(Click on the image to enlarge)

The sun has been rising from the North for quite some time on the NATO land. Since mid-2009, the chair of NATO secretary general has been occupied by Northern Europe’s politicians: first the former Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen and then (since October 2014) the former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg. Brussels extended Stoltenberg’s contract to September 2022. The not so far deadline is already prompting the first discussions among the Atlantic partners.

Next year, the new secretary might be introduced at NATO’s Madrid summit in late spring or early summer. According to the Western zeitgeist, a woman is largely expected to reach the top civilian rank inside NATO for the first time. To complete the identikit, you have to consider the shift toward North, North-East of the Alliance that since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 is progressively positioning his troops around the Russian borders.

The first three names circulating are the former presidents Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović of Croatia and Dalia Grybauskaitė of Lithuania; and present Estonian President Kersti Kaljulaid. The play is far from over, and many other countries will push their candidates. Despite her poor public relations skills and charisma, the UK could try with the former number 10, Theresa May. In a time of rising tension with Russia one thing is sure: the standard of the new incumbent should meet the same flattening attitude towards Washington that the two last northern secretaries ensured so dutifully.

As Moscow (and everyone in the world, indeed, except the European mainstream media) knows, the strategic power of the alliance lies on the Western side of the Atlantic only. Viewing from the U.S., one of the most appreciated attitudes of European allies is unconditioned obedience. A quality that the Northern European countries epitomise best. Surely more than the comparatively less trustable Southern countries like France, Italy or Spain. Or the Germans. Linked to Russia by an eternal geopolitical love/hate relationship, Germany has recently blocked the supply of NATO weaponry to Kiev despite Washington’s pressures. Having a robust commercial relationship with Russia, Berlin views economic war with Moscow, not to mention an actual military conflict, a nightmare to cope with reluctantly only when the American pressure becomes unbearable.

So if you want to find the NATO hardcore militant, you have to meet the elites of Northern Europe. Peoples are a different matter; even though in recent times the pools are going slightly towards NATO support, the public opinions are still largely divided and generally inclined to a neutral attitude on  security matters. If you let ideology apart, it is difficult to explain why a more aggressive NATO stance should be in those countries’ national interest. This consideration works well for the entire Eastern side of the Atlantic Alliance.

For many years, the cooperation between the governments of the Nordic Council (a body for formal inter-parliamentary collaboration among Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland) avoided security issues out of respect for Sweden and Finland’s non-aligned status. But last November, the usual fair play was somehow put aside. NATO’s secretary general Jens Stoltenberg addresses the 73rd Session of the Nordic Council in Copenhagen, saying: “By remaining united and continuing to adapt to a changing world, we will keep the ’deep peace’ here in the Nordic region and in Europe”.

In the most aggressive interpretation of ancient “Si vis pacem para bellum”, the “deep peace” is pursued through a constant military push towards the Russian border. When Russia reacts, as in the Ukrainian case, Western media are there to shout at the new barbarian aggression.

Despite Sweden’s new Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson recently saying that Sweden would not be applying for NATO membership, the country is a stable satellite of the Alliance. Last June, Sweden hosted, with a crucial role, the Exercise Arctic Challenge 21, one of the largest air-power drills in Europe. Arctic Challenge deployed warplanes from the U.S., Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain for air defence, close air support, air-defence suppression and air-to-ground strike training.

The Swedish government has reintroduced military conscription, approved a staggering 40 per cent increase in defence spending (the Country’s hugest defence-spending increase in 70 years), defined a new security doctrine, the “Total Defence,” and started a military build-up in Gotland, a Swedish island in the Baltic Sea with a charming “view” on the Baltic Countries.

Since 2016, Stockholm has been a key U.S. partner in providing a flexible global-strike capability (read: against Russia) of the long-range American bombers. The new spending will increase the size of the country’s military by 67 per cent, reorganise the army into mechanised brigades, add air-defence systems to warships, build up the size of the navy and deploy a next-generation fighter-bomber.

In early November, Sweden received its first Patriot missile defence system from the United States. The military industries of the neutral and pacifist Sweden are going under full sail: sales increased from 172 USD Million in 2019 to 286 USD Million in 2020, with Pakistan and Emirates at the top of the list. In recent years, this trend has been in ironic contrast with the irregularly pursued Sweden’s feminist foreign policy (FFP).

Finland is the other regular-irregular at  NATO’s table. Finnish President Sauli Niinistö has just replayed like this to the last Russian appeal not to join the eastwards shift of the Alliance: “Finland considers NATO to be a factor that is fostering security and stability in Europe. Maintaining a national room to manoeuvre and freedom of choice is the foundation of Finland’s foreign, security and defence policy. This also includes the possibility of military alignment and applying for NATO membership”.

In a 2019 poll, half of Finns, 51 per cent, said they are against joining NATO while the yes faction scored 26 per cent. At the end of October, NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg praised Finland and Sweden’s close partnership with the Atlantic Alliance while visiting the Swedish Navy base in the Hårsfjärden fjord near Berga, Haninge, during the joint Swedish/Finnish Naval Exercise, Swenex-21.

