Sweden and Russias joint military History

[Dalregementet]

When reading posts on this forum, I have noticed a great deal of ignorance about Swedens and Russias joint military history. A history notorious for it´s violence and long term mutual hostility and distrust.

The battles have been fought over a large geographical area - Swedish troops has entered Moscow and Russian troops has in its turn raided Sweden. Strangely enough, the geographical frontiers between Sweden and Russia are, in the big picture, the same as a millenium ago.

I do hope we can discuss Swedens and Russias joint military history in a positive spirit with the objective to shed new light on the topic. I think the topic is especially interesting since Russia plan to celebrate it's 300 year anniversary regarding the victory over Sweden 1709, the battle at Poltava.

I hope that if some individual can´t stick to the forum rules, the mods warns/bans that individual instead of closing the thread entirely.

- - - - - - - - - -

A background:

Swedes with the label "Ros" founded Russia (Novgorod Rus and Kiev Rus) about 1200 years ago according to the Russian Primary Chronicle, written by the monk Nestor in Kiev 1113. This is also backed up by archeologial findings.
According to the Primary Chronicle, The Rus prince, Rurik, set up a Viking kingdom at Novgorod. The kingdom later expanded to also include Kiev. The dynasty is called the Rurikids. Out of the name of the "Rus" people derived the name "Russia". Note - The original Russia has nothing to do with the Muscovy Duchy.

We shall not mix the original Russia with the Muscovite Duchy - the Muscovites emerges later in Russian historý.

Read "viking Rus" by the russian archeologist Wladyslaw Duczko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus_(people)

Sweden is to this day still called "Ros" by Finns and Estonians - "Ruotsi".

The ruling house in the new founded Rus was the Swedish Rurikids, a house that ended 1598 when Tsar Feodor I died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik_Dynasty

Swedens first city, as far as we know, was Birka (750-975). A city mentioned in the late 9th century by Rimbert, the arch bishop of Bremen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Ansgari

The city was well defended by a standing garrison of about 40 professional warriors, warriors that was a part of a structure that streched from Sweden to Kiev and beyond. The new findings from Birka are sensational in many ways. The warriors had a common uniform and their weaponry was to a high degree standardised. However, specific wepaons was brought in from other places, helmets from Kiev and composite bows from inner asia.

The town was destroyed by an enemy 975 AD and then never rebuilt again. Analyzes of the enemy arrow heads, type M68, shows that the enemy came from the area of Gnëzdovo, Smolensk in Russia. Thus the first known war between Svea Rike (Sweden) and Rus (Russia). This was probably an internal power struggle between different Rus fractions that were related to each other.

As example, Yaroslav I the Wise (978-1054), Grand Prince of Novgorod and Kiev, was married to Ingegerd Olofsdotter, daughter of the Swedish King Olof Skötkonung.

So - A joint origin, geographically and ancestry - Sweden, but then different interests over time that leads to a split.

This was a beginning. Why I started so far back in history is of great importance in order to understand later historic events/wars between Sweden and Russia, as well as events in our time. Ukrainian identity as well as Russian identity are related to the above mentioned facts and are also a part of an ongoing power struggle between theses states. Also, in todays Putin neo nationalistic Russia , it doesn´t fit in that Russia was founded by Swedish Vikings, the Rus. In the Soviet times, this fact was tabu as described by Wladyslaw Duczko and there's a risk that this will happen again under Putin.

End of Part 1.

 

[Dalregementet]

Part 2 - the split

Five major (at least) events takes place that draws a line between Sweden/Finland and Russia.

1. Sweden becomes catholic, conquers Finland that then also becomes catholic. Russia becomes Greek Orthodox.

2. The border between Sweden/Finland and Novgorod is north of Umeå and the border is precisely at Bygdestenen in Sweden. The land north of Bygdestenen was Novgorod territory. Today, the Swedish cities of Skellefteå, Luleå, Piteå, Kiruna and Haparanda lies in this area. In Finland, all land north of the line Systerbäck-Saimen.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Treaty-of-Nöteborg.png
http://finnpro2000.tripod.com/forhistoria.htm#3.1

When Kiev and Novgorod is being attacked by Mongols, Sweden seizes all areas in the Bottnia area (northern Sweden and Finland). This is basically todays borders. Novgorod/Russia tries to retake the areas but fails.

The Swedish conquest creates "bad blood" that lasts for centuries.

3. Kiev Rus is being invaded ny mongols. Muscovy acts as the mongols tax collector and also collects "mongol" tax from Novgorod. The mongol invasion changes Russia significantly. Muscovy is being able to subdue the other Rus kingdoms, partially with mongol support.

4. The people in Novgorod is being massagred by the muscovites - the last historic connection with Sweden is lost. Muscovy names all of their territories "Russia" in order to get legitimacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Novgorod
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovite_Russia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus'


5. The last Rurikid, Feodor Ivanovich dies - the "Times of troble begins" for Russia. Both Sweden and Poland tries to put "their man" on the Russian throne. The Rurikid prince Vasily Shuisky takes power in Russia. He forms a Russian Swedish alliance and Swedish troops enter Moscow. Poland intervenes, forcing Vasily Shuisky to abdicate. In 1613, after a rebellion against the poles, the Romanov dynasty takes power over Russia.

There is no historic ties with Sweden and Rus left. The split is definitive.

 

[Dalregementet]

Part 3 - mindset/mentality

During Viking age, the men were free. They could vote at the thing, claim their rights. There were also thralls (slaves), most of these were prisoners taken in war or on raids. Most of these thralls were probably slavs.

When christianity (catholicism) were implemented, the thrall system vanished. One reason to that the thrall system never went over to serfdom, was that feudalism never got foothold in Sweden. The farmers were free men and they could claim their rights in the courts - and so they did.

When Sweden conquered other countries like Finland, Reval, Kurland etc many people living like serfs get their standard of living improved. Maybe not to the full extent like in Sweden but it improved. The situation in Finland for farmers and serfs were much harder. This changed dramatically some time after the Finnish civil war, Klubbekriget in the late 16th century.

In Russia on the other hand, the Rus people had thralls. This went over to a serfdom system. 1678, 80% of the russian peasants were serfs, i.e. their landowners owned them.

Slavery remained a major institution in Russia until 1723, when Peter the Great converted the household slaves into house serfs. Russian agricultural slaves were formally converted into serfs earlier in 1679.[4][5]

By the mid-19th century, the peasants composed a majority of the population, and according to the census of 1857 the number of private serfs was 23.1 million out of 62.5 million Russians.

Serfdom was abolished in 1861, but its abolition was achieved on terms unfavorable to the peasants and served to increase revolutionary pressures

How has this system affected russian mentallity? I guess it creates a specific mindset when a persons life is not worth much - no rights, no property, no marriage, children...


Now, back to military matters.

When Swedish troops met Russian troops in the 16th century and later, the Swedish troops knew that the men they faced were serfs, thus less capable in fighting. This view, that Swedish officers and soldiers had, is important to know in understanding why Swedish troops had no problem in attacking a russian enemy that in numbers were superior. Most times it went well, in Poltava 1709, it didn´t.

The structures from the russian serfdom system is still visible in todays Russia and impacts political mind set, political rethoric, military discipline etc etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_serfdom

 

[Feanor]

The structures from the russian serfdom system is still visible in todays Russia and impacts political mind set, political rethoric, military discipline etc etc.

Actually I would argue that Soviet-era mentality has more to do with the modern Russian identity then serfdom. There is even a term "sovok" for someone who is thinking in Soviet era terms. Alexander Gradsky expressed this very well in his poetry when he wrote

"Будь ты рокер или инок,
Ты в советской луже вымок
И пребудешь таковым ты,
Даже выйдя за порог."

http://soviet-via.ru/page.php?id=146

 

[Dalregementet]

Actually I would argue that Soviet-era mentality has more to do with the modern Russian identity then serfdom. There is even a term "sovok" for someone who is thinking in Soviet era terms. Alexander Gradsky expressed this very well in his poetry when he wrote

"Будь ты рокер или инок,
Ты в советской луже вымок
И пребудешь таковым ты,
Даже выйдя за порог."

http://soviet-via.ru/page.php?id=146

Excuse my ignorance regarding the russian language - can you translate the poem? Also, whats the difference between Soviet-era menatlity and serfdom? Wasn´t communism just another way to supress the russian people, deny them of basic human rights?

