Sweden Scraps Plans For 13 Offshore Windfarms Over Russia Security Fears (theguardian.com) 139
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Sweden has vetoed plans for 13 offshore windfarms in the Baltic Sea, citing unacceptable security risks. The country's defence minister, Pal Jonson, said on Monday that the government had rejected plans for all but one of 14 windfarms planned along the east coast. The decision comes after the Swedish armed forces concluded last week that the projects would make it more difficult to defend Nato's newest member.
The proposed windfarms would have been located between Aland, the autonomous Finnish region between Sweden and Finland, and the Sound, the strait between southern Sweden and Denmark. The Russian exclave of Kaliningrad is only about 310 miles (500km) from Stockholm. Wind power could affect Sweden's defence capabilities across sensors and radars and make it harder to detect submarines and possible attacks from the air if war broke out, Jonson said. The only project to receive the green light to was Poseidon, which will include as many as 81 wind turbines to produce 5.5 terawatt hours a year off Stenungsund on Sweden's west coast. "Both ballistic robots and also cruise robots are a big problem if you have offshore wind power," Jonson said. "If you have a strong signal detection capability and a radar system that is important, we use the Patriot system for example, there would be negative consequences if there were offshore wind power in the way of the sensors."
The proposed windfarms would have been located between Aland, the autonomous Finnish region between Sweden and Finland, and the Sound, the strait between southern Sweden and Denmark. The Russian exclave of Kaliningrad is only about 310 miles (500km) from Stockholm. Wind power could affect Sweden's defence capabilities across sensors and radars and make it harder to detect submarines and possible attacks from the air if war broke out, Jonson said. The only project to receive the green light to was Poseidon, which will include as many as 81 wind turbines to produce 5.5 terawatt hours a year off Stenungsund on Sweden's west coast. "Both ballistic robots and also cruise robots are a big problem if you have offshore wind power," Jonson said. "If you have a strong signal detection capability and a radar system that is important, we use the Patriot system for example, there would be negative consequences if there were offshore wind power in the way of the sensors."
Yet another price (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have a belligerent around running its own economy into the ground and invading neighbours for a resource infusion... you have to waste money defending against that aggression.
If everybody would just stay in their own damn yard, we'd have so much more productivity to make people's lives better instead of spending it on a giant game of Risk on behalf of a handful of rich assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
When you have a belligerent around running its own economy into the ground and invading neighbours for a resource infusion...
you forgot about the decapitated babies in the oven?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, definitely. If assholes were not tolerated in positions of power (or worse, voted into them), the world would be a better place.
Re: (Score:3)
I've kind of given up on the human race. We've had about 10,000 years of civilization, and in that time, for every great work of art or building we've made, we've also spent far more resources on the means of subjugating and killing each other. We're easily duped into the most idiotic acts of vandalism and murder because for all the wonder that is our prefrontal cortex, most of our decision making is pretty much on the same level of that as your average chimpanzee.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Ukraine won. Nobody was betting on them when this shit started, Trump even said it was a genius move. But Putin fucked up and Ukraine managed to resist. (Trump now says Biden push Putin to attack). Putin is fighting a war he can't win, he's destroying Russia rather than admitting defeat. Can Ukraine regain its lost territory ?maybe not, but they haven't lost this war, Putin did.
LOL. Ukraine loses 20%-25% of its territory and a huge proportion of its country's wealth.
It is in debt and unlikely to repay it within 50 years.
More than 10 million have left and probably will never return.
Most of the country doesn't have electricity.
But they have won, like the Knights who say "Ni".
You need a new LLM, one less prone to hallucinating.
Vatnik shill detected (Score:3, Informative)
Russia chose to fail while its counterpart China succeeded spectacularly. Russia is not EUROPEAN country, and a bit of territory does not make it one. Russia is eternal existential enemy to Western civilization of which it was never part.
NATO is a VOLUNTARY alliance of nations not wanting to be victims of eternal Russian imperialism. Of course as a shill you won't find it odd that most of the former Warsaw Pact joined NATO to prevent a repeat invasion.
