Archive for May, 2009


May 27, 2009

K.T. McFarland, National Security Expert/Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, writes for Fox News about the other North Korean threat. If the nukes of that Communist regime ends up in the hands of the enemies not only of the United States but the rest of the West as well, we are in bad trouble.

Mc Farlan wrote:

Nothing has worked so far. Not bilateral negotiations. Not UN sanctions. Not six party talks. Should the world stand helplessly by and watch North Korea develop a nuclear arsenal which it can use to terrorize the region or export to rogue states around the world?

Japan and South Korea might want to develop their own nuclear weapons.

It is time to put pressure on China now. If one of the last communist regimes goes on producing nukes and strapped for cash wants to sell nukes to radical buyers in the Middle East?

United States could wake up one morning having a mushroom cloud over California. Even worse is the sale to Muslim radical terror groups. It seems to be time for the UN to consider sanctions for seizing ships with suspicious nukes from leaving North Korean harbors.


May 27, 2009

The recently published book Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America. (on the authors: John Earl Haynes is a historian at the Library of Congress. Harvey Klehr is a professor of politics and history at Emory University. They are co-authors of several books, including Venona. Alexander Vassiliev, a journalist, is co-author of The Haunted Wood contains interesting information. It reveals much new material from the KGB archives in Moscow. There is extensive added information on such well known Soviet spies and contacts as Alger Hiss, I.F. Stone (the ([in]famous liberal journalist [using the American expression for leftist] ).

Ernest Hemingway never provided any significant information to the KGB but was close to several Soviet agents and was an object of interest for the Moscow spy agency.

During the Spanish Civil War as a reporter Hemingway cooperated with party front organizations and he continued having contacts with the Communist Party of the United States of America, which had placed many communist party members in highranking positions in several departments in the US federal capital.

Harry White, one of the top communists in Washington, asked Hemingway to report secretly on relations between China’s Communist Party and Kuomintang, the Chinese railways and the condition of the Burma Road. During the stay in China the future Nobel Prize laureate met other American communist agents. Hemingway gave information that could well have ended up in KGB Headquarters in Moscow.

A quote from the new book:

White assuredly was a Soviet source, but any link with Soviet intelligence Hemingway might have had through White would have been indirect and unknowing. What has not been previously known, however, is that Hemingway had been in direct contact with Soviet intelligence before leaving for China. Moscow Center received a report from Jacob Golos, the KGB’s liaison with the CPUSA, stating: “A few days ago I found out that Ernest Hemingway is traveling to China via the Soviet Union. He may apply for an entry visa to the Soviet Union. He was in New York for only one day and I couldn’t meet with him. I arranged with him that our people will meet with him in China and show him the stamps that he gave us. We must attempt to meet with him in China or the Soviet Union by using the password that was arranged with him previously. I am sure that he will cooperate with us and will do everything he can.” Golos didn’t state who arranged the password and picked up the stamps that Hemingway handed over. (One possibility would be John Herrmann, an old Hemingway drinking buddy and friend who had himself worked for the CPUSA underground in Washington for several years in the 1930s.)

Hemingway had a KGB cover name, “Argo,”. The KGB New York Station was instructed to let him travel around. His reports could be of value.


May 26, 2009

Denna synopsis får inte kopieras och publiceras utan författarens tillstånd.

Definition av termen världsön

Först använd av den brittiske geopolitikern Sir Halford Mackinder, som 1919 beskrev den som världens största landområde bestående av Europa, Asien och Afrika. Den brittiske civilisationsforskaren eller makrohistorikern delade upp världsön i två delar, som i sin helhet på klassisk grekiska kallades oikoumene.

Den västliga oikoumene avgränsades av Uralbergen och Kaspiska havet i öster och av Sahara i söder med dess mellanöstliga förlängning. Den östliga oikoumene på världsön var Kina och Fjärran östern. En sydlig oikoumene bestod framför allt av den indiska subkontinenten.


