Norway is sitting on a sovereign wealth fund a bit north of a trillion dollars. It shouldn't be just sitting there doing good when there is bloody work bloody proxy war needing bloody money.
Norwegians should be telling NATO to bugger off or whatever the Norwegian equivalent translates to.
Has anyone noticed that Russia cannot even win a war in Ukraine? Also, while Russia objects Ukraine joining NATO, there was hardly anything said about Sweden and Finland joining NATO. The whole idea of an expanding Russia is a fiction. That is not to say these countries should not have the capacity to defend their infrastructure, but I am afraid they will primarily build up a force to control their own populations. We forget that Russia under early Putin desired to be integrated into the Western system, including joining NATO. How did we go from that to Russia being a threat? Could it be that the Empire needed Russia to be an ogre in order to distract what Empire is really doing to Europe’s economy, cultures, religions, populations,…, mainly destroying them? Much of what is happening around us is an elaborate theatrical production.
That is a fair point, and analytically, it begs the question: what does 'winning' mean? Look at Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.--'they make it a desert and call it peace', as the Romans would have it, isn't what 'winning' means, don't you agree?
I'm convinced Russia could level Ukraine in a few hours, but they won't. Either because they lack the will to do so (possible) or because they know that whatever good will post-Soviet Russia has garnered will be incinerated before the places got back home.
You raise an excellent point, esp. as 'winning' a war doesn't equal maintaining peace, and in this regard, Russia has certainly problems occupying even a fragment of Ukrainian territory for an extended period of time. (Which I think why they took over and placed under self-administration these areas: no military administration will endure long, esp. as manpower is low.)
And, yes, you're right about the necessity of having an enemy. Oliver Stone in his 'Untold History' (sic) actually cited some Soviet official--may have been Gorbachev, but I can't remember--holding that 'the worst' of the dissolution of the USSR would be that it 'leaves the US without an enemy'.
One cannot “win” a war that really isn’t a war, except in that real people die and bleed in it (a form of population reduction or even human sacrifice to some demonic deity). This war clearly has another purpose other than winning. I am not all convinced Russia could level Ukraine by conventional weaponry, but if it could, why Russia doesn’t? Instead, Russia is participating in a meat-grinder war, in which thousands die senselessly. Of course, Russia has much greater population and it could have mobilized a critical mass of force that could have prevailed in Ukraine conventionally. Russia never did mobilize sufficient forces. Why not? Russia is behaving too much like it is lead by WEF.
I am afraid that the ultimate imperial goals are to dismember Russia as a wedding gift to China’s oligarchy.
From the imperial point of view the war has already been a great success. It has weakened both Ukraine and Russia. In addition to money laundering and transfer of wealth from many to few in the West, Ukraine’s real resources will all be owned by imperial corporations, but even more importantly, cheap Russian energy stopped fueling European industry. The desired effect is clearly to diminish European industry (Germany’s in particular). Empire is weakening its own domain in order to bring about one world government. The center of gravity will shift to Asia, just like it had previously shifted from Great Britain to the US. The US increasingly looks like early 20th century Great Britain, tired, exhausted and drained of resources in order to maintain the imperial military force. It must hop along until the NWO is established, after which it is likely to be dismembered so that it cannot pose any future threats to the NWO. Europe has already been diminished sufficiently that it cannot pose a threat.
Ukraine war can only be properly analyzed within the larger imperial context.
Don't read too much into that "civilplikt". It's a Potemkin-backdrop as far as actual action goes. All it is in reality is that the law has been re-written so that civilians can be ordered to do work they wouldn't otherwise do/qualify for/or agree to do.
Commandeering convicts or retirees to clean up contaminated areas f.e. One part of the old law gave police and military the option of forcing civilians exposed to radiation/radioactive dust to work as cleaners on contaminated sites after a hypothetical nuclear strike, since they were already done for.
And of course, no-one has been able to explain how the over 800 000 unemployed migrants from Africa/MENA is to be out to work. Especially since we have over 14 000 perpetually armed members of organised dark-skin crime clans here already, with a potential further 60 000 such.
Norway would do far better if it mobilised, guarded the border to Sweden where much of the crime in Norway comes from, turned away dark-skins and cleaned house from arabs, negros, moslems and others like them.
Oh, I don't read much into any of these things; I consider this stage-managing.
We all know that police and military forces everywhere (with perhaps North Korea being the exception) have shrunk to such a degree that the coercive capacities of the state are mostly technical (in the literal sense) by now.
Imagine these 14-74K immigrants raised a fuss: there's no-one left to do anything about it. Your unarmed bunch of (half female) police officers don't stand a chance, and since a lot of the military conscripts nowadays are also of immigrant stock, I doubt that these units have much higher trustworthiness.
I do agree about the border issue, which is also supported by statistical officials everywhere: close the border and eventually immigration stops.
Now, the issue is, of course, why the border remains open and anti-gov't protests are met with police in riot-gear and water-throwers…
Norway is sitting on a sovereign wealth fund a bit north of a trillion dollars. It shouldn't be just sitting there doing good when there is bloody work bloody proxy war needing bloody money.
