Scandinavian observations and perspectives

[Hi_Henry]

Then there is the economic aspect and when one does not produce quality wood in one's own country then one has to buy it. Again this amounts to virtue signalling, as the wood will have to be produced in other countries. An example of this is also in the use of woodchips for heating. Denmark was one of the pioneer countries in using socalled waste wood from thinnings in forest, in the form of woodchips for heating whole cities. The idea was taken up by politically driven people, who saw it as a way to cut the use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. In itself not bad, but then the Danes got industrious making huge power stations relying on wood chips and gas for heating. They are mostly placed by the harbors because lo and behold the wood chips are so much easier and cheaper when they get shipped from the Baltic countries and Africa. So virtue signalling goes on overdrive, with Denmark bragging about how green it is and how much it cares about the environment. Yet it is hollow and filled with hypocricy if not to say neocolonialism though it is branded as supporting global trade and helping Africa.

Amazing observation of complete disconnect with Global Reality. EU acts as though it cares about the Planet but as far as I am concerned it is just that, an act.

Brown Coal is Good for the Planet ?

The EU drive to get rid of old light bulbs is another example of EU authoritarian behavior while pretending to be doing something to help the planet. People are simply treated as non-entities. The whole campaign appears to me to be driven by corporate desire to make people buy something that they do not want. If someone thinks changing light bulbs will effect climate then I say .....

 

[thorbiorn]

Recently there was the huge NATO military exercise known as Trident Juncture 2018 which took place in area of Norway:

Pooing troops, empty bars, sinking frigate and other takeaways from NATO largest drills [...]Trident Juncture 2018 was by far the largest exercise hosted by Norway since the end of the Cold War and the largest NATO has held in decades. Involving some 50,000 troops from 31 countries, about 10,000 combat vehicles and 250 aircraft, the Trident Juncture was to hone the troops' combat skills in harsh Nordic climate – the one that probably led to some embarrassing setbacks. [...]

Right after the games something happened to one of the four Norwegian frigates; it collided with an oil tanker.

The Trident Juncture came to a spectacular end on November 7, but the next day a Norwegian Navy frigate Helge Ingstad collided with a Maltese tanker Sola TS, near an island chain off Norway's western coast.

The vessel, which had received a long tear in the hull started to take on water, prompting the crew of 137 to abandon ship. Helge Ingstad deliberately ran aground to prevent capsizing, and a race is now underway to save the frigate from sinking.

Tough luck because:

NATO drills fallout: Norwegian frigate almost underwater after oil tanker collision (PHOTOS) he Norwegian Navy frigate that tried and failed to return home after parading its might in NATO war games is almost completely submerged under water after colliding with an oil tanker.
Eight people were injured when the KNM Helge Ingstad and the tanker Sola TS collided last week off Norway’s western coast, putting a not-so-great finish on the much touted Trident Juncture 2018 drills – the largest exercise hosted by Norway since the 1980s and the largest that NATO has held in decades.

Then it turned out the ship is not insured: The Frigate KNM «Helge Ingstad» is not insured - Norway Today Later that the ship only costs 400 million Euros Så mye koster fregatten «Helge Ingstad» (Norway could buy five new F-35 planes for that amount of money.).

According to a log, the tanker Sola TS tried in vain to warn the Frigate of the danger of a collision: 'Sola TS' advarede forgæves fregat inden kollision

One almost is tempted to begin a thread about military screw ups. Recently there was a F-16 hit by accident by another F-16 at an airport in Belgium, there were lost F-22s due to the storm Michael in the US, earlier there was a US warship involved in a collisions Leaving such considerations aside, it is still a bit ironic for the hosting nation, Norway, to end an exercise like this, considering that a former PM of Norway is acting General Secretary of NATO. To add insult to injury, a trident (the name of the exercise was Trident Juncture) is the weapon of Poseidon, the god of the sea, well know from the Odyssey were the wrath of Poseidon gave Odysseus and his men a really hard time, including shipwreck and, for all but the hero, loss of life.

While the ship Sola TS is not the biggest ever, it is big enough. At more than 62000 tons just for the empty ship plus weight of the cargo and fuel, it's total mass can reach above 170,000 tons. See details here: Vessel details for: SOLA TS (Crude Oil Tanker) - IMO 9724350, MMSI 248020000, Call Sign 9HA4480 Registered in Malta | AIS Marine Traffic

 

[Ursus Minor]

Please beware that this post may not be politically correct


KNM Helge Ingstad

Did gender politics sink the Norwegian Navy vessel?

Returning from the NATO Trident Juncture strategic exercise, a Norwegian frigate collided with a tanker.
The warship, one of Norway’s five top modern frigates, was on her way home to Haakonsvern naval base, but it is still a mystery why the well-equipped warship couldn’t avoid colliding with the 250 meters long oil tanker just north of the oil terminal.

The weather was excellent while the waters in the area offer maritime traffic real-time shipping control. Also, there was radio-contact between the vessels when the accident happened.
The nagging question remains as to why the frigate, with all its radars and sensors, could not change course to avoid the collision.

The Armed Forces appear reluctant to speak about the crew of the KNM Helge Ingstad.

Judging by the sound record and expert statements, the crew made crude, almost incomprehensible human errors, making them look like amateurs.

“If this is how the Navy trains its naval officers, it’s shocking. They do not show any discipline or understanding of the roadmap rules, nor how to communicate or navigate at sea,” the experienced captain and navigator Geir S Eilertsen remarked.

“In the audio log, you hear the use of voice that does not seem as if the crew in the frigate is aware of the situation they are in. They are not aware that they are heading for danger,” he said.

Retired Commander Jacob Borresen, also found the collision inexplicable. “The fact that it happened in this particular area is incomprehensible. Here we have a traffic centre packed with radar monitoring equipment reading transponder signals from all the vessels in the area.

“The frigate had state-of-the-art radar equipment and infrared optical systems. How is it possible that the vessels didn’t see each other?” Borresen responded an interview with Norwegian state broadcaster NRK.

