we can simply ignore everything else and focus on the Enemy Of The Week, as has been the official party line from day one. We do feel quite naked without our blindfolds. No, thanks. Let's not forget that Russia subscribed to the Feb 21 agreement. Putin has moved much faster (and with far greater boldness) than the US and EU anticipated, but he's still basically reacting. One of the Russian Ukrainians in the video Agiel posted hit the nail on the head: Russia has lost Ukraine as a partner nation, and annexing Crimea and south east Ukraine isn't going to change that. The hydrocarbons are a nice bonus, as is the large amount of arable land (agriculture is one of the main economic sectors of Ukraine), but for a country that's already the world's largest oil producer -and with huge untapped reserves in east Siberia- it's definitely not the motive.

 

In the event that Putin may be trying to resurrect the Russian Empire, maybe that is a good reason to actually start promoting strong, stable and independent democratic regimes within the Russian sphere of influence, instead of propping up corrupt kleptocrats more receptive to western suggestion, hmm?

[Rostere]

Wait, you have more confidence in Al-Jazeera than in RT? 

 

I mean really, whose sock puppet account is this? really?

 

You should visit their site more often and check them out for yourself... http://www.aljazeera.com/

 

Al Jazeera is way more credible than RT. I fact, I think it's generally one of the best news sources when it comes to the ME and developing countries in general. To be honest, I have no idea why people would feel they are a bad news source. Maybe it's because uninformed bigots think "Al Jazeera" sounds like "Al Qaeda"? They obviously have a focus - the ME - which shapes what news they're interested in reporting (just like most American news channels have a focus on the US), but that's pretty much it. Personally, I think that their great coverage of the Iraq war (considering they were the only independent news source on the ground), and the later far more crucial role during the Arab Spring has made them the most important - with respect to how much they have changed the previous status quo - news channel thus far into this century.

 

For people in the ME, real (non-English) journalism on TV not tied to their government or other political movements was often very scarce until Al Jazeera came along. AJ was also the first Arab news channel to feature Israelis on panels debating the I-P conflict and during Cast Lead they had an IDF spokesperson in pretty much every news update, that should say something about their intent of impartiality. To compare, name one US news channel which regularly features comment from Palestinian spokespersons on news updates about the I-P conflict. Here's a recent feature I watched the other day about international arms trade, featuring arms trade experts from SIPRI and Jane's Information Group. Watch yourself and see if you think it's professional and serious news TV. This is another feature I saw linked a lot on Facebook earlier.

 

Their "Opinion" pieces by independent journalists can feature crackpots at times though, but at least they draw the line clearly to separate their serious journalism from "interesting opinions from unrelated people".

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

As I said before I really wish someone compare Russia propaganda to the situation in Russia itself over the last decade, which has huge rise in nationalism, from neo-nazi (for white power, Russia for Russians etc), to attacks on immigrants, to several political parties who had far larger voter base then anything in Ukraine etc. (There is a reason why some called Russia "Weimar Russia" comparing the situation there to post ww1 Germany, because even though it is officially against fascism it is headed there) for perspective sake.

 

 

+1

 

As I've said before, while Svobada certainly aren't the most agreeable folks the Russians who say, without irony, "Little Russia should be one with Big Russia again" or that "Europe is due to feel what it's like to have a Russian boot on their neck again" are no better. The Russian nationalists who are that quick to denounce the entire Euromaidan movement as "fascist" ought to look at themselves in the mirror sometime.

 

 

It's also funny that people will soil themselves at the though of "Russian boots on their necks again", but the strategy of systematic encirclement of Russia by NATO is, on the other hand, just fine.

 

 

I've mentioned this several times but it has been ignored by people, the real reason for the Crimean annexation is that Putin wants a buffer zone around the borders of Russia. I can understand this as there is perceived idealogical threat from EU and NATO.

