Thursday, April 24, 2025

Polaris of Enlightenment

Ad:

Comment: EU sanctions package against Russia has backfired

The new cold war

Another package of sanctions was pushed through in Brussels to the applause of Finance Minister Svantesson. Unfortunately, this does not change the fact that Sweden and Europe are the big losers.

Published 4 August 2024
– By Jenny Piper
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken at this year's Davos meeting. Sweden's Minister for Finance Elisabeth Svantesson during the budget walk to the right.
This is an opinion piece. The author is responsible for the views expressed in the article.

Elisabeth Svantesson, Sweden’s finance minister, is doing her best to convince the public that continued sanctions against Russia are a good thing. Last week, she and several other EU finance ministers wrote an article in The Guardian saying that economic sanctions against Russia are working and that Putin is lying about Russia’s economy being in good shape. Today she speaks out on the same issue in DN, saying that she has long been bothered by the fact that a false picture of the Russian economy is being spread, one that Putin wants us to believe.

According to the IMF, the Russian economy is growing, with GDP growth of 3.2% this year, which is higher than in Germany, the US and the UK.

However, Svantesson claims that this is propaganda, that Russia’s economy is now struggling and that this shows that the sanctions are working, while at the same time she makes the platitude that “we have to hold on and persevere both in terms of sanctions and support”. According to Svantesson, there is reason to nuance the picture, which is why the National Institute of Economic Research has now been commissioned to analyze economic developments in Russia.

The fact that several experts and analysts have declared in various contexts over the past year that the EU’s sanctions against Russia have failed and are only harming their own countries does not seem to have affected Svantesson and the other EU finance ministers, who are thus firmly asserting the opposite, while at the same time pushing through yet another sanctions package that has been given the green light in Brussels.

Svantesson is really trying to convince the population that continued sanctions are a good thing.

Interestingly, former US Naval Intelligence Officer and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said in an interview that it was the US that was behind the EU’s decision to start sanctioning Russia, which was linked to the Minsk peace agreement on Ukraine – an agreement that France, Germany and Ukraine never intended to implement.

– The EU’s sanctions package against Russia has backfired and become one of the biggest economic disasters in modern European history. These sanctions, designed to punish Russia, have failed to do so. In fact, like a boomerang, they have hit back at Europe, which continues to move forward while imposing more and more sanctions, all while Russia is getting stronger economically.

The EU is the economic arm of a group of organizations and institutions that includes NATO, all of which are basically working on behalf of the United States.

So the sanctions implemented by the EU were done because the US wanted Russia to be isolated and confronted by Ukraine, which was de facto acting as a proxy for NATO.

America is using the sanctions to achieve a larger strategic goal, not only to weaken Russia but also to weaken Europe, so that the US comes out of this conflict stronger.

It has been the US goal for decades to break Europe from its dependence on cheap Russian energy. So the sanctions and the backlash are achieving that result. Perhaps Europe doesn’t realize this, or they haven’t woken up to the reality that the US is not their friend.

Gunnar Beck, an outgoing MEP for the Alternative for Germany party as well as a lawyer and academic specializing in EU law, shares Ritter’s view and states that the EU shot itself in the foot by deciding to impose sanctions on Russia.

– There is no doubt that the economic impact of the sanctions is felt to a much greater extent here in the EU itself compared to Russia. I mean, the Russian economy, according to official data, is doing very well and they just seem to have adapted to the sanctions.

EU sanctions on Russian commodities, including oil and gas, have mainly hurt European economies that used to rely on predictable, high-quality and cheap gas and oil imports from Russia. These economies still cannot do without importing oil and gas from Russia, but they now do so through third countries at much higher prices, while Russia continues to sell its oil and gas.

So the EU has basically hurt itself with these sanctions, or to be more precise, the bloc has massively hurt European industry and European consumers. But it doesn’t seem to have had much impact on the Russian economy. The sanctions have not had the effect the EU hoped for, which was predictable. The EU probably underestimated the extent to which the Russian government had prepared for possible sanctions, including far-reaching restrictions on energy imports to the EU as well as financial transactions.

But according to Svantesson, our government and various EU ministers in Brussels, this is false information that can be explained away as “propaganda”.

So when will the people of Europe realize that the US is not our friend, but someone who is using us for their own benefit? And when will the harsh reality set in, showing how our leaders have helped bring about the collapse of Europe for financial reward and the promise of future supremacy?

When will the people of Europe realize that the US is not our friend, but someone who is using us for their own benefit?

That the fools who rule Sweden will realize and repent is not on the map, because we have already sold out the country to the United States through them and put us on the scaffold. The sleeping Swedes also continue to trust the corrupt politicians with great confidence in the controlled mass media, so there will certainly be no awakening here.

Unfortunately, all we can do is watch the misery.

 

Jenny Piper

All Jenny Piper's articles can be found on her blog.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Swedish Major General: “Leave the Ottawa Treaty and buy anti-personnel mines”

The new cold war

Published 16 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Karlis Neretnieks argues that today's anti-personnel mines cannot be compared to those that kill thousands of civilians every year.

