Archive for June, 2015


June 30, 2015

Washington Times on June 28, 2015, published a review by China expert Steven W. Mosher of a Chinese view of the grand strategy of the Asian great power. The publication of Liu Mingfu’s book “The China Dream” is revealing. There is no lack of grand ambitions for the Middle Kingdom to become the world’s leading nation. Excerpts below:

Those of us who are not inclined to hug the panda were not convinced by claims of “China’s peaceful rise”.. We knew that the Deng Xiaoping had ordered his successors to “bide their time and hide their capabilities.” We believed that China’s leaders had consciously gone into a kind of stealth mode so that they could advance militarily without alarming the United States and its allies. Better to let the sleeping eagle lie, they seemed to be saying, while China built up its strength.

With the publication of “The China Dream,” that debate is now over and done. The cuddly panda stands revealed as a fearsome dragon determined to remake the world order in its own image. Col. Liu, you see, makes it perfectly clear that the “dream” of China is to “dominate the world.” And in order to do so, he writes, China needs to revive its “warrior culture” and remember its history of “offensive warfare.” The world needs to wake up to the fact that, as the Col. Liu writes, the Chinese are “not afraid of war.”

Since the first appearance of his book in Chinese in 2010 the PLA colonel has achieved rock star status in the People’s Republic.

Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping — known as Big Daddy Xi to the Chinese masses — has referred to “The China Dream” in his speeches and endorsed its ideas.

As a result, the phrase itself has become a national patriotic slogan, plastered over the print media, splashed over the Internet, and celebrated in the schools and universities. There are even popular songs (promoted by the state, of course) about the goal of realizing the “strong China Dream” of China “Dreamers,” namely, world domination.

If China’s leaders are “dreaming” that it is China’s manifest destiny to dominate the world, then a lot of their recent actions make more sense. This sense of historical entitlement would explain why China, according to its latest defense white paper, is building several aircraft carriers to project power into the oceans of the world. It would explain why it is making absurd territorial claims to the South China Sea over a thousand miles distant from its shores. And it would explain its construction of militarized artificial islands in what is effectively open ocean.

Still, I would warn readers of the English edition — published by a New York offshoot of a Beijing publishing company — that they will still not be getting the unadulterated truth about China’s ambitions. The uber-patriotic stridency of the original Chinese seems to have been toned down somewhat to avoid alarming the Western reader.

Take the book’s subtitle, for example, which in the original Chinese read, “China’s Objective, the Road [to achieve it], and the Strength to Believe in Ourselves.” The cover also proclaims that “The Road [We Take] Will Determine Our Destiny; [Our] Dreams Help to Drive a Restoration [of National Glory].”

Still, enough of the pungency of the original survives to make it clear that China is in the game for keeps. “It has been China’s dream for a century to become the world’s leading nation,” writes Col. Liu.
Fifteen years ago, I wrote that China not only had a Grand Strategy, but that it was to be consummated in steps, with the PRC dominating first Asia and then the wider world.

• Steven W. Mosher is the author of “Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World” (Encounter Books, 2000).


June 26, 2015

Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty onJune 26, 2015, reported on the strategic location of the island of Gotland in the Baltic. Excerpts below:

With Russia interfering in Ukraine and challenging Europe with close approaches by fighter jets, warships, and submarines, the island 80 kilometers from the Swedish mainland has become a strategic location that is increasingly in the focus of defense planners. And a growing number of Gotlanders are joining the home guard: 56 last year, double the number in 2013.

“People are feeling that given the current situation, they should make a contribution,” says Lieutenant Colonel Hans Hakansson, the Swedish armed forces’ highest-ranking officer on Gotland. He commands a tiny force of 10, aided by home-guard soldiers like those exercising outside Visby, the island’s capital.

The home guard now has 454 members on Gotland, some 130 kilometers from Latvia and less than 200 kilometers from the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. Should an enemy land here, the part-time soldiers would protect strategic assets such as radar stations and weapons depots until professional units arrive from mainland Sweden.

The idea of Russian forces storming westward seemed all but unthinkable just a couple of years ago. But so was the notion that Russia might seize Crimea and back separatists in a conflict that has killed more than 6,100 people in eastern Ukraine since April 2014.