Re:Vatnik shill detected (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia chose to fail while its counterpart China succeeded spectacularly.
It's not that simple.
Russia turned commie in 1917. By 1991, there was no longer any living memory of how markets worked. People had been born into corruption and cynicism. They were fed lies with their breastmilk. They knew nothing else.
China turned commie in 1949 and started opening up in 1978. Living people had been shopkeepers and factory managers who understood markets and supply & demand.
The level of corruption in China was much less and also different. In Russia, you pay a bribe to some bureaucrat to get your business license, and he steps out of the way so you can deal with the next official with his hand out. In China, they have the concept of guanxi ("connections"). You pay a bribe, and the recipient becomes your champion. He'll guide you through the process, easing things every step of the way. He'll even invite you to his home to meet his family. And, of course, he'll be available (for a fee) to help you with any other problems that arise.
Re: (Score:1)
China is also a culture of "If you were too stupid to get scammed by me, it's your own damn fault".
I wonder how China would do with a better culture.
Re: Vatnik shill detected (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder how China would do with a better culture.
China is a low-trust society [wikipedia.org].
Low-trust societies have difficulty escaping the middle-income trap [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how this adds to what I said. Let me rephrase: I wonder what China would look like if it was a high-trust-society.
And I wonder how much Christianity is to blame for high-trust-societies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You make a point. But I don't think there was anything inevitable about Russia ending up where it is today. That is: despite being handicapped with the Soviet legacy, they didn't have to become an
Re: Vatnik shill detected (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia chose to fail while its counterpart China succeeded spectacularly. Russia is not EUROPEAN country, and a bit of territory does not make it one. Russia is eternal existential enemy to Western civilization of which it was never part.
NATO is a VOLUNTARY alliance of nations not wanting to be victims of eternal Russian imperialism. Of course as a shill you won't find it odd that most of the former Warsaw Pact joined NATO to prevent a repeat invasion.
That's what the warmongers like LIz and Dick Cheney who profit from wars while never fighting any want you to believe and that was exactly my point; "eternal existential enemy to Western civilization" because they need that to perpetuate war.
Russia seriously thought about joining the west and becoming part of NATO after 1989 and they were promised consideration but the warmongers made sure it would never happen, further adding insult to injury by admitting several neighbor countries in NATO, thus isolating
Re:Vatnik shill detected (Score:4, Interesting)
Russia seriously thought about joining the west and becoming part of NATO after 1989 and they were promised consideration but the warmongers made sure it would never happen, further adding insult to injury by admitting several neighbor countries in NATO, thus isolating Russia even more. What else did you expect to happen?
Would you care to explain in concrete terms how NATO isolates Russia? The only real power NATO has is article 4 and 5 of the charter which are explicitly defensive in nature. How specifically is Russia being isolated or injured in any way by the existence of NATO other than being stymied from imperialistic impulses to wage wars of conquest against other states? Does NATO prevent Russia from trading or competing with the rest of the world in some way? Does it prevent Russia from forming economic or military alliances? How specifically does NATO "isolate" Russia from anything other than imperial aggression?
That's what the warmongers like LIz and Dick Cheney who profit from wars while never fighting any want you to believe and that was exactly my point; "eternal existential enemy to Western civilization" because they need that to perpetuate war.
The standard war profiteering MIC tropes have long outlasted their sell by dates. To provide some perspective Microsoft alone in most recent year made roughly in *profit* what the top 5 defense firms take in defense related *revenues* combined.
Reforming NATO to be more purely defensive? (Score:2)
Interesting meta-dynamics on this branch of the discussion. An AC troll tried to derail it, but the Subject-changing response became the increasingly irrelevant Subject as some sincere non-trolls tried to go deeper with the topic. Subject reconsideration could be recommended by minor AI analysis of relevance of the Subject? If the Subject doesn't have any words from a comment, that could trigger the question "Are you sure the Subject shouldn't be changed?" or "Would you like to change your Subject?"
Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
NATO only gets dragged into anything, if a NATO member country gets attacked.
Has nothing to do with the idea if a NATO member is at war where it is supporting another partner in another treaty.
