7 ms·

Interesting read for a variety of reasons. As a countryman of Sweden, I think it's sad that we've been playing lapdog throughout history. Germany during WW2, a

by croon 10y ago

Interesting read for a variety of reasons. As a countryman of Sweden, I think it's sad that we've been playing lapdog throughout history. Germany during WW2, and now the US. The article refers to much less publicized occurances, but there's also lesser stories (but important signaling) like the piratebay court cases farce. Is Russia up next as our masters, when they want to secure their fiber pipeline? It's in cases like this that I wish that the EU was something better than what it is. If they want to enforce such federal level supremacy, why let the US pressure individual states?

seppin 10y ago
small countries often play small roles to larger ones, is there a need for the "lapdog" language?
- croon 10y ago
  If it's not in the interest of your population, then yes.
- henrikschroder 10y ago
  The cablegate diplomatic leaks showed that the relationship between the US government and the Swedish government - regardless of which block is in power - is basically that the US says "Jump!" and the Swedish government asks "How high?". Zero pushback. There's a huge difference between respecting a larger country and aiming for amicable relations vs. being a complete doormat.
berntb 10y ago
Regarding Sweden and WW II: If Sweden shouldn't have been a "lapdog" -- which side of the war should it have joined? With Norway or with Finland? Not a simple choice, neither now nor at the time. And regarding USA today: Check the democratic peace theory -- democracies don't fight wars with each others. (Not even USA. :-) ) So it is arguably in the Swedish interest to help all democracies be as strong and informed as ever possible. That said, I doubt the reason Sweden is such a handmaid to US interests was so philosophical, of course. Every country do realpolitik and lies shamelessly about it. We don't know what the US paid (hopefully not just bribes to Swedish politicians, old hatt/mössa style... :-) ). Edit: These comments really jumps up/down in votes. :-)
- ggame 10y ago
  Does covertly overthrowing a democratically elected government, installing a dictator only to later invade count as two democracies going to war? Otherwise it sounds like a very big loophole and one the US uses all of the time.
  - berntb 10y ago
    >> all the time Uh? What examples [of deposing democracies then invading when the dictator becomes too oppressive] exist after the cold war? Edit: Point is, there was a war of influence in the cold war; dictators played Soviet/West against each others for support. E.g. South Korea and Taiwan became democratic after the cold war, to not risk being ostracized.
    - croon 10y ago
      Which one? Also, why the limitation?
    - kurthr 10y ago
      Yeah, even Reagan (Grenada & Panama) and the Bushes (Panama & Iraq) pretty much installed democracies. The world is slightly different after Kissinger left office (Argentina)... realpolitik is really more of a Euro-Russian thing than a US thing. Although that could change again with the new president.
      - tormeh 10y ago
        You mean the US's middle East policy hasn't been driven by realpolitik? That it was idealistic? Why the has the US propped up so many dictatorships? Saudi Arabia?
        berntb 10y ago
        I think most people believe their own country's propaganda. :-) In Sweden, since that is the subject, we really used to be naive and trust what we were told. Some of the typical characteristics you saw, all the way back to before written history, is that we are group oriented and do what we were told. This made for a high trust society, which is probably what made the place work. But no more, the society elites are really destroying this trust now. That the democratic world supports Saudi A is an extreme example of realpolitik, of course. We need stability in that part of the world.
oskarth 10y ago
As another Swede, 100% agree. For another example, look into how Sweden treated Raoul Wallenberg who courageously saved 100 000 Jews in Budapest during WW2. I can highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Wallenberg-Marton/dp/B005X8V19S/ https://www.amazon.com/Wallenberg-Marton/dp/B005X8V19S/ Sweden is great in lots of ways, but that attitude in combination with Sweden's often holier-than-thou attitude towards other countries is really hypocritical. PS. As an aside, I remember when I studied mathematics in Stockholm a few years ago and there were FRA posters for cryptography internships on the wall. It seemed intriguing, if it wasn't for the employer. DS.
- croon 10y ago
  Thank you for the tip, I will check it out. Yes, of course! It reminds me of the times when you criticize something (in this case your country) and the other person replies with "then why don't you go somewhere else?". This portrays an adversarial relationship between the populace and the country, much like a consumer<->business, where you vote with your wallet. But I don't want another country to outcompete Sweden, I want Sweden to be better. But this does also raise another issue I forgot to touch on: How are we supposed to have a (representative) democracy when we first in 2013 [1] find out what the passing of "FRA-lagen" (proposition 2006/07:63) in 2008 was really about? [1] Translated news originally in DN: http://www.thelocal.se/20131013/50760 http://www.thelocal.se/20131013/50760
