Archive for June, 2015


June 30, 2015

Washington Times on June 28, 2015, published a review by China expert Steven W. Mosher of a Chinese view of the grand strategy of the Asian great power. The publication of Liu Mingfu’s book The China Dream is revealing. There is no lack of grand ambitions for the Middle Kingdom to become the world’s leading nation. Excerpts below:

Those of us who are not inclined to hug the panda were not convinced by claims of “China’s peaceful rise”.. We knew that the Deng Xiaoping had ordered his successors to “bide their time and hide their capabilities.” We believed that China’s leaders had consciously gone into a kind of stealth mode so that they could advance militarily without alarming the United States and its allies. Better to let the sleeping eagle lie, they seemed to be saying, while China built up its strength.

With the publication of “The China Dream,” that debate is now over and done. The cuddly panda stands revealed as a fearsome dragon determined to remake the world order in its own image. Col. Liu, you see, makes it perfectly clear that the “dream” of China is to “dominate the world.” And in order to do so, he writes, China needs to revive its “warrior culture” and remember its history of “offensive warfare.” The world needs to wake up to the fact that, as the Col. Liu writes, the Chinese are “not afraid of war.”

Since the first appearance of his book in Chinese in 2010 the PLA colonel has achieved rock star status in the People’s Republic.

Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping — known as Big Daddy Xi to the Chinese masses — has referred to “The China Dream” in his speeches and endorsed its ideas.

As a result, the phrase itself has become a national patriotic slogan, plastered over the print media, splashed over the Internet, and celebrated in the schools and universities. There are even popular songs (promoted by the state, of course) about the goal of realizing the “strong China Dream” of China “Dreamers,” namely, world domination.

If China’s leaders are “dreaming” that it is China’s manifest destiny to dominate the world, then a lot of their recent actions make more sense. This sense of historical entitlement would explain why China, according to its latest defense white paper, is building several aircraft carriers to project power into the oceans of the world. It would explain why it is making absurd territorial claims to the South China Sea over a thousand miles distant from its shores. And it would explain its construction of militarized artificial islands in what is effectively open ocean.

Still, I would warn readers of the English edition — published by a New York offshoot of a Beijing publishing company — that they will still not be getting the unadulterated truth about China’s ambitions. The uber-patriotic stridency of the original Chinese seems to have been toned down somewhat to avoid alarming the Western reader.

Take the book’s subtitle, for example, which in the original Chinese read, “China’s Objective, the Road [to achieve it], and the Strength to Believe in Ourselves.” The cover also proclaims that “The Road [We Take] Will Determine Our Destiny; [Our] Dreams Help to Drive a Restoration [of National Glory].”

Still, enough of the pungency of the original survives to make it clear that China is in the game for keeps. “It has been China’s dream for a century to become the world’s leading nation,” writes Col. Liu.
Fifteen years ago, I wrote that China not only had a Grand Strategy, but that it was to be consummated in steps, with the PRC dominating first Asia and then the wider world.

• Steven W. Mosher is the author of “Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World” (Encounter Books, 2000).


June 29, 2015

Washington Times on June 25, 2015, reported that Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said that Russia and China pose threats to vital U.S. space capabilities and other U.S. technological weapons superiority. Excerpts below:

U.S. space systems built up over decades include imaging and other spy satellites, navigation and targeting sensors and communications networks that give the United States unequaled power-projection capabilities, Mr. Work said during a speech Tuesday to a symposium called GEOINT 2015.

“These capabilities that were built up and refined over the Cold War allowed us to project more power, more precisely, more swiftly, at less cost and with less force structure and with far fewer casualties than would otherwise be possible,” he said.

U.S. military superiority is being steadily eroded in significant ways, as states such as Russia and China field advanced weapons, he said.

Russia and China have studied U.S. war fighting and are preparing to attack space systems as a “vulnerable center of gravity for U.S. military power,” Mr. Work said.

To deal with the threat, the Pentagon is working to make space systems better able to withstand attacks ranging from ground-fired missiles and lasers to small robot satellites.

