This example is often used to convince people that the Russians aren’t a scary adversary but this isnt a good example.
In 1940 the Soviet army was in a pretty bad shape, the Russian committed a fairly small number of personnel and equipment during the Winter and Continuation wars in comparison the initial defensive force in operation Barbarossa was 3 million soldiers, the battle of Leningrad seen about 6 million Russian troops in total and out of those Russia lost about 2 million.
While winning is winning Finland faught against an inexperienced, poorly trained, poorly equipped Russian army that at the time was fighting for essentially nothing.
Also that link isn’t the whole story Russia was fighting a trench and guerilla war in Finland until 1944 the Finns were very well equipped, well armed, and heavily supported by the Germans fighting while dug in on their home turf in a region where logistics were a nightmare and more importantly they faught against a very preoccupied enemy for those 3 years as Russia was invaded in 1941.
I also find it pretty amusing that people always mention the Winter war but not what came after I guess the time when Finland sided with the Germans, providing support and logistics including naval and air bases to the Germans and invadded Russia in 1941 which made the seige of Leningrad possible isn’t as foundly remembered.
> I also find it pretty amusing that people always mention the Winter war but not what came after I guess the time when Finland sided with the Germans, providing support and logistics including naval and air bases to the Germans and invading Russia later which lead to the seige of Leningrad isn’t as foundly remembered.
I don't envy the Finns of the 20th century. They were wedged in an extremely awkward spot for much of it.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t blame them the Germans were their only real possible ally it’s just amusing to me that people always seem to forgo that period.
That said the Finns weren’t as passive as one might think they sought out to gain the territory they lost and they went into the alliance with Germany quite willingly and even proactively.
You seem to have quite an axe to grind against Finland.
Since Soviet Russia was an ally of the USA and UK for the second half of WW 2, and Soviet Russia had already attacked Finland, still occupied large territories, and intended to take the rest of the country -- what were the Finns supposed to do in order to survive against the Soviets? objectively, why start a fight against the new enemy of their enemy?
Similar question for the people of Poland, attacked by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union at the outset of WW 2. Do you denounce them because some resistance eventually worked along with the Red Army when they pushed out the occupying Nazis? what about the resistance who fought against the Red Army?
What exactly in my post indicated that I have any axe to grind with Finland of all places?
Finland and Russia have a pretty long and complicated history dating to the napoleonic wars.
In more "recent" history Russia and Finland were at odds since the Russian civil war and the Finnish civil war that followed.
During the Finnish civil war the "Whites" which one were already supported by Germany with Mannerheim which remained the commander of the Finnish forces through WW2 having a pretty close relationship with Germany.
Overall even prior to the winter war Finland was not exactly "neutral" or to be more exact passive and the whole concept of "greater finland" after the Finnish civil war wasn't just a shrug.
During WW2 the Finns acted in their own best interest and they were not coerced into every action by either Russia or Germany as they had a pretty clear agenda of their own even if they could not act on it all the time due to well them being Finland.
To their credit they are the only country that managed to fight both the allies and the axis with the same government as after Finland broke the Ryti–Ribbentrop agreement by negotiating a separate peace with Russia (or well the Soviet Union) they had essentially to spend the next 7 months "fighting" the German forces with Russian troops supporting them nonetheless but for all accounts the "lapland war" had only a few engagements.
Russia invaded and annexed land from a neighboring country already in 2014 and hasn't toned down any of their rhetoric. It's not fearmongering when they proven that they will attack others.
That would be like calling an Islamic country fear mongering if they prepared for a US attack after the US said they had WMDs.
We (the USA) literally engineered a coup in neighboring Ukraine in 2014 in our continued efforts to surround Russia with military bases (as we do with every country that isn't a client state of ours). No matter how many times I see it, its astounding to see how the educated readers of HN are so totally ignorant of (even current) history and how susceptible to propaganda they are. It just goes to show how tenuous the relationship between education, awareness and critical thinking is - if it exists at all.
>“I think (Yatseniuk) is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is (Klitschko) and (Tyahnybok) on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week,” Nuland said in the recording.
Reality is a harsh mistress. The state of our current society, and the world, can be almost entirely explained by a near-universal ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills.
We have spent rougly $5.1 billion dollars via USAAID and other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies over decades to build our influence and work towards installing a friendly regime. This is not up for debate among anyone, in any country, that is even barely aware of the facts.
Assistant Secy. of State Victoria Nuland (and wife of arch neo-con Robert Kagan) was literally recorded discussing the coup with US ambassador to the Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt about who to install as Prime Minister before the coup happened. The veracity of this recording is not disputed.
Nobody remotely reasonable and intelligent can understand the history and the actions taken (let alone listen to the smoking-gun recording) and not be absolutely certain what took place here. That is even without considering the long, long history we have of toppling governments and regimes we deem "unfriendly".
I don't need to look up any of that to say that Sweden isn't being fearmongering. It could be a 100% true, but Russia still showed it was willing to invade and annex a neighbor, so it's rational to prepare defenses against them if you are in their neighborhood. This isn't a Russia bad, US is good thing. This is a reasonable response to any large power within range of you that has shown the desire to use military might to achieve their goals.
Well, it's dangerous to your population once you are attacked, especially by a superior enemy, but it's also a deterrent to attack in the first place. The net cost or benefit depends on a fairly complex balancing of concerns.
"In World War II, the Swiss had defenses no other country had. Let's begin with the rifle in every home combined with the Alpine terrain. When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home."http://davekopel.org/2A/OthWr/Target_Switzerland.htm
Swedish military doctrine was (and I expect remains) that: a) it is impossible to prevent the enemy from attempting an attack; b) we can make it as painful as possible to them, and our goal is to repel the invader from Swedish soil within days; and c) we will immediately mobilize all resources in the country to fight back, bringing hundreds of thousands of soldiers into their pre-assigned positions within 24 hours, abandoning all economic activity for the sake of total defense, so that whatever the enemy thought was a benefit in attacking Sweden, it will have been completely nullified.