3000 f Kr

Södra delen av världsön: pyramiderna byggs i Egypten. Papyrus börjar användas för skrift.
Kina: den kinesiska civilisationen utvecklas.

2000 f Kr

Södra delen av världsön: Abraham, Hammurabi, Trojanska kriget
Kina: skrivsystemet utvecklas

1000 f Kr

Norra delen av världsön: Homeros

500 f Kr

Norra delen av världsön: Sokrates, Platon
Kina: Konfucius

250 f Kr

Norra delen av världsön: den romerska republiken
Kina: landet enas

Omkring Kristi födelse år 0

Norra och södra delen av världsön: det romerska imperiet
Kina: papper uppfinnes, den stora muren byggs

300 e Kr

Södra delen av världsön: den indiska kulturen blomstrar
Kina: inre stridigheter

500 e Kr

Norra delen av världsön: det romerska riket i väst går under, gotiska stater upprättas i Italien och Spanien
Kina: återförening

700 e Kr

Norra delen av världen: den anglo-saxiska kulturen blomstrar
Kina: kulturen utvecklas (konst och litteratur)

1000 e Kr

Norra delen av världsön: Kontinentaleuropa under angrepp från vikingar i norr, magyarer i öst och araber i söder. Omkring 900 skrivs hjälteeposet Beowulf i England
Kina: svag militärmakt under perioden Norra Song

1200 e Kr

Norra delen av världsön: Ukraina och Ryssland erövras av mongolerna
Kina: mongolinvasionen

1500 e Kr

Norra delen av världsön och Amerika: Columbus och upptäcksresor
Kina: Mingdynastin

1600 e Kr

Norra delen av världsön: religionskrig
Kina: Manchudynastin grundas. Landet erövras utifrån.

1700 e Kr

Amerika: självständighetsförklaringen och författningen
Europa: den franska revolutionen och terrorn, Napoleons världserövringsförsök
Kina: stor befolkningstillväxt

1800 e Kr

Amerika: inbördeskriget 1861 – 65
Europa: restauration och revolutionsförsök (Västeuropa, Ryssland)
Kina: Manchudynastin försvagas

1900 e Kr

Amerika, Europa: de båda första världskrigen börjar i Europa. Ett europeiskt inbördeskrig har pågått sedan 1789.
Kina: republiken Kina grundas, inbördeskrig och kommunistiskt maktövertagande

2000 e Kr

Amerika: Förenta staterna blir hegemon
Europa:kontinenten enas, Ryssland står utanför

2100 e Kr

Amerika: Förenta staterna fortsätter som hegemon i förbund med andra stormakter
Kina: landet befrias från kommunistiskt styre


Ett intressant scenario 1830 – 2603 står att finna i John J. Reillys bok Spengler’s Future – An Outline of the Next Seven Centuries of Western History, as suggested by Comparison with the Life Cycles of Four Other Civilizations (1993), 198 sidor.


May 25, 2009


It has in this Special Report been possible only to give a short overview of the important preparations by the Reagan administration in 1982 to win the Cold War.

In 1982, on October 28, Leonid Brezhnev accused the United States of a policy of “adventurism, rudeness, and undisguised egoism” that threatened “to push the world into the flames of nuclear war.” The Soviets clearly were feeling the heat. But it was to be Brezhnev’s last speech. He died on November 10, 1982.

Overall so far the NSDDs and the work of William Clark has not received enough attention. Hopefully in 2012 (the 30 year memory of the 1982 freedom work) both William Clark and the NSDDs will be in focus.

For more on President Ronald Reagan’s top adviser see The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand by Paul Kengor and Patricia Clark Doerner (2007).


