Latvias government wants to introduce the euro despite a majority of Latvians opposing entry into the eurozone. There will be no referendum on the decision, which is expected to be approved by the European Union this summer. Latvias Baltic neighbour Estonia already adopted the EU single currency back in 2011. Foreign direct investment doubled and interest rates dropped. Its western neighbour Lithuania plans to join the eurozone in 2015, and the single currency debate is also heating up in Poland. Latvia fulfills all the criteria necessary to join the euro under the Maastricht Treaty: its budget deficit was 1.5 percent of GDP last year, debt burden is well below the 60 percent ceiling, prices are stable and long-term interest rates are low. So far, 17 out of the EUs 27 member states have adopted the euro. Joining the single currency is a logical step forward for Latvia which already has its currency, the Lats, pegged to the euro. Latvia would be the poorest member of the single-currency area, but it is also the European Unions fastest-growing state and is expected to get the thumbs up from EU finance ministers. http://www.euronews.com/2013/03/22/latvia-wants-the-euros However not all Latvians like this move.
I'd still go with fools. I could get it if they wanted to join some years ago, but why now of all times, when the euro is close to collapsing?
A good heart's worth gold. And a good plan indeed. I suppose that Latvians will appreciate your goodness at its true value.
we'll make good swedes ut of them, livländska svenskar. In all honesty though, I'm very positive for close cooperation with the nordic and baltic countries. With a nieghbor like russia it's needed. And our close cultural and historical ties, and our good relations, would be the perfect solid ground for close partnership. A miltiary alliance, and a free trade area. And when the batlic countries wealth up a bit, we can have free movement as well. the batlic union, imagine that.
The close equitable partnership is a good thing indeed. But Im afraid that ideas about the great Swedish empire are just utopia. In 1721 (the Great Northern War 17001721) the Great Swedish Empire got a fatal blow due to imperial ambitions of Karl XII. In 1809 Russia screwed the Swedish Empire again then Sweden lost its ridiculous imperial ambitions and became a good and successful country, the European traffic island. You should appreciate it my friend. Forget about imperial ambitions. These ambitions screwed a lot of empires. Peace.
oh yes, I know.. the age of imperialism is over.. honest imperialism atleast. We were destined to lose our empire anyways, we were way too few. But looking at that, one could say that per capita, swedes are the most awesome. It's not only that we carved out an empire from territory from all our nieghbors whilst having just a population of some 2 million I think, even when we had lost our empire we still were close to getting some 100 nuclear warheads in the 60's, which is when we also had the third biggest airforce, and most military spending per capita after the US, USSR and Israel. We also had universal health care and good pensions, all while keeping tax rates below the average of OECD countries. Now ain't that impressive? Indeed, that's got to be the most awesomeness per capita don't ya think?
Thats right. Don't bite off more than you can chew (joke). Dont take it too hard the practice says that sooner or later every empire may disintegrate and your country isnt an exception. Well I really like all these discussions about who has the biggest dik Good, good but I think despite all these things US, USSR and maybe even Israel would have screwed your army quick and easy. I agree. The great achievements indeed. But I told you that Sweden made the right move lost its ambitions and while other European countries screwed each other in numerous wars and conflicts (for example take those 2 slaughters WWI and WWII) Sweden did not take part in this sh^t and as a result became one of the most successful countries in the world.
No, not at all actually. Not all empires disintegrate. What you have to do is to make the subject population part of your nation somehow. That can either be done be assimilation or.. genocide. Then, when the time of nationalism and freedom for oppressed people come, there'll be no people desiring independence. That's what the US did, just to give one example. Had Sweden performed genocide or forced swedenization in all her lands, the baltic would be a swedish lake today. I'm not supportive of genocide obviously, but just saying that empires only fail if they fail to homogenise the population. biggest dick according to size, yes that's sweden I doubt israel on it's own would, but certainly us and USSR. But I mean seriously, they have like half the worlds everything between them. But my point is that, if sweden had everything the US has, we'd be better than the US because we are more efficient for some reason. I think that forgetting about Finland and just staying out of things is what prevented us from becomming just another poverty stricken former soviet republic. Oh russia, how your borders are lined with misery. Being close to russia is bad for you, but we managed it good enough thankfully. I'm so happy we're not like say ukraine. And yeah, I kinda like sweden's approach to things during the world wars: basically watching everyone blow their brains out, and when the war is over we have an intact economy and we sell like crazy. And yeah, we export to both parties in the war. $$profit$$ by the most moral way possible. Some say we prolonged the WWII by several years due to our iron export to the germans but.. meh.
