Danish whistleblower details NSA collaboration, cable and data center spying (2020)(datacenterdynamics.com)
datacenterdynamics.com
Danish whistleblower details NSA collaboration, cable and data center spying (2020)
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/danish-whistleblower-details-nsa-collaboration-submarine-cable-spying-surveillance-data-center/
166 comments
(2020)
A lot of new information was released today in a collaboration between danish, swedish, german and french media. Sadly, I haven’t found a good english language article yet.
Ah, there’s already a bbc article on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27338555
The reporting with the new information about the case, nor the whistelblower outing is from 2020. See the timeline in the end of the following danish article:
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/blev-udsat-amerikansk-spio...
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/blev-udsat-amerikansk-spio...
But this specific article is dated in November 2020.
Luckily Danish didn't have Huawei equipments, otherwise it wouldn't be possible. Tell me one reason Chinese is building a first world class technology company just to be found out for spying on customers and doomed to be out of business.
There are about three great powers / political cliques with aspirations that interact through geopolitics. One is US led with roots in western roman church, the other Chinese, the third a culturally rich agglomeration of various authoritarian regimes that mostly are united by their desire for local power, disdain of democracy and both overt US and China influence.
You cannot live connected to the net without presumption that the security body of one or more of these has access to your data, and will trawl through this data with impunity.
The only thing you can do is to hedge your bets on which political entity has the most unencumbered access. So either US, China or the local neighborhood friendly authoritarian state security service.
I would imagine everybody of importance in the west presumes NSA listens to them, politely ignore this and just turn off their phones when they don't want to be eavesdropped.
It sucks that either I have to go full edward-snowden-harden-my-kit way, or then just not care about my privacy. I'm a bit lazy and not that idealistic and hence choose the latter.
You cannot live connected to the net without presumption that the security body of one or more of these has access to your data, and will trawl through this data with impunity.
The only thing you can do is to hedge your bets on which political entity has the most unencumbered access. So either US, China or the local neighborhood friendly authoritarian state security service.
I would imagine everybody of importance in the west presumes NSA listens to them, politely ignore this and just turn off their phones when they don't want to be eavesdropped.
It sucks that either I have to go full edward-snowden-harden-my-kit way, or then just not care about my privacy. I'm a bit lazy and not that idealistic and hence choose the latter.
That is cynical nonsense. Europe could have taken care of its own security. Exit NATO and build a European defense alliance not made into a tool for American aspirations for world domination. Europe has IMO much cleaner goals. European nations don’t keep 800 military bases around the world and massive spying operations.
I’m presuming we are using EU and ”Europe” to mean roughly the same thing in this discussion (France, Germany, and bunch of smaller states nobody remembers the full list of). Tongue in cheek.
It’s not nonsense, it’s the current situation. I am not saying Europe would not have the capability to do the things you said theoretically. Pragmatically there is no such capability at the moment. EU is a trade and subsidies -body at the moment. Security is handled by individual member states and by Nato.
The problem is there is no geopolitcal credible entity called ”Europe” - just a bunch of member states.
To gauge EU:s capability level in security at the moment - take the latest Belorussian stunt. Imagine what the US response would have been if KGB had hijacked a plane flying from Miami to New York.
It’s not nonsense, it’s the current situation. I am not saying Europe would not have the capability to do the things you said theoretically. Pragmatically there is no such capability at the moment. EU is a trade and subsidies -body at the moment. Security is handled by individual member states and by Nato.
The problem is there is no geopolitcal credible entity called ”Europe” - just a bunch of member states.
To gauge EU:s capability level in security at the moment - take the latest Belorussian stunt. Imagine what the US response would have been if KGB had hijacked a plane flying from Miami to New York.
That's an interesting thought experiment. To make it a bit more analogous, posit that Cuba forced a US Puerto Rico-bound aircraft to land in Havana in order to arrest a Cuban journalist. What do you think the US response would have been?
Puerto Rico is an interesting choice given many US citizen apparently don't consider it part of US proper (given apparently puerto ricoans are weirdly considered 'immigrants'). I chose mainland cities to evoke the "proper" expected outrage level given both Athens and Vilnius are (supposedly) major european cities.
Your example, of course, is much closer to the percieved outrage level.
I have no idea how US would specifically react, but the response likely would have been chosen to a) discourage future actions of the sort and b) to appease angry voters.
Also, Cuba is already quite cordoned off, while Belarus has been part of the international community (they got to co-host Hockey wordl championships 2021).
The EU response felt like "as a geopolitical entity, what is the bare minimum effort to save our diplomatic face".
The lack of voter interest in EU is most critical, I think. I can't find any popular EU citizen sentiment of outrage over the matter. Which means, for all purposes, it's obvious the voting public has no "global eu consciousness" and hence EU is after this again geopolitically that much less credible IMHO.
Your example, of course, is much closer to the percieved outrage level.
I have no idea how US would specifically react, but the response likely would have been chosen to a) discourage future actions of the sort and b) to appease angry voters.
Also, Cuba is already quite cordoned off, while Belarus has been part of the international community (they got to co-host Hockey wordl championships 2021).
The EU response felt like "as a geopolitical entity, what is the bare minimum effort to save our diplomatic face".
The lack of voter interest in EU is most critical, I think. I can't find any popular EU citizen sentiment of outrage over the matter. Which means, for all purposes, it's obvious the voting public has no "global eu consciousness" and hence EU is after this again geopolitically that much less credible IMHO.
>I can't find any popular EU citizen sentiment of outrage over the matter
Could it be because majority of citizens don't use English as their native language / the one used to talk politics?
Could it be because majority of citizens don't use English as their native language / the one used to talk politics?
Let me rephrase that a bit - I am a citizen of an EU member state (Finland) - and there was very little discussion of any sort except theoretical pondering on what this means from political theory point of view. Very little worry or outrage. Kidnapping citizens of EU fellow member states is obviously not considered very important.
EU has a similar article as the NATO article 5 common defense clause.
What EU lacks is offensive overseas operation support, but EU actually doesn’t need that. It is wild fantasy from the most extreme EU supporters who want to build a US replica.
What is the biggest threat to EU/Europe today? Definitely not Russia. Russia is just finishing the Nordstream2 pipeline, sanctions just lifted by the Biden administration, that will increase the capacity of the already existing pipeline between Russia and Germany. Russia wants to sell natural gas to many European countries.
What we are going to see the next few years is the opposite, a closer integration between Russia and EU economies, especially between Russia and Germany.
What EU lacks is offensive overseas operation support, but EU actually doesn’t need that. It is wild fantasy from the most extreme EU supporters who want to build a US replica.
What is the biggest threat to EU/Europe today? Definitely not Russia. Russia is just finishing the Nordstream2 pipeline, sanctions just lifted by the Biden administration, that will increase the capacity of the already existing pipeline between Russia and Germany. Russia wants to sell natural gas to many European countries.
What we are going to see the next few years is the opposite, a closer integration between Russia and EU economies, especially between Russia and Germany.
> What EU lacks is offensive overseas operation support, but EU actually doesn’t need that. It is wild fantasy from the most extreme EU supporters who want to build a US replica.
You could just as well say "Not wanting it is a wild fantasy from the most extreme RT supporters who don't care if the EU is overrun by dictatorships on its eastern borders".
> What is the biggest threat to EU/Europe today? Definitely not Russia. Russia is just finishing the Nordstream2 pipeline,
Precisely that is probably the biggest threat to EU/Europe today.
> sanctions just lifted by the Biden administration,
Maybe Unca Joe really is going senile.
> that will increase the capacity of the already existing pipeline between Russia and Germany. Russia wants to sell natural gas to many European countries.
Yes, it wants to have them all...
> What we are going to see the next few years is the opposite, a closer integration between Russia and EU economies,
...by the balls -- not just, but of course:
> especially between Russia and Germany.
You could just as well say "Not wanting it is a wild fantasy from the most extreme RT supporters who don't care if the EU is overrun by dictatorships on its eastern borders".
> What is the biggest threat to EU/Europe today? Definitely not Russia. Russia is just finishing the Nordstream2 pipeline,
Precisely that is probably the biggest threat to EU/Europe today.
> sanctions just lifted by the Biden administration,
Maybe Unca Joe really is going senile.
> that will increase the capacity of the already existing pipeline between Russia and Germany. Russia wants to sell natural gas to many European countries.
Yes, it wants to have them all...
> What we are going to see the next few years is the opposite, a closer integration between Russia and EU economies,
...by the balls -- not just, but of course:
> especially between Russia and Germany.
If it is important to protect eastern borders against being overrun by dictatorships how come European NATO members does not fulfill their 2% GDP military spending goal? Or is that Russia's fault?
Why does EU sanction Poland, one of the few NATO members that does fulfill its 2% goal and have beefed up it's military against potential Russian aggression, or is that Russia's fault too?
Was it Swedish politicians that downsized the Swedish military so much that it now only can defend one place in Sweden for a week (en-veckas-försvaret, ~ one week defense) or was i Putin?
Was it Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel who opened the EU borders in 2015, which directly lead to a number of terrorist attacks, or was it Putin who did that?
Was it NATO and EU that toppled Libya's dictator Gaddafi, which created a terrorist hotbed just across the Mediterranean, or was it Russia?
If you know the answers to these questions you also know what the biggest threat is.
Why does EU sanction Poland, one of the few NATO members that does fulfill its 2% goal and have beefed up it's military against potential Russian aggression, or is that Russia's fault too?
Was it Swedish politicians that downsized the Swedish military so much that it now only can defend one place in Sweden for a week (en-veckas-försvaret, ~ one week defense) or was i Putin?
Was it Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel who opened the EU borders in 2015, which directly lead to a number of terrorist attacks, or was it Putin who did that?
Was it NATO and EU that toppled Libya's dictator Gaddafi, which created a terrorist hotbed just across the Mediterranean, or was it Russia?
If you know the answers to these questions you also know what the biggest threat is.
All your arguments are irrelevant: Stupid politicians not sufficiently reacting to the greatest threat doesn't make the greatest threat anything other than the greatest threat. Jobba lite på logiken.
No, they are not stupid, they did it intentionally and that is why they are the biggest threat. They were full aware of the consequences of each of the above decisions, but did it anyway.
What has happened in the west is that governments used to work for its citizenry, now they work against them, e.g. the surveillance state.
