Norwegian TV has Already Factored in American Decline

 

Poster-for-Norwegian-TV-show-OccupiedI suppose I’ll watch House of Thrones or Game of Cards eventually, although it’s hate-watching at this point. It’s amusing to see how DC is portrayed, how we’re supposed to care a whit about an unctuous falsehood and his frosty wife. The best part of the show was Frank’s wry, cynical asides to the camera; they drew you into his confidence, almost made you complicit. But they don’t do that much anymore.

A better Netflix suggestion: Occupied. It’s a new Norwegian show about a soft Russian occupation in post-NATO near-future. The pretext is a bit shaky, but it doesn’t matter. It’s an intelligent show with two compelling lead characters — a policeman who has to negotiate between the occupied and the occupiers, and a decent, airy-minded Green PM who has to grow a spine when reality intrudes on his climate-change agenda. A host of sharp minor characters show you how occupation corrupts, co-opts, and radicalizes.

What’s most horrifying is how the United States is eventually depicted: not just withdrawn and indifferent, but peevishly annoyed by the Norwegian insistence on its own sovereignty. It’s just agonizing. Perhaps this is how they see us now, or at least how they expect us to become.

Streaming on Netflix in your “Recently Added” pane.

Published in Culture, Entertainment, General
Tags:

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 34 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    You’re not imagining it at all. I wrote about it here. It’s much spookier than anti-Americanism, which at least assigns to America some kind of central role in the world. And the scenario the show describes is the one I expect.

    • #1
  2. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    The last of American exceptionalism might be: We’re the only ones who care what the rest of the world thinks about us.

    • #2
  3. Red Fish, Blue Fish Inactive
    Red Fish, Blue Fish
    @RedFishBlueFish

    You all seem to forget the Cold War a little too quickly.  European stories of Russian aggression and American indifference/incompetence were quite common.  They were usually offset by highly pro-American stories that were also presented to the European public, and those surely have gone by the wayside.

    But the post-Cold War Pax Americana that existed from 1991 through 9/11 was the aberration.

    In the eighties, those negative stories were more focused on American nuclear cowboy antics.  But its something we have had in one form or another for decades.  European anti-American street protests during the mid-eighties were a regular occurrence and highly attended.

    Fact of the matter is that the European public and elite fear of US policy was a lot higher during the Reagan years than it is today.  I think today is potentially more dangerous considering the confluence of issues, particularly the threat of militant Islam, but those issues are not Russian aggression.  The Soviet period was substantially more of a threat than Russia of today, regardless of Putin’s antics.

    We need a little bit of perspective on this.

    • #3
  4. Red Fish, Blue Fish Inactive
    Red Fish, Blue Fish
    @RedFishBlueFish

    Whenever the US begins the process of shifting the geopolitical chessboard in Europe, Europeans get stressed out.  Their societies and their political elites are not very good at recognizing and responding to changing geopolitical realities, and so therefore when American leadership pushes them outside their comfort zone, you get a lot of this hemming and hawing.  That process is happening now.  It’s happening as a result of Obama’s indifference, which makes this one very different in one key way.

    But it’s a very common pattern, and has existed since the end of WWII.  In fact, it existed during WWII and in the lead up to it.  It happened when the U.S. started to police the iron curtain in the fifties.  It continued when the U.S. conducted re-basing activities following WWII and continuing in the 60s.  It happened when the U.S. committed to Greece and Turkey as part of NATO.  It happened when Reagan pushed his peace through strength proposal.  It happened when the U.S. stayed out of Bosnia at the beginning.  It happened when the U.S. went in to Bosnia to solve it.  Remember Bush II’s lead up to Iraq?  The EU went crazy on that one too.

    It will happen now and it will happen again in the future.  The primary reason for this is that European states are simply not capable of solving their own problems because the balance of power prevents the rise of any single police authority, and no nation has invested enough in its military to act as the enforcer or for that matter actually solve a problem with military force.  In addition, they have adopted a political world view that makes the exertion of force untenable among their populations, yet they live in a world where everyone else only responds to the exertion of force.

    European agita will exist for as long as the U.S. maintains its military pre-eminence and they maintain their balance of power, tied to their cultural aversion to aggression.

    Perspective.

