The very public execution of my professorship and reputation continues in Norway. Today’s media article about me makes three claims that are misleading and/or false. 1) The article dismisses my claim that my research is being criminalized as the journalists merely cite the dismissive comments from the university - no arguments are apparently required. It is not possible for an academic anymore to analyse the policies of rival powers by assessing their security concerns, as it will be smeared by the government, the government’s NGOs and the media as “legitimizing” the enemy and supporting their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out with the accusation of spreading propaganda and criticised two podcasters for even speaking with me (as I have already been cancelled by the media in Norway). How was this accusation by the Defence Minister substantiated? I had argued that NATO expansion triggered the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister denounce as dangerous “Russian propaganda”, with no need to substantiate his vile accusation. I can cite a sea of evidence and also refer to statements by American and European political leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others to make my case. However, the purpose is not to engage in debate, but to smear, censor, and cancel. By going after an individual academic for challenging official truths, the government has already claimed a monopoly on the truth. Academics should have their arguments scrutinised and criticised, but these are severe personal attacks from the government without the possibility of even defending myself. How is this not criminalising the research of an academic? I cannot even speak at any events in Norway without the event being cancelled. The last event I agreed to speak at was because I shared the stage with the former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper had the event at a church cancelled, and when the backup location did not also cancel, the journalist simply printed in the paper that it had been cancelled so people would not show up. Is this normal? I must use my allotted holiday days to attend conferences because any event I attend can be presented as “controversial,” and then the NGOs and journalists will go after the reputation of the university. Is this normal? Every newspaper article about me merely refers to me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without ever assigning meaning to these labels or presenting my argument. I have argued, much like former CIA director Burns, that if the West attempts to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then there would be war and Ukraine would be destroyed. This is considered a “pro-Russian” argument. Arguing that we should respect the will of most Ukrainians who want negotiations to end the war is also considered a “pro-Russian” argument, while in contrast, boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for the conscription of Ukrainian women is “pro-Ukrainian”. 2) To avoid addressing any of my arguments, the journalists go on to uncritically cite personal attacks against me, pointing out that I have been called a propagandist by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. This is a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was set up by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to manipulate the civil society of other states. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has been relentless in its smears on social media to have me fired, writing hit pieces in the media, pushing to cancel my speaking events, writing a letter to my university, and even posting a picture of my house on social media. This is a governmental "human rights organisation" that cites human rights concerns to build the case for war. 3) Lastly, to further avoid addressing my actual arguments, they simply cite the fact that arguments I made at a debate last year have been “wholly or partially debunked” by a fact-check. The state-run media (NRK) invited the state-run military defence institute (FFI) to fact-check three of my claims. What claims did they "debunk"? My first claim was that only 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker argued that the number went up by the middle of 2014 (after Russia responded by seizing Crimea), which is a completely meaningless comment intended to muddy the waters, as my argument was about the previous era. My second claim was that Zelensky had argued in an interview with The Economist in March 2022 that there were some Western countries that would like a long war with Russia to weaken a strategic rival, even if it would result in the destruction of Ukraine. The fact-checker argued that not all Western countries wanted a long war and that it was not an official policy. I never claimed it was an official policy, as it was primarily the US and UK pushing for a long war. My third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-checker claimed this was incorrect and suggested that it could only be based on one statement by David Arakhamia. The fact-checker did not want to mention that both mediators also confirmed it: Turkey’s foreign minister and the former Israeli prime minister both said that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal, but the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians. Zelensky’s former adviser Arestovych confirmed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador Chaly, who participated in the negotiations, confirmed that Putin was willing to do almost anything to end the war. The former head of the German armed forces confirmed that Boris Johnson sabotaged it, and Boris Johnson himself wrote articles warning about a “bad peace” and arguing for “strategic patience.” I am being fact-checked by war propagandists. Unfortunately, none of my arguments matter because in Norway there is no debate and no interest in any arguments. Reality means nothing anymore as war narratives must be defended against inconvenient truths. I used to be naïve and think that the endless smears were caused by misunderstanding, as I had simply not been able to convey my arguments properly. However, the endless articles with smears and labels are deliberate lies and deceptions.