“It is important that NATO allies, Finland and Sweden continue to train and exercise together. Over the years, we have been working more and more closely together. We have seen the security situation in the region deteriorate, with Russia’s aggressive posturing and its military build-up. This makes our cooperation even more important”, said the secretary general.

Finland has just chosen the F-35A Block 4 multirole fighter to replace its fleet of 62 old F/A-18C/D Hornets. Helsinki has confirmed its intention to buy 64 examples of the Joint Strike Fighter. All included: armament, training, maintenance, and other services, with deliveries of the jets scheduled to start in 2025. The estimated global expense is 8,3 billion euros. The Swedish, with their challenging Saab Gripen E, were the great losers. The F35 is a very advanced fighter and Helsinki is to develop a domestic support network that will be among the most sizable anywhere outside the U.S., probably only behind Israel. Despite this reality, the moral of the story is that when it comes to NATO, Europe loses, and America wins, either strategically or economically. The game is not to reverse the unrealistic narrative of bad Russia against the good Western Alliance but to understand that European countries’ national interest is not the main concern of the American-led alliance.

The Defender Europe 2021 exercises include estimates of as many as 37,000 troops from at least 27 NATO member and partner states and appear to be based entirely in Eastern Europe, from the Baltic Sea to the Balkans and the Black Sea. Comprehensive figures are not verifiable, but there is every reason to believe this is the largest U.S.-NATO military exercise since the Cod War; and moreover one occurring as Russia and Ukraine, steadfastly backed by the U.S. and NATO, are at loggerheads over renewed fighting in the Donbass region of what was formerly Eastern Ukraine.

NATO’s Allied Command Operations website reports today that the military alliance completed the eight-day Crystal Arrow 2021 exercise which was run by U.S. Army forces in conjunction with two NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battle Groups, from Latvia and Lithuania. (The other two NATO Battle Groups are in Estonia and Poland.)

The following paragraph is a condensed case study in NATO war plans:

“NATO Allies and partners from across the globe came together to support and participate with NATO enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) Battle Group Latvia to increase cooperation, compatibility and interoperability in the event of a real-world fight against any foreign aggressors who would threaten Latvia’s boarders.”

The use of the plural in the word aggressors is disingenuous. NATO and the U.S. are training “allies and partners across the globe” for a “real-world fight” against only one alleged aggressor, Latvia’s neighbor Russia. The same country that the massive DefenderEurope war games are aimed at. (Though in both series of exercises Belarus will also be targeted as a “frontline state.”)

As regards the launching of the Crystal Arrow exercise on March 23, the NATO report waxed lively: “U.S. Abrams tanks joined German Leopard tanks to race across the open field marking the start of an eight-day exercise at the Ādaži military training area, Latvia….”

It would have to have been the very archetype of Cold War nightmare themes among Russians in the Soviet Union to see American and German tanks on their border. Now they’re right there. And not alone.

Overlapping with the ground exercise, NATO also held three-day naval drills off the coasts of Latvia and Estonia with half of NATO’s Standing Naval Forces, Standing NATO Maritime Group One (SNMG1) and Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group One (SNMCMG1). NATO Standing Naval Forces are described by the bloc as “the core of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (Maritime)” which “provide constant high-readiness maritime capabilities that can quickly and effectively respond across the full spectrum of operations in support of any NATO operations.” The SNMG1 was led by the Canadian frigate HMCS Halifax.

By way of reminder, in the past twenty-two years NATO operations have included air and ground wars in Europe, Asia and Africa.

The SNMG1 and SNMCMG1 are permanently assigned to Northern and Western European waters, including the Baltic Sea, North Sea, Norwegian Sea “and their maritime approaches.” Russia borders the Norwegian Sea and the Baltic Sea with its Kaliningrad exclave where Russia has its Baltic Fleet.

The U.S. and NATO would desire nothing as much as detaching Kaliningrad (former German Königsberg) from Russia and evicting the Baltic Fleet – as it is supporting Ukraine’s claim to Crimea so as to evict Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. That dual objective accomplished, Russia is cut off from the West by water approaches to the North and Mediterranean Seas.

Through the incorporation of fourteen new Eastern European nations as members, and forty nations around the world as partners, in the last thirty years, NATO has transformed the Baltic and Black Seas into its military outposts. What separates the two seas is Ukraine, the final link in the military cordon the U.S. and NATO have solidified along Russia’s western border. What in former eras would have been known as a siege. With a naval blockade into the bargain.

antibellum

(Click on the image to enlarge)

The air encounter took place on the second day of the Baltops-2019 NATO naval and air exercise in the Baltic Sea, in which the United States, Sweden (a non-NATO member), and sixteen other nations, including non-NATO member Finland, were taking part. Not taking part in the exercise were NATO members Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Canada, Czechia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Iceland, Croatia, and Montenegro. The exercise was scheduled for June 9-21.

