Russian Probing Flights

[Mike Steele]

Russian Bombers Perform Simulated Strikes on Sweden, U.S.
The New American ^ | 5/17/2013 | Christian Gomez

Posted on Saturday, May 18, 2013 08:52:52 by IbJensen

On May 6, Russia received its first shipment of Sukhoi Su-34 twin-seat fighter-bombers (known by NATO as "Fullback"). The Su-34 is the newest generation of fighter-bombers intended to replace the outdated Soviet-era Sukhoi Su-24s.

 

While the modernization of the Russian Air Force may — and rightfully so — raise a few eyebrows of concern, this alone is not sufficient cause for alarm. Russia’s recent air force maneuvers are, however.

On the night of March 29, 2013, two Russian Tupolev Tu-22M3 bombers (known by NATO as "Backfires"), escorted by four Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighters (known by NATO as "Flankers") passed extremely close to Swedish airspace and simulated an aerial "attack" on Stockholm and southern Sweden. The Tu-22M3 is a new supersonic long-range bomber capable of delivering nuclear weapons to overseas targets.

The six Russian aircraft flew dangerously close to Swedish airspace, roughly 20 miles from Sweden’s territorial borders, according to Business Insider.

 

While Russian military aircraft flying over the Baltic has become routine since Russian President Vladimir Putin restored the old Soviet-era long-range strategic flights in 2011, what makes this particular flight so concerning was Sweden’s lack of readiness. The Swedish Air Force was caught off guard and failed to respond.

 

The flights occurred on Good Friday at around 2 a.m. local time. Business Insider reported that “at least two JAS-39 Gripen should always be in a QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) and ready for take off in case of alarm, but quite surprisingly there were no interceptors ready on Good Friday night.”

 

Instead of Swedish fighters, two Danish F-16 fighter jets under NATO command intercepted and escorted the Russian planes safely away from Sweden’s borders.

While Sweden may be grateful to Denmark’s Royal Danish Air Force, this raises serious concerns over Sweden's ability to repel and/or deter aggression against its national borders. This incident also raises concerns over the increased belligerence on the part of Russia.

 

Massive military reductions to the Swedish Armed Forces may account for the air force’s lack of readiness. During the 1980s, the Swedish Air Force was comprised of 20 squadrons and over 400 planes. Today, it posseses no more than four squadrons and less than 150 planes. Meanwhile Russia increased its military spending 16 percent in 2012, primarily on new weapons systems and the modernization of outdated military hardware.

 

A month later, on the night of April 28, two Russian Tupolev Tu-95 (known by NATO as "Bear-H"; shown, above) long-range heavy nuclear bombers “were detected flying into the military’s Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) near the Aleutians, where a strategic missile defense radar is located,” according to the Washington Free Beacon.

Again, the Russian bombers did not penetrate Alaskan or U.S. airspace, but they did fly dangerously close to it, prompting two U.S. F-22 fighter jets to scramble from Elmendorf Air Force Base. Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon writes, “The dispatch of F-22s is an indication the bomber flights posed a potential threat to U.S. territory. It was the fifth incident of Russian strategic bombers flying against the United States since June, when Bear bombers were intercepted near Alaska during a large-scale Russian strategic nuclear exercise that Russian military officials said involved practice strikes against U.S. missile defense sites in Alaska.”

 

On February 12, two of the same class of Russian Tu-95 Bear-H strategic bombers flew over and encircled Guam. This also prompted a quick U.S. deployment of F-15s to intercept and escort the Russian bombers away from U.S. airspace.

 

Although Putin announced to the world that Russia would conduct such flights in 2011, two Russian Tu-95 bombers made a round-trip surprise “visit” to Guam in 2007 for the first time since the alleged end of the Cold War.

 

“Who told you that the Cold War was ever over? It transforms; it is like a virus,” said Russian KGB/FSB defector Sergei Tretyakov in an interview with FOX News in 2009.

In 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated the continuation of the Cold War by threatening the West with a “new spiral in the arms race.” In Putin’s KGB eyes the Cold War never ended; it is ongoing. Meanwhile, the West applauds Putin as a close ally on the War on Terror. With allies like Putin are enemies really necessary?

[Lionel Mandrake]

Running a "series of probes"? How very Ken Allard-like of them.

 

Just doing what great powers do to prove that they are, well, great powers - it is almost reassuring on some level in that it establishes a "working relationship" as it were with clear levels of provocation, counter-moves, boundaries, escalation, etc, etc...

 

What is worrisome is when neophytes (read Red China) start playing these games.

