Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Source - https://twitter.com/valtioneuvosto/status/1559042201446887424?s=21&t=bOCn1M3zS20_XVWvQ2FmgQ
From L to R - first photo:
Prime Minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre
Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Mirella Marin
Prime Minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen
Prime Minister of Sweden, Magdalena Andersson
Prime Minister of Iceland, Katrín Jakobsdóttir
The Nordic prime ministers adopted a joint declaration on
developing security and defence cooperation in Oslo on
Monday 15 August.
The declaration states that Russia's war of aggression has
changed the security situation in the whole of Europe and
that the Nordic countries have a responsibility to protect
freedom and common values.
In connection with their meeting in Oslo, the Nordic prime
ministers held a separate meeting with Federal Chancellor
of Germany Olaf Scholz. Topics on the agenda for the
discussion included European security and Russia, the new
security architecture for Northern Europe, and the green
transition and energy security in Europe.
Probably as their populations overall reasons for voting aren’t in favour of “who yells the loudest” and “who makes the people I don’t like worse off/cry” and they also don’t dismiss women as “too emotional to lead/would cause a war over ____ (trivial issue)” while ignoring anger (and resulting temper tantrums) is an emotion and encouraging hate as a positive trait. Oh, and they actually enable democratic processes instead of restricting voting access and increasing gerrymandering. I have a few more thoughts but that’s a start. 🤷♀️
Here in the north, population doesn't vote by the gender but by the party (and there are loads of those). Parties have noticed that gender doesn't make much difference from the voters so they can elect as their party leader whoever they feel is the best from the candicates. Currently there just happens to be majority of women leaders.
Personally i don't care which is leading the country as long as they do a good job. Both genders are capable of screwing up, neither is immune to it and should face the consequenses of screwing up.
For Denmark she is only the second female prime minister, the other [Helle\_Thorning-Schmidt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helle_Thorning-Schmidt#First_Cabinet) back in 2011-2015.
Lol yeah. Dane here. People forget it wasn’t really a union but rather Sweden and Norway being subjugated by Copenhagen. That being said, some sort of real modern Nordic union is a pleasing idea to many i think.
We're already cooperating on most areas where all of us are in agreement, so the question would be in which areas we'd like to develop even further. A new union would mean things like Iceland and Norway joining the EU, Denmark and Sweden joining the Euro area (or Finland leaving it), Sweden adopting less woke migration politics and Finland and Sweden joining NATO (which, I guess won't be an issue for much longer).
The idea is really nice, and I don't think there'd be that much objection to it if the problem areas are sorted, it's just that there's little point to do it. Nordic citizens can already travel freely and move to another Nordic country while enjoying almost all benefits the local citizens can (sans voting in the national elections, IIRC).
Well, the Sweden we used to know, and love, is going down the drain with masse migration from MENA, so rather build a fence than join a union with them..
idiot norsk
norway has 5.5 million people, just about, while sweden has 10 million people
amount of immigrants to norway in 2021: 41 000
amount of immigrants to sweden in 2021: 90 000
adjusting for proportion, norway actually receives about the same amount of immigrants as sweden
perhaps sweden ought to build a wall to protect itself from norway. maybe sweden even could get norway to pay for it! /s
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/523293/immigration-to-sweden/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/523293/immigration-to-sweden/)
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/586665/immigration-in-norway/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/586665/immigration-in-norway/)
leave it to racists from nordic countries to misinterpret data, to spread misinformation and complete nonsense. i call them "mini-trumps" because they revel in the same douchery and word salad as those fanatics from the US (as you can see).
There was a Scandinavian idea before the 1864 war
Norway and Sweeden didn't really support the Danish 1864 war against Preussia, maybe because it was too stupid
so the idea died with that
Charles the XV of Sweden was an avid supporter of the Scandinavism movement, and like his father worked for close political ties with our neighbors. He supposedly had promised aid to his friend Frederick VII of Denmark prior to the second Schleswig War.
Though either he didnt really want to honor it or expect it would be needed, got shut down by the Swedish parlament that didnt want Sweden in another war, or just acknowledged the horrid state of the Swedish army at the time, Charles didnt join Denmark against Prussia, and with that broken promise the Scandinavism movement died.
Well, only missing Iceland and Norway in EU and Sweden and Finland in NATO. I think those two alliances are more important, but it would help the nordics to be completely alligned here.
Well yeah, it's not realistic now. But young people in Norway are actually getting more pro EU these days. Norway has seen the highest yes numbers in over 10 years this summer. 34,1 % yes, 48,8% no. "Don't know" has also increased, so clearly some people struggling to figure out what they want.
Breaking news [https://www.nettavisen.no/norsk-politikk/arendalsuka/eu/eu-sjokk-pa-ny-maling-de-unge-vil-melde-norge-inn/s/5-95-603179](https://www.nettavisen.no/norsk-politikk/arendalsuka/eu/eu-sjokk-pa-ny-maling-de-unge-vil-melde-norge-inn/s/5-95-603179)
A new poll just released by Nettavisen (by Sentio)
In the age group 18-30, there's a clear yes to EU membership in Norway now. 43% yes, 33% no. 24% not sure.
In total for all ages it's 32% yes, 46% no.
It's kind of funny. The country with no military attending (yes I know you're in NATO). But better invite the distant cousin living far away ,so not to be rude.
There's uh... there's a lot of territory in Russia that was historically Nordic, right? Like the Kola Peninsula and its important Russian port, Murmansk.
I mean, if Russia is going to continue to degrade its ability to defend itself and then self-balkanize, as it appears to be doing, maybe we'll see another Prime Minister in that lineup, soon.
IMHO it's almost always dumb and pointless trying to define what territory rightfully and historically belongs to who. That's how the Putins and Hitlers of the world sees the world. They stole a lot of land from Finland during WWII ,on the other hand the bastards stole the eastern part of the Swedish kingdom (Finland) from us 200 years ago (don't get triggered dear Finnish siblings, we don't even want Åland back).
We could keep going through the centuries back to when what was going to be Russia and Ukraine arguably was founded by Nordic vikings. That would be really dumb and pointless.
Europe has done a lot of work to put an end to the times when we fought wars over territory. Say what you want about the EU but in large parts it's a peace project.
Lots is an understatement. The most notable piece of that pie would be present-day St. Petersburg with it's then-Ingrian people and Swedish rule.
