Post

This! But also that even if we are attacked by Russia, we should still hold back from attacking Russian territory - due to some weirdly irrational fear that doing that would make them angry at us for real?? I would much rather fight Russia in Skt. Petersberg than in Copenhagen.

Shields matter little to an opponent willing to throw bodies at it until it breaks. Swords are the only true deterrence. Especially explosive swords that can be launched at great distances at enemy troop concentrations.

It would be a lasting position only if the opposition agreed on disarmament and I don't see that happening. This kind of discussion would be absurd in Finland given how close we are to Russia.

Strong missile capabilities could be a good way for smaller countries to pull above their weights, because numerically speaking their armies likely won't make a big difference when comparing to the armies Poland and Ukraine already field

The people arguing about whether fighting back is a good idea, are not friends of your country. Even if they live in your country. All the Liberal Democracies are under attack. #FightBack

The Swedes expanded their air force to be the world's third largest, in the 50s and 60s, with 2000 fighters, with the reasoning being you're really in trouble if you let the Russians resch your territory, so better fight them while they're outside, on the way.

Fairytale country. Some learn it is better to keep a low profile in life to avoid trouble. That mantra might work for your private life, on a country scale it is different.

My understanding is that smart countries make sure they have industrial capacity and resources in place. I think that might be preferable over stockpiling for some categories at least.

Yes - one thing is off course the anti-drone weapons (whether physical or electronic) - the other task is to disable Russia (or any supporting actor) being able to produce the drones (Which I believe would be the intention of the longer range strike weapon)

Absolutely! Further more they are showing they fundamentally don’t understand Russia via mirroring. Putin regards Denmark as weak for not having a ranged punch and weaker still for being afraid to get one. Bullies only attack whom they view as weak. Get that punch arm ready now!

Seems irrelevant whether a weapon is defensive or offensive. If someone shoots at you it’s imperative to be able to shoot back 🤷‍♂️

The discussion in Denmark is triggered by the Russian ambassador.....and some politicians can't contain their temptation and follow suit. Deterrence only works if the opponent is deterred. The opponent is, thus long range missiles is what is absolutely needed

I prefer Mette's :) I am not just being edgy here. A big part of deterrence is that the enemy believes you have the will to use those weapons. Løkke's way sounds like we don't want them, they were forced on us and we won't do anything without the US or somesuch. You know, the Scholz approach.

Or better, how can you deter an enemy when you don’t have the tools to do so?

👏🏻👏🏻

The arguments in Europe are absurd. Can we please first think if Russia would find it an aggressive move to have missiles that can reach Europe? We all already know the answer to that, so what are we talking about?