 

[Feanor]

Communism and the Soviet system are not equivalent by any means. If you want to have a discussion on communism, what it is, and how it can work (and not work) feel free to pm me, as political discussion here is against the forum rules. However Soviet mentality is quite different because it implies far more then denial of human rights, and not so much denial of human rights. It implies a certain willingness to accept government action by fiat, and the need to bribe officials to get anything done. It implies a system of under the table corruption from the most grass roots level to the highest offices. It implies a certain mentality towards government and authority in general, one that accepts it, but has no problem bending the rules, or doing things based on personal connections within the government.

It's hard to explain, but overall it has far more impact on modern Russian mentality then distant history of serfdom and rural agricultural society. That memory was mostly wiped out by the industrialization, collectivisation, and second world war.

 

[SkolZkiy]

About corruption - it is everywhere as you can see - US, Germany, Britain - everywhere.
But I agree with Feanor - even I, who was born in 1986, define myself as "made in USSR". and this mentality will live in Russia for a long time - in some way it is wrong but in another way it was very good. the FAMILY of nations - may with some keen angles but it was a FAMILY. I hope that those good things that were in SU will resurrect in RU

 

[SkolZkiy]

So you want to say that Sweden lost only one battle???

 

[Dalregementet]

So you want to say that Sweden lost only one battle???

Nope - we lost more than one. But Sweden also won more battles than it lost. Both on land and on sea. However, you tend to remeber the last ones more than the others. Sweden managed very well, as Finland, and even though the Swdish and Finnish populations are small, they managed to stand up against a numerical superior enemy - why was that?

A point is that russia now geographically is back where it was more than 400 years ago. Sweden now cooperates with Finland and the Baltic countries. Time hasn´t changed that much.

My texts do describe a mental separation between Sweden and Russia that is important to understand. It also sheds some light over the background to some of todays events.

Regarding mentality and norms:
Why do I think the way I think? Why do I have a specific opinion? What norms are inherited and what is my own thinking? Difficult to say, isn't it?
My belief is that we inherit more norms than we are aware of. This of course also reflects the way we carry out wars, our organisation, our rules, our punishments - what we do and what we don't do. What we do and how we do it.

An example:
Why do russia believe that russia has a right to dominate other people and/or countries? Why the "near abroad" definition? Now, if there is a russian mentality that says it is ok to dominate others, treating them like "serfs", then there is a historical/social explenationto that, isn´t it?

 

[Feanor]

Why do russia believe that russia has a right to dominate other people and/or countries?

Do you have evidence that a large enough chunk of Russians believe that, for it to be considered a cultural phenomenon or national trait? Or is this your assumption? Do not confuse our (screwed up) government with the people.

Why the "near abroad" definition?

Refers to the FSU states. Countries that typically have significant Russian population, Russian language penetration, and that are economically largely tied to Russia with ties left over from the Soviet Union. Countries that are part of the CIS.

Now, if there is a russian mentality that says it is ok to dominate others, treating them like "serfs", then there is a historical/social explenationto that, isn´t it?

IF there is. Please demonstrate that in a tangible manner.

 

[Dalregementet]

Do you have evidence that a large enough chunk of Russians believe that, for it to be considered a cultural phenomenon or national trait? Or is this your assumption? Do not confuse our (screwed up) government with the people.

Governments are elected by the people in most countries - even in russia. The people has to take responsibility for which leaders they choose. The choice is either active (elections) or passive (accepting a corrupt/criminal government).

Near Abroad
Refers to the FSU states. Countries that typically have significant Russian population, Russian language penetration, and that are economically largely tied to Russia with ties left over from the Soviet Union. Countries that are part of the CIS.

THE CONCEPT OF THE “NEAR ABROAD”
The picture would be incomplete without mentioning the established important distinction in Russian security discourse between the “near abroad” and the “distant abroad.” According to this view, the former USSR members are deprived of normal rights in international relations and their sovereignty can be legitimately restricted. There is considerable ambiguity concerning the Baltic states, which are not members of the CIS and have made much progress in reintegrating into the Western community, but, nevertheless, are treated as a special case not just by Russian politicians but also by the Western security community. This conception of the “near abroad” is a logical consequence of Great Power ideology and the realpolitik approach to international relations, for it implies that Russia has special responsibilities, interests, and rights there. The demand to preserve and exploit the USSR defense perimeter and even push it out as far as possible reflect mentalities left over from the Soviet period rather than a careful assessment of Russia’s security interest.