If i remember it correctly you tried doing it in Finland. They even have a huge Swedish-speaking minority. Not at all. There are plenty of etnically diverse countries nowadays, yet not failing. Empires usually break up due to a major (*)(*)(*)(*) up in the leadership. Drosophila has a dick 1/3 length of the body. Says it all. Basically being a Nazi brothers' lapdog during WW2 and making profits on genocide. That.....makes your proud?
Could you give any example? Well, sometimes it works. But sometimes a nation, assumed object of assimilation / genocide screwed the initiators of genocide. And screwed them very hard. Not long ago one artist decided to make another great empire and he and his followers had practiced this theory about assimilation, genocide etc. As a result they lost their empire, millions of their people, their country was destroyed completely and their widows served winners (as working girls) for can of tinned stewed meal. But this country lost all these ideas about great empire, assimilation, genocide, racial superiority and other crap and became very successful country, the locomotive of the European economy. yes, yes we soon believe what we desire I have another opinion. They have a strong and very effective army +constant combat experience. But whatever. Lol how do you know? This is a case when you cant change your residence and your neighbors. Take courage my son! And bear your cross in a worthy manner Well, good idea indeed. While some screw each other clever men have a good possibility to make money. Lol. No doubt third Reich agony prolonged only due to your iron export (joke). p.s. I know its good when you fight for an empire in internet. But sometimes in real live you should fight for imperial (ridiculous) ambitions against real enemies in any worlds a$$ as Americans do. Or fight against separatists who have their own opinion about empire. Or you prefer just conduct debate about great empire while someone else will fight for this crap (imperial ambitions)? So, in my view Sweden got a hard lesson ( due to ridiculous imperial ambitions of Swedish kings and their entourage country lost its territories and people) but came to the right conclusion lost ridiculous imperial ambitions and as a result poor and second-rate country (read -worlds a$$) became successful and nice one.
I'm not sure that it was forced or anything though. I'm assuming it was just the natural process of being part of a swedish speaking empire. There were swedes in the baltic states too, and I assume it's just because of the swedish garrisons and trade and all that. We didn't have population to settle lands that way either. The russians on the other hand, did try to russify latvia and/or estonia and did forcefully move latvian/estonian swedes to ukraine, heard of gammalsvenskby? I don't think you're in a position to acuuse swedes of these things. and which countries would that be? Jugoslavia which is no more, the african countries in which tribes kill eachother then and then, in europe were parallel societies are emerging? And while we have homgoneous to the extreme countries like japan and south korea doing super. I do agree about leadership (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up empire tho. A worthy opponent indeed! Okay, second biggest then.. kind of yeah, why? I mean, what were our options? Sign a pact with them and invade other countries in agression like you did, and then get backstabbed and win the war thanks to the west and then go on opressing people for some fifty years? Or do like our norwegian nieghbor and get invaded and lebensarumed? I think we took the right path indeed.
Like the US, partially. And the UK, in some ways. Indeed, that's why it was much easier to grow an empire back in the days until like the 1800's because people didn't mind opressive measures and/or genocide as much back then, and the state was more powerful. And you know, hitler could've easily made an empire had he not been such a fool. Had he been a good strategian and not just a psyochopath orator we'd probably be living in the thrid reich today. Provided he eased up on the opression thingy also, it was kinda unsustainale in my view. Indeed we do, and ignorance is bliss I'm not speaking about today of course, but the 60's. I think the world third biggest airforce, in absolute numbers and not per capita mind you, would object. But I don't know, them jews sure are fighters. You didn't follow my logic here? Look at sweden during the 60's. best welfare in the world for their citizens, really big army per capita, and still keeping taxes lower than the average oecd countries'. Obviously we were doing something much more efficiently. The us, and ussr, aren't the best per capita but they are the strongest in total numbers. What I was saying is that swedes outclass(ed) them per capita. I mean, we're just a nation of 10 million so it's onoly fair to go by per capita. You know what would be the best thing? To split russia up into smaller countries, that'd be swell. Those ruskies are opressing the poor tartars and other non russians anyways. How wonderful wouldn't it have been if we'd killed of communism right after we've dealt with hitler, and then do to russia what we did to austria after wwi? ah.. that's my dream scenario. Oh well, atleast I can recreate it in computer games. Indeed, glad that you understand. It's the swedes and swiss, making money as if there wasn't a war going on. and americans, until they get attacked. fight against enemies, for real? (*)(*)(*)(*) no, i'm an armchair general. I'm not a frontline soldier, I'm the mastermind strategos behind it all. Seriously though I'm actually more of a 'let every people have a state' kind of guy, so I'm in principle opposed to empires. But it's just that they're very cool historically.