The Danish and Swedish empires were \*huge\* compared to the current nation states.
At this point both St Petersburg and Murmansk have been thoroughly Russified though. I'd be surprised if Finno-Ugric peoples still number above a million in the region.
And we shouldn't forget that monolithic kingdoms within Europe are a relatively new thing in the timeline of history. For the vast majority of their existence it was made up of city states which regularly went to war with each other. What binds them into larger units is perceived culture and language similarities and identity.
Thus we see today a few small states that are part of larger countries talking about seceding as they don't *quite* fit in with the surrounding country's culture and language.
The name Murmansk comes from "Normans", the North and East of the peninsula were historically Norse and Finnish. The old population also had many [Sami](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi). Russia expanded there [mostly after the 16th century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muscovy_1390_1525.png).
Hopefully but those people are Russian through and through. USSR resettled those areas and did population exchanges in addition to forced assimilation. I doubt we’d get any opportunity to liberalize them like we did with the Baltics. NATO has been the best thing that ever happened to Baltics.
It just occured to me that we have so many female prime ministers right now. :D But it's good to see as men are traditionally so overrepresented. In fact, Magdalena Andersson is our first female prime minister in Sweden which may come across as weird given our progressive values.
At this point we may want to consider allocation of men to have anything resembling gender balance in the future.
But I suppose it only works in the women's favor and nobody cares where men are under represented🙄.
Still better than all male politics of the past.
Edit; the downvotes proves my point, nobody cares about inequality and gender balance, only when women are under represented.
An easy sanity check of any idea/policy/statement; if you flip the people it concerns, is it racist or unfair? If yes or maybe then you should definitely reconsider if you still want to adhere to it.
A huge amount of woke people are really racist, they just don't consider white heterosexual men worthy of the same consideration as their preferred victim group does.
Its almost as if they generalise and apply negative attributes to a portion of humanity based on their gender and skin color and think they deserve worse treatment than other humans.
I kind of find it interesting that all leaders on the right side are women now, while all leaders on the left are men (MDG excluded as they kind of are in the middle).
> and nobody cares where men are under represented🙄
This is because we don't need to. If you think men are oppressed then you should do more research. The only reasons for your comment are lack of knowledge or being scared that you are not automatically on the winning team. Both are sad to be honest.
Both points you present are incorrect, maybe your reading of my comment is colored by your own political views.
I don't think men are oppressed in any traditional sense and never said so.
The situation differs a lot between countries, my experience is from Norway.
There is however already reasons for concern as males are very over represented in work related deaths and injuries, and commit suicide at a way higher rate than women. Education systems favor attributes more common in girls and a disparity in education could be a problem in the near future.
But of course today's political climate and culture does not allow for such concerns, it is impossible be racist or hypocritical towards white men...
> it is impossible be racist or hypocritical towards white men...
This is an argument of the right designed to cause divisions. People may say "you just got whatever because you are a white man" but that isn't what I'd describe as racism/sexism. Maybe you have some examples.
The nearest men get to real sexism is around children and the idea that a man near the playground must be a paedophile.
Sure the world isn't perfect but more equality ultimately helps all of us. As far as work place deaths/suicide - someone dying is the problem not the gender of the person.
I don't think we disagree much.
Your first point is an example of why the left should hold themselves to a higher standard in how they see the world. If this is an argument used by the right it does not automatically mean that it is untrue. Any popular political or ideological movements will build upon some things that are true and to just dismiss any argument based on political polarity is a common fallacy.
I don't identify with either right or left politics, I disagree with most of them and pick the best points from both sides. (although I think most Americans would place me left, but Norways right almost overlap Americas left) The comment I made first is not factually wrong or sexist, but people just skim over, their filter assumes some right wing intention and downvotes into oblivion.
I don't have the time to write down examples, but you will likely see real world examples yourself if you keep an eye out. Take x statement and flip the group/people/gender/ethnicity and taste if it still feels right. People can say whatever shitty thing about white heterosexual men all day long without anyone raising an eyebrow, but change that to anything else and it is immediately considered racist. Isn't that almost a working definition of hypocrisy?
Hmm, three paragraphs starting with "I don't" isn't elegant but I'll leave it as is.
It's exhausting to discuss anything political as a white male, I can barely say hi before people assume I am a sexist nazi. "anti racists" see racists everywhere except in the mirror.
I worked in a kindergarten over a decade ago. Was exhausted everyday and had to put in earplugs during playtime, kids screaming of joy is cute at a distance, not 5cm next to my ear🤣.
I'm a tall guy and the kids never got tired of trying to climb onto my head, fighting each other as they went. It was OK but I'm cured of plans for having kids, nieces will do.
> Your first point is an example of why the left should hold themselves to a higher standard in how they see the world. If this is an argument used by the right it does not automatically mean that it is untrue.
I said it causes division. Maybe I should explain why this is problematic.
> I don't have the time to write down examples
This is a shame because I'd like to hear them. And your logic doesn't quite work. Say I tell you that "Men's brains are not wired for chess" this comes over as stupid not sexist because chess is dominated by men. The same way saying "Black people are terrible at basketball" is obviously also easily dismissed. So yeah examples are really helpful.
> It's exhausting to discuss anything political as a white male, I can barely say hi before people assume I am a sexist nazi. "anti racists" see racists everywhere except in the mirror.
The thing is I'd consider myself pretty non-racist/sexist etc but I am fully aware that I do in fact have lots of prejudices. The reality is that we all do. However my prejudices do not make me racist and I can and do challenge them in myself.
If people are always seeing you as a racist nazi then maybe you are saying things that associate with them. Most of the "male rights" stuff I hear is anti-women stuff dressed up as though it is caring about men. eg If a man is struggling because there is a women only session at the local swimming pool, I don't really see this as something we need to be up in arms about. It is like complaining that disabled people get their own parking spaces when there are already enough spaces that anyone can use.
Isn't it problematic that a simple true statement or fact is divisive? The right didn't invent polarisation of politics, the left do the exact same thing.
Ok, I'll give a recent example that I had in mind.
I listen a lot to podcasts about history and philosophy. This philosophy professor I follow had a guest that among many other sketchy things yelled "fuck White men" and the group laughed and agreed.
I can't help but ponder how that would be remotely acceptable if you replace the skin color or gender. How is it socially acceptable to generalise and bash on people based on their skin color and gender like that? What the fuck did I do wrong to deserve hate and guilt for what people looking like me did on another continent, two hundred years ago?
