Nordic Region

Officially, the drones were not identified. By simply thinking critically – which journalists and selected experts no longer do – there may be a good reason for that. And this article will never be mentioned in Denmark… Drones over Denmark. No damage. No trace. No answers. Yet the headlines scream “Russian threat,” and Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen speaks with a certainty that defies logic: “We don’t know they were Russian—but we know Russia is the biggest threat to Europe.” It could be nobody else – unless you make an interest analysis which I did two days ago. This is not security policy. It’s theatre. And the audience is being played. Let’s rewind. These drones—unphotographed, untracked, unclaimed—appear and vanish like ghosts. Airports shut down. Panic spreads. Military budgets swell. And the narrative hardens: Russia is behind it. But what if that’s not just wrong but deliberately misleading? Here’s a hypothesis for...

Drones over Nordic airports. No damage. No trace. No answers. Most assume Russia—but what if that’s not so? Why is there so much we are not told? This article explores the strategic ambiguity behind recent drone incursions and asks: Who else might benefit from sending drones into NATO airspace? From Ukraine’s surprising drone supremacy to Russia’s possible signalling, the silence itself may be the loudest message. These are the kinds of questions decent, intelligent investigative journalists and commentators could easily research. Why don’t they? Did you, dear reader, know or think of this? That the most powerful weapon in today’s conflicts might be the one that leaves no trace – and no answers. Just enough fear to justify the next move? Recently, drones have repeatedly appeared over Nordic airports and near some military facilities. They cause no damage – for which reason the designation “hybrid attack” is misleading but serves a purpose. These...

. It points to the scandalous situation the Trump Regime is now causing in 2025. Re-published on March 30, 2025 With Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod at the helm, Denmark is now heading for its biggest foreign policy scandal – and that’s saying a lot – since the occupation of Iraq. According to this article on DR.dk, neither the Foreign Policy Committee nor the Greenland Committee has been informed about the US ‘offer you can’t refuse’ to Greenland – as presented by the US ambassador in Copenhagen, Carla Sands, on Altinget.* © Jan Oberg Members of parliament from both SF and the Danish People’s Party call the US announcement ‘reprehensible’ and ‘unheard of.’ Former Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard says he has not been informed about it. So either the government has been informed by the US but has kept the negotiations secret, or the US is now in the process of...

Aannguaq Reimer-Johansen/facebook.com has created the popular hat My 20-year-old analysis of the military Igaliku Agreement signed between the US, Denmark and Greenland in 2004. I emphasise Greenland’s role as a leg in the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), suggest that it could drive a parallel international peace policy, and I raise the possibility of a future conflict with the US – which is now a fact. Donald Trump was out in 2019 to get Greenland. The Danish PM, Mette Frederiksen, replied that that was an ‘absurd’ proposal. Trump felt hurt and cancelled his planned visit to Denmark; in a follow-up phone conversation, I assume that he scolded her very seriously and I assume that, behind the scenes, this was one of the most serious foreign policy crises Denmark has faced – the alliance relations with the US being sacrosant in that country. They then, according to Trump, reconciled – but what...

Five years ago, Trump wanted to buy Greenland, got Danish PM Mette Fredriksen’s response that it was ‘absurd’ and then cancelled his visit and scolded her to the point where all the trousers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were shaking. Shortly afterwards – as a plaster on his wounds? – negotiations about American bases in Denmark began. The US now has 3 bases in Denmark, access to 12 base areas in Norway, 17 bases in Sweden and 15 in Finland – all under US jurisdiction. And now the sight is on Canada and Greenland – “we need it for economic, national security’ as Trump stated and did not rule out the use of military means and economic sanctions to get it. Everything is related to everything else. That is, if you want to see it. Finland and Sweden rushed down the NATO mouse hole because, in the governments’ absurd...

Quite as could be expected politically, Sweden’s Public Prosecutor announced on February 7, 2024, that Sweden had closed down the investigation of how Nord Stream was destroyed and by whom – and of whether there were any Swedes involved in the affair. The main, actually only, argument he gave was that Sweden does not have jurisdiction over the area despite the fact that the pipelines run through Sweden’s Exclusive Economic Zone, EEZ. The other remarkable fact was that the Prosecutor did not hold a press conference but only issued a statement and emphasised at the end of it that he had no further comments. I reflect a bit on this here – in four small but important points: I was also asked to comment on China’s national TV Channel, CCTV: And on RT – Russia Today. Thanks to the West’s violation of the human right to freely seek information and...