In your example: if France is not attacked on French soil, NATO has nothing to do with it. And even then one could argue: well, you started it, we do not think we are obliged to help you now.
Re: (Score:2)
France would be obliged to help the MATO (or a NATO) member that was attacked. The only wiggle room I see might be if France's soldiers had not actually been injured in the conflict. Once they start getting killed, France would clearly be under attack and that would trigger the NATO side.
Re: (Score:2)
France would be obliged to help the MATO (or a NATO) member that was attacked.
Once they start getting killed, France would clearly be under attack and that would trigger the NATO side.
There are no concrete obligations in NATO. Members are the sole arbiter of the contributions they deem necessary. Note the language "such action as it deems necessary" and "in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense" if you start something then self-defense doesn't mean the same thing as a response to unprovoked aggression.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you care to cite the treaties in more detail. I think your interpretation is dubious.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the territory of France (in this example) is not attacked, there is no obligation for NATO to step in.
NATO is a defensive pact, and not an aggressive one, where everyone is obliged to participate in a war what ever member started.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read some parts of the NATO treaties?
Re: (Score:2)
I did.
It is part of our school education.
There is no obligation for NATO to help any member to wage a war.
Unless that member is attacked. See: Falkland war. That was outside of the treaty area, no one helped UK, at least not on the battle field.
Re: (Score:2)
Which parts? But you've already convinced me you didn't understand what I wrote, so maybe it doesn't matter what else you read and didn't understand?
But at least I can take credit for writing so badly. Or should I instead blame you for not asking for whatever clarification might have helped? At this point it looks like another failed "discussion". I have no particular idea what you didn't understand and see no reason why I should care. And I already had a pretty good idea of how badly I write, though I usua
Re: (Score:2)
You try to argue, if for example France - a NATO member - starts a war in Africa.
And then the African country attacks French soil, that NATO is obliged to defend France.
And here you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
NAK
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Don't Blame the Boogie Man (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I think I'll decline to blame the organizations Ukraine was looking to for peace and prosperity in the face of Russian aggression.
Putin is, after all, NATO's greatest salesman.
Re:The US would go bananas too (Score:5, Insightful)
Ukraine WAS NEUTRAL when Russia invaded it in 2014. And most of the population was OPPOSED to NATO membership It took half a year of being invaded by Russia for Ukraine to abandon its neutrality. Even after the 2014 invasion, Ukrainians and the west remained highly hesitant to do anything that might "provoke Russia". Even when small numbers of mere Javelins were supplied, they had to remain under lock-and-key and Ukraine wasn't allowed to touch them unless Russia invaded. Let alone foreign troops, let alone "some nukes". Had there actually been western troops, let alone "some nukes" on Ukraine, Russia surely wouldn't have invaded.
Ukraine is not Russia's plaything. It's tens of millions of people with their own views on their future. And that view is not Russian autocracy; it's Europe. Which Russia refuses to let them have.
While Russia continually rearmed, assassinated dissidents, sabotaged western elections, and on and on, the west continuously ignored the threat. There was basically no US military presence in eastern Europe at all before 2014. No heavy armour. US troops only in Germany, UK and Italy, at greatly reduced levels from the Cold War. Patriot Missile batteries only in Germany. No THAAD. No Aegis Ashore. The eastern front was effectively abandoned.
After 2014, the US "reacted", but only barely. Enhanced Forward Presence deployed about 1k troops to Poland, and there were a couple thousand rotating troops in eastern Europe. 80-90 Abrams and ~150 Bradley were deployed (to put these numbers into perspective, Russia had tens of thousands of tanks and armoured vehicles). Two Patriot batteries were deployed and one AEGIS Ashore system, and there were enhanced air and naval patrols (but nothing even resembling what Russia was doing before and after 2014). The reaction was grossly under-proportional to the emerging threat.
In each case, had NATO had a stronger presence, the invasions probably wouldn't have happened. The only thing that expansionist authoritarian dictators respect is strength. Weakness is always encouragement to take more.
