The world situation

2014 Russia attacked Crimea-there is no doubt about this. Just as it gathered its forces to occupy the don bas and Luhansk oblasts. And, februari 24, attacked Ukraine itself.

We are on the verge of a global nuclear war

Sofar the losers are dead Russians and Ukrainans but others are getting involved.

China and Usa are trying to get a sumohold on each other there China is the stabler with the Us aging president and the trumpists. India is preparing a national implosion with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as a joker but leads to mutual collapse. The remaining muslim world is a womanhating mess and EU is trying to tear itself apart but is united in a dislike of Russia. Left is Russia-Ukraine which is the second half of this section.

Ukraine has nowhere to go if the west doesn’t buy it militarily. Zelenskij will be only one of the russian border states. But if Ukraine and Russia make peace like Canada and Usa, then both will gain. For Ukraine the language, transports, novelties mm for Russia a granary just across the border, a method to relieve the pressure, a customer for fuel etc and now we arrive at the fundamental question: in the earlier section we have seen the continents in conflict with each other or tearing themselves apart but there is one large area both for themselves and for the world: an area of Slavic Peace.

Then the question is both for russians and ukrainians and for Russia itself : are you going to keep the hitler dream or are you going to choose Slavic Peace which feeds a large part of the world and gives a breathing space to the worlds industries. And what can be the price, oblasts who are loyal to Ukraine and oblasts who are loyal to Russia and whose citizens won’t change their minds.

The problem is the hitler dream which is supported av putinskij. The russians and ukrainans don’t want war. How can this be resolved? Let a vote be taken and a stable border established. after that the ones who run Russia (party and politburea, armed forces, fsb, gru etc) decide how to continue. One way is to keep putinskij, another is to pension them off to luxury apartments on the riviera or why not Crimea. They made war and chose peace. In an area of Slavic Peace.

A NATO Tribunal is needed

Here terrorism is an attack against civilians to force authorities into obedience.

 No NATO member can swear itself free from having terrorists in its territory.

But it is a habit to the accusers to claim that their opponents are terrorists particularly when it comes to defense of human rights. This is true for many different NATO members.

 One way to handle this question is to create a NATO tribunal to investigate this question,

NATO members accused of protecting terrorists can have the question publicly investigated  where

the accusers can present evidence. The accused can naturally publicly claim for the tribunal that the 

accused work for human rights and should keep their protection by the country involved.

A current exemple is the discussion between Turkey’s Erdogan and Sweden’s Kristersson. This is not

a private matter between those two but concerns the whole NATO community.

But there is a catch. Erdogan blocks Sweden’s NATO membership and therefore the question cannot be be investigated by such a tribunal.

My proposal is that Sweden becomes a member of NATO and in exchange permits the tribunal to investigate the question of “terrorists”  that are claimed such in other NATO members. 

Refuse to die for billy

I believe, with many others, that Nato is a union of free countries who are joined together for mutual protection against the world’s predators, but what does it mean for Nato’s citizens and the politicians we have elected?

Obviously it means that Nato’s borders, resources and people must be defended.This means also that Nato’s children,women, and men, and not only soldiers, will die if it comes to a military conflict even if no foreign troops will attack just our particular border. It is a necessary risk to reduce an even greater risk.

But it is a completely unnecessary task to defend the property of Multinational Enterprises outside the borders of Nato in countries such as Irak, Nigeria ,Kenya and Libya. Shall young Nato women and men die to secure the profits and stock gains for Ikea, Siemens, Shell and Philips. Therefore it is important that our politicians give a straight answer whether military actions are to defend not only Nato but also the multinational enterprises and the banks backing them.

Is Nato`s function the mutual security of their members instead of an economic conspiracy against the people of the world who already are the victims of their own local fanatics, profiteers and foreign puppets of profithungry foreign enterprises?

The pig in Nato’s poke: what is missing?

For Sweden, to join Nato, is to choose between malaria and the plague. With malaria you don’t feel very well but the plague is usually deadly. From this viewpoint the question is not to join but how to join.  The first that strikes one is the unanalyzed negotiation situation. Some demands are difficult to get a hearing, others are important for Sweden but minor for Nato. I will mention two:a. Compensation for damage from military maneuvers to reindeer husbandry which is central to the same people, who are the original inhabitants of the area. b: An involuntary scarcity of women. To solve these is neither difficult or expensive for Nato.

Two major problems remain.  The first is the presence of nuclear weapons on swedish soil. Every possible aggressor will be convinced that these are present whether the government stonewalls or not. Nato will not accept such a restriction. But nuclear devices are not only a danger for Sweden but for each Nato country. Knowledge how to make smaller nuclear devices is becoming more common, knowledge how to move these is becoming more common (you don’t need missiles) and the will to offer one’s life to explode a nuclear device is becoming more common.

A more constructive solution is that Nato establishes a powerful authority for an international elimination of nuclear weapons coupled to an internationally accepted whistleblower law.  This is in the interest of Nato, just as much, as a military form of defence.

The second problem is practically absent in swedish Nato discussions. I present a few short scenarios to make it visible. a. A number of IKEA stores are burnt to the ground. Should Nato take military action? b. A country nationalizes french oil holdings without compensation. Should Nato take military action? c. A country prevents fishing vessels from Nato countries from fishing within its territorial waters. Should Nato take military action?

As you may notice, I have not listed any US corporations in these scenarios. It is no point in blaming others instead of starting to clean up our own back yard. The problem is just as much Europe’s.