[Lionel Mandrake]

Now if something like this happens in the Med, what with the Sovi... erm, Russian Fleet newly arrived, its going to be some serious fun and games. Time to start dusting off Harpoon methinks.

 

And the Sea Eagle armed Buccaneers from “Shiny XII” to Cyprus – no wait – that is just middle age senility kicking in...

 

Actually, as long as we are sending signals (ie communicating in real terms) to/with each other all is probably well. It is when a system breaks down (West vs Russia in 90's) or hasn't been established (PRC vs USN etc, etc today) that I worry as possible missteps (Pristina airport anyone?) can rapidly get out of hand as there is no context to place them in.

[Jeff]

[Yama]

Russian Bombers Perform Simulated Strikes on Sweden, U.S.

The New American ^ | 5/17/2013 | Christian Gomez

Posted on Saturday, May 18, 2013 08:52:52 by IbJensen

On May 6, Russia received its first shipment of Sukhoi Su-34 twin-seat fighter-bombers (known by NATO as "Fullback"). The Su-34 is the newest generation of fighter-bombers intended to replace the outdated Soviet-era Sukhoi Su-24s.

 

While the modernization of the Russian Air Force may — and rightfully so — raise a few eyebrows of concern, this alone is not sufficient cause for alarm. Russia’s recent air force maneuvers are, however.

On the night of March 29, 2013, two Russian Tupolev Tu-22M3 bombers (known by NATO as "Backfires"), escorted by four Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighters (known by NATO as "Flankers") passed extremely close to Swedish airspace and simulated an aerial "attack" on Stockholm and southern Sweden. The Tu-22M3 is a new supersonic long-range bomber capable of delivering nuclear weapons to overseas targets.

 

At least the writer could have mentioned Tu-160 and take the article to 1995 or so...

 

 

Instead of Swedish fighters, two Danish F-16 fighter jets under NATO command intercepted and escorted the Russian planes safely away from Sweden’s borders.

While Sweden may be grateful to Denmark’s Royal Danish Air Force,

 

No they're not.

[Colin]

Actually I think many in the west are quite aware of how WWI started and are being careful not to get pulled down the same line. Plus no one is really prepared or funded to fight yet another war for the moment.

[Lionel Mandrake]

Actually I think many in the west are quite aware of how WWI started and are being careful not to get pulled down the same line. Plus no one is really prepared or funded to fight yet another war for the moment.

 

 

I find your faith and optimism touching.

 

Please do tell – seriously.

 

Personally I've never heard an intellectually satisfying explanation of how and why it was allowed to come to pass and who expected to benefit. Sure we can make laundry lists of proximal, secondary, tertiary causes, etc, etc going back to 1848 if not the Congress of Vienna. Yet laundry lists such as Sarajevo, Germany’s Place in the Sun, Constantinople, Arms Race, The Triple Alliance, etc. just don't add-up to a cogent whole.

 

Not funded? That never stopped any politicians before from going down the road to war. Quite the reverse really.

 

You know, Im really not sure we are sure how it started. We celebrate Armistice day each year, but does the lesson really sink in? I doubt it. Our historians still cant agree on what caused the war. The 1960s Socialist explanation (the acquisition of Empires) has fallen by the wayside, and you are left with the one the more thoughtful had at the time, ie that nobody wanted it, but like a multiple pile up it just worked out that way. The great and the good of Europe just werent smart enough.

 

Then you look at the intellectual capacity of the Wests leaders today, and start to get that horrible sinking feeling. Or I do anyway.

 

Precisely. This astounding lack of credible leadership is what frightens me as well – especially when combined with superficial and well-worn arguments as to why such a war today is intrinsically impossible which echo almost verbatim those made on the Great War's eve.

[A2Keltainen]

Massive military reductions to the Swedish Armed Forces may account for the air force’s lack of readiness. During the 1980s, the Swedish Air Force was comprised of 20 squadrons and over 400 planes.

 

Seen from a real Russia vs. Sweden shooting war point of view, there are much greater concerns for Sweden than the number of aircraft in the Swedish Air Force, such as the "alternates between uncontrolled crying, and uncontrolled hysterical laughing":ly bad situation regarding airbases (and the ground units for them), and ground based air-defense systems.

 

But I'm not exactly surprised, since Swedish politicians in general either actively despise everything military, except sending sending troops on politically correct peace keeping missions to win international political brownie points (or "struggles" a safe distance away from Sweden that involves their revolutionary "freedom" fighters of choice...), or at best view the national defense of Sweden itself as a money sucking nuisance without any real need at all (after all, we're in the Eternal European Peace now after the Cold War ended, and everyone who doesn't happen to agree with that should be publicly laughed at and ridiculed...).