Re:The US would go bananas too (Score:5, Insightful)
Sending in your military to take over a part of a foreign country that had literally already voted for independence from you decades ago to join said internationally recognized country isn't really an invasion because of the people's ethnicity?
Do you ever wonder why people have trouble taking you seriously? If so: try listening to yourself. I can't wait to hear you cheering it on if the UK invades India and starts annexing state after state, overthrowing their democracies, using mass torture to suppress resistance, burning non-English-language literature, kidnapping their children to raise as British, etc etc, because, hey, most of them speak English and they have a historic connection with the country.... not really an invasion, sko...
(And for the record: said Turkish people tends to be strongly pro-Ukrainian, and has been heavily repressed since Russia seized the territory)
Social saboteurs like you remind me (Score:4, Insightful)
what a tragedy failing to nuke Moscow before Stalin got nukes really was.
Blame it on Sweden (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Blame it on Sweden (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think Putin's dumb enough or desperate enough to invade a NATO country, but you can be damn sure he'd sabotage a wind farm or use it to make sabre-rattling more credible. Especially if it made him look 'strong' domestically.
Re: (Score:3)
Plinking at a wind farm at sea is exactly the kind of petty shit the Russians would enjoy. Sweden is being wise here.
Re:Blame it on Sweden (Score:5, Insightful)
you can be damn sure he'd sabotage a wind farm
That isn't their worry. Their worry is that the wind farm will interfere with their air defenses and detecting incoming threats.
Re: (Score:2)
He'll sabotage them by putting up pirate wind farms along the coast to mask his incoming invasion...
Re:Blame it on Sweden (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt Putin would directly and overtly invade a NATO country. Instead, you'd have a bunch of "pro-Russian locals" in one particular region of the country who are "being oppressed" and "ask for help" from Russia, to which Russia "provides humanitarian aid", and all of the sudden the "separatists" have professional military training and armoured columns and air defense systems, which they "found in local arms depots", including systems that the host country never possessed.
Re:Blame it on Sweden (Score:4, Interesting)
You can see this process at work right now in Moldova or Georgia. And of course, the Crimean operation was such a success, with such a feeble response from the west, that Putin just decided to take the whole country.
Re: (Score:1)
Crimea is exactly why nobody* is willing to take anything Putin says about his invasion of Ukraine as anything other than a deliberate lie. We know for certain that's what he does.
* Except, of course, white supremacists who support everything he is doing
Re: (Score:2)
and all of the sudden
Nit: The idiom is "all of a sudden". It's a common mistake [merriam-webster.com] :-)
Re: (Score:1)
If there is a war between NATO and Russia, then it is NATO that has started it and driven Russia to it. Russia isn't stupid enough to go to war by itself with NATO unless really provoked, Russia doesn't have the resources.
And don't count on a war between NATO and Russia using conventional weapons. If a war is started, it'll be the end of most of the world as the only thing Russia can do is launch all their nuclear missiles as it knows it can't win any conventional war with NATO. And NATO knows this, and is
Re: (Score:3)
Russia is not stupid enough, Putin is. And he's already started a war on the West, it just is not kinetic yet except in Ukraine.
The basic problem is that Russia, after years and years of authoritarian rule, does not have the political structures to support any other form of government. Hence the latest authoritarian de jour defines himself as "protecting" Russia against the West. He cannot fix Russia because to do that he'd have to fire the kleptocrats and start forming responsible political institutions.
Re: (Score:2)
He would have to fire himself first, being the kleptocrat-in-chief.
Re:Blame it on Sweden (Score:4, Interesting)
They already sabotaged e.g. the power cable between Finland and Estonia. Officially blamed on a Chinese ship which "accidentally" dropped its anchor and dragged across the power cable, severing it. They claim they didn't notice. Anybody familiar with the procedure for releasing a 6-tonne ship anchor will tell you that it's not something you do by accident.
Strangely enough, a Russian oceanographic "science" ship was zig-zagging over the damaged area in the weeks before the cable was accidentally cut. An interesting ship - with armed guards on board.
The same ship was recently spending a lot of time in the southern baltic between Lolland and Germany, where we also happen to have a number of power cables across the sea floor.