The Baltops exercise was being held under the command of the newly-reconstituted US Second Fleet, which is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia. The annual exercise concludes with the participating ships and submarines sailing to Kiel in Germany to participate in the annual Kielerwochen naval parade, which also serves an opportunity for sailors to drink copious amounts of beer during the week-long festivities.

There is little doubt that the Western military alliance is attempting to turn the Baltic Sea into a “NATO lake.” With Sweden and Finland now openly participating in NATO military exercises and making no real secret of their participation in the operations with the FIVE EYES signals intelligence alliance of core members Britain, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, there is but one nation in the Baltic that remains both outside the NATO construct and NATO’s sole target: Russia.

NATO and its “non-member” partners, Sweden and Finland, have upped Baltic military tensions over the proposed Russian Gazprom’s Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline that will provide Russian gas directly to Germany. The pipeline passes just south of the Danish island of Bornholm, which lies closer to Sweden that it does to Denmark. Four countries involved in Nord Stream 2 have approved plans for the pipeline’s construction. The only holdout is Denmark. Donald Trump has praised Denmark’s refusal to back Nord Stream. However, Trump’s praise for the decision of Danish right-wing prime minster Lars Lokke Rasmussen was both premature and short-lived. On June 5, a “red alliance,” consisting of incoming Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s Social Democrats, along with the Social Liberals, Socialist People’s Party, the Red–Green Alliance, the Faroese Social Democratic Party, and the Greenlandic Siumut defeated Rasmussen’s rightist coalition in the general election.

As prime minister, Frederiksen is widely believed to want Denmark to reassert its independent foreign policy without taking orders from Washington, especially from an American administration that opposes the social democratic, environmental, and civil liberties platform of the Social Democrats and their coalition allies. The Red-Green Alliance favors Denmark’s withdrawal from NATO.

Frederiksen will be forced to deal with the Danish Intelligence Service (“Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste” or FE), which has helped to turn Denmark into an intelligence ally of the US National Security Agency and a stalwart member of the Nordic intelligence alliance of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland that has existed since the days of the Cold War.

After never really adjusting to the realities of the post-Cold War era, the FE is still organized as a NATO Baltic front line intelligence service geared up for the defense of the Baltic Straits from military action from a non-existent German Democratic Republic and USSR, as well as a non-existent Warsaw Pact member, Poland. The FE’s signals intelligence (SIGINT) capabilities (for example, from its Sandagergård SIGINT station at Aflandshage near Copenhagen) are targeted against commercial satellite communications traffic. The FE’s SIGINT unit has little or no capability to target Middle East communications. The FE’s small budget has resulted on its over-reliance on hugely sanitized and overly-edited intelligence from the Central Intelligence Agency. What the Danish intelligence analysts receive from the CIA is not that much more revelatory than what one can normally read in The Economist magazine, Financial Times, or the New York Times. For example, the FE continues to emphasize outmoded language skill sets – Russian, German, and Polish – while paying scant attention to the more critical Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Tamil, Turkish, and Kurdish languages spoken by many immigrant and first- and second-generation Danish citizens.

There have been suggestions from within the FE for it to build its own ship-based SIGINT platforms that would independently collect intelligence from the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea, and other hot spots involving Danish interests. However, the Danish government is content with its very junior status to the Americans. The rising importance of Sweden’s airborne SIGINT fleet of aircraft, including the Gulfstream IV spy plane intercepted by the Russian SU-27 near Kaliningrad, is witnessed by the fact that Sweden and the United States have totally integrated their airborne SIGINT capabilities under the NATO umbrella. In many ways, Sweden’s National Defense Radio Establishment or “Försvarets radioanstalt” (FRA), which operates Sweden’s SIGINT aircraft, including the Gulfstream IV intercepted by Russia with the US RC-135V, has become an even more important ally for the United States than the SIGINT agencies of full NATO members.

Although Sweden and Finland are dragging their political feet on joining NATO, their military policies have made both countries de facto members of the military bloc. While the Baltic Sea is not yet a “NATO lake,” the same cannot be said of the Gulf of Bothnia between Sweden and Finland. Finland’s VKL (“Viestikoelaitos”) SIGINT agency is a close partner of the NSA. The US Navy has also reportedly shared a passive sonar “library” of Russian submarine acoustic signatures with their Finnish and Swedish naval counterparts. In addition, naval intelligence cooperation between the navies of the United States, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Estonia in monitoring activities in the Gulf of Finland has never been greater. But why? The Cold War has been over for some two decades and northern Europe, frankly, has other worries, from climate change to the threat of re-emerging threats from Nazi and fascist political movements.

If Denmark should drift away from NATO intelligence activities in the Baltic, its place will gladly be taken by Poland. Polish President Andrzej Duda, who has established a close relationship with Trump, has agreed to foot the bill for the construction of US military bases in Poland. However, the NSA has been in Poland for several years and works with its Polish counterparts to extend a giant electronic intercept “ear” over Kaliningrad. Since 2013, NSA personnel have worked with Polish SIGINT analysts at a joint intercept in Olsztyn. The Olsztyn “outstation,” which is codenamed AMBERWIND, conducts electronic and communications intercepts of Russian military and other communications in Kaliningrad, the headquarters of the Russian Baltic Fleet. Just as with the troop bases in Poland, the Poles helped pay for the NSA SIGINT facility.