In my view this is not a correct example. According to historical standards US has only recently become a superpower. Not long ago (according to historical standards) US had played only secondary roles. And who knows what will happen with US in 50, 100, years? Someone thought in 1980 about disintegration of USSR in the near future? The British Empire has already died. Now UK became US’s very junior partner. Take for example the Mongol Empire. Where is the Mongol Empire now? They got a fatal blow from conquered and reduced nations. If a grandmother had a dik it would be a grandfather. The history doesn’t like a subjunctive mood. But don’t take it too hard just take any computer game about WWII and I think you can change this situation quick and easy. Lol . So what? In the 60s Israel got a strong and effective army too. Did you hear something about the six-day war? Sometimes a biggest air force is not an effective one. In 1941 USSR had much more planes than Germany as well. So what? There is a big difference when you construct a small puppet country and when you construct a superpower. Could you take the North Caucasus? You're late. Everyone knows that Gorbachev, CIA, jeans, coca-cola, chewing gum and 2 dozens of anti-Soviet dissidents screwed mighty, unconquerable USSR- the strongest country in the world. (joke) In my view commies screwed themselves. It was a lame regime from its birth. Yeah I got it. And I’m glad that al last you understand that Sweden got a hard lesson but came to the right conclusion lost ridiculous imperial ambitions did not take part in the sh^t like WWI WWII and other conflicts and as a result poor and second-rate country became successful and nice one. Brilliant. Good choice indeed. Amen.
Another cute lie. How do you think "forced" looks like? Somebody with mashinegun pointed at your back makes you study and speak the other language? Or maybe it is making another language official and needed elsewhere and you simply need to know it for comfortable life? You are not different to the others, get over it. And you obviously don't know history. Open a Wikipedia for one, nothing "forceful" over there, thought you would be coumfortable to believe it is the opposite. We have got, let me see, China, India, Russia, USA, Turkey, Canada and I am not even trying. There are plenty of monoentic countries, which are nothing more, but a 3-rd world hellholes. Generally national state have little to do with prosperty. Don't know, maybe try to resist, you know, like the other countries? At least that would be fair, and not that (*)(*)(*)(*)ty moral superiority you are pretending to have. Silly attempt. Try something new instead of cold war propaganda. Yeah, and we and the other allies have took the wrong path. Shoulda just turn Sweeden into one giant Dresden. That would be fair exchange for helping aryian brother exterminating people.
Superpower and empire aren't synonymous. Heard about 'manifest destiny'? That's american imperialism. all of the US is a former colony, either british or american, all they've managed to do is swap the population. is it any different than portugal colonising angola, just that america managed to do a population swap? The UK has succeeded in doing a population swap in many places. It's not the canada of the native americans that got independence you know, it's the colonising british. The commonwealth is just a loosely knit empire. There is no mongol empire. But take the russia, where is it today? Well it's owning lots of tartar land and siberia. because we are swedish ubermenschen already, nuff said. Seriously though, I'd say we were on par. I like jews, enough of this. russians suck, and only have strenght in numbers, no comparison can be made. we were, to the annoyance of both parties, trying to keep ourselves neutral while secretly cooperating with both sides. From russia? No, but I don't want it either. I want to give it independence. sure was, but they could've been put out of their misery a bit quicker. Meh, it wasn't much of a hard lesson really. We got away without much damage at all, and the last thing we did was screw over our nieghbor denmark and steal norway; one last act of imperialism.
