The British Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Great Britain’s Nuclear Weapons Could Easily Destroy Entire Countries

Kyle Mizokami
The United Kingdom maintains a fleet of four ballistic missile submarines with the ability to devastate even the largest of countries. This fleet came into being after its ally, the United States, canceled a key weapon system that would have been the cornerstone of London’s nuclear arsenal. Fifty years later, the UK’s missile submarine force is the sole custodian of the country’s nuclear weapons, providing a constant deterrent against nuclear attack.
The United Kingdom’s nuclear force in the early 1960s relied upon the so-called “V-Force” strategic bombers: the Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor and Vickers Valiant. The bombers were set to be equipped with the Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile, which could penetrate Soviet defenses at speeds of up to Mach 12.4 (9,500 miles an hour). Unfortunately technical problems plagued Skybolt, and the U.S. government canceled the missile in 1962.
Skybolt’s cancellation threatened to undo the UK’s entire nuclear deterrent, and the two countries raced to come up with a solution. The United States agreed to offer the new Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile to replace Skybolt. The United Kingdom had no missile submarines to carry Polaris—it would have to build them.
A study by the Ministry of Defense concluded that, like France, the UK would need at least five ballistic missile submarines to maintain a credible deterrent posture. This number would later be reduced to four submarines. Like the French Le Redoutable class, the submarines would bear a strong resemblance to the U.S. Navy’s Lafayette-class ballistic missile submarines, with two rows of eight missiles tubes each behind the sail. Unlike Lafayette and Le Redoutable, the new submarines of the Royal Navy’s Resolution-class would have their hydroplanes on the bow, with the ability to fold up when parked along a pier.
Most of the submarine was British, with two built by Vickers Armstrong at Furness and two by Cammel Laird at Birkenhead. The missiles, missile launch tubes and fire control mechanisms, however, were built in the United States. Each submarine was equipped with sixteen Polaris A-3 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The Polaris had a range of 2,500 miles and was originally equipped with a single British warhead. A midlife improvement for the missile, Polaris A-3TK, replaced the single warhead with six Chevaline multiple independently targetable warheads of 150 kilotons each.
The first submarine, HMS Resolution, was laid down in 1964 and commissioned in 1967, followed by Repulse and Renown, commissioned in 1968, and the aptly-named Revenge in 1969. Resolution first successfully launched a missile off the coast of Florida in February 1968.
In the early 1980s, it became clear that the Resolution class would eventually need replacement. Despite the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet threat, London held firm and built all four ships. The UK again decided to build its own submarines and outfit them with American missiles. The result were the four Vanguard-class submarines: Vanguard (commissioned in 1993), Victorious (1995), Vigilant (1996) and Vengeance (1999). Vanguard carried out her first Trident II missile firing in 1994, and undertook her first operational patrol in 1995.
At 15,000 tons displacement, the Vanguards are twice the the size of the Resolution class that preceded them. Although each submarine has sixteen launch tubes, a decision was made in 2010 to load each sub with just eight American-built Trident II D-5 submarine launched ballistic missiles. The Trident II D-5 has a range of 4,600 miles, meaning it can strike targets across European Russia with ease. Each D-5 carries eight multiple independently targetable warhead 475 kiloton thermonuclear warheads, giving each submarine a total of thirty megatons of nuclear firepower.
UK missile submarine crews, like their American counterparts, maintain two crews per boat to increase ship availability. Under a program known as Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) at least one submarine is on patrol at all times, with another coming off patrol, another preparing for a patrol and a fourth undergoing maintenance. According to the Royal Navy, CASD has not missed a single day in the last forty-eight years without a submarine on patrol.
In 2016, the Ministry of Defense announced the next generation of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, dubbed Successor, would be the Dreadnought class. The Royal Navy will builds four Dreadnought-class subs, each weighing 17,200 tons, with construction beginning in September 2016. Each will have twelve missile tubes instead of sixteen, and the subs will recycle the Trident II D-5 missiles from their predecessors. The Dreadnought boats are expected to enter service in the 2030s and have a thirty-year life cycle. The ministry expects the new submarines to cost an estimated $39 billion over thirty-five years, with a $12 billion contingency. The introduction of the third generation Dreadnought class will provide the UK with a powerful strategic deterrent until the 2060s and possibly beyond.

