Alexander Lukashenko: Belarus and Russia adequately respond to NATO buildup on the borders of our Union
Russians keep saying that NATO is in a process of deploying new armies on Russia’s borders. I must emphasize that first and foremost NATO is on our borders, Belorussian borders. We see this, and we take all adequate measures without making any noise.
I see that the Russian leadership is acting today in the same way mirroring the Western actions, meaning that we have a joint group of the armed forces on the West, which task is to ensure the safety of our homeland, Belarus and Russia. At the heart of this group are the Belorussian defense forces. In case of a conflict, they will be the first to go into battle, even before the concentrated united defense forces of Belarus and the Russian Federations will catch up with them.
We don’t hide the truth from our Western colleagues, partners, or adversaries, regardless of what we call them. They know that we have defense agreements with Russia.
I am saying this so you would understand my position regarding the CIS (the Commonwealth of Independent States.) Belarus has always been an initiator of integration processes on the post Soviet space. We have advocated and will continue to advocate for real convergence of the republics of the former Soviet Union.
If we start following other principles, like certain leaders of certain states and some known political forces, we will never find any cooperation between our republics. As we can see now on the example of Ukraine and some other parts of the CIS, clashes and even war, God forbid, might arise.
Everything is in our hands, we don’t have to lie to our nations.
If we want to be together, we will always be.
Despite all of this political posturing, the actual chances of an armed conflict resulting from these exercises is Nil.
Let us consider that we are NATO and we want to attack Russia.
First and foremost I would try to employ the oldest and most effective strategy known to man. Surprise. I would not advertise to all and sundry that I am conducting exercises with 30,000 troops.
Secondly, 30,000 troops is not enough to take on Russia. The germans tried with over 3 million and failed.
Thirdly, Russia has nuclear weapons.
Lastly, Russia has nuclear weapons.
I know that I mentioned the nuclear weapons twice, but it is such a big point, I thought I would make it twice.
Russia has the capacity to turn Europe and the United States into a radioactive wasteground. The generals at Nato completely understand this. Please ignore their rhetoric. This is for the uninformed masses.
However, all this talk of WWIII is just making people nervous. Let us stop being sensationalist and just step back a moment. Think about all the things that happened during the cold war which did not lead to WWIII.
U2 spy plane shootdown. Passenger airline shootdown. Proxy conflicts in Vietnam etc.
Ukraine and Syria are also not going to lead to a shooting war between Nato and Russia.
Anonymous on June 10, 2016 · at 7:13 pm UTC
Thanks, anon.
I would choose your comment for our select CMMT section.
Well said, indeed!
I would choose it too, just curious about the comments.
I’d like to believe in what you said. But the times were different then. The leaders were different on all sides. I can’t see a “Killary” Clinton being a President then (as one example).The hybrid warfare that we see today wasn’t used as much then.The 5th column element in the USSR back then was much less powerful than today. And most important the USSR was stronger in numbers,allies,area,than Russia today. You didn’t have enemy forces in Ukraine and the Baltics. Even in the days of the nazi invasion,at the start,enemy forces weren’t as close as they are now. So thinking that the same mentality will prevail today as yesterday can’t always be counted on to be true.
I think that the current leaders are still pretty much the same (on the western side). They all crave power and will lie and cheat to get it. It is all well and for those not in power to say this and that, but that is because they have no responsibility, but as soon they get to office, they realise that when the buck stops. It stops with them. I expect the new Whitehouse “spokesperson” will be just the same as the old ones.
The thing that helps me not worry about it is how mature and measured the Russian leaders are. Without their cool heads and let’s face it, great strategic thinking, we would be in a much bigger mess.
The NATO generals may not be as bright as you think.
Because they control the media any conflict can be successfully blamed on Russia. This and the kickbacks for the increased military equipment that must be manufactured to NATO specs, mostly by US manufacturers, may instill such a level of hubris that they overstep the limit of what the Russian politicians and generals can tolerate and remain in office.
Once conflict starts the escalation could be so rapid that cooler heads cannot prevail
The point that they control the media is irrelevant. In a shooting war with Russia (which will turn nuclear), there will be no press to worry about. Nor a a population to appease.
Imagine you are the person with the power behind the politicians. You want to keep that power. So you need a country and a population to control. This is the crux of the matter. They will not destroy that which gives them this power.
