Tag: Kremlin

Merkel visiting the White House for the last time

On Thursday, July 15, 2021, a US president received German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the last time in the White House and, not surprisingly, the meeting was partly about the Nordstream II gas pipeline between Russia and Germany.

“We have reached different conclusions about what the project entails,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said after the meeting.

Joe Biden nevertheless pointed out that they agree upon that Russia will not be allowed to use the gas pipeline as a way of exerting pressure on neighboring countries.

Source; Sveriges radio

Oh, how sweet. Biden and Merkel sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G. What does their statements mean then? I can tell you what it does not imply. This does not mean that the project will end, and it does not mean that Biden has not given the Nordstream II project its blessing.

”… What the project entails.” What does it tell us? Probably that the project will be realized and one should not discuss the realization of the project, but only what the project entails for the two concerned, Germany and the US.

And ”Russia will not be allowed to use the gas pipeline as a means of exerting pressure on neighboring countries.” Does that mean that the project will be realized then?

This means that Merkel passes to Biden, who passes back to Merkel who scooooores!!!! The course is fixed and the war against Iran will continue to be pursued. Syria is the country where Boots on the Ground will take place. Kremlin is kept happy so that Russia will not use its air base in Latakia and its naval base in Tartous to attack US forces during the vulnerable and delicate initial phase, or otherwise will not disrupt the process and thereby spoiling the US opening move. As an icing on the cake, Russia can, with mild coerciveness, put pressure on Assad not to intervene against the Americans when they arrive.

Sure enough, a treaty over the gas pipeline is close, according to a Sveriges radio article July 20, 2021. But to be honest, one of the reasons for this Merkel-Biden agreement can also have something to do with growing and overt neo-nazi movements in Germany making Germany destined for Hell. But it is not the only or the main reason from Biden’s perspective.

The German-American companionship that began with some sort of ’declarations of love’ between George W. Bush and Angela Merkel some day when Merkel was in the United States beforehand, is also possibly the reason why Russia more or less simultaneously with Merkel’s US visit threatened the Taliban, i.e. Afghanistan, with a beating. Sveriges radio commented on this in July 14, 2021, saying, quote;

”Russia warns the Taliban of threatening the security of its allies in Central Asia. The announcement comes after a delegation visited Moscow last week. The Russian Foreign Ministry also calls on the Taliban to start negotiations to create a transitional government before it is too late.” End quote.

Four days later there was another quote;

”The Taliban’s advance in Afghanistan could leave room for China while the United States withdraws from the region. During the week, China offered to take on the role as a new mediator in Afghanistan.” End quotes; Sveriges radio

This Merkel visit to the United States and what they talked about there is possibly also the reason why Russia simultaneously with the visit, leaked information that Putin was plotting to get Donald Trump elected through what is known as the Russiagate. Listen to the choice of words in the presentation of the leaked Russian information from the Kremlin to the newspaper The Guardian;

“Putin had a plot to put Trump in the White House.”

Does that mean Putin is on his way out? Or is it the journalists’ own interpretations of the information they received, that Putin himself (but apparently not the Kremlin) plotted to get Donald Trump elected?

Deutsche Welle published a video in which George W. Bush was interviewed after Merkel’s visit to the former president. The video has the title; ’She did what’s best for Germany’ – George W. Bush on Angela Merkel’s legacy.

Probably she did. But how it rained in Germany! Is she not a Christian? You’d think that she would make a conclusion from this coincidence, as a Christian. Apparently she is not a very good Christian.

With regard to the heavy rainfall and flooding in Germany in mid July 2021. It should be interesting to see how well the Germans will be able to negotiate with Ukraine over the purchase of grains, crops and potatoes considering the Germans’ well known ambitions to enforce the Nordstream II pipeline in the Baltic Sea. That might not end too well my German friends. Well, there is always Poland. Nordstream II is extremely unfavorable to the Ukrainians because the Russians can bypass gas that otherwise would have run through Ukrainian gas pipelines to above all Germany. To do like the Germans do and cut Ukraine out of any strategic leverage as a nation, leaves Ukraine in a seriously dangerous position. Now Germany might reap what they sowed.

