Denmark caves in to Russian pressure over Nordstream

Posted Tuesday, October 20, 2009 by Anders Hjemdahl

The city of Viborg in a painting by Mikael S. Erassi in 1854. The city, founded by Swedish marshal Torkel Knutsson in 1293 close to the historical eastern border of Sweden, Systerbäck, Viborg was for more than six centuries one of Sweden/Finlands most important cities. Illegaly occupied by the Soviet Union/Russia since 1944 and renamed "Vyborg", the city is according to current official Russian sources "an ancient Russian city". To see the city and its architecture as it was before the destruction and decay of the Russian occupation, please visit the University of Tammerfors virtual Viborg project by cklicking on the picture.

The city of Viborg in a painting by Mikael S. Erassi in 1854. The city, founded by Swedish marshal Torkel Knutsson in 1293 close to the historical eastern border of Sweden, Systerbäck, Viborg was for more than six centuries one of Sweden/Finlands most important cities. Illegaly occupied by the Soviet Union/Russia since 1944 and renamed "Vyborg", the city is according to current official Russian sources "an ancient Russian city". To see the city and its architecture as it was before the destruction and decay of the Russian occupation, please visit the University of Tammerfors virtual Viborg project by cklicking on the picture.

After several months of being subjected to pressure from the Russian regime, the Danish government has finally reached a decision to allow the controversial Russian gas pipeline Nordstream to be constructed in Danish territorial waters.

The largest Danish energy company, Dong, has also reached a new decision to double the volume of gas purchased in a recently passed agreement with Russian state-controlled Gazprom to two billion cubic meters annually.

The Nordstream pipeline, rather than using the much cheaper and easier overland route, is planned to be constructed from Björkö outside Viborg in the Russian-occupied zone of Finland, to Greifswald in Germany along environmentally sensitive Baltic Sea floor, bypassing the pipeline system which is currently used for bringing Russian gas exports to the West.

The current pipeline system reaching Europe from Russia was constructed by the Soviet Union with the objective of making the West dependent on Soviet energy. Today, inconveniently for the current Russian regime, this pipeline system now passes through countries which since have regained their independence, making it hard for the Russian state to indiscriminately use the “energy weapon” by turning off supplies to troublesome neighboring countries without also affecting supplies to Western Europe in the process.

The Nordstream pipeline is designed to allow the Russian regime to bypass these troublesome countries, giving it a free hand in applying political pressure, not only on the states in Russia’s self-declared “zone of interest” covering neighboring states Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus and the Ukraine, but also on the West, by even further increasing the already significant Western European dependancy on Russian energy.

The pipeline also provides an excuse to project Russian military presence throughout the Baltic Sea.

The Nord Stream project has been explicitly and consistently described by Russian officials, including Vladimir Putin, as a military-political project by the Putin, and the project forms a key part of Russian foreign policy and military planning.

In response to the controversial purpose and nature of the Nord Stream pipeline project, the Russian plans has been met by fierce opposition in neighboring countries.

The Russian response has been to stifle criticism and speed up the legislative process in countries along the projected route by buying up political clout, including employment by Nordstream/Gazprom of former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (head of the shareholder’s committee) former Prime Minister of Finland Paavo Lipponen (consultant) and many others, as well as the intensive use of PR firms and lobbyists.

The Managing Director of Nord Stream AG, Mathias Warnig, is a former DDR Stasi agent, and the German subsidiary of Gazprom, Gazprom Germania, has also been heavily critized for being dominated by former Stasi agents.

Robert Larsson’s 362-page study “Russia’s Energy Policy: Security Dimensions and Russia’s Reliability as an Energy Supplier” (2006) concluded:

“From Europe’s perspective, Russia is moving in the wrong direction. Russia has largely ignored criticism, and has been unwilling to change its behaviour. Dependence on Russian energy would not be a problem if Russia played by the same rules as other energy players or European states. In conclusion, the core problem is the combination of Russia’s perception, intentions, capabilities and track record along with lack of real stability, a high degree of unpredictability and a development away from democracy, rule of law and market norms.”


Download the full 2007 FOI (Swedish Defense Research agency) report Nord Stream, Sweden and Baltic Sea Security” by Robert A. Larsson here.

