Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

By awarding its peace prize to Trump’s favorite Venezuelan opposition figure, pro-war coup plotter Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Committee contravened the principles enshrined in its founding documents, as well as Swedish law, Julian Assange alleged in an explosive brief reviewed by The Grayzone.

The Swedish government violated its own laws by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Venezuelan opposition figure Maria Corina Machado, according to an explosive legal brief filed by Julian Assange, the Wikileaks co-founder and former political prisoner who was hounded across the globe, confined in harsh conditions, and subjected to physical and psychological torment over the course of a decade by the US and its allies.

The Nobel committee’s decision to award Machado the Peace Prize — and the 11 million Swedish Kroner ($1.18 million USD) reward which accompanies it — means that “there is a real risk that funds derived from Nobel’s endowment have been or will be… diverted from their charitable purpose to facilitate aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes,” Assange stated.

The Wikileaks founder pointed to the “ample public statements… showing that the U.S. government and María Corina Machado have exploited the authority of the prize to provide them with a casus moralis for war,” adding that the explicitly stated purpose of the war sought by Machado and her wealthy Latin American backers would be “installing her by force in order to plunder $1.7 trillion in Venezuelan oil and other resources.”

The Nobel Foundation stands accused of a number of violations of Swedish criminal law, including breach of trust, misappropriation and gross misappropriation, conspiracy, crimes against international law, as well as financing of aggression, facilitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and breaching Sweden’s stated obligations under the Rome Statute, to which Stockholm says it is “deeply committed.”

Under Swedish law, “Alfred Nobel’s endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war,” Assange noted. “Nor can it be used as a tool in foreign military intervention. Venezuela, whatever the status of its political system, is no exception.”

By granting Nobel funds to Machado, Assange argues that the Committee is effectively financing “a conspiracy to murder civilians, to violate national sovereignty using military force…” By refusing to end payments, “they flagrantly violate Nobel’s will and clearly cross the threshold into criminality,” he alleged. The Wikileaks co-founder seeks the “immediate freezing of all remaining funds and a full criminal investigation” into Committee members who awarded the prize.

The Nobel Prizes were established in 1901 according to Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel’s last will and testament, which was later incorporated into the Swedish and Norwegian legal systems. The Peace Prize, which is meant to be bestowed on the figure who has contributed most to “fraternity between nations,” the “abolition or reduction of standing armies,” and “the holding and promotion of peace congresses,” has served as a cornerstone of Scandinavian soft power ever since.

Since its inception, however, the prize was marred by controversy due to the violent legacy of its recipients, and the political ambitions of its Norwegian sponsors. In the case of one of the Prize’s first winners, US President Theodore Roosevelt, the Norwegian Nobel Committee was criticized at the time for overlooking the American statesman’s naked warmongering in Latin America in order to curry favor with the nascent US empire. The New York Times sardonically observed that “a broad smile illuminated the face of the globe when the prize was awarded … to the most warlike citizen of these United States.”

The same dynamic is at play in the Caribbean once again, according to Assange, as the Nobel Committee crowns a Venezuelan politician best known for her unhinged appeals for foreign military intervention and her dedication of her Nobel victory to US President Donald Trump.

As Assange explained, Trump’s massive buildup of US military forces off the coast of Venezuela “has already committed undeniable war crimes, including the lethal targeting of civilian boats and survivors at sea, which has killed at least 95 people.”

“The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights labeled these U.S. coastal strikes against civilian boats “extrajudicial executions,” the Wikileaks co-founder wrote. And the “principal architect of this aggression” was none other than Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who “nominated María Corina Machado for the peace prize.”

Norwegian Nobel judges tied to influential Venezuelan regime change lobbyist

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a figure as clearly unqualified as Machado – and in apparent violation of Swedish law – raised questions about whether the Committee had been influenced by powerful outside interests. Machado’s nomination for the prize by the US Secretary of State had an undeniable impact on the decision, as the Nobel ceremony serves as a central channel of Norwegian soft power. But inside Oslo, a political powerbroker determined to return to power in his family’s native Venezuela may have also played a role in swinging votes for Machado.

He is Thor Halvorssen Jr., the son of a CIA asset and wealthy Venezuelan aristocrat who held positions in neoliberal Venezuelan governments before the election of Hugo Chavez. Halvorssen is also the first cousin of Leopoldo Lopez, the author of several military coups against Chavez and Maduro, and the founder of the US government-sponsored Popular Will party which has traditionally led the way for the radical opposition.

As the founder of the Oslo Freedom Forum, a self-proclaimed human rights group which openly advocates for toppling governments targeted by the West, Halvorssen presides over a network of Western-backed regime change activists. At the 2024 Oslo Freedom Forum, Halvorssen played host to Machado, who clamored for Maduro’s removal through a video link-up from Venezuela, where she was supposedly “in hiding.” This year’s Forum featured Machado’s top advisor, the Spain-based Pedro Uchuruttu, as well as her daughter, Ana Corina Sosa. When the Nobel Committee awarded Machado with its peace prize in October, the Oslo Freedom Forum issued a press release celebrating the decision for “chang[ing] the dynamics” in Venezuela.

The Norway-based Fritt Ord Foundation is a key link between Halvorssen’s Oslo Freedom Forum and leaders of the Nobel Committee. The Oslo Freedom Forum declares on its website that Fritt Ord “was among the first to endorse” it. While providing funding to Halvorssen’s regime change outfit, Fritt Ord awarded Jorgen Watne Frydnes, the Norwegian Nobel Committee Chair, with its 2021 Freedom of Expression Tribute. During his speech awarding the Nobel Prize to Machado, Frydnes likened the right-wing coup plotter to Nelson Mandela. With geriatric members of the Norwegian royal family seated just a few feet away, he went on to call for Maduro to step down and allow Machado to preside over a “democratic” transition.

Frydnes also happens to be the former director of the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, a think tank focused on supporting the Ukraine proxy war, which is a formal partner and supporter of Halvorssen’s Oslo Freedom Forum.

Among the five judges who awarded Machado her prize was Kristin Clemet, a Norwegian politician who was also awarded the Fritt Ord Freedom of Expression Tribute in 2017. Clemet is the managing director of a liberal Norwegian think tank called Civita which officially partners with and supports Halvorssen’s Oslo Freedom Forum.

Who’s behind Nobel insider gambling scheme?

Even before she had officially received the award, Machado’s entourage drew accusations of corruption and illegal enrichment after a handful of insiders seemingly used advanced knowledge of her imminent win to rake in close to $100,000 on the Polymarket betting site.

The odds of Machado winning surged from 3.75% to 72.8% just hours before the Nobel Committee officially informed Machado of her victory. One unusually prescient bettor won $65,000 gambling on the Venezuelan opposition figure. “It seems we have been prey to a criminal actor who wants to earn money on our information,” said Kristian Berg Harpviken, the head of the Nobel Institute.

Months later, The Nobel committee still has yet to conclude its investigation into the corruption scandal. As of publication, the committee did not respond to a request for comment by The Grayzone.