[A2Keltainen]

No they're not.

 

I enjoyed the shitstorm that resulted after the Swedish supreme commander Sverker Göranson, in the bruhaha after the recent Russian mock bomber attack against Stockholm, told the press:

 

"Vi kan försvara oss mot ett angrepp med ett begränsat mål. Vi talar om ungefär en vecka på egen hand."

 

"We can defend ourselves against an attack with a limited goal. We're talking about approximately a week on our own."

 

Another good one is when Owe Wiktorin quit as the supreme commander in 2000, went on to become the chairman of the Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management (Svenska Jägareförbundet), and in an interview commented that he now commanded over more firepower than in his previous role as supreme commander.

Edit:

I've read all books I've been able to find about the transformation of the Swedish armed forces after the end of the Cold War, and the level of bitterness and anger in the ones written by well regarded former generals, who helped to build up the things that now have been destroyed in a mindblowing mix of insanity and recklessness, makes me wonder how they managed to avoid spontaneous combustion while watching what happened to their life's work and the security of the nation.

Edit:

And considering the people who are responsible for, or have supported, the destruction of the Swedish armed forces, they will not only be the first to renounce any and all responsibility if the shit hits the fan, but also be very quick to point the Great Fingers Of Blame on someone else...

Edited May 18, 2013 by A2Keltainen

[Lionel Mandrake]

 

Massive military reductions to the Swedish Armed Forces may account for the air force’s lack of readiness. During the 1980s, the Swedish Air Force was comprised of 20 squadrons and over 400 planes.

 

Seen from a real Russia vs. Sweden shooting war point of view, there are much greater concerns for Sweden than the number of aircraft in the Swedish Air Force,

 

Such as Stureplan party-girls vaporised by an Iskander-M? Oh, the humanity! So please support the Flygvapnet so that Jeni, Lisa, and Linn can party on.

 

Seriously though, the problem Sweden has - in common with most of Western Europe as well - is a collection of left-of-center politicians whose mouths write checks that when it comes to talking tough about Russia, Serbia, etc, etc is implicit that others (US, UK) are expected to cash them with the blood of their best and brightest should it ever come to that.

[Lionel Mandrake]

Ah, mea culpa time.

It was Carl Bilt's (one of the good-guys) statment that Sweden could not remain neutral should Russia act against the Baltic states which seems to have brought about this Russian response.

Sorry.

But I can also remember something similar being voiced by a female Socialist FM in the early 1990's as well...

[A2Keltainen]

Such as Stureplan party-girls vaporised by an Iskander-M?

 

Having a bunch of annoying bimbos and douchebag girliemen turned to vapor and dust in Stockholm doesn't bother me a bit, since I live in its arch nemesis city on the other coast. So Russia; please just give me a call so I can go buy some popcorn before you launch your barrage of Iskanders against Stockholm. Ok?

 

 

Seriously though, the problem Sweden has - in common with most of Western Europe as well - is a collection of left-of-center politicians whose mouths write checks that when it comes to talking tough about Russia, Serbia, etc, etc is implicit that others (US, UK) are expected to cash them with the blood of their best and brightest should it ever come to that.

 

I agree, with the exception of (at least) Finland, which still has the view that it actually has the main responsibility for its own national defense, and therefore has to take the question regarding its armed forces seriously.

 

Edit:

 

I'm currently reading;

 

Waking the Neighbour - Finland, NATO and Russia

Keir Giles and Susanna Eskola

Research & Assessment Branch, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom

November, 2009

http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/special/09%2814%29%20KGSE%20Web.pdf

and recommend it to anyone interested in the Nordic security/military situation. As an entertaining bonus, it contains some rather nice quotes with taunts/innuendos from Finnish politicians and generals regarding the current state of the Swedish armed forces.

Edited May 18, 2013 by A2Keltainen

[shep854]

Oh, I just bet the Finns are not amused...especially since it's an easy assumption for some Swedes to make that Finland would make a very convenient buffer and first stop if Vlad & Co. gets frisky.

Edited May 19, 2013 by shep854

[Olof Larsson]

It idly makes me wonder if this could push Sweden towards NATOs partnership for peace. Alright its not likely, but if it happens its going to be a pretty spectacular Russian own goal. Its probably going to tighten ties even if they are off the books, just as happened in the 1950s with the Swedish 'emergency airfields' for SAC....

