PPRuNe Forums - Boris and bilateral security assurances: Sweden and Finland

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)

- - Boris and bilateral security assurances: Sweden and Finland (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/646645-boris-bilateral-security-assurances-sweden-finland.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beamr (Post 11230620)

To add some (naval)aviation content, the USS Kearsarge is steaming close to the Swedish coast on the Baltic Sea.
There are some joint amphibious exercises going on there as the Swedish naval HQ is in Karlskrona. USS Kearsarge is accompanied by USS Gravely and USS Gunston Hall.

Thats a big ship for the Baltic Sea with quite some equipment. Makes a statement.

Given the recent events in the Black Sea, is such gunboat diplomacy still effective?

Quote:

Originally Posted by etudiant (Post 11230849)

Given the recent events in the Black Sea, is such gunboat diplomacy still effective?

theres a slight difference in the level of diplomacy as the Russian fleet is doing their deed as uninvited but the US fleet has been invited.
The Russian fleet is killing innocent women, children and men while actively invading a sovereign country. Meanwhile the US fleet is practicing with friends how to protect the innocent civilians from an unjust attack.

The main difference being as always: were you invited or not.

Socialdems in Sweden changed their stance yesterday now saying it's better to be in NATO, so there is a large majority in parliament to vote it through and then file the application...

Swedish prime minister Magdalena Andrrsson just officially annouced that Sweden will apply to join NATO and will do it together with Finland. That's it then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clop_Clop (Post 11230906)

Socialdems in Sweden changed their stance yesterday now saying it's better to be in NATO, so there is a large majority in parliament to vote it through and then file the application...

Don't forget the decision to admit a country into NATO has to be unanimous, Turkey will want something in return for agreeing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninthace (Post 11231097)

Don't forget the decision to admit a country into NATO has to be unanimous, Turkey will want something in return for agreeing.

And Hungary may block them too - their President seems another Putin fanboy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninthace (Post 11231097)

Don't forget the decision to admit a country into NATO has to be unanimous, Turkey will want something in return for agreeing.

Sweden's Foreign Minister put it very succinctly:

"If [we] were to decide to do take that alternative (joining NATO) I think we would get very, very strong support from large and important countries who are members with whom Turkey has an interest in having good relations"

Notwithstanding Erdogan's huffing and puffing, there is no way Turkey is going to veto either Sweden's or Finland's application to join NATO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davef68 (Post 11231100)

And Hungary may block them too - their President seems another Putin fanboy

Wrong. And Hungary's President is female - and has condemned Putin's actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davef68 (Post 11231100)

And Hungary may block them too - their President seems another Putin fanboy

You have confused PM and President 👍

Quote:

Originally Posted by macmp419 (Post 11231254)

You have confused PM and President 👍

I have indeed. these two tier democracies confuse my old brain! Apologies to the Hungarian President (If she reads this)

The Foreign Minister of Finland mr. Pekka Haavisto has just signed the letter requesting to join NATO. To my understanding mr. Jens Stoltenberg will receive it tomorrow.

here's the letter,

Quote:

Your Excellency,

the President of the Republic of Finland has decided to confirm to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Finland's interest to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty and in engaging in the accession talks with NATO. The Parliament of Finland was heard in the process.

I have therefore the honor to convey this interest to you on behalf of the Government of Finland.

I would also like to confirm that Finland’s decision to apply for NATO membership enjoys wide parliamentary and public support.

Yours sincerely,

Pekka Haavisto

Minister for Foreign Affairs

Finland

https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/10616/finland-declares-its-interest-to-accede-to-nato

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beamr (Post 11230885)

No argument on that aspect, my point was solely that big ships in confined seas are demonstrably very vulnerable, which undercuts their utility as a show of force.

My misunderstanding, apologies.

I am no navak warfare expert but I would say that the Russians don't even dream of making an attack against any US asset after their categorical failure to use any military force in Ukraine. So I'd say it's a rather safe way to deliver a message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beamr (Post 11231773)

Probably so, but so far Putin’s most effective weapons are threats, and I wouldn’t put much stock in hopes of rational behavior.