 

But then in this debate lets acknowledge this, these spurious justifications that Russia moved into the Crimea because of the illegal removal of Yanukovych and the threat from Fascists are moot. Lets discuss the real reason the Crimean annexation

 

 

Because it's either/or, right? That is convenient as that way we can simply ignore everything else and focus on the Enemy Of The Week, as has been the official party line from day one. We do feel quite naked without our blindfolds. No, thanks. Let's not forget that Russia subscribed to the Feb 21 agreement. Putin has moved much faster (and with far greater boldness) than the US and EU anticipated, but he's still basically reacting. One of the Russian Ukrainians in the video Agiel posted hit the nail on the head: Russia has lost Ukraine as a partner nation, and annexing Crimea and south east Ukraine isn't going to change that. The hydrocarbons are a nice bonus, as is the large amount of arable land (agriculture is one of the main economic sectors of Ukraine), but for a country that's already the world's largest oil producer -and with huge untapped reserves in east Siberia- it's definitely not the motive.

 

In the event that Putin may be trying to resurrect the Russian Empire, maybe that is a good reason to actually start promoting strong, stable and independent democratic regimes within the Russian sphere of influence, instead of propping up corrupt kleptocrats more receptive to western suggestion, hmm?

 

 

You make some interesting points, I thought Saudi Arabia was the worlds biggest oil producer but I checked and it is Russia. And yes it would make sense if Ukraine was a unified country but politically aligned to Russia but thats not the reality. So even though in the interests of Russian hegemony you would want Ukraine to remain independent but be part of a Russian union what Putin has done to create a buffer zone is still not acceptable

[BruceVC]

 

Wait, you have more confidence in Al-Jazeera than in RT? 

 

I mean really, whose sock puppet account is this? really?

 

You should visit their site more often and check them out for yourself... http://www.aljazeera.com/

 

Al Jazeera is way more credible than RT. I fact, I think it's generally one of the best news sources when it comes to the ME and developing countries in general. To be honest, I have no idea why people would feel they are a bad news source. Maybe it's because uninformed bigots think "Al Jazeera" sounds like "Al Qaeda"? They obviously have a focus - the ME - which shapes what news they're interested in reporting (just like most American news channels have a focus on the US), but that's pretty much it. Personally, I think that their great coverage of the Iraq war (considering they were the only independent news source on the ground), and the later far more crucial role during the Arab Spring has made them the most important - with respect to how much they have changed the previous status quo - news channel thus far into this century.

 

For people in the ME, real (non-English) journalism on TV not tied to their government or other political movements was often very scarce until Al Jazeera came along. AJ was also the first Arab news channel to feature Israelis on panels debating the I-P conflict and during Cast Lead they had an IDF spokesperson in pretty much every news update, that should say something about their intent of impartiality. To compare, name one US news channel which regularly features comment from Palestinian spokespersons on news updates about the I-P conflict. Here's a recent feature I watched the other day about international arms trade, featuring arms trade experts from SIPRI and Jane's Information Group. Watch yourself and see if you think it's professional and serious news TV. This is another feature I saw linked a lot on Facebook earlier.

 

Their "Opinion" pieces by independent journalists can feature crackpots at times though, but at least they draw the line clearly to separate their serious journalism from "interesting opinions from unrelated people".

 

 

I agree, I watch the English version AJ often and they sometimes have insight and interviews with people that your normal Western news channels don't have. Especially around the ME as you mentioned. I also think they offer an objective opinion of most news stories unlike RT

Edited March 20, 2014 by BruceVC

[obyknven]

Lol, Polish threads become so funny because  of Ukraine.

>Question to Germans.
>Why do you always cling to Russia so much, even tho it wants to **** you up.
>It's like a ex-gf, still in love with her bf who beated her up many times, but she still hopes for something good.
>Don't you remember 1919-1921 when Russians were on their way to liberate you? Don;t you remember the rapes in 45, Russian ccupation of eastern Germony?
>It's sad to see that Germany is the weakest link in the EU when it comes to standing up to Russia. And even now you sell the shale gas concesions in Poland to Russians(all the good places were given to PGE anyway) and it hurts to see.
>I thought we were allies

Allies 

>It's sad indeed, the Fench are selling weapons to Russia as we speak as well.
>NATO is dead. Everyone is on their own.