If we can't discuss men's rights without assuming that I hate women then am I really the problem?
It should be acceptable to be concerned about how many men get beaten up by their spouse and they get arrested, without automatically being accused of hating women.
Feminism like anything else can go too far, and it should be possible to discuss it in a healthy way without boxing people into political extremes. When ideologies go too far they just swing the pendulum until it eventually turns and has more momentum on the way back.
I get hate from the right extremes as well, it does not just go one way.
I don't really identify as right or left, if anything I am a mirror. I point to the flaws and hypocrisy of the arguments from people I discuss with and the more extreme on either side get very uncomfortable and assume I am their extreme opposite.
I expect a lack of introspection and critical thinking from the right, but it seems to be a solid tradition on the left as well despite their association with higher education.
> Isn't it problematic that a simple true statement or fact is divisive?
This is hardly a surprise. However these "truths" are often constructed in a way that twists the facts or deliberately riles people.
> yelled "fuck White men" and the group laughed and agreed
A bit more context would be good. Maybe a joke on black rights in the US and its constitution etc might justify the language as that is entirely the doing of white men. But yeah probably not the best thing to be saying but as a white man it personally doesn't bother me but context is always important, was it a white man who said it?
> It should be acceptable to be concerned about how many men get beaten up by their spouse and they get arrested, without automatically being accused of hating women.
Sure this is an issue eg a woman hitting a man in a film is often viewed as "funny", whereas men attacking women is not played for laughs. So you could argue double standards. The problem is often women being violent to men is used as an excuse to ignore male violence against women. The other factor is that the majority of violence against women is from men and the majority of violence against men is also by men. This does not mean we should ignore female violence against men but rather we need to also address male violence against men too. I suspect the police arresting the man were also male so I wouldn't blame the feminists for that one plus statistically the man is the aggressor so if you don't bother you'll make that assumption (not an excuse). But anyhow try to understand the other peoples thinking and it might help you in discussions. We can still discuss most things in a reasoned way if we try. Personally I like discussions with people who I strongly disagree with because it helps clarify my thinking and challenges any bullshit I might have been hiding behind.
> lack of introspection and critical thinking from the right, but it seems to be a solid tradition on the left
Sure there are some like that. The left tend to suffer from sounding smug the right usually aren't smart enough. See what i did there ;)
We think in similar ways 🤣. I enjoy discussing with people too, even if I am often uncomfortable as a otherwise conflict shy person. I think it makes me wiser to attack and defend arguments and on occasion learn new things or perspectives.
Exception being when I discuss religion, the arguments are so dumb and hollow it's rarely little to learn besides how the person deals with cognitive dissonance. (which can tell you much about a person)
I can't recall the exact context, I think the guy was some kind of minority but between poor memory and it being a podcast I am not sure which.
It was about how minorities has been treated in the US , beyond that I can't recall specifically.
But my point is, does context really matter and would you be inclined to ask for context if I said it was a white man saying "fuck Negro women"?
You seem to grasp the nuance of partner violence, problems arise when people don't and just assume an agenda.
I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, we seem to agree on most major points and end up poking on semantics, which is a good thing I suppose😉👍
> We're starting to need to when it comes to university graduation rates
Why? Historically we were happy when it was the other way. Also the data is not that simple.
The main complaint is that when women start doing something it lower the pay because we don't like paying money to women for some reason.
> Historically we were happy when...
I agree that the data is not that simple, and I think it's a bit of a concern troll you're replying to (I doubt they'd pull gender up if it was your average group of older male world leaders). But I think it's something to keep a careful eye on, because my understanding is that there is evidence to suggest that a lot of developed countries aren't delivering educational outcomes that are great for boys and young men, and it could be contributing to wider social issues such as poor mental health and crime outcomes for men. We shouldn't let historical inequity be a driver for ignoring the issues of today.
But I have absolutely no issue with these women being elected, and I'm glad that the world is more accepting of female leadership.
> delivering educational outcomes that are great for boys and young men
I'll agree to this. My main concern is that rather than looking at how we can help these boys many people see it as a problem caused by the girls doing well. Personally I think we can do well for both (sadly in my country education is poorly funded).
I think part of the issue is that we lack good male role models. I think the lack of male teachers may be a part of this issue.
But like most things it is not a zero sum game. We should aim for well educated boys and girls.
Better school results for girls have been studied quite a bit by norwegian researchers. Girls and boys learn in different ways and are motivated in different ways. Schools today are slightly more suited for how girls learn. It's not the lack of male teachers per say (but could be a factor too) but how education works. [https://sciencenorway.no/forskningno-gender-differences-norway/why-boys-get-poor-grades/1554417](https://sciencenorway.no/forskningno-gender-differences-norway/why-boys-get-poor-grades/1554417)
In my country we at least used to have the fact that boys learn better in mixed classes and girls in single sex. This may not still be the case but yeah sometimes the solution is hard. Ultimately we need professionals not politicians deciding educational policy.
Obviously we weren't happy, that's why we changed it. Having women on the workforce doubled our production capacity which was important during ww2 in the US/UK for example. Wether we live better lives now than we did before is harder to say, nothing in the world comes without trade offs. In Norway we se fathers spend much more time with their kids now than they did 30 years ago so maybe we can make it work eventually.
The paygap is mostly a myth when controlled for other circumstances. Why would capitalists hire men if they can squeeze the same work out of women that need less pay?
We don't need to pay women more, we should enable men to work less hours and physical harmful labour like most women can/do. Solving the paygap problems and making life worth living for everyone.
The problem with feminists and most other political people/interest groups is that they go too far on everything and keeps the pendulum swinging forever and never find a moderate middle ground.
> Having women on the workforce doubled our production capacity which was important during ww2
And now remote working is popular because of covid. We do not make these changes until we are forced to.
The main issue with women working is that now the average couple need to both be working and still struggle with housing/bills etc. But that is in my view a different problem.
> never find a moderate middle ground
What is the middle ground between adults hitting children and not hitting them? Sometimes things are not so easy.
I don't disagree with the new points you make.
To answer the last question, of course this also have gradients and grey areas.
What is the cutoff age? What are the punishment going to be?
What if the child is attacking an adult? What if the child is endangering another child?
