Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

It’s the US preferred “small-group setting” for “driving progress toward NATO 3.0’s” European-led containment of Russia.

Politico recently reported that “Pentagon excludes key allies from NATO meeting” in Poland later this month that’ll also see the participation of Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, and Germany. The first three comprise what’s been described as the Viking Bloc while the last two and Poland pioneered the “military Schengen” in early 2024 for optimizing NATO’s east-west military logistics. The upcoming meeting in Poland will be the third time that the “Bergen Group”, as it’s been called, has met since June.

Politico’s report drew attention to the exclusion of France, the UK, and the Baltic States, the first two of which are nuclear powers while the last three border Russia. There are understandable reasons why they weren’t invited to participate in the Bergen Group. Trump 2.0’s National Security Strategy snubs Western Europe due to its radical demographic changes that the US believes risk its countries’ future military-political reliability while the Baltic States are infamous for their irrational behavior towards Russia.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Article 5 doesn’t mandate the use of military force in support of an ally, and it certainly wasn’t meant to be exploited by false flags (or even genuine accidents) like Poland’s liberals seem to want to do.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico recently made headlines for telling his compatriots that he’ll do his utmost to keep their country out of war with Russia, including if it’s asked to participate in such a conflict through Article 5.

During the same event, he also warned that European NATO and Russia are closer to war than ever, adding in reference to those of his counterparts who just visited Ukraine that “I am deeply concerned that they are merely looking for a pretext for a major conflict between NATO and Russia.”

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Catholicism is an important part of Polish identity so the optics of a Ukrainian attacking priests and nuns amount to a Ukrainian attack on Polishness itself with all that entails for the socio-political consequences that are expected to soon follow.

A Ukrainian was apprehended on Thursday after stabbing five people at the Benedictine Sisters’ monastery in the southeastern Polish town of Jarosław near the border with Ukraine, three of whom were priests and at least one of which was killed. Catholicism is an important part of Polish identity so the optics of a Ukrainian attacking priests and nuns amount to a Ukrainian attack on Polishness itself with all that entails for the socio-political consequences that are expected to soon follow.

It couldn’t have come at a worse time since Poles are now polarized over Ukraine like never before as a result of Zelensky recently glorifying the Volhynia Genocide’s OUN-UPA culprits at the state level and the consequent harassment that they’ve received on social media from Ukrainians since then.

There are a little less than one million Ukrainian refugees living in Poland nowadays too, and a growing share of Poles want their government to deport at least the draft dodgers among them.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

This institutionalizes the “Strategy of Denial” on the world’s largest island by not only giving the US control over its security, but over its resources too, which could become a template that the US might replicate with others across Ibero-America and Africa as part of its systemic rivalry with China.

Trump declared during his speech at the UNGA that “No US adversary will ever be permitted to establish a military presence in Greenland any more, or make sensitive investments there without our express written approval” as a result of the US’ deal with that island’s government and Denmark’s. This represents the fulfilment of what he’s sought to do since his first term. While it might seem unique to many, Trump’s newly announced deal is essentially an expanded Compact of Free Association (COFA).

This refers to the arrangements that the US reached with the Pacific Island nations of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau that it controlled for varying lengths of time after World War II. COFA’s defining feature is that the US retains control over their security, exactly as it’s now attained over Greenland, but Greenland’s COFA-like deal expands the US’ control into the resource domain. The significance of this move is that it could become a template that the US might replicate with others.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The US’ decision not to issue visas for the Belarusian delegation to the Board of Peace meeting was a “plausibly deniable” form of humiliation against them for Lukashenko snubbing the event since Trump already takes him for granted as a future vassal and therefore expected his personal attendance.

[Feb 23, 2026] The Belarusian Foreign Ministry complained on social media that “Visas for our delegation to the Peace Council meeting were not issued, despite all documents being submitted on time and procedures followed…If even basic formalities aren’t respected, what ‘peace’ are we talking about?”

This follows President Alexander Lukashenko declining to attend last week’s first meeting for unclear reasons, though not due to pressure from Putin he said, after accepting Trump’s invitation to join the Board of Peace.

As was explained here in January, Trump always has the final say on the Board’s decisions and activities, and he can even reverse them at any time after they’re already made or being implemented. The group that he founded therefore functions as a place to buy influence with him, but that doesn’t guarantee that he’ll do what’s asked of him.

Even so, since the Board might discuss the Ukrainian Conflict, Putin expressed interest in accepting Trump’s invitation to join so that Russia can have a seat at the table. Lukashenko’s interests in accepting Trump’s invitation arguably differ from Putin’s since he’s involved in very serious discussions with the US over sanctions relief and alleviating other pressure upon Belarus.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Norway’s Military Build-Up Against Russia Poses A Serious Threat To Arctic Security. It began to take shape before the large-scale phase of the Ukrainian Conflict broke out in early 2022.

Russian Ambassador to Norway Nikolai Korchunov shared an update on his host country’s militarization, which he earlier discussed in detail a few months back, this time warning that “Four South Korean K9 self-propelled guns with a firing range of up to 40 km” were moved to the province that borders Russia. By 2030, Norway is expected to deploy up to 16 South Korean rocket launchers with a range of up to 500 km, which would put the Northern Fleet’s headquarters in Severomorsk within striking distance.

Separately, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova condemned the US’ own rocket launcher deployment to Norway, noting that they can fire Tomahawks against land and sea targets alike. Severomorsk is thus already within NATO’s range. These two statements followed Norway’s seizure of a Russian research vessel that was analyzed here as serving to solidify closer coordination within the Viking Bloc, the sub-regional bloc within NATO 3.0 between Scandinavia, Finland, and the Baltic States.

Upon closer scrutiny, these moves are only the latest manifestations of Norway’s military build-up against Russia, which began to take shape before the large-scale phase of the Ukrainian Conflict broke out in early 2022.

Norway already had over 230 military and security sites by 2018, as suggested by this map here showing “where it is illegal to take aerial photographs or video using a camera or any other type of sensors.” The year prior, in 2017, Norway began hosting a rotational US Marine force.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

Regarding the bigger picture, the artificial exacerbation of regional tensions through these means can spark closer coordination within the Viking Bloc, which refers to the sub-regional bloc within NATO between Scandinavia, Finland, and the Baltic States.

The Governor of Svalbard, the Norwegian archipelago with special rights for several dozen countries, including Russia under its eponymous 1920 treaty, unexpectedly seized a Russian research vessel at Oslo’s orders to enforce an over-$4 billion 2023 Hague ruling in support of Ukraine’s Naftogaz.

This move followed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's declaration of a new era of development in the Russian Arctic and his warning about NATO threats to the region in an article he published a few days earlier. It’s therefore likely a response to what he wrote and was almost certainly coordinated with NATO. This provocation was aimed at advancing several objectives.

The first is to show that Russian ships can be seized by NATO countries in the Arctic, while the second is to expand the scope of those that can be seized to hypothetically include any vessel on the pretext of repaying Ukraine. Third, Ukraine is now emboldened to make more claims against Russia, after which NATO can then enforce them on its behalf. Fourth, the optics of a NATO country seizing a Russian vessel in an Arctic area where Moscow legally enjoys special rights is meant to raise doubts among Russia’s partners about the viability of the Northern Sea Route, with the intent being to deter its use and associated foreign investments along this route. And finally, new Norwegian-Russian tensions can be exploited to justify a greater Norwegian military buildup, especially if Russia seizes (or attempts to seize) a Norwegian vessel as a tit-for-tat response.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

It was carried out to justify the German economy’s evolution to war footing, distract from the resultant problems, and legitimize a future serious escalation against Russia.

Germany blamed Russia for last month’s incident in Leipzig when one explosives-laden drone was found on the tarmac in proximity to Ukrainian cargo planes, another reportedly collided with a separate cargo plane as it tried to land but failed to explode, and a third was later found close to the premises. Putin condemned their claim, shared his opinion that it was a false flag due to them planting evidence, and speculated that the motive was to distract from domestic problems by fearmongering about Russia.

While skeptics might roll their eyes, the Leipzig incident has all the hallmarks of a false flag. For starters, Germany is implying cartoonish incompetence on Russia's part. The public is supposed to believe that the most skilled drone operators in the world, who were tasked with what would have been the most sensational Hybrid War attack on NATO ever, left a drone on the tarmac, got unlucky when another failed to explode after it hit a landing cargo plane, and left another nearby. That’s difficult to believe.

The second point supporting Putin hypothesizes that something similar happened last fall when unknown drones forced major airports in Scandinavia to ground all flights temporarily. Zelensky predictably blamed Russia and called for closing the Danish Straits to its shipping. As with the Leipzig incident, no evidence was ever shared in support of that claim, but it served as the precedent to blame Russia for mysterious drone-related incidents in Europe to justify more escalations against it.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

History can’t be changed, but lessons can be learned from it, which could help Russia, China, and Iran in the future.

The 35th anniversary of Ukrainian independence is a timely occasion to reflect on the last chance that it had to restore this in full.

For background, “Putin Always Wanted A Truly Independent Ukraine” since he envisaged it complementing Russia’s role in facilitating Sino-EU trade with the aim of strengthening all parties’ complex independence, which could have economically united Eurasia and peacefully challenged the US’ hegemony. The problem, however, was Ukraine’s Western-backed ultra-nationalists.

What went wrong over the last 35 years is that these forces gradually subordinated Ukraine to the West as its anti-Russian proxy, the process of which was accelerated after the West helped install them in power through 2014’s “EuroMaidan” precisely for this purpose. Nevertheless, Putin still (naively, in hindsight) believed that France and Germany remained independent of the US, which is why he expected Russia’s security-guarantee requests from December 2021 to resonate with them.

Andrew Korybko
Andrew Korybko's Newsletter

The Russian-Polish security dilemma will likely serve as the impetus for fully unleashing and properly managing the capabilities of European NATO as a whole per the US’ National Defense Strategy.

RT drew attention in late January to a report by Izvestia about the West’s alleged plans to launch a “Defense, Security, and Resilience Bank” (DSRB) by 2027. Their article relies on in-depth research by the Atlantic Council, which first proposed what was called the “NATO Bank”. The purpose is to provide “low-interest loans for defense modernization”, thus facilitating the goal of NATO members spending 5% of GDP on defense without significantly curtailing social and infrastructure spending.

Instead of slashing such programs to redirect funds to defense at the risk of helping populist-nationalists in the next elections and/or provoking unrest, they’d only spend a fraction of the principal each year servicing their DSRB loan, rather than paying the cost upfront as if it were part of their annual expenditures. The Executive Summary of the Atlantic Council’s in-depth research, hyperlinked above, also notes that “An additional critical function of the DSR bank would be to underwrite the risk for commercial banks”.

This would then “enabl[e] them to extend financing to defense companies across the supply chain.” The supplementary purpose is to finance large-scale orders that these companies themselves are unable to afford, and that most member states can’t finance without potential populist pushback. Defense companies can then expand production, pump out the requested military-technical equipment at scale, and sell it at much lower prices to accelerate NATO’s planned militarization.