But if the biggest threat must be a foreign power, let's think about it,
How many every day items do Europeans use that is manufactured in Russia?
How many every day items do Europeans use that is manufactured in China?
Why did the European establishment class outsource manufacturing to a hostile communist dictatorship?
Please explain why Russia is the biggest threat, you haven't come up with any good counterarguments yet. The potential threat of withholding future natural gas deliveries when all the pipelines are completed is not going to be that effective, because European energy sector is much more diverse and larger than Ukraine's, an old failed ex Soviet state with bad infrastructure.
And when we are talking about bad infrastructure, is it Putin pulling the strings or the Swedish Social democrats and Green government that can't provide sufficient power infrastructure to all places in Sweden?
What has happened in the west is that governments used to work for its citizenry, now they work against them, e.g. the surveillance state.
But if the biggest threat must be a foreign power, let's think about it,
How many every day items do Europeans use that is manufactured in Russia?
How many every day items do Europeans use that is manufactured in China?
Why did the European establishment class outsource manufacturing to a hostile communist dictatorship?
Please explain why Russia is the biggest threat, you haven't come up with any good counterarguments yet. The potential threat of withholding future natural gas deliveries when all the pipelines are completed is not going to be that effective, because European energy sector is much more diverse and larger than Ukraine's, an old failed ex Soviet state with bad infrastructure.
And when we are talking about bad infrastructure, is it Putin pulling the strings or the Swedish Social democrats and Green government that can't provide sufficient power infrastructure to all places in Sweden?
The political appetite among EU citizens for an EU army (at least from my understanding) is not there.
One of the leading brexiteer cries was: "The EU wants to make an Army", so that should tell you that the concept is greatly disliked since it's a core argument _against the EU itself_.
I live in Sweden now and there is a growing anti-EU sentiment here. How do you explain to someone who doesn't like NATO and the concept of the EU that they should join an EU army?
One of the leading brexiteer cries was: "The EU wants to make an Army", so that should tell you that the concept is greatly disliked since it's a core argument _against the EU itself_.
I live in Sweden now and there is a growing anti-EU sentiment here. How do you explain to someone who doesn't like NATO and the concept of the EU that they should join an EU army?
"in Sweden now and there is a growing anti-EU sentiment here"
That does not ring true to me. Care to back up that claim with a source?
That does not ring true to me. Care to back up that claim with a source?
I could cite the rise of Sverigedemokraterna which has an anti-eu slant.
https://sd.se/our-politics/eu/
https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-election-2018-results...
But I live in Malmo and see stickers popping up against the EU, I hear from the Swedish workers who have replaced the electrics and plastered the walls in my apartment about how bad the EU is and that Britain did the right thing (I'm british, which is why they came out with it).
I mean, "SWEXIT" is definitely something on the rise.
https://www.expressen.se/debatt/kasta-in-eu-handduken-och-bi...
But maybe this is not in Stockholm or the other major cities, I would even say Malmo itself does not have an appetite for breaking up with the EU, but the surrounding Skane region definitely has a stronger anti-immigrant and anti-EU sentiment.
But that was true for Brexit too, London was quite opposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_United_Kin...
https://sd.se/our-politics/eu/
https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-election-2018-results...
But I live in Malmo and see stickers popping up against the EU, I hear from the Swedish workers who have replaced the electrics and plastered the walls in my apartment about how bad the EU is and that Britain did the right thing (I'm british, which is why they came out with it).
I mean, "SWEXIT" is definitely something on the rise.
https://www.expressen.se/debatt/kasta-in-eu-handduken-och-bi...
But maybe this is not in Stockholm or the other major cities, I would even say Malmo itself does not have an appetite for breaking up with the EU, but the surrounding Skane region definitely has a stronger anti-immigrant and anti-EU sentiment.
But that was true for Brexit too, London was quite opposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_United_Kin...
The rise of Sverigedemokraterna is not proof of your initial claim that anti-EU sentiment is on the rise.
"SWEXIT" This is the first time I've heard this term. Is it on the rise? I see no proof of it.
Your link to Expressen news outlet is an opinion piece and does not prove your original claim.
"SWEXIT" This is the first time I've heard this term. Is it on the rise? I see no proof of it.
Your link to Expressen news outlet is an opinion piece and does not prove your original claim.
1) Hey, if we're going to be ludicrously nit-picky: Your not having heard of a term isn't proof that it isn't on the rise, either.
2) Actually, come to think of it: You hadn't heard of it; now you have. How's that for it being "on the rise", huh?
3) "Sweden should leave the EU!" is a matter of opinion. Where the heck else would you expect to find proof of its rise, if not in opinion pieces?
2) Actually, come to think of it: You hadn't heard of it; now you have. How's that for it being "on the rise", huh?
3) "Sweden should leave the EU!" is a matter of opinion. Where the heck else would you expect to find proof of its rise, if not in opinion pieces?
I find it very dishonest that your only reply to me is to down vote me. By doing so I believe strongly that you're abusing your down voting powers.
I can't downvote direct replies, it's not a feature that is available on this site, you'll notice the downvote button is missing for you on this comment of mine. That must be someone(s) else downvote.
You can see it for me here: https://i.imgur.com/yOYpyEH.png
I believe you were downvoted because I cited a prominent anti-EU party that is gaining popularity and you decided to just dismiss it, which is intellectually dishonest.
If there was no other argument, this would be enough to claim "anti-EU sentiment is on the rise" as it is a _core_ policy of their party and featured prominently on their website; in fact it's the only policy that has it's own link in the top banner, a vote for SD is a vote against the EU. Unequivocally.
Of course my experiences with people from the Skane region are anecdotes, and you could have argued that point, but you didn't.
You instead chose to point out that the article I selected was an opinion piece, and claimed your own anecdote that you had never heard of "SWEXIT".
If you would prefer I can walk the streets of Malmo and look for anti-EU stickers, there are many. But I can't convince you of this I don't think.
We don't poll people on EU sentiment, in fact the last vote that Sweden had on it was 27 years ago and "become an EU member" won at only 52% of the vote or something.
The 2003 referendum on joining the euro resulted in the murder of a politician, though I'm not entirely sure that's related to the referendum, only that it affected the referenum.
It's absolutely fair to say the Swedish people are not entirely unified on their vision of the EU.
You can see it for me here: https://i.imgur.com/yOYpyEH.png
I believe you were downvoted because I cited a prominent anti-EU party that is gaining popularity and you decided to just dismiss it, which is intellectually dishonest.
If there was no other argument, this would be enough to claim "anti-EU sentiment is on the rise" as it is a _core_ policy of their party and featured prominently on their website; in fact it's the only policy that has it's own link in the top banner, a vote for SD is a vote against the EU. Unequivocally.
Of course my experiences with people from the Skane region are anecdotes, and you could have argued that point, but you didn't.
You instead chose to point out that the article I selected was an opinion piece, and claimed your own anecdote that you had never heard of "SWEXIT".
If you would prefer I can walk the streets of Malmo and look for anti-EU stickers, there are many. But I can't convince you of this I don't think.
We don't poll people on EU sentiment, in fact the last vote that Sweden had on it was 27 years ago and "become an EU member" won at only 52% of the vote or something.
The 2003 referendum on joining the euro resulted in the murder of a politician, though I'm not entirely sure that's related to the referendum, only that it affected the referenum.
It's absolutely fair to say the Swedish people are not entirely unified on their vision of the EU.
"I can't downvote direct replies"
IC. Did not realize this until now. My apologies for that baseless claim.
"It's absolutely fair to say the Swedish people are not entirely unified on their vision of the EU."
Always has been. Your original claim was: "anti-EU support is on the rise". I argue this is a baseless claim.
IC. Did not realize this until now. My apologies for that baseless claim.
"It's absolutely fair to say the Swedish people are not entirely unified on their vision of the EU."
Always has been. Your original claim was: "anti-EU support is on the rise". I argue this is a baseless claim.
> Your original claim was: "anti-EU support is on the rise". I argue this is a baseless claim.
But you argue that on even less evidence than he does. He has at least some anecdotal evidence; you have presented none at all.
But you argue that on even less evidence than he does. He has at least some anecdotal evidence; you have presented none at all.
No it's almost impossible within the current political framework. Controlling European countries through espionage and other dark means was initiated from the late 40s (Operation Gladio) and there is none, I mean literally none who could get away from it.
Of course, unless you choose to revolutionize and destroy the old political framework.
Of course, unless you choose to revolutionize and destroy the old political framework.
[deleted]
>One is US led with roots in western roman church
I stopped reading there.
I stopped reading there.
I'm sorry, could you specify what is offensive about this? No offence or insult was intended - I will not use this turn of phrase in the future if it's off-putting. But I would like to understand why?
I did not imply this in the "clash of civilizations" sense of inevitable conflict, but just to higlight the cultural alignment within the said block.
I meant "roughly the polities that signed the treaty of Westphalia and their later date offspring plus the five-eyed anglosphere". This is what we consider the modern "west", isn't it?
I did not imply this in the "clash of civilizations" sense of inevitable conflict, but just to higlight the cultural alignment within the said block.
I meant "roughly the polities that signed the treaty of Westphalia and their later date offspring plus the five-eyed anglosphere". This is what we consider the modern "west", isn't it?
What do you mean when mentioning to Huawei and China? These words even don't exist in this article?
AFAIK, there is no actual evidence about Huawei spying with its 5G equipment.
AFAIK, there is no actual evidence about Huawei spying with its 5G equipment.
I’m Danish and this is a big scandal, but the reality is, when the US asks you dance like the vassal state you are.
We really shouldn’t have bought those f-35 planes either. They were more expensive, as in a gazillion times more expensive. The delivery schedule was already falling at the time. They were already terrible planes at the time compared to their competition. Most hilarious of all, they don’t actually fit into our small country because they are loud, so the government is still buying up properties in areas that they’ll have to fly over because the noise levels are so illegal they have to let people move away. They are also struggling with what to do with the airspace in one of our Airports, because the only two routes these planes have around it is over the ocean (fine but typically avoided during rain because of the low altitude they fly to avoid the airport) and our second largest city, ooops.
Somehow it still won, to no ones surprise. And that’s really just how it is. The US wants bases in Greenland? Well, it’s technically not really Danish territory but we’ll make an exception and to full colonial masters. The US wants a radar thing in one of our commercial airports? Sure! (Since moved to another part of Europe). The us wants access to data on Moslem citizens? sure thing! The US wants direct access to the internet infrastructure? Well why not!