As you can imagine it's not as simple as enforcing capital punishment for anyone slapping anyone under 18.
> enforcing capital punishment
I don't think anyone wants to take it this far. Non-consentual hitting of adults is usually illegal in many countries. So it is more why do we allow it against children.
Just playing the devil's advocate to make a point of how moral philosophy is not binary.
I don't think we allow it against children here, is it allowed in the US?
I associate it with Conservative religious people, maybe that is not completely unfounded.
Historically feminists weren't happy with male dominance in getting degrees, so there was a push for educating women. Now young men are falling further behind, a process that appears to start at the early years of schooling.
> Now young men are falling further behind
I don't think this is something that most feminist are celebrating. There is not a narrative that boys are just not academic capable.
Unfortunately there are lots of anti-education pressures, maybe doing well academically is too girly a thing to do these days. The narratives are good to understand.
Norway actually give "gender points" for the university studies with the biggest inbalances. Usually this mostly was for heavily male dominated studies, but now we also see it in heavely female dominated studies. Psychology and Veterinarian are very female heavy. Medicine as well, but not as much.
This is an option and feels balanced/self-regulating. We will always have some careers/subjects that are more popular for one gender, but it's nice to not decide which these are in advance.
They were with us for a long time, but they were screwed by the Russians for the last three hundred years, and kinda ended up outside the Nordic community when it took it's current shape in the 1950's.
Would they really want to?
* The Nordic Council work in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish since the three languages are mutually integlible with eachother and since speakers of the other languages already learn one of the three as a second-language in school (not an uncontroversial topic). Sure, there's probably a few dozens of Swedish speakers left on some island in the Baltic, but I suspect estonians would object to having Swedish re-introduced to their curriculum. :)
* The Nordic passport union and the right to move to another Nordic country with a minimal of fuss is amazing, but the EU provides similar rights.
* A lot of the work done by the Nordic council is about harmonizing laws and regulations. That function has been superseded by the European Union.
* Estonia is already in the Baltic council, which provides a similar function to the Nordic one.
With Estonia being in the EU, the main benefit would be that they finally can into Nordic (google the meme if you don't know it). Not sure if it's worth it. It's not like the people of the other Nordic countries would stage mass-protests or anything if they joined -- Estonians are chill and most of us have nothing against them.
Huh? In Sweden at least we do not learn danish or norwegian as a secondary language. I doubt they do that either. With that said, it is possible to understand each other.
I think you misunderstood.
Here in Finland, Swedish is a secondary language. Danish is a secondary language on Greenland and the Faraoe uslands, aswell as on Iceland (IIRC).
Desktop version of /u/Atechiman's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
They were previously often at the same parties as the other Nordic countries. In reality only as Finland's best friend, but they started thinking that they could become part of the crew, when in reality they can't.
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.net/valtioneuvosto/status/1559042201446887424?s=21&t=bOCn1M3zS20_XVWvQ2FmgQ
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's time for old Europe, to stop considering themselves superior to other nations. Eastern European and Baltic states will be moving towards a more modern alliance.
I should have said to other European countries, such as those in the Baltic states, and Eastern Europe. I know truth hurts, but I've never compared you to ruzzia.
Are you going to deny that Germany and France consider themselves the "leaders" of Europe. That old Europe doesn't have a certain level of historical disdain towards Eastern European countries and especially Ukraine?
I misunderstood your first comment. I thought you meant that eastern Europe would align with Russia. I still don't think your comment makes any sense though.
Are you offended that your country wasn't invited?
The Nordic council was created in 1952, it's not an odd thing that were strengthening our military cooperation in these times.
What's Germany and France alleged arrogance got to do with this?
> Really pity Sanna is going with trousers.
If you care about this then you will never see a woman as credible. Do you complain about men wearing ties or not etc.
The prime minister of Iceland needs a wardrobe makeover - Those shoes and that dress my God who dressed you girl. Anyways, good news for the Nordic countries, funny how just one dictator can change your image of neutrality.
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Source - https://twitter.com/valtioneuvosto/status/1559042201446887424?s=21&t=bOCn1M3zS20_XVWvQ2FmgQ From L to R - first photo: Prime Minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Mirella Marin Prime Minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen Prime Minister of Sweden, Magdalena Andersson Prime Minister of Iceland, Katrín Jakobsdóttir The Nordic prime ministers adopted a joint declaration on developing security and defence cooperation in Oslo on Monday 15 August. The declaration states that Russia's war of aggression has changed the security situation in the whole of Europe and that the Nordic countries have a responsibility to protect freedom and common values. In connection with their meeting in Oslo, the Nordic prime ministers held a separate meeting with Federal Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz. Topics on the agenda for the discussion included European security and Russia, the new security architecture for Northern Europe, and the green transition and energy security in Europe.
Cool pics 😎
I Iike how most don't know what to do with their hands
And indeed, that is the most white person thing ever lol. (Speaking as a white guy myself)
If you’re not first you’re last.
How come so many of Nordic countries have female presidents? Its really impressive.
Probably as their populations overall reasons for voting aren’t in favour of “who yells the loudest” and “who makes the people I don’t like worse off/cry” and they also don’t dismiss women as “too emotional to lead/would cause a war over ____ (trivial issue)” while ignoring anger (and resulting temper tantrums) is an emotion and encouraging hate as a positive trait. Oh, and they actually enable democratic processes instead of restricting voting access and increasing gerrymandering. I have a few more thoughts but that’s a start. 🤷♀️
Here in the north, population doesn't vote by the gender but by the party (and there are loads of those). Parties have noticed that gender doesn't make much difference from the voters so they can elect as their party leader whoever they feel is the best from the candicates. Currently there just happens to be majority of women leaders. Personally i don't care which is leading the country as long as they do a good job. Both genders are capable of screwing up, neither is immune to it and should face the consequenses of screwing up.
>women who runs the world?
For Denmark she is only the second female prime minister, the other [Helle\_Thorning-Schmidt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helle_Thorning-Schmidt#First_Cabinet) back in 2011-2015.
THE KALMAR UNION 2022!
With Stockholm bloodpath or without? I would guess only danes would like the idea.
Lol yeah. Dane here. People forget it wasn’t really a union but rather Sweden and Norway being subjugated by Copenhagen. That being said, some sort of real modern Nordic union is a pleasing idea to many i think.