For what promotes itself as the world’s premiere peacemaking institution, it may be too late to undo the damage wrought by giving the Nobel Prize to an avowed champion of violent regime change.

“Using her elevated position as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Machado may well have” already “tipped the balance in favor of war,” Assange concluded.

Original article:  thegrayzone.com

By Ioanna LIOUTA

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The explosives manufacturer has already had its emission permit doubled. Now, it appears a new factory may be built that could double emissions again.

– The government is shifting the responsibility for saving the Oslofjord onto the fishermen while they themselves ramp up efforts to destroy the fjord. They’re doing this by allowing several hundred extra tons of nitrogen to be discharged directly into the fjord.

This is what the Red Party’s Bjørnar Moxnes tells Aftenposten.

He is reacting to the following:

At the same time as the government, led by Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, states that “the Oslofjord is in a serious environmental crisis” and needs “strong measures” to be saved, two things are happening:

The government has granted explosives manufacturer Chemring Nobel permission to increase its emissions into the Oslofjord, from 41 to 95 tons of nitrogen annually until 2027.
At the same time, plans are being laid for Chemring Nobel to build a new factory by the Oslofjord. After evaluating several other alternatives, the government and Chemring Nobel decided to proceed with the plan for a new factory on Hurumlandet.

Confirms Increased Emissions

This will lead to increased emissions in the Oslofjord, confirmed Climate and Environment Minister Andreas Bjelland Eriksen in a written response this summer.

The Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) estimates that, in the worst case, this could result in an additional 200 tons of nitrogen per year.

Nitrogen is one of the main reasons the Oslofjord is in such poor condition. It acts as super-fertilizer for harmful algae, which consume oxygen and displace beneficial marine plants.

“Although our analyses do not suggest that these new emissions, in isolation, will cause major ecological consequences, the increased emissions will have to be offset by even larger reductions in other sectors,” writes NIVA.

Equivalent to Recent Cuts

Most of the nitrogen in the fjord comes from sewage and agriculture. In the inner part of the Oslofjord, 200 tons would account for nearly 10% of the total, Moxnes points out.

This is also equivalent to the annual reduction in emissions achieved by Oslo’s new sewage treatment plant at Bekkelaget.

– It’s a paradox that Oslo’s residents have spent over 2 billion kroner to clean emissions and, in a way, footed the bill, says the Red Party politician, who believes the new factory must be required to implement purification from day one.

– Otherwise, they cannot give this the green light.

Factory Required to Purify

Climate and Environment Minister Bjelland Eriksen (Labour Party) does not recognize the claim that responsibility for saving the fjord is being shifted onto fishermen and municipalities, stating that everyone must contribute to save the Oslofjord. He emphasizes that the explosives manufacturer’s permit to increase emissions is temporary.

– They have also been required to build better purification facilities. As soon as this is in place by 2027, the permit will be reduced again.

– They’ve been allowed to double their emissions until 2027, and on top of that, you yourself write that a new factory will lead to increased emissions?

– It’s not easy to comment on a factory that hasn’t yet been formally applied for, but we will ensure thorough environmental impact assessments and impose strict requirements for any new production facility. Even though we need to increase capacity for critical defense industry production, it must happen in the most environmentally responsible way possible.

– Do you understand that it can be provocative to use strong rhetoric about the Oslofjord while the government approves increased emissions?

– I fully understand that everyone concerned about the Oslofjord wants emissions to be reduced as quickly as possible and reacts to emissions from certain industries.

He calls the decision regarding Chemring Nobel “one of the most difficult he has been involved in.”

– On one hand, the explosives they produce are critical for Ukraine and the West right now. On the other, we have ambitious goals to protect the fjord, he says.

Original article: aftenposten.no

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Turkey’s position in the new war preparations dubbed as the “European security architecture” is growing stronger both economically and strategically. More and more Turkish companies are developing projects with European partners, filling gunpowder, and selling equipment. All, of course, “under NATO’s watch”…

The Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO) – formed by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden – is taking new steps to “strengthen national defense capacities.”

Within this framework, a facility will be established particularly at the Elling plant in Denmark to fill explosives, primarily for 155mm artillery shells. At this site, both conventional and new-generation high-explosive materials such as TNT, IMX-101, and IMX-104 will be filled. The facility will operate with “high automation” and use advanced technology in ammunition production.

However, the main driver behind this need for “advanced technology” is not innovation per se, but the increasing demand for military support and ammunition supply to Ukraine.

To revive its domestic ammunition production at the Elling plant, the Danish government partnered with the Norway-based defense company Nammo.

This is exactly where Turkey comes into play. Nammo, tasked with handling the production processes of this mission, turned its eyes to Turkey and signed a contract with Turkish defense company Repkon.

According to the agreement, the facility that will carry out the ammunition filling will be established by Repkon. Its ‘operating principle’ is minimal human labor, high automation.

A lesser-known Turkish company

Although not as well-known as Baykar, Repkon has recently signed contracts to establish ammunition production lines with countries such as the U.S., Germany, Spain, Ukraine, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan. It is one of the leading firms particularly in explosive filling technologies. The company has also recently acquired Bowas, a firm active in Austria, Italy, and Switzerland.

Bowas is also one of the expert firms in high-precision metal forming technologies. It operates not only in defense but also in the automotive, aerospace, and oil industries.

What sets the company apart is that despite operating for many years and making significant international investments – especially in the U.S. – as a “private company,” it has rarely come under the spotlight.

Despite its low-profile status, Repkon is one of the rare companies in the world capable of managing the entire process – from metal part production to explosive manufacturing and filling operations – under one roof.

To understand the scale of Repkon’s “successes,” let’s go back to last year. Following a global surge in demand for 155mm artillery shells due to the Russia-Ukraine war, the U.S. Department of Defense decided to establish a new production line in Texas – and awarded the contract to Repkon.

Repkon USA is expected to meet 30% of the U.S. demand for 155mm artillery shells. Additionally, reports have emerged that Repkon will build a TNT production plant in Kentucky with an investment of $435 million.

In other words, a significant portion of the ammunition used in U.S. military operations around the world – particularly in shipments to Ukraine – is being prepared by the Turkish company Repkon.

Where do we know Nammo from?

Back to the beginning. Nammo (Nordic Ammunition Company), which signed the deal with Repkon, is a Norway-Finland defense and aerospace firm established in 1998 through the merger of Norway’s Raufoss, Finland’s Patria, and Sweden’s Celsius AB ammunition operations. The company is 50% owned by the Norwegian Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, and the remaining 50% by Patria, which is itself 50.1% owned by the Finnish state.

This multinational company based in the Baltics and Northern Europe produces small, medium, and large caliber military ammunition, rocket motors, shoulder-launched weapon systems, demilitarization services, and mobile munitions destruction tools.

Nammo CEO Morten Brandtzæg is a defense industry boss who has publicly criticized European politicians for “still having a peacetime mentality,” advocating more openly for war readiness.

Brandtzæg even went further by calling for a European version of the U.S. Defense Production Act – which gives the president authority to prioritize defense-related contracts:

“In times of crisis, should defense producers in Europe have the right to priority in acquiring production equipment? In the U.S., this is legally possible – but in Europe, it’s not regulated.”

Close ties with Israel

Naturally, this type of arms dealing also intersects with Israel. Nammo’s ties with the Israeli military were first revealed during Operation Cast Lead in 2008.

In the attacks that killed 1,133 people, injured more than 4,000, and displaced tens of thousands in Gaza, it was revealed that Nammo Talley, Nammo’s U.S. subsidiary based in Arizona, sold 28,000 M72 LAW (light anti-tank weapons) to the Israeli military. The deal, which included weapon parts and training missiles, amounted to 600 million Norwegian kroner.

Nammo-manufactured ammunition frequently resurfaces in discussions of Israel’s current attacks on Gaza.

“We didn’t sell it – those we sold to did”

Regarding the use of its ammunition in Gaza, the company defends itself by saying, “We didn’t sell it – those we sold to did.” Although Nammo is partly owned by the Norwegian government, it operates through numerous subsidiaries that are subject to the laws of various countries.

Nammo’s communications director Thorstein Korsvold told the Norwegian press:

“The weapons in question were produced in the U.S. and are subject to American law. Nammo sold these weapons to the U.S. military about 10 to 15 years ago.”

Production in line with NATO standards

This indirect path in arms sales also applies to the company’s relations with NATO. Although Nammo has no official ties with NATO, its products are manufactured to NATO standards. This is directly linked to its active role in Ukraine.

Last year, the Norwegian government approved a technology transfer to allow Nammo to produce 155mm NATO-standard howitzer ammunition in Ukraine. In continuation of this agreement, another deal signed four months ago (March 2025) marked the first time that ammunition produced in Ukraine was registered with a NATO NSN (NATO Stock Number).

Why is Europe suddenly praising Turkey?

In recent months, European officials have made notable remarks about Turkey’s potential role in European defense.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte emphasized deep cooperation with Turkey.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk called on Turkey to “take on the highest level of joint responsibility for peace in Ukraine and regional stability,” adding, “We are ready for defense cooperation.”

The Financial Times wrote that Turkey’s defense industry “could become a central player in European defense.”

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna described Turkey as a “decisive partner for European security” at a NATO meeting in Antalya.

There are concrete reasons behind these and similar statements emphasizing Turkey’s role in European defense:

1. The U.S. and Europe are experiencing serious difficulties in supplying ammunition to Ukraine; the need for “fresh blood” in military terms is more pressing than ever.
2. The wavering stance of the Donald Trump administration in the U.S. regarding Ukraine is forcing European politicians to seek defense alternatives – naturally elevating Turkey’s prominence.

The region most emphasized in the European defense discourse is the Baltics and Northern Europe. Expecting that Russia may “attempt to invade Europe” after Ukraine, European leaders are preparing their armies and citizens for a “long-awaited great war.”

Thus, in the context of urgent challenges like ammunition supply and production – seen as a priority in the fight against Russia – Repkon’s selection is due not only to the company’s “industry-leading” expertise and “long-standing” experience, but also to the increasing role of Turkey and Turkish companies.

Although Turkey pursues a policy of balance in the Russia-Ukraine war and has taken on a mediating role diplomatically, it’s clear that many Turkish firms – especially Baykar – are striving to secure a significant position both during the war and in Ukraine’s anticipated post-war “reconstruction” process.

Turkey’s place in the new war preparations called the “European security architecture” is strengthening economically and strategically. Every day, more Turkish companies are developing projects with European partners, filling gunpowder, and selling equipment. All, of course, “under NATO’s watch”…

As for those turning to “democratic Europe” for a solution to Turkey’s domestic political crises – they face a painful period of waiting for much longer.

This infographic shows the countries which get their electricity in the most and least carbon-intensive ways. 

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

(Click on the image to enlarge)

[This is part 5 of a 6-part series on Denmark and its support for the U.S. empire. See Parts I, II, III, and IV. —Editors]

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Part V: War Costs and Profits

When Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen met with President Donald Trump, December 2019, Trump was threatening less support for NATO and European conflicts if they did not use 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for defense. What defines “defense” is at issue herein since Denmark, at least, could not meet 2% without using funds for the current war in Ukraine-Russia.

Nearly all liberal, neo-liberal, and most conservative Europeans fear that Trump could win the upcoming election and would stop funding the war. Leaders, such as Frederiksen, EU Commissioner, Germany’s conservative-right leader Ursula von der Leyen, and Annalena Baerboch, former leader of Germany’s Green party, and current Foreign Affairs Minister, push for greater military might, even an EU army, in case Trump would follow through. Some European leaders, such as Poland’s PM Andrzej Duda, suggest EU should have its own nuclear weapons.

Apparently, Green warrior Baerboch is not bothered about military-war pollution to the earth, sea and waters—nor are environment activists, such as Greta Thunberg. The world’s military are the greatest of polluters even when not at war. The U.S. military alone is the polluter No. 1. It “emits more than entire industrialized nations like Portugal and Denmark, yet evades scrutiny.” The U.S. military has a “carbon footprint larger than any other institution on earth.”

President Volodymyr Zelensky meets International Working Group members on the Environmental Consequences of War in Ukraine, including Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg, Swedish ex-minister Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the European Parliament Heidi Gautala, and former Irish President Mary Robinson, June 29, 2023. [Source: firstpost.com]

Baerboch and other “green” leaders, such as social democrat Frederiken, were in the lead to establish a special EU Ukraine Fund, in March 2023. This measure assures that Ukraine would have $9 billion to cover the war-torn country’s budget deficit and keep its economy running.

I have written to several ministries to find answers to how much money is being spent for Ukraine-Russia war, and how that matches with the famous 2% Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Denmark’s Foreign Ministry reported, May 9, 2024, $7.4 billion in military support directly to Ukraine, and $700,000 in civilian aid since the start of the war.

(Germany’s DW reported $9.36 billion, as I wrote in the first article.)

The Defense Ministry press chief, Morten Kaus, replied that Denmark made NATO’s commitment for 2% of GDP in 2023, doubling 2016 expenditures. This year 2.37% has been spent or allocated.

Denmark’s GDP in 2023 was ca. $400 billion. Two percent for “defense” would be $8 billion. Denmark’s 2024 expected GDP should be ca. $410 billion, and “defense” ca. $8.2 billion.

The Defense Ministry agrees with me that the Defense budget for 2023 was $4.5 billion and in 2024 is $5.42 billion.

According to what Morten Kaus wrote regarding outlays, it appears that without spending huge sums (costs of weaponry) for the war in Ukraine that Denmark would not meet the U.S. requirement of using 2% of GDP for “defense.”

Morten Kaus replied, August 27, that I was mixing pears and bananas, yet he basically had the same sums that I had found. Defense budget, 2024, $5.4 billion plus $760,000 grant; military support in the EU Ukraine Fund of $2.26 billion, plus “a number of other expenses.”

That sum without “other expenses” is $8.4 billion, which is 2%, thus meeting the requirement. Kaus concluded: “Overall, Denmark reports defense expenditures of $10.28 billion, which corresponds to 2.37% of GDP. Kaus cites NATO’s latest report.