Iran Terrorizes America (Daniel 8:4)

Fighters of the Shiite Hezbollah movement

Fighters of the Shiite Hezbollah movement / Getty Images

June 13, 2017 2:00 pm
The Iranian-backed terror organization Hezbollah is vowing to launch strikes on U.S. forces operating in war-torn Syria in yet another sign that Iran and its terror proxies are beginning to take unprecedented direct action against American military coalition forces, according to U.S. officials and regional experts tracking the situation.
Just days before Iranian-affiliated militants launched a series of strikes on U.S. forces in Syria, Hezbollah released an official statement vowing to boost its terror operations against America, according to a translation of the five-point document provided to the Washington Free Beacon.
Officials and experts are viewing Hezbollah’s declaration as further proof that Iran is willing to attack American-backed forces as part of its efforts to bolster embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
U.S. military officials acknowledged that Iran was likely behind a drone strike on American forces last week, a move that has escalated a growing proxy war in the region between Iran and the United States.
U.S. military officials told the Free Beacon that while they are not seeking a fight with Syrian-regime backers such as Iran and Russia, they will take forceful action to prevent attacks on assets in the area.
“The Coalition presence in Syria addresses the imminent threat ISIS in Syria poses globally,” one U.S. military official with Central Command, or CENTCOM, told the Free Beacon. “The Coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian, or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but is well prepared to defend itself from hostile threats if necessary.”
U.S. military officials recognize the threat posed by Iran and its terror proxies, but are working to focus on the fight against ISIS, which is the primary reason American forces are working in Syria, sources said.
“The Coalition calls on all parties to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security,” according to the military official.
Hezbollah’s latest warning to U.S. forces is certain to escalate tensions in a region that has experienced unprecedented violence in the past years.
“America knows well … that the capacity to strike their [American-backed] gathering points in Syria and its neighbors are available any time the circumstances call for it, based on the availability of various rocket and military systems, in light of the deployment of American forces in the region,” Hezbollah warned in its statement, which was independently translated from Arabic for the Free Beacon.
Hezbollah claims that there have not yet been strikes due to “self-restraint” from terror entities operating in the area.
Iranian officials made a similar declaration in the past week. Video footage released by the Islamic Republic last week shows Iranian drones shadowing U.S. forces in the region while Farsi-language narrators laugh and threaten attacks.
“The silence of Syria’s allies is not a sign of weakness, but self-restraint, out of the allies’ wish to open the door for other solutions,” Hezbollah said in its statement. “But this will not last if America goes far and crosses red lines.”
One veteran Middle East policy adviser who is in routine contact with the Trump White House told the Free Beacon that Iran’s increased willingness to strike U.S. forces is based on fears about the Trump administration’s willingness to target Iranian terror operations.
The Obama administration took a mostly hands off approach to Iran’s aggressive behavior in the Middle East due to its efforts to ink the nuclear deal and ensure it sticks.
“The Iran nuclear deal required ignoring the atrocities being committed across the Middle East by Iran and Hezbollah, including the systematic ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in Syria,” the source said. “If the Obama administration had ever pushed back, it would have triggered a confrontation with Iran, and the nuclear deal would have collapsed.”
“But the Trump administration is putting a stop to that blackmail and taking a holistic approach to the behavior of Iran and its proxies,” the source explained. “They’re not going to let Iran hold our entire foreign policy hostage to the nuclear deal, no matter what that says about Obama’s legacy.”
Tony Badran, a Syria expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the Pentagon is aware that Iran is orchestrating attacks on behalf of Assad in Syria.
“That the DoD is negating any distinction between Assad regime forces and Iranian militias is both accurate and significant,” Badran said. “It is accurate in that regime forces—themselves an assortment of militias and remnants of the army—are integrated with the IRGC-led militias. And it’s significant insofar as it eliminates the option for the Russians to play up the charade of that distinction.”
Iran’s goal is to expand its operations in Syria and intimidate U.S. forces, Badran said.
“Hezbollah media is accompanying these forces and shooting footage and posting pictures and declarations of intent to connect their forces on both sides of the Syrian and Iraqi borders,” he said. “There is no question who is the lead force here: it’s an Iranian force.”