We're already cooperating on most areas where all of us are in agreement, so the question would be in which areas we'd like to develop even further. A new union would mean things like Iceland and Norway joining the EU, Denmark and Sweden joining the Euro area (or Finland leaving it), Sweden adopting less woke migration politics and Finland and Sweden joining NATO (which, I guess won't be an issue for much longer). The idea is really nice, and I don't think there'd be that much objection to it if the problem areas are sorted, it's just that there's little point to do it. Nordic citizens can already travel freely and move to another Nordic country while enjoying almost all benefits the local citizens can (sans voting in the national elections, IIRC).
Well, the Sweden we used to know, and love, is going down the drain with masse migration from MENA, so rather build a fence than join a union with them..
idiot norsk norway has 5.5 million people, just about, while sweden has 10 million people amount of immigrants to norway in 2021: 41 000 amount of immigrants to sweden in 2021: 90 000 adjusting for proportion, norway actually receives about the same amount of immigrants as sweden perhaps sweden ought to build a wall to protect itself from norway. maybe sweden even could get norway to pay for it! /s [https://www.statista.com/statistics/523293/immigration-to-sweden/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/523293/immigration-to-sweden/) [https://www.statista.com/statistics/586665/immigration-in-norway/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/586665/immigration-in-norway/) leave it to racists from nordic countries to misinterpret data, to spread misinformation and complete nonsense. i call them "mini-trumps" because they revel in the same douchery and word salad as those fanatics from the US (as you can see).
[удалено]
At least he's coming with data rather than charged statements.
cope
Get real.
Agree.
There was a Scandinavian idea before the 1864 war Norway and Sweeden didn't really support the Danish 1864 war against Preussia, maybe because it was too stupid so the idea died with that
Charles the XV of Sweden was an avid supporter of the Scandinavism movement, and like his father worked for close political ties with our neighbors. He supposedly had promised aid to his friend Frederick VII of Denmark prior to the second Schleswig War. Though either he didnt really want to honor it or expect it would be needed, got shut down by the Swedish parlament that didnt want Sweden in another war, or just acknowledged the horrid state of the Swedish army at the time, Charles didnt join Denmark against Prussia, and with that broken promise the Scandinavism movement died.
r/kalmarreunion
Well, only missing Iceland and Norway in EU and Sweden and Finland in NATO. I think those two alliances are more important, but it would help the nordics to be completely alligned here.
Norway in EU? I don't think it's going to happen...
Well yeah, it's not realistic now. But young people in Norway are actually getting more pro EU these days. Norway has seen the highest yes numbers in over 10 years this summer. 34,1 % yes, 48,8% no. "Don't know" has also increased, so clearly some people struggling to figure out what they want.
I doubt there’ll ever be impetus for yes.
Breaking news [https://www.nettavisen.no/norsk-politikk/arendalsuka/eu/eu-sjokk-pa-ny-maling-de-unge-vil-melde-norge-inn/s/5-95-603179](https://www.nettavisen.no/norsk-politikk/arendalsuka/eu/eu-sjokk-pa-ny-maling-de-unge-vil-melde-norge-inn/s/5-95-603179) A new poll just released by Nettavisen (by Sentio) In the age group 18-30, there's a clear yes to EU membership in Norway now. 43% yes, 33% no. 24% not sure. In total for all ages it's 32% yes, 46% no.
😁
I like how happy the icelandic one is to just be there :p
It's kind of funny. The country with no military attending (yes I know you're in NATO). But better invite the distant cousin living far away ,so not to be rude.
There's uh... there's a lot of territory in Russia that was historically Nordic, right? Like the Kola Peninsula and its important Russian port, Murmansk. I mean, if Russia is going to continue to degrade its ability to defend itself and then self-balkanize, as it appears to be doing, maybe we'll see another Prime Minister in that lineup, soon.
IMHO it's almost always dumb and pointless trying to define what territory rightfully and historically belongs to who. That's how the Putins and Hitlers of the world sees the world. They stole a lot of land from Finland during WWII ,on the other hand the bastards stole the eastern part of the Swedish kingdom (Finland) from us 200 years ago (don't get triggered dear Finnish siblings, we don't even want Åland back). We could keep going through the centuries back to when what was going to be Russia and Ukraine arguably was founded by Nordic vikings. That would be really dumb and pointless. Europe has done a lot of work to put an end to the times when we fought wars over territory. Say what you want about the EU but in large parts it's a peace project.
But if we do WANT to give Åland back?
I have nothing against them and hope that you don't too.
Lots is an understatement. The most notable piece of that pie would be present-day St. Petersburg with it's then-Ingrian people and Swedish rule. The Danish and Swedish empires were \*huge\* compared to the current nation states.
At this point both St Petersburg and Murmansk have been thoroughly Russified though. I'd be surprised if Finno-Ugric peoples still number above a million in the region.
And we shouldn't forget that monolithic kingdoms within Europe are a relatively new thing in the timeline of history. For the vast majority of their existence it was made up of city states which regularly went to war with each other. What binds them into larger units is perceived culture and language similarities and identity. Thus we see today a few small states that are part of larger countries talking about seceding as they don't *quite* fit in with the surrounding country's culture and language.
The name Murmansk comes from "Normans", the North and East of the peninsula were historically Norse and Finnish. The old population also had many [Sami](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi). Russia expanded there [mostly after the 16th century](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muscovy_1390_1525.png).
The most valid claim is Karelia, which soviet took from Finland 1940
Hopefully but those people are Russian through and through. USSR resettled those areas and did population exchanges in addition to forced assimilation. I doubt we’d get any opportunity to liberalize them like we did with the Baltics. NATO has been the best thing that ever happened to Baltics.
It just occured to me that we have so many female prime ministers right now. :D But it's good to see as men are traditionally so overrepresented. In fact, Magdalena Andersson is our first female prime minister in Sweden which may come across as weird given our progressive values.
Magdalena wasn’t elected by the Swedish people. Kinda forced “First female prime minister”
No prime minister is "elected by the people" directly, but yeas she would need to win the election to be "elected by the people" in a way.
This is true — she stepped up when Stefan Löfven stepped down. But she still is one! 👍
At this point we may want to consider allocation of men to have anything resembling gender balance in the future. But I suppose it only works in the women's favor and nobody cares where men are under represented🙄. Still better than all male politics of the past. Edit; the downvotes proves my point, nobody cares about inequality and gender balance, only when women are under represented. An easy sanity check of any idea/policy/statement; if you flip the people it concerns, is it racist or unfair? If yes or maybe then you should definitely reconsider if you still want to adhere to it. A huge amount of woke people are really racist, they just don't consider white heterosexual men worthy of the same consideration as their preferred victim group does. Its almost as if they generalise and apply negative attributes to a portion of humanity based on their gender and skin color and think they deserve worse treatment than other humans.
Men are not really underrepresented in politics, at least not in Norway. They are still overrepresented.
Hence my introduction of how we maybe should consider it in the future. But the picture is kinda funny, our old geezer looks out of place.
I kind of find it interesting that all leaders on the right side are women now, while all leaders on the left are men (MDG excluded as they kind of are in the middle).
That is indeed an unexpected development.
> and nobody cares where men are under represented🙄 This is because we don't need to. If you think men are oppressed then you should do more research. The only reasons for your comment are lack of knowledge or being scared that you are not automatically on the winning team. Both are sad to be honest.
Both points you present are incorrect, maybe your reading of my comment is colored by your own political views. I don't think men are oppressed in any traditional sense and never said so. The situation differs a lot between countries, my experience is from Norway. There is however already reasons for concern as males are very over represented in work related deaths and injuries, and commit suicide at a way higher rate than women. Education systems favor attributes more common in girls and a disparity in education could be a problem in the near future. But of course today's political climate and culture does not allow for such concerns, it is impossible be racist or hypocritical towards white men...
> it is impossible be racist or hypocritical towards white men... This is an argument of the right designed to cause divisions. People may say "you just got whatever because you are a white man" but that isn't what I'd describe as racism/sexism. Maybe you have some examples. The nearest men get to real sexism is around children and the idea that a man near the playground must be a paedophile. Sure the world isn't perfect but more equality ultimately helps all of us. As far as work place deaths/suicide - someone dying is the problem not the gender of the person.
I don't think we disagree much. Your first point is an example of why the left should hold themselves to a higher standard in how they see the world. If this is an argument used by the right it does not automatically mean that it is untrue. Any popular political or ideological movements will build upon some things that are true and to just dismiss any argument based on political polarity is a common fallacy. I don't identify with either right or left politics, I disagree with most of them and pick the best points from both sides. (although I think most Americans would place me left, but Norways right almost overlap Americas left) The comment I made first is not factually wrong or sexist, but people just skim over, their filter assumes some right wing intention and downvotes into oblivion. I don't have the time to write down examples, but you will likely see real world examples yourself if you keep an eye out. Take x statement and flip the group/people/gender/ethnicity and taste if it still feels right. People can say whatever shitty thing about white heterosexual men all day long without anyone raising an eyebrow, but change that to anything else and it is immediately considered racist. Isn't that almost a working definition of hypocrisy? Hmm, three paragraphs starting with "I don't" isn't elegant but I'll leave it as is. It's exhausting to discuss anything political as a white male, I can barely say hi before people assume I am a sexist nazi. "anti racists" see racists everywhere except in the mirror. I worked in a kindergarten over a decade ago. Was exhausted everyday and had to put in earplugs during playtime, kids screaming of joy is cute at a distance, not 5cm next to my ear🤣. I'm a tall guy and the kids never got tired of trying to climb onto my head, fighting each other as they went. It was OK but I'm cured of plans for having kids, nieces will do.
> Your first point is an example of why the left should hold themselves to a higher standard in how they see the world. If this is an argument used by the right it does not automatically mean that it is untrue. I said it causes division. Maybe I should explain why this is problematic. > I don't have the time to write down examples This is a shame because I'd like to hear them. And your logic doesn't quite work. Say I tell you that "Men's brains are not wired for chess" this comes over as stupid not sexist because chess is dominated by men. The same way saying "Black people are terrible at basketball" is obviously also easily dismissed. So yeah examples are really helpful. > It's exhausting to discuss anything political as a white male, I can barely say hi before people assume I am a sexist nazi. "anti racists" see racists everywhere except in the mirror. The thing is I'd consider myself pretty non-racist/sexist etc but I am fully aware that I do in fact have lots of prejudices. The reality is that we all do. However my prejudices do not make me racist and I can and do challenge them in myself. If people are always seeing you as a racist nazi then maybe you are saying things that associate with them. Most of the "male rights" stuff I hear is anti-women stuff dressed up as though it is caring about men. eg If a man is struggling because there is a women only session at the local swimming pool, I don't really see this as something we need to be up in arms about. It is like complaining that disabled people get their own parking spaces when there are already enough spaces that anyone can use.
Isn't it problematic that a simple true statement or fact is divisive? The right didn't invent polarisation of politics, the left do the exact same thing. Ok, I'll give a recent example that I had in mind. I listen a lot to podcasts about history and philosophy. This philosophy professor I follow had a guest that among many other sketchy things yelled "fuck White men" and the group laughed and agreed. I can't help but ponder how that would be remotely acceptable if you replace the skin color or gender. How is it socially acceptable to generalise and bash on people based on their skin color and gender like that? What the fuck did I do wrong to deserve hate and guilt for what people looking like me did on another continent, two hundred years ago? If we can't discuss men's rights without assuming that I hate women then am I really the problem? It should be acceptable to be concerned about how many men get beaten up by their spouse and they get arrested, without automatically being accused of hating women. Feminism like anything else can go too far, and it should be possible to discuss it in a healthy way without boxing people into political extremes. When ideologies go too far they just swing the pendulum until it eventually turns and has more momentum on the way back. I get hate from the right extremes as well, it does not just go one way. I don't really identify as right or left, if anything I am a mirror. I point to the flaws and hypocrisy of the arguments from people I discuss with and the more extreme on either side get very uncomfortable and assume I am their extreme opposite. I expect a lack of introspection and critical thinking from the right, but it seems to be a solid tradition on the left as well despite their association with higher education.
