Sweden and Finland Sell Their Souls For NATO Membership

They sold their souls for *nothing*. Despite all the histrionics about “Putin is Hitler!”, Putin is definitely NOT Hitler–the very worst his critics have accused him of doing is wanting to put back together the territories of the old USSR. Which doesn’t include either Sweden or Finland.

And despite Putin being a horrible man and his regime being a horrible one that loots Russia, putting back together the old USSR I believe is something that would be in the best interests of all its former citizens. The real reason that US foreign policy elites are so anti-Russian is not that they recoil at Putin’s barbarisms–oh no, their fine with our “friends” who do such things, it’s not wanting to see anything but a unipolar world. They don’t want any strong powers arising that can block US actions.

(But at the same time, they stupidly allow the export of US industry and know-how to China and elsewhere, all to make our elites richer, which means that means that the US *will* continue to decline, just in a less-obvious fashion. Which is dangerous, as we might find out in a real shooting war against a capable opponent that our military is just as overrated and over-hyped as Russia’s and all of a sudden too. Wars have a way of revealing emperors with no clothes).

Their souls?

Or something else?

You know, this isn’t surprising anymore. So many things (like this) make sense when viewed from a new Cold War perspective, which, I believe the U.S. is already fully committed to. Which, the U.S. is making very clear, you’re either in or you’re out. The rich countries are banding together to hunker out a 20 yr crisis that the U.S. is intent on causing.

The reasoning? Wealth. Same playbook as the original Cold War. They think the other non-aligned countries need our economic/technological input or else their economies will crash back to the Stone Age. And that is precisely what elite are going to attempt. Human rights? Piffle … this is war. The U.S. is going to crash it all, and on the theory that we’re the wealthiest country in the world, that it’ll be the last man standing and thus be able to reap the rewards. I believe this is a total world control gambit. If you’re not on “our side” the risk is too great. Thus, the neutral countries are falling like dominoes.

The clock is ticking. The U.S. will not permit the BRICs to rally around Russia and china to create their own currency system. They’ll act first. Act I Ukraine. If that doesn’t bring the world crashing to it’s economic knees … what is Act II do you suspect?

The U.S. played its industrial policy cards poorly, but its water under the bridge now. We’re cornered geopolitically to fall as the lone hegemon. But do you really think the PTB will let that happen? No. Cornered animals fight. And the U.S. is still an extremely powerful, and wealthy, cornered animal.

Concluding thought.
Perhaps the U.S. actually played it’s cards correctly from a pure power politics perspective. The interregnum between the last Cold War and now may have served as nothing more than the opportunity to plant billionaire seeds. You know, those powerful, cunning, sociopaths who have no conscience, no loyalty, to anything but global power and wealth. The communist countries let the foxes in the hen house. The institution that is the United States IS billionaires. Whose side will the foreign billionaires take when the chips really, truly, hit the table? And how well will those countries do in a fight if their billionaires turn on them Ayn Rand style? Are they going to side with the countries who “abide” billionaires? Or will they choose the countries that defend and nurture billionaires.

I think we know the answer.

Perhaps, DC. I’m not picking winners. Just calling the horses as I see them. My gut tells me though that (without going into conspiracy land) the billionaire chips lie with the U.S. because we turn ourselves inside out to cater to them.
We’ve had no problem in the past harvesting foreign resources and labor from afar.
The west wrote the book on predatory capitalism. The nascent upstarts have yet to even begin to experience what it’s fully aligned wrath can conjure.

Capitalism/imperialism didn’t just defeat Communism because of access to greater resources and the internal contradictions/frictions of Communist governments, it also literally beheaded any left opposition that cropped up.

I used to think that China was being authoritarian by blocking Western influences and still running everything through a dual control system. It might be that but it’s also absolutely necessary to prevent a decapitation attack. This isn’t paranoia, it’s borne out by 80 years of history.

Look at China and Russia today, or even Nicaragua and Iran and Vietnam, and think of the possibilities lost through Western instigated coups, killings, civil wars, etc., in the global South and in Southern Europe. Nobody in the 50s and 60s would think we’d end up in the mindless cul-de-sac we are currently in. It happened because there other possibilities were suppressed and undermined. If Western liberalism and capitalism can be truly rooted out, maybe a better world is possible even with the numerous crises ahead.

Also-Liberals can talk a good game, but they always revert to their class loyalties. (Says this highly privileged member of the Western liberal class.)

I’m not so swift to judge harshly. They made some compromises for what they see as a substantial benefit.