- - - - -

"Although the Baltics are not officially included in Russia's 'near abroad,' as it includes only members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), policies like Sergei Karaganov's, have unofficially drawn the Baltics into both Russia's sphere of influence and its 'near abroad.' Karaganov openly advocated the idea of using compatriots abroad as fifth columnists in the post-Soviet space. In 1995, Estonian fears intensified when Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev threatened the use of military force in defense not only of Russian citizens living abroad, but also of 'compatriots,' or all Russians regardless of citizenship (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 19 June 1995). Additionally, Kozyrev, Defense Minister Pavel Grachev, and Sergei Stankevich, among many others, are famous for making harsh statements concerning the situation of Russians in the Baltic states, utilizing such aggressive terms as 'apartheid' and 'ethnic cleansing.' These off-the-cuff remarks led many in Estonia to wonder the extent and prevalence of hatred for Estonia that is harbored by Russia's elites. Surely, much of this sentiment hails from Russia's embarrassment in regards to its current size. Knowing this, the government has tried to focus on strategies and issues which will create unity, such as those of territorial integrity and universal respect for Russia, its heritage, and people. In this way, the national security doctrines have united the survival of Russia with the identity of Russian culture. Indeed, nationalist purposes have been served by such comments. Valerii Dementev's 1996 article further concerned Estonia. After pointing out the strategic position of the Baltic states and their waters, Dementev claimed that 'the Baltic states (Pribaltika) is one of the most explosive regions in regards to the risk of new "hot beds" of conflicts with the use of Russian military forces' (Dementev quoted in Jonson 1998, 127). Still identified with the Soviet Union, Russia and its expansionist ideology have repeatedly been the prime motivators for Estonia's turn to Europe. Statements such as those previously mentioned only serve to highlight the possibility that Russia would attempt to restore its 'great power status' through military meanings and at the expense of Estonian sovereignty and increase Estonia's insecurity. Furthermore, Russia continues to be linked to the Soviet Union because so many of today's contemporary political elite were also elites in the Communist Party. Russia remains an unstable and unpredictable power that utilizes its instability to threaten Estonia and the other Baltics.

So... you don´t know the Karaganov policy- Really?

http://aei.pitt.edu/433/01/EUSA_Moll.txt
http://eng.karaganov.ru/
http://www.newsweek.com/id/170303

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Russian mentality
IF there is. Please demonstrate that in a tangible manner.

I think there is plenty of examples. I can just to refer to russian polls in the subjects.

http://www.acs.brockport.edu/~dgusev/Russian/vzbio.html
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=30679
http://www.kyivpost.com/nation/30049
http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=5272

 

[Dalregementet]

One problem Russia faces is that there is no historical precedent to fall back on in building a nation-state. A minority of Russian intellectuals has proposed that Vladimir-Suzdal/Muscovy be the base upon which to draw a historical antecedent. But Russia's elites have largely ignored this. The more popular view is of Russia as a "great power," however untrue it is in the non-nuclear sphere. As a great power the new Russian nation-state needs to seek legitimacy from its imperial and Soviet past, not from Muscovy. This is clearly President Vladimir Putin's preference, as seen in the continued use of the Russian double-headed eagle and the music of the Soviet anthem.

By choosing to build a post-Soviet identity on the basis of Russia's imperial/Soviet past, rather than Muscovy, the new Russian state will be unable to forge a modern Russian identity. This would require "the deconstruction of the symbiosis between Russian and Soviet imperial identity." [1] Western policy towards Russia that continues to play up to Russian demands to be treated as a "great power" therefore serves only to harm the creation of a modern Russian nation-state.
- - - - -
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=20285&tx_ttnews[backPid]=224

If Russia would be denied using the attributes of Kyiv Rus, having to fall back on Vladimir-Suzdal/Muscovy as historical antecedent, Russia would loose it's legitimacy as a great power. This is something Putin is aware of and one reason to Russias anxiety over Ukraine drifting away from Russia (Muscovy).