Failing to secure these systems would have a “profound” impact, as command-and-control systems would be disrupted, the ability to detect missile launches weakened, and the accuracy of precision-guided weapons reduced. Links used for unmanned aircraft and much of the data from intelligence gathering also would be lost, Mr. Work said.

A new command center to deal with space attacks, increasing space intelligence, and a new space architecture are needed, he said.

Mr. Work described Russia as a “clear and present danger” after its aggression against Ukraine and threatening nuclear activities.


June 27, 2015

Wall Street Journal on June 25, 2015, reported that China has notched another gain in its inadvertent campaign to expand defense cooperation among its nervous neighbors. In a Journal interview published Thursday, Japan’s top military commander said Japanese forces may join U.S. troops in patrolling the South China Sea, where China has been aggressively staking territorial claims around crucial international waterways. Excerpts below:

“The area is of the utmost importance for Japanese security,” said Admiral Katsutoshi Kawano. “Because there is a lack of transparency, we are very concerned about China’s actions.”

China in recent months has built some 2,000 acres of artificial land atop reefs and shoals in the South China Sea’s disputed Spratly island chain. Beijing insists the artificial islands are mainly for weather monitoring and other peaceful purposes, but it has placed artillery on at least one site and built runways that could host the full range of Chinese military aircraft.

Admiral Kawano’s disclosure comes as Japanese troops this week are conducting their second-ever joint exercises with the Philippine navy. To practice search-and-rescue missions around the Spratlys, Japanese P-3 patrol planes with Japanese and Philippine troops aboard have flown from Palawan Island, the Philippine province that lies within 100 miles of the disputed waters.

In separate drills nearby, other Philippine troops this week are training with Americans, who for the first time included a littoral combat ship, the USS Forth Worth, newly based in Singapore as part of Washington’s Asian “rebalance.” The U.S. and the Philippines last year signed a new defense agreement that could see U.S. Marines rotate through Palawan bases.

Malaysia this month said it would formally protest Chinese incursions into its 200-mile exclusive economic zone, including the anchoring of a Chinese Coast Guard vessel by Malaysia’s Luconia Shoals, near gas wells operated by state-owned Petronas. This represents a change, as Kuala Lumpur previously kept quiet about Chinese patrols near James Shoal, also within its exclusive economic zone.

Indonesia is beginning to raise its voice about Chinese incursions around its Natuna Islands. Vietnam, which saw China plant an oil rig in its waters last year, is on an arms-buying spree while expanding cooperation with the U.S., Japan, India and others. All of these countries could benefit from a new U.S. fund of $425 million to support Southeast Asian military modernization over the next five years. Japan is also boosting regional arms sales.

Japanese participation in South China Sea patrols would boost their effectiveness and underscore how Beijing’s behavior is alienating the region.

Comment by Taiwan sources are reporting that the Vietnamese military may be preparing to attack the Chinese facilities in the region with special forces. Vietnamese special forces will initiate attacks against Chinese targets including merchant ships, supply vessels, radar stations, ports and storage areas on smaller islands or reefs.


June 26, 2015

The Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) has released a ground-breaking report on Baltic security: “The Coming Storm.” Authored by CEPA Senior Vice President Edward Lucas, the report marks the first phase of CEPA new Baltic Sea Security Program. Excerpts below:

The central finding of the Coming Storm report is that the nine “front-line states” – the Nordic five (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), the Baltic three (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Poland – need to end their “strategic incoherence” in the face of a multi-pronged and sustained military, propaganda and espionage offensive from Russia. Though these countries – which the report calls the NBP9 – have a combined GDP one-third greater than Russia’s, their generally weak defense spending and poor coordination makes them highly vulnerable to Russian threats.

Edward Lucas is the author of New Cold War, published in 2008, and other books. He is the director of CEPA’s new Baltic Sea Security Program, which aims to offer analytical support to decision-makers seeking to curb the security threat from Russia in the Baltic Sea region.

Geography makes the defense of NATO’s most vulnerable members, the Baltic states, difficult, even impossible, without the full cooperation of non-NATO Sweden and Finland, the report notes.

The Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy research institute dedicated to the study of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Founded in 2005, CEPA is the only U.S. think-tank that works exclusively on the countries and societies of this dynamic global region. The Center’s mission is to promote an economically vibrant, strategically secure and politically free Central and Eastern Europe with close and enduring ties to the United States.

Russian warplanes regularly intrude into or come close to the airspace of the Baltic states. On different days in October 2014, Denmark, Sweden and Germany all scrambled military jets to intercept Russian planes heading toward their airspace. In September, two Russian SU-24 fighter-bombers intruded into Swedish airspace to the south of the island of Öland.

Earlier, in June 2014, Russia mounted a dummy attack, using planes armed with live missiles, on the Danish island of Bornholm just as 90,000 guests—in effect the country’s entire political elite—were visiting the island for the Folkemødet public policy festival. Had the attack actually taken place, Denmark would have been decapitated.

Some of the scenarios in the Baltic Sea were outlined in a paper (in Finnish) by the military specialists Michael Moberg, James Mashiri and Charly SaloniusPasternak in the February 27, 2015, issue of the magazine Suomen Kuvalehti (Finnish Picture Magazine}. The paper was titled “Venäjä vaatii Suomelta laivastotukikohtaa, Gotlanti miehitetään— voisiko näin tapahtua?” (Russia demands a naval base from Finland, Gotland occupied—could this happen?).

The scenarios include a “terrorist” attack on a Russian oil tanker, prompting Russia to complain that the West is trying to strangle its international trade and to demand a jointly run naval base in the region. The second scenario involves mysterious Islamist groups mounting terror attacks in Sweden while Russia occupies Gotland, supposedly at the request of a local group of activists seeking protection. The third posits rapid Russian intervention in Estonia in support of Russian-speaking separatists there.

The new CEPA report has a number of recommendations:


Better coordination in the NBP9 against Russian espionage, corruption and organized crime would blunt the edge of the Kremlin’s most potent weapons. Sharing financial intelligence, joint spy-catching and intensified cooperation among criminal justice systems is long overdue. So too is diplomatic pressure on politicians who undermine their officials’ efforts.

Russia has gained a worrying superiority in information warfare. The NBP9 combined have some useful capabilities in collating, analyzing and rebutting Russian propaganda and disinformation. These capabilities would be formidable if they were combined. The NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence in Riga offers an obvious focus for such efforts.


A particular emphasis in this should go into collating open-source and unclassified information about Russian behavior in the region. There is no central publicly accessible database about Russian activities in airspace and at sea. Creating a real-time record of Russian misbehavior and mischief in the region would make it much harder for the Kremlin to claim that nothing abnormal is going on. Furthermore, Lithuania should keep a clear public record of all transit traffic (rail, road, natural gas and electricity) to Kaliningrad. If Russia wishes to complain that something is suddenly amiss, it will be helpful to have a detailed and credible picture of what normality looks like.


The NBP9 should intensify their cooperation with the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn, Estonia. This has already demonstrated world-class ability to host war games (such as the “Locked Shields” exercise). It should host regional versions of these exercises and integrate them into other military and civilian drills.


Sweden and Finland already have analysts at the NATO Fusion Center in the UK. However, a new Fusion cell dealing specifically with Russia’s threat to Baltic Sea security would develop this relationship further. It should combine open source information with classified material from NATO and non-NATO countries, i.e., under NATO auspices but with full Finnish and Swedish participation. This would be a powerful antidote to one of Russia’s most potent capabilities, the distraction and confusion of decision-makers.


The NBP9 need to establish a common approach to military procurement, interoperability, planning, training, exercises, information sharing, crisis management, disaster preparedness. Creating a culture of mutual trust will not be quick or easy. But that is all the more reason to start now.


A common approach to missile defense is long overdue. When Poland has Patriot missiles, will they defend only Poland, or other countries too? If Polish troops are regularly deployed in the Baltic states, and come under attack there, then presumably the Polish state would want to protect them with its best weapons. What role is there for joint procurement—for example, missile defense installations in the Baltic states, perhaps partly paid for and operated by other countries in the region?


