It happened because the federal gov't lied to Moscow in 1988, re-wrote its initial application in 1989, and joined the EU by lying once more to the people ever since
Also, Sweden doesn't share a (land) border with 'Russia' (in scare quotes as that's the bogeyman here, not the real country). Norway does, though.
As an aside about how to peddle influence, look at what Norway has been 'getting' from the US: Oslo re-built the large nuclear submarine base in the North and extended the runways (for nuclear bombers, some of which recently 'visited' in autumn) near Trondheim. Oslo also bough F-35 planes, all of which was US taxpayer money paying for 'local' contractors to do these jobs.
Constitutionality is to be sacrificed on the imperial altar. I never would have guessed that Finland would join NATO (and without much noise from Russia). I’ve underestimated the imperial penetration of both Sweden and Finland. And Russia herself seems to be acting as an half-vassal.
Of course there's one set of 'laws' for 'us, the people', and another set of 'rules' that 'the-powers-that-be' make up for us.
As far as imperial penetration goes, I think so much of it is 'informal' and 'under the radar' as to cloud most peoples' judgement when it surfaces. Check out Rikard's comment below, for he's spot-on on this insanity.
This is a different empire from the usual historical models. Countries are taken over mostly through co-opting countries' elites which then do work to advance imperial designs.
It took a long time "nurturing" American elites until finally, the US turned fully into an imperial vassal, a very important one. The process started at the beginning of American Republic. Empire may not suit American people but suits just fine the imperial elites (both the rich and technocratic classes). The US government is mostly a Potemkin Village for the imperial structures which carry out a long term imperial strategy.
What we are currently experiencing is what Empire sees as the final stage of incorporating the last countries standing. Empire will not militarily conquer Russia, China, Iran,...; they intend to make these countries elites do their work. This is what we have witnessed in Sweden and Finland. Russia's elites are already much more co-opted than most people believe.
Empire is destroying the West in preparation for merging with China. First comes tension, conflict, wars from which the New World Order always arises in the post-destruction era. "We don't want to rule China. We want you to join the Club. We will even make you the nominal Center of Empire." What will the next generation of China's elites say to that? NO? Yes, in the same way European elites said NO. ;-)
This empire is an operating system. It operates, mostly imperceptibly, in the background.
The reasons the Russians haven't made any protest about Finland's accession to NATO is that they don't currently have any imperial designs on that country. That is why Ukraine's potential accession to NATO angers them - it would prevent them from subjugating the country Likewise Belarus and the Baltic States. Russia only cares about NATO to the extent it thwarts the Kremlin's Imperial project. In fact they probably see the existance of NATO on their borders as useful as it gives credence to their internal propaganda that Russia is surrounded by enemies.
Dec 21, 2023·edited Dec 21, 2023Liked by epimetheus
It had been clear to me for a long time that Swedish neutrality was a fiction (beyond, as we see here, a “military core”), but I didn’t know about how the eggs had been explicitly (if not quite publicly) cracked to make the omelet at the time of the “neutrals’” EU accession.
Before 2022 I still held some notion that Finnish neutrality had some substance. I didn’t have any clear impression about Austria, since geography didn’t seem to bring it into question as much as it did for Sweden (e.g., there’s never an issue of Russian submarines off the Austrian coast).
Ireland is also obviously in the bag; I wonder whether there’s also some paper trail from the time of its EEC accession clarifying that all this neutrality nonsense was over and done with.
The relentlessness of the Western “borg” in assimilating all individuality into the collective is a sight to behold.
Oh, these 'internals' are interesting, aren't they? The author of that essay, Manfred Schaich, he worked for the foreign office back then and 'spilled some beans' there, didn't he? Since the essay is in German and speaks about a small country, no-one really cares.
As to Austrian neutrality, it's really part of the asking price (for Moscow) for the State Treaty of 1955; the West could live with it as they had neither the inclination to honour these impositions nor cared much about them (see 'Operation Gladio' and 'Austria' in any internet search engine other than Google or Bing). It's perhaps no coincidence that Stalin offered essentially the same deal to the West with respect to a 'unified' Germany: neutrality, non-aligned status, much like Austria; the West refused.
As to Ireland, I'll have to go back to the collected volume to double-check if it's mentioned (if memory serves, there was some mention), but you're completely correct about the 'nature' of the Western 'borg'.
I'm glad you found it interesting--stay tuned for part two ^_^
“… the West could live with it as they had neither the inclination to honour these impositions nor cared much about them …”
That’s the pattern. When the time comes for serious negotiations in Ukraine, I think Russia will be looking to secure internationally recognized borders that satisfy it. Russians have, I hope, learned that Western commitments to neutrality, demilitarization, etc. are meaningless, or at least evanescent.
It's not just allowing US troops to use swedish military bases; it is the US stationing troops and material at 17 different military bases in Sweden.
