Topic: Russian ambassador in Denmark threatens (Read 1086 times)

Yes, you are absolutely right! USA is hell bound not only to start a Cold War, but a full-fledged hot WWIII with all their marching of troops though the Baltics and their constant war games on the Russian borders. And USA economy, with it's world's largest state debt is a depressing sight. Falling oil prices have effectively burst the USA's scam of the shale gas revolution.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2015/03/23/obama-s-war-on-russia

Meanwhile in Russia:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-20/russia-rebounds-despite-sanctions

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-22/russia-adds-to-world-s-fifth-biggest-gold-reserves-for-9th-month

Just like the West wasn't happy when Soviet missiles landed on Cuba, or when they were building nuclear silos in Poland.
Should the countries that don't have and don't want nuclear weapons on their land do nothing and let a nuclear superpower issue threats? We need a defense system and the shield is a very reasonable one.


That's right.

“If it happens, then Danish warships will be targets for Russia’s nuclear weapons. Denmark will be part of the threat to Russia,”
Russia is also reportedly moving Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, its enclave that is bordered by Lithuania and Poland and which has seen a number of large military exercises in recent years.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/646064c8-d07a-11e4-a840-00144feab7de.html#axzz3VEUeEfRs

Oh yea... I'm misinterpreting. Danish ships as part of the shield are going to function as radar systems, so threatening them with nuclear missiles was unwarranted.


It's a US system designed to protect the rest of the world, including the States and Europe from nuclear missiles. I never said it's "not to defend the countries where it is installed." It's actually you who is misinterpreting.

No, it a threat to contain the USA's bullying and possibly to retaliate if USA goes rogue.


Hmmm... Russia does not like Danes according to who? You? Research into Russian history to see the ties between Denmark and Russia. I'll give you a hint: Princess Dagmar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Feodorovna_%28Dagmar_of_Denmark%29

Russia does not want Denmark to become yet another vassal of the USA hegemony and to actually lose their independence, like Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states did.

There are more connections to Demnark, actually. Denmark set a precedent to reunification of territories, based on referendum, something that Crimea followed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig_plebiscites,_1920

...and the defensive missile shield in an advantage for the US capacity to bully and strike at any time .

The defensive missile shield in a threat to their capacity to bully and strike at any time.

Everybody knows that those "rogue states" are quite a bit hypothetical, I'd dare to say imaginary adversaries. However that missile shield is a very real threat for the status quo, so I'm not surprised if the Russians are not happy with that.

No wonder Russia doesn't like the Danes. They are everything Russia isn't: a stable, law abiding democracy which delivers an excellent standard of living to its people. And also one with a track record of standing up to bullies like Putin. Expect that 'radar capacity' to remain.

I'm not sure it's possible for Russia to handle its foreign relations more poorly.
It is as if they want the rest of the World to dislike them!

No NWS will ever use a ballistic missile with conventional warhead due to being impossible to know if they are nuclear or conventional armed till impact; thus, leading to a nuclear retaliatory strike against the country launching the said ballistic missile with conventional warhead. A conventionally-armed modification of the Trident SLBM was proposed as a candidate in US Prompt Global Strike (PGS) but rejected by Bush Administration due to the fear of misunderstandings triggering nuclear exchanges; however, Obama Administrations are still researching the concept. The so called Conventional Pershing, a MGM-31 Pershing ballistic missile armed with a conventional warhead using kinetic energy penetrators for counter-airfield operations, never materialized due to the same risk (among others, to be honest).
FOAB, provided Russian can gain the aerospace dominance over theater of operation, could be used against soft to medium surface targets covering extended areas and targets in a contained environment such as a deep canyon and within a cave/tunnel system, to clear mines or as a psychological weapon against the opposing military. However, gaining aerospace dominance - even only localized - is not a free lunch since NATO air forces are not at same level of Ukrainian or Georgian ones.

