The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar
nybooks.com
The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar
#2Fascinating read. What is the title of the book?
Re: The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar
#3Interesting read for a variety of reasons.
As a countryman of Sweden, I think it's sad that we've been playing lapdog throughout history. Germany during WW2, and now the US. The article refers to much less publicized occurances, but there's also lesser stories (but important signaling) like the piratebay court cases farce.
Is Russia up next as our masters, when they want to secure their fiber pipeline?
It's in cases like this that I wish that the EU was something better than what it is. If they want to enforce such federal level supremacy, why let the US pressure individual states?
Re: The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar
#4Interesting read for a variety of reasons. As a countryman of Sweden, I think it's sad that we've been playing lapdog throughout history. Germany during WW2, and now the US. The article refers to much less publicized occurances, but there's also lesser stories (but important signaling) like the piratebay court cases farce. Is Russia up next as our masters, when they want to secure their fiber pipeline? It's in cases…
small countries often play small roles to larger ones, is there a need for the "lapdog" language?
Re: The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar
#5Interesting read for a variety of reasons. As a countryman of Sweden, I think it's sad that we've been playing lapdog throughout history. Germany during WW2, and now the US. The article refers to much less publicized occurances, but there's also lesser stories (but important signaling) like the piratebay court cases farce. Is Russia up next as our masters, when they want to secure their fiber pipeline? It's in cases…
small countries often play small roles to larger ones, is there a need for the "lapdog" language?
If it's not in the interest of your population, then yes.
Re: The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar
#6Interesting read for a variety of reasons. As a countryman of Sweden, I think it's sad that we've been playing lapdog throughout history. Germany during WW2, and now the US. The article refers to much less publicized occurances, but there's also lesser stories (but important signaling) like the piratebay court cases farce. Is Russia up next as our masters, when they want to secure their fiber pipeline? It's in cases…
Regarding Sweden and WW II: If Sweden shouldn't have been a "lapdog" -- which side of the war should it have joined? With Norway or with Finland? Not a simple choice, neither now nor at the time.
And regarding USA today:
Check the democratic peace theory -- democracies don't fight wars with each others. (Not even USA. :-) ) So it is arguably in the Swedish interest to help all democracies be as strong and informed as ever possible.
That said, I doubt the reason Sweden is such a handmaid to US interests was so philosophical, of course. Every country do realpolitik and lies shamelessly about it. We don't know what the US paid (hopefully not just bribes to Swedish politicians, old hatt/mössa style... :-) ).
Edit: These comments really jumps up/down in votes. :-)
Re: The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar
#7It's pretty disheartening to know that the Swedish press won't touch this with a 10-foot pole; they're busy digging/drumming up the "good ole" Russian Scare from the 60s/70s right now amidst the sabre-rattling coming, frankly, largely from the West.
Re: The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar
#8Interesting read for a variety of reasons. As a countryman of Sweden, I think it's sad that we've been playing lapdog throughout history. Germany during WW2, and now the US. The article refers to much less publicized occurances, but there's also lesser stories (but important signaling) like the piratebay court cases farce. Is Russia up next as our masters, when they want to secure their fiber pipeline? It's in cases…
Regarding Sweden and WW II: If Sweden shouldn't have been a "lapdog" -- which side of the war should it have joined? With Norway or with Finland? Not a simple choice, neither now nor at the time. And regarding USA today: Check the democratic peace theory -- democracies don't fight wars with each others. (Not even USA. :-) ) So it is arguably in the Swedish interest to help all democracies be as strong and informed as…
Does covertly overthrowing a democratically elected government, installing a dictator only to later invade count as two democracies going to war? Otherwise it sounds like a very big loophole and one the US uses all of the time.
Re: The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar
#9It's pretty disheartening to know that the Swedish press won't touch this with a 10-foot pole; they're busy digging/drumming up the "good ole" Russian Scare from the 60s/70s right now amidst the sabre-rattling coming, frankly, largely from the West.
>> sabre-rattling coming, frankly, largely from the West
Uh, the Western democracies have started to do wars in Europe for territory? :-)
After Soviet fell, the NATO forces (and the neutral countries) in Europe melted away; the US/Canadian units in Germany went home and so on. This changed after Russia started to rebuild and do wars.
Edit: This was about the new "sabre rattling". Long, long after the Balkan horrible tragedies. (And I'd really argue if the "West" rattled any sabers there, but it isn't relevant anyway.)
Re: The Swedish Kings of Cyberwar
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding Sweden and WW II: If Sweden shouldn't have been a "lapdog" -- which side of the war should it have joined? With Norway or with Finland? Not a simple choice, neither now nor at the time. And regarding USA today: Check the democratic peace theory -- democracies don't fight wars with each others. (Not even USA. :-) ) So it is arguably in the Swedish interest to help all democracies be as strong and informed as…
Does covertly overthrowing a democratically elected government, installing a dictator only to later invade count as two democracies going to war? Otherwise it sounds like a very big loophole and one the US uses all of the time.
>> all the time
Uh? What examples [of deposing democracies then invading when the dictator becomes too oppressive] exist after the cold war?
Edit: Point is, there was a war of influence in the cold war; dictators played Soviet/West against each others for support. E.g. South Korea and Taiwan became democratic after the cold war, to not risk being ostracized.