The MIC is indeed driving this “Russian aggression” rhetoric, but they surely do not want to get into a direct shooting match, because then, everyone loses. Better to keep fighting proxy wars (like they always have).
Thank you for this rational response to this situation.
I do however think that Russia needs to be prepared you never know what some of these reckless countries ( Turkey, Poland, Baltic’s) will do because they have NATO behind them. Wars have started for some very foolish reasons
Poland in particular was led to a stupid sense of securtity bc GB had made promises of defence and support. THis led the roosters to provoke German anger, specificlly concerning the killing by Poles of Germans in the locality of Danzig.
This is quite similar to the same game being played in Ukraine and other places.
It seems to me that Putin isnt being sucked into the old game.
I perceive that his game of chess i better. Operation Anaconda may end up eating itself.
For sure Russia needs to balance their military forces. But this plays into the hands of the economic war that is being waged against Russia. The US knows that Russia cannot compete in an arms race and they are doing everything that they can to try and goad Russia into one. The best bet is for Russia to find cheaper means to nullify the NATO machine.
For example, the Missile shield. Try to develop ways to jam the radar, which makes the whole system defunct.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they already have…
That was my thought exactly. We all know that Russia is way ahead of the US when it comes to EW. I think they do not want to show their hand too soon though.
I can see 2 reasons for the crazy actions of the Anglo-Zionist
1. to PROVOKE the Russians into doing something that they can then use as excuse for war;
2. equally possible, Obomber perhaps has inside info about the likelihood of a new recession in the US that may well morph into a depression (as the Fed is already close to 0%, hardly any room to reduce it any further), and since he wants to show everyone that a Black President is something great and not “same old same old”, he needs to come up with an excuse – thus, he can start a false flag with Russia, then blame the oncoming recession as a “collateral damage” of “Russian aggression”.
Western people are so moronic they will take whatever the western MSM comes up with as reasons!
i am not so shure. six of G7 probably hate master and want him dissapear somehow. all of them are old empires with old dreams. USA is just keeping them in place. so i think total destruction of american power is not good for anyone. nor for world, nor for Russia. but, russians are preparing and their respect for US interests are decoded as weakness and that may provoke limited intensity armed conflict on wide area without using nukes. there are people who does not know anything to do in life except to go fight. a military. their job is war. and also we know politicians… how any outcome can be positive?
Mostly agree with your point of view, anonymous.
We as simple citizens can’t do much about it anyways, just praying for peace in this world and refusing to participate in it like Muhammed ALi couragelously did 40 years ago.
make it right 50 yrs ago-1967. Ali refused to draft to Army.
Contrary to the good old cold war days the empire is now on the brink of collapse and internal destruction with its back againnst the wall.
If you expect a conflict similar to WW1 or WW2 then yes it won’t happen.
That doesn’t mean you’re getting everlasting peace from Nato.
“With a more willing puppet than Obama to follow neocon agenda (any GOP, or Hillary), Washington may then open a new front in the Russian borders. Western media focused on the recent win of Alexander Lukashenko, while insist to call him ‘last dictator of Europe’. It is not accidental that Lukashenko opposed Western-backed “shock therapy” during the post-Soviet transition. The one that under IMF mafia destroyed Russian economy in the late 90s. Maybe the various US think tanks design another ‘color revolution’ in Belarus this time, as the game in Ukraine appears to be lost for now.”
http://bit.ly/1OyUdLv
I think it is highly unlikely that you will see a colour revolution in Belarus. Lukashenko is not a pussy like Yanukovich and will crush any demostrations with extreme prejudice. Hence Belarus has been off the radar of the MSM for quite some time. THey know there is nothing that they can do.
I saw this statement by Alexander Lukashenko on another site as well. And I was heartened by it.It may show that he is aware that the destiny of Belarus as a part of the “Rus lands” is fully united with Russia. And that he isn’t willing to try to break those eternal ties as the fascists in Ukraine are attempting.Belarus is a “frontline” state in this war,as he alluded to in his speech. Right at the border of Belarus and Poland sits the city of Brest.If anyone has ever seen the truly great movie “Brest Fortress” (and I highly recommend you do) you’d know how important that was as a symbol of resistance to the last “NATO style” invaders of the Rus Lands.
From ZeroHedge via RI:
http://russia-insider.com/en/uss-porter-enters-black-see-will-moscow-give-it-uss-donald-cook-treatment/ri14917
It will probably dock in Odessa to add insult to insult.
