Does it makes sense for Russia to undertake this?

We had a conversation about this as well.

I think Russia would be willing to do it so long as they knew neither EU nor the US would object. They paint a picture where the US has gone back to isolationism (we have our energy, we don't care).

Russia gets even more control of gas and oil than they already would have and there is reference to redefining maritime boundaries which suggests they are not just pumping Norwegian oil but taking ownership of at least some oil fields. A powerful position for Russia. Would one imagine Putin for example, would not take it?

One other motivation for Russia. If Thorium reactors are a new future would you not like to have control of a major resource and be able to create closer access to the technology of the future?

It was harder for me to imagine that the EU would cede that power to Russia. Why not invade on its own?

Without the US, the EU and NATO countries would be much less powerful and not as intimidating to Norway. Norway might actually consider a fight and that could tear up NATO and/or EU. It might be that not all member countries would agree.

There might even be language specific to one NATO countries troops not going in to another member. NATO members could soft peddle the co-defense requirement side by saying it is not an invasion by Russia, but technological assistance, in a manner that is easier to say from far away than from having even some of one's own boots on the ground in an unwelcoming neighbor.

By using the proxy I think the EU keeps out of some of the multi nation complications. But I think they hurt themselves badly in the long run.

The more unreasonable position that I see is Norway simply turning off the spigots even as they bring their own first reactor on line. Aren't they still driving around gas powered vehicles of their own?

A phase down of exports forcing a ramp up in reactor constructions would seem a more viable long term position. And economically beneficial for he who knows how to design and build thorium reactors.

Unless they see the world as already past the climate change tipping table in which case they should have blown up the rigs, pumping plants and pipelines already. They certainly should now at the outset of season 2. "EU call off your dogs or we junk what they are protecting."

In the end it is a make believe story but an interesting concept and I think very well produced.

I think the show is tapping into the historical antagonism between Norway and Russia. They haven't had the most wonderful of relationships over the years especially post WW2. They exist as a convenient boogeyman in the show, though one that the producers go to great pains to still depict as human.

What reason would Russia have to actually invade at the behest of an EU superpower that has recently been leveling major economic sanctions against it? most likely none but the writers didn't feel it necessary to write a Deus ex Machina into the show like they did for NATO and the US. Probably because its not needed for the average Norwegian audience to buy a situation as bizarre as the EU hiring Russians to do their work.

I've never been to Norway and I'm am definitely not qualified to speculate on their international policy, but just from reading news stories I sense a subconscious distrust of the EU in general when it comes to the Norwegian public, as well as a historical distrust of their large neighbor to the east. Hence why the public has always resisted the voting drive to join the EU as a full member state rather than just participate in the economic zone as a trade partner.

Why not call out Germany and Merkel as the real bad guys in the show? probably because they don't have to. There are alot of parellells between this fictional situation and the real life events that transpired in Greece during the debt crisis for viewers to draw their own conclusion. Plus it insulates the producers from having to "name names" and generate some bad public feelings while Europe is still grappling with an identity crisis (i.e. the recent issue with immigration).

Thats just my two sense and I invite any one to disagree if they like.

Wow I could've written your post. I am glad you wrote that & the responses are interesting.

To add: Do you think Russia intended it to go on and get as involved as it did? They kept saying it was temporary... but I don't know if that was just a "foot in the door" approach, and they never wanted it to be temporary.

Also, why are so many Russians immigrating to Norway? And so quickly? It seems like a bad cultural fit, and an odd choice for the country to start doing. Getting a visa to work there isn't nearly as easy as they made it seem. I guess that another part of their "strategy" but it seems to have happened within a very short time span. Why would anyone uproot their lives like that - en masse? They aren't refugees.

Anyway, it's an interesting show that Netflix recommended to me & I kinda like it despite the faults here and there. (I LOVED broadchurch, and I think that's way it recommended this) I'm actually mildly annoyed by the lack of security around the PM and how he basically seems to live & work like your average American project manager in an office...getting coffee at the stand in the lobby?? No executive is getting coffee at a stand in the lobby. I couldn't let that go. Ha.

Things don't look very "official" either - except his meeting with the royal (king? sorry I was lost there and admittedly know little of Norwegian gvt). I don't know if that is budget related or if it's just a much more laid back government, but that seems unlikely. By contrast, House of Cards and Scandal do a much better job of showing how insulated the president is...often to a fault. And, image preservation is everything...but here - his wife (or girlfriend?) just runs off to France, randomly. Could you imagine Michelle Obama running to lead some initiative in Haiti after the crises and staying there? The security alone would be outrageous to protect her. The country would see her as abandoning her "post" but then again - this is an American first lady. I have no idea how they are regarded in Norway.

Side note - this is probably the 1st time in the history of IMDB that I've seen an intelligent discussion. I guess the format of the show weeds a lot of people out.

And if I got some stuff wrong above - sorry. I sometimes multi-task watching TV and it's really hard to do that with subtitles. So, I miss stuff...admittedly also when plot lines intertwine, sometimes I get a bit ADD...even if it is in English.

Of course it doesn't make sense for Russia, highly dependent on energy exports mostly to the EU, to undertake an act of military aggression to put a competing energy exporter back in business. The conceit that this series is built on is so utterly ridiculous that it makes it hard for me to take it seriously. And the loud, obtrusive and heavy-handed "dramatic" background music makes it even harder. After the positive impression of Norwegian television left by the insightful and clever "Lilyhammer" (at least, the first two seasons anyway) Occupied is an amateurish letdown.

No, Russia is gas and oil rich, especially gas. Since the US has become self sufficient energy wise, and the lessening of petroleum needs world wide has caused the price of raw fuels to drastically drop in price. Producers now are struggling for market share.

to OP:
this is such a crap... like we need norwegian petrol: big LOL :) "germany rules europe".. right .. right... french never created the european union in the first place and the euro wouldnt crack down if france decide to be out of the EU....

For the purpose of spreading the blame around, the EU is behind the Russian invasion. The makers were cowards. They should have simply made the Russians the aggressors. That is like a pre-WW2 film with the invaders Germans - but invading at the behest of the Jews. The Russians are the villains, don't pretend otherwise.

Did it make sense for Russia to invade Ukraine? The day filming of this series began, the Russian invaded Crimea.