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 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. 

Before the event, the secretary was received by Finnish President Sauli Niinistö and then met his counterparts from Sweden and Finland. This is the first time a US Defense Secretary held talks in this format. Looks like the tripartite format talks are going to become a regular event as a similar meeting was announced to be planned for 2018.

Finnish Defense Minister Jussi Niinistö explained that the goal of this format was meant to supplement, rather than replace, Finnish and Swedish bilateral relations with Washington. According to him, no new alliance is being built despite the expanded military cooperation with the United States. The minister also invited the US military to participate in large-scale military drills in 2020 or 2021. According to him, Finland started preparations for a major military exercise of a scale it had not arranged since the end of the Cold War. “If there’s a crisis, it will be good for us to practice receiving help,” Jussi Niinistö said. Formally a neutral country, Finland is offering a scenario which envisages receiving US-led NATO reinforcements, like if it were a full-fledged member of the North Atlantic Alliance to be defended in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty!

Erkki Tuomioja, a former foreign minister and member of the Social Democrat Party, said he believes the defense minister is skirting parliamentary procedures in pushing to host such a large exercise and that he intends to oppose the drills.

A poll published on Nov.5 suggested 59 percent of Finns are opposed to NATO membership. Only 22 percent support the idea. Finland is to hold presidential election on January 28, 2018. None of the current presidential candidates support NATO membership except for Nils Torvalds of the Swedish People's Party, who is polling a meager 1 percent. Sauli Niinistö, the incumbent who enjoys 76 percent support ahead of the election, has pushed to keep the prospect of NATO membership open to be backed by a majority of Finns, possibly via a referendum. But Finnish Defense Minister Jussi Niinistö keeps on stubbornly pushing his country into NATO’s arms without taking political reality into consideration.

He also said that cooperation to combat hybrid warfare was a priority item on the agenda. The term hybrid warfare is used in the West to label Russia. The Helsinki-based hybrid threat center – the European Center of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats – commenced its operation on Oct.4. 11 European governments plus the United States have joined forces to build it. Similar centers exist in other countries but this one is the first to link NATO with the auspices of the EU. Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said the center is a sign that the two organizations are cooperating at “an unprecedented level,” as evidenced by Finland, an EU country that is not a NATO member, being the host.

Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist, a tripartite talks participant, sent a very important security policy message. Following the meeting with Mattis, the Swedish defense chief informed the parliamentary defense committee that the government had chosen the US missile system Patriot as a replacement for the current outdated defense Robot System 97. The idea is to equip Sweden's two air defense battalions with Patriot missiles until 2025. Sweden — Finland’s closest military ally and another non-NATO member — remilitarized the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea for the first time since the end of the Cold War and reintroduced conscription, among other things, to gradually move the country to war footing.

Some US-NATO deployments take place in the region for the first time ever. For instance, Baltops-2016 was the first NATO exercise to be held on Finnish territory. In September, US military made their first appearance on Swedish soil during the Aurora 17 military drills, the country's largest training event in decades. Norway, a NATO member, welcomed an extended deployment of US Marines in June. It's the first time a foreign force had been posted on Norwegian soil since World War II. Thus, Norway has actually shifted from the “no foreign forces on national soil” true-and-tried policy with political implications to follow. The Marines also have large stockpiles of tanks, artillery and other weaponry, which fill a network of caves. The equipment can accommodate roughly 14,000 troops, or a full Marine Expeditionary Brigade.

In June, Sweden and Finland joined the United Kingdom-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) – a rapidly deployable unit capable of conducting the full spectrum of NATO operations.

The countries of Northern Europe, including non-NATO Sweden and Finland, support the Permanent Structured Cooperation, or PESCO, to pull together at least 20 EU countries in jointly planning, developing and coordinating weapons and equipment for military. The initiative is complementary to the operations of NATO. According to the Financial Times, more than half the EU’s member states are expected to sign up within days to a landmark joint defence effort at a meeting of European foreign and defence ministers on November 13 and launch the project in December.

The militarization of Northern Europe rarely hits headlines, but a look at the facts shows the trend is gaining momentum. It does not go unnoticed in Russia, prompting it to take appropriate measures. The recent Zapad exercise is an example. There is little wonder that Russia is concerned about the growing US influence in Northern Europe. After all, Russia belongs to the region, while the United States has no territorial or any other justification for its military presence there.

There will be a reaction if Sweden or Finland joins the North Atlantic Alliance. Even without formal membership, there is very little space between "being in NATO" and "being outside the alliance.” Evidently, no such thing as military neutrality on the Scandinavian Peninsula exists anymore to make the abovementioned countries priority targets for Russian response in case a military conflict sparks. Russia did not start it but it has to react as the countries of the region appear to abandon traditional good neighbor policies in favor of dancing to US tune.