I think the only thing we’ve ever really said no to was nuclear missiles.
We really shouldn’t have bought those f-35 planes either. They were more expensive, as in a gazillion times more expensive. The delivery schedule was already falling at the time. They were already terrible planes at the time compared to their competition. Most hilarious of all, they don’t actually fit into our small country because they are loud, so the government is still buying up properties in areas that they’ll have to fly over because the noise levels are so illegal they have to let people move away. They are also struggling with what to do with the airspace in one of our Airports, because the only two routes these planes have around it is over the ocean (fine but typically avoided during rain because of the low altitude they fly to avoid the airport) and our second largest city, ooops.
Somehow it still won, to no ones surprise. And that’s really just how it is. The US wants bases in Greenland? Well, it’s technically not really Danish territory but we’ll make an exception and to full colonial masters. The US wants a radar thing in one of our commercial airports? Sure! (Since moved to another part of Europe). The us wants access to data on Moslem citizens? sure thing! The US wants direct access to the internet infrastructure? Well why not!
I think the only thing we’ve ever really said no to was nuclear missiles.
F-35's are the epitome of the military-industrial complex: unnecessary, overpromised, and underdelivered (faulty, fragile, expensive, late). They should just be called F-111 2.0. It might not be a comedy of errors, but it could be a comedy of a travesty of comedic errors. It's not like there's a competitive marketplace for 5.5th gen fighters or alternatives to strategic, US-flag-waving purchases (NATO / political arm-twisting probably happened).
I think a lot of countries want to stay on the US' good side because it's Godzilla, so they'll go along most of the time. In international diplomatic circles, whenever the words "democracy" or "the peace process" get mentioned in press reports, mentally-substitute those with the words "whatever America wants" and it will be accurate 99 times out of 100. Maybe with the ascent of China, the US and China will have to compete and negotiate more for favors than simply demanding unwavering fealty.
PS: The first porn mags I ever saw were Danish. I can't say I saw much because that was the era when beavers had full pelts.
I think a lot of countries want to stay on the US' good side because it's Godzilla, so they'll go along most of the time. In international diplomatic circles, whenever the words "democracy" or "the peace process" get mentioned in press reports, mentally-substitute those with the words "whatever America wants" and it will be accurate 99 times out of 100. Maybe with the ascent of China, the US and China will have to compete and negotiate more for favors than simply demanding unwavering fealty.
PS: The first porn mags I ever saw were Danish. I can't say I saw much because that was the era when beavers had full pelts.
Same deal here in Norway. Lots of irregularities in how the F35 got selected over Swedish SAAB Gripen.
And yeah we are also incapable of saying no, to anything it seems. It has been Norwegian policy to not have US bases since end of WWII. But current conservative sell-out government has done it without any national debate. They just give the US an area of Norway where US laws applies.
Criticizing the Norwegian alliance and what is being done to placate the US seems politically impossible. It is like a holy cow.
And yeah we are also incapable of saying no, to anything it seems. It has been Norwegian policy to not have US bases since end of WWII. But current conservative sell-out government has done it without any national debate. They just give the US an area of Norway where US laws applies.
Criticizing the Norwegian alliance and what is being done to placate the US seems politically impossible. It is like a holy cow.
That’s when I end up glad my country seems so bent on making their own stuff (mostly planes) no matter what. Surprisingly, they’ve even started succeeding in selling those these last few years.
France has a lot more principles than any of its bordering countries. I'm so glad that it is in the EU.
What kind of principles are you referring to? Being themselves a massive hardware/software arms dealer so they don't have to buy from the US? (see Amesys scandal during the arab spring)
To be fair though, the French government does have a huge dependency on USA corps. French government is mostly equipped with Microsoft Windows including the army, which was another huge scandal when this contract was passed a few years back.
France, after decades of "neutral" stance during/post cold-war is now back with the NATO psychopaths, and driving military interventions to protect dubious regimes/interests across the globe.
Meanwhile, the ONLY nationwide independent newspaper (Mediapart) reveals huge numbers of outright nazis in the army, but that's not a problem to the people in power. Dozens and dozens of officers sign a petition and go live on TV to defend a military coup d'État against our (really fucked up) colonial republic and most political parties from left to right lick their boots. Only Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a centrist politician presented as a leftist despite not being against money and private property, opposes them publicly. That says a lot about how french politics shifted to the far-right since 1968
With the army rebelling, you'd think the police would remain the docile watchdogs they usually are? That they'd continue to silently beat down and murder the men of color and protesters around the country, maintaining the omerta? No, they're out there on the streets demonstrating, even going en masse in front of the presidential palace to threaten the elected psychopath Macron. They're now also publicly beating down or mudering feminists (see March 8 2020) and old people (see Zineb Redouane, Geneviève Legay, etc), publicly administering some of the baton-grenades-flashball formula ten years ago was only applied in the non-white ghetto suburbs.
But besides the usual murders committed by police worldwide, french police has been involved in murdering protesters, without ever being held accountable, which is quite unusual for a pretend-democracy. To my knowledge in the USA, police doesn't dare murder protesters, and instead leaves this task to the fascist militias. Here, Vital Michalon, Malik Oussekine or Rémi Fraisse are just "things that happen" when you take part in a demonstration. But if that were criticized from within, they'd have to react, right? Ask the VIGI police union members who've been suspended and harassed for denouncing their higher-ups covering up police abuse and rampant racism.
But surely a historical nazi Unterseeboot used as a police sign (as in Lorient) is a scandal, right? Well not really, because there was not EVER a denazification in France. Racial hierarchies, political repression and homophobia were already very widespread under the French colonial republic long before the Nazis came to power. After Paris was liberated by the Spanish antifascist troops (contrary to popular beliefs, the Americans did NOT liberate most of Paris), the nazi-collaborator State apparatus mostly stayed in place. Notably, the police prefects who organized the "counter-insurrection" in Algeria were previously working for the nazi regime, and were never held accountable for anything.
Don't even get me started on the policy of murder, robbery and exploitation of Françafrique and the dark alliances between secret services and businesses around the Jacques Foccart ("Mr. Africa") networks and how that has benefited (and continues to benefit) proto-fascist CEOs like Bolloré and the nuclear/military industrial complex.
And if you think the universities are somehow a safe haven because after the bloodshed and deaths of May 68, the government would never dare attacks the universities, think again. Not only is the police attacking any form of university occupation, the whole intelligentsia is now on TVs everywhere denouncing the "islamo-leftists" and maneuvering to restore in the universities the good-old values of capitalism, authoritarianism, patriarchy and white-supremacy.
Anyway, that's just a short overview. There's a lot more that's broken with France. And i know there's a lot worse happening elsewhere on earth and we french folks (especially we whites) are very privileged on a global scale, but please never take France as a moral compass. As pleasing as they sound, human rights have NEVER been applied in France (though it's a good export product).
As a conclusion, i'll leave here some quotes from the human rights declaration of 1793, which despite being adopted by referendum as part of the 1st republic constitution, was never applied:
"The law ought to protect public and personal liberty against the oppression of those who govern. (...) Resistance to oppression is the consequence of the other rights of man. (...) There is oppression against the social body when a single one of its members is oppressed: there is oppression against each member when the social body is oppressed. (...) When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties."
To be fair though, the French government does have a huge dependency on USA corps. French government is mostly equipped with Microsoft Windows including the army, which was another huge scandal when this contract was passed a few years back.
France, after decades of "neutral" stance during/post cold-war is now back with the NATO psychopaths, and driving military interventions to protect dubious regimes/interests across the globe.
Meanwhile, the ONLY nationwide independent newspaper (Mediapart) reveals huge numbers of outright nazis in the army, but that's not a problem to the people in power. Dozens and dozens of officers sign a petition and go live on TV to defend a military coup d'État against our (really fucked up) colonial republic and most political parties from left to right lick their boots. Only Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a centrist politician presented as a leftist despite not being against money and private property, opposes them publicly. That says a lot about how french politics shifted to the far-right since 1968
With the army rebelling, you'd think the police would remain the docile watchdogs they usually are? That they'd continue to silently beat down and murder the men of color and protesters around the country, maintaining the omerta? No, they're out there on the streets demonstrating, even going en masse in front of the presidential palace to threaten the elected psychopath Macron. They're now also publicly beating down or mudering feminists (see March 8 2020) and old people (see Zineb Redouane, Geneviève Legay, etc), publicly administering some of the baton-grenades-flashball formula ten years ago was only applied in the non-white ghetto suburbs.
But besides the usual murders committed by police worldwide, french police has been involved in murdering protesters, without ever being held accountable, which is quite unusual for a pretend-democracy. To my knowledge in the USA, police doesn't dare murder protesters, and instead leaves this task to the fascist militias. Here, Vital Michalon, Malik Oussekine or Rémi Fraisse are just "things that happen" when you take part in a demonstration. But if that were criticized from within, they'd have to react, right? Ask the VIGI police union members who've been suspended and harassed for denouncing their higher-ups covering up police abuse and rampant racism.
But surely a historical nazi Unterseeboot used as a police sign (as in Lorient) is a scandal, right? Well not really, because there was not EVER a denazification in France. Racial hierarchies, political repression and homophobia were already very widespread under the French colonial republic long before the Nazis came to power. After Paris was liberated by the Spanish antifascist troops (contrary to popular beliefs, the Americans did NOT liberate most of Paris), the nazi-collaborator State apparatus mostly stayed in place. Notably, the police prefects who organized the "counter-insurrection" in Algeria were previously working for the nazi regime, and were never held accountable for anything.
Don't even get me started on the policy of murder, robbery and exploitation of Françafrique and the dark alliances between secret services and businesses around the Jacques Foccart ("Mr. Africa") networks and how that has benefited (and continues to benefit) proto-fascist CEOs like Bolloré and the nuclear/military industrial complex.
And if you think the universities are somehow a safe haven because after the bloodshed and deaths of May 68, the government would never dare attacks the universities, think again. Not only is the police attacking any form of university occupation, the whole intelligentsia is now on TVs everywhere denouncing the "islamo-leftists" and maneuvering to restore in the universities the good-old values of capitalism, authoritarianism, patriarchy and white-supremacy.
