Archive for the ‘GLOBAL CIVIL WAR’ Category


October 22, 2017

A new important book ”The Chinese Invasion Threat, Taiwan’s Defense and America’s Strategy in Asia” by Ian Easton”, (Project 2049, US dollar 20.00, 389 pages) warns that China will be much more aggressive in the coming decades.On October 10, 2017, the book was reviewed in Washington Times by Richard D. Fisher Jr., a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center. Excerpts below:

For the first time since the early 1950s China is close to being able to attempt its never-abandoned goal of conquering Taiwan.

[It is] the CCP’s fear of Taiwan’s strengthening democratic culture and identity [that it will make] peaceful “unification” unlikely while increasingly undermining the legitimacy of the CCP’s dictatorship. But politics may also be pressing current CCP and People’s Liberation Army (PLA) leader Xi Jinping; starting the “historic mission” of unification near the end of his second term in 2022 may help justify an unprecedented third term as leader.

Using PLA-related publications with restricted access in China Mr. Easton provides new insights into the details, deliberations, planning and even some doubts of PLA invasion planners. He details an expansive PLA order of battle, modernized with advanced intelligence, information capabilities, and fourth-generation weapon systems, which soon will be more fully prepared for rapid offensive operations.

He notes the PLA is prepared to mobilize large numbers of civilian cargo ships and aircraft to supplement formal PLA invasion transport. His review of PLA sources shows they are well aware of the challenges, such as the need for surprise and favorable weather in the tricky Taiwan Strait. The PLA knows it must capture vital ports and airfields quickly to surge follow-on forces. Some of these PLA source estimate 1 million troops may be needed, especially to fight grueling urban campaigns against Taiwan’s defenders, who they do not expect to surrender.

Mr. Easton points out that CCP control of Taiwan will pose an immediate threat to Japan — PLA planners note that from occupied Taiwan they could quickly reduce Japan’s foreign trade by 30 percent.

After seizing Taiwan, could China come to lead an anti-democratic coalition with America as its main target.

[The author] details how Taiwan has used recent decades to build a fortress that could hold out for a considerable period. But what vexes both PLA and Taiwanese planners is the potential reaction of the United States to a PLA invasion campaign. For Taipei, will the U.S. arrive soon enough, and for the PLA, can they both politically and militarily delay the U.S. rescue mission, perhaps by distracting and debilitating attacks of a cyber or kinetic nature?

There is still time to deter a Chinese attack. Washington may have less than 10 years, but much can be done to change the CCP-PLA’s deadly calculus. Mr. Easton recommends integrating Taiwan into U.S. security policy in Asia with the eventual goal of restoring full diplomatic relations.

Washington can also offer decisive arms sales, such as the fifth-generation F-35 fighter, and technology enabling Taiwan to build thousands of cheap cruise missiles, better to deter China’s invasion fleets.

Comment: There is growing unease concerning China. The American administration is conducting a review of China policy led by the National Security Council and the National Economic Council. Everything seems to be on the table but the focus is on economy more than security. The threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan should also be included.

China has during the past decade been waging an economic war against the United States. The Chinese state is subsidizing own companies and stealing American inventions on a grand scale. The forcing of technology transfers is creating a threat to the whole world trading system. America is not the only target. All foreign competitors are threatened.

There are now similarities between China and the Soviet Union in the 1980s. It is necessary for groups outside the US administration to wake up the West and help change thinking in the United States and Europe about China. Foreign policy is seldom of importance in the West during elections. This need to be changed in the coming 2018 and 2020 American elections. The present thinking about China as a friend or partner is wrong. The West must consider if the Chinese Communist Party is an economic enemy.

Geopolitically China may be considering forming an Eurasian coalition against the United States. So far experts in the field of geopolitics have concentrated on the influence of Alfred Thayer Mahan on Peking geostrategy. Most likely both Sir Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman are classical geopolitical theorists China will be looking at.



October 16, 2017

Kristianstadsbladet publicerade den 16 oktober 2017 på ledarsidan en artikel av den förre ledarskribenten vid Dagens Nyheter, Nils-Erik Sandberg om fascismens och nazismens ideologiska rötter i vänstern. Utdrag återges nedan:

De förvirrade typerna i Nordiska motståndsrörelsen har genomgående kallats för högerextremister. Antifascistisk aktion, som specialiserat sig på att störa möten och demonstrationer, kallar sina motståndare höger och fascister. Är beteckningarna korrekta?

Först en viktig distinktion. Partier som kallas höger, eller nyliberala, vill ha starka individer och sätta gränser för statens makt. Vänstern vill ha det omvända. Ett högt skattetryck, som det svenska, flyttar makt över konsumtion och investeringar från individerna till politikerna.

Sambandet (mellan våld och marxism) beskrivs utförligt av bland andra Friedrich Hayek i ”The Road to Serfdom”, av Herbert Tingsten i tre böcker – ”Demokratins seger och kris”, ”Den svenska socialdemokratins idéutveckling”, Tingstens bästa verk, och ”Den nationella diktaturen ”.