Recently The Nordic Times highlighted how the defense ministers of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia announced that they intend to withdraw from the international convention banning the use of anti-personnel mines.

In early April, Finnish officials also confirmed that they are also preparing to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty. Retired Swedish-Latvian Major General Karlis Neretnieks now wants Sweden to do the same and start buying “smart” anti-personnel mines.

– My opinion is clear. We should do what the Finns did, leave the Ottawa Agreement, and acquire anti-personnel mines, declares Neretnieks, who has also previously served as President of the Swedish National Defense College.

He explains that within the NATO military pact, there is a plan for the Swedish army to be able to move quickly to Finland and form joint defense forces with Finnish soldiers in the event of a possible Russian attack. In such a scenario, he argues, the armies of both countries must have similar rules of engagement.

– What should we do when Swedish commanders have to command Finnish units? Should a Swedish commander tell a Finnish commander that you are not allowed to use anti-personnel mines because you are under Swedish command? That’s not how it works in reality.

Kills thousands annually

Finland’s defense minister, Antti Häkkänen, insists that “mines are only for war” and “will not be scattered in the countryside“. However, over the years, anti-personnel mines have caused enormous civilian suffering and in 2021 alone, an estimated 5,500 people were killed by them many of them children.

Millions of undestroyed anti-personnel mines remain in former war zones around the world and can detonate at any time when someone accidentally steps on them. This is also one of the primary reasons why some 160 countries around the world have committed to stop stockpiling, producing or using them.

However, Neretnieks argues that today’s modern anti-personnel mines can be turned on and off by remote control and he emphasizes that some models stop working after a certain amount of time.

– The reason for removing the mines was that they were often left behind after the fighting was over. Then they were dangerous for children, farmers and anyone walking around the terrain… I’m advocating that we abandon the Ottawa agreement and get these anti-personnel mines with self-destruction, he continues.

“Were far too enthusiastic”

Sweden signed the convention in 1998, the year after it was drafted, but the major general says it was a big mistake.

– I think we were far too enthusiastic about a ban at the height of the discussions in 1996-1997. It was quite obvious that the Russians had no intention of signing anything like that, he states.

It should be noted that it is not only Russia that has chosen not to sign the convention. Major military powers such as the US and China have so far also refused to sign the Ottawa Treaty, as have Israel, India, Iran and both North and South Korea.

Moderate Youth League: Raise the retirement age to finance Sweden’s rearmament

The new cold war

Published 15 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Raising the retirement age to fund the Swedish defense effort is not expected to be well received by the electorate.

As reported by The Nordic Times, Swedish politicians have decided to borrow at least SEK 300 billion (€26 billion) for what is described as the “biggest rearmament since the Cold War”.

Douglas Thor, chair of The Moderate Youth League (MUF), fully supports the military investment – but emphasizes that it should be paid for by older Swedes through a higher retirement age.

The governing politicians agree that it is reasonable to borrow the equivalent of €4,400 for each Swede of working age for the military project, and analysts have noted that it will largely be future generations of Swedes who will have to pay for the decisions made today.

– It’s clear that future generations will have to take a bigger hit than if we were to just go on this year’s budget. But it also seems reasonable that future generations should help finance reconstruction because it will also benefit them, commented, for example, Daniel Waldenström, professor of economics, and continued:

– It’s simply that they will have to pay a bit more tax as a result of this. They will have to pay taxes to finance our repayment of these loans.

“In the long run, everyone will pay”

Just like the other establishment parties’ youth wings, MUF applauds the military investment, but believes older Swedes must bear a greater share of the cost – not just the younger generation.

– Borrowing money is not free. The costs are postponed to the future, which means that the younger generation has to pay. We are happy to contribute, but it is unreasonable that we alone should bear the cost, they say.

Thor’s solution is to raise the age at which older people can start drawing their pension from the current 63 to 67.

– Today, people can start drawing their income and premium pensions at the age of 63. We believe it is reasonable to raise it. One possible age is 67, confirms the Muf leader, who states that raising the retirement age is a much better option than raising taxes.

– In the long run, everyone will pay because we are all getting older. When our country has faced difficult challenges in the past, we have coped by working more, Thor argues.

Unpopular measure

Raising the retirement age to fund military spending is not expected to be a particularly popular message with voters but Thor says this does not matter much.

– There are many issues that were previously unthinkable, but which have been reconsidered in this serious international situation. For example, loan financing has been reconsidered. It should be possible to do the same with regard to this issue.

According to Muf’s calculations, if older Swedes worked two years longer than they do today, this would mean around SEK 30 billion (€2.6 billion) extra to the public purse annually about half the contribution needed to meet the government’s target of spending 3.5% of GDP on defense.

International law expert on the Swedish suicide drones: “Risk that civilians are affected”

The new cold war

Published 10 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
Ove Bring points out that commanders who accidentally injure or kill civilians can be prosecuted for this - but that it usually requires that the deaths are extensive.