Finland will assume the chairmanship next month of the eight-member Arctic Council at a time of heightened geopolitical tension. The council, which includes the United States, four other NATO members, Finland, Sweden and Russia, has so far succeeded in advancing cooperative environmental and scientific steps in the region, leading some people to regard the Arctic as one of the few areas for continued cooperation with Russia. But that cooperation may be affected by tensions between the United States and Russia over Syria and Ukraine, the continuing Western economic sanctions on Russia, and the lack of transparency of Russia’s military maneuvers in the Arctic at a time when climate changes require an international response. What can we expect from the Finnish chairmanship and can Arctic “exceptionalism” continue?

Over the past few years, the Arctic Council, which works on a consensus basis, has made significant gains toward shaping policy in critical areas. Convened by the United States last October, an Arctic Science Ministerial meeting developed a collaborative agenda for future scientific cooperation. The Council fostered successful negotiations on binding agreements among its members on search and rescue and handling of oil spills. The Coast Guard Forum remains a venue for discourse, which is critical given the dangers of a maritime disaster in the frigid waters of the Arctic. Also, a new International Maritime Organization Polar Code established safety requirements for shipping in the Arctic Ocean.

What can we expect from the Finnish chairmanship and can Arctic “exceptionalism” continue amidst rising geopolitical tensions? Finland has adopted the slogan “Exploring Common Solutions.” The government’s four priorities are environmental protection, meteorological cooperation, connectivity and education. This advances the two-core principles of the Arctic Council—to protect the Arctic environment and to support the UN sustainable development goals. This also advances two of Finland’s goals—to enhance economic growth through assuming a key role in executing broad-based international commercial projects, and propelling the signatories of the Paris Climate Agreement into limiting the impact of black carbon on the Arctic. The plan is to work across council expert working groups in a more holistic approach, using cross-disciplinary knowledge to tackle the major challenges facing the Arctic.

The second factor is economics. Finland has enhanced its financial well-being and technological development, including trade with Russia. Russia is Finland’s third largest trading partner after Germany and Sweden, even after the 2014 EU sanctions and subsequent Russian economic stagnation lessened trade flows. Russia supplies almost 60 percent of Finland’s imported energy, although imports are only 20 percent of the country’s total consumption and can be substituted.

The third factor is geography. As a Nordic country bordered by the Barents Sea, Finland and Russia also participate in a network of multinational organizations at the state and substate level. These organizations bring together government and nongovernment officials, business groups, researchers and communities on a regular basis to strengthen development of relations, and to implement concrete projects that enhance the livelihoods and environment of the Arctic.

The final factor is pragmatism. While maintaining a relationship with Russia based on historical, economic and geographical realities, Finland has consistently supported common EU policies on Russia, such as sanctions, as well as NATO activities in the Baltic Sea region. More recently, after the Russian military stationed an Arctic Special Forces unit thirty miles from its border and conducted Russian naval and air maneuvers over Nordic countries, Finland and Sweden began working with the United States and European states to enhance military capabilities.

Finland has historically been a strong advocate for strengthening cooperation in the Arctic. It was Finnish leadership that proposed an environmental-protection strategy during the late Cold War in response to Mikhail Gorbachev’s 1987 Murmansk speech, in which he argued for increased openness in the north. More recently, at a Russian-hosted Arctic forum last month, Finnish president Sauli Niinistö proposed convening a summit of the heads of state in Helsinki to discuss ways to find common ground on a wide range of issues pertaining to the region and beyond, which Russian president Vladimir Putin welcomed.

Finland’s good relations with Russia and its desire to foster constructive Arctic relations, while watching carefully and responding appropriately to Russian military steps in the Arctic, indicate that the transition to the Finnish chairmanship should be smooth and consistent with U.S. Arctic policy. Arctic cooperation is exceptional in these times, and it is essential to ensure broader tensions do not play out in the Arctic.

nationalinterest.org

The Northern Dimension boosted cooperation between Russia and the Northern European states in such areas as transport and logistics, the environment, culture, health and social welfare. Maintaining and consolidating the zone of peace and stability meets the fundamental interests of all countries of the region. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has traditionally provided a forum to address the issues related to regional security. According to Finnish Foreign Minister Timo Soini, «For Finland, it is important that security in Europe is strengthened and rests on the principles of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe».

Today the stability is undermined by the recent increase in NATO presence in the Baltic States and Poland – a destabilizing factor to directly affect Finland due to its geographic position.

Russia has expressed concern over the situation and offered to take steps aimed at easing the existing tensions.

On March 21, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and Finnish Defense Minister Jussi Niinistö met at the conference of anti-Islamic State coalition to discuss alleged «Russian aggression» and Helsinki’s ties with NATO. The US Defense Department’s report about the meeting does not make clear if the term «Russian aggression’ was used by the Pentagon’s press-service or the defense chiefs themselves during the talks. «The two leaders discussed Russian aggression, Finland's relationship with NATO as an enhanced opportunities partner, and the bilateral security cooperation… between the US and Finland», it states.