An increasing number of readers have contacted Resett pointing to previous speeches about KNM Helge Ingstad, where the publication Armed Forces had been more than willing to praise the crew.
The appointment of the crew was highly controversial at the time, especially to critics who are familiar with the inner workings and operations of the Armed Forces.

The debate had centred around the number of women in the Navy, the extent to which they are quoted in requirements compared to men, and what effect it had on the professional “culture” of the Armed Forces.

In the Norwegian magazine, Armed Forces Forum No. 2 in 2017 it was stated that “Four out of five navigators on frigate KNM Helge Ingstad are women“.

“It is advantageous to have many women on board. It will be a natural thing and a completely different environment, which I look at as positive,” Lieutenant Iselin Emilie Jakobsen Ophus said. She is a navigation officer at KNM Helge Ingstad, according to Defense Forum.
In yet another politically correct nod, the text notes that: “The Navy receives a much higher number of women after general conscription duty was introduced. Therefore, more women are also more motivated for further career opportunities in the Armed Forces.

“There has always been a perception that the Armed Forces are characterized by a very masculine environment, and in many ways it is true. It is mostly men in the Armed Forces, but it is important for me to show that you do not have to be ‘one of the guys’ to assume a role in the Armed Forces. Finding one’s place should not be at the expense of being a woman,” said Ophus.

Lieutenant Emilie Jakobsen Ophus onboard the KNM Helge Ingstad
Fire av fem navigatører på fregatten KNM Helge Ingstad er kvinner. (“Four out of five navigators on frigate KNM Helge Ingstad are women“.)

Article by freewestmedia.com

When more women are able to work together, “it becomes easier to discover and to create a more balanced defense,” Armed Forces Forum opined.
“It is important that the integration of women should work in every aspect: from officers and constables, to people,” Ophus said, adding: “The most important thing for me is that my job makes sense because you work for something bigger than yourself.”

In the same magazine where the Norwegians boast about gender equality in their Navy, they also explained that they are looking into every department of their Armed Forces to apply the same formula.

Norway’s Ministry of Defence has not yet reported whether they plan to lift the frigate from where it sunk to repair the vessel. All the 137 people on board the KMN Helge Instad were successfully evacuated.

Not only did the demise of the uninsured frigate cost the Norwegian Navy its entire annual budget, but the country lost millions with several oil and gas fields which were temporarily shut down due to the accident.

Since the oil companies pay 78 percent taxes to the state for production, the shutdown resulted in a substantial economic loss, national broadcaster NRK reported.

The KMN Helge Ingstad is one of five Nansen-class frigates billed as “unsinkable” due to its construction with water-tight zones designed to keep the warship “intact and operable”.

The vessel had taken part a “high visibility” exercise shortly before the collision.

 

[thorbiorn]

Please beware that this post may not be politically correct

Thank you for sharing. It reminds me of a recent article:
Biggest sex differences study ever confirms men more interested in systems, women more interested in people
which leads to the advice that "Knowledge protects, ignorance endangers"

 

[thorbiorn]

A few trends from southern Scandinavia:

18.11.2018 AT. 16:25
Politicians upset about shop robberies
The shop owners look on while thieves drag the boxes out in broad daylight.

They call the police, but they don't come/have no time to come. It has been on my mind for some time, but this is evidence the society is unprepared for changing times. »Det er helt grotesk«: Tyve slæber kasser ud af supermarkeder ved højlys dag - politiet kommer ikke

Bente and Ebb received a visit from a 13-year-old thief from Morocco: "It has really affected our sense of justice"
How can North African children from a detention centre commit repeated break-ins without immediate consequences, says the married couple from the North of Zealand, who have had a nocturnal visit by one of the boys.

Source: Bente og Ebbe fik besøg af 13-årig tyv fra Marokko: »Det har i den grad ramt os på retsfølelsen«

London is teeming with Russian agents: Putin has hundreds of spies and informants
Icy agents or naive tourists? "They have a famous cathedral, which is famous all over the Europe. In fact, all over the world, I think"

This is the headline and subtitle on the front page of Jyllands-Posten. Source: Rapport fortæller om 500 agenter i England: "Putin ser og hører det hele" The English hysteria is spreading.

And then today there was also an opinion piece promoting the idea, that one should support, what I would call gender confusion in the kindergardens. Source: LGBT om nye tider i børnehaven: Der skal være plads til at hedde Rasmus og blive kaldt ”hun” eller hedde Maria og blive kaldt ”hen” Taking that a few years later, I might have to refer to a child with a male name, as a "she" or the other way around. The LBGT politicians also also have a new pronoun "hen" for the "undecided". That a "hen" is a female bird of a certain variety is possibly a source of future trouble.

 

[thorbiorn]

Already in 2017 there was a discussion about the wisdom of insisting on gender equality in the Norwegian Army:
At Ease, Ladies! Norway Discovers Women Undermine Army's Fighting Ability
And now after the warship sank there is a debate in Norway:

Norwegian Journo Blames Frigate's 'Amateurish' Loss on Women, PC Culture

MILITARY & INTELLIGENCE
09:02 20.11.2018

Prior to the dramatic incident, involving the 'unsinkable' frigate KNM Helge Ingstad, the Norwegian Armed Forces own magazine boasted that four out of five navigators on the warship were women.

Without making concrete accusations, Norwegian journalist, military expert and political analyst Helge Lurås has suggested that the dramatic incident is closely related to another highly controversial topic, namely the proportion of women in the Norwegian Armed Forces.

"Should you judge by sound records and expert statements, glaring and almost incomprehensible human errors were made. The Navy's people appear to be amateurs," Helge Lurås wrote in his opinion piece in the magazine Resett.

Lurås suggested that the mandatory inclusion of women on a quota arrangement and with different requirements had had an effect on the professional culture of Norwegian Defence.

"For the Armed Forces in the age of political correctness, increasing the number of women in the agency has become a goal in itself. It is assumed that women make the Armed Forces better. Those who should think otherwise, receive a plain message that their opinions are undesirable," Lurås wrote.

