Vi er bare middels imponert over Infantino, EU og prislappen på nye ubåter

Welcome to Sideline, the podcast for the politically

homeless.

And for those who feel that they are

alive.

Around the house today.

The torch lights and carries Trond Sørensen and

myself, Vegard Nuttnes.

That was a cue.

That was a cue.

Now you have to go out and buy

tickets.

Because now you will meet up and go

by train, folks.

Then time and place and ...

Yes, that's more important that you have control

over us.

Yes, I can take it.

Wednesday at 4.30 p.m. Then we

meet at The Lannister.

Then there is a torchlight train for Maria

Corina Marchado.

I do not know if I said it

correctly, but I try as best I can.

The one who won the peace prize.

Arne, you have to come here to take

the Spanish pronunciation.

But anyway.

There it is to go by train.

Torchlight train for her.

Because we will do that since this association,

which one of those who have gone with

torches, has decided that they will not participate.

Then we do it instead.

Right.

She is simply on the right side, she,

Marchado.

Yes.

And that's too bad.

Then you can not be democratically established.

No.

Despite the fact that you are trying to

become a dictator to introduce democracy, you are

a coward because you want to become a

wrong dictator.

So we have to go by torchlight train

then.

Yes.

But we look forward to that.

So you meet at The Lannister at 4

.30 p.m. and then you go by

train a little later.

But we start there so that people can

get something to eat.

I think at six o'clock is the

official time.

Yes.

I think the official torchlight train is an

hour's time or something.

Yes.

Then they will be waving at everything else

at the hotel or the balcony or whatever.

Yes.

Then we will try to get hold of

it.

We have a torchlight train there, but feel

free to bring it.

Yes.

It is sold at some type, Claes Olsson

and so on and so on.

So it's things that are available to get

hold of, does not cost much.

It's a relatively cheap thing to use.

That's great.

Then we have said that.

But it's Wednesday.

Are we going to move on to something

else heavier internationally?

Yes, we have turned on an international tone

here with peace price and all.

Yes.

You trade locally, I think globally, yes.

Yes.

But there is more and more instability in

this world we live in, Trond.

Yes.

New alliances emerge, old institutions disappear.

And a resource struggle is emerging, perhaps.

Geopolitics is a lot about access to resources

and either people or people or minerals or

whatever.

And in Norway we have thought that if

we keep our heads in the ground long

enough, we can continue with our used guns

and our constructive attitude towards international institutions.

It worked so damn well in the 90s.

Yes, it did.

But they die in vain, and new things

emerge.

And one of those things is, now the

army was out in the field, and could

say that they have ordered four submarines, but

there will be two more.

And it will not be cheap.

No.

I understand that a submarine is something that

becomes expensive.

Yes.

But we now pay the same for two

submarines as we paid for the first four.

And that's a little weird.

Yes, I have to say, I think it's

a little weird, but what do I know.

So then they have to be able to

pacify Russian nuclear submarines, I think.

Yes, that's probably what they should be able

to do.

So that's probably the whole point of a

submarine defense, to be able to, on the

one hand, take out other submarines, on the

other hand, be offensive or defensive without being

seen.

Yes.

But in the defense policy, there is a

clear movement in the direction of, shall we

say, realism in Norwegian politics.

Here, frigates must be bought, there must be

strategically reasonable cooperation, when we see that the

United States is falling out of the periphery,

seen from our perspective.

Submarines are bought from Germany.

And then there has become a new defense

agreement.

Yes.

With Great Britain.

We just invited them a week or 14

days ago, and they took it to heart

and said, this was a good idea.

Everyone listens to us.

Yes.

But it is very natural, we said it

that time, it is very natural that they

join this joint command, which is Norway, Sweden,

Finland, Denmark, Iceland.

Yes.

And also Great Britain.

Yes.

And it is strictly not the same order,

I think.

I think this is a bilateral thing, but

cooperation is in anyway.

So the idea here is that British forces

get a larger and more permanent role in

the defense of Norway.

And I have to say that I feel

equal.

I was commanded at the Bardufoss airport almost

30 years ago.

And one of the roles I had there

was to be a liaison officer with British

forces, because they had a permanent training base

there called Clockwork.

So I had a British corporal who was

twice as old as me as such an

opponent.

And that was in itself both instructive and

interesting.

And I also learned that the beer the

British forces had at the barracks was much

stronger than what we had here.

Better beer, simply put.

I don't know if I thought it was

so much better then, because I drank as

usual, and then I got so full that

I couldn't stand on my feet afterwards.

That can be painful.

Yes, it was very unpleasant.