Added note:

[Simultaneously with Merkel’s visit to the United States, the western and south-western parts of Germany were drowned in up to three-meter-high rivers of rain, killing hundreds of people. It happens to be the worst in the industrialized Ruhr area around the river Rhine, where rainfall always gathers to. This will probably affect us Swedes economically in the short run and many, many other nations too. Roger’s note]

Roger M. Klang

This lesson is further updated

Sources:

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/merkel-i-vita-huset-for-sista-gangen

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/avtal-nara-om-nord-stream-2

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/ryssland-varnar-talibanerna

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/kina-kan-utnyttja-talibanernas-frammarsch

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/stigande-dodsstal-efter-oversvamningarna-183-bekraftat-omkomna

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/stora-ekonomiska-effekter-av-oversvamningarna

A war against Iran – in the Nordic countries? Lesson fortytwo

There are layers in the intelligence communities with different realities, if you’re a high enough ranking intelligence officer you will understand that.

Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has accused NATO, and Europe more broadly, of stoking tensions on the continent, as he called on leaders in February 2020 to ”abandon the phantom of the Russian threat”. Really, ”phantom”? Let me tell you what he is really thinking and why he cannot get the US to play along. Kreml is prepared to sacrifice Iran in exchange for the control over the Nordic countries. That is why Putin has been talking with Israel with a silk tongue lately and released a female Israeli prisoner from a Russian prison as a sign of good will. The US is trying to provoke a war with Iran. But the Iranians aren’t taking the bait lately. So the Americans are glancing on the possibility to get some of the Kurds or perhaps the Syrian rebels to provoke the Turks into a war with Syria by them killing some of Turkey’s military personnel at the border between Syria and Turkey in a false flag operation. Turkish president Erdogan has been very firm in his approach on Turkey’s stand should Syria engage the Turkish forces resulting in just one casualty. It will mean war. And Turkey is a NATO country. Erdogan has been firm but stupid. If Turkey is attacked in any way by any of the players in the region, then Turkey can release Article 5 in the NATO chart. And then the US would step in and gain access into Iranian interests in Syria and from there on it is not a long way to the war, that the US has sought with Iran, for control over the oil in the Persian Gulf.

We did not have to wait long for the Russian reaction, because we experienced that Russia either on its own or through the dictator Assad, in northwestern Syria attacked Turkish posts from Syria by air at the end of February 2020, resulting in 22 dead Turkish soldiers. Suitably enough, Russia has an air base in Latakia very close to the Idlib province. Turkish forces have been in conflict with Syrian forces, as a result of the airstrikes. Motion pictures from within Idlib show mushroom clouds after new bombings and shootings between the belligerents. According to the UN, schools, hospitals and temporary refugee camps have been in the firing line. Putin has deceived Erdogan over the phone. Better to forestall than to be forestalled. Erdogan responded by opening the corridor for refugees between Turkey and Europe. I don’t think Erdogan is well informed! He probably thinks that the Western world is behind the attacks. Or he’s really irrational, which wouldn’t surprise me. The Bashaws down there tend to be labile and unreliable.

The point is that the US is going to need all the NATO countries, also Norway and Denmark, to cooperate with the US and NATO. That’s why Norway and Denmark can relax for the time being. The US is going to defend them, or at least they are prepared to deter Russia from attacking Norway and Denmark. Only, Norway’s and Denmark’s security guarrantee can all go away in a decade or so. Noone knows. The only thing we can know for certain is that Trump is unreliable and that a Russian attack on Sweden and/or Finland will result in forwarded Russian power positions in Scandinavia. Looks like Trump has the upper hand. Maybe he is smarter than I thought? Or maybe he has just got more power than I thought.

Of course all this means that Norway and Denmark have been marched into another war for the US sake. Just not a war on their own soil. This have both upsides and downsides for our Scandinavian neighbors. For us Swedes it means bad news.

Putin and Trump are closing in on each other without so many words. It’s the way the big guys like to communicate, with military exercises using fleets and brigades and such. This kind of communication has its upsides and downsides, but it can be combined with making other projects a reality in different places of the world in order to convey a meaning. One downside to that is that you have only so much resources. In August of 2019, Russia held a big Naval drill very close to the Norwegian coast. But there is also the possibility to pull back troops, in order to convey a message, and that is what Trump was doing in late 2019, as he was defending his back-stabbing on the Kurds in Syria and Tweeting about the coming US withdrawal. But the US war with Iran is still coming.