Så fascismen har utgått ur marxismen. Sambandet beskrivs utförligt av Yvan Blot i boken ”Socialism och fascism – samma familj”.

Nazismen är en förkortning av det formella namnat på partiet: ”Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”, NSDAP. Nazismen koncentrerade makten över individerna till staten, och blev i denna mening ett socialistiskt parti.

Socialdemokratin har berömt sig av att ha fört en keynesiansk politik, med höga offentliga utgifter som instrument, och betraktat detta som en socialistisk politik.

Keynesianism kan enklast definieras som offentliga utgifter som andel av BNP. Keynes´ bok, ”The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” kom 1936. Vi ser nu på siffrorna på 1937 – de är hämtade från IMF. I de 15 största europeiska länderna, med ett undantag, var utgiftskvoten som genomsnitt 18 procent. I Sverige var den 11.9 procent. Ett land var extremt, med en utgiftskvot på 44 procent. Det var Nazityskland. Den utgiftskvoten kom Sverige upp i först 1969, året efter att Palme blivit statsminister

Kommentar: Keynes insåg, skriver Sandberg också, att hans förslag lättast kunde införas i länder med ett auktoritärt styre. Det är också viktigt att erinra om hur nazismen från sovjetkommunismen hämtade idén att placera politiska motståndare i straffläger. Nazisterna följde noggrant utvecklingen i Sovjetryssland och inspirerades av den terror mot borgerligheten som inleddes av Lenin 1917 i Ryssland. Det är väsentligt att 2017 påminna om detta.

En av Lenins ledande hemliga poliser (Martin Latsis, 1888 – 1938) förklarade med all tydlighet planerna på att utrota borgerligheten som klass: “Vi för inte krig mot enskilda individer. Vi avser att utrota borgerligheten som klass. Se inte till bevis som styrker den misstänktes skuld. Det man skall fråga sig är: Till vilken klass hör denne, vad är ursprung, utbildning och yrke. Det är detta som ska avgöra den anklagades öde. Det är detta som är den röda terrorns mening och inre väsen” (S.P. Melgunov, “Krasny terror” v. Rossii, 1918 – 1923, Berlin 9123, andra upplagan, sid. 72).


October 14, 2017

Fox News on October 13, 2017, reported on President Trumps announcement that he will decertify the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
Excerpts below:

…he believes the “radical regime” has committed multiple violations of the agreement as he kicked a decision over whether to restore sanctions back to Congress.

“I am announcing today that we cannot and will not make this certification,” Trump said during a speech at the White House. “We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror, and the very real threat of Iran’s nuclear breakthrough.”

…the president threatened that he could still ultimately pull out of the deal.

“In the event we are not able to reach a solution working with Congress and our allies, the agreement will be terminated,” he said. “It is under continuous review and our participation can be canceled by me as president at any time.”

In making his decision, Trump said, “Iran is not living up to the spirit of the deal.” Among other alleged violations, Trump said Iran failed to meet expectations in its operation of advanced centrifuges and intimidated international inspectors into not using their full authority.

The president also slammed sunset provisions in the deal itself, complaining that the U.S. got a “weak inspection” in exchange for a “short-term” delay in Iran’s nuclear progress.

Trump, meanwhile, announced plans to take action against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, authorizing the Treasury Department to impose targeted sanctions against “its officials, agents, and affiliates.”

In his broadside against the Iranian regime, the president said it “remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” accusing it of providing assistance to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah and other terrorist networks.

The president accused Iran of developing missiles that threaten American troops and allies and imprisoning Americans “on false charges.”

“Given the regime’s murderous past and present, we should not take lightly its sinister vision for the future,” Trump said. “The regimes two favorite chants are ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel.’”

The National Resistance Council of Iran, an offshoot organization of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), praised Trump’s move in support of the de-certification.

Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), welcomed the new U.S. policy to “condemn the IRGC’s gross violations of human rights” in Iran.

“The IRGC is a prime means of suppression, execution, and torture in Iran, spreading terrorism throughout the world, war mongering and massacre in the region, the drive for acquiring nuclear weapons, and the increase in the proliferation of ballistic missiles,” she said. “If the IRGC had been recognized as a terrorist entity earlier and dealt with accordingly, the current situation in the region in general, and Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Afghanistan in particular, would have been totally different.”

Republicans are calling for new legislation that addresses the “flaws” of the agreement.

“Lawmakers need to do now what we couldn’t do two years ago: unite around an Iran strategy that truly stops Iran’s nuclear weapons program and empowers the United States and our allies to combat the full spectrum of Iran’s imperial aggression,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said in a statement.

Former Republican House Speaker and historian Newt Gingrich on Fox News on October 13, 2017, said that President Donald Trump decided to “decertify” the Iran nuclear deal because the administration understands that Iran has long been the United States’ “mortal enemy.”