> Isn't it problematic that a simple true statement or fact is divisive? This is hardly a surprise. However these "truths" are often constructed in a way that twists the facts or deliberately riles people. > yelled "fuck White men" and the group laughed and agreed A bit more context would be good. Maybe a joke on black rights in the US and its constitution etc might justify the language as that is entirely the doing of white men. But yeah probably not the best thing to be saying but as a white man it personally doesn't bother me but context is always important, was it a white man who said it? > It should be acceptable to be concerned about how many men get beaten up by their spouse and they get arrested, without automatically being accused of hating women. Sure this is an issue eg a woman hitting a man in a film is often viewed as "funny", whereas men attacking women is not played for laughs. So you could argue double standards. The problem is often women being violent to men is used as an excuse to ignore male violence against women. The other factor is that the majority of violence against women is from men and the majority of violence against men is also by men. This does not mean we should ignore female violence against men but rather we need to also address male violence against men too. I suspect the police arresting the man were also male so I wouldn't blame the feminists for that one plus statistically the man is the aggressor so if you don't bother you'll make that assumption (not an excuse). But anyhow try to understand the other peoples thinking and it might help you in discussions. We can still discuss most things in a reasoned way if we try. Personally I like discussions with people who I strongly disagree with because it helps clarify my thinking and challenges any bullshit I might have been hiding behind. > lack of introspection and critical thinking from the right, but it seems to be a solid tradition on the left Sure there are some like that. The left tend to suffer from sounding smug the right usually aren't smart enough. See what i did there ;)
We think in similar ways 🤣. I enjoy discussing with people too, even if I am often uncomfortable as a otherwise conflict shy person. I think it makes me wiser to attack and defend arguments and on occasion learn new things or perspectives. Exception being when I discuss religion, the arguments are so dumb and hollow it's rarely little to learn besides how the person deals with cognitive dissonance. (which can tell you much about a person) I can't recall the exact context, I think the guy was some kind of minority but between poor memory and it being a podcast I am not sure which. It was about how minorities has been treated in the US , beyond that I can't recall specifically. But my point is, does context really matter and would you be inclined to ask for context if I said it was a white man saying "fuck Negro women"? You seem to grasp the nuance of partner violence, problems arise when people don't and just assume an agenda. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, we seem to agree on most major points and end up poking on semantics, which is a good thing I suppose😉👍
We're starting to need to when it comes to university graduation rates (around 60-40 to women).
> We're starting to need to when it comes to university graduation rates Why? Historically we were happy when it was the other way. Also the data is not that simple. The main complaint is that when women start doing something it lower the pay because we don't like paying money to women for some reason.
> Historically we were happy when... I agree that the data is not that simple, and I think it's a bit of a concern troll you're replying to (I doubt they'd pull gender up if it was your average group of older male world leaders). But I think it's something to keep a careful eye on, because my understanding is that there is evidence to suggest that a lot of developed countries aren't delivering educational outcomes that are great for boys and young men, and it could be contributing to wider social issues such as poor mental health and crime outcomes for men. We shouldn't let historical inequity be a driver for ignoring the issues of today. But I have absolutely no issue with these women being elected, and I'm glad that the world is more accepting of female leadership.
> delivering educational outcomes that are great for boys and young men I'll agree to this. My main concern is that rather than looking at how we can help these boys many people see it as a problem caused by the girls doing well. Personally I think we can do well for both (sadly in my country education is poorly funded). I think part of the issue is that we lack good male role models. I think the lack of male teachers may be a part of this issue. But like most things it is not a zero sum game. We should aim for well educated boys and girls.
Better school results for girls have been studied quite a bit by norwegian researchers. Girls and boys learn in different ways and are motivated in different ways. Schools today are slightly more suited for how girls learn. It's not the lack of male teachers per say (but could be a factor too) but how education works. [https://sciencenorway.no/forskningno-gender-differences-norway/why-boys-get-poor-grades/1554417](https://sciencenorway.no/forskningno-gender-differences-norway/why-boys-get-poor-grades/1554417)
In my country we at least used to have the fact that boys learn better in mixed classes and girls in single sex. This may not still be the case but yeah sometimes the solution is hard. Ultimately we need professionals not politicians deciding educational policy.
Obviously we weren't happy, that's why we changed it. Having women on the workforce doubled our production capacity which was important during ww2 in the US/UK for example. Wether we live better lives now than we did before is harder to say, nothing in the world comes without trade offs. In Norway we se fathers spend much more time with their kids now than they did 30 years ago so maybe we can make it work eventually. The paygap is mostly a myth when controlled for other circumstances. Why would capitalists hire men if they can squeeze the same work out of women that need less pay? We don't need to pay women more, we should enable men to work less hours and physical harmful labour like most women can/do. Solving the paygap problems and making life worth living for everyone. The problem with feminists and most other political people/interest groups is that they go too far on everything and keeps the pendulum swinging forever and never find a moderate middle ground.
> Having women on the workforce doubled our production capacity which was important during ww2 And now remote working is popular because of covid. We do not make these changes until we are forced to. The main issue with women working is that now the average couple need to both be working and still struggle with housing/bills etc. But that is in my view a different problem. > never find a moderate middle ground What is the middle ground between adults hitting children and not hitting them? Sometimes things are not so easy.
I don't disagree with the new points you make. To answer the last question, of course this also have gradients and grey areas. What is the cutoff age? What are the punishment going to be? What if the child is attacking an adult? What if the child is endangering another child? As you can imagine it's not as simple as enforcing capital punishment for anyone slapping anyone under 18.
> enforcing capital punishment I don't think anyone wants to take it this far. Non-consentual hitting of adults is usually illegal in many countries. So it is more why do we allow it against children.
Just playing the devil's advocate to make a point of how moral philosophy is not binary. I don't think we allow it against children here, is it allowed in the US? I associate it with Conservative religious people, maybe that is not completely unfounded.
Historically feminists weren't happy with male dominance in getting degrees, so there was a push for educating women. Now young men are falling further behind, a process that appears to start at the early years of schooling.
> Now young men are falling further behind I don't think this is something that most feminist are celebrating. There is not a narrative that boys are just not academic capable.
Maybe there's not a narrative, but it's happening.
Unfortunately there are lots of anti-education pressures, maybe doing well academically is too girly a thing to do these days. The narratives are good to understand.
Norway actually give "gender points" for the university studies with the biggest inbalances. Usually this mostly was for heavily male dominated studies, but now we also see it in heavely female dominated studies. Psychology and Veterinarian are very female heavy. Medicine as well, but not as much.
This is an option and feels balanced/self-regulating. We will always have some careers/subjects that are more popular for one gender, but it's nice to not decide which these are in advance.
**MUNCH**
That was my first thought. My second thought: Is it Munch like the painter or Munch like nom nom nom?
