NATO Ministerial Meeting: Preparing For War On Russia?

Authored by Stephen Lendman,

America controls NATO policymaking. The alliance serves as its global imperial arm – warmaking its mission, not fostering world peace and stability.

Nor does it have anything to do with defense at a time the only threats alliance members face are invented ones. Real ones don’t exist.

World peace and stability notions are contrary to US objectives, wanting unchallenged dominance over world nations, their resources and populations.

America’s diabolical agenda involves endless wars of aggression, wanting all sovereign independent nations replaced by US vassal states, creating ruler/serf societies globally, an open-air prison for ordinary people disposed of if resist – a world unsafe and unfit to live in.

On November 8 and 9, NATO ministers met in Brussels. Like his predecessors, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg was appointed to serve US interests, taking orders from Washington.

Issues discussed included revising NATO’s command structure, including “a new command to help protect sea lines of communication between North America and Europe, and another command to improve the movement of troops and equipment within Europe,” said Stoltenberg – stressing “our ability to move forces,” he added.

Against what, he didn’t explain – preparing for war on Russia the unstated objective, whether or not waged. It’s more likely than not ahead – a modern-day Operation Barbarossa with nukes if launched.

Russia and China represent the final frontier of resistance against US sought global dominance.

Eventual conflict against both nations is ominously possible, maybe likely or certain, a grim prospect if happens.

High on the ministerial agenda is improving infrastructure for warmaking, including upgraded roads and bridges, facilitating movement of troops, weapons and equipment.

So-called “deterrence for collective defense” is code language for possible offensive operations. The private sector in NATO countries have an “important role to play,” said Stoltenberg.

In late October, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu explained his nation must deal with serious threats on its western borders.

During a Defense Ministry Board meeting, he said “(t)he military and political situation at our western borders remains tense and shows a tendency to escalation.”

US-led NATO forces are deployed menacingly close to Russia’s borders, their hostile presence a cause for great concern.

If Russian troops were positioned along America’s north and/or southern borders, or offshore near its east, west, or Gulf coasts, Washington would consider their presence an act of war. Conflict could follow.

America’s provocative Eastern European presence has Moscow justifiably concerned, Shoigu explaining:

“The intensity and scale of the operational and combat training of the bloc member-countries’ military forces near our borders are growing.”

 

“Only in the past three months there have been over 30 drills in East European and Baltic states” – heightening tensions, Shoigu adding:

 

“We’re implementing a set of measures to neutralize the emerging challenges and threats,” including modernized hardware positioned by yearend and upgraded infrastructure.

Former head of Russian airborne troops/current lower house State Duma Defense Committee chairman Vladimir Shamanov warned about hostile NATO saber-rattling, “bring(ing) nothing positive,” he said.

Given America’s rage for endless wars and global dominance, the threat of catastrophic nuclear war is ominously real.

Sweden, Submarines, And Propaganda

Authored by Brian Cloughley via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Sweden’s most recent military cooperation with the US-NATO military alliance involved hosting armed forces of the many countries which participated in Exercise Aurora in September.

As noted by Euronews, “Sweden is undertaking its biggest military exercise amid fears of Russian military build up,” and NATO headquarters announced that “In the current security context with heightened concerns about Russian military activities, NATO is stepping up cooperation with Sweden and Finland in the Baltic region.”

NATO is anxious, even desperate, to justify the existence of one of the least-needed and most confrontational military alliances of modern times. In January, before he arrived in the White House, President Trump called NATO “obsolete” but in April went into reverse and said “It"s no longer obsolete,” which was fair warning of what lay ahead in the erratic administration of the most vulgar and spiteful president the United States has ever had. 

The fact remains that NATO is indeed ineffective and irrelevant (the notion of Russia invading Sweden is preposterous and, as Der Spiegel observed on October 20, “to be sure, hardly anyone really thinks that Russia might attack a NATO member state”), but its nominal leader, Jens Stoltenberg (the real chief is the US General titled “Supreme Allied Commander Europe”), has assumed the air of a national head of government and whisks expensively round the world making statements that have nothing whatever to do with NATO

One of NATO’s “concerns” in its obsession with Russia is to persuade Sweden to not only increase its already substantial collaboration with the alliance, but to actually become a member - although defence minister Peter Hultqvist is not in favour of such a commitment, in spite of having increased military spending and reintroduced conscription. 

Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

There is to be a general election next year, and Britain’s Financial Times is of the opinion that “Nato membership is set to be one of the most contentious topics in Sweden’s elections in [September] 2018. The opposition Moderates and their three centre-right allies have all pledged to seek Nato membership, ending more than a century of being outside a military alliance. They lead in the polls and are flirting with the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, which would solidify their lead further.” And according to a poll by the Pew Research Centre in May 2017, “about half of Swedes support Nato Membership.”

Given the NATO-joining aim of those likely to be in power in a year’s time, it is relevant to examine Sweden’s recent association with Russia, which is regarded as an enemy by a regrettably large number of Swedes. 

As reported by Swedish Radio, Ekot, there was an alleged incursion into Swedish waters by a Russian submarine in October 2014. The story was plastered all over the Western media, and in one example of disinformation Britain’s Daily Mail, a garbage newspaper, but with a large circulation, informed its readers of “Sweden’s History of Hunting Russian Vessels in its Waters” by recording that the most recent such incursions had taken place in 2011 when on April 13 “a possible foreign submarine is noticed in Baggensfjärden in Nacka, but later is identified as a raft frozen in moving ice” and on September 11 when the Swedish Navy had “investigated reports of an unknown object outside the harbour of Gothenburg.” 