He said that Trump and his national security team methodically thought this through, and they arrived at the correct decision.

He said he expects Trump to adopt a more aggressive strategy toward Iran, including targeting the Revolutionary Guard, the nation’s most powerful security institution.

“And that is going to enrage the Iranians,” Gingrich said. “They’ve bluffed Westerners over and over again, starting with Jimmy Carter in 1979. And now – just like the North Koreans – they’re running into somebody who’s not bluffable.”

In a speech on October 12, 2017, CIA Director Mike Pompeo at the University of Texas castigated Iran calling it a ”thuggish police state” and comparing it to the Islamic State as reported by the Washington Free Beacon”. Excerpts below:

“Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are the cudgels of a despotic theocracy, with the IRGC accountable only to a Supreme Leader,” Pompeo said. “They’re the vanguard of a pernicious empire that is expanding its power and influence across the Middle East.”

He also suggested that the IRGC is becoming bolder in its operations.

“In recent years, the IRGC has become more reckless and provocative, seeking to exploit the vacuum left by instability in the Middle East to aggressively expand its influence,” he added. “It openly vows to annihilate Israel. And when you look at the death and destruction inflicted in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq by Tehran and its proxies, the threat is clear: Iran is mounting a ruthless drive to be the hegemonic power in the region.”

“…unlike ISIS and its mirage of a caliphate, Iran is a powerful nation-state that remains the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism. The Islamic Republic is Iran’s version of what the caliphate ought to look like under the control of an Ayatollah and his praetorian guard, the IRGC,” Pompeo said.

Pompeo also argued the IRGC had previously attempted to orchestrate a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C. and suggested a U.S. serviceman was killed by an IED linked to Iran.

As for Iran’s complicity in attacks using IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, Pompeo mentioned the possibility that a Tyler, Texas, soldier had been killed this month by Iranian weapon, noting he had been killed “in an area controlled by a Shia militia aligned with Iran.”

The Washington Free Beacon on October 13, 2017, reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saluted President Donald Trump’s “courageous decision” to decertify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal…, saying that if the agreement was unchanged Iran would wind up with an “arsenal” of nuclear weapons. Excerpts below:

“President Trump has just created an opportunity to fix this bad deal, to roll back Iran’s aggression, and to confront its criminal support of terrorism. That’s why Israel embraces this opportunity, and that’s why every responsible government and any person concerned with the peace and security of the world should do so as well.”


October 4, 2017

I en artikel (”Jag drevs av helig vrede”) den 20 september 2017 publicerade borgerliga Kristianstadsbladet en artikel om den socialdemokratiska politikern Birgitta Dahl, med anledning av hennes 80-årsdag. Dahl förnekar i artikeln att hon gett stöd till de Röda khmerernas skräckvälde i Kambodja på 1970-talet. Jag har aldrig stött Pol Pot, det är förtal och lögner i en systematisk, skamlig kampanj mot mig, heter det nu.

Hennes avbön och avgång som riksdagens talman kom först 1997, men redan 1991 avslöjade författaren Bertil Häggman i boken ”Medlöparna” att Dahl 1975 tigit och fortfarande teg om de kommunistiska morden i Kambodja, Det var först 1976 som den ledande s-politikern medgav att det förekom ”problem”. Men det var riktigt att tiga 1975, tyckte hon. Det skrevs så mycket lögner och var så många spekulationer. Och det var nödvändigt att evakuera huvudstaden Phnom Penh. Det behövdes arbetskraft på landsbygden och det krävdes ”stora offer av befolkningen”. Min fråga i boken var hur många liv Dahl tyckte var lämpligt att offra.

Så gick ännu ett år och nu kunde tidskriften Vietnam Nu rapportera att Dahl medgav ”att många människor dött efter befrielsen”. Det var så hon beskrev massmorden. Offren uppskattas numera till 1,7 miljoner från april 1975 till 1978. Siffran kan dock vara högre.

1978 tyckte Dahl dock att man inte skulle tala om ”systematiska massakrer”. Det var inte vår sak, ansåg Dahl, att döma eller fördöma. Vi skulle i stället ”försöka förstå”.

Det tog över 20 år för Dahl att medge att hon haft fel på 1970-talet.

Vilken var den världsbild som den tidigare talmannen i riksdagen företrädde. I en artikel skrev hon att de Röda khmererna (hon kallade den för en ”befrielserörelse” som representerade ”demokrati, kultur och social rättvisa”). Det kommunistiska väldet i Kambodja var samhällsbyggnad som var ett ”livsfarligt vapen mot den amerikanska imperialismen”. USA ville sprida det kapitalistiska systemet över världen. I en annan artikel av Dahl hette det att ”slagord som ’proletärer i alla länder, förenen eder’” är aktuella också i dag”.

I Dahls avbön 1997 hette det att hon var en ”övertygad demokrat och reformist”. I radio 1976 hade Dahl dock avfärdat uppgifterna om Pol Pots folkmord som ”lögn och spekulation”. Man måste ha förståelse för att ledarna i Pnomh Penh hade svårt att ha tid för att ta emot utländska besökare. Det fanns så många andra omedelbara problem som måste lösas.

Under 1990-talet utkom ytterligare böcker om vänsterns accepterande av det kommunistiska folkmordet. Bland dessa var den liberale politikern och tidigare ministern Per Ahlmarks ”Vänstern och tyranniet” (1994) och ”Det öppna såret” (1997).

År 1997 höll Dahls förnekande inte längre. Sveriges riksdag kunde inte ha en talman som försvarat folkmord. Det var inte acceptabelt att en talman skrubbade den kambodjanska slaktarbodens tröskel ren. Dahls förhoppning under det sena 1970-talet var att sanningen skulle glömmas. Inga obekväma frågor ställdes då till Dahl och det var dags för henne att medverka i ytterligare ett Sommarprogram i radio.

Efter att ha medgivit sin ”felbedömning” 1997 skrev hon då i Dagens Nyheter att hon hade ”svårt att föreställa sig att något så gräsligt kunde vara sant”. Hon gav dock inte något erkännande åt Bertil Häggman och Per Ahlmark för klarsynthet.

Nu har det gått 20 år sedan 1997 och riksdagens förra talman Birgitta Dahl är tillbaka där det började. Hon var, säger hon igen, utsatt för en systematisk kampanj och betraktar sig tydligen återigen som oskyldig. Förhoppningen är väl denna gång att hennes avbön 1997 har fallit i glömska.


September 3, 2017

The Ukrainian Media Crisis Center on May 10, 2017 published important information about Moscow’s attempts to portray the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) which during World War II fought both Nazis and Communists. A leading provider of disinformation on UPA is a lecturer at the University of Lund in Sweden, who is presently teaching at a university in Singapore.

Ukraine Crisis Media Center (UCMC) was launched in March 2014 by efforts of leading Ukrainian experts in the sphere of international relations, communications and public relations to provide the world community with accurate and up-to-date information on the events in Ukraine, as well as challenges and threats to the national security, namely in military, political, economic, energy and humanitarian spheres.

UCMC hosts press briefings, discussions and round tables on a daily basis to communicate exhaustive information regarding events and developments in Ukraine and around. UCMC press center is the only press center in Ukraine provides full-circle support of press events – briefings, conferences, presentations, round table and panel discussions – gaining no commercial advantage and working for the public good. UCMC uses expertise of professionals cooperating with UCMC and makes every effort to provide all press events with comprehensive technical and communications support.

Myth 1: UPA are “Hitler’s henchmen” and did not fight against the Nazis

Quote-myth: “No document can prove that the UPA fought against the Germans. The Germans supplied the UPA units with weapons in 1942, 1943 and 1944,” stated Dmytro Tabachnyk, Ukrainian Minister of Education and Science (2010-2014).
The essence of the myth

The UPA was created by the Nazis. They closely cooperated in undertaking punitive operations against Soviet partisans, Ukrainian, Jewish and Polish population. There is no evidence of the UPA’s anti-Nazi fighting.


Extremely brutal occupation policies of the Nazis forced the OUN (b) Provid (the governing body of the organization) to take up arms and defend the population. The first UPA hundred (military unit) was formed on January 22, 1943. And on February 7 it already defeated the German commandant’s office in the district center Volodymyrets, Rivne region.

In the spring of 1943, the UPA constantly increases the extent of resistance. Their fiercest clashes with the Germans happened near Lutsk, Kovel, Horokhiv, Rivne, Kremenets, Kostopil, Sarny and Lanivtsi. During March 1943, the insurgents seized regional centers five times. At the end of the first spring month, the German officials reported to Reichskommissar Erich Koch that only two areas in Volyn were free of “gangs”.

The occupation administration began undertaking extensive anti-partisan operations involving armor and aircraft. At the end of April, a division for fighting the UPA was redeployed to Berezne, Lyudvypil, Mizoch, Ostroh, Shumsk, and Kremenets.

The Nazis counterinsurgency actions proved to have little effect. While in March the UPA units attacked the German economic targets only 8 times, in April there were already 57 attacks, and 70 in May.

Heinrich Schoene, General Commissar of Volyn-Podillya, reported at a meeting in Rivne June 5, 1943 to Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories Alfred Rosenberg that “Ukrainian nationalists cause more difficulties than the Bolshevik gangs” to his administration.

The Soviet partisans’ leadership also recognized this fact later. Petro Vershyhora, commander of Soviet partisans, reported to the Ukrainian Partisan Movement Headquarters on March 4, 1944, “We cannot make the same mistake in Poland as we did in Volyn by passing the leadership of a popular uprising against the Germans into the hands of counterrevolutionary groups of nationalists.”