NATO and Trump are trying to have it both ways. While Trump has done everything possible to stymie the construction of Nord Stream 2, his national security policy makers have warned Russia not to interfere with Baltic undersea fiber-optic communications cables or the NordBalt power cable between Klaipeda, Lithuania and Nybro, Sweden. During the Cold War, there were serious suggestions from Sweden, Finland, the USSR, Poland, and even Denmark and Norway for the Baltic region to become a “zone of peace.” It appears that during a time of peace, certain Western interests want to turn the Baltic into a zone of war.

Actually, TRJE18 consists of three parts. The deployment phase has been underway since August. A live field exercise will be held from October 25 to November 7 with six brigades fighting each other right in the heart of Norway. A command post training event will be conducted from November 13 to November 24.

The drill will involve 45,000 participants from over 30 nations, including 10,000 rolling or tracked vehicles, 150 aircraft, and 60 ships. The main goal is to test the ability of NATO’s new Response Force to rapidly deploy. Norway will evaluate its ability to receive and handle reinforcements sent by its allies.

There are 700 US Marines stationed in Norway. That’s not a huge force, but as Adm. James Foggo, who heads all US naval forces in Europe and Africa and commands the Allied Joint Force Command in Naples put it, “that’s 300 Marines today. 3,000 Marines tomorrow.” The American pre-positioned forward storage sites in Norway, a complex of caves, have been upgraded to store weapons and equipment for roughly 15,000 Marines. That Scandinavian country has become the source of a threat to Russia’s national security.

The Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group is also taking part. The aircraft carrier returned to its home base in Norfolk in July following a three-month deployment. It was back in Europe in mid-September. Normally, US carrier groups operate according to a standard seven-month cycle. Now they are being shifted to “dynamic force employment” in order to improve flexibility.

Finland will contribute significantly to this exercise that is based on a simulated Article 5 scenario, with its troops operating in their home region, in Sweden and Norway. It will also lead and host the naval exercise Northern Coasts 18 (NOCO18) in the Baltic Sea, which is linked to Trident Juncture. Finland is sending about 2,000 troops to TRJE18. The size of that force is comparable to the contributions made by leading NATO members. For example, Germany is sending 4,000 troops, the UK — 3,500 troops, France – 3,000, Canada — 2,000, Denmark — 1,000, Italy — 1,500, Spain — 1,000, and the Netherlands — 1,500. The US contribution will be 12,000 soldiers, and the primary host is sending 6,500 servicemen. There were only about 160 Finnish troops participating in the last Trident Juncture held in 2015. Three years ago, the drill was held in southern, not northern Europe.

Sweden, another non-NATO active participant, is sending about 2,200 troops, along with four Gripen fighters that will be based in Norway. Before the TRJE kicks off, US, Swedish, and Finnish forces will conduct their own exercises in Sweden. Both Finland and Sweden participate in NATO’s Response Force.

Until now, both Scandinavian nations have shied away from holding Article 5 exercises. The Trident Juncture 2018 is a drastic shift in that policy, which is being carefully evaluated by Russia.

At an unofficial level, Sweden and Finland have already joined NATO through other groups and agreements, such as their trilateral cooperation with the US. The militarization of Norway, as well as all of the Scandinavian Peninsula and the Baltic states is being perceived by Russia as a provocation and a threat that demands a response. The Baltic states continue to request an increased military presence on their soil. NATO is stockpiling weapons, military equipment, and ammunition in the Baltic region and Poland.

There is a backstory to the Trident Juncture 2018 exercise. In early October, US Envoy to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchinson said Russia had been put on “short notice,” due to its alleged violations of the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. She warned that the US might "take out the missiles" before they could be deployed if Russia did not back down.

This year, NATO has already coordinated approximately 100 exercises, 20% more than during the same period in 2017. Poland will invite NATO members and partners for another large-scale, officially “national” exercise, Anaconda 2018, which will be held at roughly the same time as some smaller NATO drills, such as Citadel Bonus-18, Iron Wolf-18, and Baltic Host-18. The hidden aim of the exercises is to keep those forces ready to close in on Russia’s borders. That’s why the alliance is creating this “military Schengen zone,” in an effort to minimize the time needed for troop deployment. Anaconda 18 will be a cover for the deployment of a US Army brigade in Europe, in addition to the deployment of the US 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team. Next month, we’ll see an entire US mechanized division in operation in the Old World. Four NATO multinational battalion-size groups are already stationed in the Baltic states and Poland.