Norwegians should be telling NATO to bugger off or whatever the Norwegian equivalent translates to.
True enough, but anyone who thinks that Norway can defend itself is a fool.
Also, anyone who thinks that the US (or NATO, for that matter) will lend a hand out of altruism is perhaps a bigger fool.
Has anyone noticed that Russia cannot even win a war in Ukraine? Also, while Russia objects Ukraine joining NATO, there was hardly anything said about Sweden and Finland joining NATO. The whole idea of an expanding Russia is a fiction. That is not to say these countries should not have the capacity to defend their infrastructure, but I am afraid they will primarily build up a force to control their own populations. We forget that Russia under early Putin desired to be integrated into the Western system, including joining NATO. How did we go from that to Russia being a threat? Could it be that the Empire needed Russia to be an ogre in order to distract what Empire is really doing to Europe’s economy, cultures, religions, populations,…, mainly destroying them? Much of what is happening around us is an elaborate theatrical production.
That is a fair point, and analytically, it begs the question: what does 'winning' mean? Look at Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.--'they make it a desert and call it peace', as the Romans would have it, isn't what 'winning' means, don't you agree?
I'm convinced Russia could level Ukraine in a few hours, but they won't. Either because they lack the will to do so (possible) or because they know that whatever good will post-Soviet Russia has garnered will be incinerated before the places got back home.
You raise an excellent point, esp. as 'winning' a war doesn't equal maintaining peace, and in this regard, Russia has certainly problems occupying even a fragment of Ukrainian territory for an extended period of time. (Which I think why they took over and placed under self-administration these areas: no military administration will endure long, esp. as manpower is low.)
And, yes, you're right about the necessity of having an enemy. Oliver Stone in his 'Untold History' (sic) actually cited some Soviet official--may have been Gorbachev, but I can't remember--holding that 'the worst' of the dissolution of the USSR would be that it 'leaves the US without an enemy'.
One cannot “win” a war that really isn’t a war, except in that real people die and bleed in it (a form of population reduction or even human sacrifice to some demonic deity). This war clearly has another purpose other than winning. I am not all convinced Russia could level Ukraine by conventional weaponry, but if it could, why Russia doesn’t? Instead, Russia is participating in a meat-grinder war, in which thousands die senselessly. Of course, Russia has much greater population and it could have mobilized a critical mass of force that could have prevailed in Ukraine conventionally. Russia never did mobilize sufficient forces. Why not? Russia is behaving too much like it is lead by WEF.
I am afraid that the ultimate imperial goals are to dismember Russia as a wedding gift to China’s oligarchy.
From the imperial point of view the war has already been a great success. It has weakened both Ukraine and Russia. In addition to money laundering and transfer of wealth from many to few in the West, Ukraine’s real resources will all be owned by imperial corporations, but even more importantly, cheap Russian energy stopped fueling European industry. The desired effect is clearly to diminish European industry (Germany’s in particular). Empire is weakening its own domain in order to bring about one world government. The center of gravity will shift to Asia, just like it had previously shifted from Great Britain to the US. The US increasingly looks like early 20th century Great Britain, tired, exhausted and drained of resources in order to maintain the imperial military force. It must hop along until the NWO is established, after which it is likely to be dismembered so that it cannot pose any future threats to the NWO. Europe has already been diminished sufficiently that it cannot pose a threat.
Ukraine war can only be properly analyzed within the larger imperial context.
Don't read too much into that "civilplikt". It's a Potemkin-backdrop as far as actual action goes. All it is in reality is that the law has been re-written so that civilians can be ordered to do work they wouldn't otherwise do/qualify for/or agree to do.
Commandeering convicts or retirees to clean up contaminated areas f.e. One part of the old law gave police and military the option of forcing civilians exposed to radiation/radioactive dust to work as cleaners on contaminated sites after a hypothetical nuclear strike, since they were already done for.
And of course, no-one has been able to explain how the over 800 000 unemployed migrants from Africa/MENA is to be out to work. Especially since we have over 14 000 perpetually armed members of organised dark-skin crime clans here already, with a potential further 60 000 such.
Norway would do far better if it mobilised, guarded the border to Sweden where much of the crime in Norway comes from, turned away dark-skins and cleaned house from arabs, negros, moslems and others like them.
Oh, I don't read much into any of these things; I consider this stage-managing.
We all know that police and military forces everywhere (with perhaps North Korea being the exception) have shrunk to such a degree that the coercive capacities of the state are mostly technical (in the literal sense) by now.
Imagine these 14-74K immigrants raised a fuss: there's no-one left to do anything about it. Your unarmed bunch of (half female) police officers don't stand a chance, and since a lot of the military conscripts nowadays are also of immigrant stock, I doubt that these units have much higher trustworthiness.
I do agree about the border issue, which is also supported by statistical officials everywhere: close the border and eventually immigration stops.
Now, the issue is, of course, why the border remains open and anti-gov't protests are met with police in riot-gear and water-throwers…