Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "What Sweden's membership means for NATO and Russia | DW News" video.

@justonecornetto80 All the Karelian Finns left Karelia prior to Soviet occupation and Russians moved in to replace them. That being the case, Finland would set itself a trap if it were to take back Karelia. The Baltic states had no choice, but Finland does. Besides, I wouldn't rule out that Karelia and Ingria declare independence if the Russian Federation -- like the Soviet Union before it -- disintegrates. Kaliningrad may even precede them. Rump Russia won't like it, but there's a solution to that. Sweden just opted for it.
3
@Svenne-man-1880 Actually, modern non-nuclear subs are quieter than nuclear ones. Endurance isn't an issue either within the relatively small confines of the Baltic Sea. Besides, Russia is still committed to diesel-electric submarines, like the unfortunately named Lada class.
2
@314murdacapitall By the looks of it, you'll have to excuse yourselves to fight ACW2.
1
@benjaminvanderlund9522 Russia would be mad to duke it out in Scandinavia. The place is premier ambush country. It would be a repeat of the Highway of Death, only worse.
1
@Zoe-c9z Yeah, about that. No-one's buying Putin's narrative that he's denazifying Ukraine, not even ordinary Russians. So no.
1
@vickyvey1657 Malign them or celebrate them, the British royals attract tourists, who put truckloads of money into the British economy. Scandinavian royals, on the other hand, have little to no tourist appeal. I mean, we all know Pippi Longstocking and Karlsson-on-the-Roof, but Scandi royals? They're world-famous in their own countries.
1