But step by step, European alliances are building

up, strengthened European defense, everyone is rising up,

spend more money, and have a clearer strategic

view that no longer has the security net

that the US has had mentally.

And it's a bit like that, because Trump

has not said that he does not want

to be a part of NATO, but it

has been interpreted that way.

And then Trump has said that you have

to start building your own defense.

And that's what you actually do in Europe

now.

Yes, and to be precise, it's not just

Trump who has said that.

All American presidents have said that since Reagan,

that you have to sharpen yourself.

Yes.

So Obama was also pretty hard on that.

And Jens Stoltenberg, when he was NATO chief,

was also pretty hard on that.

And then there is the geopolitical reality, which

makes it sink in, where Trump's re-election

is one of the geopolitical realities, where you

see these absurd agreement proposals in the war

between Ukraine and Russia, which Europe and European

powers have no influence over, because we are

just irrelevant, because we have not done our

job for so many years.

And then there is no longer a reserved

seat at the table.

And then you actually have to start tidying

up a bit in your own living room.

And it looks like you do.

And then it is interesting that this 28

-point plan, or whatever it is, it is

quite obvious that it will not be anything.

And then I saw an interesting, yes, partly

statistic, partly analysis here the other day, so

you do surveys, such Gallup stuff in the

US, right?

Who do you want to win the war

between Ukraine and Russia?

Which side do you support?

Should we send weapons?

Should we uphold our NATO obligations?

From an American perspective.

And what comes out of that statistic is

that it is overwhelming support.

Both for Ukraine, for NATO, for obligations.

And it's not nonsense either, it's like 65

% support Ukraine and 11% support Russia.

And then there are some uncertainties.

But that Trump-Vance, all sides are of

the same mind, is obviously not reflected in

the American people.

The support for NATO is overwhelming, and what

can be mentioned is that there is a

loose percentage in the local world, right?

Because there are 35% who do not

support Ukraine, and that sounds a bit high.

But as long as that war has gone

on, that number has never been lower.

So there is the greatest support for Ukraine

right now in the American people, according to

these surveys, than there has been at any

point in time before.

And that is mildly surprising to me.

It must be a bit surprising for peace

prize winner, Trump, to help carry.

Trump made me look at a drawing in

a building sports team.

So-called football World Cup.

FIFA World Cup.

That is the silliest I have ever seen.

Yes, it is very, very, it should be

said.

The building original who directed it, he can

get a picture of me.

The FIFA president.

And then there was someone to be the

host, except for him.

But now this FIFA president is not ...

He is not the most popular person out

there.

Gianni Infantino is a Swiss by birth.

But he has fled from Switzerland to Qatar.

And that's because maybe that's where it would

have been best to live after having given

the football World Cup to Qatar.

And no one really wanted them to have

it, but he wanted it.

And he is a corrupt devil.

That's probably his general view, that he is

the world's most official mafioso, corrupt, bandit thing.

And FIFA is a shit organization.

A shit organization that has a set of

rules that they completely threw off the boat

to be able to make a peace agreement

that could be made to be able to

give to Trump.

That was so embarrassing.

It was so embarrassing.

Obama had promised to be embarrassed about getting

the real peace agreement on a failing foundation.

While Trump seemed like he took this peace

agreement with a straight back.

Yes, he has asked for this, and as

far as I understood, this peace agreement came

to the table as a consequence of him

not getting the peace agreement.

Then he apparently called Gianni and said, you

have to make a peace agreement with me.

And he was really careful in his faith

in sabotaging football in the USA.

In the meantime.

To create an incentive structure.

Yes, but there are some of these cities

that we may have to declare not safe

to arrange a football World Cup.

So then you can't have a football World

Cup in these cities.

Because they are not safe.

And then he made a peace agreement to

him, and then he was so satisfied that

people could play wherever they wanted.

This is such an old man who has

gone through childhood.

It was really, really weird to watch.

It looked like a meeting at a bar.

A bar revue.

Yes.

Or a local Dig Dugnal was probably what

we meant.

How does such a person have influence over

anything?

And the direction of that stuff.

I see that people who are interested in

football also think this was totally cruel.

Yes, yes.

Just throwing away time, right?

For hours.

With nonsense and a peace price.

And you say to me, right, that you

have to follow this, Vegard.

And then there is a so-called withdrawal,

where you should withdraw something by chance, but

everyone withdraws their own country.

Yes, that was planned.

Yes, no one understood that.

The three world nations are supposed to be

first in each group.

So they didn't really need to withdraw.

They just knew which group they were supposed

to be in.

So this is dramaturgy for an 11-year

-old.

Yes.