That leaves a difference of $1.88 billion, which must have come from other budgets or from the large surplus of 2023 ($13.87 billion) to make the difference.

I realize that all these statistics are not uniform and are confusing. My main point is that Denmark is at the top of NATO countries with its military-war budgets and surpasses U.S. goals regardless of where they take the money to pay for defense and war. Still Denmark needs to be at war to meet its “defense” budget of 2% GDP. The Defense Ministry press chief Kaus did not reply to my point.

With Trump now president, Frederiksen could still dance with him as a favorite NATO ally if he wishes that. Frederiksen is otherwise quite busy now trying to show Greenlanders that she loves them and will no longer treat them as her underlings.

Frederiksen is still a Social Democrat but shares power with the other two parties. During Trump’s first presidency, Frederiksen’s Social Democrats ruled alone. She had offended Trump by saying that his bid to buy Greenland—a semi-autonomous colony where the U.S. secretly placed atomic bombs—was “absurd.” Trump replied that due to her “nasty” remark he would not travel to Denmark. Instead, they med in London at a NATO conference.

As I outlined in my first article in this series, Frederiksen recalled that following that disagreement the two “can count on one another” and they “swing well together”, and, she still “has a good relation with Trump.”

She reminded her constituents, and Trump across the Atlantic, that she increased Denmark’s defense budget to over the two percent that Trump had demanded of all NATO countries. She added that Trump speaks directly, and her Danish government “is ready for that. For example, with continuing to support Ukraine in its war with Russia.”

”We also intend to lean quite heavily into this, because with all the turmoil in the world, the transatlantic ties are absolutely crucial.”

Overall Military Expenditures

The Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG, also known as the Ramstein group) is an alliance of 57 countries (all 32 NATO members and 25 other countries) and the European Union supporting Ukraine by sending military equipment and money.

Since January 2022 until March 2024, Western nations, mainly, have pledged more than $380 billion in aid to Ukraine, including nearly $118 billion in direct military aid from individual countries. U.S. “donated” $52 billion as of May 2024, and appropriated $113 billion. That brings total U.S. military donations to $165 billion (or $175 bn, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The EU established another fund, European Peace Facility, which has acquired $6.24 billion to spend on military elements for Ukraine. It pledges another $5.57 billion. I don’t know if that sum is included in the figures above.

The list of equipment from bullets to bombs is longer than this series entirety. From hundreds of millions rounds of ammunition and artillery rounds to about 100 fighter jets, thousands of tanks and other armored vehicles, and missiles-rockets-drones galore.

The first of 65 F-16 jets pledged have been delivered to Ukraine. Other jet types are also being sent. [Source: nyheader.tv2.dk]

According to The New York Times, Ukraine spent $64.8 billion to its military just in 2023. “That accounted for 58 percent of the government’s overall spending last year and 37 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Only seven other countries spent more on military and defense costs than Ukraine in 2023, analysts found.”

How much of Ukraine’s military expenses are directly related to the war is not stated. In 2021, before the war, its military budget was just under $6 billion. Two years later that sum represented under 10% of what was spent on military.

[Source: wsj.com]

What has Russia spent? In February 2024, the Pentagon estimated $211 billion in total costs. Russia has not reported publicly any figures. On top of that, enemy sanctions are astronomical.

“On 1 March 2022, the French finance minister Bruno Le Maire said the total amount of Russian assets being frozen by sanctions amounted to $1 trillion.” The frozen funds are being used by the West to support Ukraine.

When the war began, Russia’s Central Bank holdings in foreign-exchange reserves amounted to $630 billion. Had the government been planning to invade Ukraine, as U.S./NATO claimed for months that it would, they would have moved those assets to their own banks.

Besides government sanctions and donations, hundreds of corporations make sanctions and donations, as do churches, civic organizations and individuals, on and on. It is impossible for me to find total costs of this war after many hours over several days research, but it is reaching trillions.

Now that most NATO countries have reached the required two percent of GDP for “defense”, its leadership is gearing to increase the quota to three percent.

Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland Costs for Ukraine Proxy War

The first Danish woman prime minister was Social Democrat Helle Thorning Schmidt (2011-15). Her enthusiasm for war included offering President Barack Obama her military might for “regime change” in Syria. She seemed disappointed that a full-scale war to remove Bashar al-Assad had been averted when Syria turned over all its chemical weapons for destruction to the U.S., at the gullible encouragement of President Vladimir Putin.

War lovers Barack Obama and Helle Thorning Schmidt share a laugh. [Source: mitindo.it]

“Denmark is one of those countries that deliver most. We are at the level with Americans, and in that way we also consider Denmark a strong, active and very solidarity NATO land,” PM Schmidt declared on September 2, 2014.

Barack Obama seemed to echo Schmidt when he welcomed Denmark’s next prime minister, Lars Loekke Rasmussen, and the other four Nordic leaders, to a State Dinner on May 13, 2016.

Obama and Lars Loekke Rasmussen in the Oval Office. [Source: commons.wikimedia.org]

Finland and Sweden had remained out of NATO until this war. Most Western progressives and many leftists, even most communist parties accuse Russia of committing a war crime for invading Ukraine. This pushed almost all neutral Scandinavians to join the U.S. war machine. While it is evident that the military incursion did influence many voters, the reality is also that most Finnish and Swedish politicians have wanted to be in the Western war club for a long time. The Obama presidential state dinner shows that.

Finland and Sweden leaders were so impressed by the dinner that they signed an agreement to end their neutrality and, in effect, join NATO. Sweden signed a “Host Country Agreement with NATO” giving the war alliance rights to military troops and exercises in Sweden and even the right to war on Swedish territory “if a crisis” warrants it. Finland signed a similar agreement.

Following the dinner, Denmark’s Foreign Minister, Kristian Jensen, made no bones about Denmark’s total loyalty: “In relationship to Syria our goal is to remove Assad, as one of the worst dictators in the world at this time.”

In 2016, only 27% of Finns supported joining NATO. In 2012, only 17% of Swedes so desired. Yet Sweden’s politicians prepared for a NATO future by assisting U.S. Middle East war with military training for pro-U.S. Kurdish and some Iraqis. Polls in 2023-4 showed 63% Swedes and 80% Finns supported joining the NATO war machine.

Fifteen countries have recently signed Defense Cooperation Agreements. Finland’s agreement grants Washington access to 15 of its military bases for U.S. forces and allows it to bring defense equipment, supplies, and materials to Finland.

Antony Blinken in signing ceremony for Finish defense pact that will allow U.S. soldiers ability to be stationed on Finnish soil. [Source: fi.usembassy]

The vote on Sweden’s defense pact was preceded by a heated debate, with critics warning the treaty could lead to the deployment of nuclear weapons and permanent U.S. military bases in Sweden. There were also protest demonstrations when Sweden signed a Memorandum of Understanding, September 4, 2014.

“On May 13th, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson suggested in an interview that he would not rule out the possibility of hosting U.S. nuclear weapons on Swedish territory during wartime… This is a significant decision that Swedish citizens have not been consulted on.”