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Munich Agreement Not Equivalent Then or Now

Posted Thursday, September 3, 2009 by Anders Hjemdahl

Polish officers, civil servants and other "enemies of the people", arrested by the Soviet army in the "liberated" Soviet-occupied zone of eastern Poland, September 1939

Polish officers, civil servants and other "enemies of the people", arrested by the Soviet army in the "liberated" Soviet-occupied zone of eastern Poland, September 1939

By Paul Goble, New York, September 2, 2009

Efforts by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials and commentators to justify the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Stalin’s ill-fated alliance with Hitler because of what British and French leaders had done in Munich highlight a dangerous trend in Russian thinking, according to a Moscow commentator.

Not only was the mendacity of the two actions fundamentally different – the British and French acted shamefully as part of an effort to maintain peace while Stalin acted shamefully to cover his seizure of the territory of neighboring countries, but the lessons the two have learned, Leonid Radzikhovsky says underscore the difference.

In an article in yesterday’s Yezhednevny Zhurnal, the Moscow commentator says that there is now question that both Western Europe and the Soviet Union “conducted themselves in a mendacious fashion in the 1930s” in their dealings with Hitler. But “there is mendacity and mendacity,” both at the time of action and in the lessons those who engage in it ultimately learn.

It is certainly true, he writes, that “Europe handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler.” But “European politicians did not conclude secret deals and did not seize pieces of foreign territory.” And however cynical their actions, their goal was “an idiotic hope” of keeping the peace, something those who had experienced the first world war felt was essential.

In any case, Radzikhovsky suggests, “the real motives of the USSR [in concluding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocols] were different.” They were “the simple, classical, ‘healthy imperialist’ motives – a secret protocol and the seizure of the territories of others.”

Encouraged by their leaders, Russians still are unwilling to acknowledge that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact opened the way to war and that it was an imperialist act not only by Berlin but by Moscow. And still worse, they have been encouraged by their leaders to view the cynical politics of force that the Europeans have rejected as still the proper order of the day.

Read the full commentary on Radzikhovsky’s article by longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia, Mr. Paul Goble, at his blog Window On Euarasia, here.

Kremlin’s Crimes

Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 by Anders Hjemdahl

By Janusz Bugajski from Wall Street Journal Europe, June 11

As European democracies celebrate the 20th anniversary of their liberation from communism and the Soviets, Moscow seeks to restore its dominance over former satellites. Rewriting Russian history is part of this plan. The Putinist notion of a progressive Soviet system in the past is designed to provide justification for Russia’s current assertiveness in the region.

Take Moscow’s annual May 9 parade, which celebrates the “victory over fascism” on the anniversary of Nazi Germany’s surrender to the Allies. The entire exercise is based on a monumental national delusion fostered by the Kremlin. Although Russia was one of the victorious powers at the end of World War II, Moscow continues to disguise the historic record that the Soviet Union itself helped launch the war in close alliance with Nazi Germany. Through the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, Stalin schemed with Hitler to carve up Eastern Europe.

Russia has recently intensified its revisionist campaign, claiming that it voluntarily gave up communism and the Soviet Bloc and that the Cold War ended in a draw with the West. Russia’s state propagandists maintain that the USSR never occupied its neighboring states after World War II, but rather liberated them from tyranny.

- – -

Western countries, including the former Soviet satellites, can take steps to expose Russia’s historical revisionism by sponsoring international conferences and symposia, by opening up all pertinent state archives to scholars, by educating the younger generation about communist crimes, and simply by talking openly about the Soviet era.

As Russia glosses over its dark past and flexes its muscles, the fear is that those who rewrite history may also be determined to repeat it.

Read the full article in the Wall Street Journal here.

False choices for Russia

Posted Thursday, June 11, 2009 by Anders Hjemdahl

Lev Gudkov, Igor Klyamkin, Georgy Satarov and Lilia Shevtsova writes in the Tuesday, June 9 edition of The Washington Post:

As intellectuals and liberal Russians, we have read with great interest many recommendations American experts have compiled for President Obama regarding the U.S.-Russian relationship. While there are several constructive ideas, many of these reports reflect a serious misunderstanding of the situation in Russia and the course it is following.

We object, for example, to the basic proposition of calling for a return to realpolitik because some believe that the worsening of Russian-American relations was mainly caused by Washington’s insistence on “tying policies to values.” The result, some American “realists” argue, is that the United States needs to build a new relationship with Russia based on “common interests and common threats.” Yet in blaming the Bush administration for trying to “teach” Russia about democracy, these realists appear to accept the official Russian position. In our view, America has ignored the problems of democracy and civil society in Russia, but even turning a blind eye did not prevent the breakdown in the U.S.-Russian relationship — and now Obama is essentially being asked to treat Russia as though it is incapable of democratic transformation.