    • #4
  5. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Member
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    Red Fish, Blue Fish:European agita will exist for as long as the U.S. maintains its military pre-eminence and they maintain their balance of power, tied to their cultural aversion to aggression.

    Yes. What we’re remarking is the absence of European agita.

    • #5
  6. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    This series was created by Jo Nesbo the mystery writer? Hmm. That sounds promising.

    And it’s amusing, deeply amusing, to read up a piece by a Minnesotan commenting on Norwegian TV.

    • #6
  7. John Peabody Member
    John Peabody
    @JohnAPeabody

    I still say that the Norwegian Prime Minister is just Jerry Lundegaard from “Fargo” with a few more brains and a better job.

    • #7
  8. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    My father will be glad to see this; he’s been on my case to watch the series for weeks.

    • #8
  9. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:My father will be glad to see this; he’s been on my case to watch the series for weeks.

    Has he said anything about it, as it were, details or observations?

    • #9
  10. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Maybe the rest of the world should have worried more about the state of lower middle class white Americans.  The entire “The West” exists solely by their sufferance, and their fortune and regard has been treated as the least important.

    Why is a guy working at a truck stop in North Dakota going to get into a no-crap shooting war with Russia over Norway?  What bond of affinity is there?

    Let the jet setting cosmopolitans sit in a hole they dug for themselves in the ground for a change.

    • #10
  11. WI Con Member
    WI Con
    @WICon

    I’d watched and enjoyed the series as well, was thinking of posting about it. What I found most interesting as well, was that after all the UN/EU/NATO posturing – that they ultimately recognize the uselessness of those organizations and that people (even in ‘Liberal’ Nordic countries) still want their own national identity. Nationalism is still a powerful force and they haven’t been able to drum that out of people.

    Architecture and scenery are beautiful as well. Much better than the average stuff on TV.

    • #11
  12. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    WI Con:I’d watched and enjoyed the series as well, was thinking of posting about it. What I found most interesting as well, was that after all the UN/EU/NATO posturing – that they ultimately recognize the uselessness of those organizations and that people (even in ‘Liberal’ Nordic countries) still want their own national identity. Nationalism is still a powerful force and they haven’t been able to drum that out of people.

    Architecture and scenery are beautiful as well. Much better than the average stuff on TV.

    Please say more about stuff you’ve noticed, if you have time. At least if you can avoid spoilers.

    • #12
  13. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    My wife and I loved this series, too. We were delighted by the quality of directing and acting. As you say, James, if you give up on a couple weak premises the story is quite good.
    I loved the simple decency of the PM who recalibrates his actions to prevent loss of life to his citizens. He takes a lot of heat over this and at the very least gives his countrymen a breather to get ready for a long occupation.
    I couldn’t help but note the correspondences with the Quisling actions with the Nazis. The writers wanted a story of Norway in which the actions of their heroic patriots is the main story and not the sellout from the higher ups.
    I restate: all things considered this PM is not a Quisling but a man who puts his countrymen first. It’s a complicated and well told story.

    • #13
  14. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    I started watching it, but the anti-oil pretext turned me off.

    I mean, really, a Norwegian economy without oil? I’d rather watch something realistic, like Game of Thrones.

    • #14
  15. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Red Fish, Blue Fish:You all seem to forget the Cold War a little too quickly. European stories of Russian aggression and American indifference/incompetence were quite common.

    When the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (which later expanded to become NAFTA) was first being debated back in the 1980s, the biggest argument against it wasn’t that free trade is a bad idea, but rather that you can’t trust the US government to honour its commitments.

    • #15
  16. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Guruforhire: Why is a guy working at a truck stop in North Dakota going to get into a no-crap shooting war with Russia over Norway? What bond of affinity is there?

    I can actually speak to that, since “a truck stop in North Dakota” is literally the family business. There’s the cultural affinity, of course; you grow up with the Sons of Norway lodge across from your Lutheran church.

    Would we feel the same if the UK came under Russian influence?

    In any case, it’s not about getting into a shooting war. It’s about maintaining a stance that keeps the possibility from evening happening. The events in “Occupied” happen because the US didn’t care to stand with Europe and make it clear the free nations will not be picked off one by one.

    • #16
  17. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Misthiocracy:I started watching it, but the anti-oil pretext turned me off.

