Russia Tells Norway To Keep Aegis BMD System off Vessels

[archibald harry tuttle]

Some acused me of not reading and clearly they did not read all I wrote, rhey just found a few lines they did not like and rushed into reply mode.

Someone questioned wether one nation can tell another what systems they can or can not have and received a reply with a list of treaties that did not include the party of interest in this thread. I did point out how uneffective treatries alone can be and explicitly said it was all about leverage. For example been a member of NATO is leverage, been a supplier of a strategic asset is leverage or been in control of access points is leverage. Words in paper alone do not work and anyway no treaty was mentioned that forbids Norway from having AEGIS. So they can whine but they can't tell Norway what to do. Its like Hector Timerman and the Falklands.

[metberkut]

Doing something stupid? The only player doing stupid things in this game is Russias intruding into scandinavian airspace, which happens a bit too often IMHO.

My god this is ****ing stupid.

Not *once* have Russians *ever* intruded Norwegian airspace. No, not even during Cold War. They have always been in neutral waters, check NATO rules and why F-16's "intercept" before shooting yourself in the balls.

[lander]

Bah all this talking doesn't mean a thing. We've (Russia) been having pretty good relationships with our Scandinavian neighbours. Hell we even settled a territorial dispute with norway a year or so ago.
This is probably pandering to the electorate before the elections.

Really? Could have fooled me...

Russian military presence around the Scandinavian countries has severly increased and is on level with that of the 70's and 80's according to both Norwegian and Swedish sources:
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/ak...en_5641373.svd

Stefan Wallin, defense minister of Finland, recently brought up the idea of joining NATO if budget cuts are not stopped due to the russian military build-up in the area.

Russia has been in some very tense argumentations regarding the Norwegian coast guard in the Barents sea region which lead to threats regarding sanctions:
http://nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/troms...mark/1.7816460
http://www.barentsobserver.com/zhiri...33-116320.html
http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/201...mot-norsk-fisk

And not to forget that Russia will place Iskander & S-400 towards the west. I love Russias double standards regarding the NATO missile shield. Maybe Russia should have thought twice before placing Iskander-M and S-400 in Kalingrad and in Luga as they will cover both Stockholm and Helsinki, Sweden's and Finland's capitals, with Nuclear capable missiles, and S-400 that covers most of southern Finland aswell as a large area of the south-eastern parts of Sweden, including Sweden's second largest air force base, Sweden's largest naval base and Gotland... So complain about how others choose to set up a defensive shield not covering Russias territories, and then place both offensive and defensive weapons in the region which covers two "neutral" countries territories?...

The Range of ISKANDER-M:
http://oplatsen.files.wordpress.com/...nder-m_700.jpg
The Range of S-400:
http://oplatsen.files.wordpress.com/...c3a4ckvidd.jpg

And on that cherry, Russia has raised the number of marines in Kalingrad and created 2 arctic battalions in the north-west, and stated it would patrol the newly laid gas-pipe (just outside of Gotland) with military means.

So no. I don't see how Russia in any way could have had good relations with Scandinavia in the last decade.

[lander]

My god this is ****ing stupid.

Not *once* have Russians *ever* intruded Norwegian airspace. No, not even during Cold War. They have always been in neutral waters, check NATO rules and why F-16's "intercept" before shooting yourself in the balls.

It happens that military aircraft go off-route and enter the air spaces of other countries. I know for a fact that this has occured in both Sweden, Finland and Norway with russian aircraft. Russia normally do their patrols over international waters though.

[AlexMartin2]

Really? Could have fooled me...

Your own journalists fooled you. But don't worry, they were doing it successfully for a long time. Just some facts to consider:

1) Russia didn't increase any presence in these areas, since no additional troops were introduced anywhere close. Russia was only decreasing number of troops last years.
BTW, some western dumbsh1t journalists used creation of JSC West as a pretense of writing something like "huge military buildup"

2) Two arctic brigades (not battalions) were reorganized from units stationed there for decades.

3) S-400 and Iskanders. Why not blame Poland for allowing ABM on its territory? No ABM - no weapons in Kaliningrad, it was said hundreds of times. Twisted logic or just plain dumbness?

Also I guess continuous fails in having accurate information changes something in you, and you didn't notice what was written in the article which started this topic:

“We are aware that the U.S. has been prompting Norway to install the missile defense system on its naval ships. Fortunately, Norway has taken a balanced position,” Makarov said on Feb. 16.

Basically he said that Norway will not do it right away, and will negotiate, which is pretty fair for me.
At least we know that Norway government is pragmatic and don't take your whining into account.

[Loke2]

Norway and Russia has a quite good relationship, with increased collaboration also on the military.

