Tag: politics

#18. Putin Speaks

| Source: RT | October 7, 2024 |

Putin in English: Listen to the Russian president’s words like never before (VIDEO)

In case RT is blocked in your country: try a VPN connection

For understandable reasons, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers his most important messages in Russian, with speakers of other languages relying on translations to hear his thoughts. RT has used modern algorithmic technologies to have the statesman’s messages delivered in English.

The ‘Putin Speaks’ project draws on his keynote addresses from three broad periods. The first covers his early years in power, when Putin was seeking closer relations with the West, which he described as a partner against common threats such as terrorism. This ended with his 2007 speech at the International Security Conference in Munich, where he laid out Moscow’s grievances with Western unilateralism.

The ‘cold peace’ period lasted until 2014, when the US and its allies openly supported an armed coup in Kiev and promoted a new anti-Russian government. Nowadays, Moscow is calling for the toppling of Western hegemony and has allied with key nations of the ‘Global South’ to usher in a new age of multipolarity, which it believes will be more just and stable than the previous US-dominated arrangement.

Hear what Putin said over the years about Russian concerns, demands, and aspirations – directly from his mouth. This time in English.

You can listen all of the speeches here in the ‘Putin Speaks’ special project page.

#17. Pay the devil: How the US will force Europe to pay for its military industrial complex

Post updated: October 9, 2024 (scroll down to video)

The outcome of the American election won’t change anything, because the course is already set

Published: October 5, 2024
In: RT
By: Andrey Sushentsov, program director at the Valdai Club.

The American presidential campaign of 2024 has been marked by a series of unprecedented events. These include lawsuits against one candidate and relatives of the sitting president, assassination attempts against Donald Trump and, finally, the unprecedented situation of Joe Biden being forced out of the race by his own party. All of this has made the election marathon an extraordinary event.

Meanwhile, domestic politics in the US is spilling over into the rest of the world, and it’s helping fuel the growing dissatisfaction of the countries representing the world’s majority with the intense attempts by Washington to maintain its leadership. But we should not read too much into the vote, because the policy of seeking to preserve American dominance remains the main strategy of both candidates.

The neoconservative group remains quite prominent in the ruling Democratic Party, whose members’ worldview is built around the idea of power as the only tool for maintaining US leadership. This position doesn’t depend on personal attitudes and beliefs, but is derived from the status they occupy in the political mechanism. The then Senator Biden, for example, once proposed a large number of constructive initiatives in Congress. Among other things, he opposed NATO membership for the Baltic states, to the point where his party colleagues accused him of being too peace-loving in his foreign policy.

Once in the White House, however, Biden strictly followed the usual American logic of global leadership. The defense budget under his administration broke all records of recent decades. The consistency of US foreign policy practice in terms of deterrence strategy towards geopolitical rivals allows us to assert that the structural confrontation with Russia and China will continue regardless of the outcome of the election. The dynamics of this confrontation – in Ukraine and around Taiwan – will be determined by the military budget, a draft of which has already been developed and will be approved before the inauguration of his successor.

Against the backdrop of the election campaign, it is particularly interesting to see how much sharper the rhetoric has become and how it has been filled with catchy, ‘workable’ initiatives. Former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo’s plan for a “forced peace” in Ukraine, which proposes, among other things, that Kiev be brought into NATO on an accelerated basis “so that European allies will bear the burden of its defense,” has been well received. The result of such a scenario would be a direct military conflict between NATO and Russia, so it is unlikely. Such statements, which do not demonstrate a systemic understanding of the situation, need not in principle be long-term in nature. Their function is to mobilize hawks in the establishment, and among the electorate, to show that a forced escalation of the conflict is one possible scenario. It should be noted that as secretary of state, Pompeo established himself as a man prone to making high-profile statements that didn’t culminate in large-scale actions. Nevertheless, his quote is worth considering in the context of the fact that there is no political force in the US that would see the outcome of the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity for reconciliation with Russia.

On the one hand, a continuation will allow Washington to mobilize European NATO members to increase defense spending to a new target of 3% of GDP. In essence, this means more purchases of American weapons by Western Europeans and thus support for the US military-industrial complex. On the other hand, active support for Ukraine allows Russia to be drawn deeper and deeper into an expensive military campaign, thus solving the problem of deterrence without direct confrontation.

The collision of interests between Washington and Kiev is noteworthy here. The Ukrainian government, well aware that its own resources have been exhausted, is feverishly trying to cling to any chance of remaining at the top of the Western coalition’s priorities, and often – as in Kursk – acts rather opportunistically. By offering the West a visible military success, Kiev hoped to force it to become directly involved in the conflict. The Americans see this impulse from Ukraine, but are not interested in such a scenario.

Washington needs Ukraine as a proxy that it can use for as long as possible. The country’s usefulness as an instrument of US foreign policy suggests that the US-Russian crisis will be protracted. At the same time, the upward trajectory of the American defense budget will not change, regardless of the outcome of the election. Thus, Russian foreign policy and military planning is based on maintaining the present military conditions and continuing the strategic rivalry with the US, regardless of who the next American president is.

This article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.

Dr. Sushentsov is a Russian political scientist and foreign relations expert specializing in the American studies. In 2005, he graduated from Moscow State University’s Faculty of History with honors. In 2010, he was a full-time postgraduate student at MGIMO, where he defended a thesis on the topic “US political strategy in international conflicts in the 2000s (evidence from the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq” (2011).

On October 9, 2024, the following video was published by Prof. Pascal Lottaz. The content confirms the content of the article above.

EU Parliament Member EXPOSES Brussel’s Madness | Michael von der Schulenburg
– The EU is quite aware about the dramatic situation in the Ukraine War but still, they are pushing on with ever more talk about continuing the war “as long as it takes”. Michael von der Schulenburg, one of the EU parliament’s new German members, talks with Fritz Edlinger about how Europe has isolated itself and drove its own foreign policy into a corner from which it now has no place to escape.

#15. Documentary: “The Murder of Yugoslavia. The Shadow of Dayton.”

Documentary by Aleksei Denisov, 2015.

In 2015, the Russian news agency VGTRK released a documentary “The Murder of Yugoslavia. The Shadow of Dayton”. With the parallels in today’s Ukrainian conflict and NATO’s role in it, this documentary has become even more current than in 2015. Watch on Rumble.

On the 21st of November 1995 the information agencies of the world sent out an urgent news from the United States of America. On the military base in Dayton, the presidents of Serbia, Croatia, and the leaders of Bosnian Muslims signed an agreement on the cessation of civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In accordance with it, this part of the former Yugoslavia was now divided into the Muslim Croatian Federation and the Serbian Republic.
…
The Serbs, who controlled almost 75% of Bosnia and Herzegovina, made serious concessions and agreed to keep only 49% of the territory.
This was done to end the civil war, which by that time had actually destroyed the former Yugoslavia.

Source: X

Professor Jeffrey Sachs on Yugoslavia, NATO, Serbia, Kosovo, violation of international law

Economist Jeffrey Sachs revealed that the key reason for NATO aggression against Yugoslavia was to move military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders, making the claim during an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson. “We bombed a capital of Europe for 78 days…. We broke apart Serbia, established by our declaration a new country, Kosovo. We put a huge NATO base there, and that was the goal,” said Sachs, describing how the US violated international law and committed atrocities in a sovereign nation.

The entire interview / click:

#14. About NATO and the US military bases in Norway, and the naval base in particular

About NATO and the US military bases in Norway, and Haakonsvern in particular
Om NATO og USAs krigsbaser i Norge, og Haakonsvern spesielt
Published: 29 April 2024
In: Steigan
By: Terje Alnes

Presentation at the Anti-Imperialist Conference, Bergen Assembly, 27 April 2024

«On behalf of the Anti-War Initiative[Antikrigs-Initiativet, AKI], I thank you for the invitation to make a presentation. AKI was founded in 2019 and our vision is to become “a broad and popular movement for peace, against war and against a policy that increases the danger of war, in Norway and internationally.” The basis for our work is formulated in a platform that you can find at antikrigsinitiativet.no, and anyone who can get behind it can become a member. The term imperialism is not used in the platform, but when you read it, you realize that it is fundamentally anti-imperialist.»

Video presentation: Om NATO og USAs krigsbaser i Norge

«At this anti-imperialist conference, I want to start with some good news: We are now seeing very clear signs that 500 years of Western imperialism is coming to an end! Western colonization and control of the world is winding down, and America’s status as the world’s undisputed superpower and oppressor, as it has been for the past decades, has come to an end. The world will become multipolar. There will be several centers of power, not one that can plunder and oppress all over the globe.

This dramatic shift in history has not only global, but also regional and local implications, and we also see concrete results of these upheavals in this small town – Bergen. I have been asked to speak about NATO and the US military bases in Norway, and Haakonsvern [Royal Norwegian Navy] in particular. But in order to understand why all this is happening here and now, we must keep the great geopolitical upheaval in mind.

Unfortunately, Norway is on the wrong side of history, as an ally of the American Empire. The United States empire is not a geographical entity like previous empires in history, but is just as much an empire because it has controlled the world through a series of vassal states, client states and protectorates. Norway is such a vassal state.

Zbigniew Brzeziński, Jimmy Carter’s security policy adviser and professor of foreign policy, was liberatingly outspoken when it came to the mention of allied states. In the book “The Grand Chessboard” (1997), a major work on American geopolitics, we learn a lot about how the Americans view countries like Norway. Brzeziński refers to the Western European countries as America’s vassals.

A vassal state (such as Norway) is so dependent on another state (in this case the USA) that the national independence becomes of a more formal nature. When it comes to foreign policy, we have clear limitations, as a result of the fact that we are subject to the domination of the United States. In practice, this means that we are allowed internal autonomy (unless we vote “wrong” and the US has to intervene), while in foreign policy we are subject to the US and are expected to follow the dictates from Washington.

This also explains why it is almost indifferent whether we have a bourgeois government, or a Labor Party-dominated government, the foreign policy is fixed anyway.

About NATO

NATO was created immediately after World War II, and the driving force was anti-communism. The Soviet Union was perceived as a threat to Western capitalism, not only for purely ideological reasons, but also because the Soviet Union enjoyed a high reputation among broad sections of the people in the West, after the war. Norway joined NATO from the start in 1949, as one of the 12 original member states, and the vanguard of anti-communism in the Labor Party was the driving force behind this.

As NATO’s first Secretary General, former British General Hasting Lionel Ismay was exemplary when he stated that the purpose (of NATO) was to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.”

Already here we find an interesting point; namely that NATO was a tool to ensure an American grip on Europe. Ismay was an advocate of NATO expansion from the start, saying that NATO “must grow until the whole free world comes under one umbrella.” The statement illustrates the typical NATO rhetoric, where the alliance is allegedly fighting for “a free world”.

This has little credibility all the time Portugal, one of NATO’s original member states, was a fascist dictatorship until 1974. This dictatorship was no problem for NATO, which never did anything to promote democracy in Portugal.

Greece became a NATO member in 1952. Here, NATO actively contributed to the abolition of democracy through a fascist coup in April 1967, just before an election the left was likely to win. Turkey also became a NATO member in 1952. Nevertheless, Turkish democracy has regularly been sidelined by the military. In 1960, 1971 and 1980, democracy was suspended and replaced with governments appointed by the generals.

It is then only logical that today’s NATO has a partnership agreement with the apartheid state of Israel, and that NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg stated on 12 October last year that “Israel does not stand alone“. At the same time, a number of NATO countries stated that they would give practical support to Israel’s war in Gaza.

NATO’s founding document – the Atlantic Pact – is very similar to the UN Pact, and is defensive in nature. But when the previous Cold War ended, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO faced an existential problem. What would the alliance do now that its very basis for existence no longer existed?

The truth is that NATO depends on enemies to legitimize its existence. That is the explanation why Russia has been told twice since the dissolution of the Soviet Union that membership in NATO is out of the question. Both Boris Yeltsin in 1991 and Vladimir Putin in 2000 were met with a cold shoulder when they aired the possibility. This means that NATO is in reality an obstacle to an all-European security solution, and that Europe, as long as the alliance exists, will be an area of military tension.

What happened after the first cold war was over was that in 1999 NATO redefined its mandate to include so-called “pre-emptive strikes” – i.e. “preventive attacks” (!), and formulated its “out-of-area” strategy , which in practice gives NATO permission to intervene militarily across the globe, if they themselves believe it is necessary.

We first saw this put into practice when NATO launched a military attack against Yugoslavia, without a mandate from the UN Security Council, which as of definition is an illegal war. The justification was “humanitarian”, to stop alleged abuses committed by Serbian forces against Albanian civilians. For the first time since World War II, Norwegian forces took part in direct hostilities, when we fielded 6 F-16 aircraft.

This shift in NATO strategy also meant that the entire structure of the Norwegian Armed Forces was rearranged. From approx. in 2000, the Norwegian Armed Forces went from being an invasion defence, with large standing forces that were supposed to resist a territorial attack on Norway, to becoming a small, specialized response defence, which puts advanced combat forces at our disposal when NATO/USA asks us to.

Today’s NATO is therefore not a defensive defense alliance, as the Norwegian media and NATO supporters claim. Today’s NATO represents boundless militarism and war, and threats of war, to achieve political goals that benefit the alliance’s patron – the United States. With its superior military power (almost 60% of the world’s total military expenditure), insane rearmament plans and nuclear weapons strategy, insatiable expansion and illegitimate power ambitions across the globe, the US-led military bloc is a constant threat to world peace.

NATO is no protection against war. It is on the contrary. The NATO strategy is a recipe for war. For Norway, membership means that we have to stand up in wars against states that have never attacked us, because Norwegian politicians are repeatedly pressured to show themselves as “a good ally”. NATO membership makes Norway a nation of war, in stark contrast to the national self-image of Norway as a nation of peace.

Therefore, several times since 1999, Norwegian forces have participated in illegal wars started on the basis of lies, with disastrous consequences for the countries that have been attacked and occupied by NATO.

AKI says in our platform:

– NATO is a destructive and aggressive war alliance and must be disbanded.

About the base agreement

For political strategists who are concerned with securing the USA’s global dominance, Norway is a piece to be used in the best possible way in a larger, geopolitical game. Thus, the base agreement on “defense cooperation” is an agreement that only a vassal state can sign. It is important to stress that the base agreement has nothing to do with NATO. This is a bilateral agreement between the USA and Norway, and it applies regardless of whether the wonderful thing should happen; that Norway withdraws from NATO.

The agreement was signed by the Solberg government in 2021, and adopted in the Storting in 2022. Initially, 4 Norwegian military installations were defined as so-called »omforente områder/ areas» – Rygge, Sola, and Evenes air stations, and Ramsund military station. “Omforente områder” is an Orwellian euphemism, designed to de-dramatize and hide what it’s really about; namely American military bases on Norwegian soil.

This year, the Støre government has approved 8 new such areas, including the Haakonsvern military station here in Bergen. We are now talking about 12 American military bases, located on existing Norwegian military facilities.

This has come about on the initiative of the United States. It is the United States that has pushed for access to these military bases, and it is the Norwegian government that has given in. We know that the US originally asked for 20 such bases. But it doesn’t have to stop here, the agreement opens the door to expanding the number later. The agreement approved by the Storting is valid for 10 years in the first instance.

Before the inquiry to Norway, which came in 2018, the US had already entered into similar agreements with Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. After Norway agreed to the USA’s wishes, the governments of Denmark, Sweden and Finland have signed the same type of agreements. In total, we will now have 47 American military bases in the Nordic region. The nearest is only 50 kilometers from the Russian border in Finland.

In practice, this means that the Nordic bloc as a bloc renounces national control over defense policy and places its fate in the hands of the United States. The alleged cooperation that is embedded in the agreement takes place on the United States’ terms. The agreement contains unacceptable elements for an independent nation.

By separate agreement, parts of the areas can be placed at exclusive American disposal, including the deployment and deployment of forces and materiel. What the US brings into these bases has nothing to do with the Norwegian authorities. US forces are given permission to control access to those parts of “umforente områder” where exclusive US right of use has been agreed. The Norwegian authorities thus give up responsibility for what the Americans bring into the bases.

As stated in the agreement’s article XI point 3:

“No boarding or control of aircraft, vessels and vehicles used by or exclusively for US forces shall be carried out, without the consent of the US.” Naturally, the Americans will never give such “consent”.

Haakonsvern military station

This is the main base for the Norwegian Navy. It is Northern Europe’s largest naval base and Norway’s largest military camp, with 3,500 military and civilian employees. It is also one of two ports in Norway where American nuclear submarines can dock (the other is Grøtsund in Tromsø).

Large sums will now be spent on equipping Haakonsvern, and on a new fleet of warships that will have Haakonsvern as their permanent base. “The investment makes Bergen a NATO capital“, according to Storting representative Hans Inge Myrvold (Sp, Senter partiet, Center party).

An infrastructure project worth NOK 740 million has already been approved. Five new frigates are to be acquired, with an option for a further one. The frigate project is the single most expensive investment in the long-term plan for the Norwegian Armed Forces. Norway has already ordered four new submarines from Germany. Now the project is being expanded with a submarine and with an option for a further one. The four submarines alone have a cost frame of just over NOK 48 billion. There will be major investments at Haakonsvern in connection with the new submarines. A project with a cost frame of NOK 4 billion has already been approved. Towards 2026, a further NOK 6 billion will be invested, not least to be able to handle another new submarine and at the same time maintain the existing submarine fleet. This work is to be completed in 2027.

Today, Haakonsvern is the only place in southern Norway with military maritime workshop capacity, including a mountain hall with a dry dock. What we do know about the USA’s plans for Haakonsvern is that they want to improve the capability for logistics support. This may include expanded capacity for storage of ammunition and fuel, improvement of facilities for maintenance, and storage of spare parts for naval vessels.

But what happens if Norway wants to terminate the agreement?

Then we should know that Iraq’s parliament has several times decided that US forces should leave the country, without the US complying with the demand. Norway participates here as part of the occupation forces, with approx. 30 guard soldiers at the huge American airbase there. When Niger wants to dismantle the USA’s drone base in the country, the USA also refuses to comply with the demand, even though there have been different signals in recent days. Chad has now also asked the US military to leave the country, so we’ll see if they do.

We cannot therefore count on the USA to automatically give up these bases on Norwegian soil, even if the Storting were to adopt it. The American military bases on Norwegian soil are simply a serious threat to Norwegian sovereignty and means that we have put ourselves in a state similar to occupation.

For the US and NATO, the Nordic region is the northern flank in the fight against Russia, but also indirectly against China, which they see as Russia’s ally.

Norway is a major power when it comes to military intelligence, and one of the most important cooperation partners for the United States. Journalist and author Bård Wormdal has, through his investigative journalism, asked the question whether the Norwegian military intelligence service serves Norwegian or American interests. The fact is that for decades the USA has financed large parts of the budget for the National Intelligence Service. Wormdal has also shown that the service is far beyond democratic control.

The Anti-War Initiative has been fighting the US bases since this issue came up. We have campaigned many times in the center of Bergen, and three times outside at Haakonsvern.

It is really obvious: A small state like Norway has completely different security policy interests than a superpower with global power ambitions. The base agreement draws us even more into the US’s geopolitical power struggle and, in the worst case scenario, could make us a target of attack in a potential military conflict.

~

(Norwegian text translated via Google)

#13. Christian Zionism

Index:

  • Part 1: Interview Tucker Carlson with a pastor from Bethlehem
  • Part 2: Documentary – Praying for Armageddon
  • Part 3: Post on X: Zionists are having a complete meltdown
  • Part 4: Post on X: How does Israel treat Christians?

Part 1: Interview Tucker Carlson with a pastor from Bethlehem

How Does the Government of Israel Treat Christians? Christian Leaders in the West Should Care
Tucker Carlson interviews a pastor from Bethlehem.

Part 2: Documentary – Praying for Armageddon

Producer: Norwegian Film Institute

Director:
Tonje Hessen Schei, (b. 1971), an award-winning documentary director whose films take on international issues that questions systems of power that shape our world. With political thrillers
The Countdown to Armageddon has begun. As biblical prophecy fuels political power, American Evangelicals threaten U.S. democracy and push for the Apocalypse in the Middle East.

Investigative journalist:
Lee Fang

Production year: 2023
Production country: Norway

Description:
Praying for Armageddon is a political thriller that reveals the power and influence of U.S. fundamentalist Evangelicals, as they aim to fulfill the Armageddon prophecy. With close quarters journalism, this feature documentary embeds with American believers who prepare for The Holy war and exposes how powerful megachurch pastors call for the ‘final battle’ that they believe will trigger the Second Coming of Christ. A deep dive into power and policy, this film unveils how politicians driven by faith embrace Israel as the key to their prophetic vision for the end of days. At any cost.

Praying for Armageddon investigates the dangerous consequences of the fusion between Evangelical Christianity and American politics. Stark and gripping in approach, this film not only reveals how structures of fundamentalism weaken the very fabric of American democracy, but also highlights the devastating impact religion wields on U.S. foreign policy. Praying for Armageddon uncovers how the Evangelicals fuel the volatile situation in Israel and Palestine – ultimately escalating the spirals of violence in the Middle East.

From the grassroots to megachurch empires and the dark backrooms in Washington D.C., this film goes inside a movement that ultimately aims to destroy our civilization

Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDsR5P9Lkw3NP7d4CxSLDLOB6fZcNB601

Part 3: Post on X: Zionists are having a complete meltdown

Part 4: How does Israel treat Christians?

#11. Ukraine and NATO

Latest update: February 21, 2025

INDEX:

  1. NATO’S GROWTH — AND RUSSIA’S ISOLATION – SINCE 1990 – TWO MAPS
  2. NATO EXPANSION 1948 – 2023
  3. STOLTENBERG, NATO, USA, UKRAINE, JOIN THE FAR RIGHT IN CANADA, OCTOBER 5, 2021
  4. STOLTENBERG ADMITS NATO PROVOKED THE ESCALATION OF THE UKRAINE RUSSIA WAR
  5. FORMER GERMAN CHANCELLOR SCHRÖDER: “UKRAINIANS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO AGREE TO PEACE”
  6. THE TALKS THAT COULD HAVE ENDED THE WAR IN UKRAINE
  7. NORDSTREAM, THE TERRORIST ATTACK ON EUROPE’S ECONOMY
  8. QUESTIONING NATO: NORDSTREAM TERRORIST ATTACK ON EUROPE’S ECONOMY
  9. QUESTIONUNG NATO: NATO CONTINUES PROVOKING MORE ESCALATION OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE (added 24 April 2024)
  10. JEFFREY SACHS: UKRAINE AND NATO
  11. NATO MEMBERSHIP WAS DEEPLY UNPOPULAR AMONG UKRAINIANS
  12. MAP: BANDERA VERSUS LENIN MONUMENTS IN UKRAINE (added April 24, 2024)
  13. ZELENSKY’S ADVISOR, ALEXEY ARESTOVICH, IN 2019
  14. GLENN DIESEN: DO THE EU AND NATO THREATEN RUSSIAN SECURITY?
  15. NATO SECRETARY GENERAL JENS STOLTENBERG SELLING THE PROXY WAR
  16. NATO SECREATRY GENERAL JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER ABOUT PUTIN’S RED LINE (2008)
  17. FORMER SECRETARY GENERAL OF NATO, ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: “WE ALREADY DECIDED IN 2008 THAT UKRAINE WILL JOIN NATO”
  18. THE GUARDIAN ARTICLE 2008: PUTIN WARNS OVER NATO EXPANSION (added 24 April 2024)
  19. PEPE ESCOBAR: EURASIA VS. NATOSTAN IS THE DEFINING STRUGGLE OF OUR TIME
  20. GLENN DIESEN: THE UKRAINE WAR AND THE EURASIAN WORLD ORDER
  21. NATO – VIDEO COLLECTION
  22. ISW: WEBSITE of the INTERNATIONAL STUDY OF WAR / KAROLINA HIRD / NATO CHAIR ROB BAUER
  23. THE NATO DECLARATION AND THE DEADLY STRATEGY OF NEOCONSERVATISM / JEFFREY SACHS
  24. CYBERATTACKS: A NEW FALSE FLAG FRONTIER – KIT KLARENBERG – SUBSTACK

1. NATO’S GROWTH — AND RUSSIA’S ISOLATION – SINCE 1990 – TWO MAPS

CNBC, Maps and Article – https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/19/two-maps-show-natos-growth-and-russias-growing-isolation-since-1990.html / Published: May 19, 2022

2. NATO EXPANSION 1948 – 2023

Update February 21, 2025: The video published here is not longer available on YouTube because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.

The video was copied by Multerland in 2024, and now uploaded in Multerland.

March 2024:

3. STOLTENBERG, NATO, USA, UKRAINE, JOIN THE FAR RIGHT IN CANADA, OCTOBER 5, 2021

Left to right: Mike Pompeo (U.S. Secretary of State); Chrystia Freeland (then-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada); Pavlo Klimkin (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ukraine); NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. (Image: NATO/Flickr)

Article: Canada’s support for the far-right abroad
https://rabble.ca/politics/world-politics/canadas-support-for-the-far-right-abroad/
Published: October 5, 2021
By: Ives Engler
In: Rabble / Canada

4. STOLTENBERG ADMITS NATO PROVOKED THE ESCALATION OF THE UKRAINE RUSSIA WAR

-See the two maps above, showing the isolation of Russia, that started in 1990.

5. FORMER GERMAN CHANCELLOR SCHRÖDER: “UKRAINIANS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO AGREE TO PEACE”

6. THE TALKS THAT COULD HAVE ENDED THE WAR IN UKRAINE IN 2022

To be able to read the complete texts of the 2 post: click the post / show more

7. NORDSTREAM, THE TERRORIST ATTACK ON EUROPE’S ECONOMY

UK insurers refuse to pay Nord Stream because blasts were ‘government’ backed
https://thegrayzone.com/2024/04/17/uk-insurers-refuse-pay-nord-stream/
Published: April 17, 2024
In: The Grayzone
By: Wyatt Reed

8. QUESTIONING NATO: NORDSTREAM TERRORIST ATTACK ON EUROPE’S ECONOMY

Video short: https://youtube.com/shorts/FVbEoZXhCrM?si=O9jZ_G0YDclIFS74

“We can make an end to Nordstream”: read more about H.A.A.R.P. alike electromagnetic war weapons, able to penetrate deep inside the earth, seas and oceans, to destroy also pipelines: HAARP, JRO, EISCAT and SURA

9. QUESTIONUNG NATO: NATO CONTINUES PROVOKING MORE ESCALATION OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE (added 24 April 2024)

10. JEFFREY SACHS: UKRAINE AND NATO

See also:
Click picture to watch. See also article: Biden has destroyed Ukraine

11. NATO MEMBERSHIP WAS DEEPLY UNPOPULAR AMONG UKRAINIANS

On April 5, 2024, Professor Glenn Diesen shared on X: The polling below reveals NATO membership was deeply unpopular among Ukrainians even AFTER Russia took back Crimea: – Between 1991 and 2014 (before the coup), all polls revealed only 20% of Ukrainians wanted to join NATO, despite fierce efforts by the US.

GALLUP, Broadcasting Board of Governors Research Series [2014]: https://www.usagm.gov/wp-content/media/2014/06/Ukraine-slide-deck.pdf

Comment on this map by professor Glenn Diesen, published April 26, 2024:

In my previous post, there are several requests for evidence that only a small minority of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and 2014 (when the US/NATO sought to pull Ukraine into the military bloc):

  • Every since poll from Ukraine and abroad confirmed this.
  • NATO reported in 2011 that its expansionism was resisted by the Ukrainian government and its people: “The greatest challenge for Ukrainian-NATO relations lies in the perception of NATO among the Ukrainian people. NATO membership is not widely supported in the country, with some polls suggesting that popular support of it is less than 20%”. https://nato-pa.int/document/2011-172-cdsdg-11-e-rev1-ukraine-malan-report…
  • Even after Russia seized Crimea (in response to the US-backed coup), the US own polls demonstrated that still only a minority of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership. https://usagm.gov/wp-content/media/2014/06/Ukraine-slide-deck.pdf…
  • US Ambassador (now CIA Director) William Burn cautioned that NATO expansionism would trigger a Civil War exactly because it did not have support in the public (and that Russia would reluctantly invade). https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html…
  • There is nothing controversial about the statement that NATO expansionism was pushed against the will of the Ukrainians, with our full awareness of the likely devastating consequences.
  • The only reason this is not common knowledge is because the media does not report on it, as there is full conformity to the war narrative that we are merely “helping” Ukraine. Even mentioning verifiable facts results in attacks and cancellation efforts from the compliant media as inconvenient facts are met with accusations of “legitimising” the Russian invasion
  • On the eve of the American invasion of Iraq, a majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9-11 attacks. This would not have been possible without a dishonest and manipulative media. In our current Ukraine War, the war enthusiasts in media play an equally manipulative role in ensuring public support for the notion that “weapons are the path to peace” and diplomacy is not possible. American leaders and the NATO Secretary General keep openly making statements that this war is a great opportunity to weaken a strategic adversary without losing their own soldiers, and the media assists in laundering this as a virtuous “pro-Ukrainian” stance.

12. MAP: BANDERA VERSUS LENIN MONUMENTS IN UKRAINE

Map by Harvard University which shows the ratio of Bandera (Ukrainian fascist) vs Lenin monuments in Ukraine. Compare the map above, chapter 11, that shows which part of Ukraine was the most pro NATO, with this one:

13. ZELENSKY’S ADVISOR, ALEXEY ARESTOVICH, IN 2019

Zelensky’s advisor, Alexey Arestovich, argued in 2019: – Attempting to join NATO will pressure Russia to invade – “Our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia” – Predicting the war would start between 2020-22, with remarkable details

14. GLENN DIESEN: DO THE EU AND NATO THREATEN RUSSIAN SECURITY? (BOOK)

The book [2015] explores the rise of these exclusive ’inter-democratic’ security institutions after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the ensuing effects on relations with Russia. By: Glenn Diesen https://www.routledge.com/EU-and-NATO-Relations-with-Russia-After-the-Collapse-of-the-Soviet-Union/Diesen/p/book/9781138063273 /

Preview: https://www.book2look.com/embed/9781317140528

Description

Do the EU and NATO threaten Russian security? The book explores the rise of these exclusive ’inter-democratic’ security institutions after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the ensuing effects on relations with Russia. Two competing theories are tested to explore whether these institutions aggravate or mitigate the security dilemma with Russia. These institutions can be theorised to promote security as a positive-sum game through European integration and democracy promotion, or pursue collective hegemony with ideologically uncompromising bloc-politics. Glenn Diesen argues that a European security architecture that demotes the largest state on the continent to an object of security inevitably results in ’European integration’ becoming a zero-sum geopolitical project that has set the West on a collision course with Russia.

Table of contents

  • Chapter 1 Introduction;
  • Chapter 2 Theoretical Comparison;
  • Chapter 3 Research Design;
  • Chapter 4 Case Study I;
  • Chapter 5 Case Study II;
  • Chapter 6; Conclusion;

Critics reviews

’In this innovative, theoretically grounded and systematic study, Glenn Diesen shows how the attempts by the EU and NATO to construct a security community in Europe have exacerbated the security dilemma with Russia. The arguments in this fine book are crucial to our understanding of the international relations of the European continent since the collapse of the Soviet Union.’ Graeme Gill, The University of Sydney, Australia ’In the light of the Ukraine crisis and the Russian annexation of Crimea, this is a timely and important book. Glenn Diesen provides a well-argued and theoretically rich critique of Western policy towards Russia since the breakup of the Soviet Union. His analysis challenges many of the mainstream liberal assumptions that have shaped relations between Europe and Russia, and offers a fresh interpretation of the steady deterioration in relations between the two sides. This is a book that deserves to be widely read and discussed.’ Adrian Hyde-Price, Gothenburg University, Sweden

15. NATO SECRETARY GENERAL SELLING THE PROXY WAR

16. NATO SECRETARY GENERAL JAAP DE HOOP SCHEFFER ABOUT PUTIN’S RED LINE (2008)

Watch on Rumble: here

17. FORMER SECRETARY GENERAL OF NATO, ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN: “WE ALREADY DECIDED IN 2008 THAT UKRAINE WILL JOIN NATO”

18. THE GUARDIAN ARTICLE 2008: PUTIN WARNS NATO OVER EXPANSION

This article is more than 16 years old
Putin warns NATO over expansion
Published: Fri 4 Apr 2008
In: The Guardian
By: Anil Dawar

PDF

19. PEPE ESCOBAR: EURASIA VS. NATOSTAN IS THE DEFINING STRUGGLE OF OUR TIME

In this interview Kevork Almassian, award-winning independent journalist and political scientist, born in Syria and living in Berlin, Germany, discusses with Pepe Escobar the book: Eurasia versus NATOstan, published on April 2, 2024. Pepe Escobar (born 1954) is a Brazilian journalist and geopolitical analyst.

20. GLENN DIESEN: THE UKRAINE WAR AND THE EURASIAN WORLD ORDER (BOOK)

Five hundred years of Western hegemony has ended, while the global majority’s aspiration for a world order based on multipolarity and sovereign equality is rising. This incisive book addresses the demise of liberal hegemony, though pointing out that a multipolar Westphalian world order has not yet taken shape, leaving the world in a period of interregnum. A legal vacuum has emerged, in which the conflicting sides are competing to define the future order.

NATO expansionism was an important component of liberal hegemony as it was intended to cement the collective hegemony of the West as the foundation for a liberal democratic peace. Instead, it dismantled the pan-European security architecture and set Europe on the path to war without the possibility of a course correction. Ukraine as a divided country in a divided Europe has been a crucial pawn in the great power competition between NATO and Russia for the past three decades.

The war in Ukraine is a symptom of the collapsing world order. The war revealed the dysfunction of liberal hegemony in terms of both power and legitimacy, and it sparked a proxy war between the West and Russia instead of ensuring peace, the source of its legitimacy.
The proxy war, unprecedented sanctions, and efforts to isolate Russia in the wider world contributed to the demise of liberal hegemony as opposed to its revival. Much of the world responded to the war by intensifying their transition to a Eurasian world order that rejects hegemony and liberal universalism. The economic architecture is being reorganised as the world diversifies away from excessive reliance on Western technologies, industries, transportation corridors, banks, payment systems, insurance systems, and currencies. Universalism based on Western values is replaced by civilisational distinctiveness, sovereign inequality is swapped with sovereign equality, socialising inferiors is replaced by negotiations, and the rules-based international order is discarded in favour of international law. A Westphalian world order is reasserting itself, although with Eurasian characteristics.

The West’s defeat of Russia would restore the unipolar world order while a Russian victory would cement a multipolar one. The international system is now at its most dangerous as the prospect of compromise is absent, meaning the winner will take all. Both NATO under US direction and Russia are therefore prepared to take great risks and escalate, making nuclear wan increasingly likely.

English:
The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order
Published: February 15, 2024
https://www.amazon.com/Ukraine-War-Eurasian-World-Order/dp/1949762955

Nederlands:
De oorlog in Oekraïne en de Euraziatische wereldorde
https://deblauwetijger.com/product/glenn-diesen-de-oorlog-in-oekraine-en-de-euraziatische-wereldorde/

21. NATO – VIDEO COLLECTION

In the upper right corner of the video-playlist below, you can see three horizontal lines and an arrow. Click to see the entire playlist.

22. THE INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF WAR / KAROLINA HIRD / ROB BAUER (NATO CHAIR)

Search results for Karolina Hird, on the website of the ISW: 964 results.

From the website: Karolina Hird is a Russia Deputy Team Lead and Analyst and Evans Hanson Fellow at the Institute for the Study of War. Karolina is a senior member of the team that produces the daily Russian Campaign Assessments since spring 2022. Karolina particularly focuses on Russian operational campaign design and the humanitarian aspects of the war in Ukraine, particularly the issue of forced deportations and adoption of Ukrainian children. Karolina has been quoted in Reuters, The Telegraph, NPR, The Daily Beast, Task and Purpose, Newsweek, Voice of America, and others. Karolina regularly briefs senior military and political decision-makers. Karolina received a BA in International Affairs from The George Washington University, where she focused on international security, international law, and gender analysis.

[Note by admin: the content of the quoted text copied from her profile page on ISW, is not according to the information that is provided by independent journalists. This means that the quoted text has to be read as misinformation. Important detail: Karolina Hird is extremely anti-Putin, anti-Russia.]

In this article, published by ISW, also chair of NATO Rob Bauer‘s words, are to be found. He is clearly informed by Karolina Hird, which means that he is misinformed about the real situation in Ukraine. In his opening speech on May 16, 2024, in a NATO meeting with the Chiefs of Defence, in Brussels, he mentions Kiev as the source of his information, which means that he fully trusts Zelensky, who is proven not reliable. Altogether this could be the reason why Rob Bauer showed that he was severe misinformed and was sharing misinformation with the Chiefs of Defence. That could be the reason of the NATO arrogance, it’s bluffing about Russia, and making NATO alliances believe that they have a chance against Russia. His misinformation is provoking WWIII.

23. THE NATO DECLARATION [10 JULY 2024] AND THE DEADLY STRATEGY OF NEOCONSERVATISM / JEFFREY SACHS

For the sake of America’s security and world peace, the U.S. should immediately abandon the neocon quest for hegemony in favor of diplomacy and peaceful co-existence.
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-neoconservatism-empire
Published: July 13, 2024
By: Jeffrey Sachs
In: Common Dreams

U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks at a meeting of the heads of state of the North Atlantic Council at the 2024 NATO Summit on July 10, 2024 in Washington, DC.
 (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

24. CYBERATTACKS: A NEW FALSE FLAG FRONTIER – KIT KLARENBERG

Read full article on Substack

#10. Eva Karene Bartlett, award-winning independent journalist

Canadian Eva Karene Bartlett, born June 14, 1977, is an award-winning independent journalist with extensive experience in Syria (15 trips between 2014 & 2021, some months-long) and also in occupied Palestine (spent 8 months in the West Bank & a cumulative three years in the Gaza Strip, from late 2008 to June 2010, and back in 2011 off and on to March 2013). also reported extensively from the Donbass (9 visits, from 2019 on) and from Venezuela. 

“This outstanding report from Syria by Eva Bartlett penetrates the ‘iron dome’ of Western propaganda, also known as news.” – John Pilger [screenshot]

Eva Bartlett lectures Norwegian MSM journalist

Eva Karene Bartlett, on December 9, 2016, Press Conference United Nations – Watch video

X post: “The brave Eva Bartlett lectures Norwegian MSM journalists on the Syria narrative and the MSM’s deceptive lies. (UN conference 2016). She also points to what Glenn Diesen write today – “The main source for the media in the Syrian war has been the ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’, which is actually just one guy in the UK…” Video

More:

#9. Jeffrey Sachs: Biden has destroyed Ukraine

The following text and video are published on X Twitter. Source

About Jeffrey Sachs

Sachs is widely recognized for bold and effective strategies to address complex challenges including the escape from extreme poverty, the global battle against human-induced climate change, international debt and financial crises, national economic reforms, and the control of pandemic and epidemic diseases. Read on here. Playlists: here

To play the video: click on the picture, or here

Transcript:

Well, first of all, this is purely money down the drain.
So if they want to rip up another $61 billion, which is not chump change, they seem intent on doing it, but it will mean nothing except more destruction for Ukraine.
The fact of the matter is, if you don’t listen to the nonsense in our mainstream media but listen to your show and others, people would know that this war has destroyed Ukraine.
And the longer it continues, the less there will be of Ukraine.
It’s very simple, actually.
If this goes on longer, Russia will capture more territory.
If it goes on long enough, Russia will capture Odessa, Kiev.
If we continue the way we’re doing, and this is a Biden project that goes back ten years now, will completely destroy Ukraine.
So the idea that this is siding with Ukraine is absurd.

Anyone who really follows events knows that we’re not siding with Ukraine.
We have paid for hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to go to the front lines and die for more and more territory to be lost. Because the most basic point of this war, which is that we overthrew a government in Ukraine in 2014 that wanted neutrality so that we could push NATO enlargement, was reckless, stupid, and doomed to fail, and it failed.
Now Biden is just trying to hide the failure to get past November, but the failure is seen on the battleground every day.
If the Republicans play into this, its unbelievable shame on them.
They’re basically on the right side, although Biden bludgeons them every day.
You’ll be the one to lose Ukraine.
Well, the truth of the matter is Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine for a decade.
The disaster is there in the graves of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and lost territory.
This is a war that never should have happened.
It was about NATO enlargement, where the Russians said, no NATO on our borders.
And Americans who were following this, like our CIA director Bill Burns, who was then the US ambassador
to Russia in 2008, said, this is crazy. No way.
The entire Russian political class is against this.
But Biden and Obama and Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan, Tony Blinken, they just barged ahead.
They’ve wrecked everything.
And now they want another $61 billion to get them past November.
It’s a disgrace.
It’s completely a disgrace.

To play devil’s advocate.
Let me give you the other side and then allow you to respond to that.
What do you say to people that maybe acknowledge there were certainly missteps with the expansion of NATO and the provocation, but nevertheless, Russia chose to respond to that with an invasion.
The situation in Ukraine is due to that invasion.
And so what do you say to people who think, well, so we are now responding to that invasion by funding, not committing American troops, but funding a resistance in Ukraine that wants to continue fighting?
Well, yeah, the war began ten years ago when Victoria Nuland not only passed out cookies on Maidan, but engaged in insurrection to violently overthrow a government in Ukraine.
Pretty stupid.
Pretty stupid to have a regime change operation on a country with the 2000 kilometer border with Russia.
That’s our american foreign policy.
That’s when this war started.
This war didn’t start in February 2022.
It started in February 2014.
It started with Nuland.
It started with Blinken.
It started with Sullivan.
It started with Biden, who was a key person in that whole thing.
And then the fighting went on for ten years.
And then in December 2021, Putin said, look, stop the NATO enlargement.
We can avoid an escalation.

I talked to the White House at that point.
Nah, we don’t stop anything.
They just thought they had all the cards.
We’re going to cut them out of this SWIFT banking system.
We’re going to bring the economy to the knees.
Bunch of nonsense by ignorant people.
And so Putin escalated.
He didn’t start the war.
He escalated the war.
And within, basically a week, Zelenskyy said, okay, okay, okay, we can be neutral.
And the Turks mediated negotiations.
And then, though the US government wants to hide all of these facts, which are sitting out there for those who know where to find them, the US intervened and told the Ukrainians, you keep fighting.
And we have our senators who say, this is the best the money can buy, because it’s Ukrainians dying, not Americans.
They’re weakening Russia.
Well, they’re not weakening Russia, but they are killing Ukrainians.
So this is not responding to Putin’s invasion.
The war started ten years ago, and we kept refusing every off ramp till this day, Robbie, you know, you hear Putin say, and if you listen, every day, we’re open to negotiations.
And then these fools in the US government say, there’s no one to negotiate.
They don’t want to negotiate.
And then President Putin says, oh, we’re open to negotiation.
Oh, there’s no one to negotiate, is what we hear from the US side.
This is just narrative.
It’s destroyed Ukraine, and they just rip up money like there’s no tomorrow.
So another 61 billion.
And now I hear from.
From you that the latest plan is to take the illegally confiscated assets of Russia because there’s no legal basis to do this and use that.
That’ll be really great for the international financial system. I’ll tell you.
Because these are people who don’t think ahead one day.
They just improvise day by day, and then they’ll find out,
oh, things don’t work out so well for the US dollar, for the US as reserve currency for the US place in the world, because these people are acting like clowns, frankly, day by day, not thinking ahead, doubling down on lost gambles and everything to tell a story so that they can get to the elections in the way they see fit.

Professor, I want to ask you about how the United
States gets out of this now, because I’m reminded of conversations that surrounded the war in Afghanistan for years, which was that we shouldn’t have gotten into it.
This is a mistake.
But now we’ve destabilized the country.
We’re in neck deep.
We can’t just stop funding and abandon this project.
And that’s a hamster wheel of sorts, right?
So there are some people that I think are gonna listen to this and say, well, I agree with everything you’re saying, but what do you do at this point?
Is it just a sunk cost?
Or is there some obligation to unwind this in a way that’s responsible and doesn’t leave Ukrainians high and dry?
Ukrainians are high and dry no matter what we do.
We’ve killed nearly half a million of them through this stupid project.
And the ones that throw good money after bad are the ones themselves that are personally culpable for this.
This is Biden’s project.
So this is the first starting point.
You don’t throw good lives after those already dead and good money after bad when you have an absolute failure and disaster on your hands.
By the way, this is like every American effort.
I’m old enough to remember Vietnam.
The same words said about Vietnam.
We do this over and over and over again in the US because our so called leaders have no sense and they don’t think ahead.
So, yes, we have to stop this.
But the one thing that we don’t do, and it’s really a bit of a mystery to me, it’s the worst I’ve seen in my whole lifetime.
We don’t negotiate.
Does Biden call Putin, say, we need to talk?
No, that would be weakness.
That would be appeasement.
They don’t even have the idea that you negotiate anything.
And, you know, if you try everything by a military approach and a failed one, and you do it in these proxy wars where it’s the people themselves in these countries that are dying on the front lines, and you don’t know anything about diplomacy?
Well, you make a complete mess of the world.
And so the answer is the first thing is the US and Russia should talk to each other because there’s a cause of this war and that’s NATO enlargement.
And by the way, that’s no secret and that’s not propaganda.
Even the secretary general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said that absolutely explicitly, as did the top negotiator for Zelensky, Davyd Arakhamia.
This is a war about NATO enlargement.
So why doesn’t Biden call up Putin, say, you know what, we gotta stop the war.
And that whole NATO enlargement that I was party to going back to the 1990s and to 2014 coup and all that was a bad idea.
Figure out how to stop the war, recognize mutual security, and stop the bloodshed and massacres in Ukraine.
If Biden were really acting like a president, thats what he would do.
Its been about a year since a group of economists wrote an open letter about you, accusing you of denying the agency of Ukraine peddling Putin talking points, all of those kinds of things.
It’s a year later.
How do you respond to them?
Well, I don’t respond.
I tell them I told you so.
I told them so from the beginning that this would be a complete disaster for Ukraine.
People don’t want to hear this.
They don’t understand.
They don’t know enough about American history.
I told them Ukraine is going to be like Afghanistan and boy is it like Afghanistan right now.
So they didn’t want to hear.
That’s not right. That’s not fair. Professor Sachs.
I was telling them facts.
I was giving them some good advice.
They didn’t want to hear that.
They wanted to hear about victory, glory, how Ukraine’s going to succeed, that great counteroffensive, all the rest, all the baloney.
But I said from the beginning that this would be a disaster.
I said this is just the latest Neocon debacle.
And I said explicitly it was going to leave Ukraine like Afghanistan and it was completely avoidable.
So that’s what I tell them. I’m sorry.
Listen, pay attention. Learn something.
That’s what I say to them.

Source:

#8. Norway: cancellation and censorship of science

Introduction

On February 14, 2024, Professor Glenn Diesen[1][2][3][4] published several posts[1][2][3][4] on X in which he reports on the cancel and censorship culture, as practiced by the Norwegian Aage Borchgrevink[1]. Although Borchgrevink is listed on various websites and Wikipedia pages as a human rights activist, works at the Norwegian Helsinki Committee, and is chairman of the Norwegian NFFO, the Norwegian Non-Fiction Writers and Translators Association, he is not who he pretends to be.
What Glenn Diesen describes in the following articles, posted on X, corresponds with the experiences so many others and also I had with Aage Borchgrevink on X: there is zero willingness to be informed about the scientific facts regarding political issues. He distorts facts, creates misinformation, and is a USA propaganda activist, not a human rights activist. The same applies to the Helsinki Committee, and the NFFO.

1. The Norwegian Non-Fiction Writers and Translators Association (NFFO)

…….. announced that they cancelled their participation as a co-organiser for a public debate about the conflict in the Middle East because I am one of the speakers. I wear this as a badge of honour. One of Norway’s leading propagandists who has been writing hit-pieces about me for years in the media just happens to be a chairman of NFFO who announced the cancellation. So, the person behind the organisation that cancelled their participation, because I am allegedly controversial, is the same person who has been working tirelessly to depict me as controversial to have me fired as a professor from the university. These are two cheeks of the same arse, but this is conveniently omitted by those reporting on this story.

I do not use the term “propagandist” lightly. This propagandist works for the Helsinki Committee, a “human rights organisation” financed by the CIA-cutout National Endowment for Democracy (NED). When Reagan established NED as an extension of the CIA in 1983, it was to manipulate civil society in other countries (see tweet below). NED and its proxies only focus on human rights in adversarial states and thus sell all great power conflicts as a fight between democracy and authoritarianism (good vs evil), while claiming the source credibility of a “human rights organisation” that enables them to dismiss critics as enemies of freedom. When this Norwegian “human rights activist” does not slander me in the media and shames my university for permitting academic freedom, he is campaigning against Julian Assange and other critics of the US.

This is not simply an issue to a silly propagandist discrediting NFFO. Censorship, cancellations and the corruption of institutions have detrimental effects on society. After a decade of war in Ukraine, Norwegians are still not exposed to any arguments and evidence that deviate from NATO’s narrative. Norway will give the US sovereign control over 15 military bases on its soil to confront Russia in the Arctic and Norway has become one of the most eager weapon suppliers in the Ukrainian proxy war – with almost no public debate about the impact on our security as only one argument is permitted and dissent comes with great social cost. Anyone attempting to explain the arguments of the opposing side can be denounced for “legitimising” the opponent and thus smeared as a “Putinist”.

Our discourse subsequently consists of clichés and slogans without substance, simplified and dumbed down to a narrative of goodies versus baddies in which ever-more weapons are the path to peace, diplomacy and negotiations are dangerous, and censorship is vital to protect our democracy.

All is not well with freedom of speech and academic freedom in this country. I have published 11 academic books, which have been translated into several languages. Yet, an organisation devoted to academic writing cancelled their participation as a co-organiser because a ridiculous NED-financed “human rights activist” has accused me of working for Russia. Also, the debate they withdrew support from is not even about Russia, but the Middle East…

2. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee

…….. should be designated as a propaganda organisation due to its funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED): – Washington Post writes that NED has been the “sugar daddy of overt operations” and “what used to be called ‘propaganda’ and can now simply be called ‘information'”. – NED was inaugurated by President Reagan to conceal influence operations by US intelligence as work on democracy and human rights. – Documents released by the Reagan presidential library reveal that NED cooperated closely with CIA propaganda initiatives. – Allen Weinstein, a cofounder of NED, acknowledged: “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA”. – Philip Agee, a CIA whistle-blower, explained that NED was established as a “propaganda and inducement program” to subvert foreign nations and style it as a democracy promotion initiatives.

The Norwegian Helsinki Committee wrote a 7-page long article about me (plus front page), in which they pressured the university to terminate my employment as I allegedly violate international law by supporting Russian war propaganda. – This is a strange allegation as I have been very openly opposed to the war from day one, but my crime as a professor of Russian politics has been to engage with Russian media. And this is allegedly in breach of international law. – The article makes no sense and was published in a newspaper where the author’s wife is an editor, but it is nonetheless cited in numerous efforts to censor and cancel. – It is beyond absurd that government-funded “non-governmental organisations” masquerading as “human rights organisations” can routinely attack academic freedoms and manipulate civil society in our country to ensure there is only one acceptable narrativ

3. Tweets by Aage Borchgrevink

Notice how in all these tweets (and all his articles), he attempts to shame the university into cancelling dissent. Is this normal for a state-financed “human rights activist” and a chairman of an organisation for authors? Click picture to enlarge:

4. Borchgrevink’s cancellation

He is very proud to censor and cancel. Unworthy of an open society. Click picture to enlarge.

5. Professor Glenn Diesen about the Tucker Carlsen interview with Vladimir Putin

The subjects “propaganda“, “freedom of speech“, and “censorship” start at 16:34 in the video ”Is America in decline: The US could lose the war against Russia – CBC Weekly Talk (Azerbaijan)”

Anastasia Lavrina: I don’t know if you watched the last interview of Vladimir Putin to American journalist Tucker Carlson and immediately after the West started to criticize the journalist for this interview. Why do you think the West turned against the American journalist in this particular interview is there any specific issues on the agenda?

Glenn Diesen: Well, they denounced the interview as propaganda before had even been released so I think it’s quite obvious that this doesn’t look good in terms of our principle of free speech because a lot of the attacks you know calling him a Putin puppet and you know this kind of name calling it’s not just childish but it’s also completely devoid of any substance. There’s no real criticism of you know the questions he asked or the direction he took it, so I think it demonstrates I think an unwillingness to present the opposite side of the argument and this is a huge problem.
I always make the point that at least during the Cold War we knew what Moscow’s arguments were. We didn’t feel the need to censor it but these days there’s a huge amount of censorship going on now here in the west, not only censoring Russian media but also journalist academics within the West who dare to explain what the Russians are thinking, what they’re doing, are accused of legitimizing what the Russians are doing, and one sees the call for censorship and cancellation immediately arises, so I think that a lot of the war narrative which we have been building over the past two years is based on their flawed assumption.

I don’t think many people anymore in the west really know much about very basic facts which can be proven, so I think there’s a huge concern that the whole narrative for war is disappearing and so the the need for narrative control. I think this is the greatest concern, and why there was such a fierce opposition to the Tucker Carlson interview of President Putin.

6. Glenn Diesen about Arestovych, the former advisor of Zelensky, and propaganda

Click to read the tweet.

~~~

Glenn Diesen: The Ukraine War & The Eurasian World Order

Amazon – list with books

#7. The Russian

As a child (I was born in 1948) I knew the name Jozef Stalin (1878-1953) because my father (1909-1992) hated him deeply. Until his death he regularly spoke about Stalin. Also about “de Rus”, Dutch for “the Russian”. To me “de Rus” was a synonym for fear. That fear arose when “de Rus” invaded Hungary (1956), and during the Cuba crisis (1962). My parents had conversations at the kitchen table about an imminent war, while not so long before they themselves had gone through World War II, each with horrible experiences. So another war was imminent. Their fear was utterly strong. though I did not understand anything, I was sensing something that I never sensed before: fear. Fear was since then connected with “de Rus”, The Russian, the Russians, Russia.

Now that I have seen the two hours and 12 minutes long documentary “State Funeral” (divided into parts, fragmented by myself) I understand my father’s hatred for Stalin, and also my parents’ fear of “de Rus”. Now that I’ve seen that documentary, I’m pretty sure that “de Rus” was also afraid of who “we” are. The West. “De Rus” however, was not only afraid of the West. Also for Stalin. Though there are Russians who admired him, and still. Admiration and fear can walk hand in hand, though. The same might is used in religions..

Although the documentary only shows footages of Stalin’s state funeral, and nothing else than that, but at the same time encompassing it all, I now understand how indescribably great the might of Stalin’s regime was, AND the agony for him, so intense, that you really have to watch, those more than two hours, to be able to fathom what that man did to the Russian people, and what has nourished that unprecedented glorification of Stalin: fear. Even after his death. That is my impression. I am certain that not one Russian dared to stay home. Not one who did not dare NOT to cry, or to look relieved. That is my sincere conclusion.

The documentary ends with this text:

According to historical research, more than 27,000,000 Soviet citizens were murdered, executed, tortured to death, imprisoned, sent to Gulag labour camps, or deported during Stalin’s regime. An additional 15,000,000 people are estimated to have starved to death.

Note: my fear for “de Rus” disappeared completely, during my life. I write about that in my article: Russian troll? In my article I explain the word “Russophobia“.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