Valdai Club/Literaturnaya Gazeta, 5/15/24

Translated by Geoffrey Roberts

Will Russia return to dialogue with the West? Or is humanity sliding from a cold war to a “hot” one? What is the essence of the Ukrainian crisis? Will we arrive at a multipolar world? Can Russia be split by inter-ethnic differences? We talk about these pressing political topics with politologist, Richard Sakwa, the leading British expert on Russia, Emeritus Professor at the University of Kent, and a member of the Valdai international discussion club.

Q: Richard, you are the author of many books and articles about Russia, you often visit our country, give lectures, and interviews. Is this causing problems for you in Britain?

In Britain they’ve made it a “moral issue” – they say you can’t have anything to do with Russia because it is at war with Ukraine. But for some reason, no one called for a boycott of the United States and Great Britain during the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Serbia, or the destruction of Libya. I am a supporter of diplomacy; dialogue is needed now more than ever. As a scientist, I must explain what is happening, and this requires constant dialogue with colleagues and politicians. It’s good there is the Valdai Club, a classic liberal discussion platform where everyone can express their opinion.

Q: Why did the second Cold War happen if, with the disappearance of the USSR, there were no ideological contradictions left between East and West?

When George Orwell coined the term “Cold War” in a Tribune article in September 1945, few thought the concept would last long. But the first Cold War began almost immediately after World War II, and lasted until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Then there was a 25-year “cold peace” that gave way to a new Cold War. In 2014, the European security system created as a result of the old Cold War collapsed spectacularly. Europe has lived in uncertainty for nearly thirty years, stuck with Cold War institutions and practices that have failed to develop structures and ideas anchored in the new reality.

Q: Is this what you call a crisis of purpose in Europe?

There is no goal here, because there is no dialectic of development, but there is an endless movement in a circle, causing dizziness among politicians. This is also visible at the everyday level. When I was young, even Labourites talked about specific goals: a bridge will be built here, a factory there, and a nuclear power plant there. There was always a vision of the future, there was some kind of plan. Now no one is saying where we are going. This has affected all European politics.

During the years of the “cold peace”, not a single fundamental problem of European security was resolved. It is Europe’s failure to create an inclusive and comprehensive peace regime covering the entire continent that has given rise to the current confrontation and discord. Europe has simply resumed its “civil wars”. An eloquent example is Ukraine. This conflict shows the deep “tensions” in the European order and the “failure” of the security system…The collapse of a “united and free” Europe is now obvious.

Q: Have we jumped from one Cold War to another Cold War?

Yes, and this one is much more dangerous and deeper than the first one when everything was clear: communism versus capitalism, the struggle of ideas, etc. Then the “political West” appeared. A common economic and humanitarian space emerged in Europe, and that is good. But at the same time, the American military-industrial complex also strengthened, which inevitably led to the creeping militarisation of the state and society.

The West perceived the end of the Cold War in 1989 as a victory, while in the USSR under Gorbachev they talked about a return to universal human values and counted on equal relations with the West, recognising the market economy and human rights. In 1989 Gorbachev was confident the “spirit of April 1945” – when Soviet and American soldiers embraced on the Elbe – had returned. But in the West, they long ago forgot this spirit and behaved with the USSR, and then with Russia, not as partners, but as winners. In Washington they started talking seriously about the “end of history.”

Q: After all, it was then that the United States received a decade of complete freedom of action and began to feel like “masters of the world” in the literal sense?

Yes, the disappearance of the USSR led to an imbalance, the emergence of a unipolar world in which the United States reigned supreme. But the unipolar world did not become safer and did not bring peace. America, which felt itself a hegemon, did what it wanted throughout the 90s, not paying attention to the UN and especially not remembering the “spirit of 1945.” Washington preferred to solve problems by military force.

Washington assumes systems (civilisations) cannot coexist peacefully, and that force decides everything. But Russia, China and many other countries believe the world needs a fundamentally new system of relations based on equality, and not on the forceful dictatorship of one superpower. West and East understand each other less and less.

Q: It turns out that Kipling was right when he noted in 1889 the West and the East cannot come together – East is East and West is West?