History IS important!

 

[Feanor]

It's quite natural that in states that have significant cultural and economic ties with Russia, Russia has legitimate interests both in terms of security and economics. It does not mean that the sovereignty of those states is not recognized. It simply means that Russia is concerned about deteriorating security conditions, and ethnic conflicts (as well as economic problems) in the near abroad far more then it is about similar events in say Africa.

Karagnov is not the only one with opinions on the subject and he is not currently running the show. Why you choose his explanation over multiple others I don't know. Perhaps because his views are what you consider to be typically Russian views?

As for population being responsible for their own government, I can agree with that to some extent. But just because you are responsible for something, doesn't mean that you share the opinions and views of that something. Parents are responsible for their children, but that doesn't mean that they have the same opinions or the same understanding of certain concepts. Hence my original point stands, you need to distinguish between popular opinion in Russia and the government.

Fyi jamestown.org is a rabidly anti-Russian publication. I read their Eurasian Daily Monitor, and they have many times in the past posted factually erroneous material. They've also many times made unsupported claims. So I would think twice about using that site as a valid source of information about modern Russian.

Now as evidence of Russian public opinion about treating other people like serfs, you came up with absolutely nothing. Zhirinovsky is a clown. Please don't quote him in serious conversations again. The poll about perceiving the Baltic states as enemies has nothing to do with human rights or treatment of people by the government. Not to mention:

About 20 percent of St. Petersburg residents perceive Estonia and Lithuania as Russia's "enemies,"

Hardly a convincing figure. Finally these are the same Baltic states busy desecrating WWII graves of Soviet soldiers (including undoubtedly some of Baltic nationality) and holding parades on Hitlers birthday. Hardly a surprising reaction.

 

[Dalregementet]

The Finnish war 1808

As it is 200 years ago Swedens last official war with Russia, I thought it is good to continue with this war and it's aftermaths.

- - - - - - - - - - -
At the end of 1807 and the beginning of 1808, the Swedish government ignored all reports of the massive maneuvres along the border with Russia. The Swedish ambassador in St. Petersburg sent reports home to Stockholm and expressed his concern about the Russian armies. Nothing was done on the Swedish side. Without declaring war on Sweden, Russian troops crossed the border to Finland on February 21, 1808. That day, a Sunday, Swedish Major Gustav Arnkihl, of the Nyland Dragoons - who was posted at the border - signed a report to the brigade command. "...that the Russians have crossed the border at 5 o'clock today, with a considerable force... it is also reported that they have crossed at Abborfors and also that they have gone over at Korois with Cossacks and pointed their march in our direction." The union's last war had begun.

The Swedish Army

Unlike the Russian soldier, the Swedish soldier was a free man. The Swedish system meant that putting up troops, as well as supplying and maintaining them in peacetime, were the responsibilities of the landowners. In this manner all the land was divided into "rotar", and with each of these came one soldier for the army.

At the outbreak of war the Swedish Army in Finland consisted of 17,323 men, of which about 750 were cavalry.


The Russian Army in 1808

Shortly before the war of 1808, the Russian Army was reformed and composed in the same manner as the French army. The system with divisions was therefore in full function at the outbreak of war and the Russian Army consisted of 24 divisions. A Russian division was composed of six regiments infantry , of which one or two were jaeger regiments. Among these, artillery and cavalry were placed. Russian infantry regiments consisted of three battalions, with four companies each. In theory, a regiment at full strength had about 2000 troops. The Russian Army was by no means unprepared for what was coming. The reforms in the army, as well as the rebuilding of units that had taken losses in the 1806-07 campaigns resulted in a war-experienced and powerful invasion force. Approximately, 80,000 troops were earmarked for the coming campaign, of which 50,000 would have been thrown into the fighting by the end of the war.

Although defeated by Napoleon, the Russian Army was in a good condition. It was experienced and well organized.

The main weakness of the Russian Army was the poor morale of its soldiers. It was said that the Russian Army was made of slaves. While the Swedish Army consisted of free soldiers, the Russian men were most often serfs. The honour of being a soldier was not felt in the Russian Army, as it was in the Swedish. The Swedish often saw the uniform as something honourable, an evidence of manhood. The two armies that were to meet on the field of battle were really each others opposites.


