Speaking of the devil. DCS apparently has released the KOLA map just now. It’s a map of the northern part of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia in painstakingly detail from the 1980s approximately (Kola peninsula). Whatever preference you have, NATO with F-16/18/15/14 etc, Swedish or Finnish neutrality (Viggen, F-18) or a USSR comrade flying MiGs and Sukhois, now you can simulate it all, in virtually every detail 
Remember Rourkes Drift?🙂 Russia may be able to provide the numbers but would they have the arms, the logistics and the enthusiasm? There are many examples in history where odds of 14:1 have not made the difference.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Completely impossible today, yes, but there was a time between the collapse of the Soviet union and the Swedish decision to scrap its territorial defense in 2004 when it could have been possible.
Absolutely impossible because of enormous population difference: 145 million vs 10 million. Even Ukraine with 38 million has hard time with mobilization while Russia is still able to provide as much soldiers as it’s required by their tactics. In addition, Swedish field military experience is probably close to zero with practically nobody within Swedish army with real-life warfare experience.
Peter wrote:
But there is an argument that Sweden could beat Russia on their ownCompletely impossible, surely.
Completely impossible today, yes, but there was a time between the collapse of the Soviet union and the Swedish decision to scrap its territorial defense in 2004 when it could have been possible.
LeSving wrote:
As far as Norway, Denmark and Iceland goes, a Scandinavian/Nordic military treaty was actually being developed. If it wasn’t for NATO, all the Nordic countries, except Finland I believe? would probably be in a treaty on their own, which was neutral or quasi neutral outward towards USA.
As I understand it, what killed the Nordic alliance idea was that the Soviet Union wouldn’t allow Finland to join any alliance. Only when the Nordic alliance proved impossible did Denmark and Norway join NATO. (Finland was always a western democracy, but it had to tread very carefully to not upset its eastern neighbour.)
The core NATO countries in Europe are Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium.
The UK and Germany?
By “coincidence” these are the same countries giving away 80 F-16s to Ukraine
I think UKR is getting F16s because they can learn to fly them and maintain them. The Eurofighter is unsuitable for UKR because it is an expensive mess right across the board. And the UK has no F16s (should have had them all along, but politics rule).
But there is an argument that Sweden could beat Russia on their own
Completely impossible, surely.
no one except perhaps the USA would have opposed them
The US would not bother either – Russia got away with Crimea OK
Russia pre Putin losing his mind could even possibly have acceded to the EU
Turkey tried it and it ran quite a long way before Brussels realised the stupidity of it – suddenly the EU would be dominated by a country which has totally different values right across the board. Amazing it ran as far as it did though, but we will be saying the same in 20 years’ time about trans-gender and schoolkids 
and maybe even NATO
As above – meaningless
But it has also highlighted a need within Europe to work closer together militarily because we can no longer rely on the USA.
The Trump issue aside, Europe never could rely on the US (unless the US was attacked also, hence anybody attacking Europe would be careful to not do a Pearl Harbour) but Europe chose to run the pacifist line because of great domestic PR and less money spent on the military.
There is an argument from military “experts” (I hate to write that because no one is really an expert as they have themselves proved on several occasions)
But there is an argument that Sweden could beat Russia on their own. I don’t know. I no nothing of Swedish military capability.
We also have to remember that where we are today is the result of one man or small group who wish to control others and who mistakenly believed as many have done before that force is stronger than hearts and minds even when the latter is biased more in their favour and at a lesser cost.
Following the cold war both Germany and to, perhaps, a lesser degree France and the UK formed close economic ties with the Russian State and/or Russian people/oligarchs. If Ukraine had been brought back into the Russian sphere of influence through winning the hearts and minds of the Ukranian people, no one except perhaps the USA would have opposed them. In fact Germany would have probably have encouraged it because of the close ties with the Russian state whilst at the same time losing no love over Ukraine.
Russia pre Putin losing his mind could even possibly have acceded to the EU and maybe even NATO before Ukraine ever got a look in.
The problem is that Putin’s mindset is that force against anyone who opposes him is the answer to proving he is a strong leader.
It’s cost Russia trillions of dollars at the latest estimates. They are nowhere near achieving Putin’s goal. He has had to have many of his oligarch friends thrown out of windows and we are where we are and Russia’s customers are not only deserting it but turning to the other side.
Not only that but whilst he may have managed to make NATO more fragile from the point of view of the USA but has also made it stronger by the wish of countries such as Sweden and Finland to join.
But it has also highlighted a need within Europe to work closer together militarily because we can no longer rely on the USA.