Perhaps he was right, but today it is more and more obvious that this “civilisational discrepancy” is secondary. The main reason for instability is America’s attempts to maintain global hegemony, which gives rise to a series of wars and colour revolutions. I am not an idealist, but I am convinced that such contradictions can be resolved peacefully. The idea of a pan-European home from Lisbon to Vladivostok is wonderful, but this pan-Europeanism contradicts Atlanticism, based on US hegemony. This is a strategic mistake because there can be no peace without a balance of power. The political West has, to put it mildly, been radicalized….

-Russians in such cases say oborzel: loosely translated – became insolent. Or, more politely, stopped seeing the shores.

– A very precise word! This political West “does not notice” the UN and absolutised human rights no longer protect human rights but are used as a tool to achieve geopolitical goals. Militarisation remains the “engine of the economy” and “liberalisation” – taken to the point of absurdity – has become its opposite, denying the state and thereby bringing anarchy closer. This is indicative of a “new conservatism” in the United States in which “America is above all.”

Q: I remember someone once said that “Germany above all” … It turns out that the idea of Pax Americana is alive? However, Secretary of State Blinken recently admitted that America’s hegemony is ending.

Objectively, it is ending. But in Washington they are still confident of their right to messianism and world hegemony, and they do not abandon the logic of confrontation. This became completely clear after the 78-day bombing of Yugoslavia, the unprovoked war in Iraq and the destruction of Libya. It was after this that what I call Post-Western Russia began to emerge. But a “post-Westernising” Russia denies not Western civilization or culture, but those policies of the West that have become an obstacle to the creation of a pan-European home as the main condition for common security in both Europe and the world.

If you like, you can call me Britain’s last Gaullist, but I agree with General de Gaulle’s grandson, Philippe de Gaulle, who sees the solution not in strengthening and expanding NATO, but in creating a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Q: There cannot be normal relations with America?

Normal relationships are equal relationships. But for this, Americans must move away from Atlanticism and stop looking at the world as their backyard, where they are free to do whatever comes into their head. For now, I doubt their desire to live in a world of equals. They are accustomed to the role of hegemon and will not give it up.

Q: Is it possible today to perceive the EU and NATO as a single whole?

For me the EU was always a peace project, but, alas, it is now a war project. With the end of the Cold War, we expected the emergence of a common economic Eurasian space without borders, we expected good relations between Europe and Russia. In reality, the EU has become a political-economic appendage of NATO.

Q: Or maybe the United States simply doesn’t need a united and strong Europe? Sorry, but, for example, an alliance between Berlin and Moscow has always been a “bad dream” for the Anglo-Saxons – which means that they still don’t want to lead matters to such an alliance?

The idea of Ostpolitik dominated the minds of the Germans for a long time; it was a policy beneficial to Germany, which involved close cooperation with Russia in all spheres – from economic to humanitarian. But, as you correctly noted, such an alliance did not suit Washington and London, which means that such an alliance could not be permitted, especially when the EU became part of the political West. The “European project” is no longer working, and, unfortunately, I do not yet see any path to compromise in Europe’s relations with Russia.

Q: Have all diplomatic means been exhausted?

Today we are present at the funeral of old school of diplomacy – an institution that was based on immutable laws and rules that were observed even at the height of the Cold War. Now diplomatic dialogue has been reduced to almost zero. This is the result of the actions of the political West – of the unified system of Western political, financial and cultural institutions created and controlled by Washington and London. During the Cold War, these institutions were called upon to help the West fight the USSR. In 1989–1991, it seemed that they would die out as relics of the past. But the rudiments did not disappear, they became stronger. Now NATO is transforming from a regional association into a global one, and there is already talk of an Asia-Pacific “branch” of the alliance. NATO has become a tool for promoting American ideology, just like the IMF, WTO or the World Bank.

Q: The Americanization of Europe is, in fact, the colonisation of the Old World? Who is behind this? The notorious deep state?

I don’t think there is a “conspiracy theory” at work here. I would talk about the global interests of the United States, which deliberately upset the balance of power after the destruction of the USSR, and the vassalisation of Europe is one of the consequences of such a policy. Yes, there are still islands of disobedience – Hungary with Orban, Slovakia with Fico, Serbia with Vucic, there is the Alternative for Germany or Marine Le Pen in France. But the rest are no longer resisting; the political West has swallowed up the political elite of Europe.