Switzerland had a similar doctrine, and communicated it explicitly to potential invaders in the 20th century: try to invade the country and we will destroy all means of transportation in the plains, withdraw the army into mountain fortresses (e.g. air bases literally built inside mountains with tunnels serving as landing/take-off strips), and keep attacking you until the ends of time. Also, Swiss men keep their military rifles at home, with sufficient munition to fight their way to their assigned base in case of war.
It is interesting that neither country has been attacked over the last several hundred years, even while surrounded by fighting parties during WW II. I think armed neutrality is a beautiful thing.
IIRC, Swedish military doctrine assumes that much of their main military infrastructure will be quickly destroyed in an attack, so their forces are designed to disperse and operate from with minimal resources in difficult conditions. For instance, their main fighter is designed to operate from public roads with a small maintenance crew:
Sweden is already at war, this may be the first and far too late admission of that.
Sweden has been too lax on accepting migrants over past 5 years at least, allowing them to resist integration. There are areas of Sweden public utilities refuse to service, grenade attacks happen frequently and sexual assaults are becoming far more frequent.
Which areas of Sweden are being refused public utility service? Whenever I hear (primarily from xenophobic press in the US and UK) about "no-go zone" areas of Sweden, the response from Sweden seems to be a quizzical "what are you talking about?" Eg, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-po... .
After reading about Sweden's definition a few years ago, I think their definition is correct. Eg, if a married woman says that her husband has raped her ever other day for a year then that should be counted as 180 rapes, not the 1 or even 0 that it might be in other countries.
I watched the first video. In the interview, the ambulance union head says they go to the so-called "no-go zones". That is, they aren't literally "no-go zones". This is in line with calling it a "problem area", as the Snopes article uses it. This is not in line with legostormtrooper's claim that there are areas which are "refused public utility service".
The union leader also says there are non-immigrant neighborhoods which are also no-go zones.
Reddit is blocked here, so I can't read the second link. The URL includes "head_of_swedish_amulance_drivers_union_nogo", so I assume it's the same person making the same statements.
For a real "no-go area" I would expect it would be easy to find multiple sources that confirm that ambulance, power, water, sewer, etc. service workers are not able to enter.
You write "the number of reported rapes has increased markedly" and give a link to bra.se.
> The question posed on sexual crimes in NTU includes a wide range of crimes. It can range from minor events [like] flashing and groping, to very serious incidents of rape. Those who say they suffered must therefore answer questions about the severity of the crime. The responses show that in 29 percent of cases [have been] a more serious form of sexual crimes, says Emelie Hambrook, investigator at the National Council.
That is, the graph you linked to is not for "reported rapes" but is for "sexual crimes" in general. Snopes goes on to write:
> While Brå noted that the broad category of “sexual crimes” had increased since 2012, the same was not true for rape. Another Brå graph shows that reported cases of rape (represented by the purple line below) did not spike suddenly after the influx of refugees in 2015 – instead, they dropped from 6,697 in 2014 to 5,918 in 2015 (about the same amount as in 2009).
And while the numbers have increased, they appear to be more due to changing standards of what "rape" means, including "As from 1 July 2013, the sex offence legislation was again made tougher; among other things rape was expanded to include cases where the victim reacts passively."
This seems to be in line with jaha's description of your "anti-immigration tirades", that is, it appears that you are misinterpreting information with a view towards strengthening a presupposed anti-immigration viewpoint.
'No-go areas' - which you might notice I put between quotes in my reply, the Swedish term 'Utsätt område' does not translate that well to English - is a term for areas where community service can not function as intended. If you fall over the literal term 'no-go area' feel free to use another term, the problem remains.
The Reddit link (which you can find by searching for the term) leads to a discussion on the linked video, this being a Reddit discussion common sense should be applied when reading.
As to whether the 'no-go areas' - or 'problem areas' or 'challenged areas' or any other term - are a problem or not becomes clear when you listen to those who actually have to go there to do their jobs: police, ambulance, fire department, mail, delivery, etc. There is a Wikipedia article on the subject called 'Vulnerable area' [1], this being Wikipedia it is a good idea to also read the 'Talk' page related to the article [2]. Suffice to say that the problem is real, the areas by any other name are in many ways different from the rest of the country and those differences are not experienced as beneficial by most inhabitants. You do not need to take my word on this (or anything else), if you are truly interested in the subject there are many sources to consult.
The discussion on rape statistics in Sweden is wide and varied, just have a look at the 'talk' page to the Wikipedia page on 'Rape in Sweden' [3] for some of these discussions. The actual page is less interesting as it does not state anything which has not been brought up yet and is, like the rest of Wikipedia, susceptible to the bias (in whatever direction) of the editor collective ruling over this area. The last BRÅ-report claims rape (as in 'fullbördad våldtäkt') increased by 10% from 2016 to 2017 and states at the same time that it is likely that 80% of rapes (without further specification so it is unclear whether this is 'anything called rape in Sweden' or 'fullbördad våldtäkt') goes unreported.
Something is worth mentioning though: both you as well as jahaja keep on mentioning 'anti-immigration tirades' and similar terms. Please read what I wrote and notice I do not mention immigration anywhere, it was jahaja who brought this up and started off from that base. I'm well-used to this phenomenon as it has been the norm in Sweden for the last decade to apply labels like those on anyone who voiced criticism on developments in society but it is unsettling to find this in a forum like HN where I'd expect a more objective approach to prevail.
The English phrase "no-go area" was the term used in the original Swedish conversation, so I don't know what your point is about bringing in a different Swedish term.
For example, https://youtu.be/ta5a02MzWjE?t=83 says "so called 'no-go zones'", and the following discussion continues to use the English phrase "no-go zones".
I agree that there is are problem areas. I pointed to a Snopes page which agreed there is are problem areas. But there aren't areas where the police don't go, which is what "no-go zone" was originally supposed to mean.
Once problem is when you jump in and ignore what I said and the evidence in the references I gave, and make statements which the links I already gave refute - and refute directly! It's as if you didn't even look at the links, much less make even a basic attempt at demonstrating the errors in the references I gave.
Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press. This makes it very easy to associate your terms with a xenophobic viewpoint.
You could easily have used "problem areas" or "challenged areas", and avoided that loaded term. Since you know the topic well, you are surely aware that these are the more nuanced terms for what the xenophobic press calls "no-go zones."
Since you did not, it's more plausible to believe you are engaged in a normalization strategy based on a sympathy with xenophobic viewpoints.
Such a strategy works better using dog whistles than outright anti-immigration statements. It can include, for example, highlighting the negative aspects of immigration, Islam, etc. when talking about Sweden. That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history.
Your statement regarding "I'd expect a more objective approach to prevail" is an example of your style. Rather than make a specific statement that you think I am biased or (I know you don't like them) a 'social justice warrior', you instead make an appeal to the vanity of other HN readers, implying that since they are objective, they should obviously agree with you, and that I and jahaja are making emotional, subject arguments that should be ignored.
Please read what you just wrote and consider the implications of your statements.
First: "The English phrase "no-go area" was the term used in the original Swedish conversation, so I don't know what your point is about bringing in a different Swedish term."
...followed by:
"Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press."
I used a term from the original video, quoted it to indicate it is a general term (as many such terms are, e.g. 'free trade zone' does not imply you do not need to pay, the 'fire brigade' does not start fires nor do they only extinguish them, 'rednecks' can have many colours in their necks and elsewhere, etc).
I tried to make clear to an unwilling reader that the term 'no-go zone' is one which is used for an area where public services like police, fire brigade, ambulance, mail and delivery are hindered by threats of violence. I do suspect you know this term is used this way even though, taken literally, it does mean something else. As I suspected you wanted to use this fact to denounce the actual content of the message I explained that in Sweden, for just those reasons, the term 'utsatt område' is used in preference over 'no-go zone' given the loaded meaning of the latter term.
Your reply just goes off on another tangent involving "xenophobic press" and "xenophobic viewpoint[s]", a story about "dog whistles", somehow you also mention islam and then conclude that "That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history".
Or it might be that I just pointed out Sweden has problems which need solving before trying to point the finger at that scary big Russian bear or other external factors...
Had you been arguing from a right-wing conspiratorial standpoint I would have suggested to take off your tin foil hat.
The term "no-go zone" has many different meanings.
In the context of this thread, I bought it up because legostormtrooper described areas which are 'refused public utility service'. This is surely a very strong definition of no-go area.
I mentioned no-go area in the general context as used in my country - I am an American - to mean an area where the police, etc. will not go or where the police have "lost control" of an area and the national laws do not apply.
Going then to the interview, the union head clearly stated that they do enter these areas. This is not the same as a no-go zone where people are refused public utility service or where police and rescue people will not go.
Therefore, when you use it to demonstrate that "no-go areas" exist, you are using it in a different sense than the original context.
Since I gave references which described exactly what I meant by "no-go area", and you gave a reference to someone using a different definition, I can easily interpret it as you not caring to consider what I was writing, perhaps because you have an ax to grind, or that it is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue and normalize the wider use of "no-go area".
But hey, I'm from the US, where we have many areas "where public services like police, fire brigade, ambulance, mail and delivery are hindered by threats of violence." As a kid, I remember stores of New York City where the locals called the fire department when there were problems because they were afraid of the cops. We had a standoff a couple of years ago where a self-styled militia had a standoff against the local authorities - and then won in court.
We've got many areas of the US which are effectively off-limits for blacks and other minorities.
If I'm going to accept your wider definition of "no-go area", then I want to see it really being used for something other than "places where we are worried about Muslim refugees and immigrants."
And that's why I keep referring to it as a xenophobic term.
As someone living next door. I am curious what Swedes actually think of this? Do you see the current Russia as a credible threat? As your country’s biggest security threat?
Denmark had the strategically well located island of Bornholm occupied by the soviets after the end of the 2nd world. But most Danes today would see the chances of a Russian invasion more remote than ever.
We are a NATO member I suppose that makes a big difference.
I don't see Russia as a threat to the entire Sweden. I do, however, consider Russia a threat to some key locations like Gotland. But as far as threats go, I consider Russia to be Sweden's greatest threat, even if that threat is rather small.
I don't think many people see it as an immediate threat. But between unpredictable American policies affecting regional politics or the global economy, the Chinese bullying countries like Norway and the Russians trying to affect politics in other countries this could all change relatively quickly.
I live in Sweden. The country is doing many... irrational... things these days. The country is for a large part dependent on imported foodsources, this in contrast to the way it used to be half a century ago so it is in a bad position if war or catastrophe were to actually happen upon it. The Swedish defence force ('Totalförsvaret', the combination of all military and non-military organisations responsible for the defence of the country) is in a bad shape and numerically not up to the task of repelling a serious offender - the estimates are that the defence would crumble in a matter of hours to some days at the most. Just last week the island of Gotland - strategically located in the Baltic - got a permanently stationed regiment again, something which was done away with at the end of the cold war.
Meanwhile last weekend two [1] people [2] were shot again in two days in Göteborg (edit: and I just saw that another likely murder victim was found today [2.5]), two attempted rapes in Östersund after which the police says they expect much more like this so people should not go out alone at night but they might as well get used to 'this being the new normal' [3], comparable to Sadiq Khan (the major of London) claiming that terror attacks are just part and parcel of life in the big city. Elsewhere a police station was closed because the safety of the people working there can not be guaranteed [4].
In other words, Sweden has much more to fear from the enemy within than from any outside aggressor. What made the Scandinavian countries into the success stories they've been held up to be for the last 50 years was for a large part due to the strong social cohesion and the inherent trust in authorities 'doing the right thing', this goes especially for Sweden. That same trust has now been broken, possibly beyond repair - this remains to be seen. The 'social contract' which provided a well-functioning welfare state at the price of some of the highest marginal taxes has been broken, Swedish healthcare is in a crisis with longer and longer waiting times, the once tranquil and peaceful society is now almost daily reminded of the changed reality by news of the next shooting/stabbing/rape/robbery, the police has lost control over a multitude of areas which are now under gang rule.