Offensive military capabilities can be better coordinated too. America has allowed Finland and Poland to buy the AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), a stealth air launched weapon that has the capability to strike hundreds of kilometers inside Russia. This has a powerful deterrent effect. Other countries should consider JASSM acquisition too, and defense planning for the region should take into account the possible use of JASSM as a collective deterrent. Poland is trying to buy Tomahawk Cruise missiles from the U.S. It would make sense to deploy these on Swedish-made submarines, and to use Sweden’s renowned expertise in subsea warfare to improve other countries’ capabilities.

NATO, as well as Sweden and Finland, needs to pre-position equipment and ammunition in the Baltic states, and allied forces need to be a robust and permanent (i.e., as long as is needed) presence in the region. These forces need a high degree of political pre-authorization. Just as the NATO warplanes that take part in the air-policing mission do not need a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to allow them to scramble to see off an intruder, the same should be true of the NATO land and sea forces in the Baltics. If Russia tries to intimidate a cable-laying ship in international waters, or exploit an infrastructure breakdown in Lithuania, it should receive an immediate NATO response.

The indispensable coordinator and instigator of all these efforts is the United States. For each country in the NBP9, the bilateral security relationship with the U.S. is the most important component by far of their defense thinking. If the U.S. asks Polish soldiers to exercise in Sweden, or Swedish and Finnish aircraft to conduct exercises in the Baltics, it will happen. Without American leadership, the region’s security will be bedeviled by squabbles about national particularities.


June 25, 2015

Fox News on June 19, 2015 published an article by Allison Barrie on swarming technology used by the US Navy. Just like locust swarms can cause devastating natural disasters, the U.S. Navy’s Low-Cost UAV Swarming Technology (LOCUST) drones could devastate adversaries. Excerpts below:

This is a new revolutionary technology where swarms of compact drones can work together and execute missions autonomously.

Drone swarms could overwhelm threats to the military.

A desert locust swarm can total over 400 square miles large, 160 million strong per square mile and each locust can eat its weight in plants every day.

The Office of Naval Research recently demonstrated some of their swarm’s capabilities. They launched their Coyote UAVs that can be used for various types of LOCUST swarm missions.

Approximately three feet long, Coyote drones weigh about 12 pounds and can fly for about 90 minutes. They can reach a maximum speed of 85 knots. After launch, Coyotes wings unfold to fly. Coyotes were flown into Hurricane Eduoard last summer to gather information.

The demonstration revealed that nine drones could synchronize and execute formations in flight all on their own.

The ONR says that the LOCUST program features a tube-based launcher that sends the drones into the air one after another.

LOCUST leverages big advances in how drones can share information with one another. The drones can take action autonomously working together without humans. They can collaborate and execute offensive or defensive missions.

While the drones are autonomous, the ONR stressed that humans will actively monitor missions and be on hand to step in and take control.

There are a number of advantages to drone swarms. Drone swarms could take on missions to free up sailors and U.S. Marines for other work.

The Navy says that hundreds of these small UAVs will cost less than a single tactical aircraft, and lowering costs is another great advantage.

UAV swarms could provide sailors and Marines with a significant tactical advantage.

Last year, the Navy revealed drone boats that could swarm a threat vessel and overwhelm it. The drone boats would leverage technology developed by NASA for use on its Mars rover. The swarms could also protect Marines and sailors on board larger ships.

Next year, the Navy aims to launch 30 drones from a ship in rapid succession.

Defense specialist Allison Barrie has traveled around the world covering the military, terrorism, weapons advancements and life on the front line.


June 24, 2015

Financial Times on June 21, 2015, reported that Scandinavia is the last bastion of social democracy, with societies that have acted as an inspiration for progressive and centre-left politicians around the world. Excerpts below:

These days, however, Nordic social democracy is in crisis. Helle Thorning-Schmidt’s defeat in last week’s Danish elections means that for the first time since at least the second world war Sweden is the only one of the four large Nordic countries with a social democrat party in power. Even there, the government ranks as one of the weakest on record.

