„ Impose rationing and centralised command and control over everything, whether done ‘because climate change™’ or ‘because Putin’, regiment Western societies to a degree unimaginable at this moment, and hope to stay in power.“
The debt service is going to crush everything so at some point default will become inevitable. This will require capital controls (hence the EU wealth registry) which in turn will necessitate the transformation of whatever remains of a free market into a planned economy. Which will fail.
Well, not that I disagree with your senses, but I'd point towards the already-existing planned economy: the Politbureau or Central Committee is the central banks, i.e., it's still partially hidden. I suppose that the main issue at-hand isn't whether or not there is or is going to be said central planning offices, rather awareness among the general public.
Without a NATO-membership, we (Finland, Sweden) would be in danger of Russian aggression if/when Russia had been cornered enough to see an assault across the Baltic and into Norway to deny NATO-reinforcements use of Norwegian airfields, harbours and oil.
As in, the old Soviet plan from before 1941. It's nothing special - due to terrain and other such considerations, it's the only sensible option for Russia.
With the NATO-membership, we're in danger because Russia now has to consider us forwards staging-grounds for NATO-assaults into the Russian mainland.
For both, it's a damned if you - damned if you don't kind of thing. No wonder Reichskansler Merz is rubbing his paws in expectation - what a wonderful new free market for his paymasters and controllers.
Here's something to consider: Russia really don't want to have to come through Finland and Sweden, they really don't. Our entire military thinking since before there even was a Russia has been focused on how to fight them when they eventually try to push their empire to the Atlantic.
Every vehicle, every weapon, every stratagem geared to fight Russia, based on how Russia fights.
If they go for a smash-through to reach Narvik et c, the forces they face will melt away and then attack the sides of the Blitzkrieg-push to cut if off, while submarines and other such vehicles demolish the supply-line from Russia.
If they go for wide frontal assault, the opposing forces instead concentrate on pulling the assaulting forces into dense and difficult terrain where they lose momentum.
And something often overlooked in thse kinds of talks: the majority of Russia's military assets are pre-1990s. Finland and Sweden's are modern, up-to-date, without (so far) the in-built vulnerabilities of US military design (over-reliance on overcomplicated tech).
Further, Russia still struggles with the notion of letting the man on the spot make the call, their order of battle is still top-down with little to no autonomy for commanders in the field. Info is to pass up the chain before it is acted upon, and orders are to come down before you move. It's reactive and in modern warfare it's a recipe for disaster - had Ukraine been modern and not organised the exact same way, we might actually have seen a succesful Ukrainian sortie into Russia by now. Compounding this is the fact that Russian forces are plagued (just as in WW2) by low mutual trust: if company A, B and C are to advance in a mutually supporting fashion, none of them will move until theysee the others are moving, because they don't trust the others to come support them if things start looking bad.
Russian planners always have to take this unreliability into account, and must pick soft spots for the initial assaults no matter other strategic considerations, because other wise the troops (and officers) will find reasons not to advance. And today, they aren't solving that the way Stalin did.
I really recommend having a look at the KKRVA - Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademien and their body of work on this topic, if you really want to spend days delving deep into Nordic strategic planning.
Apologies for agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.
There's nothing Russia couldn't do without crossing a border into any of the Nordic countries: interrupt ore exports to Narvik? Use a hypersonic missile. Is there a need to decapitate the gov't? Same (Oreshnik) applies.
Russia neither needs more territory nor is there literally anything the Nordic countries have to offer.
If, however, these Nordic Council meetings are used by the Nordic leaders™ to talk themselves up a bit and get patted on the back by Mr. Merz, well, have at it. Speaking of Germany, the Bundeswehr has lass than 70K active-duty troops, lots of unusable machinery (which might be different among the Nordic militaries), and no strategy, to say nothing about a national interest.
To me, these factors more than cancel out the possible unreliability of Russian troops.
Propaganda must show Russia as all powerful threat to Europe, but reality betrays a different imperial perception - Russia is weak and NATO can win. My perception is that Russia is indeed weaker than most people believe. If Russia is as strong as she is made out to be, why hasn’t she already defeated Ukraine? The whole Ukrainian war stinks of a theatrical production, except for the real death and destruction. I don’t believe Putin is as independent of Empire as he is made out to be. After all, he has behaved as a faithful WEF, WHO,…, man.
I dunno about who is right or wrong on this issue; Russia went all-in on Covid, too; the Russian central bank is also planning a digital currency, and I'd surmise there's some Russian digital ID, too. As to the theatrics of this entire operation, I suppose that there must be blood on the ground, for otherwise no-one cares too much about anything (see Covid or Climate Change).
Mein Motto lautet stets: Frieden und Freundschaft
Мир и дружба
Europa und speziell Deutschland (Merz!) agieren völlig verrückt
My motto is always: Peace and friendship
Europe and especially Germany (Merz!) are acting completely crazy
Certainly beats death and destruction, which Mr. Merz and his ilk appear to desire.