Sweden was as bad as russia. yeah yeah. Wikipedia you want, and wikipedia you get. look up latvia, and then soviet era. You'll see that the ethnic latvians shrunk to 67% of the population by various soviet measures, and russian was used as language etc. Had it gone on, we wouldn't have had any latvians today. Swedes on the other hand ruled finland for several hundred years, and finns were in no danger of dying out. Note that ethnicity isn't the same as race. Culture plays part, and that was sort of what i was thinking of. Look at all those countries, they do have a dominant majority, and are united by some other factor like religion in india, and shared imperial heritage in china. resist? Resist what? They didn't invade us or anything, both sides were good trading partners. Being neutral is worse than inavding other countries in agressive wars? kay Soviet apologist or what? There were plans on invading sweden to stop the iron exports, and to use scania as a base for air raids on germany. But, they never happened. But hey, we served our purpose as a jew haven.
Well, then why you gave this example with US? The moot point. The members of this commonwealth do not coordinate well with each other and each has its own agenda and interests. And no doubt the true British Empire has already died. Now UK became USs very junior partner. Though I agree UK still has a weight in the international scene. AND yes UK is not a puppet country like Sweden. Someone told here about assimilation? Well sometimes it happens. You like it, right? You got it in this case. Russians did it. Sweden f ed up. In my view this is not a true. You f ed up twice when you tried to create empire. But then you came to the right conclusion and made a pretty nice small puppet country. In my view its your limit. I knew it. You mean WWII? Well I agree. In 1941 USSR got a hard blow but then the situation had changed and as a result the third Reich and its satellites had been owned. Though yes, USSR paid a high price for this victory. You mean this scum, so-called soviet authority? I doubt. In my view you overestimated them. You might not believe it but me too. My Bro I feel your pain. Your country suckked big Russian D twice, during the Great Northern War 17001721 and in 1808-1809.Yes, it was very humiliating act for your state and for you. But let be objective. Thanks to this hard lesson your country lost its ridiculous ideas about great Sweden and then your country became successful and nice one. Say thank you to your big neighbor for this lesson (joke). Peace.
Because it's a country which colonised lands, imperialism, and still keeps most of it. It's an example of an empire which didn't brake apart. Oh but we're all puppets.. Anyways, you do get my point? Assimilation? Well, not per se actually. I don't like a country, like the russians in this case, conquer and settle lands of another nation, like the tartars. I'm a nationalist you know, so it's about which nation has a right to the land and that jazz. Thus, if a tartar goes to russia he shoudl assimilate, but russians going into tartaria, tartars' homeland, shouldn't russify it. I wouldn't view it that way. We held a empire for a very long time considering that all our nieghbors hated us, and our population was a few million and our enemies had much more. Look at it that way. Not only ww2, I mean all of russian history. Always quantity over quality. still true, it's a basic tenet of russianness. What? I meant that the allies should've finished off the soviet union just after they had dealt with hitler. The soviets only had a battered army. The US had a huge army, airforce and navy and could've easily won. Just imagine, a world without the cold war, without (*)(*)(*)(*)ing communism, a world in which russia and china would be divided into smaller countries. And of course, the baltic given to sweden. no, kidding. No no, i believe you. People are nationalists deep down inside. I really can't say that we lost against russia, even though we did. It's really unfair comparison, because russia is just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing huge and we're so small. Per capita, every swede is worth a thousand rusians, but it's just that for every swede there's 16 million russians. I really think it's worth for russia to ever have gotten their asses handed to them by such a small country as Sweden. Sweden being owned by a country some thousand times bigger is to be expected eventually. And let's not forget that we kept pwning them from the viking age, with Rurik sailing down and establishing the viking kingdom of holmgård in russia, founding the rurikovich dynasty and leter forming the state of rus (namesake of russia even), and continuing pwning them until they finally managed to fight back in the 18th century. So some thousand years of owning our slavic nieghbors. I'm quite proud anyways.