The social democrats’ decline has been accompanied by a surge in support for anti-immigration, eurosceptic parties. Should the Danish People’s party — which came second, nearly doubling its support from the previous vote in 2011 — join a centre-right government, three of the four large Nordic countries would have such a group in power (Finland and Norway being the others).

There is a familiar progression in the way that the DPP, True Finns, Sweden Democrats and Norway’s Progress party have hollowed out the establishment parties. As with the DPP, they have started by stealing voters from the centre-left — the working class, the elderly — before taking them from the centre-right.

“It’s a worry and it’s a wake-up call,” says Carl Bildt, former Swedish prime minister.

So how have the Nordic populists been so successful? The DPP attributes much of its popularity to staying close to the concerns of real people…

“It is very important to be a part of the people, not be such high-ranking politicians that don’t know what is going on in the population,” says Pia Kjaersgaard, who founded the party 20 years ago.

Still, something changed in this election. In four elections between 2001 and 2011, the party’s support stagnated in a band from 12-14 per cent. On Thursday, it shot up to 21 per cent.

Many credit this to Ms Kjaersgaard’s successor as party leader, Kristian Thulesen Dahl, who has softened the party’s image and sought to make its message less about immigration and more about issues such as public spending and the EU. At its core, the party promises to protect the generous Danish welfare state by restricting access to it. In essence, the party has captured Social Democrat voters by casting itself as the best defender of the system the Social Democrats built over decades.

“In Scandinavian countries there is a worry that we send too much welfare out of the country, that we need to think about taking care of our elderly people, our children, our sick people,” says Peter Skaarup, the party’s parliamentary leader.

The True Finns decided to test the waters in Finland but the DPP is more naturally sceptical of power, believing it can wield more influence as a support party in parliament rather than with the full responsibility of sitting in a coalition. How realistic that strategy is when the DPP garners the support of more than one in five Danish voters remains to be seen.

Whatever else, the elections in Denmark suggest that the tag of “populist” may be outdated for the DPP — its concerns on immigration and the welfare state lie close to the mainstream, especially as the other parties have moved towards it.


June 22, 2015

The borderland, Ukraine, was always the key to Russia and to the defense of the West against aggression by Moscow.

It is important in the 21st century to return to the strategic thinking of Ukrainian Hetman Pylyp Orlyk (1672 – 1742) and that of his son Hryhor Orlyk (1702 – 1759), general of the French Army.

Pylyp Orlyk was Ukrainian hetman-in-exile from 1710 to 1742. He and his government-in-exile resided in Sweden from 1715 – 1720. Later Pylyp Orlyk travelled to Germany, Austria, Bohemia, Poland and the Ottoman Empire in support of Ukrainian independence. At the end of his life Orlyk resided for 12 years in Salonika, Greece, then part of the Ottoman Empire.

The hetman’s son came to reside in France (the castle of Dinteville), a trusted councillor of the king of France, Louis XV, and general of the French Army.

Hryhor Orlyk travelled extensively in Eastern Europe for the French Foreign Ministry. In a secret mission to Constantinople in 1730 he on his return to Paris presented a memorandum to Cardinal de Fleury, the prime minister of France, and the minister of Foreign Affairs, Chovelaine. Here he argued for the emergence of an independent Ukraine to preserve European balance. When preparing to go to the Crimean Khanate in 1732 he received from his father in Salonika a Polish version of the document “Project of Peter”. This document revealed a Russian plan of 1711 to expand southward and conquer Crimea.

These were the beginnings of the geostrategic thinking related to the three countries of Ukraine, Poland, Turkey and then independent Khanate of Crimea. These countries could provide a protective shield against expansionist ambitions of the Russian czars.

After World War I the leading British geopolitician Sir Halford Mackindewr (1861 – 1947) believed that it was crucial to set up independent nations from the Adriatic and Black Sea to the Baltic Sea: Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, the Balkans, Bulgaria and Greece. Mackinder added that supervision of the area should be entrusted to the League of Nations. Unfortunately the plan was turned down by the British government.