Sweden had excellent chances of fighting a good defensive war. The terrain of Finland spoke in favour of defence, and the larger fortifications in southern Finland were backbones in a strong system of defence. Why did the Swedes fail? Let us take a look at some of the different reasons. The War of 1808-09 was badly run by the Swedish military high command right from the start. The king had been a poor leader of the nation during this war and his differences with the generals did not make the situation any better for the men fighting in the field. The instability of the king came to the surface time after time -- one day he appeared in the boots of the warrior king Karl XII. The commanders leading the army, although names like Georg Carl von Döbeln, Sandels and Adlercreutz can be found here, had been held back by the weak and incompetent Field Marshal Klingspor, who during the war always favoured retreat instead of attack. Misfortune (Sveaborgs surrender) as well as inadequate equipment and bad preparations made the Swedish war effort look pathetic. The war could only be prolonged due to the high morale of the men and the commanders in the field time. They were called upon time after time to perform did great deeds of almost superhuman bravery and exertion. Against all this stood the Russian Army; with its overwhelming number of experienced troops and excellent commanders.

In summary - Sweden lost Finland and the Åland archipelago to Russia. 110 years after the war - Finland breaks out of Russia and declares independance.

 

[Dalregementet]

The Finnish war - The aftermath, The two brothers unite.

In 1917, Finland declared independence. A civil war between the Russia-supported Red Guards and the Germanophile White Guard ensued a few months later with the "Whites" gaining the upper hand. After the internal affairs stabilized, the still mainly agrarian economy grew relatively fast.

Relations with the West, especially Sweden and the United Kingdom, were strong but the pre-World War II relations with the socialist Soviet Union remained weaker. During the Second World War, Finland fought twice against the Soviet Union, and had to cede most of Karelia to the USSR, but remained an independent democracy. During the Cold War an Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance existed between the Soviet Union and Finland and such phenomena as finlandization and radical socialism such as "taistolaisuus" were part of internal affairs. Urho Kekkonen, a Finnish notable, stayed 25 years in power until 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland

How is the realtions between Sweden and Finland Today?

Foreign Minister Would Upgrade Defence Cooperation with Sweden
Published 13.01.2007, 18.04

Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja says that Finland should consider considerable closer defence cooperation with neighbouring Sweden.

In an interview with YLE TV News on Saturday, Foreign Minister Tuomioja said that an examination should be made into whether Finland and Sweden could combine air and sea defence.

The foreign and defence ministers of Finland and Sweden will be holding an unofficial meeting in the city of Vantaa this coming Wednesday. It has been several years since such a gathering has taken place.

In Tuomioja's view, cooperation in controlling airspace, including air defence, with Sweden would be a natural move for Finland. He did stress, however that the meeting on Wednesday is an informal gathering which will review current issues.

The Secretary of State at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Pertti Torstila, says that Finland is well aware of plans by Sweden and Norway to upgrade cooperation in the field of defence.

In a YLE TV discussion Saturday, Torstila said now that all three countries are involved in significant, major crisis management operations, it is a given that partners are being sought.

He pointed out that the threshold for cooperation between NATO and non-NATO countries is becoming lower all the time. Torstila added that he sees nothing dramatic about cooperation talks between Sweden and Norway. According to Torstila, Finland has been invited to take part in the discussions as well.

YLE
http://www.yle.fi/news/left/id51152.html


Finland and Sweden already share some maritime surveillance information real-time.

In summary: The involantary separation of Sweden and Finland has to a degree recovered. Both countries are EU members and as you can read, a deepend defence cooperation is on the table. The cooperation being discussed is so far reaching that joint air and sea defence is being discussed. This is in practice a merger of the Swedish and Finnish defence forces.

The two brothers unite again.

 

[Dalregementet]

It's quite natural that in states that have significant cultural and economic ties with Russia, Russia has legitimate interests both in terms of security and economics. It does not mean that the sovereignty of those states is not recognized. It simply means that Russia is concerned about deteriorating security conditions, and ethnic conflicts (as well as economic problems) in the near abroad far more then it is about similar events in say Africa.

Karagnov is not the only one with opinions on the subject and he is not currently running the show. Why you choose his explanation over multiple others I don't know. Perhaps because his views are what you consider to be typically Russian views?