These never-ending exercises adjacent to Russia’s borders show that the terrorist threat has been forgotten. The North Atlantic alliance is too busy preparing for a large-scale invasion by Russia to even think about it. American strategists appear to have a short memory. It was not Russia who attacked the United States on 9/11. A different type of exercise would be needed to fend off a terrorist threat, but time, money, and efforts are being spent on war preparations against Moscow, which is fighting against the very same Islamic fundamentalists who threaten the West. Last month, Russia held a very large-scale training event dubbed Vostok 2018, but it was held in Russia’s Far East region so as not to provoke NATO, although that alliance did not seem to appreciate this thoughtful gesture.

It is true that the terrorist threat is no big prize for the defense industry. Opposing such big potential foes as Russia or China promises huge financial benefits for companies involved in military production. These never-ending and provocative exercises are needed to keep tensions high and justify the allocations of funds. This state of constant confrontation with Russia and China rakes in profits. The ends justify the means.

The US Defense Department's 2019 fiscal budget became law on Aug. 13. It allocates $6.5 billion for the European Defense Initiative (EDI), $2 billion more than the previous fiscal budget, and nearly double the $3.4 billion the military received in fiscal 2017. The increase is evidence of the focus on building up a robust military force to threaten Russia. Infrastructure improvements in the Baltic states and Poland are a high priority.

According to the Lithuanian Defense Ministry, the updates to the Lithuanian armed forces’ Kazlų Rūda training ground, in the district of Marijampolė, to get it up to NATO standards, are almost complete. The facility will be used to train air crews and controllers. This is a joint project with the United States, funded through the European Reassurance Initiative. American B-52 strategic bombers have already dropped dummy munitions there. The firing range was part of the NATO Saber Strike exercise that was held in June. US National Guard soldiers are there to prepare Kazlų Rūda for another exercise.

The training ground is less than 60 km. from the Russian border. This is a risky move. On Aug. 7, a Spanish warplane accidentally fired an air-to-air missile over Estonia in the Pangodi area of Estonia’s Tartu county, less than 50 miles from that country’s eastern border with Russia. Suppose it had been an air-to-surface missile that went astray and landed on Russian territory? Why should NATO’s training events be conducted so dangerously close, making the alliance responsible for such perilous possibilities?

In July, the Lithuanian Defense Ministry signed a contract with the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) in regard to infrastructure development projects that will significantly improve the training conditions. Thirteen facilities are to be completed for the Lithuanian armed forces by 2021. According to Vice Minister of National Defense Giedrimas Jeglinskas, the scale of the NATO deployments necessitates a larger military infrastructure to accommodate those forces. Once the upgrade is completed, Kazlų Rūda will be the only military facility in the country able to host and provide logistics for a brigade-size force including hardware. The modernization program also applies to the Gen Silvestras Žukauskas training ground — a joint project funded through Lithuania’s military budget, the NATO Security Investment Program, and the US European Reassurance Initiative. The NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) is also financing the construction of facilities to accommodate the NATO Air Policing Mission, Host Nation Support, military training grounds, and, in part, the NATO Force Integration Unit. 

Estonia’s Amari air force base near Russia’s border is another facility that is being updated to support American A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35 aircraft, which will include refueling infrastructure as well as special ops forces.

The Baltic states signed Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), allowing the presence of American forces within their borders as far back as early 2017.

In May, the foreign ministers of the Baltic states paid a group visit to Washington to ask for a larger US military presence in their countries. Back then, they said the current build-up would only be the starting point for a larger effort. So far NATO has deployed four battalion-sized battle groups (roughly 4,500 troops) to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. In June, all three Baltic states came out in support of the idea of building a permanent US military base in Poland.

Added to this is the ongoing militarization of the Scandinavian peninsula that goes largely unnoticed. And the rearming of Poland. And NATO’s build-up of logistics infrastructure in Eastern and Northern Europe. And the formation of a military alliance between the US and two northern European states: Sweden and Finland. And the US Air Force presence that has expanded in Eastern Europe. Don’t forget the tensions in the Black Sea near Russia’s shores. Russia is being confronted by 29 NATO member states.

Given all this, can anyone claim that Moscow’s concerns are unjustified? NATO talking about how Russia is threatening the Baltic states (or whoever) is like the pot calling the kettle black. The media should be paying more attention to the alliance’s war preparations so that readers could form a rational opinion about who is really threatening who and whose behavior is provocative. 

The leaders of the Baltic states have always stressed that they see the current military build-up as only the starting point for a larger effort that will include modernized routes and infrastructure sites, as well equipping their national forces with more up-to-date weapons for offensive operations.

NATO has deployed four battalion-sized battle groups (roughly 4,500 troops) to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The nations that comprise the backbone of this force are the US, the UK, Germany and Canada. Twelve other allies also contribute to the Enhanced Forward Presence (EFP). Eight small staffs known as NATO force integration units have also been established. Common rules of engagement (ROE) are in the process of being hammered out, taking into account regional nuances. In the event of war, the Graduated Response Plan (Eagle Defender) with its own detailed ROE will come into play.