With growing signs of a New Cold War in Europe the advice of the two Orlyks and of Sir Halford Mackinder ought to be studied once more, as it is vital to the defense of the West.


June 20, 2015

Svenska Dagbladet publicerade den 18 juni 2015 en artikel av Mats Johansson om behovet av ett nytt psykförsvar i Sverige. Johansson har också publicerat en artikel i juninumret av tidskriften Vårt Försvar, under rubriken “Det pågår en strid om sanningen”. Utdrag nedan:

Bortom decimalbeslutet i partiöverenskommelsen behövs en ny diskurs om desinformationskrigets anatomi och motmedel. Utgångspunkterna är givna sedan Kreml med aktuella exempel påmint oss om att Sun Zis tes fortfarande gäller: All krigskonst handlar om att vilseleda, om att vinna utan strid.

För Twitter-generationen kan det kännas främmande att något som tänktes för flera tusen år sedan fortfarande kan ha relevans, men just därför skulle repetition behövas. Dagens beslutsfattare i många av landets maktsfärer är oförberedda mentalt och intellektuellt på att det otänkbara kan bli tänkbart. Det är inte bara på ekonomins område som ”svarta svanar” kan uppenbara sig.

Därför var det synd att psykförsvaret gick samma väg som stora delar av det gamla invasionsförsvaret. Detta är dock ingen plädering för att återskapa Beredskapsnämnden för psykologiskt försvar från 1953, som i sin senare tappning avvecklades 2008; nya tider och seder kräver nytt språk och nya metoder. Som siste ordförande i SPF konstaterade Olle Wästberg i ett ”tapto” att källkritik är viktigare än någonsin i tider när Google ersatt beprövad kunskap och erfarenhet som källa till intellektuell auktoritet, samtidigt som mediernas nedrustning gör det möjligt att påstå vad som helst i offentligheten.

Erfarenheten från Radio Free Europe och Radio Liberty gäller; framgång bygger på trovärdighet.

Men som Eino Tubin, …informationschef på myndigheten, nyligen framhöll (KKrVA 15/1 2015), är läget nu ett annat än under det första kalla kriget: ”internet och smarta telefoner är öppna för kapningar, manipulation och svart propaganda, och extremister försöker snedvrida opinionsbildningen”.

Arvet efter SPF förvaltas av MSB, men uppdraget bör preciseras. I sitt yttrande över försvarsberedningens betänkande inför inriktningspropositionen skrev MSB (16/12 2014) lite vagt att det behövdes ”samverkan mellan berörda kommunikativa funktioner” för att ”motverka vilseledande eller oriktig information.”

Men även utan utredning, nya pengar och ändrad organisation kan steg tas för effektivisering av befintlig struktur. Säkerhetsetablissemanget skulle kunna bestämma sig för en mer aktiv och öppen kommunikation till uppdragsgivarna, som inte är regeringskansliet eller Försvarsmakten utan skattebetalande allmänhet. Man kan överge principen om att vi inte ska berätta vad vi vet för fienden, eftersom fienden redan vet det mesta.

Forskarna kan sluta skriva främst för varandra och göra som militärbloggarna, vända sig till medborgarna. Det är ingen dum princip i en demokrati även om det kan kosta anseende i jakten på citeringar i vetenskapliga tidskrifter.

Institutionerna, även de allra hemligaste, kan lära av Säkerhetspolisens informationsaktivism som bidragit till att höja medvetandet om ökade hot inte bara från ryska spioner utan också terrorister och extremister till höger och vänster.

För mig är Assange och Snowden inga hjältar. Men vi höll på att förlora en av landets viktigaste tillgångar – FRA – på grund av hemlighetsmakeriet, när det gick troll i debatten, särskilt bland unga väljare och politiker. Nu hotar andra troll i informationskriget och mot dem skulle ökat ljus kunna hjälpa; det är i ljuset trollen spricker.

En ökad strategisk öppenhet om risker, kränkningar och hot mot vårt land är en metod för att förankra och fördjupa försvarsförmågan psykologiskt, och därmed också politiskt.