Curiously, very few western news outlets reported later, as did Ekot, that the October 2014 alleged incursion was a load of nonsense. (Russian submarines, incidentally, are referred to as “U-Boats” in Sweden, but NATO submarines are called submarines.)

Ekot stated that “in October 2014, an intensive U-boat hunt took place in Stockholm’s archipelago” which had spurred Time magazine to speculate that the object of the hunt might be Russian because “Sweden’s military said Sunday it had made a total of three credible sightings within two days and released an image taken by a passer-by showing a partially submerged object...

 

A suspicious black-clad man was also photographed wading in the waters outside the island of Sandön.”

 

It was stated by the armed forces that “a [miniature] foreign submarine violated Sweden,” and in April 2015 Business Insider went so far as to state that “the Swedish military still believes that Russia was indeed sailing submarines around Swedish waters last year: ‘The assessment that Swedish territory was violated in October 2014 remains correct in its entirety’.” 

And so on and on went the stories, until, as reported by Ekot, “the Armed Forces suddenly announced in a press release [in September 2015] that this most important evidence [presumably the “three credible sightings”] no longer applied, but nothing was revealed about the background or what happened. And Ekot can now tell us that the Armed Forces’ deeper analysis showed that the sound did not originate from any foreign submarine... but from a Swedish source.” 

So there was collapse of an absurd allegation that had been seized upon by the West to illustrate the supposedly nefarious designs of Russia. But the propaganda machine had worked well.

The “Russian U-Boat” reporting farce was in a way similar to an incident in the Irish Sea in April 2015 when Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported that “a trawler that nearly capsized when its nets became snared near the Isle of Man may have been hit by a Russian submarine, a fishermen’s organisation has claimed . . . Naval sources said there were no British submarines in the area at the time of the incident on Wednesday afternoon. The incident took place amid concern about increasing Russian submarine operations off the Scottish coast . . .”

These dreaded Russians, again and again. Would their dreadful provocations never end? 

But there wasn’t an end, because there was never a beginning. 

On 10 June 2015 a British Member of Parliament, Margaret Ritchie, asked the defence minister “What reports he has received of submarine activity in the Irish Sea on 15 April 2015.” The reply was that “Following reports of damage to the fishing vessel Karen on 15 April 2015, Ministers were advised of the Royal Navy’s confidence that no UK submarine was responsible. We do not comment in detail on submarine operations as this would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces.” In other words they were lying in their teeth and trying to disguise this unpleasant fact by employing the usual disguise of national security. (This happens all the time in US-NATO. It’s the best weapon they have.)

On July 13, 2015, Ms Ritchie returned to the fray and asked if the matter could be followed up because the Ministry of Defence had “confirmed that it was not a vessel belonging to the Royal Navy” that had been responsible for the incident that threatened the lives of the fishermen. She was fobbed off with the reply that “the Royal Navy takes its responsibilities very seriously.” Indeed it does, and I have the greatest regard for Britain’s Senior Service which knows exactly where its vessels are at any given moment, and doesn’t tell lies 

But politicians tell lies although sometimes these fail to stand the tests of time and truth, and eventually, five months after the incident, the UK’s defence minister was forced to admit that “I now wish to inform the House that, on the basis of new information that has become available, the Royal Navy has now confirmed that a UK submarine was, in fact, responsible for snagging the Karen’s nets. The incident, the delay in identifying and addressing the events on that day, and their consequences, are deeply regretted.”

“New information”? After five months? 

It had been known all along that it was a Royal Navy submarine that accidentally snagged the boat’s fishing nets, but the first instinct of politicians in matters like this is to try to disguise the truth until it becomes impossible to continue such trickery. If deception works, that’s fine; if it doesn’t work, then there is always the fall-back of “national security” to justify anything — especially when there’s a good chance that the blame assigned to Russia, by casual implication or calculated insinuation, will continue to stick. That is what propaganda is all about. Just as in Sweden, unfortunately, many people continue to believe that there was a Russian “U-Boat” in Swedish waters in 2014, as they were meant to do. 

Such non-incident stories are absurd - but they can’t be dismissed as amusing trivia. They are used to persuade ordinary decent citizens that there is a threat to their security, and no matter how many subsequent admissions may be made that prove the stories unfounded and ridiculous, there will be very many people who will continue to believe them. Watch how the Swedes vote next year.

Just as nobody found a submarine in the Stockholm archipelago, nobody has ever identified the “suspicious black-clad man” who was “photographed wading in the waters.” Let’s hope he’s got a vote.

NATO Launches New Black Sea Force To Target Russia

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

NATO has announced the launching of their multinational Black Sea Force, based in Romania, and including an entire Romanian brigade of 4,000 troops.

“We are sending a very clear message: NATO is here, NATO is strong and NATO is united,” Stoltenberg told assembled Polish, Romanian, Spanish and Portuguese soldiers.

The force is there to target Russia in the Black Sea region.

Romania insisted the deployment is “not a threat to Russia” and that the purpose of having more troops there to “target” Russia is “peace, not war.”

“We are not a threat for Russia. But we need dialogue from a strong position of defense and discouragement,”

900 US troops were deployed to Romania to participate in this force.

Since Russia doesn’t border NATO anywhere in the Black Sea region, the force appears to be largely pointless, except for additional grandstanding about NATO’s “readiness” for a fight with “invading” Russian forces, in an invasion that’s been predicted for years.