Q: Can the political East balance the situation?

Right now, the process of crystallising a political East is underway. This is not a primitive anti-West, but a conscious counterbalance, an alternative to the political West to ensure a balance of power in Europe and the world. This is just emerging, and is the core is the Russian-Chinese alliance, which wants to return to the “spirit of 1945.” Moscow and Beijing want peace and cooperation rather than confrontation – a return to peace based not on the protectionist “rules” of Washington, but on International Law. BRICS and the SCO are examples of such cooperation. India, Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and other rapidly developing states claim that they have a vested interest in avoiding the logic of the Cold War and Atlanticism. They see NATO creeping into the Asian region, but they know that where there is NATO, there will be war. The danger lies in the transformation of NATO from an aggressive regional system into an aggressive global system. The political East – Russia and China – does not want collective defense, but collective security.

Q: Does the West have a scenario for ending anti-Russian sanctions?

I will answer in the words of Lenin. When asked how long the New Economic Policy, introduced in 1922, would last, he replied: “NEP is serious, and for a long time, but not forever.”

Q: Why is the influence of the United States weakening?

I think the problem is that the system created by the political West has become hermetic, closed in on itself. It does not take into account the interests of most of the world because it was created to meet the needs of specific Western countries. It cannot find a common language with systems external to the West – with Russia, China, and the countries of the Global South. This causes protests from countries that do not belong to the political West. Hence the confrontation with Russia, which refused to play by the “rules” imposed by Washington.

Q: You also spoke about the role of the Western military-industrial complex. How much does it influence US policy?

The military-industrial complex today dominates both in the States and throughout the Western world. This is also reflected in the formation of public opinion. The military-industrial complex has united both decision-making centre and the media; this complex needs the image of an enemy – otherwise why arm? Note that the veiled demonisation of Russia continued even after the disappearance of the USSR. And when friction between Moscow and Washington began, it turned out to be very easy to return to the coordinates of the Cold War, where Russia is an existential enemy. Nothing was left of diplomacy, the image of a “fierce Russia” was fixed in the minds of the masses, and then it was easier to declare that they won’t talk to the enemy, they will fight with the enemy. And Ukraine was chosen as the battlefield for this war.

Q: Why did Washington choose Ukraine as a battering ram against Russia, and not, for example, Kazakhstan?

It’s good that you remembered Kazakhstan. This country is self-confident, interested in multipolarity, and the Kazakhs have chosen a smart, multi-vector policy, focusing on cooperation with Russia, China, as well as the West. In Ukraine, they preferred “one master.” It had seemed that Ukraine – which emerged from the USSR as a powerful industrial state – could become a “bridge” between East and West and derive enormous benefits from both the Soviet legacy and its geographical location. Instead, Kiev pointedly turned its back on Russia and scurried to the EU. In 2014, the Ukrainian nationalists who came to power started a war in Donbass. Recently I had the opportunity to communicate with representatives of the DPR, and they said: in 2014 we did not talk about secession from Ukraine, we only asked that they leave the Russian language alone, but they sent an army against us, they started killing us, and this forever turned Donbass away from Ukraine. But the Ukrainians themselves voted twice for peace, choosing Poroshenko and then Zelensky, who promised the peaceful development of the country. But instead of giving Ukrainians the constitutional basis for such a peace, they began to build a “political nation”, ban the Russian language and portray Ukraine as anti-Russia. What happened is what I call the Galicisation of Ukraine.

We need a path to peace, and it lies through the system of European collective security, which includes Russia. But today that system is in ruins.

Q: Don’t you have any comforting forecasts for the foreseeable future?

I’m rather pessimistic! The political West is militarising, not only economically, but also culturally and in terms of mass consciousness. These are steps towards a “hot war.” We are at a turning point when someone’s victory will mean the crushing defeat of others, and then peaceful resolution of conflict becomes less and less realistic.

Q: Can anything change after the November elections in the USA?

Don’t think so. Escalation of the conflict and Europe’s involvement in it is beneficial to the United States, especially since almost all European NATO members have agreed to increase military budgets. Alas, NATO has become an ideological project; and because of this super-ideologisation, the alliance has lost its flexibility and pragmatism, which means it has lost the ability to use a wide range of peaceful opportunities to ensure European security.