Lurås recalled Forsvarets Forum, the Norwegian Armed Forces own magazine, boasting that four out of five navigators at the KNM Helge Ingstad were women. He went on to quote Lieutenant Iselin Emilie Jakobsen Ophus, navigation officer at KNM Helge Ingstad, who called having many women on board an 'advantage', a 'natural thing' and a 'completely different and positive environment'.

Lurås explained the Navy's reticence to give out the details of the incident as reluctance to draw attention to the gender of those who were at the the helm at that time.

Lurås, while admitting that both men and women can make mistakes, questioned whether it should remain a priority for the Armed Forces to spend energy and resources on 'integration' and creating a 'balanced' work environment.

"People want answers to what went wrong when a NOK 4 billion ship now lies in a Norwegian fjord. And they deserve them, however politically incorrect they may be," Lurås wrote.

'Wicked and Primitive'

Lurås's article was met with a dramatic rebuff from Defence College professor Janne Haaland Matlary and Rear Admiral Louise Dedichen, who called it 'conspiratory, wicked and primitive' in a counterpunch in the daily newspaper Aftenposten. Furthermore, the two women argued that Lurås was spreading 'fake news', as no quota system for women exists, despite the Defence using all means to encourage more women to enlist.

"Brain power is increasingly important in the Armed Forces. It's not that that raw strength alone is enough to make a good soldiers. On the contrary, we look for the best in many dimensions, and now we can recruit from both sexes through universal service. We now have twice as large 'pool' to recruit from," Matlary and Dedichen concluded.

Since 2016, when conscription was extended to ladies, women in uniform have made up about 17 percent of the Norwegian Armed Forces, their percentage steadily creeping upwards.

The KMN Helge Ingstad, one of the latest additions to the Norwegian Navy, collided with a tanker after NATO's major drill the Trident Juncture. It received a nearly 10-metre-long gash on its starboard side and was manoeuvered into a shallow coastal bay to prevent from sinking entirely. Despite previous estimations that most of the equipment on board has been destroyed, Norway plans to salvage the helicopter-carrying frigate that cost the state coffers about $420 million.

The recent consequence of ideological thinking forcing the issue of women hired by quota to ensure equal numbers as an expression of equality may be just the beginning for Norway, because in February 2018 there was an article in The Economist:

The old-girls’ network
Ten years on from Norway’s quota for women on corporate boards

Gender quotas at board level in Europe have done little to boost corporate performance or to help women lower down
[...]

From the response to the critics of the recent incident with the war ship one may conclude that there will be more trouble ahead. So far Norway has enough money to spend on experimenting, so why not?

 

[thorbiorn]

Today on NRKs website (Norwegian National Broadcasting), there is posted an article that says norwegians are seriously deficient in iodine. The quoted institution (Nasjonalt råd for ernæring/Norwegian Nutritional Council), further says that all salt should ideally be fortified with iodine in order to increase the people’s intake, and that those who do not eat sufficient foods rich in iodine (fish and dairy products listed as examples), should increase their intake of these foods.

Towards the end, the article points out the difficulty in making people eat more of this fortified salt, in order to get sufficient iodine, while at the same time claiming that salt intake should be decreased.

Nordmenn trenger mer jod

Thank you for mentioning this issue. It was also a problem in Denmark and in the year 2000 new legislation came into force:

Husholdningssalt og brug af jodberiget salt Household salt and salt added bread and plain baked goods must be added to iodine
In Denmark, household salt and salt added to bread and ordinary baked goods must be added to iodine in an amount of 13 mg iodine per day. kg of salt.

The following products are treated as bread and should therefore also be added with iodine-rich salt:
• Bread
• Flat bread
• Dried bread
• Dried buns
[...]
• Finished flour mixes
Why is there mandatory envoy enrichment in Denmark?

The obligatory iodine enrichment was introduced in 2000 because iodine intake in Denmark was below the internationally recommended level, resulting in a high incidence of enlarged thyroid gland and high metabolism in the elderly.

Like in Norway, there is also a recommendation for reducing salt intake to about 5-6 grams per day, whereas in reality men consume 9-11 and women 7-8 grams of salt.

 

[Cosmos]

Thank you for mentioning this issue. It was also a problem in Denmark and in the year 2000 new legislation came into force:
[...]

The Problem is that according to the book of Dr. Brownstein "Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can not Live Without It" the added iodine in salt and such isn't such a good idea and doesn't help with the problem as it is suggested. I'm not sure though, it could also have been brought up in the book by Lynne Farrow "The Iodine Crises".

 

[Altair]

The Problem is that according to the book of Dr. Brownstein "Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can not Live Without It" the added iodine in salt and such isn't such a good idea and doesn't help with the problem as it is suggested. I'm not sure though, it could also have been brought up in the book by Lynne Farrow "The Iodine Crises".

As far as I remember it's because iodine quickly evaporates from the salt so you never get an adequate amount of it.

 

[thorbiorn]

As far as I remember it's because iodine quickly evaporates from the salt so you never get an adequate amount of it.