As an aside and since you understand German, I'll be talking about this topic (and then some) on Kontrafunk tomorrow.
„ Impose rationing and centralised command and control over everything, whether done ‘because climate change™’ or ‘because Putin’, regiment Western societies to a degree unimaginable at this moment, and hope to stay in power.“
Bingo. And it’s going to fail spectacularly.
I do think it's going to fail--human nature can't be overridden to that extent.
The debt service is going to crush everything so at some point default will become inevitable. This will require capital controls (hence the EU wealth registry) which in turn will necessitate the transformation of whatever remains of a free market into a planned economy. Which will fail.
Well, not that I disagree with your senses, but I'd point towards the already-existing planned economy: the Politbureau or Central Committee is the central banks, i.e., it's still partially hidden. I suppose that the main issue at-hand isn't whether or not there is or is going to be said central planning offices, rather awareness among the general public.
Needless to say, this doesn't change the outcome.
Without a NATO-membership, we (Finland, Sweden) would be in danger of Russian aggression if/when Russia had been cornered enough to see an assault across the Baltic and into Norway to deny NATO-reinforcements use of Norwegian airfields, harbours and oil.
As in, the old Soviet plan from before 1941. It's nothing special - due to terrain and other such considerations, it's the only sensible option for Russia.
With the NATO-membership, we're in danger because Russia now has to consider us forwards staging-grounds for NATO-assaults into the Russian mainland.
For both, it's a damned if you - damned if you don't kind of thing. No wonder Reichskansler Merz is rubbing his paws in expectation - what a wonderful new free market for his paymasters and controllers.
Here's something to consider: Russia really don't want to have to come through Finland and Sweden, they really don't. Our entire military thinking since before there even was a Russia has been focused on how to fight them when they eventually try to push their empire to the Atlantic.
Every vehicle, every weapon, every stratagem geared to fight Russia, based on how Russia fights.
If they go for a smash-through to reach Narvik et c, the forces they face will melt away and then attack the sides of the Blitzkrieg-push to cut if off, while submarines and other such vehicles demolish the supply-line from Russia.
If they go for wide frontal assault, the opposing forces instead concentrate on pulling the assaulting forces into dense and difficult terrain where they lose momentum.
And something often overlooked in thse kinds of talks: the majority of Russia's military assets are pre-1990s. Finland and Sweden's are modern, up-to-date, without (so far) the in-built vulnerabilities of US military design (over-reliance on overcomplicated tech).
Further, Russia still struggles with the notion of letting the man on the spot make the call, their order of battle is still top-down with little to no autonomy for commanders in the field. Info is to pass up the chain before it is acted upon, and orders are to come down before you move. It's reactive and in modern warfare it's a recipe for disaster - had Ukraine been modern and not organised the exact same way, we might actually have seen a succesful Ukrainian sortie into Russia by now. Compounding this is the fact that Russian forces are plagued (just as in WW2) by low mutual trust: if company A, B and C are to advance in a mutually supporting fashion, none of them will move until theysee the others are moving, because they don't trust the others to come support them if things start looking bad.
Russian planners always have to take this unreliability into account, and must pick soft spots for the initial assaults no matter other strategic considerations, because other wise the troops (and officers) will find reasons not to advance. And today, they aren't solving that the way Stalin did.
I really recommend having a look at the KKRVA - Kungliga Krigsvetenskapsakademien and their body of work on this topic, if you really want to spend days delving deep into Nordic strategic planning.
Apologies for agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.
There's nothing Russia couldn't do without crossing a border into any of the Nordic countries: interrupt ore exports to Narvik? Use a hypersonic missile. Is there a need to decapitate the gov't? Same (Oreshnik) applies.
Russia neither needs more territory nor is there literally anything the Nordic countries have to offer.
If, however, these Nordic Council meetings are used by the Nordic leaders™ to talk themselves up a bit and get patted on the back by Mr. Merz, well, have at it. Speaking of Germany, the Bundeswehr has lass than 70K active-duty troops, lots of unusable machinery (which might be different among the Nordic militaries), and no strategy, to say nothing about a national interest.
To me, these factors more than cancel out the possible unreliability of Russian troops.
Propaganda must show Russia as all powerful threat to Europe, but reality betrays a different imperial perception - Russia is weak and NATO can win. My perception is that Russia is indeed weaker than most people believe. If Russia is as strong as she is made out to be, why hasn’t she already defeated Ukraine? The whole Ukrainian war stinks of a theatrical production, except for the real death and destruction. I don’t believe Putin is as independent of Empire as he is made out to be. After all, he has behaved as a faithful WEF, WHO,…, man.
I dunno about who is right or wrong on this issue; Russia went all-in on Covid, too; the Russian central bank is also planning a digital currency, and I'd surmise there's some Russian digital ID, too. As to the theatrics of this entire operation, I suppose that there must be blood on the ground, for otherwise no-one cares too much about anything (see Covid or Climate Change).
I spent a day in Turku once. Do you have any postcards of it for the other substack?