Ulf Kristersson [Source: thepneninsulaqstar.com]

In Finland, however, lawmakers took steps to assure that DCA treaty applies to national law about no nuclear weapons, whose import and transit is prohibited on Finnish territory. Nevertheless, we will not know if the Yankees will obey that law since no national inspections are permitted.

Even before the DCA agreements were signed several hundreds of U.S. troops engaged in military exercises in Sweden and Finland, April-May 2023.

“We are eager and excited to be able to train with and learn from our Nordic Allies, including NATO’ two newest members,” concludes Major General Greg Anderson, commanding general of the 10th Mountain Division. This is the first time U.S. troops trained in Finland.

“A NATO headquarters will be established in Mikkeli to oversee the military operations, reporting directly to the alliance’s headquarters in Norfolk, on the US East Coast…Finland joined NATO in 2023, ending a 75-year period of neutrality. As a result, NATO’s shared border with Russia doubled, stretching to 2,600 kilometers.” [author’s emphasis]

“September 2024, it became known that the Rusich sabotage and assault reconnaissance group would guard the border along with the FSB. Rusich is a Russian neo-Nazi military organization, known for committing war crimes on the territory of Ukraine since 2014. The group’s leaders have been sanctioned by the U.S. and EU for ‘extreme cruelty’ during fighting in Ukraine…” according to the anti-Russian government Moscow Times.

How many enemy troops patrol at U.S. borders? How many guarding 2,600 kilometers of borders?

As of June 2024, Finland provided $2.4 billion military hardware, and $3.2 billion in civilian aid.

Sweden Expenditures

From neutrality overnight to the Yankees are coming to 17 military bases.

Since February 24, 2022 Sweden has sent military support amounting to $4.3 billion to Ukraine. It has appropriated an additional $2.5 billion each year 2024 to 2027.

These expenditures led to cut downs in public services, schools and the health sector. While no organizations support Russia directly, many groups and three left political parties (Left Party, Environment Party, Communist Party) protest NATO. Yet most people are passive, frightened by MSM demonizing President Putin as a dictator.

Norway Expenditures

During 2022, Norway used $420,000 in military support and $1.5 billion per year since. An additional $1.65 billion for civilian aid. What they used for destroying Nord Stream Pipelines is unknown.

Iceland Expenditures

Iceland has donated $220,000 through NATO and the International Ukrainian Fund for ammunition, telecommunications, fuel trucks and military training.

With the new DCA agreements, U.S.-ARME now has access to 41 military bases in Scandinavia, 15 of them at the Artic to assure that Russia cannot compete for whatever riches, especially fossil fuels, that can be found there. Sweden=17; Finland=15; Norway=4; Denmark=3; Greenland=1; Iceland=1. That is for starters.

The latest figures on how many bases US-ARME has in the world has grown from 800 to 918 in 98 countries, according to U.S.’s largest peace organization, World Beyond War.

[Source: youtube.com]

How many military bases has Russia outside of its territory? Wikipedia says 21—10 bases and 11 military facilities, such as radar posts. Most of them are in former Soviet Union Republics. None of them anywhere near the U.S. (China has one in Djibouti, Africa to prevent ship raiders.)

“Ukraine must win. Russia must be defeated,” stated EU last April. To reach that goal, “Western military support to Ukraine needs to reach 100 billion euros [$110 billion] annually. Western democracies should use 0.25% of their GDP for military help for Ukraine.”

The only objection came from the right-wing PM of Hungary, Viktor Orbán. Nevertheless, he backed down to allow it to pass—as in all other occasions when Orbán objects to EU and U.S./NATO military lust, such as letting Finland and especially Sweden enter NATO.

Ukrainian Refugees Are Also War Costs

Add to those direct sums of weaponry and money, Scandinavia (as well as all of Europe, The U.S. Commonwealth countries, and elsewhere) spends untold billions caring for several million Ukrainian refugees—at least 6.5 million abroad, and up to 8 million internally displaced out of 38 million population.

Scandinavia: Ukrainian refugees receive the same benefits as permanent residents: economic aid, schooling, health care, jobs. These figures come from searching each government’s records.
Norway=70,000 (June 2024) 11,000 at work
Finland=45,000 (June 2024)
Denmark=44,262 (June 2024) 11,000 at work
Sweden=42,000 (June 2024)
Iceland=4, 000 (June 2024)

2022 Nordic population statistics show:

Norway=5.425 million (about 1.5% Ukrainians)
Finland=5,548 million (about .08% Ukrainians)
Denmark=5,873 million (about .075% Ukrainians)
Sweden=10,452 million) about .04% Ukrainians)
Iceland=376,250 (about 1.1% Ukrainians

War Profits

Mine remover at Denmark’s Industry weapons arms fair, August 2024. 200 firms represented and 12,000 participants. [Source: nyheder.tv2.dk]

“There is money in war,” headlines TV2 media.

A report by a Danish research organization, IRIS, reported recently that Denmark weapons industry has rapidly grown to include 500 firms producing parts for weapons, mainly for “defense” industry and government “defense” ministries. All are private, and 25 produce 97% of the products.

After the first year of war, Denmark’s el industry quadrupled its earnings from $600 million to $3 billion.

AP Moeller-Maersk shipping company always profits from U.S. wars but this one tops all records. The first year of the war, its profits were $30 billion—highest every—compared with $4 billion in 2021. The company pays only about 4% in taxes.

[Source: dr.dk]

Other industries lose profits due to inflation, lack of parts and raw materials. I couldn’t find figures for the medicine industry, which surely profits incredibly, nor for its growing weapons industry.

However, the Danish government is bent on buying 8 to 10 more F-35A on top of its 27, even though most of them have not arrived. More profit for Lockeed-Martin, which has sold 990F-35s as of March 2024.

F-35s in various stages of production by Lockheed Martin at Air Force Plant 4 in Fort Worth, Texas. [Source: defensenews.com]

Lockheed-Martin is the world’s largest military aircraft company. It sold $66 billion in 2022 netting $6 billion. In 2023, sales were $67.6 billion netting $6.9 billion. Its chairman, James Taiclet’s net worth is nearly $100 million. His salary-compensations, in 2021, amounted to $18,111,211.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said it was “immoral” that major oil and gas companies are reporting “record profits” while prices soar. “The combined profits of the largest energy companies in the first quarter of [2022] are close to $100 billion,” he said, urging governments to “tax these excessive profits, and use the funds raised to support the most vulnerable people through these difficult times.”

The UN chief added that during 2022, 345 million people in 82 countries will be “acutely food insecure” or “at a high risk of food insecurity”, an increase of 47 million due to the impact of the war in Ukraine.

“War is ‘good for business,’ a recruiter for BlackRock” said in June 2023, “acknowledging how such turmoil can create opportunities for profit. BlackRock is one of the world’s largest asset management company and holds shares in several defense industry enterprises.”

The recruiter’s words exposed the fact that Ukraine has unfortunately become a gold mine for the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC).

It is impossible to find statistics of all the profits that weapons industries are earning worldwide from this war. U.S. big five—Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon—earned $150 billion from Pentagon contracts in the first year of the war.