Thank you for bringing this up, I found a study saying the loss depends on the cooking method: (PDF) Estimation of Loss of Iodine from Edible Iodized Salt During Cooking of Various Bangladeshi Food Preparations

p>Iodine is one of the essential micronutrients required for the normal mental and physical development of human beings. Low iodine intake exerts several detrimental effects on human health. The most serious effect of iodine deficiency is represented by possible damage to the fetus such as stillbirths, abortions and congenital abnormalities. According to the existing law, iodized salt should contain at least 15 ppm of iodine. However, iodine is lost significantly during cooking and few studies have been conducted to estimate such loss of iodine. Hence, in the present study, thirty recipes commonly cooked in Bangladeshi families were taken and by using colorimetric assay method, it was found that the mean losses of iodine during different cooking procedures were 13.28% for pressure cooking, 23.46% for boiling, 9.5% for deep frying and 5.18% for shallow frying. The results showed that the loss of iodine depends upon the type of cooking procedures and cooking time. Dhaka Univ. J. Pharm. Sci. 15(2): 161-165, 2016 (December)</p

Another factor is packaging: Stability of iodine in iodized salt used for correction of iodine-deficiency disorders. II

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of humidity and packaging materials on the stability of iodine in typical salt samples from countries with tropical and subtropical climates, under controlled climatic conditions. Initially we examined eight samples. In the second phase we expanded the study to salts from 18 sources and attempted to correlate the observed stability with salt impurities naturally present in these samples. High humidity resulted in rapid loss of iodine from salt iodized with potassium iodate, ranging from 30% to 98% of the original iodine content. Solid low-density polyethylene packaging protected the iodine to a great extent. High losses were observed from woven high-density polyethylene bags, which are often the packaging material of choice in tropical countries. Impurities that provided moisture at the salt surface had the most deleterious effect. Although clear correlations were not obtained, the presence of reducing agents, hygroscopic compounds of magnesium, and so forth seemed to have the most adverse effects on the stability of iodine. Surprisingly, carbonates had little effect on stability over the range present in the samples. Packaging salt in low-density polyethylene bags, which provided a good moisture barrier, significantly reduced iodine losses, and in most cases the iodine content remained relatively stable for six months to a year. The findings from this study indicate that iodine can be highly unstable, and in order to ensure the effectiveness of local salt-iodization programmes, countries should determine iodine losses from local iodized salt under local conditions of production, climate, packaging, and storage.

 

[Chu]

The recent consequence of ideological thinking forcing the issue of women hired by quota to ensure equal numbers as an expression of equality may be just the beginning for Norway, because in February 2018 there was an article in The Economist:
From the response to the critics of the recent incident with the war ship one may conclude that there will be more trouble ahead. So far Norway has enough money to spend on experimenting, so why not?

This issue with quotas to me is another sign of people not thinking and feminists not caring a bit about anything but power. In what brain is that a good idea, before thinking of performance, human qualities, team-working qualities, etc? Indeed, this is probably just the beginning of their problems.

 

[luc]

This issue with quotas to me is another sign of people not thinking and feminists not caring a bit about anything but power. In what brain is that a good idea, before thinking of performance, human qualities, team-working qualities, etc? Indeed, this is probably just the beginning of their problems.

Exactly. And this sort of nonsense will further contribute to the decline of Western civilization till the point where incompetency and hysteria rules everywhere, just as predicted in Political Ponerology.

 

[thorbiorn]

Regarding this issue Swedish microchipping photos flood social media and it's insane -- Sott.net there was an article in June of this year:

Thousands of Swedes are inserting microchips into themselves – here’s why

June 20, 2018 12.24pm BST
[...]
What is it about Sweden?
So why are Swedes so happy to put microchips into their body? One theory put forward is that Swedes are more prone to sharing their personal details because of the way the Swedish social security system is structured.

This myth of the “naive Swede”, who innocently trusts the government and Sweden’s national institutions, is an exaggeration – which has even been noted by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If it is part of the explanation, it is certainly not the whole truth. More convincing is the fact that in Sweden, people have a strong faith in all things digital. Swedish people have a deep belief in the positive potential of technology.

Over the past two decades, the Swedish government has invested heavily in technology infrastructure – and it shows. The Swedish economy is now largely based on digital export, digital services and digital tech innovations. And Sweden has become one of the most successful countries in the world at creating and exporting digital products. Notable companies, such as Skype and Spotify, were founded in Sweden.

A belief in digital technology and a trust in its potential has strongly affected Swedish culture. And the transhumanist movement has built upon this. In fact, Sweden played an important part in the formation of the transhumanist ideology. The global transhumanist foundation Humanity+ was co-founded by the Swede Nick Bostrom in 1998. Since then, many Swedes have become convinced that they should be trying enhance and improve their biological bodies.

So as the world expresses shock at the number of people being microchipped in Sweden, we should use this opportunity to delve deeper into Sweden’s remarkable relationship with all thing digital. After all, this latest phenomenon is just one manifestation of an underlying faith in technology that makes Sweden quite unique.

In the above article, there was a reference to a paper published by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs which contains a study of what people around the world thinks about Sweden and the Swedes. I will repost what the Norwegians and the Danes were claimed to think. As the study is from 2005, a number of points may have changed.

Norway

The embassy survey
Sweden is very well known (5 out of 5) and is viewed principally as a good neighbour. Very positive attitude (5 out of 5). The Swedes were once Norway’s ‘big brother’, but no longer. The two are now on a par. More culture clashes than one might expect. The best-known brands are IKEA, H&M, Volvo, Saab and Absolut Vodka. Great respect for Sweden’s international expertise. Interesting country for investors. Many buy homes in Sweden. The largest tourist group in Sweden, attracted by the good life such as eating well, shopping and visiting adventure parks. More familiar with Swedish culture, via TV, than many Swedes. Very familiar with our common history and relatively informed about Swedish domestic politics. Watching Sweden’s EU membership with considerable interest. Sweden is treated very favourably by the Norwegian media. Norwegians know the names of hundreds of Swedish personalities, including Astrid Lindgren, Carl Michael Bellman and Evert Taube.

The study
The Norwegians know more about Sweden than we do about Norway. Sweden is always an important topic. Characteristic for the Norwegian view is that Sweden’s grandeur has faded, that we are still the Nordic leaders but only a minor state in Europe – we would like to be more important than we are. Class society in Sweden is more explicit.

Denmark

The embassy survey Sweden is very well known (5 out of 5) and people take a favourable view of the country (4 out of 5). The Swedes are considered helpful, engaging and open to other cultures, while Sweden itself is regarded as a ‘country of prohibitions’. There are many similarities but there are also some surprising differences. The best-known brands are IKEA, Ericsson, H&M, Volvo and Saab. Swedish products denote quality. Very favourably disposed to investments in Sweden, which is viewed as a domestic market, rapid growth in the Öresund region. Five out of ten think it likely they will holiday in Sweden. Danes read a number of Swedish authors such as Henning Mankell, Kerstin Ekman and P O Engquist, can name actors and pop bands. Can follow Swedish domestic politics via the media. Sweden is viewed as a natural partner in the EU, the UN and other international forums, and also as a ‘benchmark country’.