Leave your silly misplace moral pedestal. Nobody buys this sh`t over here. And, by the way, that was actions of Soviet Union, not Russia. So? That wasn't "assimilation" or any other wet dream you have about it. If you don't know something don't speak about it. You wouldn't look like one big ignoramus then. Early USSR was busy creating nationalities, not the opposite. Not to mention the fact that people in the republics were taught their national language from the beginning of USSR to it's end. So, please, leave this cute anti-soviet propaganda for those, who don't have any clue about the subject. Lolwut? I can't understand what you are talking about. Writing it in the appropriate and understandable form should help. Resist being good trading partners to mass killers and genocidal maniacs. Now makes sence to you? Cowards' and rats' position. Be proud, sweden! Y'r great! Nowadays something like that would end up nuking. And that would be great. That won't be invading a neutral. You were not a neutral.
right, and that was the actions of the swedish empire. we're different now, can't be held accountable for that. But seriously though, the current russian federation is the successor to the USSR (which is why you inherited the UN seat and all USSR embassies, among other things), and the USSR was, iirc, the successor to the russian empire. Aren't you trying to have your cake and eat it at the same time? Are you or are you not the successorstate of the USSR? Should we pretend that your just a newly formed country that has no previous history? And if so, do realise that you shouldn't have inhereited those things then. But you did, along with the guilt of the actions of the USSR. I'd call it russification, the latvians weren't the worst affected tho. The poles however, were hit very hard, som estimate up to 1.6 million displaced under soviet rule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_settlements_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union actually, I'm aware of that, which is why I said 'ultimately destroy nationalities'. I'm aware that they wanted to create mini nation state republics, but that was only to eventually kill of nationalities. I don't know why, but they believed it would be easier achieved that way. or somrthing like that, it was a while since I read it. oh you mean like, resist the temptation of making money by trading with maniacs. I thought you meant resist as in resisting force, which there weren't any. But okay then, I still think it was a good choice in the situation Sweden found herself in. Really, looking at the situation of sweden in the 40's its probably the best choice. And again, it's much better to do what we did, than what you did. Id est, trading with genocidal maniac is better than being one yourself. I hold fast on that. And you can go on about nukes, it's not going to happen. Just wishful thinking, just like my dream of a shattered russian federation. questionable neutrality perhaps but neutrality. Bear in mind that we're not speaking of the morality but the legality of it.
Lol. But why you begun the debate about difference between an empire and a superpower? Just demagogy. Some countries are puppets some countries are puppeteers. This is obvious. Tatars are nice people. The integral and active part of Russian society. They played an important role in the development of the country. Russians re living in harmony with tatars. Did you hear a proverb - Scratch a Russian and youll find a Tatar. Good example of peaceful coexistence, right? . Btw why you care only about tatars? What about other nations? Bashkirs? Evenks? Chukchis? They are nice people and as well. The brotherly nations. Son, stop disappointing me. You realize that you give childish prattle lately. You are really killing this discussion. + You should also raise a claim to European emigrants which screwed Native Americans and took their land, to Normans because they screwed anglo-saxons etc. It is usual. Look back into the history and you will see many analogous examples. Dont take it too hard and just be objective. Well thats right. Russians often used to practice this. And you have expected any more from kind of empire where so-called reasons of state (sometimes ridiculous projects or caprices of another princeling and entourage) prevailed over man? Russian / Soviet authorities often wasted their ppl and did not care about it. But in my view this is a typical thing for kind of such hard empires. Take Napoleon or Nazis they often used to practice the same things - Always quantity over quality, and wasted a lot of their own ppl as well. Now you glad that Sweden left its imperial ambitions? However, sometimes there was another situation. Read something about Russian commander Suvorov, Russo -Turkish wars, The Patriotic War of 1812 etc. The unreal scenario. USSR had a strong army + huge combat experience. It would have been a suicidal war for both sides. And both sides knew it. Another childish prattle. + You have big probs with math. Negative. Sweden really f ed up. Your idiots, rulers forgot a good proverb - Dont bite off more than you can chew. Your cry about small Sweden and huge Russia is a lame argument. The small British screwed huge populous India. A skill is stronger than a quantity. At the end of the 17th century Russia was a pretty weak state and had the ineffective army. Sweden had the strong and modern European army and navy. But your country f ed up. Did you hear something about The Battle of Poltava? It was your epic fail. So, you