4 ms·
I think it's pretty safe to say that the intelligence agencies of almost all Cold War era allies are still close partners. Governments on either side still gene
by brown9-2 13y ago
I think it's pretty safe to say that the intelligence agencies of almost all Cold War era allies are still close partners. Governments on either side still generally regard the other side as potential adversaries.
- Sharlin 13y agoOf course, the Swedes still officially claim to be neutral, like they were during the Cold War (and in WW2 and WW1). In practice, it's of course obvious which side they liked best.
- saraid216 13y agoThe socialists. Obviously.
- dragonwriter 13y agoSure, but just as the "democratic" side of the Korean conflict isn't the side of the Korea with "Democratic" in the name, the same is true of the "socialist" side of the Cold War. Leninist (and Stalinist, etc.) states, of course, liked to put "socialist" and/or "democratic" in their names, but the entire Leninist concept of party vanguardism is intrinsically both anti-democratic and anti-socialist.
- saraid216 13y agoI actually meant all the sides. Because Sweden ended up doing socialism best.
- gaius 13y agoI don't think it's nearly as clear cut as that. Neutrality means you're willing to work with whoever wins. It requires a high level of moral ambivalence.
- natrius 13y agoAn isolationist policy leads to a neutrality that doesn't necessarily involve working with the winner.
- oskarth 13y agoIf you are actively aiding one side or the other (or both), I don't think that counts as being neutral (if it does, it is certainly a very weak form of neutrality). Which is exactly what Sweden has done and is doing, dating back to at least WW2.
- rickjames28 13y agoOh please...is Sweden so socialist that there's an ambivalence of western vs eastern bloc ideology?