During the meeting, Mr. Niinistö said, «I reiterated the Finland’s position that the deployment of new American forces in the Baltic States and Poland is a stabilizing factor for the Baltic region» («Toistin Suomen kannan, että uusien [amerikkalaisjoukkojen] sijoittaminen Baltiaan ja Puolaan on Itämeren alueen kannalta vakauttava tekijä»).

It’s not the first time, the Finland’s defense chief welcomes the US-led NATO deployments and ensuing tensions such a move entails. Last October, Finland and the United States signed a bilateral defense cooperation pact, pledging closer military collaboration. The declaration signed by Defense Minister Jussi Niinistö stated that "the US presence in and around the Baltic Sea undergirds stability in the region, and creates opportunities to increase defense cooperation between our countries."

But does his stance dovetail with what President Sauli Niinistö says? The president believes that «It is not in Finland’s interests to stir up confrontation.  A wise person asks whether there are means of alleviating confrontation. This is called dialogue, or diplomacy. It is also Finland’s long-term foreign and security policy. It is also my policy». According to Sauli Niinistö, «Finland is a force for stability in the region, based on its own foreign and security policy which includes a credible national defence, cooperation with the EU, NATO and the Nordic countries, and dialogue with Russia». The president does not include stationing of NATO forces into the list of factors providing regional security.

The deployment of troops in the proximity of Russia is a violation of the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which states that NATO would engage in no «additional permanent stationing of substantial ground combat forces». The document also contains a pledge «to strengthen stability by further developing measures to prevent any potentially threatening build-up of conventional forces in agreed regions of Europe, to include Central and Eastern Europe». Looks like the Finnish Defense Minister is happy about the major international security treaty being torn up to whip up tensions in the region his country belongs to! Does he express his own views or is it the stance of the president and the government? This issue requires clarification. Perhaps the two Russian-Finnish summits expected in the course of the year will provide such a chance. There are just a few days left till President Sauli Niinistö arrives in Arkhangelsk, Russia,  to attend the International Arctic Forum on 30 March 2017.  

By bolting from the relatively «measured» policy of America’s Commander-in-Chief, Obama, with regard to Ukraine, Breedlove’s public Cold War mania was only exceeded by his private treasonous behavior. Breedlove’s email to Powell stated that the NATO military chief saw the events in Ukraine as an «opportunity». In his email to Powell, Breedlove believed the 2014 anti-democratic coup against President Viktor Yanukovych and the declaration of self-government by Crimea and the regions of Lugansk and Donetsk was an opportunity for the United States and NATO to engage militarily with Russia. Breedlove described some «stalwart» allies of the United States as wishing to ratchet up tensions with Russia. It is obvious that these «stalwart» allies not only included the right-wing coup government in Kiev, but NATO members itching for a NATO-led military confrontation with Russia. It is almost certain that these «stalwarts» included Poland and the Baltic states.

Breedlove used as an interlocutor with Powell the former Pentagon consultant Harlan Ullman, the man who came up with the «shock and awe» US doctrine used against Iraq. The «shock and awe» concept borrows heavily from the Nazi German «blitzkrieg» tactics, whereby a swift «lightning» strike is used against an enemy. And like the German Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe officers who punctuated their military offenses with visits to brothels in the countries they occupied, Breedlove’s friend Ullman carried on in this most ignominious of German traditions. Ullman «shocked and awed» Washington in 2007, when it was revealed that he availed himself of the services of Pamela Martin & Associates, a Washington, DC sex escort service.

It is clear that Breedlove, Ullman, the neoconservative Potomac Foundation, former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark, and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland conspired to undertake what Ullman described as an effort to «leverage, cajole, convince or coerce the US to react» to Russia in Ukraine. By «react», these treasonous co-conspirators meant open warfare between NATO and Russia. Not since the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when President John F. Kennedy faced a treasonous Joint Chiefs of Staff, has an American president seen such blatant mutinous behavior from the senior ranks of the US military.

Breedlove and his cohorts did everything possible to stir up tensions with Russia. Breedlove overestimated by 20,000 the number of Russian troops stationed near the Ukrainian frontier. «Intelligence» photos distributed to the media purporting to be Russian tanks inside Ukraine were actually Russian tanks in South Ossetia during the 2008 war with Georgia. Breedlove also tried to convince Bulgaria, a less-than-enthusiastic member of NATO, of Russian plans to invade it next after Ukraine. The invasion plan was a mere figment of Breedlove’s imagination.

The fact that Breedlove went out of his geographical area-of-responsibility by convincing Pakistan to offer Ukraine’s coup government TOW missile launcher and missiles demonstrated that the conspiracy against Obama’s policy went far beyond NATO. The plotters would have also included US Central Command chief, General Lloyd Austin, due to the fact that the transfers of US-supplied weapons from Pakistan to Ukraine would have required Austin’s approval.