Strange. If only there was a way to put two and two together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea this really sounds like a bogus excuse. The real threat of Russia is them sabotaging the wind farm but for some reason that is not mentioned. Obstructing radar is something other things, such as *ships* do, and they move around and are thus harder to ignore. Also they contain a lot more metal.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds more like an excuse to me
The real threat is zero or near zero. Russia attacking a NATO member would trigger Article 5.
This is a political convenience
Re: (Score:1)
The interferences of the turbines create radar blind spots over water, and vibrations and simply sound under water, which affects sonar.
The sonar situation in the Baltic sea is: "complicated".
Different layers of different temperatured water, and different salt levels, not only horizontally but also vertically at river mouths makes it easy for submarines to sneak around.
Adding "extra background noise" makes it even more easy.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems bogus. *ships* produce far more noise, and are made of metal and interfere with radar far more. And they move around, too.
I do believe turbines are a visible target Putin could sabotage without triggering NATO response, though I am stumped as to why this more plausible explanation was not used as an excuse to cancel them.
Re: (Score:2)
It is about radar versus planes. Not about ships.
And the sound of a single ship, has nothing to do with an obscuring sound cloud of sound coming from thousands of sources.
The plausible explanation is: they do not want to be blind - when the attack is coming. And they do not want to be blind when allies fight in the sea, and they can do nothing to help.
It is physics, not politics.
Has nothing to do with NATO.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot more than one ship.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, airplanes. As I mentioned before ... seems you always only read the first line of a comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even Putler knows that is a fight he can't win.
Its not a fight NATO can win either. but they may not have much choice but to take that risk if they are unwilling to let Ukraine lose. In any case, if you are Sweden the possibility that you will find yourself in a real war with Russia is not as remote as it once was.
Re: (Score:1)
Even Putler knows that is a fight he can't win.
Its not a fight NATO can win either. but they may not have much choice but to take that risk if they are unwilling to let Ukraine lose. In any case, if you are Sweden the possibility that you will find yourself in a real war with Russia is not as remote as it once was.
As remote as it once was? Really?
LOLOLOLOLOL.
Maybe learn how many wars there have been between Sweden and Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe learn how many wars there have been between Sweden and Russia.
None in 200 years, the last one ending in 1809. That was 3 years before the start of the last war between the United States and Britain. And it resulted in the creation of Finland as a separate country. I would call that pretty remote.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin then has to choose to go nuclear and hope his underlings agree. After them seeing how much of a disaster all his orders have been so far. Someone would have probably "relieved" him by that stage. Either internal or external.
I think the idea that Russia will surrender rather than use its nuclear arsenal is silly. What do you think they have it for? Show?
If your answer is yes, it would be logical for Russia to presume that US, Britain and France only have nuclear weapons for show. In that case, Russia can use its arsenal with no fear of retaliation in kind.
The more likely scenario is that first one and then both sides faced with defeat turn to their nuclear arsenals as equalizers on the battlefield and that escalates into a
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds more like an excuse to me
The real threat is zero or near zero. Russia attacking a NATO member would trigger Article 5.
This is a political convenience
Do you honestly think that nihilist Putin even cares about the threat of NATO Article 5?
Nihilist Putin only wants to get in a credible and effective First Strike when nuclear weapons are involved.
Found the self-appointed mind reader.
Oh for fucks sake (Score:1)
Confidence requires credible preparation. (Score:4, Insightful)
That includes designing everything with military advantage in mind.
You're clearly too young to have experienced the early Cold War so you can have no idea regarding the permanent Russian threat, but while this may be incredibly difficult to understand there is more to maintaining secular democracy than wishful thinking.
Russia will never cease to be an enemy. It is not some modern nation temporarily afflicted with a bad administration, but I don't expect you to know that either since it's not an orthodox leftist belief.