The Finnish and Swedish applications has been handed over to NATO.

Happens at 16:45 in the video on the tweet.

" my point was solely that big ships in confined seas are demonstrably very vulnerable"

It's 75+ years since big ships were used in any seas in large numbers. I suspect we'd be in for a shock if it ever happened now. Attack options have come on a lot further than defensive ones since 1945.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asturias56 (Post 11231822)

It's 75+ years since big ships were used in any seas in large numbers. I suspect we'd be in for a shock if it ever happened now. Attack options have come on a lot further than defensive ones since 1945.

Do you know how many CVBGs were in the Persian Gulf for the 1991 war? (Yeah, that was 30 years ago). I think it was four. (Well, three then four, memory was imperfect there). The other two were in the Red Sea. Also in the PG was a major amphibious flotilla, and plenty of Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates, and supply ships. Lots of big ships there.

I wonder how long it is since one big ship sank another big ship directly as distinct from the use of air power?

Erdogan refuses admission of Nordic countries into NATO he won’t budge no matter what there is the end of the proposal
i don’t see see any way around it diplomatically or otherwise
wonder how much Putin influences Erdogan decision

Quote:

Originally Posted by magyarflyer (Post 11232046)

I think that Turkey is looking to take advantage of any Russian problems in the Black Sea area.
Some interesting commentary from a Turkish observer here in that regard.
Granted, he's an analyst, not a foreign minister or a prime minister.

Spoiler

When Ukraine wins the war, the balance of power in the Black Sea region will change fundamentally. Having exposed its own profound operational problems, Russia will no longer enjoy the perception of superiority. Expect more challenges, especially from Black Sea countries. Ukraine will emerge from the war stronger, with an experienced army and coastal defenses strengthened by new Western anti-ship weapons that will further reduce Russia’s ability to patrol coastal waters. Both Romania and Georgia are interested in a greater U.S. and NATO presence in the Black Sea.

Turkey’s approach to Russia will change too. Its navy is already the strongest in the Black Sea, powered by new frigates armed with new indigenous technologies, and a growing submarine fleet that already outnumbers Russia’s Black Sea Fleet three to one.. It also has new gas fields in the Black Sea to protect. These changes are likely to affect implementation of the Montreux Convention. When Montreux was written, the Black Sea was understood to be under the control of the Soviet Union and Turkey, with the Soviet Union superior. Everything has changed now. Ukraine, Romania, and Georgia will want to review the limitations that Montreux currently imposes on ships from non-Black Sea countries in its waters.

For now, Turkey must use all its means to end the war sooner by choking off Russia’s illegal activity and revenues. Closer inspection is required of vessels transiting the Turkish Straits. NATO should be more vigilant about inspecting ships possibly carrying arms. Ro-ros bound for the Black Sea that are likely carrying suspicious cargo should be boarded and inspected in the international waters of the Mediterranean. Closure of the Turkish Straits to merchant ships working for the Russian war effort should be considered. Turkey should prevent civilian merchant vessels from supplying Russia’s wars by carrying military cargo.

Action must also be taken to re-establish global food security. Russia is stealing Ukrainian commodities on an industrial scale and selling them; profits from these illegitimate sales extend the war. Great amounts of stolen commodities end up in Turkey, some even carried inexplicably by the Syrian government shipping company SYRIAMAR. Buyers, including companies in Turkey, are wrong to get involved in this illegal trade. Turkey should instead focus on rebuilding Ukraine. While Russia continues to blockade Ukraine’s most essential ports at Odessa and Chornomorsk, its ships should be denied commercial access to the Turkish Straits.

Erdogan sees a situation that he can turn to his advantage, so he's going to make the most of it. And what he wants are concessions, or perhaps more 'yes' votes from Sweden and Finland and Germany (etc) as regards Turkey joining EU, among other things. (Yes, that's a bit of speculation on my part).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninthace (Post 11232018)

I wonder how long it is since one big ship sank another big ship directly as distinct from the use of air power?

Are you including collisions at sea in that musing? :}