While there is anti-democratic sentiment here, such feelings are not ubiquitous. In fact, nearly two-thirds of Russians would like to see the establishment of democracy and the rule of law, according to a 2008 Levada Center poll. The ruling elite oppose the development of democratic institutions, but the key is that members of the elite are more than ready to integrate into the Western world on an individually beneficial basis; they will do everything in their power to “protect” the rest of Russian society from the perils of such integration.

Read the full article in The Washington Post here (free registration required).

Communist agent fired shot that changed West Germany

Posted Friday, June 5, 2009 by Anders Hjemdahl

(From the New York Times, by Nicholas Kulish)

It was called “the shot that changed the republic.”

The killing in 1967 of an unarmed demonstrator by a police officer in West Berlin set off a left-wing protest movement and put conservative West Germany on course to evolve into the progressive country it has become today.

Now a discovery in the archives of the East German secret police, known as the Stasi, has upended Germany’s perception of its postwar history. The killer, Karl-Heinz Kurras, though working for the West Berlin police, was at the time also acting as a Stasi spy for East Germany.

It is as if the shooting deaths of four students at Kent State University by the Ohio National Guard had been committed by an undercover K.G.B. officer, though the reverberations in Germany seemed to have run deeper.

“It makes a hell of a difference whether John F. Kennedywas killed by just a loose cannon running around or a Secret Service agent working for the East,” said Stefan Aust, the former editor in chief of the weekly newsmagazine Der Spiegel. “I would never, never, ever have thought that this could be true.”

Read the full article here.

Gazprom’s Loyalists in Berlin and Brussels

Posted Friday, June 5, 2009 by Anders Hjemdahl

(By Roman Kupchinsky, from the Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor)

Gazprom’s extensive network of loyalists, often act as “men of sacrifice,” devoted to cleansing the image of the Russian state owned gas monopoly. Working out of a modern office building in Berlin owned by Gazprom Germania, a German registered company fully owned by Gazprom Export which, in turn is run by Gazprom, they have built up a considerable empire for the Kremlin. In turn they are being whitewashed by other loyalists in the offices of Brussels-based PR firm GPlus Europe.

There is no doubt that these highly qualified, well connected and very bright individuals employed by GPlus Europe and Gazprom Germania serve a vital purpose in creating an illusion that Gazprom is honorable and transparent, and that it is indispensible for European energy security. As the point men for Putin and Alexander Medvedev, the head of Gazprom Export, who pays their salaries, they are indeed “men of sacrifice” working for a cause which lead to the energy subjugation of the EU by a shady clan within the Kremlin.

Read the full article here.

New Russian bill threatens five years in prison for publishing that the Soviet Union occupied Eastern and Central Europe and the Baltic States

Posted Thursday, June 4, 2009 by Camilla Andersson
The German Army and the Soviet Army meet in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939, for a joint victory parade after the joint occupation of Poland by the Soviet Union and its ally, Nazi Germany.

The German Army and the Soviet Army meet in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939, for a joint victory parade after the joint occupation of Poland by the Soviet Union and its ally, Nazi Germany.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A new Russian bill threatens “punishment” for “falsifers of history”. Among the proposed crimes are alleging that the Baltic States and Eastern and Central Europe were occupied by the Soviet Union. Valery Ryazansky, a senior United Russia official and one of the authors of the bill, said, “If the country (Russia) is suddenly called an occupier – that should be punished”.

The decision also comes on the back of proposed bill that could make “distorting the verdicts of the Nuremburg Trials… to rehabilitate Nazism” or even “calling the actions of Allied countries a crime” a criminal offence punishable by up to three years in prison – five if the perpetrator used mass media, according to a text of the bill cited by Kommersant.

Amid increasingly vocal calls to criminalise interpretations of World War II history that question the role of the Soviet Union, President Dmitry Medvedev has set up a commission to investigate and analyse attempts to “falsify history against the interests of Russia.”

In a video blog posted on his web site, Medvedev called attempts at falsification “more and more harsh, depraved and aggressive.” The commission has raised eyebrows by appearing to throw support behind statements by Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu that denying Russia’s victory in the war should be illegal. 

 
Read the full article by Anna Arutunyan in The Moscow News here.


Read also “Medvedev Imposes Control Over Russian History” by  leading Russian democracy and human rights activist Oleg Kozlovsky in the Huffington Post.

Russia threatens to bar Europeans who deny Red Army ‘liberated’ them

Posted Thursday, June 4, 2009 by Camilla Andersson
The Soviet Army marches in Riga, May 1, 1946. Image courtesy of the Museum of Occupation of Latvia 1940-1991.