One of the things playing a big role in the large discrepancy between the words and deeds of those in power in Sweden is the upcoming elections in September this year. The ruling parties (social democrats and greens) both stand to lose a large part of their constituency while the one party they have all been accusing of being 'racist' - but whose politics the social democrats are now by and large claiming as their own - seems to be on a winning streak. That party has its roots in the radical right-wing movement which is the major reason for all other parties to shun them, even though they might end up becoming the biggest party in Sweden. Oddly enough the fact that the social democrats were in line with the German National Socialist Democratic Workers Party (NSDAP, better known as the 'Nazi party') before and during the first years of the second world war while the greens have a strong affiliation with both communist as well as islamist movements does not seem to be reason enough to shun them.
In other words, Swedish politics is a mess and it will take a long time to sort it all out. It is also uncertain what will rise out of the shambles.
"Comparable to Sadiq Khan (the major of London) claiming that terror attacks are just part and parcel of life in the big city"
I'm so incredibly sick of hearing this. It's completely a fabrication. That's not what the quote is, and the fact that people keep saying it is makes me think they have an ulterior motive for getting the quote wrong
The actual quote is this
"Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job. We must never accept terrorists being successful, we must never accept that terrorists can destroy our life or destroy the way we lead our lives."
The Swedish police force is both too small for the (growing) population as well as unprepared for the increasing violence these gang wars have brought to the country. If you want to read about it from the horses' mouth - the police union - you can do so here:
8 out of 10 police officers feel they rarely if ever have sufficient personnel for the task at hand. 8 out of 10 feel they can not fulfil their societal tasks sufficiently. 4 out of 10 claim that highly-prioritised issues get put on the back burner due to lack of personnel, the same number claim this stack is growing.
There is much more to be found on these issues, a quick search will give you enough if you're interested in the subject. I obviously am, living in the country and noticing the effects of these problems.
HN would be a slightly better place if you would stop derailing topics about Sweden (and more) into anti-immigration tirades which I've noticed you've done for a couple of years now.
Why shouldn't a citizen of a country offer their own perspective on their own country?
Immigration is not a one-size-fits-all policy to be exported from the US, every country has their own contexts and should be allowed to set their own guidelines around it.
Openly discussing current affairs is not 'cherry picking', not even in a country where mentioning those issues until recently was taboo. This is now changing rapidly, mostly due to the upcoming elections.
I would rather claim the opposite to be true: discussing this topic while not mentioning these issues would be cherry-picking. Intentionally leaving out certain issues while discussing civil defence - which this brochure is about - is a recipe for disaster, the proof of which can be found in several areas in Sweden.
It is rather depressing to see that openly discussing current affairs is deemed to be 'cherry picking' and, implied in many other comments, one of the many -isms.
Most people know exactly what kind of people are talking about a taboo, censorship etc while it's not nearly true - and even if one would say it exists, it would be well distributed. Unfortunately it consistently seem to be an exercise in futility to try to get through to people like yourself. That's why it's extra frustrating when the derailing begins.
"proof in several areas in Sweden"
This is so obviously alternative anti-immigration media - and that's being nice - rhetoric, as most of your posts reeks of.
There is no nuance like: "The police has identified certain areas where segregation and economic hardship have made these areas extra vulnerable to furthering their hardship to crime, gang formation etc. and thus needs a multi-agency approach to stop this happening". In your alt-media view this is turned into a cocksure "proof of no-go zones" and more falsehoods (I've read your comments you know).
You sure do like to place all sorts of stamps on people, don't you? 'alt-media', 'anti-immigration', 'cocksure ....', 'I know that the Netherlands have a lot of people like yourself'? You do realise that this is not a way to engender civilised discussion I assume, you may also notice that I have not lowered myself to that level.
Also, I tend to provide links which stave the things I discuss. You do not, instead you just claim that said things are not true - we just have to take your word for it as there is nothing else to follow. In this you do fit in quite well in that segment of the political discourse in Sweden which is often accused of 'fact-resistance', things are the way you state them to be no matter what they seem to be.
Come down from that ivory tower and discuss on equal terms, stave your claims with proof other than a raised voice and a collection of epithets and maybe people will actually listen instead of wearily nod their heads.
"I tend to provide links which [state] the things I discuss"
As an example of the anti-immigration rhetoric you use, I point to my reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17123963 which highlighted out the information you linked to didn't actually say what you thought it did.
What was particularly annoying was that your reply linked to a BRÅ report which is often cited in the xenophobic English press as indicating an increase in the number of rapes, when I had already linked to a Snopes article pointing out how those exact same BRÅ statistics weren't about rapes but about the broader range of sexual crimes, and how they could not be used to infer a spike in rape reports caused by the recent refugee crises.
What's the point of stating "claims with proof other than a raised voice" if you don't bother to consider them before re-stating claims which have long since been dismissed as unfounded?
Yes. Take the political rants to a site that encourages rather than strictly bans them. The internet is full of politics, is it so wrong that this one corner of it not be?
In that case this story should have been voted down or even flagged as it clearly is a political issue. Civil defence, the resurrection of the antagonism between 'east' and 'west', terrorism (look in the brochure, it is one of the discussed issues) - all politics. Even the history of the document itself involves politics, it being part of Sweden's avowed neutral stance in the east-west conflict.
Is is an ongoing issue that, when discussed, leads to the same conclusions. You clearly do no agree - which, given your posting history, also can be called 'a pattern of comments' - but that does not make my opinion less valid than yours. While HN is not meant for nor intended to discuss politics (something which you yourself also do rather often, as do many others) it is often difficult to avoid as politics touches many subjects discussed here, even more so now that social media and the accompanying #hash_tag_storms started to influence (and in some cases dominate, much to my chagrin) parts of the tech world.
Banning all political talk in not feasible. Banning political talk you do not agree with is censorship. Allowing unbridled political talk is Reddit. HN thus far has avoided the first, is partly guilty of the second and has not yet and hopefully will not devolve into the third. In an ideal world it would be possible to discuss these issues without the site ending up like a dung heap but alas, we do not live in such.