 Lol, butthurt, they produce so many russophobic sh*t during last years and fear punishment now.
 

>>I thought we were allies
>Hahaha, good joke!

[213374U]

what Putin has done to create a buffer zone is still not acceptable

 

Actually, Ukraine pre-Maidan was a buffer zone. The likely product of this sad episode, to wit, an extremely anti-Russian Ukrainian remnant and territories annexed by Russia is the complete opposite.

[Agiel]

Nep you do realize that in a world dominated by Russian hegemony and geographical ambitions Finland should be part of the Russian empire. There is a positive to this, I imagine there would be interminable legal disputes...so work for lawyer would be easy to find....but how is your Russian by the way 

 

 

Ah yes, fraternal love for all Russo-Baltic peoples...

 

 

...one headshot at a time.

 

On a serious note, it would seem that the renewed impetus of neighbouring countries such as Sweden officially joining NATO was one of the second and third order things Putin hadn't really thought through with his recent escapades:

 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140316/DEFREG01/303160008/Russian-Threat-Re-Energizes-Sweden-s-Push-Join-NATO-Boost-Spending

Edited March 20, 2014 by Agiel

[BruceVC]

 

what Putin has done to create a buffer zone is still not acceptable

 

Actually, Ukraine pre-Maidan was a buffer zone. The likely product of this sad episode, to wit, an extremely anti-Russian Ukrainian remnant and territories annexed by Russia is the complete opposite.

 

 

This is weird but I agree with you

 

The net result of this whole Ukrainian crisis is a country that is ideologically polarized and aligned to different political blocs

[Tagaziel]

On a serious note, it would seem that the renewed impetus of neighbouring countries such as Sweden officially joining NATO was one of the second and third order things Putin hadn't really thought through with his recent escapades:

I think it's important to remember that Putin is a person who apparently sincerely believes that homosexual people are all paedophiles.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Tagaziel

[Malcador]

I think it's pretty hard to say what that man sincerely believes from just watching him.

[HoonDing]

Wait... Oby is Polish?

[Nepenthe]

Nep you do realize that in a world dominated by Russian hegemony and geographical ambitions Finland should be part of the Russian empire. There is a positive to this, I imagine there would be interminable legal disputes...so work for lawyer would be easy to find....but how is your Russian by the way

 

 

I'd just get shot for my big mouth.

[Rostere]

On a serious note, it would seem that the renewed impetus of neighbouring countries such as Sweden officially joining NATO was one of the second and third order things Putin hadn't really thought through with his recent escapades:

 

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140316/DEFREG01/303160008/Russian-Threat-Re-Energizes-Sweden-s-Push-Join-NATO-Boost-Spending

 

The information in the article is outdated though, ThyssenKrupp will not be making submarines for Sweden in the future. The entire reason for ThyssenKrupp building submarines for Sweden is because the Swedish shipyard Kockums was sold to HDW (now owned by ThyssenKrupp) in the 00s. In recent years it's been clear that this was - of course - just a way for HDW (a German shipyard and the sole serious alternative to Kockums in the field of stealth submarines) to eliminate their competition. The Swedish state has however not been able to do business with ThyssenKrupp on favourable terms, so another alternative to ThyssenKrupp is now being investigated: Saab (the weapons manufacturer, not the car manufacturer of the same name). Due to complaints about organizational mismanagement and mercantilist practices (in favour of HDW versus Kockums), most of the Swedish submarine experts have already left Kockums for Saab. FMV own the blueprints to the A26 themselves, so it's just a matter of where exactly they will physically build it.

[obyknven]

Wait... Oby is Polish?

  All true Poles live in Russia. Poland for pussies.

 

[Gorgon]

Russia’s expansionist actions in Ukraine pose a real threat for Sweden, and one that could be repeated in the Baltic states, said Peter Hultqvist, chairman of the Parliamentary Defense Committee (PDC).

 

Umm. No, not really. There is no historical claim or contested land that Russia could invade to 'protect' local Russians.