The available Nazi forces were not enough to suppress resistance. Therefore, Erich von dem Bach, commander of anti-partisan forces in the East, took the struggle against the UPA in his hands in July 1943. He commanded the 8th SS Cavalry Division Florian Geyer (10,000 soldiers) and 10 mechanized infantry battalions with artillery. The grouping was covered by 27 aircraft from the air and 50 tanks and armored vehicles on the ground.

However, UPA units maneuvered and gave the enemy no chance to destroy them. Overall, in July the insurgents attacked German bases 295 times, and maintenance building 119 times.

In early August 1943, von dem Bach was sent to another area. The German pressure weakened, and the UPA intensified their anti-German operations: 391 assaults on garrisons and 151 attacks on enterprises.

But soon, Hans-Adolf Prützmann, Higher SS and Ukrainian Police Leader, organized a new attack on the UPA. This attack lasted from August 23 to September 9, 1943 in South Volyn. First, aircraft bombed the village of Antonivtsi, which was the headquarters of the Bohun group. Then the punitive expedition attacked the UPA camp in Kremenets forests. The Kurins(battalions) had to split into small units and break out of the encirclement.

In the summer of 1943 the insurgency anti-Nazi movement spread over Halychyna. On August 18, Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense (UNS, the original name of UPA in Halychyna) attacked the German stone quarry in Skole, Lviv region. The nationalists freed 150 forced laborers and killed the camp security guards.

Autumn 1943 was the beginning of larger scale battles between the insurgents and the Nazis. On September 3, Ukrainian soldiers on commanding eminence executed a German battalion that was travelling by narrow-gauge rail in the mountains near the town of Dolyna. The invaders left about 200 soldiers on the battlefield. On September 25-29, the Trembita hundred repelled a punitive attack on their camp on Mount Stovba.

On November 29-30, 1943, there was heavy fighting between 1.5-2 thousand Schutzmanns and the Kryvonis-II Kurin near the village of Nedilna, Sambir district. The insurgents retreated with considerable losses, almost the entire headquarters and the leader of the Kurin were killed on the battlefield.

Prützmann undertook the last major counterinsurgency action in Volyn in November 1943. On November 2-3, aircraft bombed the town of Stepan and ousted the units of Zahrava group to the north. Simultaneously, on November 3 German planes bombed and shelled the town of Kolky, where the UPA had formed the Kolky Republic. It should be noted that the Nazis could not seize the Republic from June to early November 1943, and then they carried out a clearance operation, killing 600 civilians.

In October-November 1943, the UPA-ONS conducted 47 fights against German occupiers, and the UPA village self-defense clashed with them 125 times. The Nazis lost more than 1,500 soldiers.

The Nazis failed to suppress the UPA resistance completely. The approaching Soviet-German front drained most part of military forces. Therefore, the German generals stopped undertaking actions against insurgents in Volyn. In Halychyna, the confrontation lasted until the end of summer 1944. Ukrainian People’s Self Defense (UNS) was re-formed into the UPA-West. In March-May 1944, the UPA defended Ukrainian villages against looting by the Germans. In May, the Wehrmacht defeated the Halaida and Siromantsi hundreds in Lviv region.

From May 31 to June 6, 1944, the units of the Wehrmacht’s 7th Armored Division fought against the UPA in the Chornyi Lis village. By mid-summer the confrontation in Halychyna peaked.

The biggest clashes of the UPA-West with the German-Hungarian troops took place around Mount Lopata on the boundary between Drohobych and Stanislav (now – Ivano-Frankivsk) regions. These events were also detailed in written reports of the Polish underground. From July 6 through July 16, 1944, heavy fighting took place – both with artillery engagement and close-handed fights. Insurgents under Vasyl Andrusyak’s command won. Fifty Ukrainians were killed. The invaders lost 200 soldiers and retreated.

Under pressure of the Red Army the Wehrmacht left Ukraine. The UPA continued to skirmish and disarm German units until early September.

There were episodes in the history of the Ukrainian insurgency movement when some commanders tried to illegally negotiate with the German command using the formula “neutrality in exchange for weapons” or “food in exchange for weapons.” Besides, several cases are known when from 80 to 100 small arms were handed over to the insurgents using the above formula. But the Ukrainian underground leadership did not welcome such arrangements. In some cases, it even led to severe punishment. In March 1944, the UPA field court martial sentenced Porphyriy Antoniuk, the first initiator of the unauthorized negotiations, to death. In April 1944, Mykola Oliynyk was sentenced to death by the UPA court.

However, the talks with the German occupation officials were subsequently held by the OUN (b) Provid. The occupiers wanted the OUN and UPA to stop fighting against them so that the Germans could focus on repelling the Soviet Army’s advance. The OUN members sought to secure the release of prisoners of concentration camps (Stepan Bandera, Yaroslav Stetsko and many others) as well as to obtain weapons, which they always lacked. Meetings between the Provid members and German authorities took place in March, April, June and July 1944. As a result of them, the insurgents received several hundred units of weapons, and in September – October 1944 Bandera and other Ukrainian nationalists were released, though they remained under the Gestapo supervision.