Those developments have reignited Cold War tension and rattled nerves across Europe — particularly in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which gained independence in 1991 after decades of Soviet occupation and are now NATO members.

Sweden is not in NATO. But some here say that Gotland could be seen in the mind’s eye of the Kremlin as a staging point for an operation in the Baltics.

“The most concrete scenario involving Gotland concerns the Baltic states,” says Hakansson, a career officer who commanded UN forces in Kosovo in the early 2000s. “There’s a Russian desire to recreate a protection zone of buffer states, and in order to prevent NATO assisting the Baltic states, the Russians would park themselves on Gotland.”

Gotland’s location gives the sparsely populated island of 57,255 an outsized strategic value for both NATO and Russia. If Russia attacked the Baltic states, it’s assumed that Sweden would let NATO use Gotland as a base from which to support a counterassault. Russia, the thinking goes, could occupy Gotland and deploy missile systems there to prevent NATO from aiding its Baltic allies.

“Or Russia could ‘borrow’ Gotland without invading the Baltic nations,” worries Karlis Neretnieks, a retired Swedish general and Cold War-era commander on Gotland. “By doing so, it can isolate the Baltic states without attacking NATO. And it wouldn’t be a costly operation. There would probably only be a few casualties on both sides and limited collateral damage.”

A force of 454 squaring off against an invader until reinforcements arrive?

When Hakansson arrived for his assignment here four years ago, the geopolitical situation was very different. “We did our thing, but it was very calm and quiet,” he recalls. “Since then there’s been a dramatic change in the threat scenario.”

More recent fears have been linked to a deal set in motion when Nord Stream, the Russian-German company of which state-controlled Russian energy giant Gazprom is the majority owner, made the Gotland county council a generous offer: Nord Stream would pay for the reconstruction of the harbor in Slite, on Gotland’s east coast, and use it while building its pipeline from Russia to Germany.

“The vote was very rushed, and those of us who expressed reservations were bullied,” says Solveig Artsman, at the time a member of the county council.

Artsman voted against the Nord Stream project, arguing that foreign companies shouldn’t know the design of strategically located Swedish harbors. She was joined by a scattering of other council members, including Rolf K. Nilsson, who was then also a member of parliament.

“I told the county council, ‘We’re becoming a pawn in Russia’s power game,’ but many people dismissed me as a cold warrior and Russophobe,” Nilsson says. He says he turned down repeated invitations from Nord Stream representatives to dine at upscale restaurants, and the energy company made large, legal donations to the local university and museum.

The contract was signed in 2008 by Gotland’s technical director and Nord Stream CEO Matthias Warnig, a former East German Stasi officer and acquaintance of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“When we made the decision I felt it was the right one,” says Lilian Edwards, the then-chair of the county council. “Now the world has changed and there’s a new threat scenario, relatively close to our island. If we were to decide on Slite harbor being rebuilt by Nord Stream today, I’d vote no.”

Lars Gronstedt, Nord Stream’s senior adviser in Sweden, says he doesn’t understand critics’ concerns about the firm’s involvement in Slite harbor. “It was extremely well placed, but the harbor was in a poor condition,” he says. No Russian in a senior position has been to Slite in connection with Nord Stream, he adds.

Today, the Slite port looks much like any other harbor. During a recent visit, several fishing boats were docked at the quay while residents lovingly cleaned another, and an imposing Swedish coast-guard vessel was the only sign of any potential security concerns.

The naked eye cannot see that Slite lacks blast chambers, a Cold War fixture that allows a country under attack to swiftly destroy a harbor should it fall into enemy hands — though Gronstedt says that nobody ever requested that Nord Stream build one.

“Gotland is a hub in the middle of the Baltic Sea,” Joakim Martell, a recently retired Swedish colonel now living on the island, says in an interview at the harbor. “And if somebody wanted to provoke their enemy without starting a world war, Gotland is a good place. But right now, you can sail into the port here and you’d only encounter a couple of police officers.”

Martell, who has served as a military adviser to the Swedish Defense Ministry and commanded UN and IFOR forces in the Bosnian city of Tuzla, says that Slite’s location on Gotland’s east coast makes it an attractive landing point — and that armed men disembarking would not even have to be soldiers.

