Welcome to Sidelinje, the podcast for political homeless.
People who are trending feel that they are
a bit philosophical still.
Around the house today, period drinkers Trond Sørensen
and myself, Vegard Nathnes.
Period drinkers, not Vegard Nathnes.
You look good for your age.
I don't even drink Coke Zero.
No, that's insane.
You, Vegard?
Yes.
When you grew up, you probably got a
visit from a guy who came with the
police.
And then he told you about the horrible
narcotics he was, right?
Oh, yes, yes, yes.
Yes, yes.
And he really told you how crazy it
is to go with you if you smoke
hash.
Yes, we even went on an excursion to
a local courtroom with a young, arrogant judge,
who stood trial over one of the ordinary
social workers, who had to stand trial and
say that he had done something wrong.
And of course it was drug-related.
Yes.
And this is what we can call propaganda
of horror.
And it has worked really well, because there
is no one in Norway who uses illegal
drugs.
No, no, no.
And we also saw the epic work From
Heaven to Hell, which is about some people
up in northern Norway who drive a moped
and take their first hash, their first joint.
Yes.
And then in a courtroom that feels like
a quarter, they end up tearing the track
in Germany.
Yes.
And die there.
Yes.
And this is a kind of propaganda of
horror.
If we just scare them enough, they will
never relate to it in a rational way.
Then they are just against it, and that's
what we want.
This has not been the most successful way
to approach this, but then it's rinse and
repeat.
Find a new way, a new place to
use this.
If at first it doesn't work, try, try
again.
Yes.
And then we can do it on climate.
Yes.
We're going to so-called dark pedagogy.
Yes.
And I think dark pedagogy describes this writing
program of Motterhus.
But why not take it a step further?
Exactly.
New research suggests using so-called dark pedagogy
in schools to increase climate engagement among the
young.
The method is to expose students to 11
-year-olds for strong negative sense impressions, such
as the smell of dead fish or videos
of burning koala bears, to express discomfort and
fear.
This is presented as pedagogy, but critical voices
may also call it emotional manipulation.
Or indoctrination.
Indoctrination, yes.
Which is what it is.
Yes.
It's not just what we call it.
It's a rational analysis of what this is.
This is completely crazy.
It's actually completely crazy, and it's so shameless.
And this comes from people who think that
we have such a well-organized goal with
what we do, that we can use any
method to get people to keep up with
us.
It's actually quite authoritarian.
Authoritarian and totalitarian.
And perhaps more the latter than the former.
Because the authoritarian is ...
To illustrate the difference, take a guy like
Pinochet.
Definitely authoritarian.
If you were too highly dissatisfied with him,
you got a helicopter ride.
Yes.
And that was it.
Strong means of action, but if you just
flew around and thought about yourself, but you
didn't do much of it, then it was
fine.
While the totalitarian wants control over both what
you think and how you live.
You should not be able to think your
own thoughts, and you should not have illegal
thoughts.
You should engage yourself.
Exactly.
You should have the right thoughts, and in
the right way, from the right source, and
with the right outcomes.
So if you want to follow these rules,
you just have to turn off this podcast
now.
No, but it's totalitarian in the right sense
of the word.
We take activism and bring it into the
school.
We influence the most vulnerable with the strongest
means of power we have for them, which
is the school.
Five, six, seven hours a day you will
be indoctrinated in this official propaganda.
And then you will come out of it
as a sound activist on the right things.
And I don't think these people themselves recognize
that this is totalitarian, because it is so
right and so important and so kind and
good.
But it is directly manipulative.
You manipulate people who have no conditions to
see through the manipulation.
That's one of the reasons why it works.
Because you do it when they are small,
right?
Yes.
Let's indoctrinate people while they go to kindergarten,
and then we use them as soldiers before
they turn 25.
And there is something deeply cynical about it.
Yes.
A quote here from Hanna Arendt.
The goal of totalitarian propaganda is not to
convince, but to organize.
And this is the organization of children's emotional
life to the benefit of a specific political
agenda.