Because everyone knows that the opening match was

supposed to be from that group, and go

to Mexico, and be with Mexico, right?

So it was just fixed.

So there were some matches that you already

knew when to go.

And you just had to make a lot

of nonsense out of it.

And this was even when Trump made a

little mistake.

Even he understood that this was just to

get these people on stage again.

Even Trump has longer social antennas than the

original picture.

Yes, and that's a good thing.

And after all that was going on there,

I realized that we got the death group.

Yes, this is the thing.

Sorry, France got the death group.

Yes, because the analysis is as follows.

The group Norway ends up in is the

death group.

And this is not a Norwegian analysis.

This is how you look at it on

a global basis.

The group that Norway ends up in becomes

the death group, because Norway is third, but

everyone says that they are much, much better

than that.

They should probably have been second, but they

are not, because they haven't played well long

enough.

And it's been a long time since we've

had anything like this.

That's why it's the death group anyway.

And that was the last time we were

in the US too.

That was the death group.

There you end up with 4 points and

the same goal difference on all 4 teams.

Yes, okay.

I know that.

No, but it's a very, very special thing.

Was that when we beat Brazil?

Yes, we beat Brazil.

I hoped we would end up in the

group with Brazil, because we have a bit

of experience with that.

Yes, so we have never lost.

Norway has never lost a football match to

Brazil.

And it is the only nation in the

world that has not lost to Brazil, that

has played against them.

There are a lot of things I don't

know about here.

Yes, we have good statistics there.

I understand that Brazil is good.

Yes, they have always been the world's best

football team.

But...

It's a country team.

But they are...

Yes, so I understand now.

It was France and Spain that you didn't

want to have.

And then there is Argentina and Brazil.

Yes, and then we got Senegal from Africa,

who are also very good.

Yes, and they were in the second group.

So that was the best you could get

there.

And then Norway was the best you could

get in the third group.

Yes.

So we are at the top of each

group.

Yes, I think that's good.

Then we get...

The downside is that we got matches that

go at a time when it is not

allowed to serve alcohol.

And that's actually the headline from VG.

Yes, it is Norwegian alcohol politics that is

challenged.

Let's hope that can lead to a little

adjustment in the rules and such.

It would have been nice with a little...

Now we have allowed serving until 5 o

'clock in the morning, because the match actually

ends at 3 o'clock.

But that's not what we were supposed to

talk about.

Football.

But...

It wasn't.

No.

But it was at least international football.

Yes.

But it was a little too much fun

to talk about Trump and Gianni and FIFA

and such.

Let it be.

Yes.

No, no.

It will be more...

It will be tight football coverage here on

the sidelines, I think, when we approach the

World Cup.

Yes.

I suspect that we will look at a

lot outside of sports.

Then of course I will watch football.

Without being too honest, I will of course

watch football.

Then you can come here and tell us

how it went.

Yes.

I think that if we get far enough,

you will be at the party anyway.

Yes.

When Norway beat Brazil last time, whether it

was the World Cup or what it was,

because I don't know what it was.

But I actually saw that match and was

at the party afterwards.

Yes.

Good atmosphere.

Yes, it was very tense.

But I don't think the football match was

so...

I don't remember anything from the football match.

I'm not going to go into details here.

It may have something to do with the

fact that I was not honoured when I

saw that match.

I remember that.

We were in the defence agreement with Great

Britain.

And that is a clear shift in Norwegian

politics, at least.

That we look more and more to Great

Britain to fill some of the vacuum that

the United States leaves behind.

The frigate purchase is a clear strategic link.

And then there is a concrete defence agreement

with British forces on Norwegian soil and all

that.

And the fact that we strengthen submarine weapons.

Because it was...

Ordered four, had an option of some more

to use that option, even though it was

damn expensive.

It's a bit like that, that I offer

questions.

I suspect that the demand for submarines has

risen quite a bit.

But it's also the price.

That's probably right.

And it's not like we're living in an

inflation-free time either.

Of course, when there are a few years

in between, it's been 56 years since we

ordered the first four, so it has increased

a bit on several fronts.

So that's how it is.

But it's not unfavourable for Great Britain, because

we're going to patrol the same sea areas.

The area between Greenland and Norway, with Iceland

and Great Britain in it, is an essential

strategic sea area.

And not to mention Svalbard as well.

I think that the most important function of

the submarines is to be able to block

the way in to where the Russian northern

fleet holds when it is not on the

sea.

Oh yes, on the Kola Island.

We just lie down outside and just block

the way.

Yes.

That's probably popular.

Yes.

If necessary, we can close there.

That would be nice.

And they have another place a bit further

in, in Russia, where there are a lot

of submarines.

It's a bit further in, and it's such

a cramped and difficult area to get into.

Yes, but the northern fleet is in Murmansk,

Kola Island and this area behind it, right?

And then you have Norway, Serbia and so

on.

Yes, that's what I was thinking.

Not Kola Island, but Murmansk and that part

there, but it's probably where the submarines are,

isn't it?

Yes, the entire northern fleet is stationed there.

And then you have the Baltic Fleet or

something like that, which is partly Kaliningrad, partly

St. Petersburg, but there it is cramped no

matter where they sail.

And then you have the Black Sea Fleet,

which is over to Brooklyn now.

A very strong submarine fleet.

Most of the ships are on the bottom

of the sea.

Yes, that's what I hear.

And then you have the Stirling Sea Fleet,

and it operates freely, but you can't do

much with it, because it's a part of

yours.

Instead of the four base areas that Russia

has.

I believe that the Ukrainians can manage to

reach out and take out some other systems

there as well.

They have shown themselves to be able to

...

Yes, it's almost continuous now, and they've been

working on that lately, that they're starting to

take out this shadow fleet for Russia.

Now there is a tanker and a cargo

ship that is smoking both here and there.

And I understand Ukraine's angle in that.

Russia tried to block the export from Ukraine,

they couldn't do it.

Ukraine exports, and now Ukraine responds with the

same mint and destroys the shadow export industry

to Russia, and they seem to be quite

successful with it so far.

We'll see how big and how much they

get, but now they send their own cruise

missiles against oil refineries, and I think the

average is that a couple of missiles go

every day, which takes out something industrial or

productive in Russia.

And that can be expensive for Russia's war

economy.

We'll see how well they succeed with it.

I think it was a bit of ...

Now there was something in Europe that didn't

think this 28 pound throw Ukraine to the

dogs plan was particularly good.

Yes, it was in the middle of the

tree.

Yes, but I have the impression that just

starting to take out that shadow fleet makes

Ukraine come in a slightly different position when

it comes to the front as well.

They don't need to let themselves be overtaken

to the same extent, because everyone understands that

if they continue to fight, it's not over

in three months or six months, but if

they take out the shadow fleet, they do

long-term damage to Russia's economy.

If your opponent is a competition, it's not

so easy to continue the war.

No, and it is.

I don't know how many ships are in

your shadow fleet, but it's not good to

say, because you don't know everything that is

and isn't, and it has other nations' flags

and such.

It can also be mentioned, I think all

the attacks on this shadow fleet and among

others the Turkish ship that was attempted to

sink, I'm not sure if it sank, but...

No, I don't think it did.

It was a bit low in the sea,

at least.

But as far as I have seen, there

have been systematic attacks that have not gone

beyond the crew.

Yes.

Beyond the fact that they had to leave

the ship.

So far, no deaths related to that, and

that's probably a wise approach from Ukraine.

I think that's very smart.

If you start attacking Turkish ships, and the

crew dies, it can happen that the Turks

start to mix up.

Yes.

In the wrong way.

Yes, and now it's not given that there

is...

The nationality of who is on board can

be anything, but the flag was Turkish on

one of these ships.

But that must be a bit risky for

the Turks too, that the ships with their

flag are rented out to this shadow fleet.

It may be less interesting if there is

a risk that the ship has to dock

to repair a hole.

It's costly.

Then it's not so interesting anymore.

That's a clear strategic part of it, from

the Ukrainian side, I would think, that you

do it a little unattractive to contribute.

What has also struck me is that they

have not taken out a tanker that has

gone up with oil.

When they have taken out, they have taken

out ships that go with ballast.

That is, just fill the tanks with salt

water and everything.

It's almost like they've made a wooden ball

and want them to do it.

Where they only have bunker oil for operation,

not full oil tanks to deliver.

Yes, and that is probably wise again, because

they are dependent on volunteers in the West,

and there are enough climate and environmental fanatics

here that they would have lowered their own

stars if there was any seafood that got

a black spot on it.

Yes, really well navigated geopolitics of Ukraine, I

would say.

Yes, at least it looks like that.

And then I'm going to give Russia's apologetics

right in one thing, and that is that

we get a rather skewed media image in

Norway, which is very friendly to Ukraine and

very hostile to Russia.

Yes.

And you can be aware of that, even

though I experience that right and wrong are

completely open doors, that Russia makes a mistake

in this conflict, and Ukraine has the right

on its side.

But that we get a rather skewed and

friendly image of Ukraine is relatively obvious.