If not Russia should collapse beforehand Putin sure looks forward to a future Russian salvation like a WWII Alliance with the Americans and the British. It is possibe to imagine a defensive war coming sometime in the future for the Scandinavian countries on the one side, and the would be assailants the US, Britain and if they all get their wish also Russia on the other side which is a necessity for such a war scenario. There could also be a blockade or some sort of sanctions against us. And with a war and/or sanctions against us I especially mean us Swedes. We would find ourselves in Israel’s position in 1967 and 1973. And you know what, I think we would win.

Trump’s motive? Economical gain for his country, Reality politics, recent resentments against Trump from high ranking officials in the Swedish armed forces, personal issues with us Swedes, you pick one or all! But the main motive in such a scenario would be that the US administration wants to grease up the Middle East by removing Russian incentives to counteract the US when they engage in yet another war in the region, this time likely against Iran. There is also a direct link between this and Trump’s visit to India in February 2020.

“John Bolton is absolutely a hawk,” Trump told NBC in June 2019. “If it was up to him, he’d take on the whole world at one time, OK? But that doesn’t matter because I want both sides.”

These two separate scenarios are surely a way to get both sides for ”businessman” Donald.

Let me just say that the US own WTI oil, which is of a quality that is currently the only kind of oil quality you can make gasoline from, will suffice for maybe 5+ more years. Do the calculations and don’t be fooled by commentaries by various players, like that the oil fields in Texas are as big as the state of Alabama. Do the counting on the official numbers!

It is in this context you should consider the ”save our ASAP Rocky” statements from Trump. ASAP Rocky is an American rapper that happened to get himself into a fight in Sweden and ended up in a Swedish court in the summer of 2019.

And it is in this context we should read that POTUS now wants to buy Greenland from Denmark or lease placement of BMD assets and runways from the country. Sounds to me like POTUS wants to go hunting with aircrafts for Admiral von Dönitz submarines in the Denmark Strait again. Of course it is only a plus that Russian endeavours to make it to the Atlantic with nuclear submarines in a war scenario where Russia is an assailant might be foiled. Or is this the main purpose? Noone would be happier than me if it is, but this shopping spree from the POTUS coincides with other suspicious stuff happening. But there is also a longer term aspect with Trump wanting to buy Greenland, natural resources. America has tried this before. And the timing is impeccable.

It is also in this concept you should read that Angela Merkel visited Iceland in August 2019. It is not just random happenings, almost everything that happens on the top levels have a causality.

Russias motive is that Kremlin is in a race to make something happen so that they will not implode as a state, again.

 

 

Homework:

What message do you think that Russia wanted to convey to the US administration with their big Naval drill very close to the Norwegian coast in August 2019? The Russian Northern Fleet group of warships sailed north for live-shootings in the Norwegian Sea near the Arctic Circle. The main objective of the Russian air force group was an exercise to hunt down submarines.

Would you answer:

  1. It was not a message to the US, it was a message to Norway and maybe also Finland and Sweden.
  2. It was a message to Trump that he should keep out of Russia’s influence sphere wich Putin intends to expand by working his ”beanbag” Norway.
  3. It was additionally an attempted message, or part of a message, to Trump that ”please, come to your senses and work together with us, let us have the Baltic states and/or selected parts of Scandinavia while you can do what you wish with Iran possibly. Help us contain Germany while we fuck up Scandinavia together”.

 

Sources; SR;Ekot and Kim Iversen on Youtube for the part about Syria and Turkey

 

Roger M. Klang, defense political spokesman for the Christian Values Party (Kristna Värdepartiet) in Sweden

2) To be or NATO be. Lesson twentyseven

Off course, the United States does not want to betray the baltic people, but it may be that they realize that it will be impossible to defend the Baltic countries if one does not add big resources to Norway and Poland. One can also choose to defend the Baltic countries already in the Baltics, by deploying long-range air defense systems and mechanized ”verbands” (German word for troops) in the Baltic states. Either the Americans do not see this possibility as realistic, or they abstain from it for political reasons e.g. because they do not want to rock the hornets nest. It might be that they have been duped or maybe they have missed the whole idea of their own fault. In any case, the Americans have not yet deployed any air defense systems in the Baltic countries.