Today in Norway and Denmark the changes in Sweden, also reported in this thread, have probably cast its shadows.

 

[thorbiorn]

In the thread about Poland there was a post which among many other news bits end with:

11.27.2018 - Poland would join any moves to step up Russian Sanctions over Ukraine: President

Poland would join any moves to step up Russian sanctions over Ukraine: president | Reuters

Poland’s president said on Tuesday Warsaw would join any international moves to step up sanctions on Russia, after Moscow opened fire on and seized three Ukrainian navy ships near Russian-annexed Crimea over the weekend.

The U.S. State Department, the European Union, Britain, France, Denmark, and Canada have all condemned what they called Russian aggression. Moscow accuses the Ukrainian vessels of intruding into its territorial waters on Sunday, which Kiev denies.

“If there are such international initiatives, like further sanctions (on Russia), Poland will take part in these initiatives, because we are ready for all actions that will lead to solving the conflict,” Polish President Andrzej Duda said during a visit to Bulgaria, speaking through a Bulgarian translator.

Notice that Denmark is on the list....
There have been several recent incidents that demonstrate the opinions of the Danish Government is close to those of Kiev, The UK, Canada and the US. This results in a certain kind of response:
Rusland skoser Danmark og Norge: I er en trussel mod jer selv

Russia criticizes Denmark and Norway: You are a threat to yourselves
Russia accuses the Danish government for being plagued by phobias and "anti-Russian" feelings.

In the above article they report the Russia response to a new strategy plan for 2019-2020 from the Danish Foreign Ministry, which from a list of five threats puts Russia first, saying: "Russia is threatening its neighbours and undermining with the different funds of the european security architecture and our democratic processes." To express their opinion, and perhaps underscore the message in the strategy plan, the minister of Foreign Affairs and the minister of Defense together wrote an opinion piece to a newspaper Kronik: Ruslands traktatkrænkelser truer Europas sikkerhed

Russia's treaty violations threatens Europe's security
With the development of a new missile system Russia violates the landmark INF treaty, which since its inception in 1987 has been to ensure peace and stability in Europe. Now the patience of the U.S. has run out, and a clear deadline is set. Russia would do well to change its actions, for the INF treaty's survival is in everyone's interest.

Another offence which the Russian took was that the PM of the Government in a speech to the EU put Russia in a bad light by saying:

My mother witnessed the Second World War up close.

To her, the Golden Stars were not only symbols of peace. They were also a reminder of the opposite.

Of fear, destruction, war. She was born on the island of Bornholm and witnessed the Russian bombardment – after Denmark had regained freedom in May 1945. She witnessed the burning fire, when bombs fell from the sky.

To people like my mother the Anthem of Europe – was the Anthem of peace.

The Danish article is here: Vrede i Rusland over Løkke-tale: »Kast ikke skam over din mor« and the Russian response is around minute 38 in:

The Danish PM puts Russia as representing the opposite of peace which he reserves for the Golden Stars of the EU. And besides he is not accurate about the historical details with regard to Bornholm and the deals with the powers of the time, where there was various opinions, priorities and inactions which some of the sources I'will quote below bring to light.

We don't know the details of the experiences the mother of the PM had on Bornholm. Had the PM been just a bit more diplomatic he could have saved himself and others of trouble, but maybe that was not the intention. Below are a selection of machine translated, although in some places slightly improved translations of what different Danish sites have said about the issue of the events on Bornholm since the mid 2000s

Befrielsen 1945 - Bornholms befrielse has

A perfectly normal liberation
On the island of Bornholm was the liberation celebrated as in the rest of the country. There was jubilation in the streets, because frihedsbudskabet sounded the 4. may in the evening, the freedom fighters appeared on the scene, and in the following days they began to intern people who were suspected of having helped the germans.

Peace and order were maintained by the resistance movement in cooperation with the German patrols, who were responsible for maintaining discipline among the approximately 15,000 German soldiers and refugees, who were staying on the island. Everything went on apparently as it should, and the island of Bornholm, which had been five peaceful years under occupation, so in addition to having to come just as peacefully through the liberation.

Behind the Soviet Lines
But Bornholm was yet in a completely different situation than the rest of Denmark. Admittedly, it was Bornholm a part of the surrender to the british field marshal Montgomery, which the germans had signed the 4. may, but the island was far behind the soviet lines in Germany, and the germans used the island of Bornholm as a stronghold in the great evacuation of civilians and soldiers from the eastern front. The british and the americans feared, therefore, that the Soviet union regarded the island as their concern.

The british force under the command of major-general Dewing, who arrived in Copenhagen on 5. the afternoon of may, had been ordered to in the first place not to send troops to the island of Bornholm. Dewing held a force ready to depart for the island of Bornholm by plane, as soon as he had got permission from the supreme commander of allied forces in Europe, american general Eisenhower.

Eisenhower responded the 7. may. The message was that there should not have sent british troops to the island of Bornholm, before the Danish authorities had explicitly asked for it, and even then only after an approval from the Eisenhower. The request from the Danish authorities came later the same day, but the disaster has already happened.

Rønne and Neksø bombed
Without notice was Rønne and Neksø by noon the 7. may exposed to soviet air attack. The attacks were repeated on the evening, and dropped leaflets in Russian, with the invitation to the German commander on Bornholm von Kamptz to surrender. This he declined, as he had been ordered to surrender to the british. 10 natives and an unknown number of germans lost their lives at the bombing.

The 8. may the Rønne and Neksø exposed to new air attacks. But now it was both cities ' inhabitants evacuated, so this time there was only material damage. They on the other hand was great. Of Ronnes well, a 3,400 properties were only 300-400 unharmed after the bombing. 3,000 people were without a home. In Neksø was the damage as extensive.

