21–30 of 94 posts
Sweden was at the time threatened with being delisted from a US preferential trade list if it did not comply.
As a result of bowing down to the US, Sweden is now complicit in the crimes of the US. The global spying, the drone killings it leads to, the increased pressure Russia finds itself under (and has to act out against).
Don't they have any editors? "Over the following weeks and months, Snowden’s revelations about the NSA’s global surveillance efforts, and in particular its bulk data collection program, called PRISM," has been known to be wrong for a few years now. This calls the rest of the reporting into question.
> When Bildt was asked at a forum on Internet freedom in 2013 how he reconciled these two views, he explained that Sweden was doing surveillance for a good purpose. “There is a difference between good states and somewhat less good states,” he said.
I think this is from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stDl6ovmwrE
which really sets out a major set of tensions that all of us working in this area must have felt.
Interesting 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…
As another Swede, 100% agree. For another example, look into how Sweden treated Raoul Wallenberg who courageously saved 100 000 Jews in Budapest during WW2. I can highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Wallenberg-Marton/dp/B005X8V19S/ Sweden is great in lots of ways, but that attitude in combination with Sweden's often holier-than-thou attitude towards other countries is really hypocritical. PS. As an asi…
Yes, of course! It reminds me of the times when you criticize something (in this case your country) and the other person replies with "then why don't you go somewhere else?". This portrays an adversarial relationship between the populace and the country, much like a consumerbusiness, where you vote with your wallet. But I don't want another country to outcompete Sweden, I want Sweden to be better.
But this does also raise another issue I forgot to touch on: How are we supposed to have a (representative) democracy when we first in 2013 [1] find out what the passing of "FRA-lagen" (proposition 2006/07:63) in 2008 was really about?
[1] Translated news originally in DN: http://www.thelocal.se/20131013/50760
Interesting 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…
Earlier 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…
I hope that Sweden got a renewal on its lease on the nuclear umbrella, hopefully long enough to increase its own operative military capability. This would be a win for both the US (capable bilateral partner/buffer zone in area) and Sweden (less likely to be strongarmed into uncomfortable positions). Is that too much to dream of?
It'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.
The anti-NATO propaganda in Sweden is also tearfully inaccurate at times.
Don't they have any editors? "Over the following weeks and months, Snowden’s revelations about the NSA’s global surveillance efforts, and in particular its bulk data collection program, called PRISM," has been known to be wrong for a few years now. This calls the rest of the reporting into question.
They have? I must've missed the announcement stating this about what Snowden told the world. Care to expand on it?
Here is a competent explanation of how Snowden didn't understand that DITU is an FBI department and not a bulk collection system on internet companies' networks: https://medium.com/@alecmuffett/how-to-talk-about-prism-and-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The anti-NATO propaganda in Sweden is also tearfully inaccurate at times.
Yes. Unfortunately any "team" gets embarrasing supporters. However, both sides (pro/anti) should by now agree on the need to HAVE a military of substantial size. One side, to credibly stay out of NATO. The other, to credibly expect an application be granted.
What seems to be happening is that priority is given to projects that benefit certain companies, rather than increasing military capabilities. Investments are made in platforms such as Gripen[1], A26[2], Visby[3], PRIO (licensed SAP system) rather than giving priority to training and maintaining personnel. The mentioned projects are relatively expensive and low volume and there are a lot of people in the armed forces who would rather see the focus shifted from those projects to the armed forces. Unless you're air force or navy and get to play with new toys, I guess. Meanwhile, the army and the amphibious corps are less happy.
It is not likely that we'll see the size needed for quite some time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A26_submarine [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby-class_corvette
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The anti-NATO propaganda in Sweden is also tearfully inaccurate at times.
Yes. Unfortunately any "team" gets embarrasing supporters. However, both sides (pro/anti) should by now agree on the need to HAVE a military of substantial size. One side, to credibly stay out of NATO. The other, to credibly expect an application be granted.
Also, if Sweden wanted to join tomorrow morning, they would have the application granted after lunch the same day. NATO has been salivating at the thought for decades now, and considering Sweden's military is already running on NATO standards, its officers take all the NATO courses, and the military partakes in all major NATO war games, it's not ridiculous to say that for all intents and purposes, Sweden is basically already a member, just not officially.
The pro-NATO side's argument tends to be that since Sweden's already basically a member, at least it should have voting rights by the merit of being an official member. That's their top argument IMO.
Joining NATO would be a massive provocation towards Russia that I don't think neither Sweden nor the surrounding nation states would benefit from. I'd rather not choose sides in a Second Cold War, since either side in such a conflict would be rather contemptible. Now, it's pretty clear "we" already did, however.