Gordon Barlow

Surely not - even if its former Prime Minister is now NATO's Secretary-General. Sad to see this anti-Russia hysteria reaching the sensible Norwegians!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-idUSKCN1IP335

carcajou

Sorry I am a bit late with this Gordon. I agree with you that the anti-Russia hysteria in the media is both scary (not as in scary about Russia, but scary that the media has lost its mind) and embarrassing. But, if hostilities did ever kick off between the West and Russia, Norway would be a top priority for invasion (as would Sweden - to make it easier to get into Norway). The Russians would need to get their fleet into the North Atlantic to stop American reinforcements from crossing the ocean, and would need to control the Baltic and North Sea coasts to do so (and, the fjord area to make sure NATO raiders aren't hiding inside). For that reason the allied countries would make holding Norway and Sweden a priority - so the Russian fleets could be bottled up.

Same reason that if there ever was an invasion, the Russians would never stop at Germany or Austria, they would need to go all the way to the English Channel. Leave a toehold on the Continent like the Netherlands or Portugal, then the Americans have a staging ground to send reinforcements for a counter-attack.

carcajou

If I could just add . . . on the same token, this is why NATO and (especially) the Germans are so invested in the defense of the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania). NATO control of the Baltic States makes it very, very easy to bottle up the Russian fleet in St Petersburg because the only way out is through a fairly narrow corridor between Estonia and Finland, and Kaliningrad is completely surrounded by NATO territory and can be neutralised immediately.

Lose the Baltic States, and then several major ports and staging areas have been opened up to the Russian navy, and there are no impediments to them operating in the Baltic Sea. It is very easy to threaten Germany from Latvia and Lithuania, and also to threaten Sweden and Norway (see above post).

So there absolutely will be a response if Putin tries to destabilise Latvia, and the Russians know that, and Trump and Merkel know that.

All the talk in the media about the Baltics completely misses the point of their geographic and strategic significance.

mikemike

Last time Russia tried that the Finns stopped them dead

Gordon Barlow

I think any war between NATO and Russia will be started by NATO. Russia is not an aggressive nation the way the Soviet Union was. Also, Russia's current leaders aren't damn fools, like the NATO leaders seem to be. Also, again, in this nuclear age, I can't see Russia allowing itself to be invaded ever again - at least from the west. According to many reports, the 900-days siege of Leningrad by Germany (one of NATO's leading nations now...) had a searing effect on that city's residents' attitude towards foreign invasions, and Putin's family were there during the siege. I believe a NATO invasion of Russia would very quickly go nuclear. If the nuclear bombers were to target national capitals, it's worth noting that Russia only has one, whereas NATO has 29 - of which Oslo is one of the smaller ones whose destruction might serve as a warning to the others.

If I lived in Norway, I would be far more worried about what my southern and western neighbours might be planning than my eastern ones. (As it happens, I don't live there; but I have grandchildren who do.)

scot47

Gordon is right. The anti-Russian hysteria in the Western media is inbelievable. Russia occupied Northern Norway at the end of WW2. They had good relations with Oslo and left as promised after the new anti-fascist government was installed in Oslo. Did you learn ahbouyt that in school ?

carcajou

What are you on about?

Gordon is correct about the media and its insane anti-Russia hysteria, but it's not really a discussion point that if there were ever West-Russia active hostilities (regardless of who starts it) Norway would be a top target because of its location. Russia is not going to cede control of the seas and dock its navy because 100 years ago they had somewhat decent relations with Norway (and, that went out the window regardless when Norway joined NATO). The Russians would need to be able to make things difficult for the US in the North Atlantic, and they can't do that without unfettered control of the Baltic and North Seas, which they can't get without control of Norway.

To further the reply to Gordon's post - the risk is very low, because there won't be hostilities, and it would be crazy for any Norwegian to be losing sleep over this. But in any active shooting conflict - which has never happened - the risk would be very, very high.

Gordon Barlow

No argument from me, and I think scot47 understood my point perfectly. If NATO went to war with Russia, Norway would be destroyed - and its people would bitterly regret having signed up with NATO. My point was that there is only minimal risk that Russia will take the initiative in going to war.

(Interesting that I had to write "take the initiative in going to war", and not "declare war". Nobody seems to declare war any more!)

scot47

Many aspects of History are beyond the ken of the ideologies who read and believ the Telegraph, Express or Mail. This for example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_of_Finnmark


That. Monsieur Carcajou was what I was on about.

Gordon Barlow

An invasion of Norway and its NATO allies from Libya might be more understandable. Oh, wait...
https://www.rt.com/news/438683-norway-libya-war-report/

scot47

People are suckered by all the anti-Russian stuff in the media. The simple-minded read James Bond novels and take them for documentary.

Gordon Barlow

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...il-tanker.html
This is the kind of incident that rather dismisses any Russian fears... I can imagine Russia stocking up on old oil-tankers, against any NATO naval invasion.