This appears to be an attempt to mirror the creation of NATO’s much larger Baltic forces, which are all deployed at or near the Russian frontier, and which see large western military contingents placed in tiny Baltic states.

Urban Warfare: NATO Issues RFP For Training To Fight In Big Cities With "Dense, Interconnected Populations"

Throughout the 2016 campaigning cycle, then candidate Trump frequently criticized NATO as “obsolete” and repeatedly knocked allies for not paying their “fair share.”

Then, in a shocking reversal, Trump hosted a joint press conference with NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, just a few months after moving into the White House, in which he declared: "I said it was obsolete.  It"s no longer obsolete."

"The Secretary General and I had a productive discussion about what more NATO could do in the fight against terrorism.  I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change.  And now they do fight terrorism.  I said it was obsolete.  It"s no longer obsolete."

"(NATO) is no longer obsolete." pic.twitter.com/FwLu67097G

— Salvador Hernandez (@SalHernandez) April 12, 2017

Well, it now seems he may have been right in the first instance.  According to a new request for pricing (RFP) from NATO entitled, "Development of NATA Military Operations In Urban Environment Concept," NATO forces are "not sufficiently organized, trained, or equipped to  comprehensively understand and execute precise operations" in modern urban environments.  Here"s how NATO defines their problem:

Problem statement: NATO is not sufficiently organized, trained, or equipped to  comprehensively understand and execute precise operations across the maritime, cyberspace, land, air, space dimensions/domains in order to create desired effects in an emergent complex, urban littoral system possessing a dense, interconnected population.

So why the sudden interest in urban warfare?  NATO"s RFP conveniently cites urban population statistics from the United Nations as its justification but that"s hardly a new trend so it will undoubtedly leave the cynics among us a bit skeptical.

Projections by the United Nations indicate that by the year 2035 the world population will increase to 8.7 billion people, an increase of 1.4 billion people, and that most of this growth will take place in developing countries and in urban areas. Currently 80% of the global population lives on or within 100 km of the coast; this also will likely continue. The SFA1 2013 Report – including 2015 Interim Update Report and the FFAO2 2015 have identified this trend of urbanisation as a potential instability situation for NATO. The world as a whole passed the 50% urban mark seven years ago. Estimates are that five billion people live in cities with two billion of these living in slums. It is also estimated that 1.4 million people worldwide migrate to cities each week. Studies, based upon global demographic trends, suggest that an increasing percentage of armed conflicts will likely be fought in urban surroundings.

But, irrespective of the motivation, one thing is certain...modernizing an "obsolete" international force is going to be expensive.  Perhaps it"s time for Trump to write up some new invoices...

The Trigger? "If This Ever Happens You Know You're Days Away From Nuclear War"

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Back in February of 2014 we published an interview and report from well known preparedness strategist and strategic relocation expert Joel Skousen in which he explained his assessment of how World War III would “go down.”

At the time, North Korea was considered by most to be nothing more than a small pest that posed no real threat to the United States. President Barrack Obama, like his predecessors, had maintained America’s policy of “strategic patience” with the rogue state, while its leader, as he does today, often made threats about attacking the United States, Japan and South Korea. What’s different today is that North Korea has proven their capabilities with not only inter-continental ballistic missiles, but nuclear weapons as well. Moreover, they have threatened to launch nuclear attacks against specific U.S. targets and many in the intelligence community have argued that the North may already have the weapons systems in place to strike key population centers that include Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City.

Unlike 2014, today we have a different kind of President – one who believes strategic patience is a failed policy. Donald Trump has made it clear that North Korea will not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons and has backed his words with the might of Naval carrier strike groups off the Korean Peninsula and strategic bombers stationed in Guam. Trump and his national security team have essentially given Kim Jong Un two options. Either dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program, or war will be declared.

On that note, we encourage you to consider the following assessment from Joel Skousen. If war is coming, this may well be how it’s triggered. And when it goes down, it’s going to be thermo-nuclear.

Originally published February 10, 2014:

It’s no secret that the world is on the brink of a significant paradigm shift. With the economy in shambles and the United States, Europe, China and Russia vying for hegemony over global affairs, it is only a matter of time before the powder keg goes critical.

As was the case with World Wars I and II, the chess pieces are being positioned well in advance. It’s happening on all levels – monetary, financial, economic, geo-political. Lines are being drawn. Alliances are being cemented.

We know that a widespread depression is sweeping across just about every nation on earth. The complete collapse of the world we have come to know as it relates to commerce and consumption is a foregone conclusion. We may not know exactly when or how the final nail is driven into the coffin, but we know it’s happening right before our eyes.

Throughout history, when countries have fallen into destitution and despair, their leaders have often resolved their domestic plights by finding foreign scapegoats. This time will be no different – for all parties involved.

In the following interview with Infowars’ Alex Jones, Joel Skousen of World Affairs Brief  leaves nothing to the imagination and outlines what we can expect as East and West face off in coming years.

The trigger is clear. What will follow is nothing short of thermo-nuclear warfare on a massive scale.

The trigger event has to be North Korea… North Korea is the most rogue element in the world and yet it’s been given a pass by the U.S… We don’t do anything to stop its nuclear progress, unlike Iran.