Instead, insurgents decreased intensity of their anti-Nazi actions (mainly in Volyn), but did not stop them. Major Müller, officer of the group of armies “South” reported: “While some Ukrainian nationalist gangs follow the orders of the German Wehrmacht or perform its task, others fight fiercely against the Wehrmacht.”

According to researchers, 12 thousand German invaders and their allies were killed by UPA members. The Ukrainian underground and insurgent units also lost 10-12 thousand people during the armed confrontation with the occupiers.

On August 25, 1943 Hans-Adolf Prützmann, Higher SS and Ukrainian Police Leader, sent the following telegram: “To the Commander of the group of armies ‘South’. Due to the fact that the Reichsführer-SS ordered to send strong teams of military units previously assigned to me to the front, I have to limit myself to the remnants of these units to suppress the Ukrainian national uprising in Volyn. Since this results in appearing of large uncontrolled areas in the north of Ukraine, in the near future there will be increased pressure from gangs in the south sector.”


September 3, 2017

Radio Ukraine International on February 13, 2017 reported that Ukraine in 2017 will celebrate the creation of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). See text below:

The symbolic day of its creation is considered to be October 14, 1942. In February, a hundred of the UPA fighters under the command of 35-year-old Hrygoriy Perehynyak gave its first fight – it was an attack on Nazi garrison in the town of Volodymerets in Volyn. These days anti-Nazi actions of the UPA is the focus of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. Overall, during the year it is planned to cover information on the main fronts of the UPA struggle against – anti-Nazi and anti-Communist, that will be presented at the exhibitions and international conference. The Institute is also involved in the preparation of the new draft law on rehabilitation of victims of political repression.


August 26, 2017

On August 24, 2017 The Diplomat published an article on the US Section 301 investigation into China’s intellectual properaty (IP). Excerpts below:

The typology of U.S. trade concerns regarding Chinese appropriation includes:

China encourages/requires joint ventures between U.S. and Chinese firms that include technology transfer, in order to give U.S. firms access to the Chinese market, and the Chinese workforce.

China’s new cybersecurity procedures force U.S. tech companies to turn over proprietary data and code to the Chinese government in order to operate within China.

China’s failure to enforce extant IP law enables theft of trade secrets.

Chinese investment in technology firms around the world gives it access to cutting edge technology.

Action against China is broadly popular in the United States [but]Washington has thus far hesitated out of a hope of gaining Beijing’s cooperation on North Korea…

There are however more concerns in the West than China stealing trade secrets as described above by The Diplomat. The regime in Beijing is actively seeking to dominate manufacturing and processing industries. In Canada and Africa there is concern over attempts of growing Chinese influence operations that sometimes look more like colonization efforts. Finally China is already dominationg global pricing in lithium, rare earths, copper, steel, nickel and iron.

In Waskington Free Beacon Bill Gertz commented on China’s theft of intellectual property on August 15, 2017. Excerpts below:

“We’re going to be fulfilling another campaign promise by taking firm steps to ensure that we protect the intellectual property of American companies and, very importantly, of American workers,” Trump said in signing a memorandum for U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer.

The directive will set the stage for an investigation into trade practices that require U.S. companies operating in China to provide intellectual property to the Chinese government.

If a formal investigation is launched, it could take several years and potentially result in the imposition of economic sanctions on China.

The president’s action on predatory Chinese trade practices follows the failure by Beijing to rein in its communist ally North Korea.

In July, Trump tweeted, “I am very disappointed in China. Our foolish past leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade, yet they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk.”

The memorandum calls on the USTR office to probe China’s policies, practices, and action regarding forced transfers of American technology and the theft of American intellectual property.

The inquiry could result in a formal 301 investigation, so called after Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act.

The law gives the president broad power, including retaliation, to punish foreign governments that violate international trade agreements or used unreasonable and discriminatory practices that restrict U.S. commerce.

Trump said Lighthizer was empowered to consider all available options in dealing with the problem.

“We will safeguard the copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property that is so vital to our security and to our prosperity,” the president said.

Trump then added: “And this is just the beginning. I want to tell you that. This is just the beginning.”

American firms in China have long complained that China requires all U.S. companies operating in the country to provide valuable information that is often then provided to Chinese competitors.

According to business people working in China, many of the Chinese regulations are selectively enforced and used to coerce companies into cooperating with Chinese firms.

Chinese intelligence services also employ hackers who have exploited the Chinese telecommunications system to steal technology in cyber attacks.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a science and technology think tank, praised the president’s action.

Robert D. Atkinson, the foundation’s president, said Chinese trade practices subvert global trade rules and harm the U.S. economy.

“Simply put, China is an innovation mercantilist,” he said. “It tries to gain advantage in strategically important industries by using dubious policies and practices such as coercing competitors into handing over proprietary technologies and intellectual property.”

Atkinson criticized the U.S. government for not doing more to help American businesses in China. “The U.S. response has been to engage in a seemingly endless cycle of ministerial dialogues that mostly have succeeded in eliciting empty promises that China will change its behavior,” he said.