To be exact. Nato membership means that  tin boxes with swedish soldiers can come from Moldavia, Svalbard and Afghanistan??!! (What Nato country borders on Afghanistan?) But this is done to defend Nato’s  borders and prevent even greater casualties.

Sweden should demand that no Swedish military action should be taken outside Nato’s borders unless it is followed within a month by a clear majority vote  in parliament. (the pearl harbor rule). Even if Nato does not agree, the question will not disappear and not only in Sweden.

Shall swedish soldiers die to defend Coca Cola, Ikea and Mcdonalds? Finally, does Sweden seek membership in a defence alliance or in an assembly  for economic aggression?

 

 

 

Sarajevo on the Baltic

The Balkans have traditionally been an the object of the great powers’  ambitions. 1914 in Sarajevo, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire was assasinated. This led
to a serie of events that became the First World War, the results of which still beset us today. The Great Powers of Europe were taken by surprise quite simply.
Today we have a similar situation in the Baltic. In articles, speeches, and plans it has been discussed how Nato and Russia, separately, or simultaneously can prepare an
armed conflict there. Here I wish to discuss something  nobody takes up: the risk for such a conflict when nobody wants it. I want to show that Tjernobil and Fukushima, the risk for an armed conflict is great, could happen at any moment, but can be limited by a thoughtout plan of action.

the fire hazard

After the invasion of Sovjet Russia at the end of the Second World War, the Baltic was treated as a part of Russia. People from Russia were moved there or were drawn there by various rewards.When the Iron Curtain fell in 1989 and the Baltic states regained their independence, these people were stranded. In this article I call them the Rbalts. The original inhabitants I designate as Urbalts. One possibility was that the Urbalts could have realized what an advantage this was and the Rbalts what an unique opportunity this offered, but the recent oppression and both groups unwillingness to integrate has been too great. We have in other words a firehazard that can be ignited at any moment by any spark of conflict. It is an illusion to imagine that, whoever runs the government, Russia would remain passive if Rbalts are killed. It is just a great illusion to imagine that Nato would remain passive if “volunteers” crossed the border of any Baltic state to support Rbalts who cause disturbances.

the fire alarm

To prevent this, an agreement must be signed, quickly, between Nato and ´Russia to handle the situation.A “direct line” must be established between Kreml and the Nato for swift intervention before the situation gets out of hand. In other words, an EU muddle such as in the migrant question is to ask for a military conflict in the Baltic.

the sparks

a. a Baltic government that faces an election defeat because it is too corrupt or incompetent, is tempted to play the ethnic card openly or behind the scenes.

b. Urbaltic or Rbaltic xenophobes. That means those that not only hate other ethnics but organize acts of violence against them. Note! That they may be only a minor part of  their group is of no importance; it is the threat of violence against people based on their origin. A fire alarm is the mass media content in the area or across the border.

c.  Ambitious high Russian officials. As long as there is peace in the area it remains a backwater. But if tensions increase so do the promotion opportunities  for higher officials.   Some “patriots” may be tempted to increase their influence.

the fire station

If tensions get out of hand immediate action is needed where the Balt states, Nato and Russia are informed. For this to be effective a crisis line must exist between the Kreml and Nato and a crisis center exist where both parties are represented.

Fire fighting

To start a fire is the work of a moment, but it takes time to extinguish one. I cannot prescribe how it should be done, but I can suggest how it could be done. Because preparation is necessary.

a. What kind of Nato troops?

It is important therefore that the troops don’t belong to the historical enemies or friends of Russia. A start at least should be made with soldiers from West of the Rhone.

b. What should they do?

Take over law enforcement duties from the local government, see that the laws of the land are followed, and maintain life in the turbulent areas till the situation calms down. Which means no Urbalts or Rbalts being harmed. They shall also prevent any “volunteers” as in Crimea and eastern Ukraine or any rightwing extremists like the “Azov brigade”from the Ukraine entering the area.

c. Human rights, a cause for conflict?.

Genocide, like in Rwanda, has often followed an official or tolerated  campaign in mass media which has whipped up hatred against the targeted group. On the other hand, freedom of speech is one of the tools a democratic society has developed to limit political power and its misuses.It is  important that Nato journalists have full freedom to investigate developments and write about them. But what if the government or organizations in the Baltic States misuse freedom of speech to spread ethnic hatred? Even this must be prepared against and not solved by some last minute improvisation. A court should be established where the crime would be massmedial preparation for genocide. The court should consist of lawyers and journalists and have its own investigative resources.

d. A tool from history

The following is an idea and not a proposal as above.There could be many other proposals. In Italy of the renaissance, when two powerful factions could not agree, and city life became paralyzed, a podesta was established. That is an authority constituted of people not related to either faction who were imported till the local parties realized that they could do things better themselves by working together. That is an emergency measure to cool things down until time has passed and at least a better solution than  quotas that has more or less paralyzed Bosnia.

e. Demagogues

Real differences of opinion can exist between Urbalts and Rbalts which can only be solved by mutual discussions. But some will want to use and deepen these differences for their own personal advantage.To counter this a court should be established against preparations for genocide and the convicted be exiled to west of Rhone or east of the Urals.

f. Sovereignity

It is obvious that the proposals above are  an interference with the sovereignity of the Baltic states in question. But does sovereignity give the right for a number of selfwilled men to set the whole of Europe on fire?