MATS JOHANSSON är fd chefredaktör för och numera kolumnist i Svenska Dagbladet samt ordförande i tankesmedjan Frivärld.

Kommentar: Författaren Bertil Häggman publicerade 1990 bokenDesinformation. Den behandlade den medvetna vilseledning som Sovjetunionen och dess vasallstater systematiskt använde. Väsentliga inslag var förfalskningar, inflytandeagenter, internationella kommunistiska frontorganisationerosv. I särskilda kapitel behandlades den roll som den sovjetiske spionen och landsförrädaren Arne Treholt spelade som desinformatör och inflytandeagent i Norge. Även den sovjetiska underrättelsetjänsten KGB:s desinformationsverksamhet i Danmark beskrevs. Detta område behandlades också i detalj av professor Bent Jensen i hans massiva över tusensidiga verk från 1914 om det kalla kriget i Danmark från 1945 – 1991. Desinformerande artiklar i den svenska vänstertidskriften ”Kommentar” och v-tidskriften ”Vi mänskor” tas upp i Häggmans bok. Den vilseledningsteknik som användes av Moskva under det kalla kriget utnyttjas nu fullt ut av Ryssland i Ukrainakonflikten.


June 19, 2015

Washington Times on June 17, 2015, published an article by Professor Victor Davis Hanson on how aggressor nations are once again expanding their sovereignty. After describing how Nazi Germany and Japan expanded before World War II Hanson compares it two the rise of Russia, China and the IS state in the Middle East. Excerpts below:

These hegemonies had arisen without triggering a global war. Had Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese just been satisfied and consolidated their winnings, there was no evidence that the tired Western democracies would ever have stopped them.

The contemporary world is starting to resemble the 1930s, and maps again must be redrawn.

The Islamic State plans to take Baghdad to make it the capital of a radical Sunni caliphate from what is left of Syria and Iraq.

Its enemy, theocratic Iran, is forging its own Shiite empire. Through its proxies, Iran now effectively runs much of Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.

Russian President Vladimir Putin thinks he can reconstitute the empire of the czars and the later Soviet Union. American “reset” diplomacy green-lighted his annexation of the Crimea and his occupation of areas of Ukraine. Should Mr. Putin wish to absorb Estonia or other Baltic States, NATO probably would not stop him.

A terrified Eastern Europe, which not that long ago was part of the old Soviet Warsaw Pact, is already making the necessary political concessions in hopes that the unpredictable Mr. Putin leaves them alone.

China is vastly increasing its strategic air force and navy — and reminding its neighbors from South Korea to Australia of its new military clout. It has recently instigated various territorial disputes with Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. As a clever way to control key sea lanes and oil-rich areas in the South China Sea, the Chinese are building new military bases by turning small coral reefs into islands of sand.

Well before World War II, Great Britain and France allowed Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese to acquire what they pleased. The Western European democracies were terrified of confrontation and mired in economic crises.

As in the 1930s, an isolationist United States is again watching the new map unfold from the sidelines. President Obama assumes Americans are tired of the Middle East and want to be left alone. Afghanistan is a quagmire. Iraq collapsed once the administration pulled out all U.S. troops.

In 1945, after some 60 million had perished in World War II, the Western democracies blamed themselves for having appeased and empowered fascist empires. That sadder but wiser generation taught us two lessons: Small sacrifices now can avoid catastrophic ones later on, and dictatorial regimes on a roll never voluntarily quit playing geostrategic poker.

If the present trajectories continue, a reconfigured Middle East will be bookended by radical Islamic empires — the Islamic State caliphate and a new Persian empire. China will control most of the Pacific and adjudicate trade, commerce and politics west of Hawaii and to the south and east of India. The client states of a new Russian empire will border central Europe and be under constant pressure to leave the EU, NATO or both.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.


June 18, 2015

Carl von Clausewitz (1780 – 1831) in 1812 drew up a plan for Prussian partisans in which all male citizens between 18 and 60 would be armed with muskets, scythes and pitchforks. The only uniform would be a padded hat and provincial insignia. They were to hinder French officials, capture detachments and attack convoys. This force was to conduct ambushes and lend support to the regular army.