…

Russia and China… it’s too early… they’re not ready to go to a third world war over Iran…

…

When you see a North Korean launch against the South… and they do some minor military attack every year, so you’ve got to be careful not to confuse those with a major artillery barrage on Seoul. If this ever starts you know you’re days away from nuclear war. People ought to get out of major cities that are major nuclear targets.

…

There has to be a reason why North Korea has been preserved… It can only be because the globalists know that they are the puppets of China and that they will be the trigger.

Here’s how I think it’s going down. I think there will be an attack against South Korea. The North Koreans have over two million troops… 20,000 artillery… they can level Seoul in a matter of three or four days. The only way the U.S. can stop that attack is using tactical nuclear weapons.

And that would give China the excuse to nuke the United States. U.S. is guilty of first-use, the U.S. is the bully of the world, Russia and Chinese unite to launch against U.S. military targets. Not civilian targets per say. There will be about 12 or 15 cities that are inextricably connected with the military that are going to get hit that I mentioned in Strategic Relocation… you don’t want to be in those cities.

You may have two days notice when that attack in Korea starts, before China launches on the United States.

And if you ever see everything blackout, because both Russia and China will use a preemptive nuclear EMP strike to take down the grid… before the nukes actually fall… anytime you see all electricity out, no news, nothing at all… that’s the time you need to be getting out of cities before the panic hits.

In his Strategic Relocation documentary, Skousen notes that the reason Russia and China have yet to take action is because they are not ready. But as current events suggest, they are making haste. Iran has apparently deployed warships near US borders and China has continually balked at internationally established air zones, encroaching on U.S. interests. North Korea continues to do whatever it wants, even after sanctions issued again their nuclear development plans by the United Nations. And, given President Obama’s refusal to attend the Olympic games with other world leaders that include Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, it should be obvious that the relationship between the world’s super powers are strained.

No one is willing to back down. And as we saw in the 20th century, that kind of diplomacy ends with the deaths of millions of people.

No one believed it could happen in the early 1910’s and again in the late 1930’s.

And with a Nobel Peace Prize winner at the helm of the freest nation on earth, not many Americans think it can happen in today’s modern and interconnected world.

But what if history rhymes once again?

Are we really to dismiss the warnings of Joel Skousen simply because it is such an outlier that it is impossible to imagine for most? Or do we look at history, see how such situations have unfolded over the last 5,000 years, and conclude that it is, in fact, possible that it happens again?

The lives of hundreds of millions of people are in the balance. That’s a sobering thought for average people, but mere chess pieces to the elite who sit behind the curtains with their fingers on the buttons.

As before, when the circumstances suit them and the time is right, they will invariably push those red buttons as their predecessors did before them.

Those in target cities in the U.S., Russia, China and Europe will become nothing more than statistics for the history books.

But if you know the warning signs, then perhaps at the very least, you stand a chance.

If you ever wake up one morning and your TV doesn’t work, the internet is down, and your cell phone is off, then you need to assume that your city or region was hit by a super EMP weapon, such as those being developed and tested in North Korea, Russia and China.

As Skousen warns, in such a scenario you’ll have about two days to get out of major cities to a safe location outside of the blast radius.

US Approves $3.9 Billion Patriot Missile System For Romania; Putin: "We Will Be Forced To Respond"

On Tuesday the State Department approved the sale of $3.9 billion in patriot missile systems to NATO-member Romania after prior Russia warnings that such actions could be met with severe reprisals.

Photo source: Darkone/Wikimedia Commons.

The announcement, issued through the Pentagon"s Defense Security Cooperation Agency, is sure to be a huge shot across the bow following on the heels of Russian President Vladimir Putin"s earlier unambiguous words (issued in May) regarding further NATO build-up in the large Balkan country:

If yesterday in those areas of Romania people simply did not know what it means to be in the cross-hairs, then today we will be forced to carry out certain measures to ensure our security. We won"t take any action until we see rockets in areas that neighbor us. We"ve been repeating like a mantra that we will be forced to respond... Nobody wants to hear us. Nobody wants to conduct negotiations with us.

Romania"s US-built $800 million ballistic missile defense shield came online for the first time in May, just prior to Trump"s meeting with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis early the following month, where the two discussed defense spending and other economic concerns. Romania has been a NATO member only since 2004, but has steadily attracted the attention of Western defense companies – it has increased its defense budget to equal 2% of its GDP this year (approximately 4 billion US dollars) – one of only 5 NATO members to hit that target.

The Pentagon agency"s press release cast Romania as the potential victim of aggression in the region:

Romania will use the Patriot missile system to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. The proposed sale will increase the defensive capabilities of the Romanian military to guard against aggression and shield the NATO allies who often train and operate within Romania’s borders.

NATO build up encroaching Russian defenses. Photo source: The Risk Advisory Group.

The proposal now moves forward for Congressional as well as Romanian parliamentary approval, and will be delivered by Raytheon Corporation and Lockheed-Martin. Other US defense contractors are increasingly in talks with Romania to modernize its army, including General Dynamics, Bell Helicopter, and The Boeing Company. News of the Patriot missile deal was released the same day a massive Patriot missile deployment drill kicked off in Lithuania involving troops from the US, UK, Latvia, and Poland.

