Moscow is building up its weapons stockpiles much faster than Nato allies had anticipated, creating a sense of urgency, the general said

Norway must ramp up defence spending in the face of a potential war with Russia within three years, the country’s armed forces chief has warned.

General Eirik Kristoffersen said in an interview with Dagbladet, a Norwegian newspaper, that time was running out to build up the nation’s defences in the face of an increasingly unpredictable Russia.

“The current window of opportunity will remain open for a year or two, perhaps three, which is when we will have to invest even more in our defence,” Gen Kristoffersen said in the interview, published on Sunday.

“We do not know what will become of Russia in three years. We need to prepare a strong national defence to be able to meet an uncertain and unpredictable world,” he added.

The Norwegian general said Moscow was building up its weapons stockpiles much faster than Nato allies had anticipated, adding to the sense of urgency.

  • highduc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    83
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Bullshit warmongering propaganda. edit: and let me guess, part of the solution would be buying very expensive, US made weapons.

    edit 2 since I see it’s a popular post: I also love how - like how immigrants are at the same time too lazy to work and living on social security, but also stealing all the jobs - Russia is at the same time too weak and pathetic to invade a country like Ukraine but also going to start a war with all of NATO, lol. 🤡

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      11 months ago

      Perpetually perplexed by those who still maintain Russia wouldn’t invade a sovereign nation. It’s not even “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me” when at this point it’s like “fool me 7 times in the last 20 years”

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      My first thought reading the headline is: I don’t see how Russia is building up a stockpile while burning through their stockpile it in Ukraine. That makes no sense whatsoever.

      Russia is also burning through bodies so I don’t see them being particularly able or willing to try to invade Norway or anywhere else anytime soon.

      It seems from all accounts they’ve got their hands full in Ukraine and are making little or no progress.

      I think you’re right about buying US weapons. I don’t think it is warmongering but rather shilling for the military industrial complex.

      Edit: still, I wouldn’t disarm or anything and maybe somewhat shore up defense. Maybe a decade or two Russia tries some more stupid shit.

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        I would call a response prudent, especially with additional ties to Chinese manpower and the middle east playing up. Like it or not the whole world economy is linked to Chinas cheap manpower/goods and Middle East oil.

        Four years ago we didn’t think another global pandemic would happen, or a presidential cheeto would be done for insurrection (do it, not charged), or anything else of the last few years. Russia can still do something stupid that changes the course of human history.

      • realitista@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Russia is producing a lot. Yes, they are burning through more on the front line until now, but western support has ground to a near standstill in recent months, so it’s entirely plausible that they could continue fighting and start building up supplies if NATO can’t provide more weapons to Ukraine.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      If you had an influx of say 100,000 people that would be enough to disrupt labour markets due to supply and demand and that would reduce wages and total avaliable jobs to the native population. So from a native point of view you are looking at either being unemployed or having a job at a lower wage.

      Now if another 100,000 people came into the country and didn’t work and was on benefits then as a native your taxes are going to them.

      Those two groups of people don’t impact each other. So both statements can be true. Low paid workers don’t tend to create jobs. So from a low paid point of view you got nothing to gain from immigration.