Okkupert : Unrealistic

I don't see anything unrealistic about it, other than some minor details and a political situation that doesn't exist currently.

This is story of what happens in a country when the government is forced to co-operate with a hostile foreign country. Like what happened in WW2 when the Nazis set up puppet governments in France and Norway. (the two countries that co-produced this)

It does a good job showing the moral dilemmas involved and how a lot of people are compromised to some extent when trying to do the 'right thing' which can become very complicated while also trying not to get killed.

If you think that people in the story act foolishly A) its a very difficult situation and B) People do act foolishly all the time.

If anything, i think the actions of the characters are too rational, not every resistance fighter is going to have some rational backstory. None of that is needed, having your country invaded is a powerful force and nationalism is not to be underestimated.

PS. I thought it was funny when a Russian yells at a Norweigan to 'speak english'

The most unrealistic thing is that the USA isn`t more involved. Mind you, I am only up to Chapter 7 when Berg arrives at US embassy, so they could yet. We know that in real life and for the predictable future the US will interfere and plot in all geopolitical matters, certainly one of this magnitude.

Not sure why you think that, we have had many isolationist administrations over the years. Usually they coincide with a period of high interventionism in the previous administrations that has upset the public. Just take a look at several of the top contenders in this year's presidential campaign. Trump, Cruz, Sanders all of these people are running on some pretty isolationist platforms. Heck even Clinton if she follows her husbands foreign policy direction (and in some ways you can she she did as secretary of state the first few years) would be less apt to directly involve her administration in international conflicts unless directly forced by a major power like Europe. Probably the only one I can point to that would want to be a major player in geopolitical affairs would be a Neo-con like Jeb Bush, and currently he is trailing at around 5% in polls. So that just shows you that political fortunes change and when it comes to policy direction for the US unless we have a strong enemy that we can manifest (ISIS is losing its media appeal, Russia is hard to take seriously with its ever faltering economy, and China is too invested as a world trading partner).

Again just my opinion and I invite dissent.

What president has not had interventions under his administration since WWII? Notice I didn't say "what president has not intervened" since such decisions often occur *above* the level of the president. The Pentagon and the CIA don't have to stand for election every four years. They just continue to accumulate power under every administration, far more than the president. JFK tried to rein in the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about and we saw what happened to him. John Frankenheimer who, at the urging of JFK, directed his movie version of the novel "Seven Days In May" in 1963 (about a military coup d'tat against a president who was perceived by the military as "soft on communism") wrote that JFK wanted the movie made "as a warning to the republic" (JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass)). JFK even offered Frankenheimer space right in front of the White House to use for movie sets over the strenuous objections of the Pentagon! Could it be any clearer? This is a war-based economy. It absolutely depends on continuing conflicts and starting new ones which have happened under every president since WW2. A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present (Blum) - http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html. General Wesley Clark revealed that, back in 2001 (10 days after 9/11), he was told to his shock by a Pentagon aide that the Pentagon planned 7 wars in 5 years. The regime change in Libya (one of the seven countries targeted, way behind schedule) occurred under Obama's administration. So Obama had nothing to do with that decision which was made long before he entered office.

The US never gets involved in anything unless they have a direct financial or geopolitical interest in the matter, or there has been an attack on US soil.

Yea, that's why it's called fiction.

While the premise is a bit of a stretch especially considering the current oil glut (caused by Saudi's trying to put the US frackers out of business coupled with low demand especially from China thanks to the economic slowdown it is gripping and well made. Russia as an oil producer would probably prefer that Norway is out of oil production, and the US pulling out of Nato is unlikely.

Still, as a "soft" occupation, it reminds me of the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. There are actually many similarities, with no real fighting on the ground aside from a quick takeover of the Prague airport with commando forces and the landing of a special flight controller plane to a small battle over the Prague radio station. In a matter of days 700,000 Soviet and other Warsaw pact troops entered and occupied the country, and yet there were very few deaths - mostly accidental shootings, a car backfiring etc.

Just like "Occupied" the initial change came from a shift in the country's governing party policy. In this case to have a more human and liberal socialism, and just like "Occupied" the Russians attempted to install their own government or control the Czech politburo but had difficulty. There was also a lot of "soft" opposition, citizens removing street signs so the Russian troops would not know directions. I was young but my father who worked in a military base, had organized the printing of flyers to be sent to the Hungarian troops as the Hungarians had fought a Soviet invasion in 1956, but they were not sure if they could trust the loyalty of the Hungarian typesetter.

Just like in "Occupied" there were people behind the scenes trying to avoid a full scale conflict. In this case it was understood that the US would not do anything as Czechoslovakia was firmly in the Soviet sphere - something agreed to in the Yalta conference at the end of the war. (BTW the US Ambassador at the time was Shirley Temple Black - the former child actor).

Also people had mixed loyalties, there were many Czechs who were firm Communists and supported the Russians and there were many who hated them and the occupation and yet there were many in the middle who were pragmatist and were in the Communist party because that was the way to get ahead. Also many people left at the time, and for years the one test that the Communists used in checking for loyalty was to get one's opinion on the Russian invasion (in loyalty hearings, if you were applying for a better position etc.

Love the architecture.

I find the story alarmingly plausible, including the USA's blas attitude. We are obviously in no hurry to tangle with Russia as they bully their way around anyplace that suits them and befriend murderers like Assad. Meanwhile Sidorova turns out to have some moral substance and the idealists get their clocks cleaned. Free Norway!

This is fiction, this is why imdb exists. In my world everybody, not just Russia would give that lame MF a bitch slap. FICTION