Swede here, what panic is the article refering to?
Maybe the upcoming NATO exercise? It has caused similar reactions in other EU countries (dumb people thinking it means a war is imminent).
An exercise in panic?
That's basically some people's entire lives.
Haven't had a single conversation about it. It was barely a blip on the radar for most swedes. They made sure to say it's nothing other than for the unknown possibility. Since Sweden hasn't really experienced anything war related in the way most other countries have for a long time, I think this was needed. Just so more people have even the most basic things for if it happens.
Well, everyone who reads/watches/listen to the news are sure to have heard it. It was major news. But if the Swedes does something about it is another question.
You should actually always be prepared for things like that. My government says people should keep enough things for two weeks, just in case. It's good advice. You never know when some manic dictator launches a multi-front blitzkrieg he can't win, but will devastate the whole region
The two weeks preparedness have been around for a long time in Sweden. It is far from what this issue is about. One of the issues was the goverment's focus on that you should be prepared to die in war. Sure, it is true that you as a Swedish citizen may have to put you life on the line in case of war. But them focusing on that you should be prepared to die just framed it as if war is coming definetly and soon. The second issue is that the current government is obsessed with fearmongering about immigrants. One of the big points they made was that people who have immigrated and earned their citizenship will not be as willing to protect the country in case of war. I read a title of an article today that said experts have critiqued this statement and said it may actually be the other way around.
I read a title of an article today that said experts have critiqued this statement and said it may actually be the other way around
Makes sense, they're the ones who had to work for it.
Well, it's because there can always be a power outtage or they have to shutdown the water mains or in my country more likely a flood. All of those are agazillion times more likely than a war, but still reason enough to at least have some supplies.
What's the logic in two weeks of provisions? Day 15 sounds like it would be just as much of a shit show as days 1-14.
Just holding out until more organised help can arrive or your government takes over. This is also in general good advice in case of say natural disasters. Roads may be flooded, areas covered in snow or electricity is out for a few days. Having enough canned food, water, maybe some firewood or alternative means of cooking will come in useful in these circumstances.
so you don't starve while acquiring more or evacuating.
Two weeks is a suggestion, you can do more if you like. There's no hard limit.
Well, technically there is a hard upper limit at the point where the first necessary nutrient isn't available in the form of some food (or pill,...) that lasts that long I suppose.
I'd call that more if a soft limit as I doubt its definable that far in the future.
"If you want peace, be prepared for war." — various warmongers through the ages
Meanwhile, one of the most quoted person on the topic of war:
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
Well there is single battles aka fighting, and there is the war as an armed conflict as a whole.
A succesful siege, while brutal to the besieged, falls under the quote, as the enemy is subdued without a fight
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee