#newcoldwar — Public Fediverse posts

Russophobic Intellectuals Breed Support For Death and Destruction

In a classic 1967 essay, “The Responsibility of Intellectuals,” Noam Chomsky argued that faculty at top U.S. universities had betrayed their calling of speaking truth to power by working on military counterinsurgency programs and providing ideological ...

https://murica.website/2026/03/russophobic-intellectuals-breed-support-for-death-and-destruction/

Trump’s Greenland Threats Reveal A Revival Of U.S. Neo‑Colonial Strategy In The Arctic

Trump’s Greenland Threats Reveal A Revival Of U.S. Neo‑Colonial Strategy In The Arctic

By Uriel Araujo

By refusing to rule out force over Greenland, Trump has unsettled European allies and reframed Arctic geopolitics. The parallels with US pressure on Venezuela point to a consistent strategy rooted in resource control and strategic positioning. Greenland thus emerges as a potential test case for 21st-century neo-colonial power dynamics.

Copenhagen’s decision to summon the US ambassador this week is no mere diplomatic theatre. It is rather a response to a very real signal coming from Washington: Greenland is still on Washington’s strategic radar. In fact, by appointing a new special envoy to Greenland, the Trump administration is not merely reopening an old debate, but rather is reviving a doctrine.

The appointment of Jeff Landry as special envoy for Greenland has been framed by Washington as a matter of “coordination” and “dialogue.” Commentator Alexandra Sharp, writing for Foreign Policy, notes that the move revives US ambitions tied to strategic minerals, Arctic shipping routes, and military positioning.

Trump openly floated the idea of purchasing Greenland during his first term, only to face firm Danish rejection. What has changed now is not the underlying intent, but tone and timing. Trump’s recent statements — that Greenland is “essential for US security” and that “all options”, including force, remain open — should not necessarily be brushed off as mere rhetoric. By refusing to rule out military action against a NATO ally’s territory, Trump has compelled European capitals to treat his once-dismissed bravado as a genuine strategic contingency.

So much for the post-Cold War narrative that territorial revisionism was the monopoly of official adversaries. Denmark, for its part, has reacted sharply. The Danish foreign ministry, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, made clear that Greenland is not for sale and that any suggestion otherwise is unacceptable. European leaders have closed ranks, with France, Germany, and the EU Commission issuing statements backing Greenland’s sovereignty.

European unity, however should not be mistaken for confidence: officials understand that Trump’s threats are part of a broader pattern. Washington is simultaneously reviving its “all options” rhetoric toward Venezuela, signalling potential regime change. When one administration simultaneously signals openness to coercive action in the Arctic and the Caribbean, this is no coincidence. The logic here, far from ideological, is material enough.

Greenland, as it so happens, holds vast reserves of rare earths, uranium, and critical minerals increasingly vital to advanced technologies and military systems. Its geographic position also anchors US missile defence architecture and Arctic surveillance. Venezuela, meanwhile, remains home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

Trump’s rhetoric is often dismissed as bombast, yet in this case it aligns with long-standing US strategic documents that treat access denial, resource security, and chokepoint control as existential matters. The Arctic, in particular, has quietly moved from peripheral concern to a central theatre of the New Cold War.

As I previously noted, the next major Russia-West standoff could even take place in the Arctic — rather than Ukraine or the Middle East — due to NATO’s expanding presence and military buildup, which risks dangerous escalation. This includes Nordic expansion through Finland’s and Sweden’s accessions, alongside renewed US focus on Greenland, seen by Moscow as part of a broader encirclement strategy.

Moreover, melting ice is currently opening new shipping lanes and intensifying competition over seabed resources. No wonder Greenland’s strategic value has skyrocketed.

European outrage over American assertions on Greenland is understandable but arguably selective, given the long-standing US military primacy at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule) under Danish sovereignty. In his own way, Trump is not inventing American dominance but openly declaring it, dispensing with euphemisms and ambiguity to the detriment of diplomatic decorum — preferring blunt clarity, however destabilizing.

Critics rightly call any coercion of Greenland reckless and legally untenable. Yet legality has seldom restrained American actions when vital strategic interests are at stake — as seen in Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, and Syria — through creative reinterpretations of international norms. With its small population and weak defences, Greenland may appear to Washington as vulnerable enough to pressure without risking major escalation.

This does not necessarily mean annexation is imminent. It does mean leverage is being recalibrated. The special envoy post allows Washington to deepen ties directly with Greenlandic elites, bypassing Copenhagen where convenient. It also places Greenland squarely within Trump’s transactional framework: security guarantees in exchange for access, alignment, and eventual dependency.

The Venezuelan parallel reinforces the pattern. Both cases involve resource-rich territories, weak bargaining positions (especially in Greenland’s case), and narratives of “security necessity.” In both cases, Trump presents coercion not as aggression but as prudence. The huge difference is that the European allies happen to be implicated in Greenland, whereas Latin America has long been accustomed to US pressure. That asymmetry alone explains the sudden shock in Copenhagen and Brussels.

There is also a domestic angle. Trump’s base responds favourably to assertive postures that promise control over resources and borders. Greenland, framed as vital and vulnerable, fits neatly into this narrative. This does not mean that such threats are electoral theatre and nothing else. Instead, they are policy signals calibrated for multiple audiences at once.

None of this guarantees success, of course. European resistance, Greenlandic self-determination, and international backlash remain real constraints. But the signal has been sent. To put it simply, Trump is reasserting a 19th-century vocabulary in a 21st-century setting.

To what extent this strategy destabilizes the Arctic remains to be seen. One may recall that Trump is also pushing an Anglo-American administration to “rule” Palestine, in a neo-colonial fashion (clashing with Israel’s own projects). Greenland right now might thus also be a test case: a test of how far blunt power politics can go when wrapped in the language of security. Moreover, it is also a test of whether Europe can defend sovereignty without escalation in a divided NATO. And it is a reminder that, in Washington’s worldview, territory, resources, and leverage remain inseparable.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

 

#DonaldTrump #EU #Europe #Geopolitics #Greenland #NATO #NewColdWar #TheArctic #USA

Trump’s Greenland Threats Reveal A Revival Of U.S. Neo‑Colonial Strategy In The Arctic

Trump’s Greenland Threats Reveal A Revival Of U.S. Neo‑Colonial Strategy In The Arctic

By Uriel Araujo

By refusing to rule out force over Greenland, Trump has unsettled European allies and reframed Arctic geopolitics. The parallels with US pressure on Venezuela point to a consistent strategy rooted in resource control and strategic positioning. Greenland thus emerges as a potential test case for 21st-century neo-colonial power dynamics.

Copenhagen’s decision to summon the US ambassador this week is no mere diplomatic theatre. It is rather a response to a very real signal coming from Washington: Greenland is still on Washington’s strategic radar. In fact, by appointing a new special envoy to Greenland, the Trump administration is not merely reopening an old debate, but rather is reviving a doctrine.

The appointment of Jeff Landry as special envoy for Greenland has been framed by Washington as a matter of “coordination” and “dialogue.” Commentator Alexandra Sharp, writing for Foreign Policy, notes that the move revives US ambitions tied to strategic minerals, Arctic shipping routes, and military positioning.

Trump openly floated the idea of purchasing Greenland during his first term, only to face firm Danish rejection. What has changed now is not the underlying intent, but tone and timing. Trump’s recent statements — that Greenland is “essential for US security” and that “all options”, including force, remain open — should not necessarily be brushed off as mere rhetoric. By refusing to rule out military action against a NATO ally’s territory, Trump has compelled European capitals to treat his once-dismissed bravado as a genuine strategic contingency.

So much for the post-Cold War narrative that territorial revisionism was the monopoly of official adversaries. Denmark, for its part, has reacted sharply. The Danish foreign ministry, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, made clear that Greenland is not for sale and that any suggestion otherwise is unacceptable. European leaders have closed ranks, with France, Germany, and the EU Commission issuing statements backing Greenland’s sovereignty.

European unity, however should not be mistaken for confidence: officials understand that Trump’s threats are part of a broader pattern. Washington is simultaneously reviving its “all options” rhetoric toward Venezuela, signalling potential regime change. When one administration simultaneously signals openness to coercive action in the Arctic and the Caribbean, this is no coincidence. The logic here, far from ideological, is material enough.

Greenland, as it so happens, holds vast reserves of rare earths, uranium, and critical minerals increasingly vital to advanced technologies and military systems. Its geographic position also anchors US missile defence architecture and Arctic surveillance. Venezuela, meanwhile, remains home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

Trump’s rhetoric is often dismissed as bombast, yet in this case it aligns with long-standing US strategic documents that treat access denial, resource security, and chokepoint control as existential matters. The Arctic, in particular, has quietly moved from peripheral concern to a central theatre of the New Cold War.

As I previously noted, the next major Russia-West standoff could even take place in the Arctic — rather than Ukraine or the Middle East — due to NATO’s expanding presence and military buildup, which risks dangerous escalation. This includes Nordic expansion through Finland’s and Sweden’s accessions, alongside renewed US focus on Greenland, seen by Moscow as part of a broader encirclement strategy.

Moreover, melting ice is currently opening new shipping lanes and intensifying competition over seabed resources. No wonder Greenland’s strategic value has skyrocketed.

European outrage over American assertions on Greenland is understandable but arguably selective, given the long-standing US military primacy at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule) under Danish sovereignty. In his own way, Trump is not inventing American dominance but openly declaring it, dispensing with euphemisms and ambiguity to the detriment of diplomatic decorum — preferring blunt clarity, however destabilizing.

Critics rightly call any coercion of Greenland reckless and legally untenable. Yet legality has seldom restrained American actions when vital strategic interests are at stake — as seen in Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, and Syria — through creative reinterpretations of international norms. With its small population and weak defences, Greenland may appear to Washington as vulnerable enough to pressure without risking major escalation.

This does not necessarily mean annexation is imminent. It does mean leverage is being recalibrated. The special envoy post allows Washington to deepen ties directly with Greenlandic elites, bypassing Copenhagen where convenient. It also places Greenland squarely within Trump’s transactional framework: security guarantees in exchange for access, alignment, and eventual dependency.

The Venezuelan parallel reinforces the pattern. Both cases involve resource-rich territories, weak bargaining positions (especially in Greenland’s case), and narratives of “security necessity.” In both cases, Trump presents coercion not as aggression but as prudence. The huge difference is that the European allies happen to be implicated in Greenland, whereas Latin America has long been accustomed to US pressure. That asymmetry alone explains the sudden shock in Copenhagen and Brussels.

There is also a domestic angle. Trump’s base responds favourably to assertive postures that promise control over resources and borders. Greenland, framed as vital and vulnerable, fits neatly into this narrative. This does not mean that such threats are electoral theatre and nothing else. Instead, they are policy signals calibrated for multiple audiences at once.

None of this guarantees success, of course. European resistance, Greenlandic self-determination, and international backlash remain real constraints. But the signal has been sent. To put it simply, Trump is reasserting a 19th-century vocabulary in a 21st-century setting.

To what extent this strategy destabilizes the Arctic remains to be seen. One may recall that Trump is also pushing an Anglo-American administration to “rule” Palestine, in a neo-colonial fashion (clashing with Israel’s own projects). Greenland right now might thus also be a test case: a test of how far blunt power politics can go when wrapped in the language of security. Moreover, it is also a test of whether Europe can defend sovereignty without escalation in a divided NATO. And it is a reminder that, in Washington’s worldview, territory, resources, and leverage remain inseparable.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

 

#DonaldTrump #EU #Europe #Geopolitics #Greenland #NATO #NewColdWar #TheArctic #USA

Trump’s Greenland Threats Reveal A Revival Of U.S. Neo‑Colonial Strategy In The Arctic

Trump’s Greenland Threats Reveal A Revival Of U.S. Neo‑Colonial Strategy In The Arctic

By Uriel Araujo

By refusing to rule out force over Greenland, Trump has unsettled European allies and reframed Arctic geopolitics. The parallels with US pressure on Venezuela point to a consistent strategy rooted in resource control and strategic positioning. Greenland thus emerges as a potential test case for 21st-century neo-colonial power dynamics.

Copenhagen’s decision to summon the US ambassador this week is no mere diplomatic theatre. It is rather a response to a very real signal coming from Washington: Greenland is still on Washington’s strategic radar. In fact, by appointing a new special envoy to Greenland, the Trump administration is not merely reopening an old debate, but rather is reviving a doctrine.

The appointment of Jeff Landry as special envoy for Greenland has been framed by Washington as a matter of “coordination” and “dialogue.” Commentator Alexandra Sharp, writing for Foreign Policy, notes that the move revives US ambitions tied to strategic minerals, Arctic shipping routes, and military positioning.

Trump openly floated the idea of purchasing Greenland during his first term, only to face firm Danish rejection. What has changed now is not the underlying intent, but tone and timing. Trump’s recent statements — that Greenland is “essential for US security” and that “all options”, including force, remain open — should not necessarily be brushed off as mere rhetoric. By refusing to rule out military action against a NATO ally’s territory, Trump has compelled European capitals to treat his once-dismissed bravado as a genuine strategic contingency.

So much for the post-Cold War narrative that territorial revisionism was the monopoly of official adversaries. Denmark, for its part, has reacted sharply. The Danish foreign ministry, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, made clear that Greenland is not for sale and that any suggestion otherwise is unacceptable. European leaders have closed ranks, with France, Germany, and the EU Commission issuing statements backing Greenland’s sovereignty.

European unity, however should not be mistaken for confidence: officials understand that Trump’s threats are part of a broader pattern. Washington is simultaneously reviving its “all options” rhetoric toward Venezuela, signaling potential regime change. When one administration simultaneously signals openness to coercive action in the Arctic and the Caribbean, this is no coincidence. The logic here, far from ideological, is material enough.

Greenland, as it so happens, holds vast reserves of rare earths, uranium, and critical minerals increasingly vital to advanced technologies and military systems. Its geographic position also anchors US missile defence architecture and Arctic surveillance. Venezuela, meanwhile, remains home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves.

Trump’s rhetoric is often dismissed as bombast, yet in this case it aligns with long-standing US strategic documents that treat access denial, resource security, and chokepoint control as existential matters. The Arctic, in particular, has quietly moved from peripheral concern to a central theatre of the New Cold War.

As I previously noted, the next major Russia-West standoff could even take place in the Arctic — rather than Ukraine or the Middle East — due to NATO’s expanding presence and military buildup, which risks dangerous escalation. This includes Nordic expansion through Finland’s and Sweden’s accessions, alongside renewed US focus on Greenland, seen by Moscow as part of a broader encirclement strategy.

Moreover, melting ice is currently opening new shipping lanes and intensifying competition over seabed resources. No wonder Greenland’s strategic value has skyrocketed.

European outrage over American assertions on Greenland is understandable but arguably selective, given the long-standing US military primacy at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule) under Danish sovereignty. In his own way, Trump is not inventing American dominance but openly declaring it, dispensing with euphemisms and ambiguity to the detriment of diplomatic decorum — preferring blunt clarity, however destabilizing.

Critics rightly call any coercion of Greenland reckless and legally untenable. Yet legality has seldom restrained American actions when vital strategic interests are at stake — as seen in Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, and Syria — through creative reinterpretations of international norms. With its small population and weak defenses, Greenland may appear to Washington as vulnerable enough to pressure without risking major escalation.

This does not necessarily mean annexation is imminent. It does mean leverage is being recalibrated. The special envoy post allows Washington to deepen ties directly with Greenlandic elites, bypassing Copenhagen where convenient. It also places Greenland squarely within Trump’s transactional framework: security guarantees in exchange for access, alignment, and eventual dependency.

The Venezuelan parallel reinforces the pattern. Both cases involve resource-rich territories, weak bargaining positions (especially in Greenland’s case), and narratives of “security necessity.” In both cases, Trump presents coercion not as aggression but as prudence. The huge difference is that the European allies happen to be implicated in Greenland, whereas Latin America has long been accustomed to US pressure. That asymmetry alone explains the sudden shock in Copenhagen and Brussels.

There is also a domestic angle. Trump’s base responds favorably to assertive postures that promise control over resources and borders. Greenland, framed as vital and vulnerable, fits neatly into this narrative. This does not mean that such threats are electoral theater and nothing else. Instead, they are policy signals calibrated for multiple audiences at once.

None of this guarantees success, of course. European resistance, Greenlandic self-determination, and international backlash remain real constraints. But the signal has been sent. To put it simply, Trump is reasserting a 19th-century vocabulary in a 21st-century setting.

To what extent this strategy destabilizes the Arctic remains to be seen. One may recall that Trump is also pushing an Anglo-American administration to “rule” Palestine, in a neo-colonial fashion (clashing with Israel’s own projects). Greenland right now might thus also be a test case: a test of how far blunt power politics can go when wrapped in the language of security. Moreover, it is also a test of whether Europe can defend sovereignty without escalation in a divided NATO. And it is a reminder that, in Washington’s worldview, territory, resources, and leverage remain inseparable.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

 

#DonaldTrump #EU #Europe #Geopolitics #Greenland #NATO #NewColdWar #TheArctic #USA

The First-Ever Polish-Swedish Joint Exercise Presages Closer Cooperation Against Russia

The First-Ever Polish-Swedish Joint Exercise Presages Closer Cooperation Against Russia

By Andrew Korybko

They have historical axes to grind against Russia after its imperial predecessor state was responsible for ending their Golden Ages as Great Powers.

Poland and Sweden just carried out their first-ever “short-notice exercise” (SNEX) in the Baltic following the signing of a military cooperation agreement at the beginning of September. This coincides with Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski warning that Poland will shoot down any Russian drones, missiles, or aircraft that enter its airspace. His words follow some Russian drones reportedly doing just that earlier in the month and Poland accusing Russian jets of violating a drilling platform’s safety zone shortly after.

The first incident was arguably caused by NATO jamming while the second – if true – might have been to gather intelligence on clandestine surveillance equipment there following reports that Poland started installing such over the summer on offshore infrastructure like wind farms. Polish-Russian tensions are therefore clearly intensifying, and the Baltic is increasingly becoming a significant theatre in the NATO-Russian front of the New Cold War, especially after Estonia accused Russia of violating its airspace there.

The first-ever Polish-Swedish joint exercise should thus be seen as strengthening NATO’s containment of Russia. President Karol Nawrocki declared in his inaugural speech in August that “I dream that in the long term, the Bucharest Nine will become the Bucharest Eleven, together with the Scandinavian countries. Yes, we, as Poles, in Central Europe and Eastern Europe, are responsible for building the strength of NATO’s eastern flank. And this should also be the international, geopolitical direction of my presidency.”

Scandinavia refers in this context to new NATO members Finland and Sweden, the first of which he visited in early September during the last leg of his first foreign trip while the second is the stronger of the two and the one with which Poland just carried out its first joint military exercise. He also reaffirmed what was conveyed above about his country’s envisaged regional sphere of influence during an interview with Lithuanian media where he claimed Polish responsibility for the Baltic States’ security.

The informally Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” officially includes the EU’s formerly communist members, Austria, and Greece but is now conceptualized by Warsaw under Nawrocki’s leadership as de facto expanding to Scandinavia (Finland and Sweden) due to their shared interests in containing Russia. The growing ties between Poland and Sweden, which were hated rivals during the 17th century after the Swedish invasion (“Deluge”) killed around 1/3 of Poland’s population, will converge more in the Baltic.

Just as Poland is expected to play a greater role in the Baltic Sea in partnership with Sweden, so too is Sweden is expected to play a greater role in the Baltic States’ security in partnership with Poland, with the Polish-Swedish Baltic duopoly aspiring to jointly contain Russia all across this front. Bases in one another’s territory (perhaps a Polish air-naval one on Sweden’s island of Gotland?) and multilateral drills between Poland, Sweden, the Baltic States, and possibly also Finland, the UK, and the US could follow.

Poland and Sweden have historical axes to grind against Russia after its imperial predecessor state was responsible for ending their Golden Ages as Great Powers. They also have a shared history of influence over the Baltic States, Sweden’s mostly being over Estonia, Poland’s mostly over Lithuania, and varying periods of control over Latvia (many don’t know that some of it remained under Warsaw’s writ until the Third Partition of 1795). This poses an emerging threat to Russia that raises the risk of war with NATO.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#CEE #CentralAndEasternEurope #EU #Europe #Finland #Geopolitics #NATO #NewColdWar #Poland #Russia #Sweden #TheBaltics #UK #USA

The First-Ever Polish-Swedish Joint Exercise Presages Closer Cooperation Against Russia

The First-Ever Polish-Swedish Joint Exercise Presages Closer Cooperation Against Russia

By Andrew Korybko

They have historical axes to grind against Russia after its imperial predecessor state was responsible for ending their Golden Ages as Great Powers.

Poland and Sweden just carried out their first-ever “short-notice exercise” (SNEX) in the Baltic following the signing of a military cooperation agreement at the beginning of September. This coincides with Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski warning that Poland will shoot down any Russian drones, missiles, or aircraft that enter its airspace. His words follow some Russian drones reportedly doing just that earlier in the month and Poland accusing Russian jets of violating a drilling platform’s safety zone shortly after.

The first incident was arguably caused by NATO jamming while the second – if true – might have been to gather intelligence on clandestine surveillance equipment there following reports that Poland started installing such over the summer on offshore infrastructure like wind farms. Polish-Russian tensions are therefore clearly intensifying, and the Baltic is increasingly becoming a significant theatre in the NATO-Russian front of the New Cold War, especially after Estonia accused Russia of violating its airspace there.

The first-ever Polish-Swedish joint exercise should thus be seen as strengthening NATO’s containment of Russia. President Karol Nawrocki declared in his inaugural speech in August that “I dream that in the long term, the Bucharest Nine will become the Bucharest Eleven, together with the Scandinavian countries. Yes, we, as Poles, in Central Europe and Eastern Europe, are responsible for building the strength of NATO’s eastern flank. And this should also be the international, geopolitical direction of my presidency.”

Scandinavia refers in this context to new NATO members Finland and Sweden, the first of which he visited in early September during the last leg of his first foreign trip while the second is the stronger of the two and the one with which Poland just carried out its first joint military exercise. He also reaffirmed what was conveyed above about his country’s envisaged regional sphere of influence during an interview with Lithuanian media where he claimed Polish responsibility for the Baltic States’ security.

The informally Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” officially includes the EU’s formerly communist members, Austria, and Greece but is now conceptualized by Warsaw under Nawrocki’s leadership as de facto expanding to Scandinavia (Finland and Sweden) due to their shared interests in containing Russia. The growing ties between Poland and Sweden, which were hated rivals during the 17th century after the Swedish invasion (“Deluge”) killed around 1/3 of Poland’s population, will converge more in the Baltic.

Just as Poland is expected to play a greater role in the Baltic Sea in partnership with Sweden, so too is Sweden is expected to play a greater role in the Baltic States’ security in partnership with Poland, with the Polish-Swedish Baltic duopoly aspiring to jointly contain Russia all across this front. Bases in one another’s territory (perhaps a Polish air-naval one on Sweden’s island of Gotland?) and multilateral drills between Poland, Sweden, the Baltic States, and possibly also Finland, the UK, and the US could follow.

Poland and Sweden have historical axes to grind against Russia after its imperial predecessor state was responsible for ending their Golden Ages as Great Powers. They also have a shared history of influence over the Baltic States, Sweden’s mostly being over Estonia, Poland’s mostly over Lithuania, and varying periods of control over Latvia (many don’t know that some of it remained under Warsaw’s writ until the Third Partition of 1795). This poses an emerging threat to Russia that raises the risk of war with NATO.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

#CEE #CentralAndEasternEurope #EU #Europe #Finland #Geopolitics #NATO #NewColdWar #Poland #Russia #Sweden #TheBaltics #UK #USA