The Soviet Army marches in Riga, May 1, 1946. Image courtesy of the Museum of Occupation of Latvia 1940-1991.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eastern Europeans who believe their countries were occupied by the Soviet Union after the Second World War could soon be barred from Russia under new proposals given official weight by the Kremlin.

Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, created a commission of 28 legislators and senior intelligence officers which will identify foreign “revisionists” who “disparage the international prestige of the Russian Federation”.

The move, condemned as “Orwellian” by its critics, comes shortly before the Russian parliament is expected to pass controversial legislation outlawing the “rehabilitation of Nazism”. 

The bill has attracted criticism because of its definition of Nazi rehabilitation, with those who “belittle” the Soviet Union’s role in the war or criticise it in any way being regarded as equally culpable as those who glorify Hitler.

Those found to contravene the new law, which Russia insists is little different from Germany’s Holocaust-denial legislation, face up to five years in prison.

Foreign countries whose officials who the commission rules to be guilty of the new crimes will face sanction as well. The bill gives Russia the authority to expel ambassadors or sever diplomatic relations with offending nations and to impose full transport and communications blockades on them.

The legislation is thought to be primarily aimed at states like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, which maintain they were occupied rather than liberated by the Soviet Union. Sergei Shoigu, a senior cabinet minister who initiated the legislation, has already said it could be used to ban senior Estonian officials.

A Russian MP yesterday said that the Baltic states deserved “to suffer punishment” for holding such views.

The new law could also be used to bar Western historians who accuse the Red Army of carrying out atrocities during its advance on Berlin or point out that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were once allies under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Seen as a way of teaching recalcitrant former Soviet states respect, the legislation has won almost universal backing in the Russian parliament.

But opposition politicians, who have no representation in parliament, have attacked the bill, saying it effectively reintroduces state ideology for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union.

“The creation of this commission allows the state to impose its own idea of political will and ideology,” said Vladimir Ryzhkov, a former Duma deputy who was forced out of parliament in 2007 by a law banning independent MPs.

“The former KGB will once again decide what is anti-Soviet and what is not.”

Mr Ryzhkov said that the new legislation was also part of a continuing rehabilitation of Stalin as it will effectively outlaw criticism of many of the former Soviet dictator’s policies.

An officially sanctioned history text book, introduced into schools two years ago, presented Stalin as a great leader while glossing over his repression of millions of Soviet citizens.

 

By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow, from The Telegraph. Full article here.

For more information, please visit the website of The Museum Of The Occupation Of Latvia 1940-1991

Reset button not needed for the Baltics

Posted Sunday, May 17, 2009 by Anders Hjemdahl

jbanc_2009_congress_main1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Anders Hjemdahl

WASHINGTON, DC  The JBANC (Joint Baltic American National Committe) 2009 congress took place in Washington, DC on May 15-16, gathering representatives from many levels of the goverments of Estonia, Latvia, Lithaunia and the United States, as well as diplomats, members of the diaspora, political commentators, historians, writers, journalists and former congressmen and U.S. government officials. The annual JBANC congress coincides with several related activities around Washington, including embassy events, hearings in the U.S Capitol, seminars, gala dinners, fundraisers, informal meetings and cultural events.  

The guest of honor of this year’s highly successful and well attended international congress was the President of Latvia, Mr.Valdis Zatlers, who delivered a highly appreciated speech centered on the importance of Latvia’s membership of NATO and friendship with the United States, transatlantic solidarity, the need for a united and distinct response to Russian belligerence, and of the need to defend the open society, democracy and free markets in the face of economic crisis.

The Friday, May 15 programme started with a briefing on cyber security at the US Capitol, featuring Dr. Stephen Blank of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, Deron McElroy, House Committe on Homeland Security, and Paul Joyal of National Strategies, Inc., and was followed by a seminar at the Heritage Foundation themed on Information, New Media and the dissection of the legacy of Communism, presented by Dr. Lee Edwards of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

The Saturday, May 16 congress was an all-day event, with the major themes being

- Regional Geopolitics, Current and Future Security Threats

(Featuring Robert Norrick of the Monterrey Institute, Janusz Bugajski of CSIS, and Harri Tiido of the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) 

- Ensuring Stability: Strategic Solutions and Regional Partnerships

(Featuring Julianne Smith of the U.S. Department of Defence, Andres Teikmanis, State Secretary of the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vladimir Socor of the Eurasia Daily Monitor, the Jamestown Foundation, and Nicholas Kralev of The Washington Times)