    I mean, really, a Norwegian economy without oil? I’d rather watch something realistic, like Game of Thrones.

    That’s the weak pretext I mentioned – but even so, it allows for the Green philosophy to be revealed a hollow luxury that crumbles the moment it’s tested. The evolution of Green PM Jasper Berg is one of the pleasures of the show, and as WiCon and Larry noted, it shows how nationalism rises the moment the thin bonds of EU post-nationalist ideals snap.

    • #17
  18. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    WI Con: Architecture and scenery are beautiful as well. Much better than the average stuff on TV.

    The use of architecture is subtle but unmistakable: the Norwegian government lives in a modern building favored by 21st century urbanists – abstract, clean, technocratic, stylistically divorced from the culture from which it came, sitting on a hill apart from the capital.

    The Russians are headquartered in an old medieval building in the center of the city.

    • #18
  19. Titus Techera Contributor
    Titus Techera
    @TitusTechera

    James Lileks:

    WI Con: Architecture and scenery are beautiful as well. Much better than the average stuff on TV.

    The use of architecture is subtle but unmistakable: the Norwegian government lives in a modern building favored by 21st century urbanists – abstract, clean, technocratic, stylistically divorced from the culture from which it came, sitting on a hill apart from the capital.

    The Russians are headquartered in an old medieval building in the center of the city.

    Nice catch!

    • #19
  20. WI Con Member
    WI Con
    @WICon

    James Lileks:

    WI Con: Architecture and scenery are beautiful as well. Much better than the average stuff on TV.

    The use of architecture is subtle but unmistakable: the Norwegian government lives in a modern building favored by 21st century urbanists – abstract, clean, technocratic, stylistically divorced from the culture from which it came, sitting on a hill apart from the capital.

    The Russians are headquartered in an old medieval building in the center of the city.

    Oh, I didn’t pick up on that. Makes it even more intriguing. That for all the sleek, modern well appointed images – the solid, durable and ‘outmoded structures’ (old fashioned force) can still dominate.

    • #20
  21. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    WI Con:

    James Lileks:

    WI Con: Architecture and scenery are beautiful as well. Much better than the average stuff on TV.

    The use of architecture is subtle but unmistakable: the Norwegian government lives in a modern building favored by 21st century urbanists – abstract, clean, technocratic, stylistically divorced from the culture from which it came, sitting on a hill apart from the capital.

    The Russians are headquartered in an old medieval building in the center of the city.

    Oh, I didn’t pick up on that. Makes it even more intriguing. That for all the sleek, modern well appointed images – the solid, durable and ‘outmoded structures’ (old fashioned force) can still dominate.

    Yes, and the world that the progressive and decent people (and those two aren’t always found together) want to move into is still shadowed by the old authoritarian ways of operating.

    Yet… At the beginning of the movie the description of the world says that the U.S. has withdrawn from NATO and that the Middle East is very unstable and that oil from that part of the world is evidently a problem for the EU members. And Norway chooses such a time to decrease the available oil for the world. Is that neighborly? Norway is being provocative. This is a story about eminent domain if you look at it that way.

    • #21
  22. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    @James

    A tip of the hat to you sir. Well played!

    • #22
  23. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Larry Koler:

    Norway chooses such a time to decrease the available oil for the world. Is that neighborly? Norway is being provocative. This is a story about eminent domain if you look at it that way.

    Erhm. Don’t see it that way. First of all, Norway is cutting off oil and gas to Europe, not Russia, and they’re doing it because they hope to replace the power with . . . nuclear! Yay. Cutting off oil from Norwegian fields would just give the Russians more sway, and this was obviously conceived before the US became a big producer. As I said, the premise is the weakest part, but like any pretext, it doesn’t matter once the boots are in the streets.

    • #23
  24. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    James Lileks:

    Misthiocracy:I started watching it, but the anti-oil pretext turned me off.

    I mean, really, a Norwegian economy without oil? I’d rather watch something realistic, like Game of Thrones.

    That’s the weak pretext I mentioned – but even so, it allows for the Green philosophy to be revealed a hollow luxury that crumbles the moment it’s tested. The evolution of Green PM Jasper Berg is one of the pleasures of the show, and as WiCon and Larry noted, it shows how nationalism rises the moment the thin bonds of EU post-nationalist ideals snap.