A country handing out a brochure on civil defence which was last published during the days of the cold war is a political issue. When that same country clearly has internal problems which threaten to overwhelm parts of society - something even the current government doesn't deny so it would be pointless to deny it here - my reply is very much in line with the subject. To get a better perspective on the situation in Sweden you might want to take a look at what neighbouring countries' governments - Denmark, Norway and Finland being the closest as well as the most interesting examples - state about Sweden and the situation here.
I do not know where you live so I can not make assumptions about your direct knowledge on the situation in Sweden. If you do live in Sweden I assume you follow the news - and by that I don't mean you only listen to Sveriges Radio, watch Sveriges Television and read Dagens Nyheter and Aftonbladet as that will give you a rather skewed image of current affairs. Read both national and foreign publications, especially those from neighbouring countries as these often have direct input but are not hampered by the 'åsiktskorridor' (look it up, it is a real thing). I you do not live in Sweden you can still do the same and draw your own conclusions but you will not have the experience of actually living in the place itself.
By the way, on the subject of me going on 'anti-immigration tirades' it might interest you to know I'm an immigrant myself. This gives me a perspective on the situation in Sweden which some natives lack, both because of my experience from other societies as well as that of my reception in this country.
> When that same country clearly has internal problems which threaten to overwhelm parts of society - something even the current government doesn't deny so it would be pointless to deny it here - my reply is very much in line with the subject.
This is just false. There is no "overwhelming problems" on the scale of this brochure. That's ridiculous.
I'm born and raised in Sweden - actually in one of the no-go zones you like to throw around - and I'm well aware of politics, media & history. In fact, I'm quite heavily interested in them all. This means I know exactly what kind of people uses rhetoric like yourself. "Åsiktskorridor" (which you for some strange reason find the need to add a source to Wikipedia for) which is just a bad name for thinking that "They don't like my opinions, and are for some reason arguing back to me!", "left-leaning" conventional media (even though almost all is liberal or moderate conservative, and certainly pro market capitalist), and using Breitbart style of alt-media as your sources.
I've read that you're Dutch. Doesn't change a thing though. I know that the Netherlands have a lot of people like yourself as well.
It's pretty crazy to see Sweden preparing for war against Russia, while a much bigger threat to both native and non-native Swedes resides in the streets of major cities like Stockholm or Malmo.
Or at least I can't seem to think of a single city in Western Europe where throwing actual hand grenades around is a pretty usual crime other than Malmo. [1][2][3][4]
71 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 129 ms ] thread> In the near future, Russia initiates a "silk glove" invasion of Norway to restart oil production, but soon uncertainty, chaos and danger erupt.
More here [1]. That show gave a really interesting look into how a Russian invasion of a Scandinavian country may look like.
[1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/02/occupied_...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelia
In 1940 the Soviet army was in a pretty bad shape, the Russian committed a fairly small number of personnel and equipment during the Winter and Continuation wars in comparison the initial defensive force in operation Barbarossa was 3 million soldiers, the battle of Leningrad seen about 6 million Russian troops in total and out of those Russia lost about 2 million.
While winning is winning Finland faught against an inexperienced, poorly trained, poorly equipped Russian army that at the time was fighting for essentially nothing.
Also that link isn’t the whole story Russia was fighting a trench and guerilla war in Finland until 1944 the Finns were very well equipped, well armed, and heavily supported by the Germans fighting while dug in on their home turf in a region where logistics were a nightmare and more importantly they faught against a very preoccupied enemy for those 3 years as Russia was invaded in 1941.
I also find it pretty amusing that people always mention the Winter war but not what came after I guess the time when Finland sided with the Germans, providing support and logistics including naval and air bases to the Germans and invadded Russia in 1941 which made the seige of Leningrad possible isn’t as foundly remembered.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War
I don't envy the Finns of the 20th century. They were wedged in an extremely awkward spot for much of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
Since Soviet Russia was an ally of the USA and UK for the second half of WW 2, and Soviet Russia had already attacked Finland, still occupied large territories, and intended to take the rest of the country -- what were the Finns supposed to do in order to survive against the Soviets? objectively, why start a fight against the new enemy of their enemy?
Similar question for the people of Poland, attacked by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union at the outset of WW 2. Do you denounce them because some resistance eventually worked along with the Red Army when they pushed out the occupying Nazis? what about the resistance who fought against the Red Army?
During the Finnish civil war the "Whites" which one were already supported by Germany with Mannerheim which remained the commander of the Finnish forces through WW2 having a pretty close relationship with Germany. Overall even prior to the winter war Finland was not exactly "neutral" or to be more exact passive and the whole concept of "greater finland" after the Finnish civil war wasn't just a shrug.
During WW2 the Finns acted in their own best interest and they were not coerced into every action by either Russia or Germany as they had a pretty clear agenda of their own even if they could not act on it all the time due to well them being Finland.
To their credit they are the only country that managed to fight both the allies and the axis with the same government as after Finland broke the Ryti–Ribbentrop agreement by negotiating a separate peace with Russia (or well the Soviet Union) they had essentially to spend the next 7 months "fighting" the German forces with Russian troops supporting them nonetheless but for all accounts the "lapland war" had only a few engagements.
Finland also gave us the only known recording of Hitler outside of his speeches where he bitched about losing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_and_Mannerheim_recordin....
That would be like calling an Islamic country fear mongering if they prepared for a US attack after the US said they had WMDs.
>“I think (Yatseniuk) is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is (Klitschko) and (Tyahnybok) on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week,” Nuland said in the recording.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ukraine-tape/leaked-a...
This is literally Russian propaganda.
We have spent rougly $5.1 billion dollars via USAAID and other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies over decades to build our influence and work towards installing a friendly regime. This is not up for debate among anyone, in any country, that is even barely aware of the facts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/21/politics/dollars-for-demo...