Q: Is the idea of dividing Russia into 41 regions still popular in the West today?

Such reasoning can be heard more often from those Russian liberals who have fled to the West. These people consider the fragmentation of Russia inevitable, if there is a new government in Russia or it suffers military defeat in Ukraine. But only a madman can seriously think about such “fragmentation”. Serious politicians do not even consider this scenario, if only because Russia is a nuclear power.

Q: But there are hopes of inciting interethnic conflicts within Russia?

These are groundless hopes. Once I had the opportunity to visit Nizhny Novgorod at the festival of Tatar culture. In a huge hall, where there were Tatars, Russians, and people of other nationalities, the concert went on for four hours, Tatar songs were played, Tatar dances were performed, and then everyone stood up and sang the Russian anthem together. For me, it was a symbol of Russia – a huge multinational, multi-religious country, a common home, where all peoples feel safe, where the state helps develop the national culture of large and small nations. This does not mean that there are no problems, but there are also achievements. The West doesn’t see this and thinks that Russia can be divided along ethnic lines. This is a strategic mistake!

Q: There are such expressions- as “Russian dream”, “American dream”. Does Britisher Richard Sakwa have an “English dream”? How do you see the world in twenty years?

The main thing is that there is peace. I want humanity to arrive at what I would call conservative socialism, or natural socialism, with equality of opportunity and a market economy. In such a society, the law, time-tested traditions, local cultures and languages, must all be respected. Diversity within a single framework. It should be a high-tech, environmentally friendly world of reason and of moderation in all things, with strong states and strong self-government. But to achieve this, it is necessary to break with the psychology of Cold War and confrontation, to get rid of the habit of measuring military strength when it is possible to come to agreements that respect each other’s interests.

I would like to see a world where there is a global order of peace, not war. That is my English dream.

Q: Now, my favourite question: what book would you take with you to a desert island?

I definitely couldn’t get by with just one book. I would definitely take the Bible, a volume of Shakespeare and the complete collection of Dickens. I hope that by the time I finish reading all this, a ship will appear on the horizon that will rescue me!

Richard Sakwa was interviewed by Grigorii Sarkisov.

By Matt Taibbi, Racket News/Substack, 6/13/24

At least Ukraine doesn’t discriminate, when it comes to detaining writers.

On April 25, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) detained twenty-five-year-old socialist Bogdan Syrotiuk on a charge of treason. Just over a month later, while Syrotiuk remained in detention in the city of Mykolaiv, Ukraine banned one of the outlets with which he’s connected, the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), which has faced suppression in the United States in the past, as noted on this site.

In January, Chilean-American writer Gonzalo Lira died in custody after a lengthy detention. Most American media condemned Lira even in death, with headlines like “Kremlin Shill Dies in Ukraine” (The Daily Beast), “Pro-Putin American Expat Dies in Ukrainian Jail” (Newsweek), and “Anti-Ukraine Chorus Seeks to Exploit an American’s Death” (Substack’s own The Bulwark). The SBU also sought to have The Grayzone’s Aaron Maté removed from Twitter, and several organizations have published lists of Ukrainian media “enemies,” with a new one called Texty.Org.UA listing everyone from Noam Chomsky to Carlson as well as ice cream magnate Ben Cohen, Chris Hedges, CODEPINK and others (including me) as spreaders of Russian propaganda. The WSWS doesn’t appear, but someone invested real money and time in an elaborate Western-style media enemies list with snazzy graphics:

The SBU detained Syrotiuk, who leads an organization called the Young Guard of Bolshevik Leninists, in an April raid of his party’s offices in his home city of Pervomais’k, in southern Ukraine. The Ukrainian intel agency somewhat absurdly claims to have found a Russian army greatcoat, a backpack marked with a “Z” (ostensibly representing Russian chauvinism), and a gas mask in the party meeting hall, in close proximity to a portrait of Lev Trotsky.

Since his arrest, Syrotiuk has been denied contact with his affiliates at the WSWS. He has also been unable to obtain proper legal counsel or the blood pressure medication on which he relies, according to the WSWS. At one point, Syrotiuk was able to find a lawyer in Kyiv. A week later, his lawyers said that he would not be able to take the case, citing the danger of representing him.

