Archive for the ‘GLOBAL CIVIL WAR’ Category

2018 IRANIAN UPRISING MEETING IN NEW YORK

September 26, 2018

Fox News on September 23, 2018, reported on comments by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani ahead of the 2018 Iranian Uprising Summit in New York. Presiden Donald Trump’s lawyer called for support for the Iranian resistance movement MEK. Excerpts below:

Giuliani advocated that a “peaceful” overthrow of the current Iranian vanguard is the only solution for a prosperous nation and stable Middle East.

…a fall, he said, could come at any moment.

“Who would have known the timeline in Russia or the timeline in Poland or the timeline in Hungary. When it happens it happens. We generally see a very repressive, very militaristic regime and think it can’t be overthrown. We don’t realize as people’s desire for freedom reaches a boiling point it can overcome that,” he continued. “Then it just happens. That’s what is going to happen here. We are going to wake up one morning and someone has been overthrown. It may not happen tomorrow, but it is inevitable the way they are oppressing people.”

“It is terrible that they have to be pressured this way…President Trump shows the world the road that President Reagan took in terms of communism. When he embraced solidarity, he said this protest movement is because these people are being oppressed. They are being treated horribly and because Iran is investing money in terrorism and not the people. That’s why the people are starving.”

Anti-government protests have been spilling out across Iran since January, of which Trump has tweeted support for those taking to the streets. And since withdrawing from the deal with Tehran, the president has stated he would be willing to “re-negotiate” what he deemed to be one of the worst deals ever formulated by Western leadership.

So what would such a new deal look like?

“There is no doubt what a re-negotiated deal would mean, and that is complete and absolute denuclearization of Iran and a change in which it supports terrorism throughout the world,” Giuliani conjectured. “Because they are an existential danger to us and to Israel and we can’t accept that. Those two things would be critical.”

“In other words, if they promised to de-nuclearize and they promised not to threaten the U.S. and Israel, [and] our allies, but they remained the kind of militaristic religious fanatic that kills people they aren’t going to keep their promise,” Giuliani noted.

“We call on the United States to expel the Iranian regime’s operatives from America. We urge Western governments to shut down or restrict the regime’s embassies, which are control centers for espionage and terrorism; and to expel this regime’s criminal forces from Syria and Iraq,” the [MEK’s] Paris-based female leader, Maryam Rajavi, told the thousand-plus crowd via video feed. “Iran’s seat at the United Nations does not belong to the terrorist regime ruling it. That seat belongs to the Iranian people and Resistance.”

“Of the last ten years that I have been involved with them [MEK] and I come to this event every year,” he added. “This is the first time I see hope that there can be real change in Iran.”

Comment: Iran has since ancient Greece been a challenger to the West. After it was taken over by a theocratic regime during the Cold War. It was a major strategic defeat for the United States and the West. Iran has since then developed into a major power in Eurasia and is projecting geopolitical power into Caucasus, the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia.

Iran is working closely to Russia, another Eurasian challenger to the West.

President Trump’s speech to the United Nation General Assembly on September 25, 2018 targeted the Islamisat regime in Tehran: “They do not respect their neighbors or their borders or the sovereign rights of nations. Instead, Iran’s leaders plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond”

“We cannot allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to possess the planet’s most dangerous weapons. We cannot allow a regime that chants death to America and that threatens Israel with annihilation,” Trump said.

The United States is presently using the economic weapon against Iran much in the same way as against the Soviet Union during the Reagan administration. There are now clear signs that the regime in Tehran has weakened. A hopefully ”peaceful” overthrow is possible. It is important that the leading European allies of the United States join the sanctions against Iran.

Advertisements

UNITED STATES NEEDS A RELIABLE SPACE-BASED BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

September 24, 2018

Washington Times on September 19, 2018, published a commentary by Henry F. Cooper, who was the U.S. ambassador to the Defense and Space Talks during the Reagan administration and director of the Strategic Defense Initiative during the George H.W. Bush administration and Rowland H. Worrell, a retired Air Force colonel, who was Brilliant Pebbles Task Force director, National Test Facility director and USAF Space Warfare Center vice commander. They call for a cost-effective ballistic missile defense (BMD). Excerpts below:

…the United States needs a credible, practical, cost-effective ballistic missile defense (BMD). A space-based interceptor (SBI) system would best achieve this objective,…

The Pentagon’s top engineer Michael Griffin says he doesn’t understand why, since 1,000 SBIs would cost less than $20 billion — for a global defense capability.

SDI proved otherwise before Brilliant Pebbles (BP) was scuttled in 1993 for political reasons, even though it promised more than 90 percent probability of killing all of up to 200 attacking re-entry vehicles — the number then controlled by a Russian submarine commander. Its fully validated cost estimate was $10 billion in 1988 dollars (about $20 billion in 2018 dollars) for concept definition and validation, development, deployment and 20 years operation of 1,000 Brilliant Pebbles — consistent with Mr. Griffin’s assertion.

BP was designed to intercept ballistic missiles in their boost phase while their rockets still burn, before they can release their decoys and other countermeasures — and throughout their flight, including when re-entering the atmosphere. That’s better than anything we have today and could have been built for much less than we have spent on all basing modes other than in space.

USAF Lt. Gen. George Monahan, the second SDI director, led 1989-90 reviews enabling BP to become the first SDI system formally approved by the Pentagon’s acquisition authorities for concept definition and validation. In 1989, Roland Worrell, the BP Task Force program manager, shepherded BP through those technical and costing reviews.

General James A. Abrahamson’s 1989 end-of-tour report endorsed LNLL’s BP model as key to an effective, affordable SBI architecture. He concluded that ”This concept should be tested within the next two years and, if aggressively pursued, could be ready for initial deployment within 5 years.” [General Abrahamson was SDI Director from 1984 to 1989].

[In] 1991, Assistant Secretary of Defense Steve Hadley and Henry Cooper briefed the press that BP was expected to cost $10 billion in 1988 dollars, including 20 years operations — about $20 billion today — as estimated by Mike Griffins.

Comment: Since the beginning of the 1990s there has been little progress on what has been termed limited ballistic missile defense. It was not until December 2016 Congress at last scrapped the 1999 Missile Defense Act language and removed the modifier “limited” from the missile defense mandate. Thus the door was opened to building missile defenses intended to defend not only against the anticipated limited missile capabilities of North Korea and Iran, but those of the peer and near-peer forces of Russia and China. Congress also called for a beginning of research and development, and to test and evaluate space-based missile defense programs.

Congress is in 2018 intensifying the push for the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to focus money and near-term efforts to create a space-based sensor architecture and intercept layer for ballistic missile defense — all this after the agency came out with a fiscal 2019 budget request almost virtually absent of plans and programs to move ahead on such capabilities.

A space-based sensor layer’s persistent vantage point would provide hostile missile tracking all the way from the missile b0ost phase. Missile defense experts believe a space-based missile defense architecture would dramatically improve the lethality of both homeland and regional missile defense, especially against emerging threats.

In the Fiscal Year 2019 national defense authorization conference report, lawmakers wanted to see a more concerted effort from the MDA to make space-based missile defense a reality by authorizing additional funds and development during 2019.

The Senate bill required the MDA to begin development of the architecture unless the Missile Defense Review stated otherwise. The review is expected to be unveiled in the fall of 2018. The Senate’s version also required the defense secretary to submit a report on progress and coordination of efforts on such a capability among MDA, the Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The growing ballistic missile threat of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea to the United States calls for a space based ballistic missile defense. At 20 billion US dollars (as suggested by Cooper and Worrell in the Washington Times article) a space based interceptor system seems to be a financially sound solution.

US AND ALLIES COUNTERING CHINA IN THE PACIFIC

September 13, 2018

Taipei Times (Taiwan) on August 30, 2018 published an article of Reuters on the growing challenge of China to the West in the Pacific area. Concessionary loans and gifts by China are closely watched. For excerpts see below:

The US, Australia, France and Britain plan to open new embassies in the Pacific, boost staffing levels and engage with leaders of island nations more often in a bid to counter China’s rising influence in the region, sources have said.

The battle for influence in the Pacific matters because each of the tiny island states has a vote at international forums such as the UN and they also control vast swathes of resource-rich ocean.

…Australia, New Zealand and the US have said they would increase economic aid and expand their diplomatic presence to countries in the region….

[A] US official said Washington needed to have adequate representation in the Pacific countries to let their governments know what options were open to them.

The US government source said the US would boost diplomatic staffing numbers in Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and potentially Fiji within the next two years.

The Australian government is expected to name its first High Commissioner to Tuvalu within weeks, rushing to fill a post Canberra decided upon establishing only several months ago, said a government source who declined to be identified as he is not authorized to talk to the media.

Britain would open new High Commissions in Vanuatu, Tonga and Samoa by the end of May next year, while French President Emmanuel Macron is seeking to organize a meeting of Pacific leaders early next year, diplomatic and government sources have said.

Comment: This development is welcome. Since 2017 there is greater focus in the West on the China challenge.This is not only in the economic and financial fields.The United States is reacting to China’s long time economic aggression. In June 2018 a 65-page report (”How China’s Economic Aggression Threatens the Technologies and Intellectual Property of the United States and the World”) on the techniques used by China was published in Washington.

The report is breaking down the Chinese government’s economic aggression into five broad categories, including protecting its home market for domestic producers, securing control of natural resources, and seeking dominance of leading-edge high-tech industries. There is also a list of more than 50 types of policies used by China — from cybertheft of intellectual property to blocking foreign access to key raw materials it controls — used to meet those objectives.

A further threat to the United States and Allies is the growing Chinese aircraft carrier force that is of vital interest to Beijing in its quest for regional dominance. This is only a first step in the search for global control. The present target is the Western Pacific. With growing influence there are more distant goals as the East and South Pacific and even the Mediterranean.

CHINA’S ECONOMIC AGGRESSION

August 5, 2018

China is a leading revisionist power wanting to take over and dominate technology industries of the future: artificial intelligence, robotics, high-tech shipping, aerospace and more.

Included in the China 2025 strategy is stealing from the United States and other Western countries.

Technology transfer is systematically used by the Chinese. Western and mainly American companies who want to produce and sell in China have to turn over technology to the buyers.

China is evading export controls. Since the Tiananmen square massacre in 1989 US prevents the Chinese from buying sensitive military equipment. They use very complex operations to avoid the controls.

There are large trade deficits. Big state backed Chinese funds are buying technology in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in the United States.

For decades nothing has happened until the Trump administration brought it up with the Chinese and demanded changes.

US introduced tariffs on high technology industries and China has retaliated. The present tariffs are 25 percent on 50 billion US dollars of Chinese exports.