    So, you’re saying it gets better after episode one? I hear that a lot these days about “bingeworthy” shows (often because the characters I don’t like in episode 1 are eaten by zombies later on).

    • #24
  25. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Misthiocracy: So, you’re saying it gets better after episode one?

    I do. The first one felt compelled to come out of the gate loud and broad,  but then it takes a subtler tone – with many surprises and sudden violence. One thing doesn’t change, and that’s PM Jasper Berg’s constant expression of “oh, $(#7, this cannot be happening.”

    • #25
  26. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    James Lileks:

    Misthiocracy: So, you’re saying it gets better after episode one?

    I do. The first one felt compelled to come out of the gate loud and broad, but then it takes a subtler tone – with many surprises and sudden violence. One thing doesn’t change, and that’s PM Jasper Berg’s constant expression of “oh, $(#7, this cannot be happening.”

    I do enjoy sudden violence.

    • #26
  27. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    James Lileks:

    Larry Koler:

    Norway chooses such a time to decrease the available oil for the world. Is that neighborly? Norway is being provocative. This is a story about eminent domain if you look at it that way.

    Erhm. Don’t see it that way. First of all, Norway is cutting off oil and gas to Europe, not Russia, and they’re doing it because they hope to replace the power with . . . nuclear! Yay. Cutting off oil from Norwegian fields would just give the Russians more sway, and this was obviously conceived before the US became a big producer. As I said, the premise is the weakest part, but like any pretext, it doesn’t matter once the boots are in the streets.

    Yes, my wife and I talked about this very thing and we are happier with this: Norway’s radical environmentalist party won and they built a Thorium power producer for Norway and then offered it to the rest of the world to replace oil. But, Europe is in the lurch and

    1. didn’t want Thorium plants necessarily and especially not when it’s being forced down their throats and
    2. it would take time for these plants to be built and produce electricity (notice the BMW i3 electric car, BTW?) and in the meantime their people are cold and running out of food (or worried about such things — we aren’t filled in on all the details).

    So, why is Russia the occupier? Here’s my thought: because the Putin neo-Soviet model of expansionism (imperialism?) is their raison dêtre. Also, they have plenty of trained thugs — both diplomatic-wise and spetsnaz-wise. So, they did the invasion work and got more oil fields to bring into their monopoly. They also had the EU under their thumb — just like they always wanted.

    • #27
  28. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    James Lileks: …this was obviously conceived before the US became a big producer.

    Well, didn’t they say in the beginning that America was self-supporting in oil and then they left NATO? Either way, America was  looking out for itself and withdrawing from the world stage to let Europe fend for itself.

    • #28
  29. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Larry Koler:So, why is Russia the occupier? Here’s my thought: because the Putin neo-Soviet model of expansionism (imperialism?) is their raison dêtre. Also, they have plenty of trained thugs — both diplomatic-wise and spetsnaz-wise. So, they did the invasion work and got more oil fields to bring into their monopoly. They also had the EU under their thumb — just like they always wanted.

    But, why would Russia choose to start this campaign of occupation with Norway?

    “Hey there Finland and Sweden. Don’t mind us. Just passing through.”

    • #29
  30. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    Misthiocracy:

    Larry Koler:So, why is Russia the occupier? Here’s my thought: because the Putin neo-Soviet model of expansionism (imperialism?) is their raison dêtre. Also, they have plenty of trained thugs — both diplomatic-wise and spetsnaz-wise. So, they did the invasion work and got more oil fields to bring into their monopoly. They also had the EU under their thumb — just like they always wanted.

    But, why would Russia choose to start this campaign of occupation with Norway?

    Monopoly control of oil (excluding the Middle East) that gives them more power and definitely power over the EU.

    It makes sense that the neo-Soviets (see how easy that rolls off the tongue?) would have wanted Norway’s oil before but with the EU’s anger at Norway they weren’t going to object and might even help.

    Isn’t it right that the EU just wanted the oil and wanted Norway to turn the spigots back on. But, Norway just thumbed their noses at the EU and this brought the EU and Russia into accord.

    It’s actually a pretty good premise. What do you think? Watch the series and see if I’m right.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.