Another conspirator in Breedlove’s dangerous liaisons was the then-NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a former Danish Prime Minister. Rasmussen is now a political consultant to Ukrainian coup president Petro Poroshenko. One of Rasmussen’s close friends, the CIA-installed former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, is the Poroshenko-appointed governor of Odessa in Ukraine. Ukraine has never before resembled a NATO protectorate. There was also some question about why NATO chose as a successor to Rasmussen another Scandinavian, former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg. It is clear that another Scandinavian was chosen in order to ensure NATO has the political support throughout Europe to develop a two-pronged military attack strategy against Russia: one in the south involving a planned Black Sea fleet and another in the north involving NATO members Norway, Denmark, the Baltic States, and Poland supplemented by formerly neutral/non-aligned Sweden and Finland.

It is traditionally neutral/non-aligned Sweden and Finland that NATO desperately hopes to entrap in its bowels. Although Rasmussen and Stoltenberg have had no problem in getting the commitment of the southern European flank countries of the Balkans and Ukraine to take part in operations against Russia, in northern Europe, the neutral Swedes and Finns have not been as supportive of NATO’s plans as have the Balts and the Poles.

It is now known that during the Cold War, the «neutrality» of Sweden and Finland was a smoke screen. The Finns cooperated with NATO in collecting military and signals intelligence on Soviet targets in Russian Karelia – which some Finns want to see re-incorporated into a «Greater Finland», the Kola peninsula, and Leningrad. Finland’s VKL Finnish Intelligence Research Establishment («Viestikoelaitos») provided the US National Security Agency with intercepts of Russian military and diplomatic communications. The Swedes also routinely shared aerial and maritime reconnaissance intelligence collected on the Soviet Union with the United States and NATO. Swedish signals intelligence facilities maintained by the «Försvarets radioanstalt» (National Defense Radio Establishment), including one located inside the Swedish embassy that overlooked the strategic Helsinki harbor, were connected to the network of listening stations maintained by the United States and Great Britain.

NATO’s manic desire for Sweden and Finland to become part of NATO’s anti-Russian drive matches completely with that of Adolf Hitler’s «Drang nach Osten», the «drive to the East». Not only did Hitler manage to convince the Finns to join his Axis alliance but Sweden permitted German troops trains to routinely cross from Finland to Norway and vice versa. Sweden also gladly sold the Nazis war supplies, including iron ore critical for steel production.

Breedlove, Rasmussen, Stoltenberg, and their neo-Cold War confederates all pine for the «good old days» of military confrontation with Russia. These Cold War aficionados have their allies in US military commands in Hawaii, Japan, and South Korea who hope for a similar military confrontation with China. To say that these individuals are «madmen» would be a disservice to actual madmen.

American military officials are fond of saying they are given the responsibility to «keep the peace». Nothing could be further from the truth. The destabilization of a half dozen countries in the Middle East, from Libya and Syria to Iraq and Yemen, is proof that the Pentagon has perpetuated strife. The confrontations with Russia over South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, and Transnistria demonstrate that the Pentagon sees these as potential flash points with Russia and not as regions requiring diplomatic negotiations.

NATO also sees Finland as an important ally in stoking up irredentist and nationalistic fervor among the Finno-Ugric ethnic groups from Karelia and the Baltic eastward through the increasingly-important geopolitical prize of Russia Arctic north. For that reason, the Finnish Military Intelligence Service has maintained, for at least thirty years, a small top secret branch responsible for outreach to Finno-Ugric groups, which routinely sends Finno-Ugric linguist agents deep into the Russian north to conduct liaison with groups that would assist Finland and NATO in the event of a war with Russia.

With the leak of a few Gmail messages, Breedlove’s and his colleagues’ plans for a war with Russia have been laid bare. The danger is that unlike Breedlove’s fictional almost-namesake, Dr Strangelove, the war that could result from such treason would not be a Hollywood comedy but a real one with perhaps billions of real victims.

Another event is also fueling concerns – the Anakonda-2016 military drill that began at the same time in Poland, which the Guardian describes as «the biggest movement of foreign allied troops in Poland in peace time» and the «largest war game in eastern Europe since the end of the cold war».

* * *

After World War II, Finland was transformed into an industrialized country, leading to a dramatic improvement in living standards, thanks to its privileged trade and economic relations with the USSR/Russia. However, the global financial crisis has checked Finland’s momentum. This year, per capita GDP is expected to reach $39,200, as compared to $42,400 in 2008. After the 2012-2014 recession, the economy grew at a purely symbolic rate of 0.4% in 2015, staying at the 2006 level.

Helsinki’s decision to take part in the anti-Russian sanctions has had a negative impact on the economy. In 2015, exports from Finland to Russia dropped by 32%, or by 3.6 billion euros. Goods destined for the Russian Federation now make up only 5.9% of the Finnish export market (for comparison: this number was 8% in 2014 and 9.6% in 2013). It is estimated that Finland has suffered a loss equal to more than 1% of its GDP.