The Swedish military plans to acquire several million military drones. This includes so-called “suicide drones” – and in two years’ time, Swedish kamikaze drone systems could be in operation.

Ove Bring, an expert in international law, notes that the type of drone is certainly not prohibited under international law – but that there is always a risk of civilians being killed.

The drones are equipped with explosive charges and, with the help of artificial intelligence, can fly around until they find their target – whereupon they fly into it and explode.

– A human operator sets them off and then they can fly on their own, find targets and attack targets on their own, explained AI and weapons scientist Arash Heydarian Pashakhanlou in 2022, clarifying that the suicide drones “can fly into the target on their own, explode and destroy the target”.

Many observers are critical of the technology development. The ability of unmanned aerial vehicles to kill and destroy on their own risks blurring the lines of responsibility, increasing the risk of civilian casualties and wrong decisions being made.

Others have warned that warfare is being dehumanized and that we are moving towards a development where autonomous weapon systems make lethal decisions without human intervention.

– A machine should not be allowed to decide on the life and death of a human being, says Deborah Solomon of the Swedish Peace Society.

“There is the risk that civilians are affected”

Ove Bring, professor emeritus of international law and former advisor to the Swedish Foreign Ministry on international law, admits that the use of drones can result in civilian deaths – but also emphasizes that suicide drones do not violate international law.

– This type of drone is not prohibited by international law as it is designed to hit military targets, but there is always the risk that civilians are affected, he says to The Nordic Times.

He notes that commanders who, in violation of the humanitarian law principles of precaution and proportionality, happen to harm civilians can also be prosecuted for this – at least in theory. However, this usually presupposes that the injuries or deaths are extensive.

If, on the other hand, a military target is hit by the drones – but civilians are also killed during the same attack, this does not violate any laws or conventions, the professor says.

– If the military target is hit and civilians are exposed to minor collateral damage, it must be accepted as an inevitable part of warfare. It is not considered a war crime, he concludes.

Peace researcher urges diplomacy: “War leads to total destruction”

The new cold war

Published 10 April 2025
– By Editorial Staff
According to Frida Stranne, it is important that our leaders have the capacity for "strategic empathy".

As war rhetoric has escalated in recent years, advocates of peace and diplomacy have increasingly been met with suspicion, demonization, and stigmatization in public discourse – often accused of being either out of touch with reality or so-called “useful idiots” for the enemy.

However, Swedish peace researcher and US expert Frida Stranne notes that peace is neither frivolous nor naïve – but in fact “the only alternative to the total destruction of countries, societies and our shared environment.”.

Stopping a spiral of violence that risks leading us all to our deaths is one of the main tasks of politics. The dialogue that must precede peace requires far more intelligence and courage than pushing for increased militarization”, she wrote on Facebook, citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a telling example.

John F. Kennedy, when he saved the world from nuclear war in 1962, understood the importance of understanding the interests and pretexts that drove his opponents. He also realized how poor intelligence (and propaganda from within his own ranks), political peer pressure, and an over-reliance on military solutions risked leading him to foolish and fatal decisions”, she continues.

According to Stranne, Kennedy also understood the importance of avoiding symbolic actions to satisfy public opinion – but lacked strategic thinking.

He realized that either he would contribute to an acceptable level of security for both the Soviets and the US, or no one would be safe”.

“Don’t have to be a pacifist”

Stranne points out that the Swedish diplomat Hans Blix similarly spoke of the need for “strategic empathy” – that is, it is the task of politicians to try to understand how other states or actors perceive the current situation, and what interests, fears or motives drive them to act as they do.

This does not mean sympathizing with them, but having the wisdom to understand their perspective in order to anticipate the other’s actions and thus make wiser decisions yourself – and avoid endless wars and, in the worst case, nuclear war”, she explains.

You don’t have to be a pacifist to talk about ending war and building a sustainable peace – in fact, you can be a staunch advocate of strong military defense. Nor do you need to be naïve about your opponent. But you do need to realize that more weapons alone can never bring stability and security as long as unresolved security dilemmas remain”, continues the peace researcher.

Looking away is the greatest cowardice

And above all, she stresses, our leaders need to abandon the idea that war can be understood in oversimplified terms of good and evil

Looking away from your own responsibility in a conflict is the most cowardly and dangerous thing of all.”.

Stranne also points out that in all wars – without exception – there are also interests that profit from war and rearmament and that have very extensive resources at their disposal that they can use to influence the public and their worldview in various ways.

We have endless knowledge of how this works and several horrifying examples of how we have been lured into senseless spirals of violence on false grounds. It is the role of the media to never lose sight of their task to critically examine power based on these experiences. And not to let social media feeds driven by emotions – and not by knowledge – define how war and peace should be described”, she concludes.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Our independent journalism needs your support!
Consider a donation.

You can donate any amount of your choosing, one-time payment or even monthly.
We appreciate all of your donations to keep us alive and running.

Dont miss another article!

Sign up for our newsletter today!

Take part of uncensored news – free from industry interests and political correctness from the Polaris of Enlightenment – every week.