UK Nukes May Be Prone To Attack

Proposed budget cuts to a police force responsible for protecting the Trident nuclear base and other defence sites are “frightening” at a time of heightened security concerns, their representative Eamonn Keating is set to warn in a speech.
He will say that just last week, two sites on the south coast were threatened with withdrawal of all defence police force presence to make savings and that this “is frightening from a security perspective.”
Keating, national chairman of the Defence Police Federation, will say the Ministry of Defence was seeking £12.5m isavings from the MoD police, which he estimates would see the force drop from its nominal strength of around 2,600 to below 2,300.

The MoD police, which is separate from the military police responsible for maintaining discipline, is a separate civilian force armed and engaged mainly in the protection of sensitive sites. It was set up after an attack by the Provisional IRA on the Royal Marine barracks at Deal in 1989.
The force, like police forces throughout the country, has already had cuts imposed, dropping from 3,500 officers in 2010.
According to an advance copy of his speech on Thursday to the federation’s annual conference in Stansted, Keating is set to warn that the proposed budget savings will mean a reduction in real terms of around one in 10 firearms officers and a reduction or removal of police protection from MoD sites.
“If this reset goes forward in order to meet an arbitrarily imposed saving set by the department on our force, then security will be reduced, the risk to terrorist or criminal attack will be increased, and the safety of those we protect – both within the department and with the nation as a whole – will be put at risk,” he will say.
“In the current climate, where the threat levels are increasing and we have seen three terrorist attacks over the past 12 weeks, where response is limited and its sustainability – nationally – is under question, this type of decision is outrageous and cannot go unchecked.
“Why would the MoD look to put financial savings, that in the grand scheme of things are minute, over the safety of its people and country?”

Terrorism From The Iranian Horn

Terrorists in Tehran

Yes, I know: Tehran is full of terrorists, but mostly they’ve been the regime’s terrorists, and mostly they kill, beat, and torture Iranians who don’t much care for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or President Hasan Rouhani. Wednesday was different. Or maybe not.
ISIS has claimed its killers staged the two attacks in Tehran on symbolically powerful targets: the tomb of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, and the “parliament” building.
There are many Iranians who don’t believe it was ISIS; they think it was the terrorists they know, the ones who kill innocent Iranians all the time. Iran being what it is—a Mediterranean country where the simple, straightforward story is invariably rejected in favor of a more complicated conspiracy theory—they purport to have “evidence.”
The evidence is all circumstantial, including the claim that ISIS has not attacked Iranian forces in Iraq and Syria, and that no Iranian official was killed or wounded. Only civilians were targeted. So why in Tehran? They say it’s obvious: it’s a hoax, staged by the regime, justifying further repression. Notice that the same sort of claim was made by Turks opposed to Erdogan. They say that the dictator staged the false coup that justified his massive crackdown against his internal opposition.
Whatever the truth may be—and it will be a while before it gets sorted out—the events in Tehran bespeak considerable opposition to the regime. If the terrorists were enemies of Khamenei et al., then the regime is faced with armed opponents. If the regime staged it, well then it shows the regime is sufficiently concerned about the internal opposition to have run a substantial risk: the most important symbols of the regime have been attacked, and Iranian security didn’t stop it and in fact staged it.