In March, during a meeting between the presidents of Russia and Finland – Vladimir Putin and Sauli Niinistö – the latter stated that not one person in Finland would object to having the sanctions lifted. But unfortunately, this universal desire is out of step with Finland’s real-world actions on the international stage. After a May 13 meeting with the leaders of five Nordic countries, Barack Obama announced that they were in solidarity with Washington’s views on the need to extend the sanctions against Russia. Among those «in agreement» was Finland, which has been victimized by the sanctions.

Against this backdrop, there is increasing talk of possible membership for Finland in NATO. But Finnish politicians are not of one mind on this issue. Prime Minister Juha Sipilä, the leader of the Centre Party of Finland, believes that a nationwide referendum must be held before the country can apply for NATO membership. This view is shared by President Sauli Niinistö. Currently the government’s official position is that the country does not need to modify its security policy. If the government’s stance on this changes, it will be necessary to conduct a referendum. According to the leaders of the National Coalition Party (a member of the ruling coalition, along with the Centre Party of Finland and the Finns Party), a referendum is not mandatory, and Finland should simply go ahead and apply for membership in the North Atlantic alliance. The Finns Party, which is seeing its popularity ratings fall, has not taken a clear-cut stand on this issue. Representatives of the opposition parties – the Greens, the Left Alliance, and the Social Democratic Party – are demanding a nationwide vote on the matter. The former chairman of the Swedish People’s Party, Carl Haglund supports NATO membership, but says that Finland should join the alliance along with Sweden.

The Finnish government has established a working group that drafted report on NATO, submitting it in late April to Timo Soini, the minister of foreign affairs. The paper claims that membership in the alliance would be a factor in preventing a potential attack, but would lead to a serious crisis in the country’s relationship with Russia, significantly impacting trade. The document asserts that it would be more advantageous for Finland to make a joint decision on NATO membership along with Sweden.

However, Helsinki is not taking any decisive steps, because, as noted in Foreign Policy, the majority of Finns are against joining NATO, with only about a quarter holding a favorable opinion. «Many Finns are enthusiastic about hosting the flocks of Russian shoppers and tourists who spend money in Finnish border towns – and, if they’re concerned about anything, it’s the way that falling oil prices and economic sanctions have cut into what had been a bright spot in a contracting Finnish economy», writes Foreign Policy. 

* * *

Before the NATO exercises in the Baltic began, Finnish Foreign Minister Timo Soini paid a visit to Moscow. Those talks, as Sergey Lavrov noted, were fruitful. At the closing press conference, Lavrov mentioned, in particular, Rosatom’s involvement in the construction of nuclear power plants in Finland, as well as Fortum’s projects in Russia’s Eastern Urals (Fortum, a Finnish company, plans to invest four billion euros in the development of electric power in Siberia and the Urals).

In the meantime, while the diplomats are busy negotiating, the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat reported on June 10 that NATO member countries have discussed the possibility of assisting officially non-aligned Finland in the event of a crisis. Prime Minister Juha Sipilä claims that he knows nothing about this and that Article 5 of the NATO treaty does not apply to Finland. However, the uncertainty cannot last long. If Finland is faced with the choice of either «non-alignment or NATO?» Helsinki will have to pick.

In early July Russian President Vladimir Putin will visit Finland. Negotiations will take place at the presidential residence of Kultaranta in the city of Naantali, not far from Turku, during which, among other issues, the two presidents will also discuss Helsinki’s position in regard to the advances that the North Atlantic alliance has recently been making toward Finland. 

On the night of Feb. 18, 2014 unknown persons ransacked the collections of the Museum of the History of Kiev, located on the fourth and fifth floors of the Ukrainian House convention center. The museum’s storage area was devastated, and it was several months before the number of objects stolen from their displays could be determined. Some of the exhibits, such as the 19th-century tableware produced by the Volokitinsky porcelain works, were simply destroyed. Paleolithic bones were trampled under revolutionary feet.

Olga Drug, the head of the museum division, reported, “The thugs tossed a large 18th-century icon, The Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, into a corner of the room. They wrapped the image in a dress embroidered with gold and silver threads, which is over 200 years old and was only recently restored. The dress ripped. For some reason, they left the icon, but stole a porcelain sculpture of Empress Catherine II, made at the Gardner porcelain works near Moscow in 1780 and with an estimated value of $50,000.”

Among the missing items was a knife with a blade of Damascus steel and a handle of mammoth tusk, worth $25,000, plus a few sabers valued at about $10,000 each. The thieves took some sacred objects from the early 20th century – the icons The Virgin and Child, Christ, and The Ascension of the Lord, plus an image of St. Nicholas the miracle worker. The market value of each of these icons ranges from $2,000-$2,500. A copy of the Gospels was also stolen ($2,000-$4,000). At the same time, a 19th-century sculpture of children playing the piano was snatched ($1,500), as was a handbag from the same century ($1,000), a silk embroidered tablecloth from the first half of the 19th century that had only just returned from the restoration studio ($5,000), an 18th-century English clock ($2,000-$2,500), and much more. According to the museum staff, the estimated cost of all that was taken exceeded $200,000.