I have talked to a Ukrainian, who is

not necessarily very political, but I was a

little interested in this corruption scandal in Ukraine,

where Zelenskiy's chief of staff had to leave.

And then I ask about these things that

...

Yes, there has not been a choice there,

right?

Not that it is actually illegitimate, because it

is a bit difficult to make a choice

when a seventh of your population is under

occupation and so on.

It can be a bit demanding.

Yes, and there are new soldiers on the

front lines, it's not so easy to ...

Yes, but that's the same.

Then I ask, yes, what is the feeling

on the ground in Ukraine?

Do you think Zelenskiy is involved in this?

That his personal is corrupt?

Yes, it is quite obvious that he is.

Of course.

His friends, his friends, his associates, he is

obviously corrupt.

Everyone is corrupt.

It is possible he is less corrupt than

others, but of course he is corrupt.

And then I talk about the situation in

Norway, and that the support for Ukraine is

still good, and then I get to Sweden,

but that's nice to hear and so on.

But don't send any money.

Yes.

Because everything is corrupt.

Send military equipment that cannot be used for

anything else, something that goes into the war

effort, and number it, so that you can

feel that every single thing is used in

the war effort, and not to be sold

on the black market or whatever.

So the support for their own authorities was

not the whole world.

No.

And this is just one person and one

point of view, but I had no expectations

that there would be a very clear, I

apologize, a Russian-speaking Ukrainian, who is clearly

on the Ukrainian side, no doubt about that,

and irritated by Russia and Russia's imperialism, but

also sufficiently committed to Ukraine's corruption and Ukraine's,

yes, rip in the skin.

Ukraine was an extremely corrupt country before this.

Unfortunately, it's a bit like those people who

were corrupt, they didn't think that maybe we

should let that be an advantage to defend

ourselves.

No, that's not true.

And then there are some, what do you

see?

Numbers that are completely insane, right?

There are 100 billion dollars that have been

lost to corruption.

A bit insane.

I actually have no intention or methodology to

understand the scope, because it is so foreign

to me.

So this Ukrainian I'm talking to, is asked,

yes, but in Norway, how much corruption do

you have here?

And then I answer, a bit Norwegian naive,

that we don't have formal corruption, like I

have lived here for almost 50 years, and

I have never experienced corruption.

Like I have never seen money in a

envelope under the table to get a job,

or at least not when there is something

publicly involved.

No, it's incredibly naive to think that there

is corruption everywhere, was the answer from the

Ukrainian.

And I agree that there is a lot

of weirdness in Norway, but the corruption, what

I would classify as corruption, goes through Stortinget.

Like, you have elected people from, take Einar

Førde, who gets his own statue back.

No, sorry, not Førde, I'm thinking of Opset.

A minister of society who has traveled to

Stortinget and brought home the goodies, right?

And gets the statue rebuilt, because there have

been so many motorways.

And it should be like this, yes, this

is legal corruption if you want, but it

is a corrupt intention, or something like that,

at least in my opinion.

But such servants who sell themselves, I have

to admit that I have never seen that.

No, it is something less, there is something

of it, I have seen some examples of

it, on some people in the municipal office

who have received money in order to build

houses, there has been something of it.

And then you had some, were there some

who allowed themselves to be corrupted in relation

to some purchase agreements for some buses a

few years ago?

That was also cash in hand in order

to justify their death, right?

I'm sure such things happen, but every time

something like this is revealed, it is so

embarrassing and career-destroying.

Yes.

Right?

It was just such a trivial matter, but

it was something about moss, or the sun,

or something like that.

Was there one guy who was going to

have something, I don't know, build something, or

something like that.

And then there was a friend of, I

think it was Valgjer Svarstad Haugland, or something

like that, and then Valgjer got involved and

called the municipality, or did something like, you

know who I am, and then it comes

out as a public matter, and it's like,

you don't have many legs to stand on,

as Valgjer did.

No, no.

And then the case was so small that

I don't think you got any major consequences,

or something like that, but it was like,

this is...

You get sanctioned very early in such a

process.

Yes.

It has consequences, quickly.

It does, and it should have.

And it's like, in those areas I think

Norway works quite well, because I think far

more people have so little lead in their

hands, over such power elites, that when someone

comes and tries to deal with the moss

like that, then it's quite a short way

to calling the municipality.

And then everyone is set on that if

that actually happened, then it should be on

the front page.

Yes.

Then we should, you should be allowed to

eat that.

You should be allowed to lie in that

bed when you first set it up.

Yes, and it's like, what is this former

party leader who had some sort of outhouse

that she hadn't built an apartment for, and

it's like, the smallest and biggest, what is

she now?

She is the minister who had built the

beach area.