- AndyMcConachie 10y ago
  Some quick Googling says that Raoul Wallenberg died at the hands of the NKVD and that Sweden had nothing to do with it. What exactly do you think the Swedish government did to Raoul Wallenberg? Where can I find more information on that?
  - pnevmatico 10y ago
    He is implying that the Swedish government should have tried harder to rescue Wallenberg out of the Soviet jail.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
toyg 10y ago
The EU discourse is complicated, but in short: US interests and EU finances do not currently allow Europeans to develop a voice independent of NATO; and without a shared defense policy independent of US, there is little space for a shared foreign policy that can push back on this sort of topics. Ironically, what could change this state of things is the antagonistic US/UK isolationism currently on the rise.
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  I don't think it's ironic. In The Foundations of Geopolitics, Alexandr Dugin (an ultra-right wing thought leader that seems to heavily influence Russian military thinking) explains how to make Russia a superpower once again. Putin is reportedly a big fan. Dugin outlines a playbook that is chilling in its real world implications today. For example, he advocates propoganda aimed to have Britian leave the EU, the invasion of the Russian speakung parts of Ukraine, US to become anti-immigrant and isolationist and the ceeding of certain islands bacj to Japan to improve Russian relations and weaken Japan's reliance on the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics I've yet to find a complete English translation.
- alasdair_ 10y ago
  I don't think it's ironic. In The Foundations of Geopolitics, Alexandr Dugin (an ultra-right wing thought leader that seems to heavily influence Russian military thinking) explains how to make Russia a superpower once again. Putin is reportedly a big fan. Dugin outlines a playbook that is chilling in its real world implications today. For example, he advocates propoganda aimed to have Britian leave the EU, the invasion of the Russian speakung parts of Ukraine, US to become anti-immigrant and isolationist and the ceeding of certain islands bacj to Japan to improve Russian relations and weaken Japan's reliance on the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics I've yet to find a complete English translation.
eternalban 10y ago
> As a countryman of Sweden, I think it's sad that we've been playing lapdog throughout history. I wouldn't take it to heart. It's a matter of geography. You were caught between a rock and a hard place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poltava https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poltava https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_East_India_Company
matt4077 10y ago
I doubt that such cooperation is actually the result of (at least overt) pressure (and couldn't find anything in the article implying it). I think it may be the result of some more subtle mechanisms. First among them is simply that there's nothing wrong with the data collection in the first place, and that the US/NSA is on your side. I'm rather uninformed about Swedish politics, but a generally positive view of the US is shared almost universally among the European elite. Many have studied in the US, binge-watched The West Wing, or simply see the positive role the US has played in Europe over the last 70 years. The only exceptions I can think of are France and some left-of-left-of-center parties. Secondly, for someone working on or leading such efforts it's tremendously flattering to be noticed by the NSA. It may seem strange to think such basic emotions could influence policy, but I'm absolutely certain that there are people, from the actual programmers up to and including ministers, who love being invited to whatever the NSA version of WWDC is, and that they can influence policy.
ptaipale 10y ago
I don't quite understand this lapdog argument. For obvious geopolitical reasons, Russia is an existential threat to Sweden (and Finland, where I'm from, as well as many others of its neighbours) and seeking support from other major powers - the USA, and European integration - is quite natural because USA is not an existential threat to Sweden specifically. (EU is perhaps a little bit more so, particularly with some of the highly idealistic policies it has been up to). In WW2, what should Sweden have done? Looking from the place that lies between you and Russia, I think the Swedish policy was the wisest it can adopt and it succeeded very well: keep out of the war, keep up the defenses, do not antagonize anyone enough to test those defenses. And I appreciate the support Sweden gave to my country which was actually at war against the clear threat to Sweden, USSR, and and the endgame, against the has-been threat of Germany during Lapland war.