The builders of a “new Ukraine” have ruthlessly stolen property that is part of Ukraine’s historical heritage, pilfering not only from the past, but from the future as well. The Museum of Gifts at the Kiev Mayor’s Office, located in the same building as Kiev’s city hall (which has been “seized by the people”) was looted. Working on a tip, they also raided collections in private homes as well as exhibits being shown at private viewings – everywhere that housed objects of interest to potential customers.

Faced with the revolutionaries’ massive exportation of stolen works of art, the Ukrainian Customs Service has stepped up inspections on the Polish and Slovak borders, as well as within Kiev. The magnitude of the contraband being seized by customs is evidence of the scale of the theft. For example, opening an unremarkable case, customs officers in Kiev discovered a rare musical instrument signed by the master Giovanni Paolo Maggini.

In the spring of 2014, the staff of the eastern customs division blocked two attempts to illegally export an 1884 icon and an 1890 Bible through the Novoazovsk customs checkpoint.

In November 2014, workers at customs control at the Borispol airport recorded yet another attempt to illegally export a large shipment of precious stones and amber weighing almost 235 kg.

Recently, customs staff in Lvov detained another group of lawbreakers trying to spirit 18 gold coins out of the country. Experts estimate the cost of each of them to be at least $10,000. An entire collection of ancient weapons was also intercepted that had been stolen from museums in Kiev and other cities. The state returned some pictures by Claude Monet and Vincent van Gogh.

Ukrainian customs officials believe that the most stable “currency” being exported today from post-revolutionary Ukraine consists of art (paintings, icons, and sculptures) and antiques (weapons, coins, jewelry, and books).

Arseniy Yatsenyuk is the “icon of style” for Ukrainian citizens who might slip an item from a museum into a bag or tuck a rare piece of jewelry into a pocket. In the spring of 2014, he announced that a collection of Scythian gold currently in the Netherlands, which had been shipped from museums in the Crimea for display at the Allard Pierson Archaeological Museum in Amsterdam, was actually the property of Ukraine.

This case includes one interesting detail. When Valentin Nalyvaichenko, then the head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), was in the process of being appointed the ambassador to the US in the spring of 2009, the Ukrainians decided to probe the attitude of the US State Department. Washington’s answer shocked Kiev – American officials informed them that they possessed reliable data indicating that Nalyvaichenko had committed serious violations of Finnish law when he worked at the Ukrainian embassy in Helsinki (1994-1997). Using his diplomatic status, Nalyvaichenko had set up a pipeline for smuggling antiquities. With their customary attention to detail, the Finnish police recorded every fact in writing, which naturally they shared with their American friends. They requested that the matter not proceed any further. And now, given the exceptional nature of the US-Ukrainian partnership, the US State Department has recommended that Kiev not move the issue to an official level, i.e., that they not request agrément for the country’s chief spy, suspecting that at the most inopportune moment this sensitive information might become public knowledge and have a fatal effect on the progressive development of their bilateral relations. But in fact, the CIA needed Nalyvaichenko for what Washington saw as a key post – as head of the SBU. So there’s the story.

Time is passing. The valuables won during the battles of the “Revolution of Dignity” are slowly but surely trickling abroad. Apparently, Ukraine’s cultural and historical heritage is being amassed in Europe to act as a dowry for an aging bride. But the Ukrainian people will most likely find themselves bereft of their valuables, their historical heritage, and even Europe itself.

By Victor LIPNITSKY (Ukraine), Urmas ECKHOLM (Finland), Jan. 28, 2015, orientalreview.org

The election is over. The Centre Party won as expected and its leader Juha Sipilä is to form a government. The party’s leadership is to hold talks on coalitions and cabinet positions. Well-informed sources say the appointment of Olli Rehn as Minister of Foreign Affairs is a slam dunk decision. He is a Brussels bureaucrat, a European MP and a soccer player who likes to thoughtfully stare into the distance and say many words that sound great but often have rather blur meanings. Still some of them could be made out.

On March 23, as the pre-election campaign was running in full swing, Rehn published an article in Finnish newspaper Maaseudun Tulevaisuus under a mysterious and alarming caption – Is Finland Unprepared for Hybrid War? What is it about? It goes without saying that the hybrid warfare threat is posed by Russia – the annexation of Crimea and the war in the eastern part of Ukraine are the best examples. No doubt, Finland is unprepared to meet the challenge. It means that with the election over, Finland should create appropriate structures to repel the hybrid aggressor. Naturally, the issue of NATO membership comes into spotlight.

Some people may find it rather amusing. Wait a moment, don’t jump to conclusions! There is something for future Prime Minister to ponder. It all goes to show that Olli Rehn got too big for his britches. He needs a structure to match his capabilities as a political heavyweight, like, for instance, the Ministry of Hybrid Affairs. The main direction is the East, so he’ll need a partner in Russia. Perhaps, some old friends from the Committee of the Soviet Youth Organizations (it was part of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) will pop up. Though most likely it will be a kind of mental institution.