Anyway, that's just a short overview. There's a lot more that's broken with France. And i know there's a lot worse happening elsewhere on earth and we french folks (especially we whites) are very privileged on a global scale, but please never take France as a moral compass. As pleasing as they sound, human rights have NEVER been applied in France (though it's a good export product).
As a conclusion, i'll leave here some quotes from the human rights declaration of 1793, which despite being adopted by referendum as part of the 1st republic constitution, was never applied:
"The law ought to protect public and personal liberty against the oppression of those who govern. (...) Resistance to oppression is the consequence of the other rights of man. (...) There is oppression against the social body when a single one of its members is oppressed: there is oppression against each member when the social body is oppressed. (...) When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties."
I'm sorry, but there's a lot wrong in what you're saying.
> Meanwhile, the ONLY nationwide independent newspaper (Mediapart) reveals huge numbers of outright nazis in the army, but that's not a problem to the people in power. Dozens and dozens of officers sign a petition and go live on TV to defend a military coup d'État against our (really fucked up) colonial republic and most political parties from left to right lick their boots
Dozens, out of how many thousands? It was a problem, and still is, and there was talking of court martials.
> Only Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a centrist politician presented as a leftist despite not being against money and private property, opposes them publicly. That says a lot about how french politics shifted to the far-right since 1968
On what planet is Mélenchon a centrist?! His party's policies and political alliances far-left by any definition, and even more so on the French political spectrum ( he's farther left than the socialist party). Go look at his programme[0] and tell me redistributing wealth, pacificism, nationalisations of infrastructure are "centrist"?! Or when the people elected in parliament from his party got there via alliances with the communist party[1]?
> They're now also publicly beating down or mudering feminists (see March 8 2020) and old people (see Zineb Redouane, Geneviève Legay, etc), publicly administering some of the baton-grenades-flashball formula ten years ago was only applied in the non-white ghetto suburbs.
> But besides the usual murders committed by police worldwide, french police has been involved in murdering protesters, without ever being held accountable, which is quite unusual for a pretend-democracy. To my knowledge in the USA, police doesn't dare murder protesters, and instead leaves this task to the fascist militias. Here, Vital Michalon, Malik Oussekine or Rémi Fraisse are just "things that happen" when you take part in a demonstration. But if that were criticized from within, they'd have to react, right? Ask the VIGI police union members who've been suspended and harassed for denouncing their higher-ups covering up police abuse and rampant racism.
French police has some serious problems with violence, and investigations clearly aren't good enough, but it's disingenuous to say there have been none or that it's in any way comparable to the situation in the US (where police agents were kidnapping protesters, just fyi). There need to be serious punishments for police being violent, but considering they're seriously overworked and often face violence themselves, it's a hard sell ( to the police force).
> But surely a historical nazi Unterseeboot used as a police sign (as in Lorient) is a scandal, right? Well not really, because there was not EVER a denazification in France. Racial hierarchies, political repression and homophobia were already very widespread under the French colonial republic long before the Nazis came to power. After Paris was liberated by the Spanish antifascist troops (contrary to popular beliefs, the Americans did NOT liberate most of Paris), the nazi-collaborator State apparatus mostly stayed in place. Notably, the police prefects who organized the "counter-insurrection" in Algeria were previously working for the nazi regime, and were never held accountable for anything.
It was a scandal, and the logo proposal was refused by the higher-ups. There wasn't enough deNazification in France, and even today some politicians refuse to acknowledge French participation in atrocities ( it even came up in the last presidential debate, Macron had to clarify to Le Pen that in one of the biggest atrocities on French soil, Velodrome d'Hiver, where French police collected thousands of Jews for deportation, there were no Germans).
> And if you think the universities are somehow a safe haven because after the bloodshed and deaths of May 68, the government would never dare attacks the universities, think again. Not only is the police attacking any form of university occupation, the whole intelligentsia is now on TVs everywhere denouncing the "islamo-leftists" and maneuvering to restore in the universities the good-old values of capitalism, authoritarianism, patriarchy and white-supremacy.
And that one is completely flat out wrong. There have been many university ( and art institutions for that matter) occupations that weren't touched by police, unless where they became violent or the people in charge ( president of university or director of theatre) asked the people to leave, they refused, and then called the police. Like, in Paris I's case, where Tolbiac was occupied for a few weeks without any police intervention, until a professor was blinded by occupiers ( glass with vinegar on a door that fell into his eyes when he opened it), and then after they refused to leave, the police were called in and literally carried them on their hands while the occupiers were chanting that the police are disgusting. The Islamo-leftist bullshit is indeed pervasive, but i don't see how in any way that impacts students and their free will.
> Anyway, that's just a short overview. There's a lot more that's broken with France. And i know there's a lot worse happening elsewhere on earth and we french folks (especially we whites) are very privileged on a global scale, but please never take France as a moral compass. As pleasing as they sound, human rights have NEVER been applied in France (though it's a good export product).
Indeed there's a lot broken, a lot needs fixing, but it's an impossible job IMHO. One can't easily fix the looming deficits from the pensions and healthcare spending, covid-19 recovery, youth unemployment, ecological transformation, police violence, anti-police violence, immigration "problems" (huge deal for some) without pissing off ~30% of the population at each one. Imagine doing all of them at once, will everyone protest or will everything compensate all else? In any case, i agree, there's a lot worse than France, but that isn't an excuse to not improve what needs improving.
[0] https://noussommespour.fr/programme/ [1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_La_France_insoumise
> Meanwhile, the ONLY nationwide independent newspaper (Mediapart) reveals huge numbers of outright nazis in the army, but that's not a problem to the people in power. Dozens and dozens of officers sign a petition and go live on TV to defend a military coup d'État against our (really fucked up) colonial republic and most political parties from left to right lick their boots
Dozens, out of how many thousands? It was a problem, and still is, and there was talking of court martials.
> Only Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a centrist politician presented as a leftist despite not being against money and private property, opposes them publicly. That says a lot about how french politics shifted to the far-right since 1968
On what planet is Mélenchon a centrist?! His party's policies and political alliances far-left by any definition, and even more so on the French political spectrum ( he's farther left than the socialist party). Go look at his programme[0] and tell me redistributing wealth, pacificism, nationalisations of infrastructure are "centrist"?! Or when the people elected in parliament from his party got there via alliances with the communist party[1]?
> They're now also publicly beating down or mudering feminists (see March 8 2020) and old people (see Zineb Redouane, Geneviève Legay, etc), publicly administering some of the baton-grenades-flashball formula ten years ago was only applied in the non-white ghetto suburbs.
> But besides the usual murders committed by police worldwide, french police has been involved in murdering protesters, without ever being held accountable, which is quite unusual for a pretend-democracy. To my knowledge in the USA, police doesn't dare murder protesters, and instead leaves this task to the fascist militias. Here, Vital Michalon, Malik Oussekine or Rémi Fraisse are just "things that happen" when you take part in a demonstration. But if that were criticized from within, they'd have to react, right? Ask the VIGI police union members who've been suspended and harassed for denouncing their higher-ups covering up police abuse and rampant racism.
French police has some serious problems with violence, and investigations clearly aren't good enough, but it's disingenuous to say there have been none or that it's in any way comparable to the situation in the US (where police agents were kidnapping protesters, just fyi). There need to be serious punishments for police being violent, but considering they're seriously overworked and often face violence themselves, it's a hard sell ( to the police force).
> But surely a historical nazi Unterseeboot used as a police sign (as in Lorient) is a scandal, right? Well not really, because there was not EVER a denazification in France. Racial hierarchies, political repression and homophobia were already very widespread under the French colonial republic long before the Nazis came to power. After Paris was liberated by the Spanish antifascist troops (contrary to popular beliefs, the Americans did NOT liberate most of Paris), the nazi-collaborator State apparatus mostly stayed in place. Notably, the police prefects who organized the "counter-insurrection" in Algeria were previously working for the nazi regime, and were never held accountable for anything.
It was a scandal, and the logo proposal was refused by the higher-ups. There wasn't enough deNazification in France, and even today some politicians refuse to acknowledge French participation in atrocities ( it even came up in the last presidential debate, Macron had to clarify to Le Pen that in one of the biggest atrocities on French soil, Velodrome d'Hiver, where French police collected thousands of Jews for deportation, there were no Germans).
> And if you think the universities are somehow a safe haven because after the bloodshed and deaths of May 68, the government would never dare attacks the universities, think again. Not only is the police attacking any form of university occupation, the whole intelligentsia is now on TVs everywhere denouncing the "islamo-leftists" and maneuvering to restore in the universities the good-old values of capitalism, authoritarianism, patriarchy and white-supremacy.
And that one is completely flat out wrong. There have been many university ( and art institutions for that matter) occupations that weren't touched by police, unless where they became violent or the people in charge ( president of university or director of theatre) asked the people to leave, they refused, and then called the police. Like, in Paris I's case, where Tolbiac was occupied for a few weeks without any police intervention, until a professor was blinded by occupiers ( glass with vinegar on a door that fell into his eyes when he opened it), and then after they refused to leave, the police were called in and literally carried them on their hands while the occupiers were chanting that the police are disgusting. The Islamo-leftist bullshit is indeed pervasive, but i don't see how in any way that impacts students and their free will.
> Anyway, that's just a short overview. There's a lot more that's broken with France. And i know there's a lot worse happening elsewhere on earth and we french folks (especially we whites) are very privileged on a global scale, but please never take France as a moral compass. As pleasing as they sound, human rights have NEVER been applied in France (though it's a good export product).
Indeed there's a lot broken, a lot needs fixing, but it's an impossible job IMHO. One can't easily fix the looming deficits from the pensions and healthcare spending, covid-19 recovery, youth unemployment, ecological transformation, police violence, anti-police violence, immigration "problems" (huge deal for some) without pissing off ~30% of the population at each one. Imagine doing all of them at once, will everyone protest or will everything compensate all else? In any case, i agree, there's a lot worse than France, but that isn't an excuse to not improve what needs improving.
[0] https://noussommespour.fr/programme/ [1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_La_France_insoumise
US gets a lot of ammunitions and other weapons from Norway making Norway one of the leading weapons exporter in dollars-per-capita metric. So Norway in practice cannot say no to F-35 as that risks loosing those lucrative weapons contracts.
The same happened in The Netherlands with regards to the F35 even though at the time several media outlets already reported that both the Eurofighter or Saab Gripen might be better choices.
At the time there was a very popular right-wing politician in The Netherlands (Pim Fortuyn) who was very much not in favor of the F35 purchase. And perhaps if he didn’t get killed by a left-wing activist, he might have chosen for one of the other planes. However, he got killed and his second in command (Mat Herben) took over the party and agreed with the F35 purchase.
The Guardian reported that some associates of Pim Fortuyn thought that Mat Herben was an establishment infiltrant: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/28/thefarright.po...
At the time there was a very popular right-wing politician in The Netherlands (Pim Fortuyn) who was very much not in favor of the F35 purchase. And perhaps if he didn’t get killed by a left-wing activist, he might have chosen for one of the other planes. However, he got killed and his second in command (Mat Herben) took over the party and agreed with the F35 purchase.
The Guardian reported that some associates of Pim Fortuyn thought that Mat Herben was an establishment infiltrant: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/28/thefarright.po...
As a sidenote; Leefbaar Nederland and later Lijst Pim Fortuyn (the political parties he was with) were barely right wing compared to the utter crap we've got now though. Unless openly thinking about the problem of improving the integration process so immigrants have a better chance at a good job and happier lives (as opposed to "welcoming" them with neglect - I'd guess having mostly cheap labor in mind - under the guise of multiculturalism) is right wing. I was a bit too young to understand the political context back then, though in hindsight, AFAIK I think he really meant to help these people as opposed to the hateful unproductive stuff spouted today by PVV and the like, mainly appealing to a part of the voterbase that's into that, and furthering segregation and polarization. I guess openly addressing religious fundamentalism was considered quite right wing at the time though. Specifically the Lagerhuis broadcast with Marcel van Dam comes to mind.
(I might be misclassifying him though; I don't recall his actual policy proposals regarding these topics, but the Guardian article claiming he was a fiercely anti-immigration libertarian does not rhyme with my admittedly ill-informed recollection of his politics)
(I might be misclassifying him though; I don't recall his actual policy proposals regarding these topics, but the Guardian article claiming he was a fiercely anti-immigration libertarian does not rhyme with my admittedly ill-informed recollection of his politics)
This behavior can all be explained with the threat the Russian state still poses to the neighboring Scandinavian countries. If I were a small country afraid of a larger one I would also try to find me a big brother.
We can only hope that Putin will fall one day.
We can only hope that Putin will fall one day.
Russia is a much smaller threat than the Soviet Union, if bases was not needed during the Cold War, they are definitely not needed now.
Russia is effectively a criminal enterprise cosplaying as a nation state. Putin is going to die in the next 20 years and create a massive power vacuum. What you'll end up with is a dozen or so "rightful heirs" with some level of control over the military and nuclear arsenals.
Which country is the most likely to fall apart within the next 20 years based on current affairs, US or Russia?
> Russia is effectively a criminal enterprise cosplaying as a nation state.
There are a lot of states which are criminal enterprises, US included.
There is really no reason for a country like Danemark to bend to US .
There are a lot of states which are criminal enterprises, US included.
There is really no reason for a country like Danemark to bend to US .
Well, Denmark is a member of NATO which is dominated by the US. As sb else argued deciding what weapons to buy and from whom has strong political inclinations. If Denmark would buy their equipment from Russia they couldn’t stay with the NATO in the long run.
Buying weapons is one thing. Giving data about your country and your citizens to another country is something terrible.
When i buy a TV from you, you don't get the right to spy on my family. (i know samsung, google and other companies would dissagree)
When i buy a TV from you, you don't get the right to spy on my family. (i know samsung, google and other companies would dissagree)
Russia is effectively a country powerful enough to want sovereignity but powerless to be able to enforce its will outside even in its immediate borders (compare to the US which enforces its will globally).
Putin is a strongman that aside from keeping local "oligarchs" happy, has raised incredibly Russian's GDP and economy from when he got in power, and reverted the "sell everything to the highest foreign bidder" course that Yeltsin was praised for.
That's the problem with Putin, not his rule, that annoys the west - which is also why they never have a problem with allies that do the same or worse. Pinochet was celebrated by the west, and accomondated by the UK until his last days, for example. Ditto for rich journalist-killing oil heirs, and so on.
Putin is a strongman that aside from keeping local "oligarchs" happy, has raised incredibly Russian's GDP and economy from when he got in power, and reverted the "sell everything to the highest foreign bidder" course that Yeltsin was praised for.
That's the problem with Putin, not his rule, that annoys the west - which is also why they never have a problem with allies that do the same or worse. Pinochet was celebrated by the west, and accomondated by the UK until his last days, for example. Ditto for rich journalist-killing oil heirs, and so on.
[deleted]
There's literally no threat from the Russian state to the neighboring Scandinavian countries - aside from that played to sell protection and arms. Russia is no USSR, and has nothing to do with the neighboring Scandinavian countries.
If anything, it's the opposite: the neighboring countries, Scandinavian or not, as used as a proxy pressure to Russia.
If anything, it's the opposite: the neighboring countries, Scandinavian or not, as used as a proxy pressure to Russia.
Right...but if you look at Ukraine you see a different reality
If I look Ukraine I see a country with an old rivalry with Russia, which the US stepped on to use as another proxy against it in the area.
I also see a country where the legitimate, voted for, goverment was overthrown by "orange revolution" style riots led by bona-fied neonazis and celebrated/sponsored by foreign powers. It's also a country whose an area has 60% Russian ethnicity population.
I also see a country where the legitimate, voted for, goverment was overthrown by "orange revolution" style riots led by bona-fied neonazis and celebrated/sponsored by foreign powers. It's also a country whose an area has 60% Russian ethnicity population.
>> If I look Ukraine I see a country with an old rivalry with Russia, which the US stepped on to use as another proxy against it in the area.
Or you could see a country fed up with Russia's influence/politics that chose a different direction.
>> It's also a country whose an area has 60% Russian ethnicity population.
Wtf is this supposed to mean? Should the US send an army of "patriots" and start a civil war in Tatarstan?
Or you could see a country fed up with Russia's influence/politics that chose a different direction.
>> It's also a country whose an area has 60% Russian ethnicity population.
Wtf is this supposed to mean? Should the US send an army of "patriots" and start a civil war in Tatarstan?
>Or you could see a country fed up with Russia's influence/politics that chose a different direction.
I would have seen that, if they haven't historically sized with Nazism, and the democratically elected government wasn't toppled by neonazis just now.
>Wtf is this supposed to mean? Should the US send an army of "patriots" and start a civil war in Tatarstan?
Does Tatarstan has some area with a large citizenry of American descent, and has an anti-American government that looks down on them have been established in the country? Was part of Tatarstan historically part of US too, for centuries even?
If so, they'd certainly be justified to do so, yes, especially in that area.
Then again, they they do it anyway, wherever they like, not in places they have actual borders with and a historical population of fellow ethnic Americans to protect, but 10s of thousands of miles away from their borders, where they have no history and no reason to be there, plundering and living hell-holes of civil war and destruction on their way out.
I would have seen that, if they haven't historically sized with Nazism, and the democratically elected government wasn't toppled by neonazis just now.
>Wtf is this supposed to mean? Should the US send an army of "patriots" and start a civil war in Tatarstan?
Does Tatarstan has some area with a large citizenry of American descent, and has an anti-American government that looks down on them have been established in the country? Was part of Tatarstan historically part of US too, for centuries even?
If so, they'd certainly be justified to do so, yes, especially in that area.
Then again, they they do it anyway, wherever they like, not in places they have actual borders with and a historical population of fellow ethnic Americans to protect, but 10s of thousands of miles away from their borders, where they have no history and no reason to be there, plundering and living hell-holes of civil war and destruction on their way out.
Beware with that. We don't know if there are even worse options than Putin.Things can always get worse or crazier. BTW Spain also bought F35s. It's not just the Russian menace ,vassal states have to comply with master.
> If I were a small country afraid of a larger one I would also try to find me a big brother.
USA and other world powers honour treaties only when it serves them. If you think they would aid an ally in the time of need just look at how they honoured the Vienna treaty and helped Ukraine when it was invaded. Or how the UK abandoned Poland in 1939 (yes, they declared war on Germany and that was it).
Alliance/military treaties are worth as much as the piece of paper they are written on.
USA and other world powers honour treaties only when it serves them. If you think they would aid an ally in the time of need just look at how they honoured the Vienna treaty and helped Ukraine when it was invaded. Or how the UK abandoned Poland in 1939 (yes, they declared war on Germany and that was it).
Alliance/military treaties are worth as much as the piece of paper they are written on.
wtf... What did Russia do to the Scandinavians? Why are you always afraid of Russia?
When Russian Tsar Peter the Great decided to build the city of St Petersburg in 1703, on the site of the Swedish fort Nyenskans in the Swedish empire's eastern province Ingermanland, with the goal of establishing a sea port into the Baltic sea, a sea that was almost the Swedish empires own pond, Sweden and Russia became geopolitical enemies and has been ever since.
Russia and Sweden have been fighting since Viking times, but the relationship has been complex, there has also been very close cooperation.
Swedish vikings were probably instrumental in founding the Russian state, and Peter the Great took much inspiration from Swedish administrative traditions when creating a new bureaucratic system, etc.
Swedish vikings were probably instrumental in founding the Russian state, and Peter the Great took much inspiration from Swedish administrative traditions when creating a new bureaucratic system, etc.
Yeah but in the modern history Russia didn't show any interest of military conflict with anyone
Well, even as a Swedish russophile I still have admit that they were spying quite heavily on us during the cold war, including with submarines.
Then lately there's Crimea, Donetsk and probably Georgia. Of course it's nowhere near to what the US and some of its allies have been doing, but it's not nothing.
Still, the narrative that Finland, or even Central European countries should be worried is absurd.
Then lately there's Crimea, Donetsk and probably Georgia. Of course it's nowhere near to what the US and some of its allies have been doing, but it's not nothing.
Still, the narrative that Finland, or even Central European countries should be worried is absurd.
Finland 1809, Crimea 2014, and the whole of Eastern Europe in between. But, sure, "Russia didn't show any interest of military conflict with anyone".
We're not supposed to accuse people of being trolls, but: For someone I'm not supposed to accuse of being a troll, you sure do sound a lot like you just happen to be posting from one of Putin's troll factories.
We're not supposed to accuse people of being trolls, but: For someone I'm not supposed to accuse of being a troll, you sure do sound a lot like you just happen to be posting from one of Putin's troll factories.
They took Finland.
Finland? It's a made-up country; it doesn't even exist: https://www.reddit.com/r/finlandConspiracy/comments/52f5ae/t...
(j/k)
(j/k)
who took what
Russia annexed Finland as war reparations after the Finnish war. Sweden had problems with Russia well before that, but I'd say that most of the modern Scandinavian russophobia stems from this event.
Russia seems unstable. Putin is what keeps the pyramid system together, but as all humans he will eventually die. And when that happens, it is unclear what Scandinavia can expect from its neighbour.
You should not wait to start being afraid when things have gone badly already. If the political problems are obvious, a more prudent approach might be more adviced.
You should not wait to start being afraid when things have gone badly already. If the political problems are obvious, a more prudent approach might be more adviced.
wdym by unstable? You can say whatever you want about Putin, but he's definitely not an idiot.
The next Russian president after Putin will be Sergey Shoygu, I'm 99% sure.
Yes, Sergey Shoygu is probably going to be the next president. Shoygu speaks nine(!) languages fluently. Compare Putin and Shoygu with the trash leaders the West produces today. It is no comparison, walk over.
I'm not an expert on Russia, but unstable? I can't really see that in the news cycle either. USA on the other hand have had massive riots for months and 25 000 national guard posted in the capital. The divisive politics that has accelerated with the Trump presidency where the different sides now view each others as (almost) enemies of the state, how are they going to pull themselves up from this? Seems very unstable.
I'm not an expert on Russia, but unstable? I can't really see that in the news cycle either. USA on the other hand have had massive riots for months and 25 000 national guard posted in the capital. The divisive politics that has accelerated with the Trump presidency where the different sides now view each others as (almost) enemies of the state, how are they going to pull themselves up from this? Seems very unstable.
so it's better to lose sovereignty now to the US than take the risk of a hypothetical Russian invasion? all these countries that have US bases in them are practically invaded without resistance. the US is friendly now but in 30 years who knows? imagine US being in a very tough situation. it's a no brainer for them to say "America first" and take whatever resources they can take from anywhere they can.
look at Turkey, specifically about F35. they got cut off from it by the US on a whim. they spent a lot of money on the F35 probably, instead of investing in their own fighter program and now they got nothing.
look at Turkey, specifically about F35. they got cut off from it by the US on a whim. they spent a lot of money on the F35 probably, instead of investing in their own fighter program and now they got nothing.
> look at Turkey, specifically about F35. they got cut off from it by the US on a whim.
Not really "on a whim." The implications/consequences of purchasing and using the S-400 were clear.
It was a clear choice made by Turkey and the decision cost the US much more than Turkey ever invested in the program anyways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/07/17/turkey-officially...
Not really "on a whim." The implications/consequences of purchasing and using the S-400 were clear.
It was a clear choice made by Turkey and the decision cost the US much more than Turkey ever invested in the program anyways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/07/17/turkey-officially...
The risk of a Russian invasion is close to zero, has been for a while. It's more about wanting to be friends with the big super power, and frankly about our leaders being personally coopted.
The US tax authorities want automated data collection from EU banks about all "US persons"? Sure, that's FATCA. Reciprocity? Nope, US banks don't send anything back.
I believe most EU countries aren't that interested in that information.
It's mainly because of the unique policy of the US that you have to pay taxes as a citizen no matter where you live and work. Afaik all EU countries have the policy that if you live and work in the US you only pay US taxes.
Note that it has been a nightmare for US people living in EU, especially those who emigrated decades ago or were born to an american parent but never lived in the US. US considers them citizens, but they don't have any documentation, leading to true catch-22 scenario's like not having a SSN and needing a birth certificate to get one, but not being able to request a birth certificate without a SSN. There's also stories about people not being able to rescind citizenship because they aren't in any system except for the IRS's.
It's mainly because of the unique policy of the US that you have to pay taxes as a citizen no matter where you live and work. Afaik all EU countries have the policy that if you live and work in the US you only pay US taxes.
Note that it has been a nightmare for US people living in EU, especially those who emigrated decades ago or were born to an american parent but never lived in the US. US considers them citizens, but they don't have any documentation, leading to true catch-22 scenario's like not having a SSN and needing a birth certificate to get one, but not being able to request a birth certificate without a SSN. There's also stories about people not being able to rescind citizenship because they aren't in any system except for the IRS's.
While they're less interested in that information than the US is, for the reason you explain, they're definitely still interested - many wealthy people who only pay tax in the country where they live still have substantial assets and income streams of various sorts overseas, which they must report in their local tax return.
> I believe most EU countries aren't that interested in that information.
France at least appears to be interested, requiring you to explicitly list every foreign place you can stash money on tax returns every year. If you have any kind of French rental income, no matter where you are in the world, I understand you have to declare. There is an EU directive for reciprocal information sharing and I understand it is used.
There are fines and penalties for not declaring a foreign account. The fine is not income or wealth linked, so it seems like it wouldn’t really bother anyone with the sort of wealth to benefit from not declaring; the penalty is having the stashed money treated as income for the year it is discovered, which seems like it could make certain people nervous.
> Note that it has been a nightmare for US people living in EU
It appears to make life much harder in all manner of ways. When I opened my French bank account, the forms placed a heavy emphasis on me not being a US citizen. I asked and was told that it would be much more difficult to open an account.
France at least appears to be interested, requiring you to explicitly list every foreign place you can stash money on tax returns every year. If you have any kind of French rental income, no matter where you are in the world, I understand you have to declare. There is an EU directive for reciprocal information sharing and I understand it is used.
There are fines and penalties for not declaring a foreign account. The fine is not income or wealth linked, so it seems like it wouldn’t really bother anyone with the sort of wealth to benefit from not declaring; the penalty is having the stashed money treated as income for the year it is discovered, which seems like it could make certain people nervous.
> Note that it has been a nightmare for US people living in EU
It appears to make life much harder in all manner of ways. When I opened my French bank account, the forms placed a heavy emphasis on me not being a US citizen. I asked and was told that it would be much more difficult to open an account.
Does France require this information for French citizens who no longer live in France, but moved to (for example) the United States 20 years ago?
Or, as in the case of a former partner of mine: She was born in the US, from Belgian parents who worked there for a few monhts, then moved to Belgium before her first birthday. When FACTA came into play she was in her thirties, and suddenly all banks were required to submit information about her to the US. Some (Belgian) banks told her they would cancel all services as long as she remained a US citizen.
Or, as in the case of a former partner of mine: She was born in the US, from Belgian parents who worked there for a few monhts, then moved to Belgium before her first birthday. When FACTA came into play she was in her thirties, and suddenly all banks were required to submit information about her to the US. Some (Belgian) banks told her they would cancel all services as long as she remained a US citizen.
> Does France require this information for French citizens who no longer live in France, but moved to (for example) the United States 20 years ago?
No, my understanding is only if you actually have income from France – such as rental income. Income is income, and it seems fair.
I believe the US is truly exceptional with FACTA, but it’s probably only because of their current position that they are able to claim global jurisdiction over domestic legislation. If Iran passed such legislation, I doubt any banks would be allowed to comply. FACTA is often cited as a reason for people renouncing US citizenship.
No, my understanding is only if you actually have income from France – such as rental income. Income is income, and it seems fair.
I believe the US is truly exceptional with FACTA, but it’s probably only because of their current position that they are able to claim global jurisdiction over domestic legislation. If Iran passed such legislation, I doubt any banks would be allowed to comply. FACTA is often cited as a reason for people renouncing US citizenship.
Yeah, my then partner renounced US citizenship due to this.
Yeah, but that data would still be useful to track tax avoidance schemes.
Oh, they are. Maybe not in the information from the US but definitely in the information from swiss banks, there's a similar program in place.
The intergovernmental agreements signed with the US to enable FATCA reporting often also include a reciprocity clause requiring the IRS to provide information to foreign tax authorities - sections 3 and 4 of https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-14-64.pdf are a (possibly outdated) list of countries that the IRS has manual or automatic information sharing agreements with.
That's actually good, I don't want my government to look at my money.
Also, EU citizens aren't expected to pay tax to their home country when they live abroad. I've been led to believe Americans are.
That's correct, American citizens are required to pay tax to the IRS regardless of their residency. However, you can deduct something like $106,000 from your yearly income if it's already been taxed, to avoid double-taxation of income.
Yes, around 106k USD, but this exemption applies only to EARNED income. The definition of earned income is quite narrow. This can cause a massive headache.
The way the US deals with taxation abroad is a travesty. I for one will be renouncing my citizenship because of it. Few countries deal with emigration in a perfectly hassle-free way, but the US makes living a life in any other country impossible if at any point you rely on income that isn't bog standard salary.
The way the US deals with taxation abroad is a travesty. I for one will be renouncing my citizenship because of it. Few countries deal with emigration in a perfectly hassle-free way, but the US makes living a life in any other country impossible if at any point you rely on income that isn't bog standard salary.
Definitely - to a point. You pay local taxes first, but if they aren't high enough, you still have to pay US taxes. If you are married to someone of a different nationality, you cannot use online tax filing services without the spouse getting a number from the US government and reporting their income as well - even if they have never lived or worked in the US.
So it turns out that living in Norway means that I have to file paper taxes any year I work, but generally don't have to pay since Norway's taxes are high enough. If I lived somewhere with a low tax rate, I'd have to file and pay taxes.
Note: In general, I don't have to pay All taxes. We have Federal, state, and local taxes - they are generally only concerned with paying federal taxes while I live overseas. This also means that someone might still pay a lower tax rate overseas, depending on the state that they came from and the type of income they receive.
So it turns out that living in Norway means that I have to file paper taxes any year I work, but generally don't have to pay since Norway's taxes are high enough. If I lived somewhere with a low tax rate, I'd have to file and pay taxes.
Note: In general, I don't have to pay All taxes. We have Federal, state, and local taxes - they are generally only concerned with paying federal taxes while I live overseas. This also means that someone might still pay a lower tax rate overseas, depending on the state that they came from and the type of income they receive.
It‘s complicated for both sides. US citizens have to file their taxes but will be mostly exempt (depending on their income) since they will be already taxed abroad.
