Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 143

Thread: Russia Tells Norway To Keep Aegis BMD System off Vessels

  1. #91
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Has this been covered at all in Norwegian media? Might have missed it.

  2. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BogT View Post
    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.
    Maybe I wasn't so wrong about the "picking on someone for something" explanation. If the government has nothing to do with it and the statement comes from a general, it says something about the attitude of that particular individual. A russian general must have spent a few decades in the army, including some of the 1980's cold war. He's might still be in that mode of thinking, and he's probably aware of that the statement is in conflict with the present government. A conclusion might be that Russia today is still not fully modernized, that the president is not in 100% control, and that there are individuals in the military and elsewhere, that like to see another course for the country.

  3. #93
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Dane View Post
    Finn's are NOT Scandinavian !! Scandinavia are the kingdoms of Norway, Sweden and Denmark. No more, no less..
    And how does this have anything to do with anything?

  4. #94
    Senior Member wiking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Norway.
    Age
    28
    Posts
    4,186

    Default

    **** it, the way i see, now we HAVE to install them, just so we won't seem to bow down to the russians. Maybe drop the fecking F35 money drain and spend the cash on Aegis and some other fun boom-stuff with a bit more use.

  5. #95
    Making Canadians look bad sepheronx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    25
    Posts
    10,478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wiking View Post
    **** it, the way i see, now we HAVE to install them, just so we won't seem to bow down to the russians. Maybe drop the fecking F35 money drain and spend the cash on Aegis and some other fun boom-stuff with a bit more use.
    And what will that do? Unless Russia is going to attack Norway with Tochka-u's, doubt it will be effective. More political backlash than anything.

  6. #96
    Member sarhatik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MUSHROOM123 View Post
    Norway will not want a war with Russia...and about the vodka-if you want to live more than 64-65 years(it's the life expectancy in Russia for a male),you should drink less
    I don't want to be a burden for my Otechestvo... better if Mother Russia will buy nuke (maybe small) on my unused pension

  7. #97
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    44
    Posts
    12,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sepheronx View Post
    And what will that do? Unless Russia is going to attack Norway with Tochka-u's, doubt it will be effective. More political backlash than anything.
    That will boost Norway's defense. Countries tend to do that when their neighbor says "don't upgrade your defense, or you'll suffer my wrath".

  8. #98
    Senior Member Andy_UA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantic Friend View Post
    That will boost Norway's defense. Countries tend to do that when their neighbor says "don't upgrade your defense, or you'll suffer my wrath".
    Wrong answer.

  9. #99
    Senior Member Xaito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    28
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantic Friend View Post
    That will boost Norway's defense. Countries tend to do that when their neighbor says "don't upgrade your defense, or you'll suffer my wrath".
    not really.
    Norway can't take on Russia alone anyway - no matter how much it spends on it's defene.
    It's got alliances to cover that, and deescalation over arms race might be not a bad deal for both sides.

  10. #100
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    44
    Posts
    12,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xaito View Post
    not really.
    Norway can't take on Russia alone anyway - no matter how much it spends on it's defene.
    It's got alliances to cover that, and deescalation over arms race might be not a bad deal for both sides.
    The issue is not for Norway to take Russia alone. It is to upgrade its defense capabilities - something that is expected of members of its alliance, and something Russia has just objected to.

    The next logical step is therefore to upgrade, because unilateral disarmament under pressure sounds like an invitation to further pressure, somewhere down the line.

    If NATO said to Russia it better not deploy missiles in Kaliningrad, or else it will suffer dire consequences, would you advocate a quick disassembling of said missiles in the name of goodwill, de-escalation and avoiding political backlash, or would you rather have Russia keep the missiles and propose a mutual deescalation, a missile-for-ABM trade or something similar?

  11. #101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantic Friend View Post
    If NATO said to Russia it better not deploy missiles in Kaliningrad, or else it will suffer dire consequences, would you advocate a quick disassembling of said missiles in the name of goodwill, de-escalation and avoiding political backlash, or would you rather have Russia keep the missiles and propose a mutual deescalation, a missile-for-ABM trade or something similar?
    Jesus leaping Christ on a pogo stick, people keep bringing up Kaliningrad as some offense and completely disregard that it was a reaction to continuing ignoring of Russia by NATO in regards to the proposed missile shield. I supposed Norwegian fishermen are next in line to be nuked by North Korea these days?

  12. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,250

    Default

    I have not seen this reported anywhere else, perhaps we should take this whole report with a pinch of salt.

  13. #103
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    44
    Posts
    12,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shurik SST View Post
    Jesus leaping Christ on a pogo stick, people keep bringing up Kaliningrad as some offense and completely disregard that it was a reaction to continuing ignoring of Russia by NATO in regards to the proposed missile shield. I supposed Norwegian fishermen are next in line to be nuked by North Korea these days?
    Lay off the pogo stick and feel free to point where in the post you quoted I said missiles in Kaliningrad were an offensive measure...

  14. #104
    Senior Member Xaito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    28
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantic Friend View Post
    The issue is not for Norway to take Russia alone. It is to upgrade its defense capabilities - something that is expected of members of its alliance, and something Russia has just objected to.

    The next logical step is therefore to upgrade, because unilateral disarmament under pressure sounds like an invitation to further pressure, somewhere down the line.

    If NATO said to Russia it better not deploy missiles in Kaliningrad, or else it will suffer dire consequences, would you advocate a quick disassembling of said missiles in the name of goodwill, de-escalation and avoiding political backlash, or would you rather have Russia keep the missiles and propose a mutual deescalation, a missile-for-ABM trade or something similar?
    Obviously diplomacy is a two way street.
    I think noteworthy is that recently actions were started by NATO side and Russia was reacting.
    If Russia started deploying missiles in Kaliningrad first, I'd understand a similar reaction from NATO.
    It is especially noteworthy because if Russia backs down or even both sides agree on a compromise, Russian position will be worse than before and NATO will come up with some new way to move on Russia in a couple years (or months).

  15. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantic Friend View Post
    Lay off the pogo stick and feel free to point where in the post you quoted I said missiles in Kaliningrad were an offensive measure...
    You keep using that as an example is enough. Where has Russia acted aggressively in the last 20-25 years to warrant such comparisons? People keep talking various "what ifs" without firstly acknowledging overt NATO moves to counter Russia's MAD capabilities.

    What is every diplomatic problem was always countered with various "what ifs"? It simply detracts from the core of the issue.

    Russia: "Hey guys, please lay off any moves that threaten the current nuclear balance?"

    NATO: "But what if this? What if that?"

    Do you see the problem with your reasoning? It simply throws some imagined "what if" as if it really pertains to the situation at hand. Your what if simply did not happened.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •