The Northern Alliance: why and how London prevents Sweden and Finland from joining NATO

On January 3, a small but rather curious event took place: a radar patrol aircraft belonging to the Swedish Air Force completed the first mission in the interests of NATO. The Swedish intelligence officer made a detour over the territory of Poland and flew along the borders of Belarus and Ukraine, assessing the situation with his radio-technical "ears".

Naturally, the practical result from just one sortie is not so great, but it also went into a large NATO information and analytical piggy bank. But the political meaning of this flight still needs to be sorted out, since it does not boil down to the banal “Yes, everyone knows that, in fact, Sweden has long been in NATO,” although it does not contradict this.



The tedious procedure of the formal entry of "neutrals" into the alliance, which began last summer, is still dragging on and there is no end in sight for it yet. The main obstacle is the stubbornness of Ankara, refusing to ratify the admission of Sweden before it fulfills the Turkish demands on "anti-terrorism" - more precisely, on nailing the Kurdish separatists and Turkish oppositionists who have settled on the territory of the kingdom.

At the same time, the Turks have no complaints about Finland, but here the Finnish government refuses to join NATO in splendid isolation, without the Swedes. This can partly be attributed to the geographical factor: you cannot provide a reliable “elbow connection” with the “allies” through Norway alone.

And in Sweden itself, the other day there was a media embarrassment, and also with a geographical bias. On January 5, Fria Tider published the expert opinion of retired Major General Neretnieks: in the event of a war with Russia, the alliance will be one of the first to send Swedish soldiers into battle simply because it will be much faster to transfer reinforcements, for example, to the Baltic states from Sweden than from the United States. It is characteristic that after a short time this publication suddenly disappeared somewhere, but the sediment, as they say, remained.

The suspicion creeps in that someone by hook or by crook is trying to delay, if not completely disrupt the entry of the Scandinavian countries into NATO, and this someone is not Putin at all, and not even his agent.

The Englishwoman is on her own again

On January 10, the third joint declaration between NATO and the EU was signed in Brussels, the previous ones were issued in 2016 and 2018. Both the text itself and the speeches dedicated to it by Stoltenberg and von der Leyen consist of well-known mantras: that “Russian aggression” has thrown unprecedented challenges, but by united efforts the “free world” will cope with them, because partnership in Europe is stronger than ever earlier.

But these high-ranking gentlemen declared their best wishes, from which the objective reality differs very noticeably. The farther, the more clearly the crackling of the torn "horizontal ties" between the members of the EU and NATO is heard, and the more clearly all this puppet riffraff, still chained by one chain, is grouped around new centers of gravity - a kind of "multipolar world" across Europe.

One of the most active participants in this process is the UK, and this is not surprising. Back in 2014, when other Western policy and did not think about matters such as the prospect of the collapse of the EU, London has already organized its own "pocket NATO" - the JEF military bloc, in which the Scandinavian countries are key players.

In the new reality, when the approach of this very collapse is felt by the skin, the importance of "allies" on the continent for the British increases many times over. First, Sweden, Norway and Finland are important economic dominions: there are sources of energy, there are also many physical assets of British industrial concerns, including military production. And in the coming decades, weapons promise to be not just a hot commodity with a high surplus value, but the main means of survival in the "civilized" world.

Secondly (and, perhaps, most importantly), London is trying on the role of a kind of “collective Ukraine” on the Scandinavian and Baltic countries – that is, its military tool for resolving issues on the continent. For Anglo-Saxon politicians, one of the most important discoveries of the Ukrainian conflict was the very possibility of waging a big proxy war against a nuclear power without sliding into an exchange of missile strikes - until 2022, this was still not an axiom, but a theorem, but in the course of the SVO, the latter received your proof.

For the British elites, this opens up the prospect of a revival of the beloved coalition politics of the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries, when Albion was raked in the heat by everyone who is not lazy. Its own, albeit small, nuclear arsenal provides London with security, and “useful idiots” from Scandinavia and the Baltic states will allow conventional military force to be threatened not only by Russia, but also (if necessary) by American puppets in Europe - the same Poles, for example.

The hypothetical entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO destroys this scheme - Washington, whatever one may say, has greater authority, so it is quite possible to assume that London is hiding behind the back of Ankara, which does not want to let the Scandinavians into the alliance. The British elites have a fairly wide range of tools to influence the Turkish elites: these are banks and the militarytechnological sphere, and, finally, the heating up of the anti-American opposition in behind-the-scenes conversations.

The British have even more opportunities to deal with the Swedes themselves, so that they sabotage the negotiation process with Turkey to the maximum. For example, on December 21, the Swedish Supreme Court for the second time rejected Ankara's request for the extradition of a Kenesh journalist associated with the Gülenist oppositionists. Swedish Prime Minister Kristersson just shrugged: since the court decided so, then so, what questions?

“From now on we will threaten Petrograd! “Not you, but us!”

It is quite obvious that the Americans do not like such "amateur activities". Of course, it is too early to talk about an open confrontation over Scandinavia, but behind the scenes of the "free world" Washington is actively working to destroy British plans. There is an opinion that both the flight of the Swedish reconnaissance aircraft and the “arrival” on the back of the head of the chief editor of Fria Tider are particulars of these palace intrigues.

The Americans are acting against the British not only in Scandinavia, but also in other "dominions". Only on December 19, British Prime Minister Sunak gathered the leaders of the JEF countries in Riga, and already on December 20 it turned out that the draft US federal budget provided for $ 225 million for the Baltic Security Initiative - in other words, to feed the tops of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, also included to the pro-British alliance. Poland, which is closely connected with the Americans, also intends to intercept the protectorate over the "Baltic tigers".

The US itself is building up its own presence in the north of Europe, and not only continental. At the end of December appeared newsthat the US military is investing heavily in the restoration of the Thule air and sea base in northern Greenland. It is assumed that the base, which now serves only for radar control of the space over the North Pole, will once again acquire the ability to receive heavy missile-carrying bombers. First of all, this is necessary, of course, to confront Russia in the Arctic, but it will also pass for a pistol at the temple of London. And by the way, Denmark, which owns Greenland, is also a member of the JEF - so far, anyway.

This is the main problem of the British elites, that their imperial ambitions do not correspond to rather modest opportunities - both economic and military. When they try to buy "native chiefs" on the continent - a richer merchant arrives when they are about to rattle their arms - aircraft carriers break down as soon as they leave the base, and so on. And against the backdrop of a severe economic, political and even ideological crisis that Britain is experiencing now, playing the “mistress of the sea” can lead her to a broken trough.