Re:Confidence requires credible preparation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which pretty much justifies Russia's assumption that NATO is not really a "defensive alliance" and an independent Ukraine joining NATO really is a serious threat to their security. Along with this:
Utter nonsense. When the Soviet Union broke up, the west gave Russia a complete do-over, wiping the slate clean, with an invitation to join the community of nations as a full partner. But they went with corrupt oligarchs and decided to appoint a new Czar for life, who then apparently decided he wanted their old territories back. No one wanted Russia as an enemy, until they started down the path of rebuilding their old Russian empire again by violent means.
They had a chance at redemption, and they decided to throw away their future on an old man's dream of reforming a long-dead empire. NATO is a absolutely a defensive alliance, however much Russian shills want to deny it. There is zero danger to Russia from NATO member states, and they damn well know it too, or their wouldn't have stripped their defenses along their borders to toss still more troops into the fires of the Ukraine war.
All Russia has done recently is to convince the world that they will never change their imperialistic spots. They're still stuck in an 18th century mindset of believing they deserve their old empire back - that "Russia has no borders."
Re: (Score:1)
That is beyond stupid. The West did no such thing. The USSR dissolved the only thing Western leaders saw was an opportunity to solve their trade imbalance problem they could already see growing with Asia without having to tell anyone at the Chamber of Commerce 'no'.
Policies that were certain to impoverish the new fledgling democracy and turn it into the degenerate oil state it is today!
In fact when Yeltsin (who Putin was a stooge of himself, and one the "good guys" back then) wasn't able to deliver on the
Re:Confidence requires credible preparation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Policies that were certain to impoverish the new fledgling democracy and turn it into the degenerate oil state it is today!
Yeah, they impoverished Russia by buying its oil and gas. The impoverishment certainly wasn't caused by the Russian Oligarchs who ran off with all of the profit and left the Russians starving in a ditch as per usual.
I am simply say we created the conditions that put him there and allowed him to retain his grip on power and that our ability to peacefully co-exist with Russia and former USSR powers has as much to do with our own behavior as Putin's.
You are simply talk bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Russian White House, look it up.
You are simply spouting hawkish propaganda.
Re: (Score:1)
You are simply spouting hawkish propaganda.
You are shitting Russian propaganda. Brush your teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
whatever war monger. I know people who were there! (Fellow Americans)
Let me guess you have nice MIC job right?
Re: Confidence requires credible preparation. (Score:2)
I see you haven't read any of my comments.
This makes sense, you don't know about anything else you post about either.
Re: (Score:2)
Russian White House, look it up.
I don't have to look it up, I know what it is, and its history. I don't see how the building is relevant to this discussion, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia's assumption that NATO is not really a "defensive alliance" and an independent Ukraine joining NATO really is a serious threat to their security.
It is not. Nobody wants to invade Russia, history is full of examples of why that's a bad idea. The only thing they have that you can't easily get more of elsewhere besides borscht is fossil fuels, which we have to use less of anyway due to the existential threat of AGW. So AGW is a threat to Russian profit at the same time. The oligarchs who run off with all of the profit in Russia couldn't bear to see themselves become normally wealthy people instead of spectacularly, so they supported Putin's invasion. T
What are ballistic robots? (Score:2)
Something ChatGPT just invented?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, but "ballistic robots" sounds like a cool sci-fi weapon system ;) You launch them, they arrive in half an hour, ride a heat shield through reentry, fire retrorockets, march off wielding heavy weapons in a coordinated assault, and immediately seize the objective that they were launched to take.
Re: (Score:2)
What are ballistic robots?
At a guess, smart bombs or shells. They are ballistic, and they are robots.
Sweden saw what happened to Germany and Finland. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ossis and other Kremlin shills ensured Germany would depend on Russian resource extraction so the usual pattern of former Commies monetizing their old connections would not just be confined to Russia.
It's worth reminding Russian history in that region gives every reason to be militarily prepared which includes reducing economic therefore social vulns. The Russo-Finnish war is still in living memory and Sweden knows Russia can easily finish returning to its natural (s)talinism Putin regrets losing.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Russo-Finnish war is still in memory, so should be WW2. Should we rearm against Germany, Italy and Japan?
Re: (Score:1)
Ossis and other Kremlin shills ensured Germany would depend on Russian resource extraction so the usual pattern of former Commies monetizing their old connections would not just be confined to Russia.