Under the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), the US military has transferred over to Europe a 3,500-strong armored brigade combat team and a 2,200-strong combat aviation brigade that is headquartered in Germany, and a combat sustainment support battalion (750 troops) that is stationed on Polish soil to be used as a logistics hub in Romania. It has also deployed a support team to Lithuania.

In total, America now has three combat-ready brigades stationed in Europe, along with pre-positioned stockpiles of weapons systems and equipment that will allow a fourth brigade to rapidly beef up its forces to launch an attack against Russia. NATO reinforcement would also include the 13,000-strong NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) or Spearhead Force, which is an element of the Enhanced NATO Response Force (NRF) that would join the combat later. The NRF consists of 40,000 troops. All these forces are capable of joining the fight on short notice.

These armed corps possess an attack capability that Russia cannot ignore. Nor can Moscow turn a blind eye to the fact that NATO’s collective military boasts 3.2 million active personnel — compared to Russia’s 830,000 — in addition to the US arsenal of long-range attack systems. Germany, France, and some other allies see that as enough, but no, the Baltic states are never satisfied. They keep on begging for more. They want to fully exploit their status of “frontline states” in order to reap the political benefits.

And not only that, NATO is ratcheting up tensions by holding an increasing number of large-scale exercises right on Russia’s borders. This greatly elevates the risk of inadvertent escalation. For instance, three major exercises are scheduled to be held in the Baltic region this summer.

On June 3-15, the Saber Strike exercise organized by the US Army Europe will encompass the three Baltic states and Poland, involving over 18,000 troops from 19 countries. About 3,000 American soldiers and over 1,500 combat vehicles will travel from Germany to Latvia and Lithuania. Public roads will be used to move heavy equipment. On June 12-13, the soldiers of the US 2nd Cavalry Regiment will construct a bridge in order to cross the Neman River in Lithuania (in the Kaunas district). Their main mission is to ensure that the forces are ready to rapidly advance, not to merely defend their positions.

Eight thousand American airborne troops will land in Latvia during the Swift Response exercise, in order to train alongside Lithuanian and Polish troops. Namejs 2018 will be held from August 20 to September 2 and will involve over 9,200 Latvian forces, including the military, police, border guards, volunteer reservists, and other state institutions. They will be joined by 650 troops from the US, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and the Czech Republic.

All these large-scale intensive training activities will take place in the background of the planning for Trident Juncture 2018, the largest NATO exercise involving about 40,000 troops, 70 ships, and about 130 aircraft from over 30 nations, which will be deployed to central and northern Norway in October for the live portion of the event. A command post phase will be conducted in Italy. Norway does not have a shoreline in the Baltic Sea but it is a member of the Council of the Baltic Sea States.

When the construction is over, Powidz, a Polish village with a population of 1,000, will have become a NATO hub for the Baltics and all of Northern Europe. That will be the control center for the operations in the region.

Anakonda 2018, the largest event ever staged by NATO since the end of the Cold War, involving 100,000 troops, 5,000 vehicles, 150 aircraft and helicopters, and 45 warships will be hosted by Portugal this summer. This particular event will be held outside the Baltic Sea region, but it’s an important part of the bigger picture because the training activities of the bloc have been incorporated into a unified plan. It’s the vast scale that is so impossible to ignore.

All the exercises are being staged to allow the forces to hone their skills for conducting offensive operations against Russia, not for fending off attacks from trenches dug along the lines of defense. All these events are large-scale and the operational tempo is unprecedented, all of which makes the security status of Europe extremely precarious.

Nothing is working to ease the tensions. The agreement on the Prevention of Incidents at (INCSEA) and the Agreement on the Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities (DMA) seem forgotten and dust-covered. No one appears to remember they even exist. Incidents and dangerous activities take place regularly, especially during exercises. The agreements do nothing to prevent them.

In 2016, then-German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier proposed arms control discussions to defuse tensions. Russia welcomed the idea but the initiative ended up more or less swept under the rug. Moscow has proposed updating the risk-reduction procedures envisaged under the Vienna Document (Chapter III), but the alliance rejected the idea of direct Russia-NATO talks. It wants discussions to be held under the auspices of the OSCE, which makes no sense. It’s NATO, not the OSCE, that Russia has security problems with. It’s the North Atlantic Alliance, not the OSCE, that holds provocative military exercises near Russia’s borders while painting it as the state that harbors aggressive intentions. NATO has rejected Russia’s initiatives to reduce the risk of incidents, including in the Baltic region.

These exercises, which are in truth provocations, in addition to the longing of the Baltic nations to acquire the status of “frontline states,” the absence of any Russia-NATO dialog aimed at addressing security issues, the creation of the bloc’s infrastructure to launch offensive operations (an issue that has been kept out of the media spotlight), and the growing American presence inside states that share with a common border with Russia — all these developments are fraught with dire consequences. To a large extent, NATO is responsible for the present state of affairs and the Baltic states have greatly helped to turn northern Europe into a real hot spot.

The Scandinavian visitors claimed this was just a starting point for a more mature relationship. The agreement emphasizes the countries’ combined joint exercises and streamlines the procedures that have been established to manage them.