May 24, 2009

East-West Economic Relations

In a memorandum in late November 1982 Clark distributed NSDD 66 signed by Ronald Reagan to key officials of the administration. It was in principle a declaration of economic war on the Soviet Union. In a summary of conclusions, which was added to the directive, is stated that representatives of the United States, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom had in conversations reached the following conclusions:

“1. They recognize the necessity of conducting their relations with the USSR and Eastern Europe on the basis of a global and comprehensive policy designed to serve their common fundamental security interests. They are particularly conscious of the need that action in the economic field be consistent with that global and comprehensive policy and thus be based on a common approach. They are resolved together to take the necessary steps to remove differences and to ensure that future decisions by their governments on these issues are taken on the basis of an analysis of the East-West relationship as a whole, with due regard for their respective interests and in a spirit of mutual trust and confidence.

2. The following criteria should govern the economic dealings of their countries with the Soviet Union and East European countries:

–That they will not undertake trade agreements, or take steps, which contribute to the military or strategic advantage and capabilities of the USSR.

– That it is not in their interest to subsidize the Soviet economy; trade should be conducted in a prudent manner without preferential treatment.


3. As an immediate decision and following decisions already made, they have further agreed on the following:

(a) Building on the conclusions of the High-Level Meeting, they will work together within the framework of the Coordinating Committee (COCOM) to protect their contemporary security interests: the list of strategic items will be evaluated and, if necessary, adjusted. This objective will be pursued at the COCOM Review now under way. They will take the necessary measures to strengthen the effectiveness and responsiveness of COCOM and to enhance their national mechanism as necessary to enforce COCOM decisions.

(b) They have informed each other that during the course of the study on energy requirements, they will not sign, or approve the signing by their companies of, new contracts with the Soviet Union for the purchase of natural gas.” (Memorandum by William P. Clark, November 29, 1982 with attachment).


May 23, 2009

The global civil war is continuing. The international terrorists do not rest. It does not matter what American administration is in power.

For the latest views of leaders on Western defense see below:

President Obama spoke about national security at the National Archives: “After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era — that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out… I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people.

Former Vice President Cheney spoke at the American Enterprise Institute: “When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history… For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.”


May 23, 2009

The Westminster Speech

The speech by President Reagan to the British Parliament in 1982, the Westminster Address, was a call for “liberation” from communism. By providing an outline for the future of democracy he challenged the idea the communism was the idea of the future. President Reagan helped rally the West at a crucial moment in history. He described a plan and a hope for the long term “a march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.”

A long struggle against communism was promised but in reality it lasted only a decade. Mr. Reagan never doubted victory would come, but the collapse of Soviet communism came quicker because of the pressures on the Soviet Union applied by his administration.

It is important to note that in the Westminster Address the President used a phrase by Leon Trotsky. He had once dismissed the Menshevik party as being doomed to the ash-heap of history.

In 1982 it was impossible that other Western leaders would talk of the fall of the Soviet Union. The views presented in London were really revolutionary. It went against the whole Sovietological establishment.

The Reagan Doctrine was here for the first time outlined in the words “a democratic revolution is gathering new strength” around the world. It heralded American support of anti-communist guerrilla forces around the globe.

Attorney General Edwin Meese III has described the speech as a “kick-off” for the foreign policy efforts of the administration to reverse the expansion of communism. This and other events during 1982 make this a crucial year in preparing for victory over the Soviet system. In Mr. Meese’s words Soviet imperialism was morally unacceptable to President Reagan. But the views he expressed in London were not new. They were rooted in decades of thinking by Mr. Reagan, who in reality had spoken on this theme for 30 years. President Reagan provided the original idea of the speech and the final words, although the draft was written by speechwriter Mr. Tony Dolan.


May 22, 2009

One ought to be grateful to the University of Kentucky Press for publishing Dr. Steven Lambakis’ On the Edge of Earth – The Future of American Space Power (Lexington, 2001, 365 pages). It is one of the most important geopolitical books published in later years. The fact that it appeared just before September 11, 2001, does not lessen the importance of this work

America is fighting a global war against international terrorism in alliance with much of the civilized world. A war against one of the support regimes of this terrorism, Iraq, started in 2003. One can only hope that these wars do not halt the building of American space power. There are great geopolitical risks involved in attacks on American satellites and PRC has publicly several times declared that it is seeking antisatellite weapons. In addition it is fighting a cyberwar against the United States and the European Union.