Where in Odessa yesterday right sector/battalions etc blockaded rus embassy was it was ” Day of Rusia”….clearly the message is Rus should retreat from its sphere of rusian influence right back to Moscow.
@ teranam13
That Zero Hedge article leaves one wondering: what is that prompt response that Moscow is promising? What it could possibly be? The headline of that same article in RT mentions a possible “USS Donald Cook treatment”, meaning, electronic blinding of the ship, its Aegis system in particular.
But the Americans now already know that Russia has that capability, which they had not prior to the “Donald Cook” event, when they were apparently caught by surprise. So, they must have thought about devising counter-measures.
And one logical step in that direction would be to provoke Russians into repeating that feat – in order to learn more about the Russian technological secret. And if that is so, then Russians might try to avoid repeating the same. Which underlines the question: what is that promised Russian “prompt response” going to be? If anything at all (other than easily forgotten talk, that is).
Belarus must not fall to the West .I believe they are the next target for regime change perpetrated by the western gang . Russia must stand firm in Syria because in essence the War has already started. The BRICS is under siege with the soft coup in Brazil and the rumours of trouble in South Africa .India is the wild card .I think the BRICS will become the RICK there is not much choice.
I think that there will be war.
If we look at the lessons of history, we see a continuity among periods of war and peace.
Clausewitz said: War is a continuation of politics by other means (violence)
War is a metaphysical condition of the human being
Unlike what it is thought war is not the problem, but the solution of the problem or conflict among two or more sides which ends with a winner and a loser, creating a new balance of forces in the world a new peace.
The Roman peace (Pax Romana) had not existed ever if Carthage had not been destroyed.
The peace that we have enjoyed in Europe (only in Europe) until 1991-1999
(Yugoslavian wars) is the direct result of a great violence (The Second World War) but peace has reached the end in Europe
There is an old saying : That cannot have two tigers in the same cage
At the end, one or other of the sides will have to give up
How do you define “giving up”? What would constitute victory for either NATO or Russia? When one loses there is no option other than to turn the conflict Nuclear. It is a pointless war to start.
Look at the logic of a war. Even if NATO could completely take Russia out with a first strike, there would be so much radioactive waste in the atmosphere that the human race would be unlikey to survive. What is the point?
With comments like “there will be war”, you are just playing into the hands of the people who want to keep us in fear. People in fear do not raise up and question their masters. Why do you think the entire western population lives in constant fear. Fear of war, fear of losing job etc. It is how they control us and statements that spread the fear do not help. You are doing their job for them.
Giving up, in this context of Russian-American conflict obviously can only mean give up the will of fight or if you prefer complete claudication of one of the sides
We can see the example of the long period of political tensions and wars related to Punic Wars. Then Rome won but Carthage could also have won, it was an open conflict 264BC-146BC.
Another example at the end of the Cold War (1991), when the URSS was dismembered, well I admit that this was rather a self-destruction and fortunately for the Russians they have encountered a leader who quickly has straightened the situation (I’m sure in the Pentagon are pissed off by having failed to take the opportunity in the 1990s.)
You said that a war will become quickly nuclear, in my opinion a war between NATO and Russia not necessarily has to be nuclear at least in its initial moments, that is because both sides have enough high technology conventional armament to accomplish its goals, but is true that when one side would feel that it is going to lose, then the war could become nuclear.
The theory of a first nuclear strike was used to instill fear and to sell a politic of disarmament at the end of the Cold War, maybe it was possible in the nineties, but nowadays it’s too late, I think none of the opponents could avoid a retaliation of a catastrophic dimension. In conclusion, the objective of the nuclear weapons is to scare the opponent from being the first to press the button (not to scare people, at least in the west the elites don’t care people who are completely absorbed by the mainstream media)
With respect to the famous Nuclear Winter I have my doubts; people in the Pentagon is not stupid, also I suppose they have children and families, The Pentagon have money enough to finance studies about this theme, much more money than any independent investigator, also they have all the real data of the nuclear tests, I’m sure they know much more than us about the effects of nuclear weapons and that they have planned a post-war scenario. (And also the Russians of course)
There is also a lot of controversy about the Nuclear Winter you can consult some of the critical works about this topic.
Dunning B.