The Russia-Ukraine crisis is “a huge profit center for the big companies: Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and Boeing,” said William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

“The US MIC continues to profiteer from the Russia-Ukraine conflict as it heads into its second year. The country’s weapons and defense contractors reportedly received nearly half – $400 billion – of the $858 billion earmarked in the 2023 defense budget.”

“Nearly 700 former high-ranking government officials in the U.S. now work for defense contractors, including former generals and admirals, revealed a report released by the office of Senator Elizabeth Warren in April.”

The oil companies are going bananas with profits.

“The ‘super-majors’—BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Total Energies—have made $281bn (£223bn) since the war began in February 2022, according to Global Witness.” The Guardian, February 19, 2024.

The rebuilding construction industry will earn more than billions after the war. Ukraine has already been forced to offer all its government assets and much of its bread-basket grain industry for U.S. and EU “loans” of military machinery.

Original article: CovertAction Magazine

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Glenn DIESEN

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , Twitter  y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

La militarización de Escandinavia socavará drásticamente la seguridad de la región e invitará a nuevos conflictos, ya que Rusia se verá obligada a responder a lo que podría convertirse en una amenaza existencial. Noruega ha decidido albergar al menos 12 bases militares estadounidenses en su suelo, mientras que Finlandia y Suecia siguen su ejemplo transfiriendo el control soberano sobre partes de su territorio tras convertirse recientemente en miembros de la OTAN. Se construirán infraestructuras para acercar más rápidamente las tropas estadounidenses a las fronteras rusas, mientras que el Mar Báltico y el Ártico se convertirán en mares de la OTAN.

Escandinavia como región clave para la seguridad rusa

Desde que la Rus de Kiev se desintegró en el siglo XIII y los rusos perdieron su presencia en el río Dniéper, un reto clave para la seguridad de Rusia ha sido su falta de acceso fiable a los mares del mundo. Además, el desarrollo económico también depende de un acceso fiable a los mares, ya que son las arterias del comercio internacional. Del mismo modo, las potencias hegemónicas siempre han necesitado dominar los mares, mientras que Rusia puede ser contenida, debilitada y derrotada restringiendo su acceso.

Suecia fue inicialmente una de esas grandes potencias. En los siglos XVI, XVII y XVIII, Suecia trató de restringir el acceso de Rusia en el mar Báltico, al tiempo que intentaba invadir el puerto ruso de Arjanguelsk, en el Ártico. Durante los «tiempos turbulentos» (?????) que supuso la ocupación sueca de Rusia, murió aproximadamente una tercera parte de la población rusa. El conflicto terminó con el Tratado de Stolbova en 1617, que implicaba concesiones territoriales que cortaban el acceso de Rusia al mar Báltico. El aislamiento de Rusia duró hasta la época de Pedro el Grande, que acabó derrotando a Suecia en la Gran Guerra del Norte de 1721. La guerra puso fin a la era de Suecia como gran potencia, mientras que Rusia se convirtió en una gran potencia y en una potencia europea gracias a su acceso sin restricciones al mar Báltico.

Sin embargo, las potencias marítimas dominantes, Gran Bretaña y luego Estados Unidos, llevaron a cabo intentos similares para limitar el acceso de Rusia a los océanos del mundo durante los tres siglos siguientes. Durante la Guerra de Crimea (1853-56), los diplomáticos europeos fueron explícitos al afirmar que el objetivo era hacer retroceder a Rusia hacia Asia y excluirla de los asuntos europeos. Esto explica la feroz respuesta de Rusia al golpe de Estado respaldado por Occidente en Ucrania en 2014, ya que Rusia respondió apoderándose de Crimea por temor a perder su estratégica Flota del Mar Negro en Sebastopol a manos de la OTAN. El sabotaje estadounidense del acuerdo de Minsk (2015-2022) y del acuerdo de paz de Estambul (2022) estuvo igualmente motivado por el objetivo de armar a Ucrania para recuperar Crimea y convertir Sebastopol en una base naval de la OTAN. El vicesecretario general de la OTAN reconoció en julio de 2022 que la guerra en Ucrania tiene que ver sobre todo con el control del Mar Negro.

La militarización y vasallización de Escandinavia son importantes para desafiar el acceso de Rusia a los otros dos mares en las fronteras occidentales de Rusia: el mar Báltico y el Ártico. El ex secretario general de la OTAN, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, anunció con optimismo que la expansión de la OTAN en Escandinavia permitiría a la Alianza bloquear el acceso de Rusia al mar Báltico en caso de conflicto: «Tras la adhesión de Finlandia y Suecia a la OTAN, el mar Báltico será ahora un mar de la OTAN… si queremos, podemos bloquear toda entrada y salida a Rusia a través de San Petersburgo». Polonia y los Estados bálticos también han empezado a referirse casualmente al mar Báltico como un «mar de la OTAN». El Financial Times afirma que «Dinamarca podría bloquear el acceso de los petroleros rusos a los mercados» como parte de las sanciones. Un coronel de la OTAN también argumentó que el enclave ruso de Kaliningrado se vería sometido a una presión mucho mayor y se convertiría en un «problema» para Rusia: «La ascensión de Finlandia y la próxima ascensión de Suecia cambiarán totalmente la configuración en la región del Mar Báltico. Rusia se verá rodeada por Kaliningrado».

La adhesión de Suecia a la OTAN amenaza ahora con revertir el resultado de la Gran Guerra del Norte de 1721, lo que por implicación destruiría los cimientos de la seguridad rusa. Se reconoce que la batalla de Poltava fue la mayor y más decisiva de la Gran Guerra del Norte, que se saldó con la derrota de Suecia. Los vídeos que han aparecido de las bajas suecas en el reciente ataque ruso con misiles contra Poltava son, por tanto, muy simbólicos de la militarización de Escandinavia.

El ataque estadounidense a Nord Stream demostró la importancia del control del mar Báltico para cortar la conectividad económica ruso-alemana. Estados Unidos ha intentado culpar a los ucranianos del ataque, sugiriendo que «la CIA advirtió a la oficina de Zelenski para que detuviera la operación». La admisión de conocer el ataque antes de que se produjera no deja de ser interesante, ya que EE.UU. y la OTAN culparon a Rusia del ataque y lo utilizaron como motivo para intensificar el control naval sobre el mar Báltico e intensificar la guerra de Ucrania. Esto es una admisión de que los EE.UU. mintieron a su propio público y al mundo, y utilizaron la mentira para intensificar su guerra más amplia contra Rusia. El ataque también demuestra que los estadounidenses tratarán a los europeos como apoderados al igual que utilizaron a los ucranianos, mientras que los europeos no defenderían sus intereses sino que aceptarían en silencio que un aliado destruyera su propia infraestructura energética vital. La revelación también demostró que la gente a la que generosamente nos referimos como periodistas no hará ninguna pregunta crítica ni discutirá la realidad objetiva si desafía la narrativa de la guerra.

Finlandia fue quizás la mayor historia de éxito de la neutralidad, y sin embargo se convirtió en la línea de frente más larga de la OTAN contra Rusia. No había ninguna amenaza para Finlandia, y sin embargo la expansión se enmarcó como un golpe a Putin como un objetivo en sí mismo. Es previsible que pronto surjan despliegues militares extranjeros en el norte de Finlandia para amenazar a la Flota del Norte de Rusia en Arjanguelsk. El pretexto más probable será la preocupación de que Rusia quiera apoderarse de parte de Laponia, en el norte de Finlandia. No tendrá ningún sentido, pero los medios de comunicación obedientes infundirán el miedo necesario.

La militarización de Noruega ha seguido un incremento gradual. Al principio, las tropas estadounidenses estaban estacionadas en Noruega de forma rotatoria, lo que permitía al gobierno afirmar que no estaban desplegadas permanentemente. En 2021, Noruega y EEUU acordaron unas cuantas bases militares, pero las denominaron «áreas dedicadas», ya que Noruega no permite oficialmente bases extranjeras en su suelo. EE.UU. tiene pleno control y jurisdicción sobre estos territorios y los medios de comunicación estadounidenses se refieren a ellos como bases militares que permitirán a EE.UU. enfrentarse a Rusia en el Ártico, pero las élites político-mediáticas noruegas deben seguir refiriéndose a ellos como «áreas dedicadas» y descartar que tengan fines ofensivos. La rana hierve lentamente, creyendo tener intereses idénticos a los de sus amos en Washington.

Ignorar la competencia de seguridad al interpretar la guerra de Ucrania

A medida que Escandinavia pasa de ser una región de paz a una línea de frente estadounidense, cabría esperar un mayor debate sobre este cambio histórico. Sin embargo, las élites político-mediáticas ya han llegado al consenso de que la ampliación de la OTAN mejora nuestra seguridad debido a una mayor fuerza militar y disuasión. Más armas raramente se traducen en más paz, aunque ésta sea la lógica de la paz hegemónica con la que se ha comprometido esta generación de políticos.

El punto de partida de la política de seguridad es la competencia en materia de seguridad. Si el aumento de la seguridad del país A disminuye la seguridad del país B, entonces es probable que el país B se vea obligado a mejorar su seguridad de manera que reduzca la seguridad del país A. La competición de seguridad puede mitigarse disuadiendo al adversario sin provocar una respuesta, lo que idealmente se organiza mediante una arquitectura de seguridad integradora.

La capacidad de Escandinavia para ser una región de paz dependía de dominar el equilibrio entre disuasión y seguridad. Finlandia y Suecia eran Estados neutrales y formaban una parte importante del cinturón de Estados neutrales del norte al sur de Europa durante la Guerra Fría, lo que contribuyó a reducir las tensiones. Noruega era miembro de la OTAN, pero se impuso restricciones al no albergar bases militares extranjeras en su suelo y limitar las actividades militares de sus aliados en la región ártica. Era de sentido común que la seguridad derivaba de disuadir a los soviéticos sin provocarlos, este sentido común hace tiempo que desapareció.

La invasión rusa de Ucrania se cita como la principal razón por la que Finlandia y Suecia tuvieron que abandonar su neutralidad y unirse a la OTAN. Esta lógica tiene sentido cuando se ignora la competencia en materia de seguridad, ya que entonces las acciones de Rusia se producen en el vacío. Las discusiones aceptables sobre la guerra de Ucrania están limitadas por la premisa de que la invasión rusa fue «no provocada», y cualquier esfuerzo por ampliar el debate abordando el papel de la OTAN puede ser cerrado con acusaciones de «legitimar» la invasión rusa.

La expansión de la OTAN causó la guerra de Ucrania, y la solución a la inseguridad fue una mayor expansión de la OTAN incluyendo a Finlandia y Suecia. Esta lógica retorcida prevalece, ya que la narrativa de una invasión «no provocada» se ha vuelto inmune a los hechos. La canciller alemana, Angela Merkel, explicó que se había opuesto a ofrecer a Ucrania el Plan de Acción para la Adhesión a la OTAN en 2008, ya que habría sido interpretado por Moscú como «una declaración de guerra». WikiLeaks también reveló que los alemanes creían que impulsar el expansionismo de la OTAN podría «romper el país». William Burns, embajador de Estados Unidos en Moscú y actual director de la CIA, advirtió de que «la entrada de Ucrania en la OTAN es la más brillante de todas las líneas rojas para la élite rusa». Burns advirtió de las consecuencias:

«Rusia no sólo percibe el cerco y los esfuerzos por socavar la influencia de Rusia en la región, sino que también teme consecuencias impredecibles e incontroladas que afectarían gravemente a los intereses de seguridad rusos… A Rusia le preocupa especialmente que las fuertes divisiones existentes en Ucrania sobre la entrada en la OTAN, con gran parte de la comunidad étnico-rusa en contra de la adhesión, puedan provocar una gran división, con violencia o, en el peor de los casos, una guerra civil. En esa eventualidad, Rusia tendría que decidir si interviene; una decisión a la que Rusia no quiere tener que enfrentarse».

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Secretario General de la OTAN en 2008, reconoció que la OTAN debería haber respetado las líneas rojas de Rusia y, por tanto, no debería haber prometido la adhesión de Ucrania y Georgia en 2008. El ex secretario de Defensa estadounidense y director de la CIA, Robert Gates, también reconoció el error: «Intentar incorporar a Georgia y Ucrania a la OTAN fue realmente extralimitarse». Incluso el apoyo a la incorporación de Ucrania a la OTAN tenía dudosas intenciones. A finales de marzo de 2008, una semana antes de la Cumbre de la OTAN en Bucarest en la que se prometió a Ucrania su futura adhesión, Tony Blair explicó a los líderes políticos estadounidenses cómo debían gestionar a Rusia. Blair argumentó que la estrategia «debía consistir en desesperar un poco a Rusia con nuestras actividades en las zonas limítrofes de lo que Rusia considera su esfera de interés y a lo largo de sus fronteras reales. Había que mostrar firmeza a Rusia y sembrar en ella semillas de confusión».

En septiembre de 2023, el Secretario General de la OTAN, Jens Stoltenberg, argumentó alegremente que las acciones de Rusia para impedir la expansión de la OTAN darían lugar ahora a más expansión de la OTAN:

«El presidente Putin declaró en otoño de 2021, y de hecho envió un borrador de tratado que querían que firmara la OTAN, prometer no más ampliaciones de la OTAN. Eso fue lo que nos envió. Y [era] una condición previa para no invadir Ucrania. Por supuesto que no lo firmamos. Ocurrió lo contrario. Quería que firmáramos esa promesa, que no ampliáramos nunca la OTAN… Lo rechazamos. Así que fue a la guerra para evitar que la OTAN, más OTAN, se acercara a sus fronteras. Ha conseguido exactamente lo contrario. Ha conseguido más presencia de la OTAN en la parte oriental de la Alianza y también ha visto que Finlandia ya se ha unido a la Alianza y Suecia pronto será miembro de pleno derecho».