The bombing reflected the brutal warfare on the eastern front, where none of the parties took account of civilian casualties and destruction. It was a war, like Bornholm, because of its location for a short while was a part of.

Militarily was the soviet bombing senseless. The germans had long since surrendered in Denmark and the final German surrender, that stopped the war on all fronts in Europe at midnight between the 8. and 9. may, was also signed before the air strikes began.

Soviet invasion
So as not to offend the Soviet union had Eisenhower, when he the 7. may received the Danish government's request to send british troops to the island of Bornholm, chosen to ask Moscow whether it would clash with the soviet plans, if you sent british troops to the island to receive the German surrender.

The soviet union let the request be missed a couple of days, while events were allowed to take their time. First the 10. may was sent a reply. It sounded that the soviet troops had already liberated the island of Bornholm.

The 9. the afternoon of may were five soviet torpedo boats, with 100 man stood into the harbour in Rønne, where the soldiers went ashore without meeting any resistance. The soviet union had won the game on the island of Bornholm.

What would the Soviet union with the island of Bornholm?
Since the war there has circulated many different explanations as to why it was the Soviet union, which liberated the island of Bornholm and why the island was subjected to the devastating bombing. It has been claimed that the Danish authorities and the allies had forgotten the island of Bornholm, or even had made a secret agreement with the Soviet union were the ones who would liberate the island. It has been said that it was a military necessity for the Soviet union to eliminate the island of Bornholm, there was a German pocket behind the soviet lines. And Bornholm German commandant von Kamptz, refused to answer on the requirement of the surrender after the first bombing, has been declared a fanatical nazi and the principal responsible for the devastation in connection with the bombing.

None of the explanations hold for a closer inspection. The main reason that the events went, as they went on the island of Bornholm, was that the soviet leadership for political reasons had decided to get a foothold in Denmark. Since 1944 had a conquest of the island of Bornholm has been considered. By participating in the liberation of Denmark figured the Soviet union that could have an impact on the political situation in the strategically important Denmark after the war.

The soviet union leaving the island of Bornholm in the spring of 1946
In the 11 months was stationed soviet troops on Bornholm. As they was most, there were upwards of 9.000. And then, just as suddenly as they had come, they left again the island of Bornholm.

An inquiry in march, 1946 from the Danish government to the government of Moscow, now even was able to carry out the military tasks on the island, was answered positively. In the course of a few weeks left of the soviet forces, the island of Bornholm.

Why? Because the political benefits of having liberated the island of Bornholm was lacking. The soviet union had not got any influence on Denmark's political situation after the liberation. Denmark was firmly placed in the western block. About to leave the island of Bornholm could the Soviet union gain the political goodwill and maybe help to create a pressure on the americans that they should leave their much more important military bases on Danish soil, the bases on Greenland.

From Efter tyskerne kom russerne: Bornholm fejrer 70-året for befrielsen there was

As a professor, Bent Jensen, taught future historians, but also not in his teaching was that talked a lot about Bornholm's fate.

- It has basically not filled something, until I even began to interest me for it in the occasion of the 50th anniversary, says Bent Jensen, who in 1996 published the book "The long liberation" of the time with Stalin's troops on the island of Bornholm.

Bent Jensen has no good explanation as to why the bornholm story has gotten so little attention.

He points out, however, that Bornholm already in 1945 was forgotten by the rest of the country.

- The euphoria that was all over the Danish liberation, overshadowed completely the fact that Bornholm was not liberated. You almost forgot that Bornholm was exposed to a new form of occupation, he says.

And from Den Røde Hær voldtog og plyndrede bornholmerne

While the rest of Denmark celebrated the liberation of the 5. may 1945 was the reality on the island of Bornholm far from jubelmeldingerne in the radio. From the 7. april 1945 to the 15. april 1946, there were approximately 7-8000 russians on the island, and although the majority of them behaved nicely, there were also black sheep. The book illustrates several hundred cases, where the russians committed gangrape, spoil, and went into the home and brandished weapons just to get a jar of honey.

Men did not dare let their wives be home alone in the fear that the russians will come and rape them, but you did not talk about it, and newspapers wrote not a single comma of it. You would not write negative about the russians and on the way get to encounter Moscow, says Jesper Gaarskjær.

Denmark would not have, the russians would feel less welcome than the british, and on the way were the people on Bornholm a pawn in the big political game. One praised The Red Army and praised their behavior, above, to protest against their behavior. But despite the new knowledge, the russians don't necessarily go from heroes to villains, as it can't be set up white on black, thinks Jesper Gaarskjær.

Bornholm is, one could say, just a small parenthesis in the great history of the 2. world war, and many natives speak positively about their stay on the island. But I think it is important that one differentiates the collective consciousness and provides affected families a voice in the story. For it has without a doubt put deep tracks in people who live on Bornholm.

Here is perspective that takes into consideration what the Soviet Union had experienced:
Rædselsdage på Bornholm

7. may 2005, at. 2:00Af Ove Sten Rasmussen
Ad

DELAYED LIBERATION Bornholmians rejoicing over the German capitulation in May 1945, were to last only three days, before the Soviet bombs rained down on the Ronne and the Nexø

The wound is still not healed and the puzzle is far from solved to the bottom.

Even 60 years after tracked on Bornholm island, the reverberations of bitter disappointment over the rock-island's fate in the otherwise happy days of may 1945, when the BBC had served in the German capitulation, but the accidents still pouring over the Rønne and Nexø on 7. and 8. may.

As the message of freedom sounded the 4. may in the evening, doubted the no on that the miracle was true for the whole of Denmark. Bornholm celebrated the liberation with the same euphoria as the rest of the country, and the freedom fighters began the 6. may to solve the task with the arrests after the Frihedsrådets lists. A special assignment was in charge of to discipline the many deserted German soldiers, who were flown to the island, together with the German refugees, and now wandered.

And sometimes that was partying like never before.