Iranian Terrorism Courtesy of Obama

Lieutenant General Thomas Trask, the US Special Operation Forces Vice Commander, said on Tuesday that the large sum of money that Iran obtained as a direct result of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal goes towards its spread of influence across the Middle East.
The deal, struck between Iran and a group of world powers, was supposed to curtail the country’s nuclear program. This has not happened.
Trask said that instead of investing in its conventional forces, Iran is building up its special operators that lead, manage and control proxy forces.
He said: “If anything, increased defense dollars in Iran are likely to go toward increasing that network, looking for ways to expand it. We’ve already seen evidence of them taking units and officers out of the conventional side that are working with the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) in Syria. We’re going to stay focused on these proxies and the reach that Iran has well past Syria and Yemen but into Africa, into South America, into Europe as well.”
Many people were concerned about the Iran nuclear deal before it was signed, expressing fears that Iran would take the money that would be freed up and use it on spreading terrorism across the region. It turns out that these fears were founded as this is exactly what is happening.
The deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), gave Iran access to between $50 billion and $150 billion of assets that were previously frozen.
This was a real chance for Iran to improve its economy and the social conditions that had deteriorated to terribly low levels.
However, the regime put the money towards propping up Bashar al Assad in Syria and funding militias. Iran has sent around 10,000 Shia militia fighters from Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan to battle in Syria on its behalf. Many experts warn that Iran’s commitment to keeping Assad in power in Syria should not be underestimated. It appears that Iran will be there for as long as it takes and will put as many resources as possible into it.
It is also improving its ballistic missile program according to intelligence reports.
James Mattis, the US Defense Secretary, said during a visit to Saudi Arabia that Iran is involved, in one way or another, in all the conflicts in the Middle East. He said: “We’ll have to overcome Iran’s efforts to destabilize yet another country and create another militia in their image of Lebanese Hezbollah.”

England Prepares For Nuclear War (Daniel 8)

The huge complex would have held 4,000 people in complete isolation for up to three months
A SECRET underground city for government figures to bunker down in if nuclear war broke out is still deep under British countryside – with more than 60 miles of subterranean roads, a lake and a bakery.

The huge complex could have held 4,000 people in complete isolation for up to three months if atomic bombs hit with electric buggies for transport and its own telephone switchboard.

The huge switchboard room in the underground city – thought to be one of the biggest of its kind

MoD/Crown Copyright
The huge switchboard room in the underground city – thought to be one of the biggest of its kind
The roads – said to stretch for more than 60 miles – were in a grid system with signposts

The unused bunker city included accommodation for 4,000 people with running water and bathrooms

Near the Wiltshire bunker is the town of Corsham – not far from Bath

Near the Wiltshire bunker is the town of Corsham – not far from Bath
The sprawling underground city was built near a town in Wiltshire in readiness for a Cold War

Google Maps
The sprawling underground city was built near a town in Wiltshire in readiness for a Cold War
There was enough fuel set underground to keep generators running for three months

MoD/Crown Copyright
There was enough fuel set underground to keep generators running for three months
Fully functioning bathrooms were installed and ready for use should nuclear war break out

MoD/Crown Copyright
Fully functioning bathrooms were installed and ready for use should nuclear war break out
This was said to be the Prime Minister’s private bathroom – should he have found himself locked underground after a nuclear attack

MoD/Crown Copyright
This was said to be the Prime Minister’s private bathroom – should he have found himself locked underground after a nuclear attack

The site, code named Burlington, lies 100 feet beneath Corsham in Wiltshire, and was designed to be the site of emergency government war headquarters in the event of the Cold War.
It was built in the late 1950s and includes hospitals, canteens, kitchens and laundries, as well as offices and accommodation.
The enormous bunker was developed in a 240-acre abandoned quarry and could have housed the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, the government and even the Royal Family.

Russia Threatens to Wipe UK Off the Face of the Earth

The United Kingdom would be “wiped off the face of the earth” if the country elects to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons against Russia, a senior Russian politician said Monday, highlighting the unmistakeable tension between Russia and western governments.
Responding to a British defense minister’s suggestion that proactively using nuclear weapons against Russia could be an option, Russia’s Frants Klintsevich said the U.K. would be “literally wiped off the face of the Earth by a counter-strike.”
Klintsevich heads the defense and security committee in Moscow’s upper house of parliament.
Klintsevich was responding to comments made by British Defense Minister Michael Fallon, who told a radio show that the U.K. could consider the strike amid recent heightened tensions between Russia and western governments.
Fallon said: “In the most extreme circumstances, we’ve made it very clear that you can’t rule out the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike.”
“The whole point about the deterrent,” he added, “is that you have got to leave uncertainty in the mind of anybody who might be thinking of using weapons against this country.”
Fallon said that the U.K.’s military would use its Trident nuclear program only in extenuating circumstances, although those scenarios were not specified.
“In the best case this statement can be seen as a form of psychological warfare, which in this context is particularly disgusting,” Klintsevich said in response, according to Newsweek.
Western military alliance NATO and Russia have recently accused one another of military provocations as they continue to participate in parallel arms escalations.