Likewise EU citizens may be taxed at home, depending on where the income originates.
So it‘s complicated.
But it‘s true that most countries determine where you are a resident (or have income from there) and then will tax you primarily on that and citizenship has no influence.
Likewise EU citizens may be taxed at home, depending on where the income originates.
So it‘s complicated.
But it‘s true that most countries determine where you are a resident (or have income from there) and then will tax you primarily on that and citizenship has no influence.
It is not true that we are "mostly exempt": only earned income (a narrow definition) is exempt.
And while it is true that many other countries have versions of taxing citizens living abroad for some time or under certain conditions (like having assets at home or conditions that deem the stay abroad "temporary"), there are only two countries in the world that have no mechanisms for stopping this taxation once one has truly and surely severed financial ties: the US, and Eritrea.
And while it is true that many other countries have versions of taxing citizens living abroad for some time or under certain conditions (like having assets at home or conditions that deem the stay abroad "temporary"), there are only two countries in the world that have no mechanisms for stopping this taxation once one has truly and surely severed financial ties: the US, and Eritrea.
>I’m Danish and this is a big scandal, but the reality is, when the US asks you dance like the vassal state you are.
Don't fret over it. The Swedes had to build up BS charges against Assange on the US behalf...
Don't fret over it. The Swedes had to build up BS charges against Assange on the US behalf...
Buying a slightly less suitable and more expensive but still rather capable plane might still be "cheap" if it buys you a NATO umbrella. It would make technical and economical sense to buy a Swedish fighter, but it perhaps doesn't make diplomatic sense (and I say that as a Swedish taxpayer).
>if it buys you a NATO umbrella
A NATO umbrella is something that is enforced upon you, not something you "buy", unless one is stuck to cold war logic.
A NATO umbrella is something that is enforced upon you, not something you "buy", unless one is stuck to cold war logic.
I really dislike how USA bullies people trying to buy Russian S400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems.
S400s are effective against their best aircrafts. And they don't want other countries to have it.
So they threaten sanction and people have to play along.
S400s are effective against their best aircrafts. And they don't want other countries to have it.
So they threaten sanction and people have to play along.
It's a complex issue. It's not just money involved, buying a long term "system" means you are reliant on relations for spares and support. This puts into question the willingness of (e.g.) Turkey as a NATO country to upset Russia.
NATO is a defense pact, which in reality means a military industrial pact too. There is no way to entirely separate the manufacturing and acquisition of military gear, from the treaty where it's supposed to be used.
The US does its best to prevent allies from having any kind of military technology outside of US control, particularly if it's effective. Allegiances aren't set in stone and the US won't take the chance to see that tech used against them.
[0] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/03/12/01/1226207/galileo-sys...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/08/world.internation...
[0] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/03/12/01/1226207/galileo-sys...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/08/world.internation...
Wasn't there also at one point a proposal for a F-35 maintenance facility in Turkey? Having that kind of access to F-35 information and being potentially beholden to a manufacturer of the main threat to the F-35 sounds like a huge intelligence leak just waiting to happen.
US bullied Indonesia to buy US weapons too. And Indonesia is not a NATO member. Most of those weapons from US is overpriced and overkill for Indonesia need.
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/03/13/trump-threat-...
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/03/13/trump-threat-...
Having an AAAD (A2/AD) defense system poses a threat to bombing planes, missiles etc.. Defensive systems raise the cost of an invasion or bombing runs. You can threaten countries easily or in an easier manner when we deny them systems like the S400. Would we have bombed Vietnam, Laos and everywhere else so indiscriminately if the had proper defensive systems in place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_denial_weapon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_denial_weapon
I don't see how it's a good idea to buy air defense from a potential enemy you have... the country NATO was created to defend against...
It will surely protect you against them and not be used to sabotage/spy on you.
It will surely protect you against them and not be used to sabotage/spy on you.
The nato was created against the sowjetunion.
There is no more sowjetunion. And it is a bit frustrating, that we are in a new cold war right now, because people were too lazy(on both sides) to adjust after the wall came down. So yes, russia is an enemy again, hurey and sure it makes not much sense letting them gather direct data to boosten their air defence missiles. But this works in both ways, no? If you have the S400 - you can study extensivly its weaknessess.
Apart from that, china seems a bigger threat.
There is no more sowjetunion. And it is a bit frustrating, that we are in a new cold war right now, because people were too lazy(on both sides) to adjust after the wall came down. So yes, russia is an enemy again, hurey and sure it makes not much sense letting them gather direct data to boosten their air defence missiles. But this works in both ways, no? If you have the S400 - you can study extensivly its weaknessess.
Apart from that, china seems a bigger threat.
Studying S400 weaknesses can be done without buying it and deploying it. (And likely has been done in plane design)
> Apart from that, china seems a bigger threat.
Russia is a direct threat of invasion for most European countries and yet they're not taken seriously (except neighbors which some have been invaded). The fact that S400 is even debated is proof of that...
US for better or worse can take both Russia and China militarily on itself... but it feels a bit pointless if the countries it protects are shooting themselves in the foot.
> Apart from that, china seems a bigger threat.
Russia is a direct threat of invasion for most European countries and yet they're not taken seriously (except neighbors which some have been invaded). The fact that S400 is even debated is proof of that...
US for better or worse can take both Russia and China militarily on itself... but it feels a bit pointless if the countries it protects are shooting themselves in the foot.
"Studying S400 weaknesses can be done without buying it and deploying it. "
How? Spycraft? Sounds a lot harder than having the gear at hand.
"US for better or worse can take both Russia and China militarily on itself.."
I hope we never find out, but I am sceptical. The US budget is surely way higher, but china and russia can produce, develope and sustain their military gear a lot lot cheaper. And have more manpower.
"Russia is a direct threat of invasion for most European countries"
And well, I live in germany and I don't feel threatened by russia. I know for Lithuania it is a bit different - but they are in the EU and NATO and the ukraine is not. So the lithuanian people I know don't really feel threatened by russia either and rather are annoyed by the new iron curtain, as well.
How? Spycraft? Sounds a lot harder than having the gear at hand.
"US for better or worse can take both Russia and China militarily on itself.."
I hope we never find out, but I am sceptical. The US budget is surely way higher, but china and russia can produce, develope and sustain their military gear a lot lot cheaper. And have more manpower.
"Russia is a direct threat of invasion for most European countries"
And well, I live in germany and I don't feel threatened by russia. I know for Lithuania it is a bit different - but they are in the EU and NATO and the ukraine is not. So the lithuanian people I know don't really feel threatened by russia either and rather are annoyed by the new iron curtain, as well.
> And well, I live in germany and I don't feel threatened by russia.
While "most European countries" is excessive, there are some countries that are very much under threat; Poland is the prime example.
While "most European countries" is excessive, there are some countries that are very much under threat; Poland is the prime example.
So you really think russia would invade a NATO country triggering a direct NATO response, with all the nukes still around?
Do you know something I don't that makes this scenario likely?
Do you know something I don't that makes this scenario likely?
I meant without the NATO present.
> So you really think russia would invade a NATO country triggering a direct NATO response, with all the nukes still around?
Trump threatened to pull US out of NATO which would make it meaningless
Regardless of intentions, If that were ever to happen, it would put even Germany under threat from Russia's green men.
France/UK's nukes are a deterrent but its doubtful they would be used
US with troops in those countries make it pretty clear a conventional war with green men would be repelled with heavy losses on Russian side.
Trump threatened to pull US out of NATO which would make it meaningless
Regardless of intentions, If that were ever to happen, it would put even Germany under threat from Russia's green men.
France/UK's nukes are a deterrent but its doubtful they would be used
US with troops in those countries make it pretty clear a conventional war with green men would be repelled with heavy losses on Russian side.
There are still lots of nukes in the NATO without the US.
And germany does not have russian speaking and feeling areas, who would (at least partly) welcome green man, which was the case in east ukraine and crimea.
And as far as I know, Trump is gone.
And germany does not have russian speaking and feeling areas, who would (at least partly) welcome green man, which was the case in east ukraine and crimea.
And as far as I know, Trump is gone.
>Russia is a direct threat of invasion for most European countries
lmao
Yes, I'm pretty sure Ukrainians find it funny as well.
Crimea is very complicated issue with no clear answer.
This can be said about any geopolitical area if you look far enough into the history.
Saying "it's complicated" is a very poor excuse for the annexation. Similarly "complicated" are Taiwan, Tibet, Kashmir and tens of other regions in the world. There will never be peace if we're OK with actions like this.
Sure, but on the other hand, it is maybe not helpful to oversimplify.
Because then your actions will not lead to more peace and just complicate things further.
Territorial integrity is often at odds with self-determination. In the case of Georgia and Ukraine the west argued with sacred territorial integrity - and in the case of Kosovo with self-determination. And russia argued reverse.
I have not been in all those areas, so I don't want to judge, but I do know that there was lots and lots of propaganda going on and allmost nobody really asked the actual people living there, what they actually want - which is what I prefer to apply in most conflicts. But this not so easy either, because ... does the vote of a person living there since only 2 years count the same as one whose family has been there since centuries? Where to draw the line?
Otherwise it gets ridiculed when for example occupying russian soldiers in chechenya gets the same vote as the people who actually lived there.
Because then your actions will not lead to more peace and just complicate things further.
Territorial integrity is often at odds with self-determination. In the case of Georgia and Ukraine the west argued with sacred territorial integrity - and in the case of Kosovo with self-determination. And russia argued reverse.
I have not been in all those areas, so I don't want to judge, but I do know that there was lots and lots of propaganda going on and allmost nobody really asked the actual people living there, what they actually want - which is what I prefer to apply in most conflicts. But this not so easy either, because ... does the vote of a person living there since only 2 years count the same as one whose family has been there since centuries? Where to draw the line?
Otherwise it gets ridiculed when for example occupying russian soldiers in chechenya gets the same vote as the people who actually lived there.
Crimea is an utterly simple issue with a crystal clear answer.
India is not a part of NATO. India was one of the leaders of the Non-Alignment Movement, but did certainly bend a little towards the USSR.
USSR and post-USSR Russia has solidly backed India in many issues. When the US imposed bans on export of vaccine raw materials even after a month of assurances of special waivers for India, Russia agreed to supply and produce Sputnik V in a heartbeat.