He describes a chilling alternative: “A staged terrorist attack in Slite harbor that Sweden doesn’t manage to deal with, and then Russia steps in with civilian guards and solves it, thereby parking itself on Gotland.”
This hybrid-warfare scenario was, in fact, part of a major Swedish military exercise this spring.

Meanwhile, military snooping is on the increase, officials say.

Locals report a larger number of Russian tourists when a military exercise is afoot, as well as cars with Russian number plates parked close to strategic sites — such as the two signals-intelligence towers here on Gotland.

Swedish military sources tell RFE/RL that larger-than-normal numbers of military-grade maps are currently being bought. “There’s foreign intelligence gathering going on here, though it’s not something we quantify,” Hakansson says.

“But the people engaged in it have become much more brazen.”

But the armed-forces headquarters is calling on Hakansson’s part-time soldiers with increasing frequency, asking them to perform duties such as opening weapons depots and guarding naval ships 60 times last year — up from 30 in 2013.

During RFE/RL’s visit, they were conducting a shooting exercise, and while out with their families, they keep their eyes open for suspicious behavior by strangers.


June 24, 2015

Wall Street Journal on June 23, 2015, reported that military equipment will go to temporary bases in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. Excerpts below:

The U.S. is sending tanks, heavy artillery and other equipment to countries across the Baltics to bolster their security and deter Russia from attempting another incursion within the region, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in Eastonia.

The surge of equipment, including a total of 250 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and self-propelled howitzers along with 900 vehicles and other equipment, is the latest U.S. response to Moscow as Washington pushes the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to strike a more assertive profile in an increasingly jittery region.

The equipment is headed to temporary storage sites in six nations, including Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania, Mr. Carter said at a press briefing in a hotel here. He was flanked at the briefing by counterparts from three of the Baltic nations most anxious about Russian aggression: Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.

A day earlier, Mr. Carter announced a separate suite of U.S. military gear and weaponry for a new NATO rapid response force, and has emerged as a key agent of Washington’s response to Mr. Putin.

In announcing the pre-positioning of U.S. military gear throughout the region, Mr. Carter was fulfilling a plan that has been developed over the last several months. The equipment will be stored at a series of sites across those nations and hauled out by U.S. troops for a continuing series of exercises the U.S. and other nations have been conducting in the region.

“American rotational forces need to more quickly and easily participate in training and exercises in Europe,” Mr. Carter told reporters here Tuesday. “The significance of this is that it allow us to do more training, more exercises, and with more forces than we’d otherwise do.”

The equipment amounts to an American brigade’s worth of gear—no match for a Russian force should President Vladimir Putin opt to strike into a neighboring country again.

During a five-day, three-stop swing through Europe that includes Estonia, Germany and Belgium, Mr. Carter has made a point of saying that Mr. Putin’s belligerence in the region is returning Russia to the past. But in response, the U.S., the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and other allies must scrap the “Cold War playbook” and think anew about the array of security challenges posed by Moscow.

Mr. Putin last week announced that he would locate 40 intercontinental ballistic missiles in the region, adding to regional anxieties. It also has increased flights of nuclear-capable bombers.

“We’re talking about 250 armored vehicles, tanks, Bradleys and howitzers that would not fill up the parking lot of your average high school and they will be distributed in formations in several different countries,” said the official. “That’s the scale we’re talking about.”

The official noted that a typical Russian exercise can equate to tens of thousands of troops. “It’s useful to keep in mind the right context about who’s being provocative and who’s not,” the official said.

There are currently about 65,000 American service members permanently stationed in Europe, primarily in Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and Belgium. The Pentagon would primarily draw from forces already based in Europe to use the newly pre-positioned military gear.

Part of the idea of the plan is to save time and shipping costs for the Pentagon, which has had to move equipment for each exercise. But more critically, basing the equipment at the sites also helps demonstrate American resolve in the region to counter Russian aggression since Moscow annexed Crimea inside Ukraine last year.


June 18, 2015

Carl von Clausewitz (1780 – 1831) in 1812 drew up a plan for Prussian partisans in which all male citizens between 18 and 60 would be armed with muskets, scythes and pitchforks. The only uniform would be a padded hat and provincial insignia. They were to hinder French officials, capture detachments and attack convoys. This force was to conduct ambushes and lend support to the regular army.

In 1808 August von Gneisenau (1760 – 1831) had written that Prussia’s only hope lay in a national insurrection and three years later Scharnhorst submitted a plan to the Prussian king which recommended guerrilla resistance.