Other issues covered by the SOI include regular trilateral meetings at all levels, the exchange of information (including about weapons systems), increased practical interaction, cooperation in multinational operations, improved communications, and the promotion of the EU-NATO strategic partnership. The latter issue will transform the Scandinavians into a connecting link that will eliminate the chance of any European deterrent that could operate with any real independence from its North American “big brother.”  Washington wants to make sure that the PESCO agreement will not protect Europe’s defense industry from US companies.

Sweden hosted the Aurora military exercise in September 2017, the largest such event on its soil. The US supplied most of the visiting troops. The American military has also taken part in a number of drills in Finland recently. That country will host a large-scale NATO exercise as early as 2020 or 2021. The US has already been invited. The militarization of the Scandinavian Peninsula is moving full speed ahead.

The recently signed SOI actually transforms the bilateral agreements into enhanced trilateral cooperation.  For Stockholm and Helsinki, joining NATO is not an option for domestic political reasons. At least not for now. Instead, a new US-led defense alliance has emerged. 

The increased tempo of exercises anticipates a larger US presence. It has far-reaching implications. With American military personnel rotating in and out of Sweden and Finland, any offensive action against one of those states would officially be an attack on a NATO member.  It would trigger a response as envisaged by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Russia considers any American military presence there as provocative. The US is not a Scandinavian country. If an incident took place that resulted in a clash between Russian and US forces, the two Scandinavian nations would be pulled against their will into a conflict they may have nothing to do with. The American soldiers on their soil will never be under the control of their national commands. More US presence means less sovereignty and more risk.

Actually, since they are EU members they don’t even need Article 5, because Article 42.7 of the EU treaty also contains a binding mutual-assistance clause. France invoked it after the 2015 Paris terror attacks.

Last year Sweden and Finland joined the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF).  All other participants in the nine-nation formation are NATO members. It means that in an emergency their armed forces will operate under NATO command, becoming parties to a conflict they could avoid if they were really neutral.   The two also cooperate with Washington through the Northern Group (NG), which consists of 12 countries, although Sweden and Finland are the only non-NATO participants. That organization holds its own dialog with the US. Another venue is the five-nation Nordic Countries group, that includes these two non-aligned members.

In reality, Sweden and Finland have already joined NATO through other groups and agreements.   They did so informally, avoiding referendums and the relevant parliamentary procedures at home. This should be viewed as part of a broader picture. In early April, the first-ever US-Baltic States summit took place in Washington. It was an unprecedented event that somehow was kept out of the media spotlight. 

The leaders of NATO’s “frontline states” called for a permanent US military presence in the region. They want that to be much larger than just American participation in multinational battalions. They are asking for a permanent presence on a much wider scale.  Washington, which already has forces deployed in Norway and Poland, is considering rotating American troops through the Baltic nations as well. Poland and the Baltic states are a focus of NATO’S bellicose preparations. One might as well forget about the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act (1997), which states that no substantial forces should be deployed in the proximity of the borders. That document has already been breached by NATO.

The US guests have provided advice on how to promote American influence (they call it “democracy”) in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, the members of a newly formed anti-Russian alliance. And it’s not just the defense sector. Last year, Lithuania began importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from America. Poland has also built an LNG terminal to expand the shipments of American gas to Europe, which compete with Russia’s energy supplies.

The withdrawal from the Iran deal is not the only time a US position on an issue has been opposed by the leading European nations. There are many more points of disagreement. Old Europe is gradually creating an independent deterrent.  A rift between the EU and the US is deepening. But as one can see, Washington is building another pro-American alliance on the continent. It does not mean it will replace the North Atlantic alliance. Certainly not. On the contrary, it will strengthen the US position in the bloc.

But aside from NATO, Washington also leads an informal alliance of “frontline states” that are intimidated by a nonexistent threat. The idea of the Russia bogeyman is being exploited by the US in order to reach its foreign-policy goals. Northern Europe is being turned into a hornet’s nest, with its good-neighbor policy gradually being replaced with confrontation that benefits the US but makes the region less secure. 

The three-week Aurora 17 is held across Sweden, including the strategic Baltic Sea island of Gotland, not far from the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, and the areas around Stockholm and Goteborg. It is conducted in the air, on land and at sea. About 20, 000 servicemen, and over 40 Swedish civil authorities, will take part in the drills across the country, including around 1435 troops from the US, Denmark, Norway, France, Estonia, Lithuania and non-NATO Finland. It strikes the eye that Finland, a non-NATO state, has significantly larger participation (270 servicemen) than other European NATO members. For instance, France sent 120 soldiers Denmark, Norway, Lithuania and Estonia sent between 40-60 each.

«They haven’t done something like this in 25, 30 years», said Ben Hodges, commanding general, United States Army, Europe. The United States has sent a Patriot missile battery, helicopters and a National Guard tank company. This is the first time ever American armored vehicles and air defenses were deployed on Swedish soil. In June, the Swedish military also announced its intention to replace all of its aging air defense systems and potentially buy US-made Patriot missiles, citing an alleged threat from Russian Iskander-M missile systems stationed in Kaliningrad.