As for population being responsible for their own government, I can agree with that to some extent. But just because you are responsible for something, doesn't mean that you share the opinions and views of that something. Parents are responsible for their children, but that doesn't mean that they have the same opinions or the same understanding of certain concepts. Hence my original point stands, you need to distinguish between popular opinion in Russia and the government.

Fyi jamestown.org is a rabidly anti-Russian publication. I read their Eurasian Daily Monitor, and they have many times in the past posted factually erroneous material. They've also many times made unsupported claims. So I would think twice about using that site as a valid source of information about modern Russian.

Now as evidence of Russian public opinion about treating other people like serfs, you came up with absolutely nothing. Zhirinovsky is a clown. Please don't quote him in serious conversations again. The poll about perceiving the Baltic states as enemies has nothing to do with human rights or treatment of people by the government. Not to mention:



Hardly a convincing figure. Finally these are the same Baltic states busy desecrating WWII graves of Soviet soldiers (including undoubtedly some of Baltic nationality) and holding parades on Hitlers birthday. Hardly a surprising reaction.

I am surprised that you downplay Karaganov since he is viewed as one of the most influential persons in Russia regarding security and foreign policy?

Karaganov is the only intellectual from the former Soviet Union listed in the 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll, and only one of four, with Pavol Demeš, Václav Havel and Slavoj Žižek, from Eastern Europe. He´s ranked no 79 of the most influential public intellectuals in the world... So why do I choose his opinion? Because of that Putin seems to follow his advice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Karaganov

Legitimate interests? That doesn´t allow a nation to directly interfere in other countries domestic politics. Threaten them depending on their choice of security solutions. According to the Karaganov plan, establishing a russian "sphere of interest" is one part of the plan to recreate the old empire - we have a mentality disagremment here.

Zhirinovsky is a clown. Yes, agree that he is a clown, but a dangerous clown, and and far too many russians vote on him, especially ultra nationalists in the russian military.

In the 1993 elections, Zhirinovsky's LDP party got a majority of the votes from the russian military. From the Black Sea fleet, the Pacific Ocean fleet, the North sea fleet, 45% of the air defence and the special forces in Tajikistan - Russias choice with Yegor Gaydar got only got 1% of the votes... So Zhirinovsky's message appealed to the russian military - that says a lot.

http://www.demokratizatsiya.org/Dem Archives/DEM 02-04 tsygankov.pdf

Estonia "Desecrating graves" - another mentality disagrement... Each country is free to make decisions of this character on their own - it´s about sovereignity. Besides, the moving of the graves were acknowledged by the world community as being done in an ethical way. Besides, if this so called "monument" had been raised in Sweden - we hadn´t moved it, we had removed it completely.

Regarding the marches, as I understand it, it is the baltic soldiers that fought against the soviet union that parades, i.e. freedom fighters, so nothing wrong with that either. Many Swedes and Finns fought against the Soviet Union in the SS Nordland division - many of these men wanted to fight against the soviet union/bolsjevism, not for Hitler which is a big difference.

http://www.feldgrau.com/sweden.html
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Wallin

 

[bd1]

It's quite natural that in states that have significant cultural and economic ties with Russia, Russia has legitimate interests both in terms of security and economics. It does not mean that the sovereignty of those states is not recognized. It simply means that Russia is concerned about deteriorating security conditions, and ethnic conflicts (as well as economic problems) in the near abroad far more then it is about similar events in say Africa.

Hardly a convincing figure. Finally these are the same Baltic states busy desecrating WWII graves of Soviet soldiers (including undoubtedly some of Baltic nationality) and holding parades on Hitlers birthday. Hardly a surprising reaction.

Hello Feanor, I remember you from WAB.
You are accusing Dalregementet, yet you make the same mistake yourself. You are accusing the Baltics of desecrating the graves, yet you have not mentioned that it was a removal or re-locating, with full military honours etc. etc. We went through this back on WAB.
As for the parades on Hitler´s B-day - i´m aware of only one such occasion, which happened 5 or 6 years ago, with about 40 skinheads walking with torches. Disgusting as it is, you should remember that they are much, much more marginal in influence and numbers here than national bolshevists or even your own party, the Radical Communists (AKM) or even nazi skinheads in Russia.

