Norwegian TV to air fictional series about Russian invasion
Source: Associated Press
Norwegian TV to air fictional series about Russian invasion
Jan M. Olsen, Associated Press
Updated 7:06 am, Saturday, August 29, 2015
COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) — In a move that has annoyed Russia, a Norwegian television channel says it will air a fictional TV drama depicting a Russian invasion of Norway after radical environmentalists seize power and freeze the Scandinavian nation's oil and gas industry.
TV2 drama chief Christopher Haug said Saturday the 10-episode drama that starts Oct. 4 is "foremost about Norway and Norwegians, not Russia or Russians."
In "Occupy," Russia partly occupies Norway to resume the oil industry following a secret deal with the European Union. The series is the most expensive drama in Norwegian television history, costing 90 million Norwegian kroner ($11 million), according to TV2, which said the production company has already sold the series to stations across Europe.
"I am surprised by the reaction. It is obviously a fiction, everyone can see that," Haug told The Associated Press, adding that the Russian Embassy had been told about the series "at an early stage, three years ago, I believe." "
It's) an engaging character drama about people put under great pressure," Haug added, stressing it "doesn't aim to reflect the current geopolitical situation in a realistic way."
Read more: http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Norwegian-TV-to-air-fictional-series-about-6473077.php
= new reply since forum marked as read
I'm not sure why the EU has anything to do with it.
The Soviet Union by the 1970s had adopted a doctrine that they would NOT use nuclear weapons first, but would rely on their Conventional forces. The Doctrine relied on the Warsaw Pact Armies intermingled with NATO forces so much that any use of Nuclear weapons by the US would kill almost as many NATO troops as invading Warsaw Pact nations.
It was the US during the 1970s and 1980s that said it would use Nuclear Weapons FIRST, to stop such an invasion. This was to offset what many in the West though was Soviet Superiority in Conventional forces. Western Equipment was considered better then Warsaw Pact equipment, but the Warsaw pact made up for that in have more of what they did have. The M1 tanks was coming into widespread use, but it was NOT superior to six T-72s, and those appear to the the numbers on the opposing side, The M1 was considered better then six T-54/T-55 tanks but those tanks were being replaced in front line Warsaw Pacts forces by T-72s and T-64s tanks. Thus the US decided it had to rely on Nuclear Weapons to offset the "Superior" forces of the Soviet Union.
Side note: In the 1973 Yom Kipper War, the Syrian forces were using T-72s with night vision equipment and with that night vision equipment defeated the Israeli tanks in various night fights between the tanks. The Israelis were able to off set that advantage in the daylight, but the extent of the Soviet Night Vision Equipment shocked the US and Israeli forces. The problem was NOT that the Soviet Equipment was superior to American Night Vision Equipment, but that the Soviet Union had given such equipment to the Syrians. That implied that most of the Soviet Tanks in Eastern European had them, or something better for the Soviets were known NOT to ship their latest equipment overseas, but to keep it in house and ship overseas inferior versions of their equipment. The Syrian tanks and crew-members had extensive Gas Warfare equipment, not equipment to spread gas, but equipment to fight in a gas environment. Thus the US had to upgrade not only its tanks, but its night fighting and gas warfare equipment, all having been deferred during Vietnam. Thus the US had to adopt its 1 1/2 war doctrine in the early 1970s, the US could fight only one offensive war and one defensive war at a time. Prior to the early 1970s the US Doctrine (and it is again today) a 2 1/2 war doctrine, two offensive wars and one defensive war (or one offensive war and three defensive wars) at the same time. The US and USSR were at their most equal in the 1970s and 1980s, before the Collapse of the Soviet Union due to the costs related to getting that close to US military capacity.
I bring this up for both the US and Soviet Union were NOT going to do anything to set off a Nuclear war during that time period, both sides saw any such war was costing more then they gained. Thus the real fighting would be on the margins of both "Empires" i.e. Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia, not in Europe (where the borders were rigidly defined). Thus you saw efforts to upgrade nuclear weapons, but these were more for internal political purposes not for any real increase in Nuclear capabilities (This Reagan killed off the plan to make the MX a mobile missile, and kept the Minuteman III as the main US nuclear missile).
More on the MX:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper#MX
More in the Minuteman III Missile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman
Thus most of the fighting between the Soviet Union and the US was in the third war and generally through proxies, i.e. the US would support one side, the Soviet Union the other, but both making sure that the situation gets out of hand, i.e. not threat that would cause one or the other to use Nuclear weapons.
Today, the situation is different, the Russian Republic has adopted a first use of Nuclear weapons, given the US superiority in advance technology. The US has adopted a no first use of Nuclear weapons for the same reasons, why threaten a nuclear strike when you can achieve your military objective without the use of Nuclear weapons. Unless the US attacks Russia, I do not see Russia using its Nuclear weapons. Given the goals of the US, I do not see the US using Nuclear weapons, UNLESS Kissinger is right and it is not US Policy to destroy the Russian Republic and break up Russia. If that is the US Policy, then Nuclear war is possible.
China is another Nuclear problem, in that China sees the US as a threat. Unlike Russia, the area outside what is called "China Proper" are NOT essential to China, China can lose them (and has in the past) and still remain the strongest regional power. These outer regions are Tibet, Manchuria and Xinjiang (Official Name: Uyghur Autonomous Region).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Autonomous_Region
Inner Mongolia use to be similar to the rest, but it now has a majrotiy Chinese Population and thus should be considered part of China proper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Mongolia
Manchuria is now divided between Inner Mongolia and three Chinese provinces, but all have majority Chinese population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchuria
Thus, unlike the former Soviet Union, which had large areas with few Russians or if they were any Russians, they were a clear minority, that is NOT true of most of China. Furthermore, unlike Russia, which is held together by the Trans-Siberian Railway. China's main Rivers hold China together and has for over 2000 years.
Language Groups inside China:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Administrative_divisions
The two main rivers:
The Yellow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_River
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze
These two rivers are connected by the Grand Canal, built about 600 AD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canal_(China)
Thus the above two rivers AND the Grand Canal makes up the "Heart" of China. The edges of China may be lost, but this "heart" often referred to as "China Proper" in older literature, tends to stay together for the rivers and Grand Canal forces them to be one. It is like the Nile for Egypt, or the Tigris and Euphrates rivers for Iraq, the network of rivers that bring the people together to think as one people. The Indus and Ganges does the same for Pakistan and India. You see the same process with the Amazon and Brazil and to a good degree the US the the Mississippi River Drainage system. The Vistula does the same for Poland, the Elbe, Rhine and Upper Danube does the same for Germany (if you consider Austria part of "Germany" since both areas speak German), and the Russians and the Volga. Rivers tend to unite people, for Rivers are the cheapest way to ship goods, both in the past and to this very day.
More on "China Proper" and that it is a Western Term used since the late 1700s to differentiate the above "Heart" from the rest of the then Chinese Empire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper
Repel them at the border like Finland did in 1939
Winter War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Starting with a Russian Sub going aground near a Tourist Island
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm412784896/tt0060921?ref_=tt_pv_md_1#
Mrs OLTG was not amused last time
Jerver!
Actually it sounds like a very good show
{and apologies to anyone who actually speaks Norwegian} 