by croon 10y ago

seppin 10y ago

small countries often play small roles to larger ones, is there a need for the "lapdog" language?

croon 10y ago
If it's not in the interest of your population, then yes.
henrikschroder 10y ago
The cablegate diplomatic leaks showed that the relationship between the US government and the Swedish government - regardless of which block is in power - is basically that the US says "Jump!" and the Swedish government asks "How high?". Zero pushback. There's a huge difference between respecting a larger country and aiming for amicable relations vs. being a complete doormat.

berntb 10y ago

Regarding Sweden and WW II: If Sweden shouldn't have been a "lapdog" -- which side of the war should it have joined? With Norway or with Finland? Not a simple choice, neither now nor at the time. And regarding USA today: Check the democratic peace theory -- democracies don't fight wars with each others. (Not even USA. :-) ) So it is arguably in the Swedish interest to help all democracies be as strong and informed as ever possible. That said, I doubt the reason Sweden is such a handmaid to US interests was so philosophical, of course. Every country do realpolitik and lies shamelessly about it. We don't know what the US paid (hopefully not just bribes to Swedish politicians, old hatt/mössa style... :-) ). Edit: These comments really jumps up/down in votes. :-)

ggame 10y ago
Does covertly overthrowing a democratically elected government, installing a dictator only to later invade count as two democracies going to war? Otherwise it sounds like a very big loophole and one the US uses all of the time.
- berntb 10y ago
  >> all the time Uh? What examples [of deposing democracies then invading when the dictator becomes too oppressive] exist after the cold war? Edit: Point is, there was a war of influence in the cold war; dictators played Soviet/West against each others for support. E.g. South Korea and Taiwan became democratic after the cold war, to not risk being ostracized.
  - croon 10y ago
    Which one? Also, why the limitation?
  - kurthr 10y ago
    Yeah, even Reagan (Grenada & Panama) and the Bushes (Panama & Iraq) pretty much installed democracies. The world is slightly different after Kissinger left office (Argentina)... realpolitik is really more of a Euro-Russian thing than a US thing. Although that could change again with the new president.
    - tormeh 10y ago
      You mean the US's middle East policy hasn't been driven by realpolitik? That it was idealistic? Why the has the US propped up so many dictatorships? Saudi Arabia?
      - berntb 10y ago
        I think most people believe their own country's propaganda. :-) In Sweden, since that is the subject, we really used to be naive and trust what we were told. Some of the typical characteristics you saw, all the way back to before written history, is that we are group oriented and do what we were told. This made for a high trust society, which is probably what made the place work. But no more, the society elites are really destroying this trust now. That the democratic world supports Saudi A is an extreme example of realpolitik, of course. We need stability in that part of the world.

oskarth 10y ago

As another Swede, 100% agree. For another example, look into how Sweden treated Raoul Wallenberg who courageously saved 100 000 Jews in Budapest during WW2. I can highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Wallenberg-Marton/dp/B005X8V19S/ https://www.amazon.com/Wallenberg-Marton/dp/B005X8V19S/ Sweden is great in lots of ways, but that attitude in combination with Sweden's often holier-than-thou attitude towards other countries is really hypocritical. PS. As an aside, I remember when I studied mathematics in Stockholm a few years ago and there were FRA posters for cryptography internships on the wall. It seemed intriguing, if it wasn't for the employer. DS.