Yes, demolished an outhouse to build a cabin.

And it's like, she got permission, while no

one else got it, right?

Yes.

And that is corruption in one way or

another indirectly.

But then it's also criticized, it's brought up

in the media, it's an embarrassing thing.

You are allowed to eat it.

Yes, and it's like, even smuggling, if it

is revealed, it comes up.

And I also think the risk of being

explicitly corrupt in Norway.

I know for myself that if I had

been exposed to it, sent a building application

or something, and then a bureaucrat calls back

and says, if I get 4000 kroner on

this account, then that building application can go

faster.

It's almost a bit strange that it doesn't

happen in some way, that some bureaucrats in

Oslo get money to actually do their job

a little faster.

But I just think, if I had gotten

that offer, then I would have put on

and not talked to this bureaucrat again, sometime,

but I would have gone to the media

and said that there is a corrupt bureaucrat.

It is completely unacceptable.

And it would have been like this, in

my head, completely, nothing can rest before this

four-night strike.

And we have strict rules.

And would it have gone the other way?

If I had said, you can get 10

,000 kroner in your hand to rush to

build my application, then my expectation would have

been that this bureaucrat would have called me.

Yes, like that.

And there is something about when you have

built a social structure that is trendy there.

And now I'm just talking from my own

point of view, then I think there is

little corruption.

We have some people from Bergen municipality who

go in there, one of these guys who

comes in, he is a very nice guy,

and he says, I am corrupt, because I

want coffee.

Yes.

And it is trendy so far, but corruption

is spreading.

Yes, and according to Norwegian rules, it can

still be corruption.

Yes, he said, I think it's okay to

get a cup of coffee when you come

into the office.

And he was a very nice guy.

And then there was one of the guys

who said, we're going out to eat and

have a few beers today, are you coming?

I can't.

I'm not allowed to.

There are clear rules for it.

And it makes sense.

Yes, it makes sense.

So I don't think it would have had

any special effect in that way.

But I don't think it would have played

any role if he got, it wouldn't have

affected his work, but it's just like he

has set the line so that he won't

get the opportunity to do it.

Yes, and perhaps the most highly profiled such

type-related case, is perhaps the Tønne case.

Yes.

Which Tore Tønne, former prime minister, who took

his own life after being dismissed or suspected

of being corrupt.

Because he had received a follow-up payment

from Stortinget, which he had a claim to,

but also received some money from some smuggling

company.

Via a well-known lawyer's association.

Via Bara.

Yes.

And I think there is a certain degree

of corruption on his private hands, and there

it is he, the Bara lawyer who proposed

this, Eriksen.

Yes, something like that.

Yes, or whatever his name is.

He couldn't be a lawyer, but he could

become a director in the Aker system in

Røkke.

Yes, that worked.

So...

The question is, was that corruption, or was

it like, you helped me with this, and

it cost you, so then you get...

Then I cover your back, because you did

the job for me.

But as a public servant in Norway, as

Tore Tønne was, and when those suspicions are

cast on you, and they hit hard, then

it's to the extent that you can't hold

out, that you get in the car and

take your life.

And that led to a discussion about media

coverage, and respect for ordinary people, and all

that, but it also shows how strong that

culture is, for not breaking the rules.

I've heard some call it conspiratorial thought, just

like Tønne, and how he got help, or

not, to just that.

And there are many...

There are many who think it's very strange

that such a guy had a gun, in

the first place.

Was it a gun?

I thought it was an Exos, was it?

No, it was a soldier, who shot himself

in a car, in a rest area.

Yes, okay.

I don't think it's hard to get a

gun, if you want one.

No, I don't think so.

But, okay.

Sad thing, but it illustrates some of the

attitudes to corruption in Norway.

Yes.

We talked about alliances, and it's not just

free and democratic countries that make alliances.

No, it happens that other countries do too,

like Russia, North Korea, for example.

Yes, and the eternal friendship with China.

Yes.

And then there is a group in West

Africa, who have found out that they are

going to have a so-called Sahel alliance,

where the military junta in Mali, as well

as in Niger and Burkina Faso, are strengthening

their cooperation.

Then they come up with many good ideas,

which are actually a bit recognizable here in

Norway.

Biometric ID cards, common currency, and therefore, to

cut off the bonds to colony France.

They have colony currency.

Yes, France is trying to boost the currency

they can use.

Yes.

And I understand that they are a little

annoyed by that.

Yes, it is quite reasonable to do just

that.

There is another one who is a little

annoyed by that.

It is Mrs. Meloni in Italy.

Yes.

She is chopping pretty hard and engaged in

Macron for his colonialism.