UK At Risk for Nuclear Attack From Russia (Daniel 7) spoke to a nuclear expert to determine how and why a Putin nuke strike would happen.
The Doomsday Clock, which calculates how far the world is from total destruction, is currently set at its most dangerous level since 1959 – the height of the Cold War.
A leading academic in the field of nuclear weapons, Matthew Rendall, revealed what he believes will spark the potentially apocalyptic conflict and how he thinks it will play out.
The other likely cause of nuclear war, according to the University of Nottingham academic, would be terror groups getting their hands on the deadly weapons – which they are now more likely because Mr Putin pulled out a 16-year-old agreement with America designed to safely destroy stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium in both nations.
The snub from the Russian leader now means enough plutonium to make 17,000 nuclear weapons still has the chance to fall into the hands of terror groups such as Islamic State.
Mr Rendall told what he regards as the most likely possible causes for a nuclear holocaust: “Two scenarios come to mind. The first would be if Moscow believed that it was already under nuclear attack, and struck NATO in the hope of limiting damage.
“In 1995, Russia mistook a Norwegian research rocket for an incoming Western missile.
“Fortunately, President Boris Yeltsin did not launch Russia’s missiles in response. In a similar situation, President Putin would almost surely also sit tight, wait and see, but do we want to take that chance?
“Unfortunately, the recent downturn in relations between the two countries makes it unlikely that they will agree to reduce alert levels any time soon.”
He added: “All too many seem to believe that arms control is a favour one does the other side, rather than a process undertaken in both sides’ self-interest.”
“At the end of the Cold War, Russia and the United States co-operated in securing dangerously vulnerable Russian nuclear sites.
“Unfortunately, this co-operation too has now fallen victim to the downturn in relations.”
NATO is likely to back down if Russia launched a nuclear attack in a foreign part of the world, such as Syria, “for fear that it would escalate to an all-out nuclear war, says the Canadian-born author.
And Britain would be largely powerless if a nuclear attack from terrorists was shown to have been facilitated by Russia, because even though “Moscow might be blamed for allowing them to do it, unlike Afghanistan in 2001, it could not be punished with impunity”. discovered that, with the use of sophisticated software from, if Satan 2 was dropped in the middle of London, it would kill 2,278,500 people and injure a further 2,603,390 in the first 24 hours alone.
The fireball alone would have a radius of 31 sq km, more than 1,000 schools would be incinerated instantly and the fallout would be felt as far away as Denmark.
But Mr Rendall believes the thing that could save Britain from a Russian-launched nuclear apocalypse – Vladimir Putin’s sanity.
He said: “The threat is significant, but not from a pre-meditated attack.
“Since Britain and its close allies France and the United States all have nuclear weapons, Russia would risk its major cities and much of its population.
“Whatever Putin and his associates may be, they are neither fools nor suicide bombers.”
A NUCLEAR weapons expert has told that Britain faces a “significant threat” of radioactive attacks either from Russia or terrorists who come into possession of stolen warheads.

The Nuclear Horns Rule (Daniel 8)