And what was it?
Yes, on the most banal things.
Now we have just sent a man in
a Christmas tree to London, right?
Yes.
And the speaker of the house and everything
from Great Britain was there to follow the
cutting of the tree, and the mayor of
Oslo and the mayor will be there when
they are going to light the Christmas tree
in London.
Great tradition and all that.
And has nothing to do with anything else.
And what do you think is climbing up
in that tree?
An idiot.
Yes.
That Extinction Rebellion idiot.
I don't understand why they took him.
He's sitting there and hanging up in the
tree while a lot of people are trying
to get attention to something else that he
is passionate about.
Yes.
And it's like ...
Can't you just cut down that tree?
But he's up there, I guess.
Does the feeling come through him anyway?
Yes, the worst thing is that the tree
didn't even fall down.
Because they just cut it and attach it
in these hoisting cranes.
This could have been done nicely.
You could have just sent the Nissen to
London.
Yes.
Strap it on the boat and just send
it over.
With the tree.
They can use it as a Christmas star,
in my opinion.
Yes, he can sit up there as long
as he wants, in my opinion.
But there's no point in stopping the process
because he's sitting there.
And there's something about when people are so
indoctrinated and one-track minded, that they don't
feel their visitation time at all.
And that's a lot of the point with
the activism for Extinction Rebellion.
That they just want to bother people where
they're most irritated.
They think that if we bother people, they'll
start listening to us.
Yes, and it's like ...
I'm not sure about that.
It's not necessarily a good pedagogical approach.
It works as a pedagogical approach.
I actually think that they, to a lesser
extent, persuade people rather than irritate people.
Yes, and ...
There's a video where they sit on the
motorway in Røstia and block all traffic, right?
And then there's a guy who comes and
says that he's had enough of these people
here.
And in addition, he had a pregnant wife
who was going to the delivery clinic.
So he wasn't very patient with these people.
So it was like, let them go.
And to the applause of other mobilists, you
get this mess out of the way.
But it's like ...
The police are doing nothing.
That's the problem.
Yes, that's the problem.
There's no handling.
And this is outsourced to the police.
You don't really have the power to take
care of it yourself.
But when you call the police and they
come, you just stand there and watch.
Because they have a little too much sympathy.
But I mean, the way to handle this,
if you're going to be a serious state,
is to say, now we'll carry you off,
and don't do this again.
If they do it again, you'll carry them
off, and it'll be a mess.
And if you don't do that?
Yes, then you have to go up that
escalatory ladder, right?
But we have a state that is not
willing to handle it, because the purpose is
too good.
But I mean, if there had been neo
-Nazis who were trying to save the way,
then it would have gone pretty smoothly.
I think they would have dealt with colds
and tear gas in the first place.
Yes, and there's something about it that the
rules must actually apply to everyone.
It should apply to everyone, but we treat
things very differently based on how we stand.
They basically have a so-called good standing.
They just have a policy that kills half
the crown.
But they mean well when they do.
Yes, communism and Marxism have always escaped with
their crimes in some way.
At least in many ways.
But then it fits well to move us
into Oxford Dictionary's new word for 2025.
I must admit that I was very surprised
when I saw it.
Rage bait?
I don't think that's a 2025 thing.
No, it's just that the word has become
extra popular.
And here Extinction Rebellion has contributed.
Yes, I just realize that I think it's
at least 10 years ago.
I came into contact with the word rage
bait for the first time.
Yes.
So it's possible that those who run Oxford
Dictionary are just damn slow.
Yes, not as much on the internet as
the rest of us.
No, at the time very little.
They were very fast during COVID when they
were going to define anti-vaxxers.
They redefined it in just a few months.
From being one who is skeptical of all
vaccines to being one who is against anti
-vaccine.
Did you do that?
Yes, yes, yes.
Then I didn't get it with me.
Yes.
Okay.
I don't think so.
Then it was taken for granted.
So everyone got to write about it and
then they got to post their article to
relatively many.
As they should.
Yes.
Rage bait is the word of the year
for 2025.
The term describes content that is designed exclusively
to provoke anger and indignation.
It could mean something about Norwegian party politics.
Yes, you could say that.
I feel that they are constant rage bait
for my part.
And then they perhaps emphasize the essential point
that it is indicative of our time's media
economy.
Where the algorithms premiere conflict before consensus and
feelings before facts.
And it is reasonable to say that Extinction
Rebellion is also relatively algorithmically adapted.
Yes.
So, what should we say?
Society-philosophical, media-philosophical.
Then this is a topic that I must
say I consider to be a significant problem.
Because if you look at the media economy
on X, maybe especially because people have been
sharpest in the edges, then it is sharp
jokes that get attention.
And such reflected statements just disappear from everyone's
mind.
No one gets angry at you.
And that's something you can say something about,
using the name Suss-Bagdert 1977.
Yes, maybe I've been a little sharp in
the edges for a while.
Do you feel that it has worked?
The question is, what must be?
Yes, you do.
But in the end, you have to be
in some form of attention, positive or negative.
Yes, simply that for a while, at some
point I realized that the left had an
approach to the world.
Where they could afford to do whatever they
wanted, because they were so good.
And thus they could also attack people because
they were so good when they did it.
Yes, they can break the rules for good
debate.
They can be manipulative, they can cheat with
facts, they can do all sorts of weird
things and expect to get away with it.
Yes, but my approach then was that it
should be so uncomfortable to do it.
If you do not stop doing it, at
least do not do it so often.
I'm sorry, but if this is the way
you're doing it, then I actually want to
make the debate arena a little cheap to
be on.
Consciously.
Because if it's comfortable to be around and
react in this way, then it just becomes
more of it.
But if it gets uncomfortable, it's cheap, I
get a lot of shit thrown in the
face by it, then maybe I moderate more.
Maybe they moderate a little, at least.
So I do not know if that worked.
And then I have become much nicer in
the use of my ex the last few
years too.
I do not know, I feel that my
approach to ex has changed with the departure
of Tredahl.
God help, it was comfortable that he disappeared.
I saw so much of Tredahl.
I have never responded to anyone who has
written and has with uneven numbers muted him
and stuff.
I do not like to censor people, but
I got all Tredahl the whole damn time.
I have started to get on Facebook too.
But there he writes a little longer, and
then he just makes a lot of mistakes.
But he does not get as sad when
he has more signs, because then he feels
that he has to write more.
And then he actually has to start arguing.
And then he makes mistakes, time after time
after time, does not understand the world, does
not understand how it looks, and does not
understand what he has to relate to.
No, Tredahl is really the definition of rage
bait, for me at least.
Because it's so top-notch, idiotic, and cheeky,
and clumsy, and rude.
I have actually lost time to answer him
a few times lately.
I never get a response to that.
It may be that what he wrote was
not what he wanted to relate to.
For example, that you do not have so
much power on the far left against the
Labour Party, because the Centre Party may think
they have to go the other way.
Unfortunately, there are actually some parties on the
other side who often say that yes, you
are welcome here.
It's not entirely untrue.
And that's a good thing.
What is ...
I do not remember who it was, I
heard it said, but it was some kind
of left intellectual who said that the left
has a core of around 10% of
the voters, who are dedicated leftists.
And they typically divide between the Red Party,
SV, and MDG.
And the argument there has been that the
three parties should really just fight each other
to gather the troops.
Given the system we have, I do not
think that, if you want the left side
well, then I do not think it's so
smart.
I think they have such different profiles.
SV and MDG could have done it well.
But the Red Party has more to lose.
But my problem is that I feel that
I can beat SV and MDG together, but
I also feel that I can beat MDG
and the left.
And then the question is, can we beat
the left and SV together?
No, it's twisted.
It's twisted, but you can put MDG in
both camps in some way.
Except that then the left will be the
new SV.
Yes.
I think there is quite a distance between
the left and MDG as well.
It's a bit coincidental that the flag issues
are so similar in time.
Yes, I do not understand why the left
insists on driving the same flag issues as
MDG.
I think this is a good way to
get out of the barrier, so I appreciate
it.
You have already succeeded in that.
I will think about the next barrier.
A small barrier.
We'll see how long it takes.
Who comes first, right or left?
There I put the money on the left.
I have to admit that.
But I hope right too.
I have a chance.
No, but if you look at MDG and
the left, they also existed.
Climate and environment.
Obviously north-south in common.
A bit of a pragmatic attitude towards business
and employment and so on.
And now I mean it in a very
little precise sense, but they do not see
far from that we should also create values.
I think it applies to both parties.
And then they are both for the EU.
Maybe the most explicit EU supporters.
Maybe together with the right.
Yes, I think the right with the new
leaders will be very, very EU, EU, EU,
EU.
More than under Erna, who was probably there,
but I think she took it more down.
Yes, and I'm a little ...
What should I say?
The right has an element in itself that
probably appeals to leftists.
Because they have that very clear liberal elite
set with luxury sales.
They eat with a knife and fork.
Yes, but it is EU, Ukraine, climate, progressive
values ​​in some way.
And not to mention that everything is wrong
with that.
But it would have been nice if they
sorted a little more between the turns and
turns, and important and less important.
It hits me at least constantly that there
is more left in the right than I
am aware of.
And left understood as those attitudes.
So maybe, yes.
I do not know which parties could lock
themselves together.
SV and MDG.
And it's actually a little incredible to say,
but I think SV would have been more
edible or rational if they had absorbed MDG.
And that's a bit of a crazy thought.
Yes, because otherwise you feel that you lock
up MDG's program or listen to MDG's and
think that this was well thought through and
rational.
But we have that guy we talked to
so far.
At that event in Tavare.
Yes.
I do not remember what his name is,
but he's probably in Stortingen now from Østfold,
I think.
I mean, he's in a panel with an
MDG, a right-wing man and ...
No, sorry, a right-wing woman actually.
And an FRPR.
So it's the MDG we're dealing with, that
was the one who had control of things.
He understood a slightly larger picture of things
than these others did.
Yes, it was like that.
If you had to choose to vote on
one of them, you would have been him,
right?
Of the three.
And that was far from the worst people
from the right and FRPR.
Or was it Mollberg from the right?
And ...
Wasn't it Marius Nielsen from FRPR?
I'm actually not sure who came from FRPR
that time.
It's been so long since we've been allowed
to be a bit greedy.
Yes, yes, yes.
But if the three of them presented themselves
as what you had to vote for, you
would have voted for MDG.
Yes.
And how he survives in that party is
mildly incredible to me.
But that's how it is.
And as we mentioned, these are the parties
that are most eager to get us into
the EU.
What is the EU then?
Or ...
The EU is rage bait in itself, after
all.
It's rage bait.
An overnational muck organization that gets less and
less votes.
And who is at war with Elon Musk.
Of course, at war with Elon.
Yes.
And ...
Let's just read very briefly here.
The EU has submitted X, a vote of
1.2 billion kroner, for violation of the
Union's rules of entry on hate speech and
disinformation.
Elon Musk responds by calling it an attack
on freedom of expression.
And for support from Trump's administration in the
USA.
And that marks a clear front line.
And ...
Immediately, we want to say that Musk is
right.
When you make overnational hate speech laws and
disinformation laws, which in a way trump the
member states' possible freedom of expression and laws
around it, then it's very strange.
Yes, I think it's reasonable to say that
we are skeptical of all such hate speech
laws and freedom of expression-limited laws.
Because there is always a problem with who
decides what is right and what is not.
And there are always selective exercises of these
laws.
And it is reasonable to say that I
think the EU can be blamed for this
as well.
Because the vote they are now submitting, 1
.2 billion we have written here, I read
somewhere it was 1.4 billion, but the
same as that.
It's just a calculation course from the Euro.
But that vote is the first.
It is the first time they use this
law against someone.
And it seems a bit convincing that it
is against our time's buzzy man, seen from
their point of view, Elon Musk.
Because there is a lot of weirdness on
the internet in many places, and there was
a lot of weirdness on Twitter.
We always see that there is a lot
of weirdness on Blue Sky.
There is actually a lot of weirdness.
But it is Elon who becomes the prisoner
for it.
And there is a problem here with vague
promises and great discretion in the implementation of
it.
It is almost entirely predictable who is going
to be hit by it.
It is a popularity competition, and it is
not Elon at the top of his game.
In no way.
And then the EU has gathered this power
in its own hands, and then they distribute
fines to people they don't like.
And the reason here is that X does
not moderate its content fast enough, or well
enough, or has the strength to do so.
And there you can say, I think X
and all these social media companies, but X
has really put the trend there, because old
Twitter was damn eager to raise their own
moral boundaries on things.
While Elon has been clear that we limit
what is forbidden by law.
And if what you say on X is
legal in the country you say it is,
then it is allowed to say it on
X.
Minus some of those, I don't know what
to call it, bullying campaigns and stuff.
Some of those terms of service stuff.
And then the problem arises that the EU
is not a country, it is not a
nation, but they have a rule that is
at the top of all the member states,
which does not deviate from all the member
states.
And normally the EU EU's rule will be
implemented in all the member states, but here
I have not seen anything like that yet.
And that is probably because it is actually
in most nations not possible to implement, because
it requires fundamental changes and so on, and
I am not willing to say that it
is not there.
But they can also sit at the top
and just, I hope, run this rule and
use this rule across all the member states'
own laws.
I have always thought that, I remember 25
years ago there was a case where the
EU bribed Microsoft for monopoly business.
Because they had such a dominant role with
Reinarc and Netlaser and Internet Explorer and Windows
and everything, and bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.
And then the EU found out that it
qualified for a clicker boot.
And then I was a little concerned about
open sources at the time, so I started
to do some research about Open Office.
And I mean, for 99% of users
Open Office is more than good enough.
You do not need Excel.
And Word.
I have used a lot of Open Office,
you can save things as Word formats anyway
there.
But what I thought that time, because I
ran a small blog with a friend, so
I checked what the EU uses for its
own office software.
Because it must be interesting if you think
that this monopolistic thing is a problem.
So you imply that there is a forced
situation in it, that you can not go
to other things.
But do you think that the EU itself
is paying a lot of money to Microsoft
to be allowed to use their software, which
they do not need?
– Of course it does.
– It's so great.
There is competition, and such a hand-raising
of tone and theme in what you talk
about.
It is so vague and so selective.
And it becomes selective almost anyway.
Because you can not follow everything, so you
have to choose.
But when you start choosing, you start choosing
what you like, what has a high media
profile, or what you do not like yourself.
There are so many doubts about such rules.
– Moscow has also responded by saying that
the EU should be put down.
And I feel that he is a little
right and a little wrong at the same
time.
Because the EU should be put down.
But then I think that it is needed
in some kind of format, some kind of
organization that organizes Europe, and that gives Europe
a collective power in some way.
When it starts to become such global position
wars around.
12s and unions and so on.
And then the question is, is it possible
to reduce the EU to what it should
be?
Or should it be reduced to the advantage
of starting something new and better?
– No, you can say that.
I have generally been so intuitively positive to
things that go down from up, rather than
up from down.
And the EU has become a very up
-and-down system.
But what we have talked about a couple
of times is this growing military cooperation in
the Nordic countries.
And with Great Britain and the Netherlands.
– We suggest that Great Britain should join.
And what did Great Britain do?
They joined.
– Everyone listens to their side.
– No, but the reason that it works
down from up and not up from down
is that down from up you find that
you know what?
We have, right?
In the Nordic countries there are geographic common
interests.
But culturally, things actually fit quite well together.
And we see that Finland has done a
lot of weird things on its world view
system.
And Sweden has done a lot of weird
things industrially.
And they have given it to Norway as
well.
And then it's like, you know what?
This all fits quite well together.
And then you merge it into a group
where the compatibility at the bottom is quite
good.
And then you spend a few years integrating
and formalizing and normalizing that cooperation.
And then it either works, or it doesn't,
right?
But if it works, then you suddenly have
an agreement to negotiate with.
And maybe you should cooperate.
It's not such a big cultural or physical
distance to Poland.
The Baltic countries sound like a natural connection.
And Germany maybe, who knows, right?
But it grows down from up instead of
down from down.
And you could achieve that within the EU
as well.
The Swiss neutrality is one thing, but that
they have a part in Austria and Germany
and Italy is also quite obvious.
And they even have some, right?
From the old Austrian-Hungarian empire and such.
There are some cultural roots.
And you see some interesting maps from time
to time with voice patterns that break with
established borders today.
But where you see that, oh damn, this
matches the old empire that was there.
Because there are cultural remains that are still
there, right?
And to build on that kind of thing,
that you see some common ground, and it
doesn't have to be the same organizations everywhere.
In some places you cooperate on trade and
business, in other places you cooperate on defense,
third place you cooperate on foreign policy, or
what do I know, right?
It gives some meaning.
And then you get a conglomerate of these
things, and then you find out that maybe
some of these areas can formalize some cooperation
between them, and then it grows little by
little.
And then you get something quite different than
what the EU is, or tries to be.
But I don't feel that the EU necessarily
is what they want to be.
It's just that they are the natural consequence
of themselves.
Yes, but you had a driving force in
the EU, at least in the two generations
now, which aims at a very clear federalization.
So they want a union.
Yes.
And they want a union where the union,
that federal part of it, takes over foreign
policy, monetary policy, and all sorts of things.
It gives itself for a large part to
the monetary policy.
But it is interesting the relationship between federation
and confederation.
Switzerland is an example of a confederation, where
you have cantons, which are nominally independent, or
have their own legislature, their own parliaments, and
all that.
But they give power to the federal to
handle foreign policy.
And that's about it, if I understand Switzerland
right.
But that means that you have a federal
state that is quite firmly bound down.
In contrast to the United States, which is
not a voluntary cooperation, compared to a certain
civil war 150 years ago.
There was a degree of volunteerism among some
of these states in the United States, but
those who did not say yes, they were
forced to do something about it.
Yes, the idea is that you can not
sign up again, right?
And that is very clearly stated in both
the Constitution and the Civil War, and all
that.
Then there is one or the other guy
in Texas who thinks that Texas has an
exception here, but that's his own thing.
But the question is, what could you do
in Europe?
It is obvious that there are some natural
unions in Europe, right?
The Benelux countries have something in common.
Definitely.
At least with half of Belgium.
The other half has something in common with
France.
The Baltic countries have something in common with
each other.
They have some connections to the north, and
some to Ukraine, Poland, that direction.
And one thing in common that you have
in almost all of Europe is the problem
with Russia.
Yes, it is a focusing factor for the
time.
Yes, I think that the Baltics are perhaps
the ones who know the most about it,
and who perhaps have the most understanding of
what it actually is.
Yes, of those who are involved today.
I would like to mention Poland here too,
who have a little experience with it.
And Finland.
And it should be unnecessary to mention Ukraine
and Georgia and such.
They are not EU members, but it is
worth mentioning.
Because you get a little blind for your
own time and forget the history a little.
But it is Moscow's bullshit for 200-300
years now, where the only constant has been
that it is dangerous to be a neighbor
with what Moscow controls.
And if you look at the construction of
Russia today, it is a kind of cavalcade
over earlier sovereign nations, which are now districts
and oblasts and independent large-scale republics within
the Russian Empire.
And you see now being an independent country,
whether it is Ukraine or Georgia or other
neighboring countries.
Chechnya, for example, is very naturally its own
sovereign country.
But it is not.
And when one or the other collapse comes
in Moscow at some point, which I have
to admit that I hope happens, because there
is so much injustice in Moscow's name.
Yes, they are often referred to as Moscovites,
right?
Because these are the ones who stand for
all kinds of foreign affairs, pressure and make
wars and all that.
While the rest of the more rural Russia
is not so involved in that.
Some of the most absurd, and this is
something that you almost have to have a
historical view of it to interpret things correctly
today.
But now we constantly hear such reports from
the Baltics, for example.
So in Estonia you have a border town,
is it Narva?
Yes, the same frequency.
Anyway, there is a significant Russian population in
that town, 30 percent or something.
But it is traditionally an Estonian town.
But Estonia and the whole Baltic were just
occupied by the Soviets in the Second World
War.
And it was their independence for a few
years, and then BAM!
And then they were gone, and then they
were behind the cover.
And then Russia has thought that, yes, how
are we going to do this permanently?
We are forced to move a lot of
Estonians to the other side of Russia.
And then we move a lot of Russians
in there.
And then you have problems in generations afterwards,
right?
And they have done it everywhere.
Done in Ukraine, done in Poland.
After the Second World War, what did Russia
insist on?
Yes, we would like to move Poland 200
kilometers west.
Can we do that, please?
Yes, we have to do that.
And then you just move, you move the
country.
So there are, like, large Polish areas that
just fall into Russia and become ethnic borders
for Poles.
And then you move them out.
And then there are some German areas that
are taken over, and then you move the
Germans out.
Then there is Kaliningrad, which was just taken
over as a Russian enclave out there.
So there are some problems today.
But just, you have done this systematically and
in the long run, and with a kind
of eternal perspective, right?
But I experience that one thing is that
Russian apologism you see in some places.
But it is also the politics, the a
little bit so naivistic politics that is carried
out in the West.
That you kind of, you think they want
to, and it's just, if we talk together,
this will be good, right?
And then they use completely different and completely
unreasonable means, systematically, and over time, and over
generations, and centuries, which is completely unthinkable on
the Western side of this.
Because you have, like, you have put aside
that empire thing, somewhat at least, and thought
that, you know what, if we deal with
each other, then this will work out.
But when you are at the moment and
you see that, damn, there is a Russian
minority in the east, in Estonia, which, well,
they get a little annoyed, right?
And they feel inferior, and they listen to
Russian media, and there is a bit of
a fight, and so on.
So you have a little understanding that maybe
Russia has to intervene there.
Which was exactly the same incident that happened
in Crimea, in Donbass.
But the result is just a long-term
strategy.
You have pushed the Russians in where they
were not before.
Crimea was not Russian at all.
Before Catherine the Great came in, and then
you threw out all the Cossacks who lived
there, and then you sent a lot of
Russians in, and then you have a kind
of eternal spice barrel through the centuries afterwards.
I was about to say, you know that
you are actually arguing for re-migration in
every barrel.
Yes, you can say that.
I am very little supporter of that approach
to things.
But I do not necessarily argue for re
-migration, because now, despite everything, there are a
lot of Russian-speaking and so-called Russian
-loyal who are born and raised in Crimea,
and in Donbass, and wherever it may be.
And that is not something that comes without
a certain set of rights.
It is obviously not just to make up
a historical injustice that is 200 years old,
and just move all the descendants back to
where the ancestors came from.
You can obviously not do that.
But what you can do, is to have
the history with you, and be aware of
what has happened, and interpret things in light
of that.
And I think that must be reasonable to
do.
And it must be reasonable to be increasingly
less naive about Russian ambitions.
Yes.
But that may become a side track for
the exact topic in this episode.
A little trip on a side road, that
is not unknown to us.
No, it is not.
But we may call it for today's dose.
Have a good day.
Have it.
Thank you for listening to Sidelinja podcast.
Feel free to talk about us, like, share
and recommend us in your podcast app, or
share in the comment field on YouTube.
If you have any questions, suggestions, questions or
anything else, you can find all contact information
at sidelinja.transistor.fm