The war games have also raised the possibility of Sweden joining NATO to formally end its traditional neutrality that kept it out of military conflicts since 1814. The issue will be debated in the country’s 2018 election – if the three centre-right allies get their way, the country will join the alliance.

Sweden has been a member of the NATO program «Partnership for Peace» since 1994. It has taken part in NATO missions in Afghanistan, Balkans and Libya.

Since 2009, Sweden has been committed to the defense of EU members – another breach of neutrality. Mainly EU members are also parties to NATO, it’s impossible to separate them in war. In fact, Stockholm has committed itself to comply with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty regarding European members of the North Atlantic Alliance. Swedish troops and equipment have been used in the EU operation in Mali.

In May 2016 the Swedish parliament ratified the Host Nation Support Agreement with NATO, allowing the pact to store equipment in Sweden and be able to use the country for transport and transit of forces if a crisis should occur in the region. The agreement does not mention nuclear weapons. With the document in force, there is no guarantee that nuclear weapons will not be deployed on Swedish soil. Aurora 2017 is the first time the Host Country Agreement has been used.

In June 2016, Sweden signed a treaty with the US that aims to increase military capability and interoperability between the parties. Specifically, the two nations will conduct training and exercises with an eye to the «distinct political signal» that combined operations will send. Armament cooperation and research and development of future technologies will focus on undersea warfare and air defense, the document notes.

In late 2016, Sweden's civil protection agency organized under the Ministry of Defense issued an official letter to country's local authorities to prepare for a possible war with Russia. Sweden is increasing defence spending, and plans to reintroduce conscription from January 2018. Four thousand men and women will be drafted into the defense forces.

Though not formally a member, Sweden is also a part of NATO Rapid Reaction Force. It participates in the joint NATO air transport fleet to be used in conflicts anywhere in the world.

Two top defense officials – Micael Bydén, Supreme Commander of the Swedish Armed Forces, and Chief of Defence Staff Dennis Gyllensporre, have recently supported the idea of changing the military stance to a ‘treaty-bound’ defense commitments, in effect meaning full-fledged membership in NATO. They were backed by Allan Widman, Chairman of the Swedish parliament’s defense committee. Visiting Washington in May, Prime Minister Peter Hultqvist said: «We are building a security network of defence cooperation». No doubt that Aurora 2017 is part of this effort.

Seven out of eight Swedish parliamentary parties believe that Aurora 17 will strengthen the country's capacity to deal with a potential attack and will deepen its military cooperation with other countries, while the Left Party and peace organizations have warned of a spiraling arms race.

Despite media efforts and statements by politicians and officials, the Swedish people oppose the idea of NATO membership. According to a June survey published by Svenska Dagbladet newspaper, public support for the idea of Sweden becoming a NATO member has dropped from 41 to 33 percent in less than a year. Forty-nine percent of Swedes, who took part in the survey published by the Svenska Dagbladet newspaper, said they don’t want their country to join the US-led military bloc. Thirty-three percent supported the possible NATO bid, while 18 percent said that they were undecided. In 2015, 41 percent said that they were in favor of Sweden applying for NATO membership, with 39 percent rejecting the move and 20 percent undecided. Social Democrats, the Greens and Left Party voters showed the strongest opposition to NATO accession.

Politicians may say one thing and do another but one cannot change reality. In practice, Sweden has become a full-fledged NATO member and it has been done against the people’s will. With the defense commitment within the framework of EU and the bilateral agreement with the United States mentioned above in the article, Sweden is no different from other states of the alliance. Moreover, it’s one of the most active participants in the bloc’s military activities with a contribution exceeding by far some founding members. It is Sweden, a non-NATO, country who organized Aurora 2017, openly challenging Russia, which will conduct Zapad exercise under surveillance of Western observers according to the provisions of Vienna Document. Despite the obvious facts, Sweden is saying it’s not a NATO event once it was organized by a non-member nation.

It’s easy to predict that the US air defense systems will be stationed in Gotland to be guarded by American personnel. Instructors will also be there. Then reasons will be found to justify the presence of US military in other areas on Swedish soil under the pretext of «rotation» to hold exercises like it is done in Norway where American Marines are stationed permanently in breach of tried-and-true foreign policy principle excluding the stationing of foreign military on Norwegian soil.

No doubt, the policy does not make Sweden safer as Russia will deliberate an appropriate response. In June, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that «If Sweden joins NATO; it will negatively affect our relations because it will mean that NATO facilities will be set up in Sweden so we will have to think about the best ways to respond to this additional threat».

This neutrality policy was, and still is, hugely popular in Sweden. But to call a spade a spade, Sweden is no longer neutral in practice. It has become a leading NATO nation, whose official non-alignment does not reflect reality. One should believe deeds not words. Aurora 2017 is a good example of the fact that the Swedish neutral status has become a thing of the past.