Historically, here's one example- when US Ally Pakistan was committing a genocide and ethnic cleansing on its own people [0] (now the country of Bangladesh), and India was funding and training the rebels, the US sent Task Force 74 to deter India. And Russia sent cruisers, destroyer, and a nuclear armed submarine to balance the situation.
India won the war of 1971. And the independent country of Bangladesh was born.
See- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_74
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide
USSR and post-USSR Russia has solidly backed India in many issues. When the US imposed bans on export of vaccine raw materials even after a month of assurances of special waivers for India, Russia agreed to supply and produce Sputnik V in a heartbeat.
Historically, here's one example- when US Ally Pakistan was committing a genocide and ethnic cleansing on its own people [0] (now the country of Bangladesh), and India was funding and training the rebels, the US sent Task Force 74 to deter India. And Russia sent cruisers, destroyer, and a nuclear armed submarine to balance the situation.
India won the war of 1971. And the independent country of Bangladesh was born.
See- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_74
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide
We also openly supported white colonisers in India like the Portuguese in Goa and the French in Pondicherry (just like Vietnam etc). We even voted against Indians at the UN in favor of white colonial rule of Goa (and even forced client states through coups/arms twisting to vote along).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa#UN_attempts_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa#UN_attempts_...
India is not part of NATO... I only meant the comment for NATO countries.
For India it does makes a lot of sense.
For India it does makes a lot of sense.
> I think the only thing we’ve ever really said no to was nuclear missiles.
Denmark also politely turned down selling them Greenland. Note American cold war operations had previously contaminated the area around Thule Air Base with nuclear waste. Having nukes there in the first place was also against a Danish policy, but big brother...
Denmark also politely turned down selling them Greenland. Note American cold war operations had previously contaminated the area around Thule Air Base with nuclear waste. Having nukes there in the first place was also against a Danish policy, but big brother...
Referring to this incident, presumably https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_cra...
In hindsight, Denmark should have sold Greenland after WWII. That would have saves us a ton of grief.
The Trump "offer" on the other hand was handled weirdly, Greenland is no longer Denmarks to sell. You can not sell a country you don't own, even if you help support it.
The Trump "offer" on the other hand was handled weirdly, Greenland is no longer Denmarks to sell. You can not sell a country you don't own, even if you help support it.
In what sense doesn't Denmark own Greenland?
Perhaps the Faroe Islands are a better example for most. They have pretty much the same status as Greenland, but I doubt that many doesn't view the Faroe Islands as country separate country.
Greenland governs it self, with the exception of foreign affairs and defence, and Denmark helps fund everything (around $500 Million per year). In return Denmark gets political influence that we wouldn't have otherwise. Nobody would care what Danish politicians have to say about the arctic, if we didn't hold influence over Greenlands foreign affairs.
The yearly economical support to Greenland is honestly the only reason Greenland isn't a fully independent country, but even if they opted manage their own foreign politics and defence, I think many might still want to keep the Danish Queen.
Greenland governs it self, with the exception of foreign affairs and defence, and Denmark helps fund everything (around $500 Million per year). In return Denmark gets political influence that we wouldn't have otherwise. Nobody would care what Danish politicians have to say about the arctic, if we didn't hold influence over Greenlands foreign affairs.
The yearly economical support to Greenland is honestly the only reason Greenland isn't a fully independent country, but even if they opted manage their own foreign politics and defence, I think many might still want to keep the Danish Queen.
Well, if you’re funding something you pretty much own it…
They've had had rule since 1978. They do send two members to parliament but they have say over their own matters, and people in Denmark generally agree this should be so. I doubt many Danish people would object if an independence movement were to grow.
Well maybe in the post WW2 days, but when Trump wanted to buy Greenland it wasn’t legally ours to sell.
Greenland has been moving steadily toward independence for quite some time. It’ll likely take a lot more time because “money” but it’s been a long while since we (as in Denmark) “owned” Greenland in the sense that it would be ours to sell.
Greenland has been moving steadily toward independence for quite some time. It’ll likely take a lot more time because “money” but it’s been a long while since we (as in Denmark) “owned” Greenland in the sense that it would be ours to sell.
> I’m Danish and this is a big scandal, but the reality is, when the US asks you dance like the vassal state you are.
That's so true, and one major reason why we need a powerful EU. Not sure if we'll make it though - with 27 different opinions and interests.
That's so true, and one major reason why we need a powerful EU. Not sure if we'll make it though - with 27 different opinions and interests.
The EU never stands up for itself anyway. Never supports its own Tech companies, etc.
Similar deal in Belgium. We have US nukes (against the will of the citizenry, but what can you do...). We were pretty much forced to buy the overpriced F-35s, while the rest of our military is basically falling apart.
When the NSA hacked the Belgium-based SWIFT banking system, the government pretty much looked the other way. There was a bit of a token response. But in the end, the puppet state danced to the tune of its puppet master.
When the NSA hacked the Belgium-based SWIFT banking system, the government pretty much looked the other way. There was a bit of a token response. But in the end, the puppet state danced to the tune of its puppet master.
American here. I agree we are a bully.
However, you have no basis for complaint unless/until you want to get off the american military tit. Based on a 2.5% GDP differential in military expenditures, the EU would be paying out an extra $350B a year to protect itself.
America should leave NATO, keep the EU cultural/trade relationship, and reduce our military budget by that amount, which would pay for our much needed "infrastructure" projects. Would have been $7T in the last two decades alone. According to the progressive theory, this would solve all of our social issues without increasing our deficit.
And our world might be a better place to live in.
Unfortunately, neither the Americans nor the Europeans would consider doing this.
You can of course decide to have less military, and pay less. Ask the Ukrainians about that.
However, you have no basis for complaint unless/until you want to get off the american military tit. Based on a 2.5% GDP differential in military expenditures, the EU would be paying out an extra $350B a year to protect itself.
America should leave NATO, keep the EU cultural/trade relationship, and reduce our military budget by that amount, which would pay for our much needed "infrastructure" projects. Would have been $7T in the last two decades alone. According to the progressive theory, this would solve all of our social issues without increasing our deficit.
And our world might be a better place to live in.
Unfortunately, neither the Americans nor the Europeans would consider doing this.
You can of course decide to have less military, and pay less. Ask the Ukrainians about that.
Same thing is true for the rest of Europe or at least the part that's in NATO.
Respectfully, this sounds like rant (without much substance) and a lot of arm chair military hoo haa.
I’ll tell you how this is going to go - HN will vote it to the top just like those discussions about Taiwan invasions. Juicy? Yes, pretty fun. Completely detached from the reality? I wonder what people who are familiar with the matter think. Gellman’s amnesia much! Inevitably it will get into a heated discussion with rocks thrown from a multiple sides, some China whataboutism and voila - you’ve got a bog standard classic flame war. Sigh.
Let’s talk about data collection and NSA, please. Not F-35s and nuclear weapons.
I’ll tell you how this is going to go - HN will vote it to the top just like those discussions about Taiwan invasions. Juicy? Yes, pretty fun. Completely detached from the reality? I wonder what people who are familiar with the matter think. Gellman’s amnesia much! Inevitably it will get into a heated discussion with rocks thrown from a multiple sides, some China whataboutism and voila - you’ve got a bog standard classic flame war. Sigh.
Let’s talk about data collection and NSA, please. Not F-35s and nuclear weapons.
The F-35 purchase is absolutely relevant because the NSA has been caught in similar shenanigans before and even in plain old industrial espionage in other European NATO countries.
Not sure how much of the outrage has reached the US, but here are some German sources from 2015 and 2017. I guess if this hadn't been uncovered, Germany would fly F-35s now as well:
https://netzpolitik.org/2015/internes-dokument-belegt-bnd-un...
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article162217929/So-spioniere...
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/nsa-airbus-pla...
Not sure how much of the outrage has reached the US, but here are some German sources from 2015 and 2017. I guess if this hadn't been uncovered, Germany would fly F-35s now as well:
https://netzpolitik.org/2015/internes-dokument-belegt-bnd-un...
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article162217929/So-spioniere...
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/nsa-airbus-pla...
It's not rant. It's justified indignation. We should definitely not have bought those F-35 pieces of shit.
I've been saying for years that our politicians are traitors, and yes our military intelligence has aided and abetted a foreign power in spying against Danish interests. Traitors.
I've been saying for years that our politicians are traitors, and yes our military intelligence has aided and abetted a foreign power in spying against Danish interests. Traitors.
It’s just off topic and a beaten horse.
Here is another thread on FP on the same topic and a much better discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27338555
Here is another thread on FP on the same topic and a much better discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27338555
In a thread about the US leveraging diplomacy to sway intelligence and military, the F-35 discussion seems to be well on topic. You might be tired of the horse flogging, but that's not really relevant.
The F35 purchase is part of the outcome of the illegal spying. Or rather there are good reasons to believe so. The US spies to get an upper hand in negotiations like this.
It was the same deal in a Norway with F35 and many other cases. When it comes to the US, there are so many irregularities and broken standard procedures.
It was the same deal in a Norway with F35 and many other cases. When it comes to the US, there are so many irregularities and broken standard procedures.
It's been in the Danish broadsheets, the stuff he mentions. I think it's reasonable what his complaints are, it just sounds like a rant because it's so wasteful.
It has been previously revealed that this scandal includes espionage against Swedish military industry, like the company SAAB, manufacturer of fighter jet Gripen, competitor of F-35.
Question: Is anyone really surprised about this? It's not the first time.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/nsa-tapped-g... (2015)
and Sweden also knows how to play this game
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7463333.stm (2008)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/08/nsa-tapped-g... (2015)
and Sweden also knows how to play this game
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7463333.stm (2008)
Apparently it is related to Denmark being a Nato member. And was targeting politicians in Sweden, which is a non-Nato member.
They target also include NATO members: "France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway"
Also Denmark itself and the US. Intelligence Agencies are simply out of control and a threat to democracy.
I think US is very good at taking advantage of Europe's dissidence. US and Europe are ally but US doesn't want Europe's countries unite, maybe they are scare when Europe becomes stronger.
It's standard divide and conquer strategy.
The US are much bigger in every way than any European country. That suits them and ensures the US' dominance.
The US are much bigger in every way than any European country. That suits them and ensures the US' dominance.
[deleted]