Assistant Secy. of State Victoria Nuland (and wife of arch neo-con Robert Kagan) was literally recorded discussing the coup with US ambassador to the Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt about who to install as Prime Minister before the coup happened. The veracity of this recording is not disputed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk
Nobody remotely reasonable and intelligent can understand the history and the actions taken (let alone listen to the smoking-gun recording) and not be absolutely certain what took place here. That is even without considering the long, long history we have of toppling governments and regimes we deem "unfriendly".
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
That seems like a rather dangerous philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/do...
In Switzerland during WW2 nobody in the Federal Government (not even the head of the military) had the formal authority to surrender the country.
Citizens were instructed and trained to regard any news of Switzerland surrendering as propaganda.
Well, it's dangerous to your population once you are attacked, especially by a superior enemy, but it's also a deterrent to attack in the first place. The net cost or benefit depends on a fairly complex balancing of concerns.
Switzerland had a similar doctrine, and communicated it explicitly to potential invaders in the 20th century: try to invade the country and we will destroy all means of transportation in the plains, withdraw the army into mountain fortresses (e.g. air bases literally built inside mountains with tunnels serving as landing/take-off strips), and keep attacking you until the ends of time. Also, Swiss men keep their military rifles at home, with sufficient munition to fight their way to their assigned base in case of war.
It is interesting that neither country has been attacked over the last several hundred years, even while surrounded by fighting parties during WW II. I think armed neutrality is a beautiful thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Usability_a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip#Sweden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49L9BlYQSjw
Sweden has been too lax on accepting migrants over past 5 years at least, allowing them to resist integration. There are areas of Sweden public utilities refuse to service, grenade attacks happen frequently and sexual assaults are becoming far more frequent.
And the various claims about rape, sexual assault, and other sex crimes appears to be more tied to how Sweden defines and counts those incidents than anything else. Eg, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-... .
After reading about Sweden's definition a few years ago, I think their definition is correct. Eg, if a married woman says that her husband has raped her ever other day for a year then that should be counted as 180 rapes, not the 1 or even 0 that it might be in other countries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta5a02MzWjE
https://www.reddit.com/r/svenskpolitik/comments/5wgrzv/head_...
On the subject of Swedish rape statistics it is interesting to know that the number of reported rapes has increased markedly:
https://www.bra.se/brott-och-statistik/statistik-utifran-bro...
...the number of resolved rape cases has gone down:
https://www.svd.se/andelen-uppklarade-valdtakter-sjunker
...while the willingness to report rape has gone down as well:
http://www.bra.se/download/18.37179ae158196cb1721ac8/1483976... (page 9)
The union leader also says there are non-immigrant neighborhoods which are also no-go zones.
Reddit is blocked here, so I can't read the second link. The URL includes "head_of_swedish_amulance_drivers_union_nogo", so I assume it's the same person making the same statements.
For a real "no-go area" I would expect it would be easy to find multiple sources that confirm that ambulance, power, water, sewer, etc. service workers are not able to enter.
You write "the number of reported rapes has increased markedly" and give a link to bra.se.
These are the same statistics discussed in the second Snopes link I gave. Quoting now from https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-rape-capital-... , which quotes from the original report by Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention:
> The question posed on sexual crimes in NTU includes a wide range of crimes. It can range from minor events [like] flashing and groping, to very serious incidents of rape. Those who say they suffered must therefore answer questions about the severity of the crime. The responses show that in 29 percent of cases [have been] a more serious form of sexual crimes, says Emelie Hambrook, investigator at the National Council.
That is, the graph you linked to is not for "reported rapes" but is for "sexual crimes" in general. Snopes goes on to write:
> While Brå noted that the broad category of “sexual crimes” had increased since 2012, the same was not true for rape. Another Brå graph shows that reported cases of rape (represented by the purple line below) did not spike suddenly after the influx of refugees in 2015 – instead, they dropped from 6,697 in 2014 to 5,918 in 2015 (about the same amount as in 2009).
And while the numbers have increased, they appear to be more due to changing standards of what "rape" means, including "As from 1 July 2013, the sex offence legislation was again made tougher; among other things rape was expanded to include cases where the victim reacts passively."
This seems to be in line with jaha's description of your "anti-immigration tirades", that is, it appears that you are misinterpreting information with a view towards strengthening a presupposed anti-immigration viewpoint.
The Reddit link (which you can find by searching for the term) leads to a discussion on the linked video, this being a Reddit discussion common sense should be applied when reading.
As to whether the 'no-go areas' - or 'problem areas' or 'challenged areas' or any other term - are a problem or not becomes clear when you listen to those who actually have to go there to do their jobs: police, ambulance, fire department, mail, delivery, etc. There is a Wikipedia article on the subject called 'Vulnerable area' [1], this being Wikipedia it is a good idea to also read the 'Talk' page related to the article [2]. Suffice to say that the problem is real, the areas by any other name are in many ways different from the rest of the country and those differences are not experienced as beneficial by most inhabitants. You do not need to take my word on this (or anything else), if you are truly interested in the subject there are many sources to consult.
The discussion on rape statistics in Sweden is wide and varied, just have a look at the 'talk' page to the Wikipedia page on 'Rape in Sweden' [3] for some of these discussions. The actual page is less interesting as it does not state anything which has not been brought up yet and is, like the rest of Wikipedia, susceptible to the bias (in whatever direction) of the editor collective ruling over this area. The last BRÅ-report claims rape (as in 'fullbördad våldtäkt') increased by 10% from 2016 to 2017 and states at the same time that it is likely that 80% of rapes (without further specification so it is unclear whether this is 'anything called rape in Sweden' or 'fullbördad våldtäkt') goes unreported.
Something is worth mentioning though: both you as well as jahaja keep on mentioning 'anti-immigration tirades' and similar terms. Please read what I wrote and notice I do not mention immigration anywhere, it was jahaja who brought this up and started off from that base. I'm well-used to this phenomenon as it has been the norm in Sweden for the last decade to apply labels like those on anyone who voiced criticism on developments in society but it is unsettling to find this in a forum like HN where I'd expect a more objective approach to prevail.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerable_area
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vulnerable_area
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_in_Sweden
For example, https://youtu.be/ta5a02MzWjE?t=83 says "so called 'no-go zones'", and the following discussion continues to use the English phrase "no-go zones".