The Government's Plan To Survive Nuclear War Doesn't Include You

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Once again this week, the United States teetered a little closer towards war with the Russians. On Sunday, the US military shot down a Syrian jet that was allegedly targeting US backed forces. The Russians have since claimed that the aircraft was engaging ISIS, and have revealed that their air defense systems will now track any of our aircraft that happen to fly over Western Syria. They also suspended a hotline between the US and Russia that was in place to prevent mid-air collisions over the crowded skies of Syria.

Amid incidents like this, you have to wonder what our government is thinking. For most Americans, Syria must seem inconsequential. Why is our military involved in a country, where we are brushing shoulders with a nuclear armed nation? If it’s to fight ISIS, then we could easily sit back and let Russian and Syrian forces wipe them out. If it’s to affect regime change, then clearly our government hasn’t learned anything from Iraq or Afghanistan. Why are we risking a war with the Russians just to influence the outcome of a regional civil war that has little bearing on the daily lives of most Americans?

The answer to that question could probably fill a novel, but there is one reason that the elites in Washington will never admit to. They can afford to make careless decisions because they are insulated from the results. If there is a war with Russia, which could easily turn into a nuclear war, they’ll have plenty of spacious bunkers to hide out in while the rest of America burns. And that’s been our government’s plan in regards to nuclear war since the beginning of the Cold War.

That’s the main takeaway from a new book called Raven Rock: The Story of the US Government’s Plan to Save Itself. Our government has spent decades building sprawling bunkers, like Raven Rock, that high ranking officials can flee to in the event of a nuclear war.

The idea for Raven Rock was to have a military base that would function as an alternative to the Pentagon and would be dug out of a mountain and deep enough to survive any Russian attack.

 

A site was chosen six miles from Camp David, the Presidential retreat in Maryland, and work began in 1951 on the $17 million project

 

Some 300 men worked round the clock in three shifts to carve a 3,100ft tunnel out of the granite; engineers invented technology as they went along including blast doors and blast valves.

 

Inside the facility there was 100,000sq/ft of office space in five parallel caverns big enough to hold a three story building in each.

 

The entire facility could fit 1,400 people and was placed on giant springs to reduce the impact of a blast.

Via Daily Mail

Meanwhile, as they were building these bunkers and trying to convince Americans that nuclear war could be easily survivable, behind the scenes they knew it would be a bloodbath for civilians.

At the end of the 1950s, the FCDA created ‘Battleground USA’, a grim 120-page report on how cities should manage civil defense operations in the event of an attack.

 

It said that the area should be divided into ‘mortuary zones’ with ‘collection teams’ in charge of identifying bodies.

Post Office mail trucks would ferry the wounded to one of 900 improvised hospitals set up near attack sites in places like federal prisons.

 

In Kansas officials planned to confiscate household vitamins for use by the general population.

 

Planners estimated they could assemble two million pounds of food after an attack from their own reserves and from stores.

They could also could find 11 million ‘man-days’ of food in the forests and plains in rabbit meat, 10 million ‘man-days of wild birds and five million ‘man-days’ of fish.

 

Most chillingly they budgeted nearly 20 million ‘man-days’ of meat in residential pets.

 

It was disturbing reading and a view of the world that summed up by Eisenhower in one meeting: ‘The destruction might be such that we might ultimately have to go back to bows and arrows’

 

During another meeting Eisenhower admitted that nation didn’t have ‘enough bulldozers to scrape the bodies off the street’ in the event of a nuclear strike’.

And as we all know, our government didn’t take many measures to protect civilians from the potential carnage that would be inflicted by a nuclear war. They didn’t build many bunkers for the rest of us.

At first glance that may sound like an impossible task, but it’s not. Take Switzerland for instance. Despite not having any nuclear weapons, they’ve built enough fallout shelters to house every Swiss citizen. You might say that we could never afford that many shelters, but it’s not a question of cost. Switzerland’s GDP per capita is similar to America’s.

The truth of the matter, is that our leaders don’t give a damn about what happens to American civilians. As long as they have their bunkers, they feel safe while antagonizing nuclear armed nations like Russia. They know that if there’s a war, they’ll survive while the rest of us burn and starve.

Make no mistake, if there’s ever a war with Russia, you’ll be on your own. Whether or not you survive depends entirely on your willingness and ability to prepare now.

Norway On The Way To Become Unfriendly Neighbor In Russia's Eyes

Authored by Peter Korzun via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Norway is executing a drastic change in its military policy, towards a far more aggressive posture. A total of 330 US Marines have been stationed for a trial period from January at the Vaernes military base east of Trondheim. The deployment marks the first time since World War II that foreign troops have been allowed to station in Norway. Last year, the Norwegian Parliament approved a one-year trial period for the US military presence, including two six-month rotations. Now it is planned to double the Marines presence in the country from 330 to 650 soldiers. Norway and the United States are now discussing the usefulness of continuing this agreement beyond 2017.

The airport in Nord-Trøndelag can become a major military air base. The US Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway, already stores large amounts of military equipment in caves. The caves currently hold enough to equip a fighting force of 4,600 Marines. The US military plans to enlarge the stockpile allowing it to store enough weapons and equipment for a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (up to 16, 000 servicemen). Planners are completing an analysis of the current gear cache that should wrap up in the next 12 months.

There are other plans to increase US military presence in the country. Last summer, a study group from the US Navy visited both Andøya and Evenes airports in northern Norway to see if they could host American P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft.