Kambiz Foroohar
For all the divisions among world powers, one concern unites Russia and the U.S., India and Pakistan, North Korea and Israel at the United Nations: keeping their nuclear weapons.
The non-binding resolution passed Thursday in a 123-38 vote with 16 abstentions. Opposing its call for a nuclear-free world is awkward for world leaders, and none more so than U.S. President Barack Obama. He’s preparing to leave office seven years after he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in large part for what the award panel called his “vision of, and work for, a world without nuclear weapons.”
The U.S. would refuse to participate in the negotiations over a nuclear ban if it passes, Robert Wood, the U.S. special representative to the UN’s Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament, said Oct. 14.
‘Regional Security’
“How can a state that relies on nuclear weapons for its security possibly join a negotiation meant to stigmatize and eliminate them,” Wood said in an address at the UN. Because nuclear weapons play a role in maintaining peace and stability in some parts of the world, a “ban treaty runs the risk of undermining regional security,” he said.
Echoing that view, Matthew Rowland, the U.K.’s representative to the disarmament conference, said that same day that his country’s nuclear deterrence must be maintained “for the foreseeable future” because of the “risk that states might use their nuclear capability to threaten us, try to constrain our decision-making in a crisis or sponsor nuclear terrorism.”
After international efforts to ban the use of biological and chemical weapons, land mines and cluster bombs, arms control advocates say it’s time to deal with nuclear bombs as the remaining weapons of mass destruction that aren’t prohibited. Sponsors of the resolution include Austria, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa.
“Given the tremendous humanitarian consequences of any nuclear explosion, we have to take action,” Thomas Hajnoczi, Austria’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, said in an interview. “Nuclear weapons states always say it’s too early for such a treaty but we think time is right to create legal norms to ban weapons of mass destruction.”
The initiative comes 70 years after a resolution was adopted in 1946 establishing a commission to make proposals for “the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction.” It also comes a year after the formal adoption of the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program that was negotiated by some of the same nations opposing the new resolution.
U.S.-Russia Treaty
Faced with a more assertive China in the South China Sea and the rapid advances of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, the U.S. lobbied NATO allies such as the Netherlands to vote against the resolution, according to European diplomats.
Land Mines Ban
“Successful nuclear reductions will require participation from all relevant parties, proven verification measures, and security conditions conducive to cooperation,” Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, said. “We lack all three factors at this time.”
Supporters of the resolution cited the success of efforts to ban land mines. The Ottawa Convention, which prohibited their manufacture and use, was drafted in 1997 and more than 160 countries have ratified it. While Russia, China and the U.S. refused to sign it, the Obama administration announced in 2014 that it planned to comply with the ban outside the Korean Peninsula, and to destroy its stockpile there if it wasn’t needed for the defense of South Korea.
“This treaty won’t eliminate nuclear weapons overnight,” said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. “But it will establish a powerful new international legal standard, stigmatizing nuclear weapons and compelling nations to take urgent action on disarmament.”

Russian Nuclear Horn Threatens UK

RUSSIA has deployed warships to the Baltic Sea carrying nuclear-capable missiles with BRITAIN in their sights.
Russia is beefing up the firepower of its Baltic Fleet by adding warships armed with long-range cruise missiles like those in Crimea, pictured
The precision weapon is so destructive it has been given the codename “The Sizzler” by NATO allies.
Russian media has quoted a military source saying the ships will be tactically placed to have Europe’s major cities in their cross-hairs.
“With the appearance of two small missile ships armed with the Kalibr cruise missiles the fleet’s potential targeting range will be significantly expanded in the northern European military theatre”, they said.
NATO confirmed that it would send 4,000 troops to the region next year — including 800 UK military personnel plus British tanks, jets and drones.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon told a summit in Brussels: “This deployment of air, land and sea forces shows that we will continue to play a leading role in NATO, supporting the defence and security of our allies.”
And yesterday the Russian fleet that passed through the English Channel on its way to bomb Syria was seen stalking Gibraltar.
Led by rustbucket aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, the taskforce had planned to stopover for fuel at a Spanish port just 20 miles from the British territory.
Russia suddenly withdrew the request when Western leaders put pressure on Spain to front-up to Putin.
The Baltic warships are expected to be joined by three more vessels as Putin bolsters his Baltic forces.
The Russian military is yet to confirm that the ships are going to be stationed in the territory, but NATO said it spotted the ships moving through the Baltic.
“NATO navies are monitoring this activity near our borders,” said Dylan White, the alliance’s acting spokesman.
“This is … worrying and is not something that helps to reduce tensions in our region,” Sweish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist told Sweden’s national TT news agency.
“This affects all the countries round the Baltic.”