Without being a NATO member, Sweden enters into an extremely far-reaching agreement with the United States, which completely undermines the country’s ability to conduct an independent security policy. Decisions are made without debate and behind the backs of the Swedish people. The official threat perception is fake: Russia will not attack the island of Gotland, but Russian missiles will now quite naturally be aimed at Sweden and be the first to be fired – if! Sweden might as well shut down the Ministry of Defence and let the Pentagon and State do the rest. Sweden has just signed a so-called defence agreement with the US. It gives the US access to no less than 17 military bases all over Sweden – and it does not exclude nuclear weapons on Swedish soil. It is now absolutely certain to be dragged immediately into a US war – the country that has fought...

After the NATO Summit in Vilnius, a US-Nordic Summit took place in Helsinki on July 13, 2023. Here is, first, what I would suggest the US, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland take up: • How to back out of NATO’s conflict with Russia, stop the war in Russia and move – with the use of UN peace-keeping and -mediation – towards a viable, sustainable solution to Ukraine’s security problem that all parties can live with – although perhaps not be happy with. • How to re-create the Arctic as a de-militarised, low-tension region and cooperate to the benefit of all parties and the fragile environment. • How to secure that none of the Nordic countries shall have any US bases (except the one in Thule, Greenland, which by the way was not invited) – so to not provoke Russia unnecessarily.Given the Nordic countries’ historically comparatively peaceful policies, how can the...

A 30 mins panel discussion led by Ms Liu Xin, a very important TV personality known to CGTN’s 150 million viewers because of her program “The Point”. CGTN stands for China Global Television Network – more about it here. And here is its YouTube Channel. The participants in this edition of “The Point” are: Yury Tavrovsky, chairman of Experts Commission of Russian-Chinese Committee for Friendship, Peace and Development Ulrich Brückner, professor, Stanford University in Berlin Michael E. O’Hanlon, senior fellow and director of research in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution Brian Berletic, Geopolitical Analyst, Bangkok And here it is on YouTube. Enjoy the debate! Is this type of reasoning, based on decades of free research and knowledge-building, of merit in a democracy and for the discussion about NATO?If you think so, TFF would be grateful for your support. Thanks!

Here’s what the West is intellectually unable – in the midst of its boundlessly self-righteous, militarist mood to see: NATO’s expansion policy created – and is responsible for – the conflict. Russia created – and is responsible for – the war. There exists no violence which is not rooted in underlying conflicts. Conflict and peace literate people, therefore, talk about both. And if they want peace, they do not increase the symptoms – the war – they address the real cause, the conflict and ask the conflicting parties to tell what they fear and what they want and then move, step-by-step towards a sustainable solution. But neither the mainstream media nor politicians have the civil courage to address the conflict. It’s only about the war and only about Russia/Putin who must be punished, no matter the price to be paid by future generations. If we survive. It’s a banality to...

Erni & Ola Friholt TFF Associates och Fredsrörelsen på Orust 5:e oktober 2020 Sedan urminnes tider anses försvar bestå av motvåld mot en erövrare eller ockupant. Och våldet har fungerat till priset av ett stort antal döda, betecknade som hjältar och hjältinnor, som offrat sina liv för de efterlevandes frihet. Med det moderna bekväma livet ter sig hjältedöden mindre lockande. Nu motiveras militär upprustning med begreppet avskräckning. Det ska bli för dyrt för en fiende att försöka inta Sverige. En beväpnad fred skall råda. Det har övats krig på Gotland under förevändning av ryska hot. Att Ryssland känner sig hotat av NATO:s närvaro vid dess gränser faller ingen in. Avskräckning gäller mot en utmålad fiende, demoniserad till omänsklighet. Även för avskräckningsstrategin blir priset högt. De tekniska samhällsfunktionerna blir alltmer sofistikerade och sårbara. De är nu så omfattande att militär avskräckning kräver skyhöga försakelser av ekonomiska resurser och nära samarbete med...

Ola & Erni FriholtTFF Associerade & Fredsrörelsen på Orust 26:e augusti, 2020 I vår publikation från 2019 kommenterades broschyren ”Om krisen eller kriget kommer”, som sändes till de svenska hushållen hösten 2018 från Myndigheten för samhällsskydd och beredskap (MSB). Dess innehåll är chockerande ytligt. Vår kommentar utgick från den aktuella verkligheten och dess krav på dramatiska förändringar i samhällsutvecklingen. I föreliggande skrift ”Värdland. Del II av ”Krisen pågår – Vad gör vi?” behandlar vi det tekniskt utvecklade samhällets sårbarhet och omöjligheten att skydda det med militära medel. Alternativ finns. De kräver att vi genomskådar de rådande föreställningarna om militära hot mot Östersjöområdet. Dessa formas och propageras av egenintressen hos västvärldens maktgrupperingar och hindrar en fredlig utveckling såväl som välfärds-, miljö- och klimatinsatser. När detta skrevs var coronaepidemin ännu inte en europeisk angelägenhet. De insikter om säkerhet som nu uppstår stärker vår bild av vad säkerhetspolitik bör vara. Nu finns tillfälle...