Nevertheless, we did buy those Nansen frigates and we will buy those horribly expensive F-35. We are also working hard to shift NATO focus from external "out-of-area" operations and back to NATO's core and original mission; the defence of the NATO countries. There is a reason for that.

Norway works hard to build and maintain a good relationship to Russia. We certainly give more than we take in that relationship, e.g. when we agreed to the border in the Barents Sea, also, we have paid significant amounts of money to Russia to have them clean up their own nuclear mess on the Kola peninsula, etc. It's up to Russia to respond positively, and not try to stretch things too far. If they try to do that they will soon be reminded that Norway is still a core NATO member, and a close ally of the US...

[AfterEight]

My god this is ****ing stupid.

Not *once* have Russians *ever* intruded Norwegian airspace. No, not even during Cold War. They have always been in neutral waters, check NATO rules and why F-16's "intercept" before shooting yourself in the balls.

You are right, I tried to find evidence but it seems they just fly close enough to provoke a response. Still a stupid move in my opinion but granted not an actual intrusion. I was wrong, sorry.

[metberkut]

It happens that military aircraft go off-route and enter the air spaces of other countries. I know for a fact that this has occured in both Sweden, Finland and Norway with russian aircraft. Russia normally do their patrols over international waters though.

Listen, friend of mine has been ATC in Bodø for many years. Not once, has he ever seen Russian aircraft cross into the actual border without being allowed to. In same airbase there is guys that worked there during cold war era, and same. They have never experienced it. In fact, friend of mine has personally witnessed american mil planes crossing into Norwegian border without asking or being allowed to. That has happened 3 times that he remembers. You don't see that in the news, do you? Or that Russian Su-27 intercept Norwegian P-3's? (they follow rules as well, and don't fly into the actual russian border) Basically it is non-issue.

I have personally followed Bear's on NASAMS radar, nothing foul happened then either.

You are right, I tried to find evidence but it seems they just fly close enough to provoke a response. Still a stupid move in my opinion but granted not an actual intrusion. I was wrong, sorry.

Sorry if it seemed that i overreacted, but i am just honesty sick of media painting picture that Russians are stepping into borders left and right. Nothing personal. NATO planes are required to check non-NATO planes. That small detail is often being left out of equation. Thumbs up for taking it like a man.

[AfterEight]

Sorry if it seemed that i overreacted, but i am just honesty sick of media painting picture that Russians are stepping into borders left and right. Nothing personal. NATO planes are required to check non-NATO planes. That small detail is often being left out of equation. Thumbs up for taking it like a man.

That's ok, I like so many others have probably been fooled by media headlines, only when reading the fine print in the articles does it say that no actual airspace violation occurs. Same goes for incidents in Denmark. Sensationalist bs as always

[hattusili]

They don't want to mess with China or USA anymore, so they pick on Norway instead

[Xaito]

They don't want to mess with China or USA anymore, so they pick on Norway instead

Oooh that's deep, man. Keep going.

[hattusili]

No that was borderline trolling, lol.. sorry

[BogT]

The warning came from Nikolai Makarov, commander of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

From time to time, I read these type of empty threats coming from Russian generals. Why did Russia never learned not to let its generals get involved in foreign policy? That is why you have a foreign minister and a President.

I see nothing good for Russia as result of these comments. Threatening your neighbors is not the way you make friends.

[my name again]

From time to time, I read these type of empty threats coming from Russian generals. Why did Russia never learned not to let its generals get involved in foreign policy? That is why you have a foreign minister and a President.

I see nothing good for Russia as result of these comments. Threatening your neighbors is not the way you make friends.

Same applys for norway for example.

[kjerdman]

Your knowledge of treaty status leaves a lot to be desired, but that's kind of missing the point.

The point is, when a Country A tells country B that it wants Condition C, that's an opening move in diplomacy. Country B might say No, Country B might say Yes, or Country B might say, Yes, but only under Condition D. Then Country A says, if you are going to say No, then we will introduce Condition E, but if you say yes and demand Condition D, then we also require Condition F. And so on...

Eventually this discussion leads to some kind of mutual agreement, which may be legal and written down as a treaty, or may be just an unspoken understanding.

That's how diplomacy works. To deny this is to deny 5000 years or human history. If you claim that nothIng should be achieved through diplomacy is to say that the only way that a country might conduct it's foreign policy is through war. How else would they let their wishes be known?

I think we all know how that works, but that still doesn't mean Russia has any viable reasoning as to demanding Norway not to arm it's ships with defensive weapons. If they are so concerned about it then it smells fishy.

If NATO removes it's SM-3's then maybe Russia should deactivate their A-135's or 40N6 missiles.