Welcome to Sidelinja, 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 Nøtnæs.

Period drinkers, not Vegard Nøtnæs.

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.

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,