The allied force, which was to receive the German troops surrender on English soil, arrived at the Kastrup Airport on Friday, 5. may under the leadership of the british major-general R. H. Dewing.

If similar had happened on the island of Bornholm with a representative of the western allies, could the later sorrow and suffering may be avoided. But here appeared instead the soviets as a deliverer, and it refused the island's German commander, commander Gerhard von Kamptz, to recognise. He let the German anti-aircraft guns bombard the soviet reconnaissance aircraft.

As a result, soviet aircraft on 7. may, without notice, thundered against Rønne and Nexø, scattering death and destruction. Commander von Kamptz stood firm on his refusal to surrender, even after the russians had dropped leaflets with the requirements of kapitulationsforhandlinger before noon. 10 the next morning. Otherwise, new bombings.

It should surely now be the moment in which the newly minted Danish liberation governmnet entered in the character. The Bornholm management tried all afternoon to get in touch with foreign minister Christmas Møller (K) – more and more desperately, but still in vain. The foreign minister sat the whole day in meetings, which could not be interrupted. When he went home, it was with the message that he would not be disturbed!

The hope of the Danish government's action was first reported in the early morning. At four o'clock began the evacuation of Rønne and Nexø, which thankfully was almost deserted, when the soviet bombers came again. This time went no life tabt.De first commander-in-chief, general Dwight D. Eisenhower, did to the british field marshal Montgomery is clear that Bornholm was Danish and therefore should be treated as such.

This meant that there could not be sent british flights to the island, unless the Danish government asked for it. Only after the bombing of Rønne and Nexø made the government of such a request, but late on the evening of the same day overhaledes events of the final German collapse. The total German værnemagts capitulation was signed in Karlhorst in Berlin on 8. may.

The German commander on Bornholm had now been supplemented with a German general, but it was still maintained that the germans only wanted to surrender to the british military.

At his arrival in Denmark, general Dewing the instruction from the field marshal Montgomery for not immediately sending british forces to the island of Bornholm for the sake of "possible international complications," and because of rumors that the Soviet union was interested in the island. The british government was, however, strongly interested in preventing a soviet invasion of the island of Bornholm, was called, and Montgomery therefore asked his superiors Eisenhower on clear guidelines, while Dewing kept a small force ready to fly to the island.What was the Danish government's position?

A shocked American public had certainly expected a statement of what the government now intended to do. One listened, in this respect, in vain to the speech of the prime minister in the liberation government, Vilhelm Buhl (P), held at the Parliament's first session in parliament 9. may. The prime minister said not a word on the situation on the island of Bornholm!

On the same day landed five soviet torpedo boats, marines in the port of Ronne. They met no resistance, since Germany's total capitulation was a fact.

Still maintained the island's German leadership, that the surrender should be made to the british military. Now cut general Eisenhower through to the German high command: The German surrender to the british the 4. may also had effect in the island of Bornholm. But the German troops were as a result of the Wehrmacht total capitulation the 8. may obey the Soviet commander on the island.

The same day, the soviet general staff to reinforce the military presence on the island of Bornholm by the transferring the 9000 men under major-general Fyodor Korotkovs management. A number that was later reduced.

The Russians were on Bornholm for 11 months. The evacuation began on 17. march 1946. And then there was the dancing on the pier in Rønne.

According to the official versions was the Soviet conquest and occupation of the Danish island the most natural case of the world, and the 11-month-long occupation constituted no problem at all for any of the parties, notes professor dr. phil. Bent Jensen in the book "The long liberation – the island of Bornholm occupied and liberated 1945-46".

He adds, however, that all the official descriptions, provides a shortened and partly the sign description of the process from occupation to broaching. The unofficial part of the reality was that the Soviet occupation concerned both the people on the island of Bornholm and the Danish government in Copenhagen. It was the only action, it almost seemed like nothing.

The Danish prefect of the island of Bornholm, P. Chr. von Stemann, as was the Danish official, who, during the entire course had daily and direct contact with the soviet authorities on the island, criticises in his memoirs, the Danish government's cautious policy.

The prefect write exactly that the Danish authorities were afraid of the russians. He mentions examples of how a more outspoken and undaunted appearance, in his opinion, would have been accepted by the soviet occupation forces. Bornholm was a serious problem in the bilateral relationship between the small state Denmark and the great power of the Soviet union, and the Soviet decision to leave the island in the spring of 1946 was at the time called "the largest national event we have experienced since the liberation".

Moscow never told the government anything about how long you intended to keep the island of Bornholm occupied, and it was this uncertainty, combined with the presence of the large soviet garrison, who tormented both Bornholmians and the other part of the nation.

When it was all over, wrote a newspaper from Copenhagen about the strong feelings, the message about the evacuation had triggered, and which showed "how big the issue was for us, and how hot it was us at heart".

The Soviet occupation of the Danish island south of Sweden concerned the Swedish government and the general public.

The rebuilding of Rønne and Nexø received an impressive nice contribution from the Swedish state, which gave the towns of 300 wooden houses. 60 years later they are still in use as good homes and a beautiful memory of brotherly spirit.

A collections in Denmark was also a fine stimulant to repair the damage and restore homes after one of the most peculiar events of the time of occupation

"The Bornholmians have never forgiven the rest of Denmark the celebration of the 5. may – before the peace reached their island," writes the historian dr. phil. Hans Kirchhoff in the book "Collaboration and resistance during the occupation".

The emotions are just as intelligible, as they are unfair. The city of Copenhagen had not forgotten the island of Bornholm. Both the government, general Dewing and the Wehrmacht pushed for the british to intervene. In London they had long foreseen, to the island of Bornholm could cause complications, but this did not prevent Churchill and the british Foreign Office to propose that one went in the country without notifying the Russians first. It was the Eisenhower. as head of the western alliance's command SHAEF who said no. For the island was too close to the Soviet zone to that the general wanted to act alone. He would ask first, and when he 8. may offered the Russians to liberate the island, thanked the man no. And thus it was . As general Dewing later said, was the island of Bornholm a "secondary detail question", over which they could not risk creating a conflict.