Socialist or communist figures in both Ukraine and Russia have attracted particular official attention since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, perhaps because of the history of successful agitation in the region. Syrotiuk’s Young Guard, a Trotskyist group operating throughout the former Soviet Union, advocates for an end to the war and cooperation between the Russian and Ukrainian working classes, while opposing the governments of both Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky. A month before war broke out, in January of 2022, they made contact with the World Socialist Web Site, another Trotskyite organization that opposes “all governments” and “the defense of the national state,” not just in Ukraine but everywhere.

“The irony of this is, is that we could see our members who are active in Russia arrested by the Putin government,” says David North, chair of the Socialist Equality Party, which publishes the WSWS. North’s group blames “provocative and aggressive” policies of the U.S. and NATO for starting the conflict, but adds: “Nevertheless, we opposed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.”

According to North, part of Syrotiuk’s offense is carrying out propaganda on behalf of a Russian state organ, by which they somehow mean the World Socialist Web Site, a consistent critic of Putin’s. Syrotiuk’s charging papers list North as a “leader of a Russian-controlled propaganda agency.” Ironically, North describes the WSWS as “bitter enemies of the Putin government” and says that the site is “very opposed to this view of Putin as some sort of great leader of a new multipolar movement.”  

That the Zelensky government would take a hard line with a domestic war critic should be unsurprising to anybody who follows speech issues, but the broader question about Syrotiuk’s imprisonment is whether Ukraine’s American partners knew of or approved his detention. North claims Syrotiuk’s charging papers list information to which only he would be privy. After filing a FOIA request on his own behalf, he adds he was told the government could neither confirm nor deny that it was collecting information on his activities. The WSWS this week sent an open letter to the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Oksana Makarova, but has not received a response.

It should be noted that similar jailings are taking place in Russia, with some hitting close to home. This past December, Russians arrested Boris Kagarlitsky, a longtime Moscow Times contributor who was the main writer on the “Russian Dissent” Substack sponsored by this site. Boris, a socialist himself but not connected in any way to the WSWS, was denounced as an “inoagent” (a foreign agent) and given a five year sentence, which Russian authorities called “excessively lenient.” The case is one of the more absurd in the history of speech offenses. Kagarlitsky was initially accused of making light of a 2022 explosion on the Krimsky Bridge linking Russia to Crimea, thanks to a video titled “Explosive Congratulations to the Cat Mostik,” sarcastically putting a cat in the frame for the blast. The Russian news agency TASS noted Kagarlitsky’s “negative attitude toward authorities,” and Boris remains in prison. We’re trying to get more information about his status.

For all its horror, the Kagarlitsky case has attracted some coverage from outlets like the BBC and organizations like Amnesty International. Detained Ukrainian dissidents like Syrotiuk have received zero attention in the U.S. Incidentally, the Twitter Files list of social media accounts denounced by the SBU to the FBI, on which Aaron Maté’s name was found, contained a number of socialist or communist organizations, suggesting a broad interest in both old and new left-leaning groups.

Syrotiuk is the kind of figure who’s rarely defended by American authorities, making his prospects for release poor, absent attention from international organizations. Will left-leaning outlets apart from the WSWS demand answers about our government’s role in this episode?

***

RT, 6/13/24

The Russian Prosecutor General has finalized its indictment against Wall Street Journal journalist Evan Gershkovich, who is accused of attempting to obtain military secrets for the CIA, it was announced on Thursday.

In a statement, investigators claimed they have evidence that the American citizen was acting on behalf of the US foreign intelligence agency when he tried to collect classified information about Uralvagonzavod, a major Russian producer of tanks and armored vehicles, in Ekaterinburg in March 2023.

The case, which was compiled based on materials provided by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), has been sent for trial at a court in the Urals region of Sverdlovsk, it added.

The court has jurisdiction as Uralvagonzavod is located in the region and the alleged crimes were committed on its soil.

Gershkovich and his employer have denied the Russian allegations and have claimed he is being held unlawfully. The newspaper has called on the US government to retaliate and has reportedly been told that Washington is looking for “creative solutions” to resolve the situation.