Secondly - the issue of recognizing sovereignty. The very definition of ´near-abroad´ is limiting the ´near-abroad´countries sovereignty to Russia´s needs.
Besides there is the question of interpretation of the whole independence of Baltics. Are we legitimate children of pre-WW2 states, as the existing exile goverments transferred their authority in 1992 as we claim, or are bastards, who have no legal continuity as Russia claims.
Because admitting it would open a big can of worms for Russia - from broken treaties to legal actions and maybe the worst nightmare of all- a public apology....

bd1 (braindead in WAB)

 

[Dalregementet]

Hello Feanor, I remember you from WAB.
You are accusing Dalregementet, yet you make the same mistake yourself. You are accusing the Baltics of desecrating the graves, yet you have not mentioned that it was a removal or re-locating, with full military honours etc. etc. We went through this back on WAB.
As for the parades on Hitler´s B-day - i´m aware of only one such occasion, which happened 5 or 6 years ago, with about 40 skinheads walking with torches. Disgusting as it is, you should remember that they are much, much more marginal in influence and numbers here than national bolshevists or even your own party, the Radical Communists (AKM) or even nazi skinheads in Russia.

Secondly - the issue of recognizing sovereignty. The very definition of ´near-abroad´ is limiting the ´near-abroad´countries sovereignty to Russia´s needs.
Besides there is the question of interpretation of the whole independence of Baltics. Are we legitimate children of pre-WW2 states, as the existing exile goverments transferred their authority in 1992 as we claim, or are bastards, who have no legal continuity as Russia claims.
Because admitting it would open a big can of worms for Russia - from broken treaties to legal actions and maybe the worst nightmare of all- a public apology....

bd1 (braindead in WAB)

I think we have to keep our heads cool now. We can present/discuss crimes against humanity etc without being too personal or that we accuse each other for different things.

I don't think debating left- or right wing marches is fruitful for this discussion - most countries have these marches and in most cases, they are not supported by respective countries government. Also, the "freedom of speach" makes it difficult to stop them in true democracies.


There are a number of things that I highlight regarding nations, in this case Sweden and Russia, that I think is more important that many are aware of:

• National Legitimacy
• National self image
• National pride
• Ethics

In the millenium struggle between Sweden (Svea Rike) and Russia (Muscovy), Russia has an interest of downplaying the struggle as insignificant (Sweden is too small) and Sweden has an ambition to show that it is not imtimidated/afraid of russia. The patterns of this is seen in most conflicts between Sweden and Russia, violent or not.

The conflict from Russias perspective are about:
National origin, self image and pride - It doesn't fit in for Putin and russian ultra nationalist that Russia is founded by Swedish vikings (Rus)
Russia has lost most battles against Sweden/Finland and only won when being extremely superior in numbers. The poor military performance, as I have described it, is because Russia is a society that is marked by being a serf-society. The previous serf society is characterized by low morale, low human value, low ability to take inititives (if you make a mistake, it might be your last...)

Influence - Finland and the Baltic countries are countries that are important for Russias security and russias access to the Baltic sea/Atlantic ocean. These countries, including Sweden, also have influence over the EU and thus over the EU-Russian relations.

For Sweden it is about keeping its independence but also about regional influence.

Swedens self image is rock solid, anchored in a history of indepence and relative prosperity.

 

[SkolZkiy]

I've read all you said here Dalregementet and I want to say that you are a patriot of your country but the main weakness of most part of patriots is that they are blind. I also see that you have your opinion about Russia as a Metropoly has an opinion about it's colony. Russia has it's own way, own history and culture - you'll never understand the way of Russian thinking - I don't claim here that it is good or bad - I only say that we are different and you even don't try to understand us, because you don't need this.

About Baltic republics - what are doing the governments of these countries is a propagand of fascism. they revived the shadow of Hitler.

Today in the "West" everybody think that WW2 was won by GB and USA - and what about USSR?? Oh its role was not so important - this is the way most of people think in the west. This is just example - you are doing the same with RU-SWE relations. May be some guys here will believe you, some not - but the truth is out there =)

I won't post in this thread anymore

 

[Feanor]

Would you like to respond to my objections in regards to your attempts to relate this to modern Russo-Swedish relations?