Hans Kirchhoff continues: The Russian bombing of Rønne and Nexø on 7. and 8. may 1945 was pointless and unnecessarily brutal. But it came to pass, as part of the war. And for a nation that in years past had lost 20 million of its inhabitants, and 25 percent of its productive capacity, was the bombing of the island of Bornholm a minor affair.

BOMBS AGAINST BORNHOLM
The Soviet bombardment of Bornholm, 7. and 8. may 1945 was carried out of the 119 battle and bombers, covered by 62 fighters.
10 people were killed and 35 wounded.
387 houses were leveled with the ground, and a total of 3756 properties were affected by the devastation.
indland@kristeligt-dagblad.dk

The sources don't have any numbers for how many Germans were killed. Soldiers yes, but they were not people? The Danes are apparently not that interested after all. Or do only the former Soviet archives know?

And here are some words from a quora post about https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-R...pivotal-strategic-advantage-in-the-Baltic-Sea

[...]Historically Denmark only exist because of its strategic location. After Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated the existence of Denmark was seriously threatened.

Sweden, Russia and England were the victors who all agreed that if any of the others had control of Denmark it would seriously threaten the chance of peace. So they supported a weak Denmark continued existence. Denmark was so demolished after the 1814 Kiel treaty, that it had lost 9/10 of its land. 3/7 of its population and 5/7 of its economy. The country was technically broke with a deficit of 60 million. It did not begin paying off on this debt before 1835 where interest had increased it to 260 million. It was in fact so destroyed by this downgrade from a regional power to tiny state status it had trouble funding the military innovation that took place in Europe. So from 1848–1864 Denmark also lost the Scleswig-Holstein areas. This crumpled the Danes so much that it became a pacifist neutral nation with limited military.

When Russia occupied the Danish island of Bornholm. Denmark had for the past 90 years been of zero military importance in the power play of Europe. It makes sense if the Russian state simply decided to just ignore the tiny indefensible country.[...]

Just found a video with pictures taken from Bornhold after the bombing.

 

[thorbiorn]

In the previous post, I commented on the Danish PM's interpretation of the history of his mother, as meaning that Russia is against peace and was part of the problem in WW2. At the same time there was recently the news from Kiev that
Ukraine decides to give nationalist post-WII Nazi collaborators same status as war vets
Ukraine's president poses with 'elite' paratrooper sporting Nazi SS skull and cross bones insignia

Denmark has been very supportive of the oligarchs in Kiev since the Maidan event a few years back, so why not be more sincere and join Kiev in rehabilitating those who fought the Soviet Union during WW2?
The question one should ask the Danish PM is: Given your recent interpretation of the events of WW2 and Bornholm at the your speech at the EU, what could have happened to Bornholm and Denmark if thousands of Danes and people from the now mostly Western NATO countries had not joined the expansion of Nazism and had not engaged the Soviet forces?

In fact, as has been mentioned in an earlier post, 6000 Danes did fight for the Wehrmacht, of which 2000 died in battle, and 3300 served prison sentences after the war, usually two years. In addition a few hundred served prison sentences in Soviet POW camps and were not further punished if they returned. Many of those who joined and later were sent to prison felt they had received a poor treatment, as they had given the impression by the then Danish government that it was alright to join. And those who did, came from many different political groups, except communists. Besides Denmark had joined the Anti-komintern Pact, even though in a moderated form.
The Wiki has:

The Anti-Comintern Pact (German: Antikominternpact; Japanese: 反共同盟 Hankyō dōmei) was an anti-Communist pact concluded between Germany and Japan (later to be joined by other, mainly fascist, governments) on November 25, 1936, and was directed against the Communist International.

And continues:

Denmark in the pact

The government of occupied Denmark demanded four exemptions to make it clear they took upon themselves no military or political obligations, that the only actions against communists would be police enforcements, that the actions would apply only to Denmark's own territory, and that Denmark remained a neutral country. The German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop was furious and in a fit threatened the Danish Foreign Minister Erik Scavenius with arrest. In the end Ribbentrop settled down and the Danish addendum was accepted as a secret one with only a few minor changes. The secrecy was the German demand, to avoid diluting the propaganda effect; this apparent full participation damaged Denmark's reputation as a "neutral" country. Several Danish diplomats stationed in Allied countries decided to distance themselves from their government after the signing.[13]

In reality, and some months prior to the signing, the Danish police had on their own initiative arrested and detained hundreds of Danish Communists without charge on 22 June 1941, including members of parliament, and later, on 20 August, they deported around one hundred of them to the Horserød camp. With the signature of the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was made retroactive, the Danish government officially justified these arrests, but the prisoners were never put before any court and 150 were later deported to the Stutthof concentration camp by the Gestapo in 1943.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Comintern_Pact#cite_note-14

Denmark was occupied by the Nazi forces in April 1940, it was the occupied country least affected by air raids and that includes the incident on Bornholm. No serious resistance took hold until in the middle of the war, when the Germans had overstretched themselves in the East. If they hadn't Denmark would probably have been integrated in a form similar to what we have in the EU and NATO today.
The Wiki gives an idea of the situation at the time:
Denmark in World War II - Wikipedia

At the outset of World War II, Denmark declared itself neutral. For most of the war, the country was a protectorate, then an occupied territory of Germany. The decision to occupy Denmark was taken in Berlin on 17 December 1939.[1] On 9 April 1940, Germany occupied Denmark in Operation Weserübung and the king and government functioned as normal in a de facto protectorate over the country until 29 August 1943, when Germany placed Denmark under direct military occupation, which lasted until the Allied victory on 5 May 1945. Contrary to the situation in other countries under German occupation, most Danish institutions continued to function relatively normally until 1945. Both the Danish government and king remained in the country in an uneasy relationship between a democratic and a totalitarian system until the Danish government stepped down in a protest against the German demands to institute the death penalty for sabotage.