 

Support for NATO is growing, but sadly the politicians that support us joining NATO,

at best seems to think that joining NATO means we don't have

to do something to improve our defence rebuilt our defence from scratch,

as "someone else" will defend us.

 

And considering how poor the defence is in most NATO-countries that is unlikely to happend.

 

I'm all for joining NATO, but with the politicians we have today,

it will probably only make matters worse.

 

It's a sad day as a right-winger of the "old right wing party",

that the current right wing party, seems to be the biggest threat to our national defence.

 

 

But I'm not exactly surprised, since Swedish politicians in general either actively despise everything military, except sending sending troops on politically correct peace keeping missions to win international political brownie points (or "struggles" a safe distance away from Sweden that involves their revolutionary "freedom" fighters of choice...), or at best view the national defense of Sweden itself as a money sucking nuisance without any real need at all (after all, we're in the Eternal European Peace now after the Cold War ended, and everyone who doesn't happen to agree with that should be publicly laughed at and ridiculed...).

 

Well, there is also the politicans that thinks that the purpose of our national defence

is to support our defence industry, by being bleed dry,

purchasing equipment they don't have the money to operate.

[A2Keltainen]

but sadly the politicians that support us joining NATO, at best seems to think that joining NATO means we don't have to do something to improve our defence rebuilt our defence from scratch, as "someone else" will defend us.

 

And the majority of the Swedish politicians who don't support joining NATO seems to believe/wish that the EU will come and rescue Sweden, if the shit hits the fan.

 

I tried to search for the glorious quote from the current defense minister Karin Enström, where she basically said that according to how she personally interpreted a certain paragraph in an EU solidarity agreement, EU is bound to come and defend Sweden if Sweden needs it, which means that there is no need for Sweden to neither join NATO, nor have strong own armed forces, but my Google powers seem to be weak today. Her statement sure struck me as the purest definition of a rock solid foundation for a national security policy...

 

Well, there is also the politicans that thinks that the purpose of our national defence is to support our defence industry, by being bleed dry, purchasing equipment they don't have the money to operate.

 

Yes.

 

I also find it interesting how the political level of "possible future threat to Sweden" seems to fluctuate so much depending on what is politically convenient for the moment. For example, in general there is absolutely no possible future threat to Sweden, since that motivates slashing the armed forces, but when the question of supporting SAAB by buying significant amounts of the next generation of Gripen aircraft comes up on the table, then there is suddenly a desperate and burning need for ultra modern aircraft to protect against future threats against Sweden.

 

Oh, and let's not forget the "demonstrator platforms", a single RBS 23 system being the best example I know of, that the armed forces have bought, and where my view is that the primary reason for the acquisitions in question is so that the Swedish manufacturer can say that the system is in use by the Swedish armed forces in its promotional materials.

 

Edit:

 

I wonder if not at least one of the Visby corvettes would be equipped with a surface-to-air missile system by now, if SAAB had a suitable system to offer, which they also wanted to export...

 

And since the current plans for the Swedish army stipulate a total of 24 artillery pieces (howitzers), it AFAIK means that the Swedish armed forces will have more active duty generals than artillery pieces.

Edited May 19, 2013 by A2Keltainen

[BansheeOne]

I tried to search for the glorious quote from the current defense minister Karin Enström, where she basically said that according to how she personally interpreted a certain paragraph in an EU solidarity agreement, EU is bound to come and defend Sweden if Sweden needs it, which means that there is no need for Sweden to neither join NATO, nor have strong own armed forces, but my Google powers seem to be weak today. Her statement sure struck me as the purest definition of a rock solid foundation for a national security policy...

 

In fact the mutual defense obligation from Article V of the former WEU Treaty (which is stricter than the NATO Treaty, the latter only requiring partners to afford an attacked member the help they deem necessary while the modified Brussels Treaty called for all the military and other aid and assistance in their power) was entered into the Lisbon Treaty since the WEU was to be folded into the EU. Article 42 (7) of the amended EU Treaty even ommits the specification of an armed attack on members' territory in Europe, so depending upon how you read it, their overseas territories would also be covered.

 

Of course what capabilities EU members would manage to provide for common defense is another question entirely; given the strict language of the treaty and lesser needs for projection, one would hope it would be more than the humble extent of the EU Battlegroups which we haven't found the common will to ever deploy so far. But obviously that doesn't mean everybody gets to lean back and trust in the others to defend them if push should come to shove, because somebody will need to provide those capabilities.

[Fritz]

And the majority of the Swedish politicians who don't support joining NATO seems to believe/wish that the EU will come and rescue Sweden, if the shit hits the fan.