And US troops will be largely exempt from swedish law, dep. on circumstances.
The clou: the agreement, which I have read, does not ban the US from stationing nuclear weapons in Sweden.
Our politicians and NAFOs have ensured we have very good odds of becoming a new Ukraine in a few years.
Spot-on.
Also, Sweden doesn't share a (land) border with 'Russia' (in scare quotes as that's the bogeyman here, not the real country). Norway does, though.
As an aside about how to peddle influence, look at what Norway has been 'getting' from the US: Oslo re-built the large nuclear submarine base in the North and extended the runways (for nuclear bombers, some of which recently 'visited' in autumn) near Trondheim. Oslo also bough F-35 planes, all of which was US taxpayer money paying for 'local' contractors to do these jobs.
Constitutionality is to be sacrificed on the imperial altar. I never would have guessed that Finland would join NATO (and without much noise from Russia). I’ve underestimated the imperial penetration of both Sweden and Finland. And Russia herself seems to be acting as an half-vassal.
Of course there's one set of 'laws' for 'us, the people', and another set of 'rules' that 'the-powers-that-be' make up for us.
As far as imperial penetration goes, I think so much of it is 'informal' and 'under the radar' as to cloud most peoples' judgement when it surfaces. Check out Rikard's comment below, for he's spot-on on this insanity.
This is a different empire from the usual historical models. Countries are taken over mostly through co-opting countries' elites which then do work to advance imperial designs.
It took a long time "nurturing" American elites until finally, the US turned fully into an imperial vassal, a very important one. The process started at the beginning of American Republic. Empire may not suit American people but suits just fine the imperial elites (both the rich and technocratic classes). The US government is mostly a Potemkin Village for the imperial structures which carry out a long term imperial strategy.
What we are currently experiencing is what Empire sees as the final stage of incorporating the last countries standing. Empire will not militarily conquer Russia, China, Iran,...; they intend to make these countries elites do their work. This is what we have witnessed in Sweden and Finland. Russia's elites are already much more co-opted than most people believe.
Empire is destroying the West in preparation for merging with China. First comes tension, conflict, wars from which the New World Order always arises in the post-destruction era. "We don't want to rule China. We want you to join the Club. We will even make you the nominal Center of Empire." What will the next generation of China's elites say to that? NO? Yes, in the same way European elites said NO. ;-)
This empire is an operating system. It operates, mostly imperceptibly, in the background.
The reasons the Russians haven't made any protest about Finland's accession to NATO is that they don't currently have any imperial designs on that country. That is why Ukraine's potential accession to NATO angers them - it would prevent them from subjugating the country Likewise Belarus and the Baltic States. Russia only cares about NATO to the extent it thwarts the Kremlin's Imperial project. In fact they probably see the existance of NATO on their borders as useful as it gives credence to their internal propaganda that Russia is surrounded by enemies.
It had been clear to me for a long time that Swedish neutrality was a fiction (beyond, as we see here, a “military core”), but I didn’t know about how the eggs had been explicitly (if not quite publicly) cracked to make the omelet at the time of the “neutrals’” EU accession.
Before 2022 I still held some notion that Finnish neutrality had some substance. I didn’t have any clear impression about Austria, since geography didn’t seem to bring it into question as much as it did for Sweden (e.g., there’s never an issue of Russian submarines off the Austrian coast).
Ireland is also obviously in the bag; I wonder whether there’s also some paper trail from the time of its EEC accession clarifying that all this neutrality nonsense was over and done with.
The relentlessness of the Western “borg” in assimilating all individuality into the collective is a sight to behold.
This was interesting. Thanks
Oh, these 'internals' are interesting, aren't they? The author of that essay, Manfred Schaich, he worked for the foreign office back then and 'spilled some beans' there, didn't he? Since the essay is in German and speaks about a small country, no-one really cares.
As to Austrian neutrality, it's really part of the asking price (for Moscow) for the State Treaty of 1955; the West could live with it as they had neither the inclination to honour these impositions nor cared much about them (see 'Operation Gladio' and 'Austria' in any internet search engine other than Google or Bing). It's perhaps no coincidence that Stalin offered essentially the same deal to the West with respect to a 'unified' Germany: neutrality, non-aligned status, much like Austria; the West refused.
As to Ireland, I'll have to go back to the collected volume to double-check if it's mentioned (if memory serves, there was some mention), but you're completely correct about the 'nature' of the Western 'borg'.
I'm glad you found it interesting--stay tuned for part two ^_^
“… the West could live with it as they had neither the inclination to honour these impositions nor cared much about them …”
That’s the pattern. When the time comes for serious negotiations in Ukraine, I think Russia will be looking to secure internationally recognized borders that satisfy it. Russians have, I hope, learned that Western commitments to neutrality, demilitarization, etc. are meaningless, or at least evanescent.