It doesn’t matter is Putin is ‘Hitler’, or just a greedy, asshole neighbor with a garage full of rusting nukes. Putin has said he sees himself as Peter the Great. There is an established and substantial fascist movement in Russia. Complete with oligarch funding, think tanks, and philosophical underpinning. They are ready to ‘make Russia great again’ independent of Putin so this issue is a long term problem. Collective defense is a reasonable response.

As for the compromises, well, as we all know there are always nuances, bureaucracies, conflicting authorities, contradicting agreements an, as always, multiple jurisdictions and courts ready to offer an opinion. In example: Nordic countries are known for their human rights policies. The policy they they might hand over a person based on a hearsay claim seems contradictory. It might take the courts ten years to figure it out. In the mean time the person may, or may not, be in custody. And a shift in venue may have to start the process over again.

Turkey may have received far less then they think. The view from a quasi-democratic autocracy and nominally Islamic state is slightly different from a liberal western democracy. It is not impossible to think both parties might be relatively happy.

They didn’t so much “sell their soul” as evidence trust in their courts to do the right thing.

As with most things, if the two sides agree wholeheartedly as to who is a terrorist extradition is likely to be swift and sure. Where they disagree it is likely to take longer, much longer.

Sweden and Finland seeking NATO membership immediately after NATO’s ill-advised eastern expansion finally provoked Russia into a shooting war in Ukraine demonstrates the power of the neoliberal narrative, if nothing else. That their first encounter with NATO’s darkside was with Turkey’s authoritarian politics and that did not dissuade them shows that the narrative still has them in their grip.

Sweden could very well fall suddenly into a deep pit of conservative reactionary authoritarianism — they have a lot of fairly severe political problems with their failed COVID policy, crime rates, a fragile monetary policy regime, and more.

“Sweden’s role in the Assange persecution doesn’t lead me to believe Sweden will be benign defenders of freedom”

I don’t see it that way.

Assange, IMHO, is not a freedom fighter. He looks to me to be a tool for Russia. He allowed himself to be an outlet for information, carefully curated to smear the Democrats and advance the cause of Putin’s man, Trump. Assange seems to have been motivated by a personal dislike of Hillary Clinton. She said some unkind things. Putin also hated HC , and every other strong female. He felt she failed to give him the respect he deserved. She saw him as a blustering bully.

Freedom has nothing to do with what Assange in any but his earliest days.. His claim that ‘information should be free’ is contradicted by his quick and easy release of information detrimental to his preferred targets while withholding information that might be detrimental to himself, his Russian handlers, and his false reputation as a ‘freedom fighter’.

At one point earlier in his career Assange tried to filter releases to try to keep people out of immediate danger. The abstract value of information freedom was measured against the very real-world fact that people could die. The attempt to filter the information wasn’t perfect but they tried. Over time Assange, and friends, got lazy and spent less effort to keep people from immediate danger. Eventually Assange stopped caring and simply transmitted unaltered whatever the Russian agents presented him with.

@bruce —
The first step in negotiations, possibly.

@ Eric

A “rules-based” neoliberal order with sanctions against individuals and corporate enterprises seems to be designed to close off the possibility of negotiation. There is no acknowledment of a legitimate party with interests — just rules that must be complied with. Or the badly behaved are excluded from the game.

Bruce,

I’m a licensed mediator as well as an attorney. I know a few things about negotiation. Rule #1 is to open with an offer you know will never be accepted. It’s difficult to get what you want when that’s your opening position. When I’m advocating as an attorney for my client, I speak softly and carry a big stick. Meaning, I show my hand as to the evidence I’ll be bringing to beat the opposing party over the head in court if they don’t negotiate.
Pretty standard stuff. Seems to apply here in re foreign oligarchs. I’ll note, the sanctions on them could be a lot worse.

Sweden didn’t sell their soul for this. Fairly definitely sold that off, for a song, years ago–see also Assange, Julian.

Not that we Canadians have much to say on the topic of continued soul-retention.

Bruce, you read that link I posted above from Bjarne Knausgard? Place your comment in the context of the article and see what you find. I’m not saying you’re wrong, in general. But does it hold up under a Cold War analysis where players are ‘forced’ to choose sides, or be branded as traitors by both sides.

That’s what I’m saying. The U.S. wants this bipolar world right now b/c it’s out of other options to maintain it’s hegemony. It’ll take it over multi-polar because there’s no ‘winning’ scenario in a multipolar world. Power concedes nothing.