American officials have reportedly contacted other governments about potentially taking custody of prisoners who they believe may be of interest to Russia in a swap for Gershkovich. Brazil, Norway, Germany, and an unnamed former Soviet bloc country have been approached with such requests, according to Western media.

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked Russian President Vladimir Putin about Gershkovich during an interview in February, claiming that his fellow US journalist was “obviously not a spy.” Putin responded by saying that “getting classified information in secret is called espionage,” and that Gershkovich was “caught red-handed when he was receiving this information.”

Moscow has no objections in principle to releasing Gershkovich eventually but won’t do so simply as a goodwill gesture because it has already “exhausted” such reserves in dealing with Washington, Putin added.

YouTube link here.

By Isabel van Brugen, Newsweek, 6/13/24

Russia abruptly changed its nuclear drill scenario on Wednesday, moving it closer to NATO borders, a day after Moscow and its ally Belarus launched joint drills aimed at training their troops in tactical nuclear weapons.

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the military drills in May in response to what the Kremlin has described as provocative statements and threats from the West.

The Russian Defense Ministry said on May 21 that the first stage of the drills had started involving the “practical testing of the preparation and use of nonstrategic nuclear weapons” in the country’s Southern Military District.

Moscow’s second stage of drills began on Tuesday alongside Belarusian troops.

In a statement shared on Telegram on Wednesday, Russia’s defense ministry said the country’s newly formed Leningrad Military District—stationed close to Finland and the Baltic States—had also joined the nuclear maneuvers. The district was announced in February in response to Finland joining the NATO alliance.

Read full article here.

By Jordan Shilton, World Socialist Website, 5/12/24

Recent months have witnessed levels of military activity in the Arctic regions of Norway, Sweden, and Finland that are unprecedented since World War II. One major NATO exercise has followed another, with tens of thousands of troops participating, while the US has expanded its bilateral defence agreements with all three countries to create what resembles a massive American staging ground for an invasion of Russia from the north.

During the first two weeks of March, some 20,000 NATO troops from 13 countries participated in Nordic Response 2024. The exercise was the successor to the long-running biennial Norwegian Cold Response manoeuvre, which was expanded to include Sweden and Finland following their accession to the aggressive US-led military alliance. The deployment included large contingents of ground, air, and naval forces in a simulated battle triggered by the invasion of a “fictitious adversary.” The exercise included the first trial of a Joint Nordic Air Operations Command, with the air forces of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden controlled from one base in Bodo, northern Norway.

Nordic Response was part of the larger Steadfast Defender mobilisation, a series of continuous military manoeuvres involving 90,000 NATO personnel that began in January and extends into June. The area of operations stretches from the Arctic through the Nordic and Baltic regions to Central Europe. In its first stage, the exercise involved the transportation of US military personnel across the Atlantic to support European NATO members in a war scenario. The next stage, which is now well advanced, involves the transit of American personnel from their landing sites along the Nordic coast eastwards towards the Russian border.

Operation Immediate Response started in late April, when a cargo ship carrying large quantities of US military supplies docked at the northern Norwegian port of Narvik. The exercise involved transporting the equipment, which belongs to the 10th Mountain Division of the US Army, by rail and road through Sweden to Finland, where it will be used in the Northern Forest manoeuvre. Around 1,600 US soldiers and 200 military vehicles arrived in Finland this past week after completing the 550-kilometre journey. Another location for the exercise further south was Kalundborg in Denmark, where military equipment was also brought ashore. “This operation is important within the NATO framework. It shows the Americans’ ability and will to deploy rapidly and our ability to receive and be a transit country,” commented Colonel May Brith Valen-Odlo from the Norwegian armed forces. “In line with NATO’s new plans, we could quickly become a transit country to receive forces, prepare them, and send them through Sweden and Finland.”

The last time Norway and Sweden served as “transit countries” was for Nazi Germany during World War II. After the Nazis invaded the country and set up a puppet regime under Vidkun Quisling in April 1940, the Wehrmacht’s Armee Norwegen (Army Norway) was established. As part of the subsequent launching of the war of extermination against the Soviet Union in June 1941, the 163rd Infantry Division was transferred from Norway via neutral Sweden to serve alongside the Finnish army as it invaded the Soviet Union. The Nazi advance along this front took troops within 30 kilometres of Leningrad, which Finnish soldiers helped blockade with their Nazi allies. Armee Norwegen commanders led operations against Soviet troops in Lapland.