Yes.

Meloni has actually come to the conclusion that

it is time to sell all the gold,

or give all the gold the Italians have

to the Italians.

Yes, also.

Which is, because they have a gold reserve

for what?

150?

Yes, one of the world's largest, I think.

Yes, 150 billion euros or something like that.

It must be a significant gold reserve.

But what are they going to do with

it when they have run out of euros?

No, there is something with, they have a

significant state debt, which they could easily get

rid of.

I would have thought that when you get

rid of your state debt, you have to

take care of it by making a high

-profile promise to each other that we will

not enter such a state debt again.

So a constitutional amendment with that it is

actually not allowed.

Such early politicians cannot put us in a

new state debt without a clear plan of

payment and no reason to fund more debt

the next time.

You understand that you sometimes need credit.

You're going to rust up, or you're going

to do something.

But then you have to have built a

room to enter that credit.

And then you have to have some kind

of rule that says that when you first

do that, you have chosen.

Then you can not choose more credit for

new things afterwards.

Then you have to pay it down first

and so on.

And who knows.

Now it's a bit like what they have

in the US, where they have a VAT

bond.

It's just that they can vote for it

and lift that bond after a while.

That bond in the US is some of

the stupidest.

Yes.

It's...

Should we have a little more fire?

Yes, we do not have a law.

Yes, but we just move and change that

law for the last time.

Because we do this every year.

A very strange thing.

It is to that extent this Sahel alliance

gets some coverage in general.

Then there is coverage that says here are

some dictatorships that go together and form a

evil axis.

And that's fine.

Because it is.

Yes, it is.

It's shit whole countries, no doubt.

But I have to say, I hear a

little about French colonialism from others than Meloni.

It's not so much fun to talk about.

No, it does not seem so.

The thing is, what happens is that these

countries have a valid argument here, right?

They have a valid case when they say

that we do not want to fall under

French equality, we will in a way decide

for ourselves.

And that is a problem that they are

dictators.

Yes, and if I know the country in

that area correctly, then I do not think

they will do better on their own currency

than with the French.

So you can understand a French perspective in

that too, that the French are responsible, but

still better than ...

Irresponsible dictators.

Yes.

Yes, by all means.

And it's a bit ironic that you say

that there you want to get away from

the French currency, because we will decide for

ourselves, while in Argentina they say we would

very much like to be in a dollar

economy.

Because having our own currency does not seem

to be so good.

No, Argentina is a little further down the

street on having their own currency.

Yes.

So we'll see.

It does not look like there will be

a very immediate dollarization of Argentina yet.

But everyone knew that it would take some

time if you were to go there.

So we'll see what Millet gets.

But it is obviously an element of such

sovereignty in this new alliance in Africa.

And it is partly understandable, partly sad that

they are dictators, but a little difficult to

make a point of.

I have the impression that this French dominance

of the currency is quite lucrative for France.

There must be a reason why they do

it.

France must also take some money so that

they can make themselves more of a state.

Yes.

So we'll see.

But there is very little journalism on it.

And I could have actually thought to read

more about it, to understand more about it,

because the only place I pick up something

about it is in these speeches to Meloni.

And possibly she has cleaned Meli Bosen, but

they are also so rhetorically strong, i.e.

controversial, that they are perhaps more characterized by

being a rivalry with France and a criticism

of Macron.

So it can happen, there are some people

who are exposed here and there.

So I do not know what is really

true there.

I have not understood the system.

It may be that she just thinks that

the more I push for Macron, the greater

the chance it is that they get a

new election and get a new political leadership

or something like that.

And it is obviously politically favorable for Meloni,

so you should not take too good a

fish from what comes from there.

Or on the international arena, there is this

Project 2025, which was the painting for Trump's

second presidential term, according to some.

Yes.

It was such conservative environments that had put

together a plan to make it more effective

to get rid of what you should have

done in the four years you have.

There is an element that, yes, we can

read it more or less incorrectly.

We won't let anyone stop the US from

using our oil and gas.

And the US is now for the first

time energy-independent, which means that they care

much less about the Middle East than they

did.

And at the same time, there is a

pretty clear contrast to Norwegian energy policy.

Yes, here we have a very, very solid

energy-independent, and that should be completely black

and white.

Yes.

And there we have come a long way,

boy.

It's amazing what the politicians get when they

just put their minds to it.

Yes, or are we?

It's a question of who you ask.

If you ask anyone in MDG, they had

a huge victory in this state budget.

And if you ask the Labour Party people,

they say no.

What I know means that we will continue

to build out and perform for more oil

and gas production in Norway in the coming

years.

I suspect that the MDG line has just

killed itself now, because it is so unrealistic

and little connected to reality that there is

such a critical mass that does not care

anymore.

And now they are starting to get ...

I think that what first and foremost makes

this change, is that we are starting to

get a proper, good, professional opposition, don't you

think?

You have such sailors, and you have several

others who relate to the reality on the

ground, as we call it.

This is what reality is like, and then

you can fantasize that you have to create

a new reality, but it is not realistic.

Okay, we can make some weird statements that

you do not understand yourself, and other than

that, it will be as it will be.

We're going to do oil and gas, and

we're going to expand it.

Done.

It is quite obvious.

And when we talk about this geopolitical shift,

we are obviously entering an era of more

real political orientation.

And then there is hard power and not

soft power.

And minus nuclear bombs and military material, energy

is the main form of hard power, because

it is what you use for all kinds

of values.

I was about to say, very good climate

policy, would be that instead of delivering 35

% of the gas to Europe, Norway delivered

65% at the expense of Russian gas.

Yes, it must be relatively obvious.

It would have been very good climate policy,

because then the Russians would have lost the

war much faster.

And when they lose the war, it is

very bad for the climate to wage war

there, at least I think so.

They use a lot of energy to expand

values.

There has never been anything particularly good for

either economy or expansion.

No, the climate impact of the war is

quite significant.

Yes.

And that's what the type MDG and the

left have to do.

They have no problem looking past the climate

impact of the war.

No, they can actually do that.

When they are completely unambiguous in their support

for Ukraine.

And they should actually have that.

But at the same time, they want to

put in place a system where Europe is

more likely to be displaced by Russia than

by Norway on oil and gas.

And that is a self-evident, I think.

Yes, there is little connection in the halls

of politics there.

But I think the reality orientation that is

coming in the next few years, now that

you have that critical mass that is starting

to see, what should I say, the silver

lining, see symbolic politics for what it is

and real politics for what it is, then

I think you have to move very clearly

that we cannot risk an unstable energy network.

It does not work.

You have to have energy surplus to be

able to build new industries and to be

able to run the industry.

And all of it has to be competitive.

And Europe has to build itself up.

Europe has now built itself down over many

years.

You just have to turn that tree.

And what do you need then?

You need more energy so that the energy

becomes cheaper.

Yes, and you need very clear strategic autonomy.

And there you have to step back a

little from France.

They have always been very concerned about that.

So they have their, they see Rafale fighter

planes and their own nuclear weapons and everything.

Everything produced in France on the French production

line with French supply chains.

Not all the way, but as far as

practical, right?

And they build their own submarines and engage

in everything possible.

And it is not rational in the big

picture, because it costs.

But when you now build these alliances, we

are talking about the Nordic countries, Great Britain,

and certainly the Netherlands, Germany and Poland.

And that the supply chain is built up

within the alliance structures that make sense on

the ground.

So I think that energy policy issue will

also be brought into a clearer light pretty

soon.

Because it is so strategically important.

How do I see it?

Energy, if you have like, I think if

you have all the pillars for what is

needed for a good society, property rights, freedom

of expression, and so on and so on.

If you have a good amount of energy,

good energy, then you become a prosperous country.

Yes, and you can't wage war based on

windmills.

No, that doesn't work at all.

So there will probably be some nuclear power

in not too long.

There is a strong smell of nuclear power

in Norway in the short term.

I'm starting to think that we're going to

see spas on the ground in 2-3

years.

Yes, it almost has to be like that.

And then I think MDG and SV will

have to think about how they managed to

be climate-engaged for 15-20 years without

talking about nuclear power.

Yes.

It is so brain-dead.

Yes.

But it's about when you don't count on

things, the answers become weirder.

Yes, but you shouldn't count on it.

It's a penalty for coming to SV.

Yes.

But MDG should have had more control over

it.

Yes, but remember where they come from.

Yes.

It's the Germans, and this is a decision

by the German MDG, and it's a party

that in the meantime ...

They are fucking crazy.

They rose up to be against nuclear power,

in the meantime.

No, and there has been a continuous problem

with the climate movement, that it is built

on nuclear weapons.

Against them.

Yes.

And that has led to a lot of

shit.

But that's the way it is.

Maybe we'll go lighter earlier in the meeting.

Yes, I think so.

Shall we say it like that?

Yes.

Have a good time.

Thank you for listening to Sidelinja podcast.

Feel free to talk about us, like, share

and recommend us in your podcast app, or

share in the comment field on YouTube.

If you have any questions, suggestions, questions or

anything else, you can find all contact information

at sidlinja.transistor.fm.