 

The EU and which army?...

[Yama]

 

And the majority of the Swedish politicians who don't support joining NATO seems to believe/wish that the EU will come and rescue Sweden, if the shit hits the fan.

 

I tried to search for the glorious quote from the current defense minister Karin Enström, where she basically said that according to how she personally interpreted a certain paragraph in an EU solidarity agreement, EU is bound to come and defend Sweden if Sweden needs it, which means that there is no need for Sweden to neither join NATO, nor have strong own armed forces, but my Google powers seem to be weak today. Her statement sure struck me as the purest definition of a rock solid foundation for a national security policy...

 

My opinion is that it is really naive to assume other countries will run to your aid simply because there is some clause or paragraph in some treaty. In real world, we have usually seen that such treaties make decent paper aircraft, and that's about it.

 

If you have sufficient goodwill and solidarity amongst other nations, then they will offer help, treaty or not. And if you don't, it doesn't matter what treaties you may have signed, nobody will care.

Problem with NATO is that increasingly, it's seen as umbrella under which your defence solutions are automatically solved and you don't have to worry about defence any more since NATO will take care of it. "Let the other guy do it!" Problem comes when everyone thinks like this, in which case only solution is to recruit more gullible fools to take care of defense needs.

 

This is why many NATO countries are eager to call on Finland and Sweden to take care of such duties as defending Iceland, Baltic nations etc. Because Lord forbid that the most powerful military alliance in the world could be arsed to defend its own members...

[Sardaukar]

There was the famous quote from Gen. Hägglund, guy who deemed it plausible to commission me to FDF.

 

It was time of big Swedish defence cuts. Interview went:

 

Q: "Who will defend northern Sweden?"

A: (by Hägglund) Finland, as usual.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Sardaukar

[Steven P Allen]

I woud assume that any clauses in any treaties are reciprocal, meaning that Country D would expect Country S to help defend it just as is expects to help defend Country S. But, if Country D knows that Country S expects to recieve but NOT render help, . . . .

[shep854]

Don't forget about Poland--from the Wall Street Journal:

Those Muscular Poles

At least there's one NATO ally not gutting its defenses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578499060627886612.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

 

"The Poles already have the Continent's seventh-largest army and are adding to it. This year's defense budget is 7% higher than in 2012. Even more eye-catching is Poland's decision to devote 140 billion zlotys ($43 billion) over the next decade—a third of all military spending—to upgrade and purchase equipment."--excerpt

Edited May 23, 2013 by shep854

[Koesj]

 

And the majority of the Swedish politicians who don't support joining NATO seems to believe/wish that the EU will come and rescue Sweden, if the shit hits the fan.

 

The EU and which army?...

 

Would have been so much more punny if you'd have said "EU and whose army?"

[BansheeOne]

Don't forget about Poland--from the Wall Street Journal:

Those Muscular Poles

At least there's one NATO ally not gutting its defenses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578499060627886612.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

 

"The Poles already have the Continent's seventh-largest army and are adding to it. This year's defense budget is 7% higher than in 2012. Even more eye-catching is Poland's decision to devote 140 billion zlotys ($43 billion) over the next decade—a third of all military spending—to upgrade and purchase equipment."--excerpt

 

Well, they are certainly not increasing troop strength, but in this age of cutbacks even keeping your combat power current is a net increase. Which brings us back to the fact that the main instrument you would go to if there's trouble round the Baltic Sea is on the NATO side, not the EU:

 

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

 

http://www.mncne.pl/

[Marek Tucan]

Ah yes, the "We do not need army, NATO will defend us" school of thought... Every now and then.

 

"We don't need combat troops, let's just have military hospital and NBC recon troops, after all who cares about few battalions when Americans have so many soldeirs"...

 

Usually proponents of this view at the same time crbash anyone from the West who deploys troops abroad as imperialist who sticks noses into other's problems. At the same time they also bash US for not stopping Hitler in 1930s or for not joining in in 1939 already...

Edited May 23, 2013 by Tuccy

[Al]

But as in WW1, there wasnt much cause FOR a war as much as a resolution of tension from years of crises and war scares. Looking back on the years after the fall of the war, from the Russian perspective, Western Policy towards their borders and former allies must look like something to be on their guard against. Georgia is a case in point.

 

There is a new exhibit at the WW1 Museum (Kansas City, Missouri) that explores the origins and causes of WW1. I plan on visiting it sometime this summer to see what their take on it is.

 

(BTW, intersting discussion)