American Enterprise Institute expert Derek Scissors said a 301 investigation would be an important first step in countering predatory Chinese economic policies.

“The coercive transfer and theft of intellectual property may be the single biggest economic harm China inflicts on the U.S.,” Scissors said. “Beijing’s policy has been clear and sustained: acquire others’ innovation by all means available.”

China conducts intellectual property theft through a combination of legal purchase, coerced transfer of intellectual property, and outright theft, he added.

Former National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander noted that five years ago he declared that the theft of American intellectual property was the greatest transfer of wealth in history.

“I believe that statement is even more true today,” Alexander said. “Protecting American innovators is essential to the United States’ economic and national security. This presidential action is an important step towards stopping the theft and forced transfers of American intellectual property, and I support the president in his actions today.”

Michael Pillsbury, director of the Center on Chinese Strategy at The Hudson Institute, also supported the action.

“China’s attack on U.S. intellectual property is a national security challenge of the first order, as well as a persistent check on our economic growth,” Pillsbury said.


August 24, 2017

The ongoing threats of North Korea against the West makes it clear how the US Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) has been neglected since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

In his book ”We Must Defend America – A New Strategy for National Survival” (1983) Lt. General Daniel O. Graham wanted a spaceborne defense for the United States called for the development of a range of weapons. At the center of these proposals was the Global Ballistic Missile Defense I (GBMD I) with 200 – 300 satellites. Each satellite needed a frame, a computer, a sensor, a communications package, a rocket motor and 40-50 small rockets to intercept enemy missiles. The satellites could detect missiles about 1,000 miles ahead.

A GBMD II would be capable of destroying missiles from the first seven minutes of the launch.

Today, almost 30 years later, all thay exists to defend against North Korean and other long range missiles of other challengers to the West is 4 interceptors in California and 32 in Alaska. More of these GMD interceptors are needed as a first step.

A more effective defense than GMD would be a system to shoot down missiles in the initial ”boost” phase, when they move more slowly.

There are today more dangerous challengers to the West than North Korea namely Russia, China and Iran. The need for interceptors in Europe is greater than ever before. From Estonia at the Baltic Sea to Bulgaria at the Black Sea a line of defense against missiles and later more advanced systems should be created. This could be within the framework of NATO.

For European NATO countries the defense line must consist of systems capable of shooting down shorter-range missiles. Also the sea-based Aegis system is of interest .

In the case of China its maritime interests have in the latest decades been i nlocal waters. Now China is expanding into the Pacific Ocean. China’s ally has recently started to threaten Guam, one of the most important American bases in the Pacific.

Varldsinbordeskriget has earlier focused on the strategic importance of American bases in the Pacific. American policy in the Pacific must continue to be based on Alfred Thayer Mahan’s precepts: forward operation bases, positioning assets around choke- points and main sealanes, deploying a navy presence on all seas, and maintaining the capability to intervene at key geostrategic points.

American strategic thinking is further influenced by geopolitician Homer Lea. In his books The Valor of Ignorance and The Day of the Saxon, Lea regarded frontiers as mobile lines. Among these lines would be:

• Japan-Guam-Philippines-Australia.

• Alaska/Aleutian Islands-Hawaii-Samoa.

Lea insisted on the need to rely on forward operation bases in the form of a triangle. “Strategic geometry” was the key principle on which much of his work was based, a strategy that translates quite well into what is currently taking place in the Asia-Pacific region. His argument is that there is a need to take into account:

• The number of triangles the bases will form.

• The frequency with which the main base is at the intersection of these triangles.

• The presence or not of enemy bases inside this network.

• The increase of maritime power leading to an increase in the number of bases.

By forming numerous triangles with Guam as the potential center or node, the United States has actually executing the argument presented by Lea.

Guam as perhaps the most important staging post, allowing rapid access to potential flashpoints in the Koreas and in the Taiwan Strait.

Andersen Air Force Base on Guam was used by B-52 bombers during the Vietnam War in the early 1970s. Nuclear attack submarines are based on the island.

The historic background is that Guam was ceded to the US in 1898 after the Spanish-American War.

The North Korean threat to Guam in 2017 show that the dictators in Beijing and Pyongyang are probing ways of expansion into the Pacific.


June 20, 2017

Fox News on June 19, 2017, reported that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un travels incognito in his poverty stricken Hermit Kingdom. It might be prudent for him to be careful. On June 20 media reported that American student Otto Warmbier had died as a result of torture in a North Korean prison camp. Excerpts below:

The 33-year-old, third-generation ruler is “extremely nervous” about a clandestine plot to take him out, according to a key South Korean lawmaker who spoke to The Korea Herald. Rep. Lee Cheol-woo, chairman of the South Korean parliament’s intelligence committee, made the claim based on reports from South Korea’s intelligence agency.

“Kim is engrossed with collecting information about the ‘decapitation operation’ through his intelligence agencies,” Lee said following a briefing last week.