According to Washington-based Center for Strategic and international Studies (CSIS) report, «The former Royal Norwegian Navy base at Olavsvern is ideal for supporting submarine operations in the extreme North Atlantic and Arctic Seas». The paper says it may be possible for Norway to nationalize and reopen a portion of the facility to support the rotational presence of US submarines. Olavsvern is NATO’s closest naval base to the Kola Peninsula. The paper notes that the United States needs to leverage its bilateral relationships with Norway in order to develop and deploy a new generation of undersea sensing capabilities.

The construction of sophisticated new radar system known as Globus 3 in Vardø has started. Formally, the radar’s mission is to track space debris but it’s an open secret that the site is an element of the US-led NATO ballistic missile defense (BMD).

The radar located in Svalbard (the Arctic) can also be used by US military for missile defense purposes. The site has been frequently visited by US officials and politicians. This radar is installed in violation of the 1925 treaty which states that Svalbard has a demilitarized status.

Norway used to be skeptical toward the BMD plans. In 2002, Norway condemned the US decision to pull out from the ABM Treaty. Jens Stoltenberg, the current NATO General Secretary, was skeptical about the system at a summit in Moscow in 2007. But Prime Minister Erna Solberg announced the decision to join the NATO missile defense in 2015 – the same year Norwegian ships participated with radar sensors in an allied BMD exercise.

The joint American-Norwegian radar project is an openly hostile move, which has become an irritant to negatively affect the Russian-Norwegian bilateral relationship. The missile shield will alter the strategic balance—giving Washington and NATO the ability to launch a first nuclear strike on Russia and prevent it from launching a counter-strike. Besides, the radar will be used for intelligence collection being stationed just 40 miles from the Russian Kola Peninsula where strategic submarines and other military assets are based.

According to Professor Theodore Postol, a professor at Massachusetts Technological Institute and a well-known scholar, Norway «would be dragged into a conflict between the great powers… The radar in Vardø is of the type GBR-P, formerly deployed on the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific. It was formerly intended to be the most important radar in the US missile shield, to be deployed in the Czech Republic».

«Norway has to understand that after becoming an outpost of NATO, it will have to face head-on Russia and Russian military might», Teimuraz Ramishvili, Russian ambassador to Oslo, told Norway’s state broadcaster, NRK. «Therefore, there will be no peaceful Arctic anymore». Formally, the radar’s mission is to track space debris but it’s an open secret that the site is part of US global ballistic missile defense (BMD) system, making Norway a prime target for attack in the event of a conflict.

Norway plans to have over 50 US-produced F-35 stealth warplanes in 2019. It will give it the capability to strike deep into the Russian territory. It underscores the fact that Norway would rapidly be drawn into any war that NATO launched against Russia. Indeed, the preparations unquestionably make Norway a target for Russian military action.

The US military presence represents a shift from the peacetime policy of prohibiting the posting of foreign troops in Norway. Before joining NATO in 1949, Norway pledged not to allow deployment of foreign military on its soil «as long as it is not under attack or threat of attack.» No Norwegian government has said it is threatened by Russia. Quite to the contrary, just a few days ago Prime Minister Erna Solberg said that she doesn"t consider Russia to be a threat to Norway"s security in an interview with German DW. According to her, Oslo and Moscow have a «good partnership», especially in the Arctic. «We don"t believe that Russia is a direct threat to Norway, but we believe that Russia has become more unpredictable in its policies», the PM noted. Hardly so, Russia is very much predictable because it has no alternative to taking measures in response.

The border between Russia and Norway has been peaceful for centuries. The two countries have always been good neighbors. It is all changing now. Foreign troops on Norwegian soil and the construction of the new radar are parts of unfriendly policy toward Russia, which believes that the provocative moves are unacceptable. Perhaps, it should be taken into account by Norwegian politicians as the country nears the parliamentary elections in the fall.

Japanese Demand For Nuclear Shelters Soars Amid North Korea Tensions

While Hawaiian officials are pushing to re-open fallout shelters, the people of another island (considerably closer, and well within range) are actively preparing for a worst case scenario from North Korea. As Reuters reports, sales of nuclear shelters and radiation-blocking air purifiers have surged in Japan in recent weeks as North Korea has pressed ahead with missile tests in defiance of U.N. sanctions.

Japan is well within range of already-tested North Korean missiles...

And that has prompted aoring demand among the Japanese people...

A small company that specializes in building nuclear shelters, generally under people"s houses, has received eight orders in April alone compared with six orders during a typical year. The company, Oribe Seiki Seisakusho, based in Kobe, western Japan, also has sold out of 50 Swiss-made air purifiers, which are said to keep out radiation and poisonous gas, and is trying to get more, said Nobuko Oribe, the company"s director.

"It takes time and money to build a shelter. But all we hear these days, in this tense atmosphere, is that they want one now," Oribe said. "They ask us to come right away and give them an estimate."

A purifier designed for six people sells for 620,000 yen ($5,630) and one designed for 13 people and usually installed in a family-use shelter costs 1.7 million yen ($15,440).

Some orders for the shelters were placed by owners of small-sized companies for their employees, and others by families, Oribe said.

A nuclear shelter for up to 13 people costs about 25 million yen ($227,210) and takes about four months to build, he said.

The shelter his company offers is a reinforced, air-tight basement with an air purifier that can block radiation as well as poisonous gas. The room is designed to withstand a blast even when a Hiroshima-class nuclear bomb exploded just 660 meters away, Oribe said.

Concerns about a possible gas attack have grown in Japan after Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told a parliament session this month that North Korea may have the capacity to deliver missiles equipped with sarin nerve gas.