The choice for publication is really intriguing. Maaseudun Tulevaisuus ("The Rural Future") covers news on agriculture and forestry as well as related businesses. The time is right for planting spring crops. All of a sudden hybrid warfare threats fill the agenda. Yikes!..

Now, there are some thoughts to share. Olli Rehn is the 20th in the list of newly elected centrist candidates. He ran in Helsinki (couldn’t be any other place, he even speaks English!) and got…1, 9% of votes. As one can see he’s a «really popular» high-profile politician to define the national foreign policy during the next four years. The only thing Russia can do is observe the principle of political correctness. It should go on saying there are no problems to effect the bilateral relations and keep harping on about the trade turnover statistics (is it up or down?).

Now a few additional words about popularity and justice.

For many years the position of defence minister has been held by the Swedish People's Party. It normally receives only a few percent of votes (due to only one constituency located in the west of the country) and then tries to independently define the military and political issues that influence everyday lives of over five million people. The trouble is that recently the Finnish Ministry of Defence has started to look at the security problems through the prism of Swedish defeat in the Battle of Poltava. The signature of Minister Carl Haglund on a joint declaration on the expansion of Nordic military cooperation made public by Norwegian Aftenposten on April 9 is the best testimony to the fact. The document made top Finnish officials wonder. The rhetoric of Haglund and some other officials about the need to boost the Nordic cooperation (naturally, in view of Russian threat) sounds too childish today. Generally speaking, it made sense in the mid-1930s against the background of talks about the policy of neutrality. Today Denmark, Iceland and Norway are NATO members. Should Finland follow the path of Baltic States forsaken by God? It’s hard to say…

This time the Swedish People's Party got only 5% of votes. No great shakes! In some countries it would not even cross electoral threshold. Besides, it never rains, but it pours. The majority of Finnish MPs want to cancel mandatory Swedish in Finnish schools. Nevertheless the tradition is stronger than arithmetic and common sense.

Historia opettaa i.e. History teaches. Post-war generations of Finnish politicians have been guided by this maxim. All the talk about Finlandization is destined for those who don’t know the real state of things. The truth is that Finland has always benefitted from the relationship with our country, let it be politics, trade or economy. It strengthened its international standing and made its economic potential grow. Khrushchev and Brezhnev were the right partners to make deals with if one acted wisely and adopted balanced approaches. The great Finnish leaders – Juho Kusti Paasikivi and Urho Kaleva Kekkonen did just that.

“We, the Finns, have drawn lessons to make a conclusion that the attempts to make float political speculations about the Soviet Union are nothing but complete misinterpretation of things. It was a lip service paid to Finland. We built the relationship without outside intermediaries. We had no examples to follow. The process was based on bilateral talks in the spirit of confidence and mutual understanding. That’s what it’s going to be like in the future.” Tamminiemi is a small book written by late president Kekkonen1. Actually, it’s his political legacy. He thought hard before arriving at these conclusions after his country had gone through great hardships. The legacy has become forgotten, including by Olli Rehn, a hybrid politician, who represents the Finnish Centre Party – the party of Kekkonen.

1 Urho Kekkonen, Tamminiemi, Weilin+Göös, 1980.

Denmark has borne the brunt of Israeli infiltration. While he was the chief of the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET), Jakob Scharf, who is of Jewish descent, steered Danish intelligence closer to Israel’s Mossad than had any of his predecessors. Danish intelligence first became associated with Mossad in 1974 when the Kilowatt Group, which brought together Israeli intelligence officials with Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and other European intelligence agencies to deal with growing Arab terrorism. 

As the head of the PET, Scharf quickly pounced on Danish Islamist leaders who were outraged by the publication in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in unflattering and blasphemous terms. 

Jyllands-Posten’s cultural editor, Flemming Rose, who approved the publication of the cartoons, was identified as being linked to various neo-conservative and Israel Lobby operatives in Washington, including the pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute. While Scharf warned against international Islamist conspiracies to carry out terrorism, he was conveniently silent on the international conspiracy by Israeli propagandists to incite violence by publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. The cartoon operation, which incited violence that resulted in deaths from riots staged in cities throughout the Muslim world, never registered on Scharf's "criminal conspiracy meter" since he was part and parcel of it.

Rose is not the only pro-Israel agent-of-influence in the Danish media. In 2010, Danish-Israeli «journalist» Herbert Pundik, also known as Nahum Pundak, in an interview with the Dagbladet Information, a Danish daily newspaper, admitted that he had worked for Mossad for ten years while working as a journalist for both Dagbladet Information and Politiken. In fact, Pundik only «officially» severed his relationship with Mossad after he was appointed Politiken’s editor-in-chief in 1970. Moreover, Danish military intelligence was aware of Pundik’s role as an agent for Mossad since Peter Isloe, the deputy chief of the Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS), received copies of Pundik’s intelligence reports submitted to Mossad. Among the intelligence passed on to Mossad by Pundik were reports from predominantly Muslim northern Nigeria and Somalia. Pundik’s double agent status as a Mossad spy working for two major Danish newspapers was never discovered by the Nigerians or Somalis.