It's worth reminding Russian history in that region gives every reason to be militarily prepared which includes reducing economic therefore social vulns. The Russo-Finnish war is still in living memory and Sweden knows Russia can easily finish returning to its natural (s)talinism Putin regrets losing.
LOL. Read about how many wars there have been between Sweden and Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
FYI, Russian children learn in school that Americans and Brits had troops on their soil fighting against the Bolsheviks in the revolution.
If Russians had troops in the US fighting on the British side in the US revolution, you'd learn about it in history classes.
War (Score:2)
Sure makes Peace difficult.
No good commie bastards ;) (Score:2)
Problem is (Score:5, Informative)
The issue is that radar reflections from windmills create a massive blind spot behind them in radar coverage. This is the reason why we in Finland block building of windmills across a lot of East and North. In spite of locals really wanting to get access to massive amount of government subsidies, and being some of the relatively poorest regions of the country.
There have been several official reports issued on the subject, this being the latest iirc:
https://julkaisut.valtioneuvos... [valtioneuvosto.fi]
Issue with radars are only one page (172), but it's put last because the goal of the paper is to "advancing building of wind power", and that one just torpedoes the whole thing in large swathes of the nation by stating that "blind spot creation effects cannot be technologically mitigated".
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a perfect research opportunity for an anti-radar weapon to deploy from some kind of drone that you could dangle all around your warships.
Difference between passive and active. (Score:2)
The problem is that the wind farms act as passive counter for radar, leaving blind spots that you have to constantly be watching out for.
Drone deployed screens would be an active counter - while it can interfere with getting a good signal, you can tell that something is happening outside of normal operations. And honestly we already have anti-radar deployed material - it is commonly referred to as chaff (and for larger target you are generally better off using jamming methods for active countermeasures)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Same reason why you can't just have the latest flight Arleigh Burke on watch at every maritime chokepoint that exists to ensure total maritime shipping security. Finitude of resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'll just point out that there's a reason why successful strikes against strategic radar stations has been hailed as such a massive success in Ukraine war whenever it was actually managed. For both sides.
Because they're not just expensive. They're extremely expensive, complex, require very careful calibration to the location in most cases, and generally not something you want to have anywhere near the front line.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anything comparing this to other construction and ships, which they are allowing? This whole excuse sounds kind of bogus to me.
Re: (Score:1)
What are you on about? Ships in a middle of a forest? "Other construction" that doesn't interfere with radar (of which there's very little if any, regions are remote, forested, and very sparsely inhabited.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sweeden Scraps Plans For 13 ***OFFSHORE*** Windfarms Over Russia Security Fears"
Re: (Score:1)
My subtopic was about wind farms on land.
Wind farms on sea will obviously have similar effect, compounded by the expected relative evenness of sea surface as compared to trees and hills on land.
also admitting that they damage whale's earing (Score:1)
What government does Sweden have? (Score:2)
Oh look, a right wing government looking for excuses not to invest in renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why this has not been fixed and better *enforced*: you can't vote if you don't post regularly at a positive level, and you can't vote if you don't meta-mod regularly as well.
The least cynical explanation I can come up with is that the owners can't figure out the code.
The middle explanation is that they benefit from the bad moderation which causes more posts and more impressions.
The highly cynical explanation is that the staff benefits from bad moderation hiding THEIR bad moderation, because they are acting in bad faith.
No knowing which of these it is, and there's no trusting cryptocurrency hawks even if they made a statement.
Re: (Score:1)
That was not very many words to say "I am a cowardly cuck", but it was still more than necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
you can't vote if you don't meta-mod regularly as well.
I get mod points at least weekly and I haven't metamoderated in at least a decade (because I can't figure out how the fuck to metamod anymore).
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know if it will do any good, but... https://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=metamod [slashdot.org]
P.S. I got there with the old URL (slashdot.org/metamod.pl) and it redirected. I guess having been here forever is finally good for something.
Re: (Score:2)
Much obliged. I remember the last time I tried that it just plain didn't work (redirect loop, IIRC).