China is now planning to dump cheap robotics tech into US markets. These types of actions has been going on since China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). In 2001.

Bill Clinton started the Chinese on the path they presently are on by letting China into the WTO. He represented the globalist idea that it would be possible to change Chinese society and open it up by bringing it into the international trade system.

As a result the United States has during 17 years lost 70,000 factories and 5 million manufacturing jobs.

In contrast the US wants free and fair trade but not ”a fool’s trade”.

Presently American trade deficits with Europe are 150 billion dollars and with China more than double the amount, 376 billion US dollars.

American Policy Advisor Michael Pillsbury has in his book ”The Hundred-Year Marathon – China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower” (2015) described how the United States played an indispensable role in creating China’s booming economy. It was in the mistaken belief that the rise of China would bring cooperation and free trade.

According to Pillsbury the goal of China is to succeed by 2049, onehundred years ofter the Communist takeover in 1949. The Chinese regard America and its leaders as barbarians who will be the architects of their own demise. Along with other books the work of Pillsbury is an eye-opener.

Pillsbury points to the book by Colonel Liu Mingfu, “The China Dream” (2010) as an important inspiration for Xi Jinping’s increasingly totalitarian policies. The author clearly states that China wants to dominate the world.

Using classical Chinese strategy the leadership in Beijing is preparing so called ”assassin’s maze” weapons to destroy American satellites and target US aircraft carriers.

There has been World Bank assistance to China but no demands for Beijing introducing free market reforms. The Chinese government is still controlling most of China’s larger industries.

Pillsbury presents evidence from secret briefings that China is actively working to promote the decline of the United States. One method is sales of arms to America’s enemies.

Further Reading

”Death by China: Confronting the Dragon — A Global Call to Action” (2011) by Peter Navarro reveals the real China behind the mask. The Chinese Communist Party’s is aggressively building up China’s military and at the same time its economy while destroying jobs in America.

Peter Navarro has also directed the documentary ”Death By China: How America Lost Its Manufacturing Base”. The film is from 2013 and Peter Navarro is presently leading the White House National Trade Council. There are a number of interviews with experts, officials and businessmen in the documentary. One expert warns that America does not have free trade with China. Instead it is a ”rigged trade” that benefits China and harms both American and Chinese citizens. During the five years that has passed since the production of the film the problem has become more acute. Trade deficits have been growing and more jobs have been shipped from the United States to China.

A key tool of the regime in Beijing is currency manipulation. China pegs its currency at a low level against the American dollar. In reality that is the equivalent of a 40 percent tariff on American sales in China and a similar subsidy for Chines goods sold in America.

The film has been a great success and one of the most popular documentary films on Netflix for many years. It has also been made available for free on YouTube.

PROTECTING A FREE AND OPEN INDO-PACIFIC REGION

August 2, 2018

National Interest on July 31, 2018, published an article on US policy in the Indo-Pacific region. According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo free and open means all nations will be able to protect their sovereignty from coercion and enjoy open access to seas and airways. Excerpts below:

Mike Pompeo [recently] announced a $25 million initial investment for a digital connectivity and cyber-security partnership to help develop internet infrastructure in the region.

Financially, that’s small potatoes compared to China’s massive Belt and Road Initiative. But China’s program focuses on linking Indo-Pacific countries to China. The U.S. program is about opening the Indo-Pacific to the world.

But perhaps the most important thing about Pompeo’s regional diplomatic offensive is its focus on promoting private-sector investment. China’s investments in the region are state-led and state-run. That means there are lots of diplomatic strings attached, as everyone in the region understands.

There’s only one country that wants to close the Indo-Pacific, and that’s China. It won’t succeed anytime soon, but China’s closure strategy has been successful in at least important patch at the heart of the region, the South China Sea. By militarizing the waters at the very center of the Indo-Pacific, China has thrown down a gauntlet in front of all of its maritime neighbors. China knows that its neighbors are too weak to actively resist, even if they have no interest in joining China.

The U.S. Navy regularly runs freedom of navigation operations(FonOps) in the South China Sea to remind the world that China does not own the global commons.

Those U.S. ships and planes need a stable base from which to operate and—in an emergency—at which to find refuge….The Navy and Air Force both need a safe harbor in the backyard of the Indo-Pacific, and they seem to have found it in Australia’s northern outpost of Darwin.

On May 30, the storied U.S. Pacific Command was officially renamed the Indo-Pacific Command…Pompeo defined the Indo-Pacific as a region stretching “from the United States west coast to the west coast of India.” Over at the Department of Defense, that just happens to be the exact territory covered by USINDOPACOM.

Though USINDOPACOM is headquartered in Hawaii and is responsible for major U.S. deployments in Japan and South Korea, the two maritime cornerstones of American power in the Indo-Pacific are Guam on the right and Diego Garcia on the left. Now Darwin, the capital of Australia’s Northern Territory, is falling into place as the keystone at the center of the arch.

The American arch around the South China Sea is a defensive posture. China’s military buildup, like its Belt and Road Initiative, is fundamentally about offense.

As Pompeo stressed in Washington, “where America goes, we seek partnership, not domination.” In eastern Europe, NATO has a program it calls the Partnership for Peace . [The American] Indo-Pacific initiative could become a civilian equivalent in Asia.

The United States has had an open-door policy in Asia for more than one hundred years. It has always been based on business first, and force only as a last resort. Pompeo’s Indo-Pacific initiative fits squarely in that time-honored tradition. The architecture of a free and open Indo-Pacific may be supported by the military arch, but its upper stories will be built by private enterprise, and its doors will be open to everyone—including China.

Comment: From a geopolitical standpoint the American initiative is welcome. There are now three cornerstones in the Indo-Pacific Partnership of Peace: Diego Garcia, Darwin and Guam.

It may be time to think about the Southeast Pacific where Chile’s rapid economic growth and stable politics has shifted trade and strategic orientation to the Asia-Pacific away from the Southern Cone of South America.

The geopolitical significance of the South Pacific is increasing.

Easter Island, known locally as Rapa Nui, is situated more than 3,218 kilometers (2,000 miles) west of mainland Chile. Its control from the mainland is possible through a substantial military presence in capital Hanga Roa.

Chile annexed Easter Island in 1888. After the constitutional reforms of 2007, it extended Special Status. The islands are mainly inhabited by Polynesians, who at times call for self-determination within the Pacific Islands Forum.

Another Chilean island possession is the Juan Fernández Islands, are populated predominantly from mainland Chile.

Chile has a long coast and its maritime geography includes 6,435 km of coastline, 4,300 km on the mainland and the remainder distributed along Chile’s Antarctic and Pacific Island territories.

The maritime territory, including its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, covers more than 4.5 million square kilometers.

Chile aspires to have expeditionary capabilities similar to those of other South Pacific maritime powers such as Australia. The maritime expansion in the Southeast Pacific should be welcomed by other regional maritime powers, such as Australia.

It is quite possible that Chile in the future could have to decide if it wants to join the Pacific Partnership of Peace. This would lead to greater cooperation with the United States and Australia.

ON THE REASON FOR WHY THIS BLOG IS NAMED ‘THE GLOBAL CIVIL WAR’

July 15, 2018

This contribution was published over five years ago. It is now republished to remind readers why the blog was named “Global Civil War”.

Alternative terms: “world civil war” or “global insurgency”

One possible definition could be that the concept is used to describe simultaneous civil conflict happening at many locations with little regard for national boundaries.

There is no comprehensive definition of a civil war. A simple definition is that it is a violent conflict in which organized groups within a country fight against each other for political control or to change government policy (The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, 2008).

The best discussion on civil war is Professor Reinhart Kosseleck’s and others article “Revolution, Rebellion, Aufruhr, Buergerkrieg” in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, Vol. 5 (1984).

Seemingly global civil war is a contradiction in terms. A civil war must be within a society, because societies are associated with the nation. Thus a civil war should not be global. A global war is normally seen as international. But after 2001 things are different.

Oswald Spengler (1880 – 1936)

This German civilizationist and historian used the term world civil war to explain the fall of the Roman Empire, based on the role of Germanic tribes both within and outside Roman territory.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (1917 – 2007)

This American historian associated world civil war with the promotion of numerous Marxist and Marxist-Leninist anti-colonialist groups often supported by the Soviet Union, a phenomenon the United States and the rest of the West opposed.

Sharad Joshi (1935 – )

This Indian economist and politician after September 11 released an article, “Portends of a World Civil War”, in which he anticipated a possible world civil war different from the world-wide wars of the previous century. It could involve nations internally divided against each other:

It is difficult to say if the radical Seattle leaders contacted Osama Bin Laden or whether it was the other way round. It does not matter, in any case. They appear to work in tandem. The Third World War is unlikely to be a conflict between the US and Afghanistan on the issue of terrorism. It appears it will develop into a much larger conflagration involving most countries.

Buckminster Fuller (1895 – 1983)

This American futurologist discussed the concept of world civil war in Ideas & Integrities (1963).

Dr. Dmytro Dontsov (1883 – 1973)

This Ukrainian great political thinker and publicist-in-exile presented his view on the world civil war in an article published in 1973 (“The Era of Civil Wars and the West”).

Bertil Häggman (1940 – )

This Swedish attorney and author discussed the world civil war in an article in the Swedish publication Contra (in Swedish):

A civil war between revolution and counter revolution has raged since 1789. The civil war celebrated its bicentennial in 1989 and is still continuing. Already the year after the start of the war in Paris the first resistance emerged in England. But the war goes on.

In a revised version in English Häggman has further presented his views on the global civil war:

Introduction

The world civil war started when the kingdom was abolished in France and the prison of the Bastille was stormed on July 14, 1789. After some years of revolutionary rule in France a republic was introduced. The revolutionary Jacobin terror started in 1793 and lasted until 1795 with thousands being executed. Queen Marie Antoinette was among the executed. Royalists and counterrevolutionaries in western France and in many other areas rose in insurgency. The terror regime was lead by the so called Welfare Executive, headed by Maxmilien Robespierre. There was bloody repression against the counterrevolutionary insurgents. A totalitarian regime in France continued with Napoleon’s empire and its policy of conquest in Europe.

Burke and Revolution

Edmund Burke’s book Reflections on the Revolution in France was published in 1790. Burke was a member of the British parliament and warned that the French revolution could have disastrous effects also in England. The talk of human rights and freedom in France was early unmasked in the book. Instead according to Burke the revolution would end in total oppression and terror, which also was the case in 1793.

Edmund Burke before his death in 1797 described the global threat of the Jacobins in a number of letters (one of them was not published until 1812, Letters on a Regicide Peace, 1797). The great Irishman and English philosopher and politician (who was active in Great Britain) before his passing in 1797 the global threat of Jacobinism in a number of letters (one of them was not published posthumously in 1812; Letters on a Regicide Peace, 1797). The quotes underneath are from the brilliant Burke biography by Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke – A Genius Reconsidered (1967).

It was the duty of England to save Europe from the Jacobin danger. A war had to be carried on until the Jacobin danger stopped and Napoleon was defeated. A war to end in military victory had to be conducted, a long war. It also continued until 1815, long after the death of Edmund Burke:

In international law war was justified…They may be wrong and violent: but also they may be ‘the sole means of justice among nations’…Britain should wage war unrelentingly upon the Jacobins…they were bent on ruining the Christian commonwealth of Europe…Jacobinism was a general evil, not merely a local one; so what was being fought was a civil war, not a foreign war…Britain must strike at the heart of Jacobin power, in France. Should Jacobinism be allowed to retain the core of the European commonwealth, in time Jacobinism would triumph everywhere…It did not rely on numbers, but upon tight organization and fanatic belief.

The late American Paleoconservative Professor Russell Kirk in his brilliant biography of Edmund Burke (Edmund Burke -A Genius Reconsidered, 1967) described not only French despotism. Long after the English genius had died Communism and Nazism threatened the European continent and the world. Over 200 years ago it was described by the Irishborn MP:

By propaganda and terror, the masters of such a total state [will conquer]…Only intervention by a free nation, employing all its resources and faith with a force and spirit equal to that of the radical oligarchy, can work emancipation…

The Jacobin state had to be destroyed wrote this one of Conservatism’s most important thinkers, otherwise it would destroy all of Europe. We can still hear the voice of Burke across the centuries against abstract ideologies: Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Maoism, Anarchism and and Islamism.
The French revolution initiated a long line of socialist theories, which reached their “height” with the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848 for the first communist party. The main goal was violent revolution and restructuring of society. The communists, they wrote, do not hide their views and intentions. They openly declare that their goal will be reached through violent revolution of all existing societies.

Marx described the Paris commune (the rising in France’s capital 1871) as the first socialist state, which had, he claimed, been initiated by himself. The commune lasted 72 days and cost more than 20,000 lives. The same year Marx published the book The Civil War in France and claimed that the commune was a true dictatorship of the proletariat. In reality it was never socialist. The role of the socialists in the leadership was very limited.

The Model of the French Terror Regime

The Russian revolutionaries had Robespierre and the Jacobins as their models. It was in connection with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia that the mass murder of the European civil war was initiated. This has been described in detail in The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (in English 1999; in the chapter A State Against Its People: Violence, Repression and Terror in the Soviet Union).

After the taking of power of the Bolsheviks the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) initiated class extermination. The bourgeois was to be exterminated and the European civil war cost more lives. Already in the summer of 1918 European newspapers reported of the terrible crushing of a social class and already in 1921 the losses on the European civil war’s Russian front was reported to be 1, 6 million. Alexander Solzhenitsyn (The Gulag Archipelago, 1974) and Lev Kopelev (To Be Preserved Forever, 1977) have with great insight depicted mass slaughter in the Soviet Union until the death of Stalin in 1953. Karl Radek, who was the CPSU party representative in Germany, wrote in 1919 that the revolution does not debate with its enemies. It crushes them just like counterrevolution (The Development of Socialism from Science to Deed, in German).

German Nazism and Italian Fascism used bourgeois fear that class extermination in Russia would be the model for Germany and Italy if the communists took power. In Germany the Nazis copied the Russian communist technique for extermination of enemies, both political and so called “racial enemies” (Jews).

After a preparatory time in the 1930s a new phase of the European civil war started. Germany and Italy attacked in Europe. Gradually the so called Steel Pact was enlarged to the Anti-Comintern Pact including the Asian great power Japan. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the European civil war developed into a world civil war, which ended with allied victory over Germany, Japan and Italy in 1945.

The Cold War

After 1945 the “hot war” developed into a cold world civil war (Stefan T. Possony, A Century of Conflict – Communist Techniques of World Revolution 1848 – 1950, Chicago 1953). The Chinese communists took power on Mainland China in 1949 and a new era of class extermination was initiated. This phase of the world civil war is described in The Black Book of Communism (China A Long March into Darkness) and in Bertil Haggman’s book The Communist Holocaust (in Swedish 1982). The number of victims of Mao (exceeding those in the Soviet Union) have been estimated to be around 80 million in total.

The communist regime in Moscow collapsed in 1991 after the United States under President Ronald Reagan had changed American foreign policy from containment of the Soviet Union and communism to liberation of the peoples enslaved by Soviets in Eastern and Central Europe. A period of economic and political warfare was initiated in 1982-83 by the United States and led to freedom for a number of oppressed peoples.

The Cold War was a world-encompassing revolutionary attack on the West. The communists in Moscow and all over the world waged a total war to destroy the social structure of the enemy. The goal was to eliminate the leading classes in the West and distribute their property (especially to communists). There was no other goal in this phase of the world civil war named the Cold War. Subversion was the method. The use of military or non-military means was coincidental to circumstances and both legal and illegal methods were used to take power in the West.

The Continuing World Civil War

When France celebrated the 200th anniversary of the French revolution the French historian Francois Furet presented communism going back to the revolution in Paris (his book The Passing of an Illusion. The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century, in English 2000 and to be published in Swedish in 2010).

The author of this article is claiming that from 1789 to 1991 first a European civil war and then a world civil war has raged. It has continued after 1991 and especially from September 11, 2001 when radical Islam started war on the West in the spirit of the French revolution. A remaining threat is also the Chinese communist regime ruling over more than 1 billion people, and revolutionaries in West and East supporting continued struggle. This new phase of the world civil war is a great threat to the West. Radical Islam wants, in cooperation with evil and rogue states (like Iran and North Korea), to crush the West or at least weaken it. The risk now is that evil regimes cooperate with Muslim terrorists to transfer weapons of mass destruction (North Korea is believed to have 5,000 tons of biological and chemical weapons).

The terrorists are prepared to attack the United States (“the main enemy”) and other countries in the West to achieve a maximum number of victims. Since September 11, 2001, there is a new phase of the world civil war. The victims will in this century not be counted in the thousands, as during the French revolution. The new enemy of the West in the world civil war is planning millions of victims. The 21st century could become just as bloody as the 20th century, when Communists and Nazis made mass extermination the main element of the ongoing global civil war.

The caliphate in northern Syria has now been defeated but the global civil war is continuing. There are a large number of other Islamist terror groups that are prepared to strike at the West. As long as Iran is allowed to continue supporting Islamist terrorist groups in the Middle East the war continues.

MADAME NHU AND THE STRUGGLE FOR VIETNAM FREEDOM

May 31, 2018

One of the most recognized figures in the history of the Republic of Vietnam (Viet Nam Cong Hoa) was Tran Le Xuan, better known as Madame Nhu, the wife of Ngo Dinh Nhu, the brother of the first Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem and the unofficial “First Lady” of South Vietnam. Aside from her husband, Madame Nhu herself had quite an illustrious ancestry. Her mother was Than Trong Nam Tran who was a daughter of Princess Nhu Phien who was the youngest daughter of H.I.M. Dong Khanh, the ninth Emperor of the Nguyen Dynasty.

She married Ngo Dinh Nhu and converted to Christianity, becoming a Catholic and a very public face for the young South Vietnamese government. Her husband, Ngo Dinh Nhu ran the Can Lao political movement in support of the personalist regime of Diem. Madame Nhu was, in every respect, a fiery and committed woman, which both her friends and her many enemies could agree on. She played a leading role in the moral reform President Diem instituted in South Vietnam, closing down brothels, opium dens and gambling houses. She was at the front of imposing what was known as the “campaign for public morality” on South Vietnam, which included the abolition of divorce, contraceptives and abortion. Nightclubs and ball rooms were also often targets. Even beauty pageants were halted as Madame Nhu believed they simply contributed to the objectification of women. This campaign of decency, while admirable, was met with a great deal of hostility by those who did not share Madame Nhu’s view of ethics.

“The Dragon Lady” as she came to be called, was also a passionate anti-communist and was determined that women should play a leading role in defending their country from Communist infiltration. She formed a corps of women warriors and there is a famous photograph of her at their training ground, firing a .38 pistol for the first time. That event sums up a great deal of her character. Having never used a firearm before she was startled by the noise of the first shot. Laughing it off, she vowed that she would not flinch again and fired the remaining five rounds as though she were an expert. She also fostered a renewal of commemorations for the Trung Sisters, the heroic co-Queens of early Viet Nam who fought against Chinese occupation.

Madame Nhu was, like the rest of the Diem clan and most Vietnamese of her background, extremely devoted to her family. In her eyes, her husband was the heart of the Diem regime and could do no wrong. Commenting on the American effort to remove Ngo Dinh Nhu, she said that Diem refused because he knew that, as she said, “my husband could do without him, but he, he could not do without my husband”. She was also patriotic.

After being removed from power, Diem was assassinated along with his brother Nhu. Madame Nhu was, at that time, on a tour of the United States giving speeches in support of Vietnam’s war against Communism. When hearing of the event and the rumored involvement of the United States she said, “Whoever has the Americans as allies does not need enemies”. She went on to predict a dark future for her country, which was sadly to prove all too acurate. With Diem gone, the U.S. was firmly in control of the Vietnam conflict and Madame Nhu retired from public life to Italy.

Comment: The struggle for Vietnam freedom continues both outside and inside Vietnam. Madame Nhu was a patriotic leader of South Vietnam and should be more widely recognized as such.

NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, JAMES BURNHAM AND SINGAPORE

May 31, 2018

It has been said the Lee Quan Yew’s Singapore is a city state built on the principles of Niccoló Machiavelli’s political science formulas. Below is a look at the great Italian’s conception of history in the view of the American theorist James Burnham (1905 – 1987):

1

”Political life, according to Machiavelli, is never static, but in continual change. There is no way of avoiding this change…The process of change is repetitive, and roughly cyclical. That is to say , the pattern of change occurs again and again in history (so that studying the past, we learn also about the present and future); and this pattern comprises a more or less recognizable cycle.”

James Burnham, Machiavellians – The Defenders of Freedom, first ed. 1943., p. 70.

2

”The recurring pattern of change expresses the more or less permanent core of human nature as it functions politically. The instability of all governments and political forms follows in part from the limitless human appetite for power.”

(pp. 71-72)

3

”Machiavelli assign a major function in political affairs to what he calls ’Fortune’…From the passages it becomes clear what Machiavelli means by ’Fortune’. Fortune is all those causes of historical change that are beyond the deliberate, rational control of men.”

(pp. 72-73)

4

”Machiavelli believes that religion is essential to the well-being of a state. In discussing religion, as in discussing human nature, Machiavelli confines himself to political function”.

(p. 75)

”What kind of government did Machiavelli think best?…Machiavelli’s writings, taken in their
entirety, leave no doubt about the answer. Machiavelli thinks that the best kind of government is a republic, what he called a ’commonwealth’…If a republic is the best form government, it does not follow that a republic is possible at every moment and for all things.”

(pp 77-78)

5

As protectors of liberty, Machiavelli has no confidence in individual men as such; driven by unlimited ambition, deceiving even themselves, they are always corrupted by power. But individuals can, to some extent and for a while, be disciplined within the established framework of wise laws. [If liberty is to be preserved] no person and no magistrate may be permitted to be above the law.”

(p.79)

6

”Liberty, then – not rhetorical liberty of an impossible and misconceived utopia, but such concrete liberty as is, when they are fortunate, within the grasp of real men, with their real limitations – is the dominant ideal of Machiavelli, and his final norm of judgement. Tyranny is liberty’s opposite, and no man has been a clearer foe of tyranny. No man clearer, and few more eloquent.”

(p. 81)

LIBERATING UKRAINE: PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH, PRIME MINISTER YAROSLAV STETSKO SUPPORTED THE UKRAINIAN INSURGENT ARMY (UPA)

May 28, 2018

Both Bush and Stetsko supported the UPA in its liberation strategy for Ukraine.

Extremely brutal occupation policies of the Nazis forced the party for liberation, OUN (b) Provid (the governing body of the organization) to take up arms and defend the population. The first UPA hundred (military unit) was formed on January 22, 1943. And on February 7 it already defeated the German commandant’s office in the district center Volodymyrets, Rivne region.

In the spring of 1943, the UPA constantly increased the extent of resistance. Their fiercest clashes with the Germans happened near Lutsk, Kovel, Horokhiv, Rivne, Kremenets, Kostopil, Sarny and Lanivtsi. During March 1943, the insurgents seized regional centers five times. At the end of the first spring month, the German officials reported to Reichskommissar Erich Koch that only two areas in Volyn were free of “gangs”.

The occupation administration began undertaking extensive anti-partisan operations involving armor and aircraft. At the end of April, a division for fighting the UPA was redeployed to Berezne, Lyudvypil, Mizoch, Ostroh, Shumsk, and Kremenets.

The Nazis counterinsurgency actions proved to have little effect. While in March the UPA units attacked the German economic targets only 8 times, in April there were already 57 attacks, and 70 in May.

Heinrich Schoene, General Commissar of Volyn-Podillya, reported at a meeting in Rivne June 5, 1943 to Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories Alfred Rosenberg that “Ukrainian nationalists cause more difficulties than the Bolshevik gangs” to his administration.

The Soviet partisans’ leadership also recognized this fact later. Petro Vershyhora, commander of Soviet partisans, reported to the Ukrainian Partisan Movement Headquarters on March 4, 1944, “We cannot make the same mistake in Poland as we did in Volyn by passing the leadership of a popular uprising against the Germans into the hands of counterrevolutionary groups of nationalists.”

The available Nazi forces were not enough to suppress resistance. Therefore, Erich von dem Bach, commander of anti-partisan forces in the East, took the struggle against the UPA in his hands in July 1943. He commanded the 8th SS Cavalry Division Florian Geyer (10,000 soldiers) and 10 mechanized infantry battalions with artillery. The grouping was covered by 27 aircraft from the air and 50 tanks and armored vehicles on the ground.

However, UPA units maneuvered and gave the enemy no chance to destroy them. Overall, in July the insurgents attacked German bases 295 times, and maintenance building 119 times.

In early August 1943, von dem Bach was sent to another area. The German pressure weakened, and the UPA intensified their anti-German operations: 391 assaults on garrisons and 151 attacks on enterprises.

But soon, Hans-Adolf Prützmann, Higher SS and Ukrainian Police Leader, organized a new attack on the UPA. This attack lasted from August 23 to September 9, 1943 in South Volyn. First, aircraft bombed the village of Antonivtsi, which was the headquarters of the Bohun group. Then the punitive expedition attacked the UPA camp in Kremenets forests. The Kurins(battalions) had to split into small units and break out of the encirclement.

In the summer of 1943 the insurgency anti-Nazi movement spread over Halychyna. On August 18, Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense (UNS, the original name of UPA in Halychyna) attacked the German stone quarry in Skole, Lviv region. The nationalists freed 150 forced laborers and killed the camp security guards.

Autumn 1943 was the beginning of larger scale battles between the insurgents and the Nazis. On September 3, Ukrainian soldiers on commanding eminence executed a German battalion that was travelling by narrow-gauge rail in the mountains near the town of Dolyna. The invaders left about 200 soldiers on the battlefield. On September 25-29, the Trembita hundred repelled a punitive attack on their camp on Mount Stovba.

On November 29-30, 1943, there was heavy fighting between 1.5-2 thousand Schutzmanns and the Kryvonis-II Kurin near the village of Nedilna, Sambir district. The insurgents retreated with considerable losses, almost the entire headquarters and the leader of the Kurin were killed on the battlefield.

Prützmann undertook the last major counterinsurgency action in Volyn in November 1943. On November 2-3, aircraft bombed the town of Stepan and ousted the units of Zahrava group to the north. Simultaneously, on November 3 German planes bombed and shelled the town of Kolky, where the UPA had formed the Kolky Republic. It should be noted that the Nazis could not seize the Republic from June to early November 1943, and then they carried out a clearance operation, killing 600 civilians.

In October-November 1943, the UPA-ONS conducted 47 fights against German occupiers, and the UPA village self-defense clashed with them 125 times. The Nazis lost more than 1,500 soldiers.

The Nazis failed to suppress the UPA resistance completely. The approaching Soviet-German front drained most part of military forces. Therefore, the German generals stopped undertaking actions against insurgents in Volyn. In Halychyna, the confrontation lasted until the end of summer 1944. Ukrainian People’s Self Defense (UNS) was re-formed into the UPA-West. In March-May 1944, the UPA defended Ukrainian villages against looting by the Germans. In May, the Wehrmacht defeated the Halaida and Siromantsi hundreds in Lviv region.

From May 31 to June 6, 1944, the units of the Wehrmacht’s 7th Armored Division fought against the UPA in the Chornyi Lis village. By mid-summer the confrontation in Halychyna peaked.

The biggest clashes of the UPA-West with the German-Hungarian troops took place around Mount Lopata on the boundary between Drohobych and Stanislav (now – Ivano-Frankivsk) regions. These events were also detailed in written reports of the Polish underground. From July 6 through July 16, 1944, heavy fighting took place – both with artillery engagement and close-handed fights. Insurgents under Vasyl Andrusyak’s command won. Fifty Ukrainians were killed. The invaders lost 200 soldiers and retreated.

Under pressure of the Red Army the Wehrmacht left Ukraine. The UPA continued to skirmish and disarm German units until early September.

There were episodes in the history of the Ukrainian insurgency movement when some commanders tried to illegally negotiate with the German command using the formula “neutrality in exchange for weapons” or “food in exchange for weapons.” Besides, several cases are known when from 80 to 100 small arms were handed over to the insurgents using the above formula. But the Ukrainian underground leadership did not welcome such arrangements. In some cases, it even led to severe punishment. In March 1944, the UPA field court martial sentenced Porphyriy Antoniuk, the first initiator of the unauthorized negotiations, to death. In April 1944, Mykola Oliynyk was sentenced to death by the UPA court.

However, the talks with the German occupation officials were subsequently held by the OUN (b) Provid. The occupiers wanted the OUN and UPA to stop fighting against them so that the Germans could focus on repelling the Soviet Army’s advance. The OUN members sought to secure the release of prisoners of concentration camps (Stepan Bandera, Yaroslav Stetsko and many others) as well as to obtain weapons, which they always lacked. Meetings between the Provid members and German authorities took place in March, April, June and July 1944. As a result of them, the insurgents received several hundred units of weapons, and in September – October 1944 Bandera and other Ukrainian nationalists were released, though they remained under the Gestapo supervision.

Instead, insurgents decreased intensity of their anti-Nazi actions (mainly in Volyn), but did not stop them. Major Müller, officer of the group of armies “South” reported: “While some Ukrainian nationalist gangs follow the orders of the German Wehrmacht or perform its task, others fight fiercely against the Wehrmacht.”

According to researchers, 12 thousand German invaders and their allies were killed by UPA members. The Ukrainian underground and insurgent units also lost 10-12 thousand people during the armed confrontation with the occupiers.

On August 25, 1943 Hans-Adolf Prützmann, Higher SS and Ukrainian Police Leader, sent the following telegram: “To the Commander of the group of armies ‘South’. Due to the fact that the Reichsführer-SS ordered to send strong teams of military units previously assigned to me to the front, I have to limit myself to the remnants of these units to suppress the Ukrainian national uprising in Volyn. Since this results in appearing of large uncontrolled areas in the north of Ukraine, in the near future there will be increased pressure from gangs in the south sector.”

SWEDISH-UKRAINIAN RELATIONS – PRESIDENT YAROSLAV STETSKO IN STOCKHOLM 1964

May 15, 2018

At a 1964 visit in Stockholm exiled Ukrainian President Yaroslav Stetsko of Ukraine celebrated the memory of King Charles XII by placing a wreath on the tomb of the King. He expressed his gratitude to Sweden in the following way:

We, the Ukrainians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Georgians and other peoples subjugated by Russia, today honor the memory of the heroic King of the Swedes, Charles XII. Two hundred and fifty years agao this great statesman and European foresaw the danger to Europe from Russia and strove to prevent it.

In this common struggle by the Swedish people under Charles XII and the Ukrainians led by Hetman Ivan Mazepa, our countries were abandoned by the rest of Europe.

In the memory of our nations Charles XII remains for ever the defender of our rights and freedoms, the defender of the ideal of independence for our nations.

Today, here, in the name of the Ukrainian, Estonian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Georgian and other nations of Eastern Europe, we express our recognition and gratitude to the Swedish people for the sacrifices made by them on the battlefield of Poltava in 1709 and on other battlefields in Eastern Europe for our independence.

Comment: The wreath laying ceremony took place in relation to the arrival of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchov in Sweden on Monday, June 22nd, toward 12:00 oclock noon. He had been invited, in spite popular protests by the Swedish people, by the social democratic government. The visit of Stetsko angered the Soviet leader who later during the visit lost his temper. The reception by people to Krushchov and his motorcade was reserved and very cool.