Nuclear War and Nuclear Winter, http://skeptoid.com
Thomson S. Schneider S. –Nuclear Winter Reappraised–
Foreign affairs, 1 Jun 1986 Vol. 62
Kant
“You said that a war will become quickly nuclear, in my opinion a war between NATO and Russia not necessarily has to be nuclear at least in its initial moments,”
I think you’re right, just enough to look at the map : – the actual NATO countries in the east are representing the actual front line (Baltics,Poland,Slovakia,Hungary,Romania,Bulgaria)
– there are two buffer countries, Belarus and Ukraine. Belarus is sided with Russia. Ukraine, well, is not, and is a big country,her territory going deep to east bordering Russia.The geography of that region is totally apt for modern warfare (conventional). Guess, which side between Russia and NATO will be invited in Ukraine officially ? You know it, NATO (by the way they are in there) helping the Ukrainian army, even not in big numbers. If the NATO decides so and gets approval from the Ukrainian government – which is not questionable – they will go in bigger numbers, even openly. What will do Russia ? if they attack,they will be declared aggressors because invading an independent state. If the conflict erupts, nuclear weapons will not be used.Russia will not use because of her proximity and because of the civilian population in Ukraine and Russia. USA will not use because he knows that in such case the USA will be targeted. The USA want to have a war – a conventional one – on the territory of Russia,Ukraine and Europe.Why ? just think better yourself.
Ioan, I agree with you, Ukraine and the Baltic states are fundamental to the strategy of NATO, however to deploy in Ukraine and Baltic states a contingent large enough to pose a real threat to Russia it’s necessary before to move them by sea with several aircraft carriers and their battle groups, which means that what we could witness if the war broke out is a sort of battle of the Atlantic 2.0 (and maybe also a battle of Pacific 2.0) but this time with many tomahawks and Kalibrs missiles fired from aircraft and ships and crossing the skies
USA and United Kingdom are maritime powers; if they lose control of the seas, then the war is lost for them and would have to negotiate.
With respect to European armies I think they do not pose a serious threat for the Russian armies with the exception of British and French armies and I do not think they would be too involved because before they would have to protect their respective countries just in case (in the cold war with a Europe much more militarized than today Soviet plans envisaged starting from East Germany to reach Paris in 3 days!)
Nuclear winter is of little consequence when virtually every major city in the world has been destroyed and farm lands contaminated. If you are lucky, you will be at ground zero.
The war is already happening
Where you live? On the moon?
I’m referring to hot war, what we are seeing now are the introductory steps of a hot war.
Psychological War
Media and Propaganda War
Economic War
The situation is becoming similar to that of Japan before 1941, then they were completely surrounded and strangled economically, at the end they were forced to a hot war.
Always a keen intellect and a voice for sanity but he does not shy away from hard choices and the need for tough action. Paul Craig Roberts:
http://katehon.com/article/what-pushes-us-towards-war-russia
One of the main reasons for the current administration to go to war is financial. The secretary of state and president have become shameless arms dealers in an effort to prop up the new neofeudal financial order. There are so many investigations of corruption, like Ms clinton´s server and foundation, that a major distraction is needed. Either a large scale false flag event or a hot war would go a long way to rev up the (military) economy. The crash/major restructuring of global financial institutions will be messy, we just don´t know how violent it will become.
Pray for peace.
“Either a large scale false flag event or a hot war would go a long way to rev up the (military) economy. The crash/major restructuring of global financial institutions will be messy, we just don´t know how violent it will become.”
Let’s not speak so casually about this topic and let’s stop using euphemisms like “hot war”. War is war, and if it breaks out between the West and East, the planet is essentially doomed.
I’m personally heartened by this statement of Lukashenko, as I had been getting a little worried by what was appearing to be moves away from Russia.
I don’t know anything about Lukashenko and Belarus, are they
reliable? An analysis about that woul’d be helpful
Lukashenko is hated by the West, the NATO media calls him “the latests dictator in Europe”, and the EU had banned him to enter the EU territory.
Oh, and they also tried color regime changes, I don’t remember if twice or three times…
When you are not sure, look at the enemy, then you will know.
The way NATO/EU acts upon Belarus and Lukashenko tells you in which side that country is.
Also, the fact that he hasn’t been “color changed”, and that he has a strong popular support means the Belarus people are not stupid (and that’s the most important, even more important than knowing the “reability” of the president).