In the months leading up to the latest major NATO manoeuvres, the US concluded a series of bilateral agreements with the Nordic countries to secure unrestricted access to dozens of military facilities within striking distance of the Russian border. Three defence cooperation agreements (DCA) concluded with Finland, Sweden, and Denmark in December 2023, and an updated DCA finalised with Norway in February 2024, cover a total of 47 “Agreed areas” of operation across the four countries. In an “agreed area,” which is usually associated with a military base or training ground, US soldiers can operate freely and store materiel to be used in future deployments. A total of 15 of these “agreed areas” are in the Arctic regions of Finland, Norway, and Sweden, close to the Russian border with Norway and Finland. American military personnel also have the power to exercise authority over civilians within or in the “immediate vicinity” of the “agreed areas.” In “extreme cases,” this power can be extended beyond the “immediate vicinity” of an “agreed area.” The agreements make clear that the US has the first right to prosecute its soldiers under American laws for any crimes committed while on- or off-duty.

The initiative for these agreements, which recall the dictates of a neocolonial power over its occupied territories, was taken by the United States. The US government insisted that the first DCA agreed with Norway in 2021 was an “indispensable precondition” for further US investments in military infrastructure in the country. American imperialism views access to the Arctic as essential under conditions in which climate change is opening up the region to resource exploitation and intercontinental trade. Washington is determined to ensure its dominant position in the high north at the expense of Russia, China, and other potential rivals. This includes its erstwhile European allies, who, led by German imperialism, are making their own moves to boost their presence in the region.

Military cooperation is also being expanded dramatically between the Nordic nations themselves. The Nordic Defence Command (NORDEFCO) was established in 2009 by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. The collaboration initially served principally as a mechanism to enable Finnish and Swedish forces to participate in NATO exercises, and gain experience in training and using NATO equipment to the alliance’s standards. Now, however, with all the nations in NATO, the command structure is being consolidated to integrate Nordic operational capabilities.

A new Vision 2030 strategy was recently unveiled by NORDEFCO that includes “vigorous joint action” in eight defence and security areas. Writing in the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter, the defence ministers from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, and Iceland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated, “Altogether, we have unique knowledge of the North Atlantic, the Arctic and the Baltic Sea, and an almost 1,500 kilometers long land border with Russia. In total, we have over 250 fighter planes and 350,000 soldiers. Together, we will be able to provide the conditions required for the reception, deployment, and further movement of allied troops to and through our countries.”

One main area of focus is strengthening the “deterrence and defence” of the Nordic and Euro-Atlantic regions by improving operational cooperation. A recent NORDEFCO meeting was held in the Faroe Islands to discuss NATO military options stretching from Greenland in the west, where the US has maintained a military presence since World War II, through Iceland, which relies on its NATO allies for air protection as it has no armed forces of its own, to the Nordic countries in the Arctic and Baltic regions. The alliance also aims to strengthen “host nation support and logistical support” for troops from other NATO allies operating in the region, cooperation in the purchasing of defence materiel, and the “Nordic defence industrial base” to improve the reliability of supply lines.

The strategy document underscores that the ambition is to subordinate all areas of society to the goal of waging war. NORDEFCO will strive for “Total defence to secure adequate support from all sectors of society to the defense sector in all threat scenarios and situations,” the document noted.

Of all the Nordic countries, Finland has gone farthest in implementing a “total defence” strategy. With a population of just under 5.5 million, it can mobilise over a quarter of a million soldiers rapidly and has some 900,000 members in the military reserve. Finland recently spent close to $10 billion to purchase 64 F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin, the equivalent of a country the size of Germany purchasing around 1,000 of these aircraft.

During a visit to Berlin last week, Finnish President Alexander Stubb received a warm response to his appeal for other countries to “be like Finland.” According to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose government has massively increased military spending and revived Germany’s global imperialist ambitions, Germany can learn a lot from the Finnish approach. “We would like to learn from the Finnish experiences with Russia as a neighbour,” Scholz said in connection with Stubb’s visit. “We are also interested in the Finnish approach to civil defence.”