Denmark has also served as a choice base of operations for Israel’s clandestine commerce with Iran, including illicit weapons sales. Although this clandestine commercial link reached its crescendo during the Iran-contra operations run by Lt. Col. Oliver North and his Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) colleagues in the 1980s, it continues to this date albeit at a diminished pace.

It is also known that Mossad has used Danish intelligence to keep tabs on Danish citizens of Arab, particularly Palestinian descent, as well as Arab permanent residents and political asylum seekers in Denmark. This surveillance has also been extended to Norway as a result of links between Mossad and the Norwegian Intelligence Service.

Relations between Mossad and its Norwegian counterpart improved following the 1973 botched attempt by Mossad to assassinate in Norway the «Black September» Palestinian terrorist Ali Hassan Salameh. Mossad’s Special Operations Unit’s assassination team included a number of Mossad agents of Scandinavian descent, including Dan Arbel, a former Danish citizen, and Marianne Geldinkof, a former native of Sweden. However, the man the Mossad assassination team shot at point blank range on a street in Lillehammer was not Salameh but fluent Norwegian-speaker Ahmad Bushiki, a waiter in a Lillehammer restaurant. The error was costly for Mossad. Norwegian intelligence severed all official ties with Mossad and a chill in Israeli-Scandinavian relations even affected Mossad’s warm links with their Danish counterparts. 

The Israeli government relied on Norwegian attorney Annæus Schjødt to represent the Israeli agents, four men and two women, arrested by the Norwegian police for Bushiki’s murder. Schjødt later married one of the female assassins. Schjødt’s father, also an attorney, prosecuted wartime Norwegian Nazi leader Vikdun Quisling at his trial in Oslo after the Second World War. Israel’s attempt to use the son of a Norwegian prosecutor of the Nazi leader to argue for leniency for the Mossad assassins, thus playing up the «Holocaust card», proved fruitless. Five out of the six Mossad killers were sentenced to prison terms in Norway but were granted early release in 1975 after pressure was exerted by Israel and its agents-of-influence in Oslo. Arbel reportedly gave Norwegian intelligence details of Israel’s secret nuclear weapons program in return for a better prosecution deal. Salameh was assassinated by Mossad in 1979 in Beirut. It was later discovered that Mossad killed Salameh while he was an active CIA agent.

Mossad was also known to have set up a number of front companies in Denmark from which they recruited agents to spy for Israel. A number of Danes, Jews and non-Jews, were never made aware that they were collecting intelligence for Israel, often to the detriment of Danish national security.

One of Israel’s proactive agents-of-influence of the Norwegian parliament, Jan Simonsen of the right-wing and anti-immigrant Progress Party, made a laughing stock out of himself for constantly nominating George W. Bush and Tony Blair for the Nobel Peace Prize. Simonsen cited their role in eliminating Iraq’s «weapons of mass destruction», weapons, which it turns out, never existed.

Mossad’s activities in Sweden have been no less alarming. Gunnar Ekberg, a former agent for Swedish military intelligence (IB), wrote in his book, «They’ll Die Anyway», that Mossad approached Swedish military intelligence and offered to assassinate a number of leading Swedish left-wing intellectuals. Specifically, Mossad offered the IB to assassinate Jan Guillou, a Swedish journalist who exposed the existence of the IB, which was, at the time, a partner of the Mossad in tracking down Palestinian activists resident in Sweden.

Israel’s influence operations in Sweden are mainly centered on the media assets of the Swedish Jewish Bonnier family, which owns outright or has a controlling interest in the newspapers Dagens Nyheter, Expressen, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, Dagens Industri, and TV4. The family’s influence is also felt in Finland, where it owns the newspapers Iltalehti and Kauppalehti. A number of Scandinavian publications also pick up pro-Israeli (and anti-Russian) items from the Baltic News Service, which is also owned by the Bonnier family. A member of the family, Elisabeth Borsiin Bonnier, while, coincidentally serving as Sweden’s ambassador to Israel, launched an attack against journalist Donald Bostrom in 2009 for an article in Aftonbladet, a competitor of the Bonnier family’s media, reporting that the Israeli military was harvesting organs from dead Palestinians.

One of Israel’s most prominent agents-of-influence in Finland was Finnish diplomat Max Jacobson. He was almost elected Secretary General of the United Nations had it not been for a veto from the Soviet Union.

Netanyahu talks of a non-existent Scandinavian conspiracy against Israel when there is no evidence of any such fanciful plot. However, when the tables are turned, the history of Israeli plotting against Scandinavia is worthy of a large history volume.