I agree that there is are problem areas. I pointed to a Snopes page which agreed there is are problem areas. But there aren't areas where the police don't go, which is what "no-go zone" was originally supposed to mean.
Once problem is when you jump in and ignore what I said and the evidence in the references I gave, and make statements which the links I already gave refute - and refute directly! It's as if you didn't even look at the links, much less make even a basic attempt at demonstrating the errors in the references I gave.
Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press. This makes it very easy to associate your terms with a xenophobic viewpoint.
You could easily have used "problem areas" or "challenged areas", and avoided that loaded term. Since you know the topic well, you are surely aware that these are the more nuanced terms for what the xenophobic press calls "no-go zones."
Since you did not, it's more plausible to believe you are engaged in a normalization strategy based on a sympathy with xenophobic viewpoints.
Such a strategy works better using dog whistles than outright anti-immigration statements. It can include, for example, highlighting the negative aspects of immigration, Islam, etc. when talking about Sweden. That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history.
Your statement regarding "I'd expect a more objective approach to prevail" is an example of your style. Rather than make a specific statement that you think I am biased or (I know you don't like them) a 'social justice warrior', you instead make an appeal to the vanity of other HN readers, implying that since they are objective, they should obviously agree with you, and that I and jahaja are making emotional, subject arguments that should be ignored.
First: "The English phrase "no-go area" was the term used in the original Swedish conversation, so I don't know what your point is about bringing in a different Swedish term."
...followed by:
"Instead, you use a term with no nuance - a strategy which I only see associated used in the xenophobic press."
I used a term from the original video, quoted it to indicate it is a general term (as many such terms are, e.g. 'free trade zone' does not imply you do not need to pay, the 'fire brigade' does not start fires nor do they only extinguish them, 'rednecks' can have many colours in their necks and elsewhere, etc).
I tried to make clear to an unwilling reader that the term 'no-go zone' is one which is used for an area where public services like police, fire brigade, ambulance, mail and delivery are hindered by threats of violence. I do suspect you know this term is used this way even though, taken literally, it does mean something else. As I suspected you wanted to use this fact to denounce the actual content of the message I explained that in Sweden, for just those reasons, the term 'utsatt område' is used in preference over 'no-go zone' given the loaded meaning of the latter term.
Your reply just goes off on another tangent involving "xenophobic press" and "xenophobic viewpoint[s]", a story about "dog whistles", somehow you also mention islam and then conclude that "That appears to be what you do, based on my reading of your comment history".
Or it might be that I just pointed out Sweden has problems which need solving before trying to point the finger at that scary big Russian bear or other external factors...
Had you been arguing from a right-wing conspiratorial standpoint I would have suggested to take off your tin foil hat.
In the context of this thread, I bought it up because legostormtrooper described areas which are 'refused public utility service'. This is surely a very strong definition of no-go area.
I mentioned no-go area in the general context as used in my country - I am an American - to mean an area where the police, etc. will not go or where the police have "lost control" of an area and the national laws do not apply.
For example, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sharia-law-muslim-no-go-zo... .
It is absolutely true that "no-go area" is used more broadly than that, in general. For example, http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/16216099.Dog_fouli... is titled "Dog fouling making popular nature reserve 'no-go area'"
Going then to the interview, the union head clearly stated that they do enter these areas. This is not the same as a no-go zone where people are refused public utility service or where police and rescue people will not go.
Therefore, when you use it to demonstrate that "no-go areas" exist, you are using it in a different sense than the original context.
Since I gave references which described exactly what I meant by "no-go area", and you gave a reference to someone using a different definition, I can easily interpret it as you not caring to consider what I was writing, perhaps because you have an ax to grind, or that it is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue and normalize the wider use of "no-go area".
But hey, I'm from the US, where we have many areas "where public services like police, fire brigade, ambulance, mail and delivery are hindered by threats of violence." As a kid, I remember stores of New York City where the locals called the fire department when there were problems because they were afraid of the cops. We had a standoff a couple of years ago where a self-styled militia had a standoff against the local authorities - and then won in court.
We've got many areas of the US which are effectively off-limits for blacks and other minorities.
If I'm going to accept your wider definition of "no-go area", then I want to see it really being used for something other than "places where we are worried about Muslim refugees and immigrants."
And that's why I keep referring to it as a xenophobic term.
Denmark had the strategically well located island of Bornholm occupied by the soviets after the end of the 2nd world. But most Danes today would see the chances of a Russian invasion more remote than ever.
We are a NATO member I suppose that makes a big difference.
PS. The brochure can be downloaded here: https://www.msb.se/en/Tools/News/The-brochure-If-Crisis-or-W...
Meanwhile last weekend two [1] people [2] were shot again in two days in Göteborg (edit: and I just saw that another likely murder victim was found today [2.5]), two attempted rapes in Östersund after which the police says they expect much more like this so people should not go out alone at night but they might as well get used to 'this being the new normal' [3], comparable to Sadiq Khan (the major of London) claiming that terror attacks are just part and parcel of life in the big city. Elsewhere a police station was closed because the safety of the people working there can not be guaranteed [4].
In other words, Sweden has much more to fear from the enemy within than from any outside aggressor. What made the Scandinavian countries into the success stories they've been held up to be for the last 50 years was for a large part due to the strong social cohesion and the inherent trust in authorities 'doing the right thing', this goes especially for Sweden. That same trust has now been broken, possibly beyond repair - this remains to be seen. The 'social contract' which provided a well-functioning welfare state at the price of some of the highest marginal taxes has been broken, Swedish healthcare is in a crisis with longer and longer waiting times, the once tranquil and peaceful society is now almost daily reminded of the changed reality by news of the next shooting/stabbing/rape/robbery, the police has lost control over a multitude of areas which are now under gang rule.