I do not believe that Nato wants a hot war. It suits the military-industrial-complex to play these war games and to raise the fear temperature. The real danger is that a nuclear war may happen by accident. God help us all then.
The NATO leadership, who won’t have to do the actual fighting, might want it, but what does the average American, let alone average Westerner, think of the matter?
Perhaps when their beloved, precious “war heroes” are coming home in body bags, they may re-think this position and their indifference to their leaders’ actions.
Belarus (under Lukashenko) maintained elements of the soviet Union and large parts of the economy are still state owned. By maintaining a soviet style economy, Belarus did better than Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic states.
It is widely known what happened to the Russian economy and people during the 1990s.
As for Ukraine, Soviet Ukraine was a highly developed and industrialised soviet state. Now Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe, its economy looted by oligarchs. Since early 1990s, the only notable Ukrainian export is their women, a sign that something is very wrong in this country. Ukrainian GDP per capita (PPP) is lower today than it was in 1990.
In addition, the Baltics are always praised my western media as “success stories”, having adopted a neoliberal economic program. But their population is dying and emigrating and they have lost about 20-30% of their population.
An analysis by economist Michael Hudson about the very depressing state of the Latvian economy and society is very interesting
” Stockholm Syndrome in the Baltics ”
http://michael-hudson.com/2014/05/stockholm-syndrome-in-the-baltics/
Also an article by British conservative author Peter Hitchens about Belarus
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036512/The-comb-Soviet-style-tyrant-soon-Wests-favourite-allies.html
“Stockholm Syndrome” is catchy, but “Quisling Syndrome” is more accurate.
“”””” nik on June 11, 2016 · at 1:53 pm UTC
Belarus (under Lukashenko) maintained elements of the soviet Union and large parts of the economy are still state owned. By maintaining a soviet style economy, Belarus did better than Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic states. “””””
Thanks for bringing this up.
For a while I didn’t trust Lukashenko because he played the “increasing the price game” for some time (with the West vs. Russia) and said a few very odd garbage things about Ukraine.
On the other hand I do understand better now why he is careful with Capitalist Russia, because of recent developments and even more Privatization proposals for inside the RF.
BelaRus is not only an economic Soviet success story, but even one of the last Soviet Socialist republic(s) except for Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and PMR who still uses (in fact RE-introduced through a democratic referendum in 1995!!!) its USSR coat of arms almost unchanged:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Official_coat_of_arms_of_the_Republic_of_Belarus_%28v%29.svg/2000px-Official_coat_of_arms_of_the_Republic_of_Belarus_%28v%29.svg.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_emblem_of_Belarus
“””””The national emblem of Belarus, which replaced the historic Pahonia arms in a 1995 referendum, features a ribbon in the colours of the national flag, a map of Belarus, wheat ears and a red star. It is sometimes referred to as the coat of arms of Belarus, although this is incorrect due to the lack of several heraldic elements. The emblem is an allusion to one that was used by the Byelorussian SSR, designed by Ivan Dubasov in 1950, with the biggest change being a replacement of the hammer and sickle with an outline map of Belarus. “””””
Furthermore BelaRus still puts a large emphasis on Soviet Science and Culture, unlike certain religious websites, for example here in 2013 in Minsk:
Верасы Любовь,комсомол и весна
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBgUTb6S97U
If the pro-soviet Lukashenko had not been elected as president in the 1990s, Belarus would have followed the disastrous route of Baltics and Ukraine by adopting neoliberalism and joining (or aspiring to join) EU and NATO.
There were similarities between the Belarus – Russian relationship that remind the Ukrainian Russian relationship.
There was the language question (Russian vs Belarusian ), the foreign policy orientation ( pro Russian vs pro western ) and the economic policy ( liberalization vs nationalization).
The first Belarusian government followed pro western liberal policies until Lukashenko reversed all that and proceed with maintaining a soviet style economy and closer Russian relations.
Even in Ukraine there were similar to Lukashenko trends , the (banned) pro Russian Ukrainian communist party nearly got 30% in late 1990s and almost got elected in government (as with Zyuganov in the 1996 russian elections) . There was strong desire for a return soviet welfare and economic policies and this is logical as all these countries witnessed social and economic upheaval . Even in the early to mid 1990s eastern European countries there were similar trends, as the renamed Socialist parties ( the successors of communist parties) won the elections in Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland etc
Lukashenko is portrayed as a “dictator” by the west but the point is that Belarus avoided the social disintegration that plagued Russia, Ukraine and eastern Europe as all of these countries adopted neoliberal capitalism .