By definition partisan or guerrilla resistance is supposed to be spontaneous. So the creation of the Landsturm in Prussia was unique. It was a guerrilla resistance enacted by law from above. The law of 21 April 1813, called for all able-bodied men between the age of 18 and 60, who were not already in the army or the Landwehr, to join the Landsturm. No uniforms were to be used, to avoid recognition by the enemy. When the French approached inhabitants in that area the guerrillas were to abandon their villages and organize under already by the king nominated officers. From the woods they would then harass the enemy. As they retreated they were to take away corn and food, burn mills, bridges and boats and fill the wells.

But in reality the Landsturm was not effective because the ruling elite feared a popular struggle which could give the partisans ideas of rising against their Prussian masters. The operations of the Prussian guerrilla were thus hampered by many qualifications and regulations. The partisans were to be under command of the provincial and local authorities.

Gatherings of local units were to be sanctioned by army or corps commanders. Any assembly without authority of the Landsturm was to be regarded as mutiny. The result was that the defensive guerrilla war only lasted three months and was ineffective. It was a people’s war without the people.

In 1813 the German liberation war against the French occupation started. From June to August 1813, when there was an armistice. Both sides started rebuilding their armies. It was now Austria joined the coalition against Napoleon. 300,000 troops were deployed in Bohemia and northern Italy. The alliance now had 800,000 frontline troops in Germany.

Napoleon brought his forces up to around 650,000. After the end of the armistice the French suffered several defeats in the north at Grossbeeren, Katzbach and Dennewitz. Afterwards Napoleon He withdrew around 175,000 troops to Leipzig. Here the so-called Battle of Nations (16–19 October 1813) took place, a defeat for Napoleon.

The emperor later pulled his forces back into France. The Allies offered peace terms in the Frankfurt proposals in November 1813. Napoleon would remain as Emperor of France, but it would be reduced to its “natural frontiers.” He waited too long and no agreement was made.

During the last months of 1813 and into 1814 Wellington with the Peninsular army in Spain invaded France from the south. Wellington was victorious in a number of battles.

In eastern France Napoleon fought a series of battles. He was steadily forced back and outnumbered. At theTreaty of Chaumont March 9, 1814 the Allies agreed to preserve the Coalition until Napoleon was ultimately defeated. A few days later, on 30 March 1814, Paris was taken.

Napoleon abdicated and the war ended soon after. As a result of the Treaty of Paris on May 30,1814 he victors exiled Napoleon to the island of Elba, and restored the Bourbon monarchy with Louis XVIII as king of France. At the Congress of Vienna (between September 1814 and June 1815) an new Europe was created. Germany had finally been liberated from French occupation.

In 1815 Napoleon had returned from Elba and collected a new army. He was defeated by the Allies at Waterloo in Belgium on June 18, 1815.

Great Britain on June 18, 2015 is celebrating the British victory over Napoleon 200 years ago. That would probably not have been done without the Germans.

As a gesture to the Germans the Massed Bands of British regiments will be joined by the Concert Band of the German Army at the celebrations in London. The German ambassador will take the salute.

“About 45% of the men with whom Wellington started the battle spoke German of one sort or another, and the proportion increased with every Prussian formation reaching the scene”, writes Brendan Simms in his book, The Longest Afternoon, the 400 Men who Decided the Battle of Waterloo.

“By the end, a clear majority of allied combatants were German, to that extent Waterloo was indeed a ‘German victory’.”

The course of the battle was changed at La Haye Sainte. It defended by soldiers of the King’s German Legion – established by George III who was also Elector of Hanover.

Despite the crucial role played by German troops at Waterloo, the German government has been concerned about French sensitivities.

200,000 soldiers took part in the battle of Waterloo, on 18 June 1815. An estimated 47,000 were killed, and 24,000 wounded.


June 15, 2015

In April 2015 the Council on Foreign Relations, New York, published a 54 page report on US grand strategy toward China (CFR Special Report No. 72). Excerpts below:


“China represents and will remain the most significant competitor to the United States for decades to come. As such, the need for a more coherent U.S. response to increasing Chinese power is long overdue,” write CFR Senior Fellow Robert D. Blackwill and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Associate Ashley J. Tellis in a new Council Special Report, Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China.

“Because the American effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally—Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.”

The authors argue that such a strategy is designed to limit the dangers that China’s geoeconomic and military power pose to U.S. national interests in Asia and globally, even as the United States and its allies maintain diplomatic and economic interactions with China.


Revitalize the U.S. economy

“Nothing would better promote the United States’ strategic future and grand strategy toward China than robust economic growth…This must be the first priority of the president and Congress.”

Strengthen the U.S. military

“Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget…

Create a technology-control regime

“Washington should pay increased attention to limiting China’s access to advanced weaponry and military critical technologies.”

Implement effective cyber policies

Washington should “impose costs on China that are in excess of the benefits it receives from its violations in cyberspace…increase U.S. offensive cyber capabilities . . . continue improving U.S. cyber defenses,” and “pass relevant legislation in Congress, such as the Cyber Information Security Protection Act.”

Reinforce Indo-Pacific partnerships

“The United States cannot defend its interests in Asia without support from its allies,” and “should build up the power-political capabilities of its friends and allies on China’s periphery.”


June 9, 2015

Fox News on June 8, 2015, reported that a raid last month by American commandos on the home of an ISIS leader in Syria turned up a trove of valuable information, reportedly including the role played by the leaders’ wives, who sometimes acted as couriers in delivering information. Excerpts below:

Fox News has confirmed that laptops, computers and sim cards were recovered during the May 16, 2015, raid on the home of Abu Sayaaf. His wife, who was captured in the operation, is reportedly providing valuable information and is being interrogated by the Iraqis.

The trove also yielded important information on ISIS financing, contact networks and tactics.

According to the New York Times, information collected during the raid also shows how ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi stealthily conducts his business.


June 5, 2015

Soviet disinformation and active measures continued during what was called the era of glasnost in the 1980s. Soviet communist party officials described “the main enemy” (United States) as:

a country where freedom is suppressed, where violence flourishes, where trade unions are persecuted…and where the basic rights of the individual are hampered;…

The author of these words in the propaganda pamphlet, On the Edge of the Abyss (1985), was Aleksandr Yakovlev, head of the Central Committee Propaganda Department of the CPSU. Yakovlev further wrote that:

there was no alternative to détente…the Soviet Union stands for equal relations and mutually profitable cooperation, for a peaceful solution of all problems and disputes, for the free choice of all peoples on earth of a way of life to their liking…

It sounded very reasonable but was of course a big lie. In Russian there are two contrasting words for “lie”:” lozh”, which is a deliberate attempt to mislead, and “vranyo”, which is a falsehood both to speaker and listener. The listener, however, is expected to be too polite to denounce the falsehood openly.

The Helsinki Final Act on August 1, 1975, was not worth much more than the paper it was written on because the Soviets had no intention to observe human rights.

In the present New Cold War the Russian government is very much using the active measure methods from the 1980s. Agents of influence on behalf of Kremlin are at work especially in Europe. They are highly sought after by Russian media: TV, radio and on the internet. In this series of contributions a few Swedish cases have been presented but similar individuals can be found all over mostly Western Europe. In Eastern Europe the situation is different.

Both authorities and common people remember the “bad old times” during the Soviet occupation. In those countries primarily threatened by Russian aggression as for instance Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland measures are already taken to counter propaganda by Russian media.

One can only hope that the United States and the European Union will increase countermeasures against Russia’s war of disinformation, which has steadily increased since the illegal occupation of Crimea in 2014.


June 4, 2015

During the Cold War Swedish PM Olof Palme was a man to watch. He was leading something called the Disarmament Commission. This commission was heavily influenced by the Socialist International and Palme in this role clearly indicated pro-Soviet leanings. It seems as if the Swedish PM believed that Socialist politicians in Western Europe ought to cultivate ties with politicians in the Soviet occupied part of Europe and with Soviet CPSU politicians.

In May 1980 Palme visited Moscow and held talks with Soviet heavyweights Boris Ponomarev and his deputy, Vadim Zahgladin. According to Palme Ponomarev expressed “very positive interest” in the Disarmament Commission.

Why was the commission so very advantageous to the Soviets? Palme worked hard for the Soviet idea of a nuclear-free zone in Europe and the ultimate objective was, in his view, to make the whole of Western Europe free of nuclear weapons.

That meant at the time to freeze the imbalance of military forces in Europe. That was something that could only be an advantage to Moscow.

Rumors had it during the Cold War that Palme’s role as a UN mediator between Iraq and Iran was important to the Socialist International, at the time dominated by the more extreme faction of the international.

The goal would be to persuade Iran to join a “zone of détente and neutralism” which could include Austria, Sweden, Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey and West Germany. It would be a combination of European industrialized nations and oil-producing nations in the Middle East.

The main supporters at the time of this idea were such social democratic leader in Europe as Bruno Kreisky and Egon Bahr along, of course, with the Swedish PM. Other supporters of the idea were social democrats Kalevi Sorsa of Finland and Denmark’s Anker Jorgensen. Sorsa headed a study group on disarmament for the Socialist International.

There were other Swedish leftist social democrats than Palme who actively resisted the foreign policy of the administration of President Ronald Reagan. The international secretary of the Swedish social democrats, Pierre Schori, travelled to Central America. He returned to Sweden critical of American policy in that region and giving full support to the revolutionaries that ravaged tiny El Salvador. Schori became a spokesman within the international for extremist revolution in El Salvador. The Swedish secretary general of the international, Bernt Carlsson, also supported revolution in Central America.


June 3, 2015

In the European anti-nuclear weapons campaign Swedish organizations were in the forefront. They were encouraged by the Soviet and sometimes aided with financing. One of the aspects was the collection of signatures against nuclear weapons including peace marches and demonstrations. These activities were given wide coverage in Soviet media.

The leading Swedish organizations cheered on by Moscow were:

Folkkampanjen (People’s Campaign)
Svenska freds- och skiljedomsfoereningen (Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society)
Svenska Fredskommitten (Swedish Peace Committee, member organization of the Soviet directed World Peace Council)
Svenska kvinnors vaensterfoerbund (Swedish Women’s Leftist Union, a communist organization)
Internationella kvinnoförbundet för fred och frihet (International Women’s Union for Peace and Freedom)
Kvinnokamp foer fred (Women’s Struggle for Peace)
Kristna fredsroerelsen (Christian Peace Movement).

A leading woman and Swedish social democratic politician (MP) was Maj-Britt Theorin. During the Cold War she was a leading anti-American campaigner and is now closely linked to Jan Oberg’s pro-Russian TFF in Lund in southern Sweden along with a former leader of the Swedish Communist Party, Mrs Gudrun Schyman, who is presently leading the Feminist Party of Sweden.


June 2, 2015

During the Cold War the Soviets made a heavy effort to detach Denmark and Norway from NATO. The disinformation campaign started with strong KGB effort.

In December of 1980 a member of the Norwegian government, Sissel Roenbeck, received a copy of a letter. It was supposedly from the US Secretary of State, Edmund Muskie, and addressed to the American ambassador in Oslo. The letter contained directives on American policy towards Scandinavia all made up by KGB:

– exert pressure on the Norwegian government to change its policy of opposing permanent basing of nuclear weapons on Norwegian soil

– oppose efforts to establish a nuclear-free zone in northern Europe

It was delivered just before the Norwegian foreign minister was to go to Moscow for official talks. Soon afterwards Norwegian linguistics experts found faults in the letter showing it was translated into English from a Russian original.

In February of 1981 Danish newspapers and politicians received mysterious packets posted in Birmingham, England, with a book titled Top Secret Documents on US Forces’ Headquarters in Europe: Holocaust Again for Europe. This book contained 108 pages of Soviet inspired fairy-tales purporting to describe the operational plans for US forces in Europe. The foreword was an appeal to European “peace forces” to whip up protests against the US military presence in Europe.

Furthermore there was a list of alleged US nuclear bomb targets in Europe including several areas in Denmark and the Danish island of Bornholm (which had incidentally been occupied by Soviet troops in the aftermath of World War 2.

The book served its purpose. There was an extensive (but unserious) debate in Danish media.

After the 2014 Russian occupation of Crimea a leading center of Kremlin disinformation seems to be in the small university town Lund of southern Sweden. Here an old-time peace researcher from the days of the Cold War, Jan Oberg (b. 1951) continues his trade. He and his wife have a Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF). Oberg appears frequently on Russian propaganda TV channels with outbursts of anti-Americanisms.