Peter wrote:
If all of Europe was fighting Russia (conventionally) Russia would probably lose. But all of Europe will never agree on anything. And the fear of escalation would prevent such a scenario anyway. And NATO exists only on paper.It was difficult to get Europe involved in defending Ukraine because Russia had bought the politicians with cheap gas. Domestic politics always comes before helping another country, not least because everybody hopes that only the country next door will get invaded.
The whole NATO thing has to be seen in historical context. It came in the aftermath of WWII and the incentives to be a part of it were diverse. The official background was to stop communist expansion. For all the smaller nations, typically Norway, Denmark, Iceland, BeNeLux (and Portugal) the single only reason was to have a powerful ally that could be trusted, The USA/Canada and the UK. Two big wars had showed that none of the classical larger powers of Europe could be trusted: Germany and Russia/Soviet mainly, France, Spain, but also the UK to some extent. Either too week and whimsy, or too powerful and aggressive (fascist or communist). Overall, way too unpredictable and/or untrustworthy. The only way forward was neutrality or ally up with the powerful USA. As far as Norway, Denmark and Iceland goes, a Scandinavian/Nordic military treaty was actually being developed. If it wasn’t for NATO, all the Nordic countries, except Finland I believe? would probably be in a treaty on their own, which was neutral or quasi neutral outward towards USA.
The very essence of NATO is an allegiance with the US as a protection against other potentially aggressive European countries. The cold war sort of changed that to mean the west vs Soviet exclusively. Right now it is the west vs Russia. Then came the EU, and it has been some talk about a pan European force (without the USA). That is never going to happen for sure. The core NATO countries in Europe are Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium. By “coincidence” these are the same countries giving away 80 F-16s to Ukraine. Then Poland and the Baltic states came, for the same historical reasons as the first countries, and the same goes for Sweden and Finland (it’s certainly not communist expansion that drives NATO today). The next country is/will be Ukraine.
In a way Putin is not entirely wrong saying that NATO/US is pushing forward, threatening Russia. But, deep down, NATO is just as much a protection against other potentially aggressive European nations. Germany dislikes this US “hegemony”, France dislikes this perhaps more than any other (except Russia), but the UK is itself so much in bed with the US by now that there’s no practical difference between the UK and US from this point of view.
Peter wrote:
I don’t think anybody in power believes Art 5 is worth the paper it is written on
I think Ukraine proves the opposite, and they’re not even in NATO (yet). France, perhaps/perhaps not, you never know. Germany, must be pushed – hard. The UK does whatever the US does anyway, so that’s no problem. Turkey, nobody cares, completely unpredictable. For the first core NATO nations, + Baltics, Poland and Sweden, Finland, Romania too perhaps, the Art 5 is an unbreakable law. And this includes the US. I mean, the US will go ahead, Art. 5 or not, the same way they have done the last 100 years anyway. It’s the perfect military ally. The irony is that only the US has invoked Art. 5 so far, and it resulted in 20 years of war in Afghanistan (of all places). Several, of the F-16s Ukraine will get have dropped bombs in Afghanistan and Libya, lots and lots of bombs. There was also some stuff happening at Balkan.
Also ironically, one of the first things that happened when Sweden and Finland joined NATO, was a joint Nordic air force (it actually happened a year before Sweden joined NATO). Right now it’s the largest, strongest and most modern air force in the entire Europe (except Russia). Also on the ground, we have more tanks than any other European nation (except Russia) The naval powers are different. In that department Norway has very good relations with Germany. It’s all NATO anyway, the same military ecosystem. Never underestimate the power of a smooth running ecosystem for swords and shields for battle use.
Art 5 is more of a religious thing. Exactly how religious varies, I’m sure. I’m sure several countries also feels it’s circumstantial (Turkey, Hungary for instance). There are countries that simply are too small in population and/or size to have any meaningful military force for deployment, like Luxembourg and Iceland. It’s safe to say that NATO works though (with actual war effort) also without invoking Art 5. The main reason is of course the USA, and that is the foundation of NATO, like it or not. But it is a slightly weird thought that right now, not a single country except the USA and possibly China? could invade the Nordic countries without nuking the place to pieces.
This website has a nuclear blast simulator. A bit morbid, but interesting to run the numbers.
Peter wrote:
The Ukraine invasion just seems pointless strategically.
Indeed, and even before the war it had been routinely said that Putin was good at tactical thinking but totally lacked strategic one.
The “holy war” explanation seems by far the most likely.
It’s a reasonably close description, but Ukraine is considered a mere proxy of the West. The Russian narrative goes more along the lines that ‘Ukraine is a non-state and Ukrainians are a non-nation, they are merely a historical part of Russia that fell under the influence of local clowns who are actually puppets of the Anglo-Saxon geopolitical clique’. And yes, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is a very common term in the Russian political/military/geopolitical discourse.