gave another funny statement that every Swede is worth a thousand Russians. The Russians screwed your ubermenschs quick and easy. So it goes If you are a true nationalist you should know one proverb jedem das seine. So, the life showed that Russias destiny was to construct a big empire and Swedens destiny was to suffer some defeats. The neutrality was the only thing to do for the weak, poor and second-rate country like Sweden. Because any strong neighbors like Russia or Germany could have screwed Sweden quick and easy. Very informative. Swedish schools took light curriculum this year? Lol there are no any strong arguments who was Rurik by nationality Norman, Slav or someone else. + DNA test showed that assumed direct descendants of this semi - mythical personage (Rurik) have a Finno-Ugric haplogroup. Also some experts believe that Rurik was just another mythical personage. Btw there is an opinion that Vikings were just ordinary barbarians. The bandits, robbers, murderers, and rapists. The medieval mustards which terrorized other nations. You see any difference between a viking and a mustarrd? http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/SCREAMING-MUSTARD-ALERT2.jpg http://download.worldofbattles.com/emblems/looki_sb1/ClanEmblems/d092d0b0d180d18fd0b3_c9a97fd1.jpg A viking liked a polytheism. Also Vikings called the Ancient Rus Gardarike. They really thought that Rus was a strong and rich place. And Russians readily hired bands of these barbarians. As the good consumables for wars. - - - Updated - - - Lol. But why you begun the debate about difference between an empire and a superpower? Just demagogy. Some countries are puppets some countries are puppeteers. This is obvious. Tatars are nice people. The integral and active part of Russian society. They played an important role in the development of the country. Russians ‘re living in harmony with tatars. Did you hear a proverb - Scratch a Russian and you’ll find a Tatar. Good example of peaceful coexistence, right? . Btw why you care only about tatars? What about other nations? Bashkirs? Evenks? Chukchis? They are nice people and as well. The brotherly nations. Son, stop disappointing me. You realize that you give childish prattle lately. You are really killing this discussion. + You should also raise a claim to European emigrants which screwed Native Americans and took their land, to Normans because they screwed anglo-saxons etc. It is usual. Look back into the history and you will see many analogous examples. Don’t take it too hard and just be objective. Well that’s right. Russians often used to practice this. And you have expected any more from kind of empire where so-called reasons of state (sometimes ridiculous projects or caprices of another princeling and entourage) prevailed over man? Russian / Soviet authorities often wasted their ppl and did not care about it. But in my view this is a typical thing for kind of such hard empires. Take Napoleon or Nazis they often used to practice the same things - “Always quantity over quality”, and wasted a lot of their own ppl as well. Now you glad that Sweden left its imperial ambitions? However, sometimes there was another situation. Read something about Russian commander Suvorov, Russo -Turkish wars, The Patriotic War of 1812 etc. The unreal scenario. USSR had a strong army + huge combat experience. It would have been a suicidal war for both sides. And both sides knew it. Another childish prattle. + You have big probs with math. Negative. Sweden really f ed up. Your idiots, rulers forgot a good proverb - Don’t bite off more than you can chew. Your cry about small Sweden and huge Russia is a lame argument. The small British screwed huge populous India. A skill is stronger than a quantity. At the end of the 17th century Russia was a pretty weak state and had the ineffective army. Sweden had the strong and modern European army and navy. But your country f ed up. Did you hear something about The Battle of Poltava? It was your epic fail. So, you gave another funny statement that “every Swede is worth a thousand Russians”. The Russians screwed your “ubermenschs” quick and easy. So it goes… If you are a true nationalist you should know one proverb – “jedem das seine”. So, the life showed that Russia’s destiny was to construct a big empire and Sweden’s destiny was to suffer some defeats. The neutrality was the only thing to do for the weak, poor and second-rate country like Sweden. Because any strong neighbors like Russia or Germany could have screwed Sweden quick and easy. Very informative. Swedish schools took light curriculum this year? Lol there are no any strong arguments who was Rurik by nationality – Norman, Slav or someone else. + DNA test showed that assumed direct descendants of this semi - mythical personage (Rurik) have a Finno-Ugric haplogroup. Also some experts believe that Rurik was just another mythical personage. Btw there is an opinion that Vikings were just ordinary barbarians. The bandits, robbers, murderers, and rapists. The medieval mustards which terrorized other nations. You see any difference between a viking and a mustarrd? http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/SCREAMING-MUSTARD-ALERT2.jpg http://download.worldofbattles.com/emblems/looki_sb1/ClanEmblems/d092d0b0d180d18fd0b3_c9a97fd1.jpg A viking liked a polytheism. Also Vikings called the Ancient Rus – Gardarike. They really thought that Rus was a strong and rich place. And Russians readily hired bands of these barbarians. As the good consumables for wars.