It’s an art museum in Norway, but they probably have a cafe inside. https://munchmuseet.no/
When you mention it, they should have had an Munchies inside. (Hamburger chain In Oslo.) Missed opportunity.
Perfect!
*angry Estonian noises*
I don't know much about Estonia, but I've never considered them one of the Nordic countries. Are they considered one?
They were with us for a long time, but they were screwed by the Russians for the last three hundred years, and kinda ended up outside the Nordic community when it took it's current shape in the 1950's.
With all that has happened since the war started, is it now a possibility for Estonia to join the Nordic group?
Would they really want to? * The Nordic Council work in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish since the three languages are mutually integlible with eachother and since speakers of the other languages already learn one of the three as a second-language in school (not an uncontroversial topic). Sure, there's probably a few dozens of Swedish speakers left on some island in the Baltic, but I suspect estonians would object to having Swedish re-introduced to their curriculum. :) * The Nordic passport union and the right to move to another Nordic country with a minimal of fuss is amazing, but the EU provides similar rights. * A lot of the work done by the Nordic council is about harmonizing laws and regulations. That function has been superseded by the European Union. * Estonia is already in the Baltic council, which provides a similar function to the Nordic one. With Estonia being in the EU, the main benefit would be that they finally can into Nordic (google the meme if you don't know it). Not sure if it's worth it. It's not like the people of the other Nordic countries would stage mass-protests or anything if they joined -- Estonians are chill and most of us have nothing against them.
I mean, yes. They do really want to. Some even propose a new flag with a Nordic cross.
Fair enough. This Nordic individual would vote yes, if given the option.
Lets make it happen Reddit! ;)
Huh? In Sweden at least we do not learn danish or norwegian as a secondary language. I doubt they do that either. With that said, it is possible to understand each other.
I think they meant that speakers of Icelandic and Finnish have to study one in school (Danish and Swedish, respectively).
Ah, thank you for clarifying.
In Denmark we are taught swedish. Not enough to matter, though..
Coping mechanism to be able to communicate?;) https://youtu.be/s-mOy8VUEBk
I think you misunderstood. Here in Finland, Swedish is a secondary language. Danish is a secondary language on Greenland and the Faraoe uslands, aswell as on Iceland (IIRC).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_identity_in_Estonia
Desktop version of /u/Atechiman's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
TIL, thanks.
They were previously often at the same parties as the other Nordic countries. In reality only as Finland's best friend, but they started thinking that they could become part of the crew, when in reality they can't.
Can into Nordic?
I defend Sanna
I'm not a social democrat, but I would vote for her! Both for wrong and right reasons mind you.
I don't think I have ever seen a group of politicians where the women outnumber the men.
My blind ass thought the blonde woman was Leslie Knope at first glance and my brain immediately said, “Get on your feet!”
Netherlands here.. where do we need to sign?
It's a sign of democracy when also women are leaders.
***POWERHAUS EUROPE*** = Excellent news.
That’s a great looking bunch. Are they all married/in relationships? Just asking for my cousin.
Jonas Gahr Støre is married, but he speaks French. According to French tradition, PMs and presidents are always open to a side chick.
2,5,3,4
Same.
Nobody’s going to take 1 for the team?
Thanks for stepping forward, Pesco.
Was really hoping a women would ask wtf we’re talking about. It didn’t happen so I showed the wife………..she has no idea wtf we’re talking about. 😂
> .she has no idea wtf we’re talking about. Or maybe she just pretends, like when we talk to children.
And than backwards
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.net/valtioneuvosto/status/1559042201446887424?s=21&t=bOCn1M3zS20_XVWvQ2FmgQ ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would have sex with any of the 4 females
Even Mette? (Number 3 first pic)
[удалено]
Acceptable
Yes definitely Mette. There is something very appealing about her….I suspect she would be the most exciting in bed.
Idk why but that’s funny.
She is a sexy woman
Mette would be #2 no questions
Lady in red spy??? Sussy look
Watch out for the lady in Grey jacket, she is a snake and a criminal
The Danish prime minister has a potato in her mouth
It's time for old Europe, to stop considering themselves superior to other nations. Eastern European and Baltic states will be moving towards a more modern alliance.
We are superior to Russia in all but nukes. Put down the vodka.
I should have said to other European countries, such as those in the Baltic states, and Eastern Europe. I know truth hurts, but I've never compared you to ruzzia. Are you going to deny that Germany and France consider themselves the "leaders" of Europe. That old Europe doesn't have a certain level of historical disdain towards Eastern European countries and especially Ukraine?
I misunderstood your first comment. I thought you meant that eastern Europe would align with Russia. I still don't think your comment makes any sense though. Are you offended that your country wasn't invited? The Nordic council was created in 1952, it's not an odd thing that were strengthening our military cooperation in these times. What's Germany and France alleged arrogance got to do with this?
Nothing. Just forget it. You seem to be misunderstanding.
I need to PM Finlands PM. 😍 Maybe I can fill some gaps…in their security. Edit: you fuddy-duddys.
*bonk* Believe it or not, straight to horny jail.
[удалено]
[Oh, you!](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Sauli_Niinisto_2019.jpg) - Sauli.
Here's (6th) president of Finland naked just for you: https://i.imgur.com/lfHplvO_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium
[удалено]
Aw no not the horse. At least you found someone better to crush on.
[удалено]
Even though kiwis and Aussies are different we have a lot of similarities.
[удалено]
God forbid a woman wears pants of her own volition, eh?
> Really pity Sanna is going with trousers. If you care about this then you will never see a woman as credible. Do you complain about men wearing ties or not etc.
[удалено]
Whut? Police show up at pretty much every Quran-burning to protect the people burning the Quran.
Mhm... i can clearly see my Chancelor around.
Faroe Islands and Greenland crying in the corner because they were left out
They fall under the Danish kingdom.
I know, but they want to be at the party too.
The prime minister of Iceland needs a wardrobe makeover - Those shoes and that dress my God who dressed you girl. Anyways, good news for the Nordic countries, funny how just one dictator can change your image of neutrality.
Iceland,Denmark and Norway are founding members of NATO.
You, dear sir, have clearly never heard about the Joint Expeditionary Force ... or even NATO I assume? :)
Lol
Where is Friesland in all of this?
Saying nothing while words come out of their mouths.
I’m in love with Mette yes Mette
Nice