croon 10y ago
Thank you for the tip, I will check it out. Yes, of course! It reminds me of the times when you criticize something (in this case your country) and the other person replies with "then why don't you go somewhere else?". This portrays an adversarial relationship between the populace and the country, much like a consumer<->business, where you vote with your wallet. But I don't want another country to outcompete Sweden, I want Sweden to be better. But this does also raise another issue I forgot to touch on: How are we supposed to have a (representative) democracy when we first in 2013 [1] find out what the passing of "FRA-lagen" (proposition 2006/07:63) in 2008 was really about? [1] Translated news originally in DN: http://www.thelocal.se/20131013/50760 http://www.thelocal.se/20131013/50760
AndyMcConachie 10y ago
Some quick Googling says that Raoul Wallenberg died at the hands of the NKVD and that Sweden had nothing to do with it. What exactly do you think the Swedish government did to Raoul Wallenberg? Where can I find more information on that?
- pnevmatico 10y ago
  He is implying that the Swedish government should have tried harder to rescue Wallenberg out of the Soviet jail.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

toyg 10y ago

The EU discourse is complicated, but in short: US interests and EU finances do not currently allow Europeans to develop a voice independent of NATO; and without a shared defense policy independent of US, there is little space for a shared foreign policy that can push back on this sort of topics. Ironically, what could change this state of things is the antagonistic US/UK isolationism currently on the rise.

alasdair_ 10y ago
I don't think it's ironic. In The Foundations of Geopolitics, Alexandr Dugin (an ultra-right wing thought leader that seems to heavily influence Russian military thinking) explains how to make Russia a superpower once again. Putin is reportedly a big fan. Dugin outlines a playbook that is chilling in its real world implications today. For example, he advocates propoganda aimed to have Britian leave the EU, the invasion of the Russian speakung parts of Ukraine, US to become anti-immigrant and isolationist and the ceeding of certain islands bacj to Japan to improve Russian relations and weaken Japan's reliance on the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics I've yet to find a complete English translation.
alasdair_ 10y ago
I don't think it's ironic. In The Foundations of Geopolitics, Alexandr Dugin (an ultra-right wing thought leader that seems to heavily influence Russian military thinking) explains how to make Russia a superpower once again. Putin is reportedly a big fan. Dugin outlines a playbook that is chilling in its real world implications today. For example, he advocates propoganda aimed to have Britian leave the EU, the invasion of the Russian speakung parts of Ukraine, US to become anti-immigrant and isolationist and the ceeding of certain islands bacj to Japan to improve Russian relations and weaken Japan's reliance on the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics I've yet to find a complete English translation.

eternalban 10y ago

> As a countryman of Sweden, I think it's sad that we've been playing lapdog throughout history. I wouldn't take it to heart. It's a matter of geography. You were caught between a rock and a hard place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poltava https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poltava https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_East_India_Company

matt4077 10y ago

I doubt that such cooperation is actually the result of (at least overt) pressure (and couldn't find anything in the article implying it). I think it may be the result of some more subtle mechanisms. First among them is simply that there's nothing wrong with the data collection in the first place, and that the US/NSA is on your side. I'm rather uninformed about Swedish politics, but a generally positive view of the US is shared almost universally among the European elite. Many have studied in the US, binge-watched The West Wing, or simply see the positive role the US has played in Europe over the last 70 years. The only exceptions I can think of are France and some left-of-left-of-center parties. Secondly, for someone working on or leading such efforts it's tremendously flattering to be noticed by the NSA. It may seem strange to think such basic emotions could influence policy, but I'm absolutely certain that there are people, from the actual programmers up to and including ministers, who love being invited to whatever the NSA version of WWDC is, and that they can influence policy.

ptaipale 10y ago

I don't quite understand this lapdog argument. For obvious geopolitical reasons, Russia is an existential threat to Sweden (and Finland, where I'm from, as well as many others of its neighbours) and seeking support from other major powers - the USA, and European integration - is quite natural because USA is not an existential threat to Sweden specifically. (EU is perhaps a little bit more so, particularly with some of the highly idealistic policies it has been up to). In WW2, what should Sweden have done? Looking from the place that lies between you and Russia, I think the Swedish policy was the wisest it can adopt and it succeeded very well: keep out of the war, keep up the defenses, do not antagonize anyone enough to test those defenses. And I appreciate the support Sweden gave to my country which was actually at war against the clear threat to Sweden, USSR, and and the endgame, against the has-been threat of Germany during Lapland war.