Stoltenberg no especificó por qué pensaba que una mayor expansión de la OTAN aumentaría la seguridad si la expansión de la OTAN fue la causa de la guerra. Sin embargo, la OTAN también insiste en que Ucrania debe formar parte de la OTAN, ya que Rusia no se atrevería a atacar a un país de la OTAN, al tiempo que argumenta que hay que detener a Rusia en Ucrania, ya que Rusia atacará después a los países de la OTAN. Al igual que el reconocimiento de la competencia en materia de seguridad, la lógica también está ausente.

Cegados por el fundamentalismo ideológico

El reconocimiento escandinavo de la competencia en materia de seguridad ha adolecido de lo que en la literatura se denomina «fundamentalismo ideológico». Los actores son considerados buenos o malos en función de las identidades políticas que les ha asignado la ideología. El fundamentalismo ideológico reduce la capacidad de reconocer que las propias políticas y acciones pueden constituir una amenaza para los demás, porque la propia identidad política se considera indiscutiblemente positiva y disociada de cualquier comportamiento amenazador. No se entiende por qué Rusia se sentiría amenazada por la expansión de la OTAN, incluso después de Yugoslavia, Afganistán, Irak, Libia, Siria, Yemen y la guerra por poderes en Ucrania. La OTAN es simplemente una «alianza defensiva», incluso mientras bombardea países que nunca la amenazaron. El fundamentalismo ideológico puede explicarse mejor por la reacción del presidente Reagan a cómo Able Archer, un ejercicio militar de la OTAN en 1983 que casi desencadena una guerra nuclear. Convencido de que EEUU era una fuerza del bien que luchaba contra un imperio del mal, Reagan se quedó perplejo al ver que los soviéticos no lo veían de la misma manera:

«Tres años me habían enseñado algo sorprendente sobre los rusos: Mucha gente en lo más alto de la jerarquía soviética tenía verdadero miedo de EEUU y de los estadounidenses… Siempre había pensado que, por nuestros actos, debía quedar claro para cualquiera que los estadounidenses éramos un pueblo moral que, desde el nacimiento de nuestra nación, siempre habíamos utilizado nuestro poder sólo como una fuerza del bien en el mundo».

Atrapados en la mentalidad tribal de «nosotros» contra «ellos», los escandinavos exageran lo que «nosotros» tenemos en común y descartan cualquier coincidencia con «ellos». Se da por sentado que EEUU comparte los intereses de Escandinavia, y que está construyendo desinteresadamente una presencia militar allí para proporcionar seguridad. EEUU tiene una estrategia de seguridad basada en la hegemonía, que depende del debilitamiento de todos los rivales emergentes. La Estrategia de Seguridad estadounidense de 2002 vinculaba explícitamente la seguridad nacional al dominio mundial, ya que el objetivo de «disuadir la futura competencia militar» debía lograrse mediante el avance de «la fuerza sin parangón de las fuerzas armadas de EEUU, y su presencia avanzada». Mientras que Escandinavia tiene interés en mantener fronteras pacíficas con Rusia, EEUU ha definido sus intereses en desestabilizar las fronteras rusas. Las alianzas en tiempos de paz se basan en perpetuar los conflictos en lugar de resolverlos, ya que el conflicto garantiza la lealtad del protectorado y la contención del adversario. En su famosa obra sobre cómo hacer avanzar y perpetuar la hegemonía global estadounidense, Brzezinski escribió que EEUU debe «impedir la colusión y mantener la dependencia de seguridad entre los vasallos, para mantener a los tributarios dóciles y protegidos, y evitar que los bárbaros se unan».

Falta de imaginación política para ir más allá de la política de bloques

Los escandinavos han dependido de EEUU para su seguridad desde el final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, y sencillamente no tienen imaginación política para otros acuerdos de seguridad. Si funcionó entonces, ¿por qué no iba a funcionar ahora? Como la competencia en materia de seguridad ya no es una consideración, los escandinavos olvidan convenientemente que la OTAN fue un actor del estatus quo durante la Guerra Fría, mientras que después de ésta se convirtió en un actor revisionista al expandirse y atacar a otros países en lo que la OTAN denomina operaciones «fuera del área».

La falta de alternativas a la OTAN permite a EEUU exigir simplemente la «solidaridad de la alianza» como palabra clave para la disciplina de bloque. Por ejemplo, en la década de 2000 Noruega criticó el sistema de defensa antimisiles estadounidense que amenazaba el equilibrio nuclear, ya que podría permitir un primer ataque estadounidense. Esto era profundamente problemático, ya que la geografía de Noruega la convertía en un país estratégico para la vigilancia de Rusia y para interceptar un ataque de represalia ruso. WikiLeaks reveló que el embajador de EE.UU. informó de que EE.UU. estaba presionando al gobierno noruego, a figuras políticas, periodistas e investigadores de think tanks para superar la firme oposición de Noruega a la defensa antimisiles, o al menos «como mínimo contrarrestar las declaraciones erróneas rusas y distinguir la posición de Noruega de la de Rusia para evitar dañar la solidaridad de la alianza». Se afirmaba que «gracias a nuestros visitantes de alto nivel», Noruega había empezado a «seguir trabajando discretamente en la OTAN sobre la defensa antimisiles y a criticar públicamente a Rusia por sus declaraciones provocadoras» (WikiLeaks, 2007b). En palabras del embajador estadounidense Whitney, Noruega tenía que «ajustarse a las realidades actuales», ya que le resultaría «difícil defender su posición si la cuestión se desplaza hacia la solidaridad de la alianza”. Tras el giro de 180 grados de Noruega sobre la defensa antimisiles, en el Parlamento noruego se declaró que «es importante para la cohesión política de la alianza no dejar que la oposición, quizá especialmente de Rusia, obstaculice el progreso y las soluciones viables».

El mundo está experimentando de nuevo un cambio dramático al pasar de un orden mundial unipolar a uno multipolar. EEUU desplazará cada vez más su atención y sus recursos hacia Asia, lo que cambiará la relación transatlántica. EEUU podrá ofrecer menos a los europeos, pero les exigirá más lealtad en términos económicos y de seguridad. Los europeos tendrán que romper sus lazos económicos con los rivales estadounidenses, lo que se traducirá en menos prosperidad y más dependencia. EEUU también esperará que los europeos militaricen la competencia económica con China, y la OTAN ya se ha convertido en el vehículo más obvio para este fin. En lugar de adaptarse a la multipolaridad diversificando sus vínculos y buscando oportunidades en el ascenso de Asia, los europeos están haciendo lo contrario, subordinándose aún más a EEUU con la esperanza de que aumente el valor de la OTAN.

Escandinavia era una región de paz mientras intentaba mitigar la competencia en materia de seguridad. A medida que Escandinavia ceda su soberanía a EEUU para protegerse de una amenaza imaginaria, la región se convertirá en una línea de frente que desencadenará inevitablemente nuevos conflictos. Lo único seguro es que cuando Rusia reaccione a estas provocaciones, todos corearemos al unísono “¡no ha sido provocado!” y haremos alguna oscura referencia a la democracia.

Publicado originalmente por Fundación de Cultura Estratégica