And the Japanese government is now urging local governments to hold evacuation drills in case of a possible missile attack, heightening a sense of urgency among the public.

Russia Warns Norway Over Missile Defense Plans

Authored by Alex Gorka via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Russia has warned Norway over consequences of joining NATO ballistic missile defense (BMD) plans. According to Russian ambassador to Oslo, Moscow will retaliate. Norway"s possible accession to NATO"s missile shield «will be a new factor that will be considered in our strategic planning as the emergence of an additional problem in the Arctic region», Teimuraz Ramishvili told the Norwegian state media network NRK.

In 2017, Norway may become a part of BMD. The Norwegian government has appointed an expert group to consider a possible Norwegian contribution to the missile shield. A detailed report on the issue is currently being prepared by experts from the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment and the US Missile Defense Agency to be submitted the year.

Norway has no interceptors on its soil but there are other ways to contribute into the anti-missile plans. Denmark does not host missiles but it committed itself to the bloc’s BMD in 2014, working to equip its frigates with advanced radar systems capable of detecting and tracking ballistic missiles. The missile defense program continues to be implemented despite the fact that after the nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, there is no rationale for it.

?slo is a participant in the US-led Maritime Theater Missile Defense Forum. The Norwegian contribution to the missile defense system has not yet been decided on. Even without interceptors, Norway could contribute by integrating into the BMD system its Globus II/III radar in the Vardøya Island located near the Russian border just a few kilometers from the home base of strategic submarines and 5 Aegis-equipped Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates. The Vardøya radar can distinguish real warheads from dummies.

Another radar located in Svalbard (the Arctic) can also be used by US military for missile defense purposes. Senior US officials and politicians have visited the site during the last few years, including former Defense Secretary Ash Carter, former State Secretary John Kerry and Republican Senator John McCain. The radar is installed in violation of the 1925 treaty which states that Svalbard has a demilitarized status. The visitors invented different reasons, like viewing the effects of climate change (John Kerry) or highlighting the plight of polar bears (John McCain) to justify the need to inspect the site.

Installation of BMD sites might potentially undermine the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces as a means of deterrence.

Norway is executing a drastic change in its military policy towards a far more aggressive posture. Even though the country is small, it has the sixth biggest military budget per capita, after the United States, Israel, Singapore and some ‘monarchies’ in the Persian Gulf. The country spends 7.3 billion dollars on the military, more than Sweden (5.7 billion), a country with twice the population. Its geographic position makes it a key element of NATO military planning. The nation’s leading political parties want an increased focus on ‘strategic assets’ like F-35, capable of striking deep into Russian territory, submarines and surveillance capabilities. 

Norway hosts 330 US Marines in the central areas of the country, formally on a ‘rotating’ basis. The rotation does not change the fact that the forces are permanently present in Norway. They are deployed at the Vaernes military base, about 1,500 km (900 miles) from the Russian territory, but the training program involves traveling closer to the border. Norway and Russia share a small land border far in the north.

The Marines can be easily reinforced. The US forward storage areas have been upgraded to store cutting edge weapons and equipment for about 16,000 Marines. Building up stockpiles is a key part of US strategy to enhance its capabilities in Europe. There are plans to warehouse tanks, artillery and other fighting vehicles at other locations around the Old Continent.

The only purpose for the deployment is preparation for an attack against Russia. The Marines are first strike troops. The provocative move is taking place at the time the Russia-NATO relationship hit a new low as the bloc’s forces deploy in Eastern Europe and tensions run high in the Black Sea and elsewhere. According to Heather Conley, the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies" Europe Program, Northern Europe is now being viewed as a «theatre of operations».

There are other plans to increase US military presence in Norway. According to a report of Washington-based Center for Strategic and international Studies (CSIS), «The former Royal Norwegian Navy base at Olavsvern is ideal for supporting submarine operations in the extreme North Atlantic and Arctic Seas». The think tank believes it may be possible for Norway to nationalize and reopen a portion of the facility to support the rotational presence of US, UK, French, and Norwegian submarines. Olavsvern was NATO’s closest naval base to Russia’s submarine bases along the coast of the Kola Peninsula west of Murmansk.

It was reported last year that a study group from the US Navy visited both Andøya and Evenes airports in northern Norway to see if any of the two airports could be suitable to serve as a base for American P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft.

The deployment of NATO forces to Norway is clearly a provocative act directed at Moscow. Norway shares a 121 mile border with Russia, while the Russian Northern Fleet is based in the Murmansk region, approximately 100 miles from the border.

Norway has pledged not to host foreign forces on its territory. It had stashed stockpiles of weapons in preparation for a possible conflict, but until recently, foreign troops were allowed into the country only temporarily for training purposes. Oslo had adhered to this principle even at the height of the Cold War.

Shifting away from the «no foreign forces on national soil» policy is fraught with consequences. Turning the national territory into a spearhead for an offensive against Russia inevitably makes Norway a target for a retaliatory strike. Russia did not start it. Actually, very few NATO members take part in the BMD plans. The decision to join would be seen as an outright provocation staged by a neighboring state. By doing so, Norway will deteriorate the relations and greatly reduce its own security which can only be achieved through developing of partnership and strengthening of centuries of good neighborly relations.