- Policies of the new U.S. Administration and Congress: Baltic – U.S. Relations

(Featuring Alan Melzer, Deputy Director, Office of Nordic and Baltic Affairs, U.S. State Department, Vytautas Naudazas of the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry and Ben Smith of Politico

- Diaspora Relations and Citizen Diplomacy – Views Across the Atlantic

(Featuring Aho Rebas, Office of the Minister for Population and Ethnic Affairs, Estonia, Mendy Nitsch, International Affairs, Office of the Secretary of State, Maryland, Andrea Strano, Regional Public Diplomacy Desk Officer EUR, State Department)

The discussions centered on the security situation of the Baltic republics in the wake of the lack of European Union and NATO response to the Russian invasion of Georgia, focusing on energy security, the validity of NATO Article 5 and the military security of the Baltic states, and of cyber security.

The afternoon discussions were dominated by an in-depth discussion on the need for securing the energy markets in the Baltics in relation to Russia’s use of energy for coercion and intimidation purposes, with initatives ranging from the construction of a local nuclear power plant, energy grid connections to Sweden, Finland and Poland, and the urgent need for creation of a common energy market for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

The desirability of Swedish and Finnish NATO memberships were discussed repeatedly, with Julianne Smith of the U.S. Department of Defense stating that “any application of Sweden and Finland to join NATO would be welcomed with open arms”. 

Other high-interest issues which were brought up by many speakers and members of the audience were the continued validity of NATO Article 5, the need for extended NATO infrastructure and rapid reaction capability in the Baltic states, and the desirability of the stationing of foreign NATO “tripwire” troops in the Baltics as a stabilizing deterrent to Russian aggression and provocation.

An underlying topic which dominated many aspects of discussion were the importance of the formulation of new, common strategies of the European Union, NATO, and the new U.S. administration in dealing with an increasingly belligerent, aggressive and authoritarian Russia. Notable speakers on this subject were Vladimir Socor of the Eurasian Daily Monitor of the Jamestown Foundation, Janusz Bugajski of the Center for Strategic and Intertational Studies (CSIS), and Hari Tiido of the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

As a closing statement to the security-related discussions, Mr. Vytautas Nauduzas, Ambassador-at-large of Lithuania, invited U.S. President Obama to Lithaunia for the July 6 celebrations on the President’s way to Moscow. ” – A reset button is not needed with the Baltics”, stated the Ambassador.

Nordic military cooperation outlined in new report

Posted Monday, April 20, 2009 by Mats Johansson

nordic_and_baltic_flags

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STOCKHOLM. The Stoltenberg Report, named after its Social Democrat author Thorvald Stoltenberg, a former Minister for Foreign Affairs in Norway, represents another step forward to a closer cooperation concerning common security arrangements in the Nordic area. 

When the report was published in February by Mr. Stoltenberg, it received a lot of credit from a broad spectrum of the political scale. On the receiving end, the five Nordic Foreign Ministers said they looked forward to taking all the proposals into serious consideration during their further handling of the report this spring.

There are thirteen areas for increased joint Nordic action suggested in the text:  

1. A deployment force for military and civilian international actions

2. Air patrolling over Iceland

3. A sea surveillance system

4. A sea patrol

5. A satellite for sea control

6. Arctic co-operation

7. A network against cyber attacks

8. A co-ordination team for larger rescue operations

9. A war criminals research unit

10. Common embassies where there are no Nordic presence

11. Joint efforts for military education, training, transport and equipment

12. A special amphibian unit for international operations

13. A common declaration of solidarity against external attacks

Given the fact that some of these proposals include activities related to Nato-structures, formerly neutral countries like Sweden and Finland have to handle the issues in another context than member countries. At the same time the report is one of many signs that the gap between Nato and would-be-members is closing step by step, when it comes to practical arrangements and operational standards. 

This is a good sign for those forces for freedom around the Baltic Sea, who share the belief that a united view of the region’s security is all the more important at a time when Russia, through political and military aggression, has distanced itself from good relations with its neighbors. 

This first phase of this program of Nordic security cooperation should in due time be followed by a second, which also includes Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Such a step would give some answers to the question heard in these countries about what “solidarity” really means, if things come to the worst in relations to Russia.

And that is of course why some of the Stoltenberg proposals make especially older Finnish socialists nervous. Talk is cheap, but when it comes to reality Moscow still has a saying in Nordic affairs. Just how much, we will be able to infer from the future results of this report. 

by Mats Johansson

For the full report:

http://eng.utanrikisraduneyti.is/media/Frettatilkynning/Nordic_report.pdf