The rumored “decapitation plan” to target Kim and key deputies in the event fighting broke out on the peninsula first surfaced in late 2015, when the U.S. and South Korea signed “Operation Plan 5015,” a joint strategy for possible war scenarios with North Korea. According to the Brookings Institute, the plan “envisions limited warfare with an emphasis on preemptive strikes on strategic targets in North Korea and “decapitation raids” to exterminate North Korean leaders.”

According to Lee, Kim’s is so frightened that he now disguises his movements, travels primarily at dawn and in the cars of his henchmen. Public appearances and jaunts in his prized Mercedes Benz 600 have been curtailed.

By January of this year, there were reports that South Korea was speeding up the creation of a specialized unit designed for this mission, initially slated to be ready by 2019.

“A U.S. special operations strike against Kim Jong Un in today’s conditions would make the bin Laden raid look easy,” said Mark Sauter, a former U.S. Army and special forces officer who operated in the Korean de-militarized zone during the Cold War and now blogs about the decades-long effort to defend South Korea at

“Pyongyang is surrounded by antiaircraft weapons, and while the corpulent Kim presents a large and sluggish target, he’s kept on the move, always surrounded by fanatical guards and often near or in complex underground compounds,” Sauter said.

Despite those potential challenges, Sauter suggests the North Korean leader “does need to worry about strikes by precision-guided missiles and bunker-buster bombs in the early stages of a preemptive allied attack, and if a conflict continues, everything from (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) to special operators will be on his tracks.”


June 19, 2017

Fox News on June 18, 2017, published a commentary by former Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi on the need for the West to unite to stop Iranian missile tests. Excerpts below:

Since the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany concluded their nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, several Iranian ballistic missile tests have been carried out.

Even though such tests are plain violations of a UN Security Council resolution that accompanied implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the global media and the nations of Europe have given unfortunately little attention to the issue. Under the previous administration, the White House downplayed such activities, which are obvious violations of the spirit of the closely-guarded JCPOA.

President Donald Trump is, rightly, developing an assertive policy toward the Islamic Republic…the White House has moved to new sanctions on the ballistic missile program. The U.S. Senate voted almost unanimously [on June 16] to impose new sanctions on Iran (and Russia) for its missile program among other activities.

…The European governments must quickly follow suit. The EU and the global media have been slow to adapt to the new geopolitical reality, and Tehran remains barely deterred from its brazenness.

…Iran’s illicit tests demonstrate the capability of hitting Israel and Western assets throughout the Arab world. It is little wonder, then, that Israel, Saudi Arabia and others expressed mutual anxiety about the growth of Iranian power and influence on the occasion of President Trump’s recent visit to the region.

The EU has remained reluctant and hesitant about standing up to Iran’s destabilizing behavior and disregard for international rules. This has much to do with a false narrative and the political environment encouraged by the JCPOA.

The multiple functions of the IRGC also call attention to the fact that Iranian missile development does not exist in isolation. It has an impact on the types of capabilities that Iran is able to share with other entities which pose significant threats on their own. It is thanks to Iranian missiles that the Houthi rebels in Yemen have been able to penetrate deep into Saudi Arabian territory and target Western vessels around the Arabian Peninsula. The Islamic Republic also has a record of arming Lebanese Hezbollah, their proxies in Iraq and Syria, and Palestinian terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad which Tehran directly controls.

The White House is engaging in a more assertive policy vis-a-vis Iran. European policymakers and public opinion must do their part. They should exert pressure on the EU and its national governments before their laxity leads to Iran taking a central role in a much larger crisis.

This message will be emphasized on July 1 when the National Council of Resistance of Iran holds its Iran Freedom rally [in Europe]…As on previous occasions – and even more now in an increasingly unstable Iranian environment – millions of Iranians will follow the event via satellite, taking personal risks, as a clear indication that the Iranian people support the NCRI and the measures the Council suggests.

“The Iranian regime’s longest-suffering victims are its own people,” President Trump said during his May visit to Saudi Arabia. “Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism.” But terrorism is not the only issue. The regime’s weapons development must be severely constrained. And European nations need to get on board.

Giulio Terzi, former Foreign Minister of Italy, is a member of United Against Nuclear Iran’s Advisory board.

Comment: Mr. Terzi believes in the importance of placing radicalization and violent extremism at the center of the political debate in the West. It should create a shared political framework for the military engagement against ISIS and effective programs to counter radicalization in Muslim communities inside Europe and the U.S.

He has furthermore compared the current situation to the “war of moral and ideals” that the West faced before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In speeches Terzi has emphasized the magnitude of the threat that Iran and its militias represent to the West. ISIS is distracting the West from the robust and extensive network that Iran has developed to promote extremism and anti-Western sentiment. A number, he said, of Muslim institutions in Europe are associated with Iran and promote anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiments. Terzio has also warned against doing business with Tehran as the regime is funding terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and others.