In 1808 August von Gneisenau (1760 – 1831) had written that Prussia’s only hope lay in a national insurrection and three years later Scharnhorst submitted a plan to the Prussian king which recommended guerrilla resistance.

By definition partisan or guerrilla resistance is supposed to be spontaneous. So the creation of the Landsturm in Prussia was unique. It was a guerrilla resistance enacted by law from above. The law of 21 April 1813, called for all able-bodied men between the age of 18 and 60, who were not already in the army or the Landwehr, to join the Landsturm. No uniforms were to be used, to avoid recognition by the enemy. When the French approached inhabitants in that area the guerrillas were to abandon their villages and organize under already by the king nominated officers. From the woods they would then harass the enemy. As they retreated they were to take away corn and food, burn mills, bridges and boats and fill the wells.

But in reality the Landsturm was not effective because the ruling elite feared a popular struggle which could give the partisans ideas of rising against their Prussian masters. The operations of the Prussian guerrilla were thus hampered by many qualifications and regulations. The partisans were to be under command of the provincial and local authorities.

Gatherings of local units were to be sanctioned by army or corps commanders. Any assembly without authority of the Landsturm was to be regarded as mutiny. The result was that the defensive guerrilla war only lasted three months and was ineffective. It was a people’s war without the people.

In 1813 the German liberation war against the French occupation started. From June to August 1813, when there was an armistice. Both sides started rebuilding their armies. It was now Austria joined the coalition against Napoleon. 300,000 troops were deployed in Bohemia and northern Italy. The alliance now had 800,000 frontline troops in Germany.

Napoleon brought his forces up to around 650,000. After the end of the armistice the French suffered several defeats in the north at Grossbeeren, Katzbach and Dennewitz. Afterwards Napoleon He withdrew around 175,000 troops to Leipzig. Here the so-called Battle of Nations (16–19 October 1813) took place, a defeat for Napoleon.

The emperor later pulled his forces back into France. The Allies offered peace terms in the Frankfurt proposals in November 1813. Napoleon would remain as Emperor of France, but it would be reduced to its “natural frontiers.” He waited too long and no agreement was made.

During the last months of 1813 and into 1814 Wellington with the Peninsular army in Spain invaded France from the south. Wellington was victorious in a number of battles.

In eastern France Napoleon fought a series of battles. He was steadily forced back and outnumbered. At theTreaty of Chaumont March 9, 1814 the Allies agreed to preserve the Coalition until Napoleon was ultimately defeated. A few days later, on 30 March 1814, Paris was taken.

Napoleon abdicated and the war ended soon after. As a result of the Treaty of Paris on May 30,1814 he victors exiled Napoleon to the island of Elba, and restored the Bourbon monarchy with Louis XVIII as king of France. At the Congress of Vienna (between September 1814 and June 1815) an new Europe was created. Germany had finally been liberated from French occupation.

In 1815 Napoleon had returned from Elba and collected a new army. He was defeated by the Allies at Waterloo in Belgium on June 18, 1815.

Great Britain on June 18, 2015 is celebrating the British victory over Napoleon 200 years ago. That would probably not have been done without the Germans.

As a gesture to the Germans the Massed Bands of British regiments will be joined by the Concert Band of the German Army at the celebrations in London. The German ambassador will take the salute.

“About 45% of the men with whom Wellington started the battle spoke German of one sort or another, and the proportion increased with every Prussian formation reaching the scene”, writes Brendan Simms in his book, The Longest Afternoon, the 400 Men who Decided the Battle of Waterloo.

“By the end, a clear majority of allied combatants were German, to that extent Waterloo was indeed a ‘German victory’.”

The course of the battle was changed at La Haye Sainte. It defended by soldiers of the King’s German Legion – established by George III who was also Elector of Hanover.

Despite the crucial role played by German troops at Waterloo, the German government has been concerned about French sensitivities.

200,000 soldiers took part in the battle of Waterloo, on 18 June 1815. An estimated 47,000 were killed, and 24,000 wounded.