Belarus is a notable example that there could be a different way for Russia in the 1990s and that the soviet union could have survived.
The 1990s disaster happened because a small soviet elite wanted to plunder the state property and to become “businessmen” . In order to do so, they had to get rid of the USSR and it’s socialist institutions that prohibit privatisations.
And they succeed with destructive consequences…
nik on June 12, 2016 · at 5:16 pm UTC :
Very valuable post.
I can confirm all this, but you wrote it so well I saved it as ascii file.
Unfortunately the communists in all countries you mentioned have later been infiltrated and “bought”.
BelaRus however shines.
Rus doesn’t.
There is still this very same choice for RF in theory and theoretically even in practice but in practice not even in theory and I had believed in Putin for a long time.
Very long. But it doesn’t appear to be on his agenda to reverse the unimaginably massive theft, not 1 Cent of 100’s of Trillions.
And certain website owners who never lived in the Soviet Union appear to celebrate this as “success”.
Well, everybody has his own learning curve, and it may turn out to be indefinitely long.
As this is valid for the overall human race if I watch my zombified brainless fellow-“germans”.
May 30 article, may have been noted here, but good for review & has a few good missile diagrams & maps of western Europe & Russia:
http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15751
http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/1814_5.jpg
By October, the weak outgoing President Barack Obama will be prodded by the weak, failing Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton to rescue her chances and rally reluctant American voters against the Republican candidate, Donald Trump. The October surprise this year, Russians believe, will be a violent one. For cross-hairs this year, Albania doesn’t qualify. Clinton can’t afford another adventure in Libya.
Two years later, Putin is saying, not from the Kremlin, but from the entrance of Megaro Maximou, that Romania has crossed the red line, and is now inside the cross-hairs. The location for Putin to say this is not without significance. It has been the official headquarters of the Greek Prime Ministry since the Greek left came to power in 1982. It has also been a headquarters of two of the states which have occupied Greece by military force – Germany between 1941 and 1944, and the US until 1952.
Anonymous,
Would like to agree with you but I can’t. Nukes never were so close to Moscow and Saint Petesburg and only this variable on its own drastically reduces Russian time to retaliate from 20 minutes (like in a the past) to a couple of minutes (at present) which can easily lead to a quick no wise answer of launching just in case…
Moreover, nerves in all the Baltics, Poland, Ukraine and Turkey on one side and Russia on the other are so in the edge that a first strike (nuclear or not) can come at any moment. Letting the unfolding circumstances to chance and panic.
My opinion is that the U.S. is pushing a war on Russia with its vassals (East Europeans) putting the deaths while the U.S. ignites it and keep through the sale of weapons waiting for Russia and Eastern Europeans to anhilate each other, dismember and then showing up to pick up the pieces and resources of Russia.
Of course, that will mean dishonour OTAN treaty but, who cares leaving the Eastern European flank on their own in the name of mankind surviving?
The remaining question is whether ther Russians will play the American card of setting the table of the conflict in Easter Europe and limited to it or if they will go after the real foe from San Diego to Washington.
Time fir tough decisions on the Russian side. On both scenarios Russia will no longer exist in the future. The US is not letting the Russians a way out breaking Macquiavelo’s principle of letting the enemy out or they will fight to death.
A sonar signature, which Swedish military claimed to be crucial evidence of a foreign submarine’s presence near Stockholm during the 2014 hunt, came from a “Swedish object,” the country’s defense minister has admitted.
Peter Hultqvist would not go into details about the source of the signal, but said the military reconsidered their assessment of its nature in September 2015, he told Sveriges Radio.
The hunt for a foreign submarine, presumed to be Russian by the Swedish media, was launched off Stockholm in October 2014. The media reported that an emergency hail on a frequency used by the Russian Navy prompted the hunt. An amateur photo of the supposed boat was widely circulated. Hultqvist took up office earlier the same month.
At the time of the search Swedish military reported having crucial evidence of the presence of a foreign submarine in the country’s waters. The perceived threat to national security was used to justify a multimillion-dollar boost to military spending.
—————————————–
similar events can always be used by NATO to start “something”…………..
This, and the latest in electronic jamming technology, should do the trick:
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/06/checkmate-russian-hypersonic-weapons.html