Tag: Ukraine

#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

#5. MH17

Update: Februari 11, 2024 (Aanvullende informatie)

Op 17 juli 2014 was ik vanuit Noorwegen op bezoek in Nederland, en logeerde in het Ibis hotel in Leiden. Ik keek vanaf de vijfde etage op het station rechts, en de Universiteit van Leiden, recht tegenover. De andere dag hingen de vlaggen bij de universiteit halfstok. Het was daarom dat ik inlogde op mijn laptop: wat was er aan de hand? De verhalen in het nieuws waren gruwelijk. Woorden van ooggetuigen, die in Hrabove, Donetsk oblast, Oekraïne, woonden, zeiden genoeg. “Mensen kwamen uit de lucht vallen.”

WIKIPEDIA 2014, 2023

2014

De gegevens van de vlucht, zoals die destijds, toen ik die memorial foto plaatste in Flickr, in Wikipedia werden weergegeven (zie ook de informatie onder de foto op Flickr), DUS IN 2014:

Op 17 juli 2014 om 12.14 uur (CEST) vertrok de Boeing 777 vanaf luchthaven Schiphol voor een lijnvlucht naar Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Even na 14.00 uur (CEST) steeg het vliegtuig bij het binnengaan van het Oekraïense luchtruim van 31 000 voet (9450 meter) naar 33 000 voet (10 060 meter). Het luchtruim boven Oekraïne was gesloten tot 32 000 voet (9750 meter), maar was daarboven opengesteld.

Het vliegtuig verdween omstreeks 15.18 uur (CEST) ten oosten van de Oekraïense stad Donetsk van de radar, op 50 kilometer van de Russische grens. Op dat moment volgde het een noordelijker route dan in de dagen daarvoor. De reden van de afwijkende route over de conflictzone zou een significante storm kunnen zijn geweest op de oorspronkelijk geplande route.

De brokstukken van het toestel bleken verspreid te liggen over een oppervlakte van 35 vierkante kilometer. De staart lag op 10 kilometer afstand van andere brokstukken, een aanwijzing dat het vliegtuig op grote hoogte uit elkaar is gespat.

Opmerking: Er werd in 2014 geschreven over een “conflictzone“, en over een storm. Die storm zou de reden zijn om hoger te gaan vliegen—dus niet de “conflictzone”—, naar 33.000 voet. In de versie van 2023 wordt niet meer geschreven over een “conflictzone” maar dat op dat moment rondom Donetsk de Russisch-Oekraïense oorlog gaande was. En: het was een vaste lijnvlucht. Ook dat werd niet vermeld in de 2014 versie. Het woord conflictgebied is dus terecht gewijzigd. Over de storm wordt niets meer geschreven. Waarom niet, vraag ik me af. Of was dat een verzinsel om aan te geven dat er rekening werd gehouden met de oorlog daar beneden en omdat men dacht dat hoger vliegen veiliger was? Kyiv en USA wisten van de BUK raketten. Die in Rusland gemaakte BUK raketten waren al ver voor 2014 in Oekraïne[informatie Bellingcat artikel 1, artikel 2]. BUK raketten reiken tot zelfs die 33.000 voet. Meer in “Vragen over aansprakelijkheid”, vraag 1 en 2.

2023

Malaysia Airlines-vlucht 17 (ook wel MH17, onder code sharing met KLM ook aangeduid als KL4103) was een vaste lijndienst in de burgerluchtvaart vanaf Amsterdam (luchthaven Schiphol) naar Kuala Lumpur. Op 17 juli 2014 stortte een Boeing 777-200ER van Malaysia Airlines met vluchtnummer MH17 neer bij het Oost-Oekraïense dorp Hrabove in de oblast Donetsk, nadat het toestel geraakt was door een Russische luchtdoelraket. Rondom Donetsk was op dat moment de Russisch-Oekraïense Oorlog gaande. Aan boord waren 298 mensen: 283 passagiers en vijftien bemanningsleden. 196 inzittenden hadden de Nederlandse nationaliteit en vier de Belgische nationaliteit. Er waren geen overlevenden. Wikipedia.

Opmerking: Er wordt geschreven over een Russische luchtdoelraket. Er wordt niet bij geschreven dat er al ver voor 2014 Russische BUK raketten in Oekraïne waren (informatie Bellingcat artikel 1, artikel 2), dus de luchtdoelraketten waarover geschreven is. Die luchtdoelraketten waren daar niet naartoe gesmokkeld, kwamen uit het toen nog bevriende Rusland en zijn in 2014 in Donetsk door Oekraïense separatisten afgevuurd, maar dat kunnen ook niet-separatisten, dus Kyiv militanten geweest zijn. De pro-Russische gezinde separatisten hadden zich afgescheiden van Kyiv, nadat in februari 2014, dus vijf maanden eerder, de pro-Russische regering daar omver geworpen was, en vervangen door een pro-Amerikaanse regering. Die “overthrow” was gepland. Er zijn bewijzen van door een inmiddels wereldwijd bekend geworden telefoongesprek tussen hooggeplaatste Amerikanen. Zie daarvoor: Transcript van een interview met Jeffrey Sachs, PDF, blz. 15, zie ook: video, zie ook: “De negende verjaardag van de oorlog in Oekraïne”, PDF, blz. 2. Een fragment:

“De Amerikaanse filmregisseur Oliver Stone helpt ons de betrokkenheid van de VS bij de staatsgreep te begrijpen in zijn documentaire uit 2016, Ukraine on Fire. Ik dring er bij alle mensen op aan om ernaar te kijken en te leren hoe een Amerikaanse regimeveranderingsoperatie eruit ziet. Ik dring er ook bij alle mensen op aan om de krachtige academische studies te lezen van prof. Ivan Katchanovski van de Universiteit van Ottawa (bijvoorbeeld hier en hier), die moeizaam al het bewijsmateriaal van de Maidan heeft beoordeeld en ontdekte dat het meeste geweld en moord niet afkomstig van Janoekovitsj’ security detail zoals beweerd wordt, maar van de leiders van de staatsgreep zelf, die op de menigte schoten, waarbij zowel politieagenten als demonstranten om het leven kwamen.”

