Russian ambassador threatens Denmark with nuclear weapons.

[Basil]

I sonds like you blame them to defends themselfs against a russian agression.

Denmark beleive they are more likely to suffer a missile attacks from russia than middle east. So they prepare themself in consequences.

What's wrong with the ambassador's statements then? Russia can't be blamed for viewing NATO as a threat either. In case of a nuclear conflict anti-missile facilites in Denmark would be naturally targeted by Russia. He said exactly this.

[RandoBloom]

And Russia shows its true face. Russia is oppressive and expects small countries around it to obey and not question anything or it threatens with what.
This is much better than what US has to offer

[Austrvegr]

If Russia doesn't want other countries defending themselves from Russia then they should stop being so aggressive to other countries.

Right, for the sake of peace they should stop holding military exercises near their borders on the other side of which the US is holding theirs.

[Methmatician]

Right, for the sake of peace they should stop holding military exercises near their borders on the other side of which the US is holding theirs.

Or maybe Russia should respect the airspace of other countries.

"The ambassador’s statements came shortly after Denmark’s military published details of encroachments or near-encroachments of Danish airspace. The military said that it had scrambled its F-16 squadrons 58 times in 2014 to head off Russian aircraft, twice the number counted in 2012.

Russian military aircraft have the habit of switching off their transponders as they approach the western Baltic in a manoevre that is seen as dangerous to civilian air traffic, but prevents them being identified other than by sight."

[Basil]

Or maybe Russia should respect the airspace of other countries.

"The ambassador’s statements came shortly after Denmark’s military published details of encroachments or near-encroachments of Danish airspace. The military said that it had scrambled its F-16 squadrons 58 times in 2014 to head off Russian aircraft, twice the number counted in 2012.

Russian military aircraft have the habit of switching off their transponders as they approach the western Baltic in a manoevre that is seen as dangerous to civilian air traffic, but prevents them being identified other than by sight."

It's a normal military routine. Nothing exceptional here.

[Sarmatian]

Neutrality almost never works though. Switzerlands case is a particular one and even their situation wasn't smooth during the 2 World Wars. Belligerents crossed the border hundreds of times. If time comes will Russia avoid say Moldova's (a neutral country) territory to respects its status? Make me laugh and say yes

Well life is a bitch and big bullies will always do as they see fit. Neutrality doesn't guarantee nobody will enter your country, it's only kind of guarantee no side will deploy any troops or military installations on your territory. Still if some army thinks it's convenient for them to go through your lands they will do that and there is little you can do to stop them. I can see it may hurt someone's pride but as long as they don't harm anyone and only leave a few coins in the country on their way I don't think it's such a big deal, you can live through that. At least neutrality will guarantee no nuke will ever land in your backyard.

From what I understand the point that they're trying to make is that the system is a defensive one (meant to shoot down missiles that target countries the system protects) not an offensive one (target and destroy objectives in Russia). You seem to be very upset that these countries want protection and Russia's missiles would get shot down if it decided to attack.

Such system cannot be considered as isolated case as it's always a part of nuclear deterrent doctrine. The doctrine has both offensive and defensive elements in it. No matter how well developed and powerful is offensive element in your military the advanced defensive element may create severe disbalance in nuclear parity.

Let's say today Moldova got some super technology that will allow it to intercept any number of incoming missiles with 100% chance of success and tomorrow it got only 10 ICBMs with multiple warheads capable of reaching any part of the world. Such setup will allow Moldova to nuke any city in the world and get away with it since nobody will be able to retaliate. Suddenly Moldova will become one of the top players in international politics and will be able to dictate its will to most countries in the world.

In this illustration you can see how advanced development of purely defensive system can give a huge advantage to one side even when its offensive capacity is severely limited. That's exactly how this joint missile defense system working in today's nuclear parity - it gives NATO side a huge advantage by allowing it to track and intercept Russian ICBM's literally minutes after they has been launched and before they reach stratosphere where they will be unreachable for missile defense . That means once system will be fully functional NATO can simply launch a nuclear attack on any part of Russia without a chance of retaliation.

However Russia still has a strategy in place to counter such development. All it has to do is to destroy all long-range radars in Europe so Russian ICBMs cannot be tracked. The best way to do it is to use tactical nukes on medium range missiles.

So the plan is:

NATO launching a nuclear attack on Russia (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter for military strategists), Russia can't launch its missiles since they will be intercepted;
Russia launching tactical strikes on military installations in Europe to destroy all radars of the missile shield to make interception of ICBMs impossible;
Once radars are destroyed Russia launching its ICBMs;
Russian president calling US president to ask for mutual self-destruction of launched nukes that are still en route, US president agrees unless he is a suicidal maniac.

The outcome is: Russia and US losing part of their nuclear arsenal but sustain no damage. A few countries in Europe turned into nuclear dust with severe consequences for the rest of Europe.

There is only one way to avoid such scenario: don't participate in this missile defense project. If you have no military installations on your territory there is no reason for Russia to attack you with nukes. Once you have at least one military object involved into the system - you are a target according to the plan and you're the only one to be blamed for that.

[Sarmatian]

It sounds like you blame them to defends themselfs against a russian agression.

Denmark beleive they are more likely to suffer a missile attacks from russia than middle east. So they prepare themself in consequences.

What Russian aggression are you talking about? Or are you still shaking since the times when Cossacks entered Paris two centuries ago

[Austrvegr]

Or maybe Russia should respect the airspace of other countries.

No, unless the respect is mutual. Times of one-sided respect are gone (at least I hope so).

[Longbowman]

Well life is a bitch and big bullies will always do as they see fit. Neutrality doesn't guarantee nobody will enter your country, it's only kind of guarantee no side will deploy any troops or military installations on your territory. Still if some army thinks it's convenient for them to go through your lands they will do that and there is little you can do to stop them. I can see it may hurt someone's pride but as long as they don't harm anyone and only leave a few coins in the country on their way I don't think it's such a big deal, you can live through that. At least neutrality will guarantee no nuke will ever land in your backyard.

Well, with this attitude, you can't really blame Denmark.

Either way, both sides are gearing up for war. Consistently saying 'we're purely innocent! They're the aggressors!' is blindness. Some would call it redpill.

[Smaug]

Is it legit? If so, Russia is officialy nuts.