I don't think a sane NWS political leader - Russian, American, French, British, Chinese, etc. - would take lightly the decision to go nuclear, even if to retaliate against a nuclear assault. I don't buy pub chatting over Clinton, Bush, Obama, Putin, etc. being good or bad; I'm just stating facts

Another thing. Vanin didn't even say anything new. A Polish politician, who is pretty anti-Russian (I think it was Komorovskij himself, but not sure) said a few months ago that increased NATO presence in Poland does not bring the country added security, but rather the reverse. Was that Polish politician also "threatening"?


bitgeek, you actually said one good thing here: it's a U.S. missile shield, designed to protect the USA, and not to defend the countries where it is installed. Rather, the countries installing the shield on their territory are painting a big bullseye on themselves. And USA justly views them as expandable collateral if the worst comes to the worst.

I don't think Putin will ever use the nuclear weapon. But he is likely to use other heavy-caliber destructive weapons such as the SS-18 Satan (with conventional warhead) or the FOAB.

The USA is the only nation which has used the nuclear weapon since its invention in the 1940s. And mark my words, the US will be the only nation which will use it in the future as well.

That said, Obama is a bit too peace-loving to use the nukes. We need the Pinocchibitch (Billary Clinton) as POTUS to make things more interesting.

The Putin administration is more like a Rogue state.
I am think, if the Russian really use the nuclear weapon, what the action will the US take?
Is the US can use nuclear weapon fight it back?

I don't think Russian leaders & planners really put it in a full auto mode to global war if Latvia or Poland strike Russia. Look at the Seven Days to River Rhine scenario to compare, WARPAC (aka Soviet) planners limited it to only West Germany carefully avoiding targeting NWS (aka United Kingdom and France). Danish (as well as some from other NATO countries) assets could be however legitimate targets if engaged in operations in such a theater, they would probably ignored if elsewhere or in Denmark proper.*
To me Russian Ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark words looks as the usual diplomatic menacing words Russian diplomats & leaders sometimes said. Business as usual.

*Enlarging theater of operations could means escalating the confling to a level even Russian leadership could end up not being able to control further (aka *shit hit the fan* scenario); however, I'm not saying this could not happen but this would not be in Day 1. Also I don't think they would go strike strategic targets like US missile defence installation if they don't want to turn their own strategic targets inside Russia in actual targets for US strategic forces.

The Danes are unnecessary putting themselves in to risk. In case some of the most rabid NATO nations, such as Latvia or Poland launches an attack against Russia, then these installations in Denmark will also be hit back by the Russians in return.

You are misrepresenting (or mistranslating) his words. What he said, is that Russia will have to target the Danish warshpis. It's the standard procedure. The American missile shield installations in, Poland, Romania and other countries that installed the systems are already in a permanent crosshair.

http://lenta.ru/news/2015/03/21/target/


Yeah, defence system. In Denmark, against a rocket launched from Iran, they say. Interesting geography.

The thing is, this defence system weakens Russia's security.

Let me spell it out:

It's primary goal is to ensure that if the US performs a nuclear strike against Russia, then Russia will not be in a position to retaliate because of this "defence system" suppressing Russia's rockets.  Which means, that Russia has to devise means to disable the shield in case there is an incoming attack from the USA. This in turn means that as soon as a rocket flying towards Russia is detected, the first thing Russia is going to do, is to fire at those "defensive system" installations in Europe, before it fires back at the actual aggressor.

Also, why is US treating Russian military exercises on Russian soil as a direct threat, when it's a defensive measure? Some hypocrisy, eh?

The thing is Russians are treating U.S. missile shield like a direct threat, while in fact it's a defense system and every country has the right to defend itself. Imagine you being mad on your neighbour for hiring a security company to protect his home. It's time for Russia to stop being a bully.

I wouldn't put much stock in this report considering that if it was serious, the US would knock his block off. And, he knows better than that. It's like rival gangs saying this and that like it's going to lead to anything but revenge or the shut your mouth factor.

Russia's ambassador to Denmark has said Moscow could send nuclear missiles against ships from the Scandinavian NATO country if it joins the alliance's missile defense system.
http://news.yahoo.com/danish-minister-quarrels-russian-ambassador-140312011.html
http://news.yahoo.com/denmark-could-face-attack-joins-nato-shield-russian-190819455.html

The message is clear, if you try to defend your homes from our nukes we'll send even more nukes.