Opmerking: Het gaat er dus niet zozeer over wie die BUK afgeschoten hebben, maar wie er aansprakelijk waren voor de veiligheid van de MH17, dat vloog in het luchtruim boven het oorlogsgebied.

VRAGEN OVER AANSPRAKELIJKHEID

Vraag 1: Waarom heeft destijds, in 2014, de nieuwe, pro-Amerikaanse Oekraïense regering Nederland, een bevriende natie dus, want pro-Amerikaans, niet gewaarschuwd, voor het extreme gevaar betreffende het vliegen over een oorlogsgebied, Donetsk, waarbinnen door zowel Oekraïne als Oekraïens-Russische gezinde separatisten buks werden gebruikt?

Vraag 2: Wie is/zijn er op de eerste plaats aansprakelijk voor het neerhalen van de MH17?
Er heeft kennelijk—en men kan stellen dat dit hoogst merkwaardig dan wel gevaarlijk slordig is—geen briefing plaats gevonden vanuit Oekraïne met de landen daarbuiten, EU, en dus ook niet met Nederland, anders had deze ramp nooit plaats gevonden. Men mag er met stelligheid van uitgaan dat het gevaar voor een vliegtuigramp in Kyiv bekend was, temeer omdat het land geïnformeerd, gesteund en gecoacht werd -en wordt- door USA. USA heeft overal controle over, heeft informanten en supervisors. Het is dus vanzelfsprekend dat de Oekraïense regering volledig op de hoogte was van de oorlog in Donetsk en van reële en levensbedreigende gevaren betreffende het vliegverkeer in het luchtruim boven Donetsk. Wanneer wordt men zich in Europa, in Nederland, bewust van de aansprakelijkheid, van de onvergeeflijke nalatigheid van Oekraïne en USA in deze? Is het achterhouden van informatie, het nalaten van waarschuwingen, met een dergelijke ramp als gevolg, aan te rekenen als een oorlogsmisdaad, in dit geval gepleegd door USA en Oekraïne?

MET DE VINGER WIJZEN NAAR RUSLAND

Wanneer de feiten bij elkaar opgeteld zijn, en het door logisch denken, analyseren en common sense duidelijk is dat zowel de pro-Amerikaanse regering in Kyiv als USA wisten van de oorlog in het gebied waar de MH17 overheen vloog, en ook de ruimte erboven oorlogsgebied was, dan is er slechts één conclusie mogelijk: dat dus zowel Oekraïne als USA aansprakelijk zijn voor het neerhalen van de MH17.

Het vingerwijzen naar Rusland is een kinderachtige manier om te proberen de zaak te verdoezelen. USA heeft letterlijk alles uit de kast getrokken om zaken in de doofpot te laten verdwijnen, verwarring te scheppen, waarheid te elimineren, en te liegen alsof het gedrukt staat. Ik ben geen Russische trol, ik ben waarheidszoeker. Alleen door waarheid kan er ooit vrede komen.

Video: De met de vinger naar Rusland wijzende Chris Cuomo van CNN in discussie met Peter Lavelle, presentator van Russia Today. Lokatie Cuomo: Schiphol, Amsterdam, Nederland, waar het vliegtuig vertrok op 17 juli, 2014. De video is gepubliceerd op 23 juli 2014.

AANVULLENDE INFORMATIE

#3. Does US Militarism advance Global Security & Peace? With Prof. David Vine

Interview with Professor David Vine / Book: The United States of War
Interviewer: Zain Raza
Gepubliceerd: 18 april 2023
In: YouTube kanaal acTVism Munich

In deze aflevering van The Source praat Zain Raza met auteur en hoogleraar politieke antropologie David Vine over het Amerikaanse militarisme. We onderzoeken de omvang van Amerikaanse militaire bases over de hele wereld en de impact op de wereldwijde veiligheid. We onderzoeken ook de kosten van het Amerikaanse militarisme in binnen- en buitenland.

OVER DAVID VINE: David Vine is hoogleraar politieke antropologie aan de American University in Washington, DC. Davids nieuwste boek, The United States of War: A Global History of America’s Endless Conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State, werd gepubliceerd door de University of California Press. Het boek was finalist voor de L.A. Times Book Prize in History 2020.

In this episode of The Source, we talk with author and professor of political anthropology David Vine about U.S. militarism. We examine the extent of U.S. military bases around the world and the impact on global security. We explore the costs of U.S. militarism at home and abroad as well.

ABOUT DAVID VINE: David Vine is Professor of political anthropology at American University in Washington, DC. David’s newest book, The United States of War: A Global History of America’s Endless Conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State​, was published by the University of California Press. The book was a finalist for the 2020 L.A. Times Book Prize in History.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