One of the things playing a big role in the large discrepancy between the words and deeds of those in power in Sweden is the upcoming elections in September this year. The ruling parties (social democrats and greens) both stand to lose a large part of their constituency while the one party they have all been accusing of being 'racist' - but whose politics the social democrats are now by and large claiming as their own - seems to be on a winning streak. That party has its roots in the radical right-wing movement which is the major reason for all other parties to shun them, even though they might end up becoming the biggest party in Sweden. Oddly enough the fact that the social democrats were in line with the German National Socialist Democratic Workers Party (NSDAP, better known as the 'Nazi party') before and during the first years of the second world war while the greens have a strong affiliation with both communist as well as islamist movements does not seem to be reason enough to shun them.
In other words, Swedish politics is a mess and it will take a long time to sort it all out. It is also uncertain what will rise out of the shambles.
[1] https://www.svd.se/skottskadad-man-hittad-i-molndal
[2] https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/a2x8bA/person-skjuten-i...
[2.5] htt...
I'm so incredibly sick of hearing this. It's completely a fabrication. That's not what the quote is, and the fact that people keep saying it is makes me think they have an ulterior motive for getting the quote wrong
The actual quote is this
"Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job. We must never accept terrorists being successful, we must never accept that terrorists can destroy our life or destroy the way we lead our lives."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/mar/29/misle...
It makes me really want to disregard your entire comment when you say that Sadiq Khan just "accepts terrorism as part and parcel of living in a city"
https://www.polisforbundet.se/om-oss/nyheter/nar-farre-ska-s...
8 out of 10 police officers feel they rarely if ever have sufficient personnel for the task at hand. 8 out of 10 feel they can not fulfil their societal tasks sufficiently. 4 out of 10 claim that highly-prioritised issues get put on the back burner due to lack of personnel, the same number claim this stack is growing.
There is much more to be found on these issues, a quick search will give you enough if you're interested in the subject. I obviously am, living in the country and noticing the effects of these problems.
Immigration is not a one-size-fits-all policy to be exported from the US, every country has their own contexts and should be allowed to set their own guidelines around it.
I would rather claim the opposite to be true: discussing this topic while not mentioning these issues would be cherry-picking. Intentionally leaving out certain issues while discussing civil defence - which this brochure is about - is a recipe for disaster, the proof of which can be found in several areas in Sweden.
It is rather depressing to see that openly discussing current affairs is deemed to be 'cherry picking' and, implied in many other comments, one of the many -isms.
"proof in several areas in Sweden" This is so obviously alternative anti-immigration media - and that's being nice - rhetoric, as most of your posts reeks of.
There is no nuance like: "The police has identified certain areas where segregation and economic hardship have made these areas extra vulnerable to furthering their hardship to crime, gang formation etc. and thus needs a multi-agency approach to stop this happening". In your alt-media view this is turned into a cocksure "proof of no-go zones" and more falsehoods (I've read your comments you know).
Also, I tend to provide links which stave the things I discuss. You do not, instead you just claim that said things are not true - we just have to take your word for it as there is nothing else to follow. In this you do fit in quite well in that segment of the political discourse in Sweden which is often accused of 'fact-resistance', things are the way you state them to be no matter what they seem to be.
Come down from that ivory tower and discuss on equal terms, stave your claims with proof other than a raised voice and a collection of epithets and maybe people will actually listen instead of wearily nod their heads.
As an example of the anti-immigration rhetoric you use, I point to my reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17123963 which highlighted out the information you linked to didn't actually say what you thought it did.
What was particularly annoying was that your reply linked to a BRÅ report which is often cited in the xenophobic English press as indicating an increase in the number of rapes, when I had already linked to a Snopes article pointing out how those exact same BRÅ statistics weren't about rapes but about the broader range of sexual crimes, and how they could not be used to infer a spike in rape reports caused by the recent refugee crises.
What's the point of stating "claims with proof other than a raised voice" if you don't bother to consider them before re-stating claims which have long since been dismissed as unfounded?
Would you be complaining if his tirades were all pro-immigration?
Avoided the question
Banning all political talk in not feasible. Banning political talk you do not agree with is censorship. Allowing unbridled political talk is Reddit. HN thus far has avoided the first, is partly guilty of the second and has not yet and hopefully will not devolve into the third. In an ideal world it would be possible to discuss these issues without the site ending up like a dung heap but alas, we do not live in such.
I do not know where you live so I can not make assumptions about your direct knowledge on the situation in Sweden. If you do live in Sweden I assume you follow the news - and by that I don't mean you only listen to Sveriges Radio, watch Sveriges Television and read Dagens Nyheter and Aftonbladet as that will give you a rather skewed image of current affairs. Read both national and foreign publications, especially those from neighbouring countries as these often have direct input but are not hampered by the 'åsiktskorridor' (look it up, it is a real thing). I you do not live in Sweden you can still do the same and draw your own conclusions but you will not have the experience of actually living in the place itself.
By the way, on the subject of me going on 'anti-immigration tirades' it might interest you to know I'm an immigrant myself. This gives me a perspective on the situation in Sweden which some natives lack, both because of my experience from other societies as well as that of my reception in this country.
This is just false. There is no "overwhelming problems" on the scale of this brochure. That's ridiculous.
I'm born and raised in Sweden - actually in one of the no-go zones you like to throw around - and I'm well aware of politics, media & history. In fact, I'm quite heavily interested in them all. This means I know exactly what kind of people uses rhetoric like yourself. "Åsiktskorridor" (which you for some strange reason find the need to add a source to Wikipedia for) which is just a bad name for thinking that "They don't like my opinions, and are for some reason arguing back to me!", "left-leaning" conventional media (even though almost all is liberal or moderate conservative, and certainly pro market capitalist), and using Breitbart style of alt-media as your sources.
I've read that you're Dutch. Doesn't change a thing though. I know that the Netherlands have a lot of people like yourself as well.
Or at least I can't seem to think of a single city in Western Europe where throwing actual hand grenades around is a pretty usual crime other than Malmo. [1][2][3][4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grenade_attacks_in_Swe...
[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43667367
[3] http://www.euronews.com/2018/04/10/sweden-has-a-problem-with...
[4] https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/violent-crime-in-sweden-...