Dr. Lambakis correctly points out that GPS satellites, for instance, are of great value to United States warfare capability. Harm to these satellites would lessen American military strength. Space is already militarized and what seems now inevitable is force projection from space. Satellites can by used for much besides communication. They are present over battle areas that are difficult to deny. They do so repeatedly and frequently, so that force application using them would have both a strategical and tactical effectiveness. The force can be applied anywhere rapidly, with minimal risks to U.S. forces, and at all levels of conflict. Satellites move at a speed of 25,000 mph, thus with the advantage of enjoying complete surprise.

So why not use the satellites? The next generation of bombers, in the eyes of many analysts, seems to offer planes that can fly at supersonic (Mach 1 to Mach 5) or hypersonic (Mach 5 to Mach 25) speeds. They would make the entire world reachable for attack from any point and completely reshape the geography of surface warfare. But developing these bombers would be costly, so why not do it from space?

The next step could be the space maneuver vehicle (SMV). It would be able to deliver lethal and nonlethal power while a suborbital space operations vehicle (SOV) would be capable of striking targets anywhere on Earth in less than sixty minutes. Such a vehicle could make it possible to facilitate lightning strikes against WMD storage and production facilities and associated platforms. There would also be a chance to wreak havoc against bases of terrorism. Additionally it is necessary to find solutions to the problem of defeating “hard and deeply buried targets”.

Speed-of-light, or directed energy, weapons also hold intriguing possibilities. Space-based interceptors are important as well. They may use kinetic energy or directed energy systems to destroy in-flight theater ballistic missiles soon after launch, like the space-based laser (SBL). Particle beam or high-power electromagnetic (HPM) weapons could be directed against other space or terrestrial objects to disrupt and destroy the target internally. HPM weapons may blow out, jam, spoof, and distrupt electronic equipment on earth or in space as well as disseminate disinformation.

Space-control capabilities include surveillance of space, a daunting task. Here sites outside the United States are important (in Mexico, Diego Garcia (British Indian Ocean Territories), Greenland, and the United Kingdom). It may also in the future become necessary to incapacitate satellites.

A problem in the 1990s was a U.S. Presidency and a Congress dominated by Democrats. There is a similar problem in 2009. A number of senators and congressmen made efforts to stop programs to develop weapons for space. With a Republican controlled Congress it was easier to fund projects for developing the weapons mentioned above. There are no legal restraints. No international agreements forbid defensive use of space weapons. The situation now is back to what it was in the 1990s

Dr. Lamakis excellent book indirectly clearly demonstrates how the European Union is lacking capabilities in the field of space weapons. Europe is indeed a military pygmy compared to the United States. That seems to be one of the reasons why anti-Americanism is on the rise. Seemingly pure envy. During the Cold War American administrations repeatedly urged European allies to spend more on defense. Instead many European countries have decreased military spending. The result is of course that the EU is not capable now of developing weapons for warfare after 2010. Meanwhile the recent increase in the American defense budget allows the United States to raise spending in research and development of hightech weapons.

In today’s geopolitical arena it might not be possible to deploy space weapons but toward the end of the decade the situation might be different. If regimes like the ones in Iran and North Korea are still existing then and have been allowed to continue to develop WMD the opinion might be changing both in the EU and in Japan. The PRC has openly declared that it seeks to hinder the United States to deploy weapons in space. It is also pouring billions into space capabilities of its own.

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld headed a commission that in the beginning of 2001 recommended that America strengthen its capabilities in space. Then came September 11 and much attention was diverted to the threat of asymmetric warfare. Meanwhile the European governments are sliding further behind in defense capability. The West will more and more have to rely on the United States.

There is much more in this book that is of great interest with important policy recommendations. It ought to be in every university library in the United States, Japan and the European Union..


