What kind of argument is this? Are Russians somehow notorious for being reckless and suicidal? Or how else does Sweden's policy as you describe it make the odds higher that it was a russian submarine? Please explain.
Apparently so.
While the inclusion of it as part of Ukraine in 1991 is not in dispute, the land was only "moved" into the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. At the time, it was about equivalent to transferring jurisdiction between one US county to another. A US state to state transfer would not be similar, as USSR laws were very centralized and there wasn't really that much difference between the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) and Ukrainian SSR. (Soviets sure loved long names and acronyms!)
From the wikipedia article: "In 1954, it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union." [1]
Demographics are also complicated, with 2001 census (latest wikipedia article cites) showing 58% of population identifying themselves as Russian, so it is at least plausible that the majority of the population would prefer Russia as the parent state over Ukraine. [2]
The situation in "Donbas" is just downright deplorable. Both sides are not in the clear as to how this conflict came about and how it is unfolding. For proof, take a look at the Human Rights Watch report on use of cluster munitions: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cl....
Personally, I would probably not have such a problem with either side using these, had they been used exclusively against military groups outside of populated areas, or at least in sparsely populated areas, but they are being fired at cities. Firing one of these into a city is inhumane regardless of who occupies the city. There are still civilians that probably did not have a chance to run away, usually the elderly and people with children. These munitions hurt them the most.
For what a cluster munition is, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_munition.
In the end, the more we do finger pointing at a large group, the less progress we will make towards a lasting peace. Not all Russians are war-hungry, not all Ukrainians think Bendera is a hero, etc. etc. etc.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Demographics
Crimea's status was indeed complex which is why independence with a strong Russian bent would have been acceptable by all international players. In 2014 there is no excuse though for straight-up military annexation under false pretences without the slightest hint of respect for international law.
In the end the populist appeal of healing the wound of a 'lost Crimea,' as you so aptly demonstrate, won over from respecting international norms, something which can aptly be called reckless and suicidal just by itself.
Concerning the Donbass all of the world except for one country is remarkably clear on how the conflict came about.
Just like happened in Georgia and Moldavia, Russian-backed forces were sent in to inflame moderate ethnic tensions and use unmarked mercenaries supported by surplus Russian military material to turn the conflict violent and eventually create a frozen conflict allowing Russia to prevent NATO expansion and exert geopolitical control over the region.
In Ukraine that almost worked again except that MH17 drew international attention at an inopportune time giving Ukraine the time to mobilise a counter-attack eventually causing the Russian regular army to have to be sent in unmarked to keep the conflict going which led the global community to escalate its economic warfare to the point where the intent became to cripple the Russian economy to the point of unsustainability... which sounds even more reckless and suicidal to me.
Also notice that nowhere do you hear me arguing it's okay for Ukrainian forces to fire shells at Russian positions which strategically locate themselves next to urban targets. The conflict is intensely brutal with both sides indiscriminately firing shells and rockets into civilian areas and well documented evidence of even Russian forces sending false-flag shells into their own civilian areas and even more evidence of the Ukrainian army using that as a permanent excuse for inappropriate and overreaching bombing...
And as far as finger pointing goes; I'm pointing at the Russian government. I have however also been deeply shocked by the degree to which the Russian population considers annexation of a region an OK-ish thing and directly causing the loss of several thousands of lives through escalating a conflict by military intervention a 'complex issue.'
A citation or two or three would be nice on all of this, as I do not share many of your assumptions. That said, without being there first hand, I don't think one could really know the truth.
Not sure if you read Russian, but here's more "entertainment" on the subject of MH17: http://lenta.ru/news/2014/11/14/boeing/.
On the subject of MH17, it's really appalling how the media and people discussing it seem to focus on the Ukrainian conflict and not on the loss of life here itself or even on the people working to fight AIDS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Pas....
Pretty much everything I shared is fairly common knowledge/sense with Occam's Razor applied to geopolitics. I'd be interested in which of the 'assumptions' you don't share.
And about the MH17 loss of life... I'm Dutch. I have close friends who lost close friends there. I feel the loss. I'm just even more sad that they even died mostly in vain.
For the "entertainment" remark, I find the various theories somewhere between insulting and criminal, because that airspace is so tightly controlled, both NATO and Russia know what happened, but neither side is coming forth with concrete evidence for various reasons that do not serve justice. The reason I linked to it is to illustrate how ridiculous the entire situation is.
1. p=90% the Swedish policy is so much hot air, at least until international tensions reach the boiling point. (A person who thought this would have been right.)
2. You might have stealth tech sufficient to evade the Swedes' sensors.
3. It is valuable to know for sure about #2, and there's only one way to know for sure.
The p=10% that #1 is false certainly constitutes a risk, so the only rational actor who would make the play we saw would be someone matching #2 and #3, and right now that's the Russians. Plus the Russians have a history of actively probing their opponents' defenses, so the move would hardly be without precedent.
In what way are they opponents?
The incredibly short distance from the coast suggests the possibility of an unmanned submarine to me. Territorial waters start at 13NM; operating at the 12.75NM is like conducting military operations 12.75NM inside a country's sovereign borders.
It's so relaxed, to the point that its a running joke among neighbour nations.
Source: I'm from denmark, and lived in sweden for 6 years up until 3 years ago, and my father has lots of nordic military contacts.
"One month"! The article says Sweden has proof of intrusion "in October". If they had gathered enough information a month ago, why didn't they issue a diplomatic protest? Or did it take them one month to gather the information?
> The same Sweden was basically sleeping when russian planes contested swedish aerospace
I don't know why it matters, but yeah, that happened once. The QRF has been improved since then. The reason why the Swedish Air Force didn't respond quickly enough was that the defence has been all but dismantled since the 90's due to "peace in our time". Both the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister said today that Sweden will defend its borders with all means necessary. It seems we've woken up.
Because?
Some jets flew over that caused no harm to anyone, wasn't probably even seen by any civilians. Is that a reason to retaliate with a show of force - or had they already used diplomatic channels to tell them that this was not allowed?
This sounds like you want to start WW III because someone stepped on your toes at the bar. Sweden perhaps don't think that some other country swinging their dick is a reason to get in to armed aggression.