Germany can, in a strategic twilight dusk, deny the Americans access or transit to Poland. In that case, a scenario with a “fire break” dividing Sweden is a probable solution. Chief Engineer Helge Löfstedt expressed this about the presumption of our cooperation in the journal Försvarsutbildaren nr 3 2014;

“The problem is mostly about how Sweden should avoid ending up in a situation where the help takes humiliating forms which leads to Swedish wishes being neglected in conjunction with the development of the conflict.”

What is good in the defense committee report “Road choices in a globalized world” (Vägval i en globaliserad värld) is that the defense committee proposes an expanded and deepened defense cooperation with the Baltic countries. But when they express themselves like this, they are only half right;

“The future is becoming increasingly difficult to predict. It is not possible to imagine that a military conflict in our immediate area would only affect one specific country. A military attack exclusively against Sweden remains unlikely for the foreseeable future. However, crises and incidents, which also include military means of power, can emerge in our region, and in the long term military threats can never be ruled out.”

It is a false axiom that Russia would not have the will or the ability to attack Sweden singularily. In the Georgia War of 2008, a singular Georgia with far-reaching plans to join the NATO organization stood against a Russian attacker, and the Russian attack was planned according to Putin’s own statement several years afterwards. The attack was a signal to the US that; “We can strangle your supply line of materiel and isolate the US forces in Afghanistan right here, so don’t even think about expanding NATO membership to Georgia at our expense.”

There is a threat against a singular Sweden, if our politicians say we will join NATO, just as there was a threat against Georgia in 2008. It must also seem very attractive to the Kremlin to secure its northern flank at a reasonable cost in a European full scale war.

The question is whether Russia really believes it would be easier to secure its northern flank than it would be to win in east Europe. If I am allowed to answer in the Kremlin’s place; It could be if, with “victory”, you are considering gains from the political and military neglect by the victim countries, as well as the result of the implementation of hybrid warfare combined with classic Russian extortion and threat rhetoric against the Scandinavian countries.

In eastern Europe, classic blackmailing and threat rhetoric doesn’t work as well as it do in northern Europe, in peacetime. Putin can annex a little bit at a time in eastern Europe. Or Putin can take a big chew in Scandinavia, as Hitler did.

If democracy can prevail and the people is allowed to decide on NATO membership, the decision is given a legitimacy which Putin will find hard to dismiss. If our Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist and the Government (2019) are to decide, they will put Sweden in unnecessary danger. Which do you think is the most dangerous of the following three alternatives:

1) To apply for membership in NATO after an invitation to the Membership Action Plan.
2) Almost unnoticed bit by bit slipping into NATO without us applying for membership for that matter.
3) To be non-aligned or only in alliance with Finland and build a strong Swedish defense on our own.

Following line 1) requires that Sweden get militarily involved in the outside world and make binding commitments of military assistance to, among other countries, the Baltic states.

Following line 2) is a natural consequence of Sweden caring about its small neighboring countries and brothers in e.g. the Baltics. We are prepared to help the Baltic countries, even though we do not know how to do just that in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic countries, and that we are prepared to help gets us involved in international exercises and treaties dominated by the United States.

Following line 3) is a risky business because we don’t know what is going on inside Putin’s head. But we know that we then cannot count on help from the US, who is NATO’s foremost guarantor. We can, of course, be freeloaders just by realizing that the US and NATO almost certainly need to use Swedish territory as a build-up area for a recapturing of the Baltic States. But such thinking creates contempt among the NATO member countries, rightly so, and that may cause them to do whatever they feel like in and with Sweden. So, paradoxically, we lose influence and self-determination in the event of a war in our neighborhood if we would choose to follow line 3.

I believe that a Swedish NATO membership should be debated. But the decision should be left in the hands of the people through a general referendum, and not be left in the hands of the politicians who are not competent in anything that has to do with our defense, except for the gender issue and the ”value ground” that is. A popular referendum is an extra safety net for Sweden as a state, because it will not be as easy for Putin to militarily attack selected parts of Sweden if the decision on NATO membership is decided by vote of the Swedish people.

Homework:

Considering that we need to join the NATO organization simultaneously with Finland, as we already discussed a little in Lesson twentysix, how do you look at our dilemma? What road would you have embarked on if you had the above mentioned three choices?

Is there an additional choice?

Please motivate your conclusions.

Roger M. Klang, defense political Spokesman for the Christian Values Party (Kristna Värdepartiet) in Sweden