May 22, 2009

Pipeline Sanctions

Vital to Soviet economy was the building of a pipeline for gas to Western Europe. The United States pressed for stopping the pipeline and had to accept a compromise at a meeting of the North Atlantic Congress (NAC). West European countries could continue to develop the pipeline but not step in and fill contracts the Americans had abandoned. This was a critical part victory, however, for the United States.

The Soviets believing deliveries to the project could be secured elsewhere had however overlooked one detail – the rotor shafts and blades driving the gas turbines in compressor station along the 3,300 mile long pipeline. These shafts and rotors were made by General Electric, which was now
stopped from delivering them. The Soviets managed to find a French
alternative and the company was willing to sell, in spite of the NAC treaty.

Economic Warfare Against the Soviets

Under Clark the NSC was by now undertaking studies exploring other ways to damage the Soviet economy. A grain cartel to limit exports to the USSR was one subject the NSC looked at.

The council produced a study to clearly determine the basic differences between the Reagan administration’s national security strategy as expressed in NSDD 32 and the strategy of the Carter administration.

A memorandum for Clark revealed that there were significant differences as to substance, scope, tone, and world view.

The first was that the Carter administration’s basic approach was one
of “competition and cooperation”. The “cooperative” element was a broadly based perspective ranging from ‘seek Soviet cooperation in resolving regional conflicts’ to ‘seek to involve the Soviet Union constructively in global activities such as economic, social developments, and peaceful non-strategic trade’ (PD-18 of the Carter administration). The strategic formula was detente. NSDD 32 instead concluded that “the Soviet policy of global expansionism backed by a dramatically strengthened military position challenges the strategic interests of the United States worldwide. From this basic perspective, our strategic approach toward the Soviet Union is one of realism. The formula seeks ‘to neutralize the efforts of the USSR to increase its influence’ and ‘to foster restraint in Soviet military spending, adventurism, and to weaken the Soviet alliance system”. The Soviet Union is to bear the brunt of its economic shortcomings’. The formula is not detente.” (FOIA Case No. NLS F96-069/1 # 4, Document Date October 5, 1982).

The second fundamental difference was “the degree of comprehensiveness of the two strategies.” (Ibid.) The Carter administration dealt almost exclusively with the military component. “NSDD-32 too acknowledges that the full articulation of a national strategy requires the development and integration of diplomatic information, economic/political, and military strategic components. NSDD-32 directs that these components be the subject of specific studies. Unlike the Carter administration documents, NSDD-32 establishes specific policies inter alia in the following areas: force development strategies and priorities; regional objectives, policies, and goals for Allies and friends; wartime objectives and priorities; force integration; mobilization; and security assistance. These examples are characteristic of the far broader scope of NSDD-32”. (Ibid.)

(To be continued)


May 21, 2009

This is the first blog in a series on how the Reagan administration in 1982 started to prepare for the fall of the Soviet Union which came about in 1991.


William P. Clark, a judge and rancher, a long time associate of President Ronald Reagan, was appointed Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs on January 4, 1982. Clark was to remain in the position until late 1983 and came to be a leading force in preparing for American cold war victory.

He aimed at a more coordinated national security strategy and in March of 1982 the president signed a national security decision directive (NSDD 32), that would transform U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union. It was proactive and broke with the past. Ronald Reagan made clear that he would not accept domination by Moscow of its satellites.

The principal objectives were a covert support of underground anticommunist movements behind the Iron Curtain. Psychological operations would be directed at the region with radio broadcasts of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe.

Furthermore the United States would use trade and diplomacy to loosen the grip of Moscow.

The Polish Crisis

The Polish crisis offered good opportunities to put the rules laid down in the directive to work. Martial law had been introduced in Poland in December of 1981. Polish General Woyciech Jaruzelski had taken over power supported by Moscow. In late January 1982 he in the Polish parliament he declared that martial law would continue. Over 4,000 opponents to the regime had been interned. But demonstrations continued as in Gdansk on January 31, 1982, and in February the regime had to arrest at least additional 3,000.

(To becontinued)