Red Hysteria Engulfs Washington

Submitted by Eric Margolis via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

President Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex made half a century ago ring as loud and clear today. The soft coup being mounted against the Trump government by America’s ‘deep state’ reached a new intensity this week as special interests battled for control of Washington.

The newly named national security advisor, Lt Gen Michael Flynn, was ousted by Trump over his chats with Russia’s ambassador and what he may or may not have told Vice President Pence. The defenestration of Flynn appeared engineered by our national intelligence agencies in collaboration with the mainstream media and certain Democrats.

Flynn’s crime? Talking to the wicked Russians before and after the election. Big, big deal. That’s what security advisors are supposed to do: keep an open back channel to other major powers and allies. This is also the job of our intelligence agencies.

There is no good or bad in international affairs. The childish concept of ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ comes from the Bush era when simple-minded voters had to be convinced that America was somehow in grave danger from a bunch of angry Mideast goat herds.

The only nations that could threaten America’s very existence are nuclear powers Russia, China, India, France, Britain and Israel (and maybe Pakistan) in that order.

Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the US mainland. Any real war with Russia would invite doom for both nations. Two near misses are more than enough. Remember the 1962 Cuban missile confrontation and the terrifying 1983 Able Archer scare – near thermonuclear war caused by Ronald Reagan’s anti-Russian hysteria and Moscow’s panicked response.

Margolis’ #1 rule of international relations: make nice and keep on good terms with nations that have nuclear weapons pointed at you. Avoid squabbles over almost all matters. Intelligence agencies play a key role in maintaining the balance of nuclear terror and preventing misunderstandings that can cause war.

Gen. Flynn was a fanatical anti-Islamic wing nut. He was, to use Trumpese, a bigly terrible choice. I’m glad he is gone. But Flynn’s sin was being loopy, not talking on the phone to the Russian ambassador. The White House and national intelligence should be talking every day to Moscow, even ‘hi Boris, what’s new with you guys? ‘Nothing much new here either besides the terrible traffic.’

The current hue and cry in the US over Flynn’s supposed infraction is entirely a fake political ambush to cripple the Trump administration. Trump caved in much too fast. The deep state is after his scalp: he has threatened to cut the $80 billion per annum intelligence budget – which alone, boys and girls, is larger than Russia’s entire defense budget! He’s talking about rooting waste out of the Pentagon’s almost trillion-dollar budget, spending less on NATO, and ending some of America’s imperial wars abroad.

What’s to like about Trump if you’re a member of the war party and military-industrial-intelligence-Wall Street complex? The complex wants its golden girl Hilary Clinton in charge. She unleashed the current tsunami of anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Vladimir Putin which shows, sadly, that many Americans have not grown beyond the days of Joe McCarthy.

As a long-time student of Cold War intelligence, my conclusion is that both sides knew pretty much what the other was up to, though KGB and GRU were more professional and skilled than western special services. It would be so much easier and cheaper just to share information on a demand basis. But that would stop the Great Game.

It’s sickening watching the arrant hypocrisy and windbaggery in Washington over alleged Russian espionage and manipulation. The US has been buying and manipulating foreign governments since 1945. We even tapped German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cell phone. This week Wikileaks issued an intercept on CIA spying and manipulation of France’s 2012 election. We live in a giant glass house.

The Russians are not our pals. Nor are they the evil empire. We have to normalize our thinking about Russia, grow up and stop using Moscow as a political bogeyman to fight our own internal political battles.

Right now, I’m more worried about the far right crazies in the Trump White House than I am about the Ruskis and Vlad the Bad.

Mystery Surrounds NATO Auditor General's Suspicious Death

Police in Belgium are probing the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of a high ranking NATO official - the auditor general, whose responsibilities included probing terror financing - after his body was discovered in his car with a gunshot wound to the head.

As SudInfo reports, troubling elements accumulate around the death of Yves Chandelon, a senior official of the NATO based in Luxembourg, who lived in Lens, near Tournai.

The man was found dead on Friday in Andenne, with a bullet in his head. An autopsy was performed on Tuesday. The family does not believe it was suicide as many have reported.

Did Yves Chandelon have any enemies? Was he threatened in the course of his work in NATO? Was it an odious crime made to look like suicide, or did the man go through a troubled period? For his relatives, the incomprehension is total.

The 62-year-old auditor general of NATO was found in the Belgian town of Andenne, 62 miles away from his home and office in Lens on December 16. As The Express reports,

As Auditor General, Mr Chandelon was responsible for internal accounting at NSPA as well as external investigations into money laundering activities and terrorist financing - and more bizarrely it has been reported locally that the gun which killed him was found in the glovebox of the vehicle.

According to local newspaper reports Mr Chandelon was the registered keeper of three weapons however the gun found at the scene did not belong to him, it has been claimed.

Police are currently probing whether he had received any threats that could be related to his work and highlighted that the gun used was not registered in his name.

According to Flemish newspaper "The Morning", Mr Chandelon"s relatives said he attended his office Christmas party the night before he died.

Reporting gets even more confusing as LaMeuse carried two reports with additional facts about Chandelon’s death. The first stated that a “farewell letter” was found in Chandelon’s car. The second stated that the gun used in the apparent suicide was found in his right hand, despite the fact that Chandelon was left-handed.

It has been reported that the former director of The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Luxembourg had complained of getting strange telephone calls before he died and "felt threatened".

We are sure the facts will all come out and this "strange" episode will be brushed under the carpet - like the mysterious deaths of various senior European bankers over the past few years.