If it keeps going at this rate, we might, for (I think) the first time in history, be about to witness the first continent-wide youth revolt in Europe - a "European spring" of sorts. The sheer number of countries where it's **already** happening is pretty overwhelming. I count 8, including 4 with violent clashes: - France, famously - Albania (see below) with daily clashes in Tirana and a government building set alight - Belgium: the French movement spilled over, including riots in Liège - Italy: "No Meloni Day" student protests since 16 October, turning into riots in Milan, Turin and Bologna - Greece: students camping in Athens' Syntagma Square over housing and education costs, explicitly inspired by France - Germany: pupils blockading schools in Berlin and Hamburg in solidarity with France - Spain: an indefinite education strike in Madrid, with students marching alongside teachers and families - Serbia: the student movement born from the 2024 Novi Sad station collapse is now running its own list in the 25 October election And, by the way, the fact it's also happening in countries with close to no immigration - like Albania - goes to show how reductive it is to label these movements, like JD Vance and Trump did with France, as the fruit of "the migrants hav[ing] taken over." As is often the case, it's much more a story of "it's the economy, stupid." As such, Trump with his war on Iran, has ironically done much more to fuel this (pun intended) than any migrant.

Whether you are conducting illegal oil transfers at sea or sitting in the corner office of a law firm, if you are supporting the Iranian regime, we will find you and sanction you. Iran’s facilitators must make a choice: Either you are with us or against us. We know who you are, we know what you’re doing, and we will continue to take action.

Blaming "hybrid warfare" is now the EU's default respons to the continent wide discontent it's member states are responsible for. They sanctioned me claiming my coverage of pro-Palestine protests benefits Russian "destabilisation". Now they're using the same template on France

Was Europa bedroht, ist der völkerrechtswidrige 🇷🇺 Angriff auf die 🇺🇦, die Ermordung der Bevölkerung, die Zerstörung der Infrastruktur. Was Europa bedroht, ist die gezielte Zerstörung durch rechtsstaatsfeindlichen Fundamentalismus. Ist aber kein Thema bei diesen Protesten! 🤷🏻‍♀️

States aspiring for hegemony will always claim to represent universal values and thus speak for all of mankind. States advocating for multipolarity will promotes sovereign equality by arguing for civilizational distinctiveness. When China argues that one civilization should not dictate to another how to develop, we should feel reassured that they have not chosen the hegemonic model of the US.

Putins Traum, ein Yalta 2.0: Russland verhandelt mit Amerika und China über das Geschick der Ukraine. Europa wird in eigener Sache auf die Zuschauerränge verwiesen. Wenn wir jetzt nicht klarstellen, dass Europa keine "Friedenslösung" akzeptiert, an der die Ukraine und die EU nicht beteiligt waren, machen wir uns zum Obst.

It's a well coordinated russian psy-op in ordercto get LePen to power in 2027

So viel Unverstand und Niedertracht auf offener Bühne. "Dieser Krieg ist nicht in unserem nationalen Interesse" - Dann wäre also eine von Russland beherrschte Ukraine und die Zertrümmerung der regelbasierten europäischen Sicherheitsordnung in unserem Interesse? Glaubt #Weidel ernsthaft, dass in der Ukraine Frieden einkehren wird, wenn wir sie zur Kapitulation zwingen? Nie von "De-Ukrainisierung" und Terror in den russisch besetzten Gebieten gehört? Keine Massenflucht aus der Ukraine - oder machen wir dann die Grenzen dicht? Und nachdem Putin die Ukraine unterworfen hat, können wir wieder in Frieden unseren Geschäften nachgehen und die Verteidigungsausgaben herunterfahren? Heiligs Blechle. "Dieser Krieg ist gefährlich für uns" - Gefährlich sind die imperialen Ambitionen Putins, den Machtbereich Russlands auszudehnen und Krieg als Mittel der Politik einzusetzen. Wenn er damit in der Ukraine durchkommt, wird er in der Ukraine nicht haltmachen. "Die Ukraine kann diesen Krieg nicht gewinnen" - das sagen die Leute, die einen russischen Sieg binnen zwei Wochen prophezeit haben. Wie dieser Krieg ausgeht, hängt entscheidend von Europa ab, das über eine vielfach überlegene Wirtschaftskraft verfügt. Die Ukraine zu unterstützen kostet uns einen Bruchteil unseres Sozialprodukts. Sie fallen zu lassen wird einen sehr viel höheren Preis kosten - politisch und finanziell. Dieses egoistische, kalte, freiheitsverachtende Deutschland, das Alice Weidel repräsentiert, wäre in Europa ziemlich einsam. Aber Putin würde uns sicher gern als Vasallenstaat unter die Fittiche nehmen. Da Meinesgleichen ja im AfD-Milieu (wie bei der Putin-Linken) als "Kriegstreiber" gelten, sollte sich Alice Weidel öfter anhören, was Giorgia Meloni zu Russland und der Ukraine zu sagen hat. Sie könnte dort lernen, weshalb die Unterstützung der Ukraine in unseren ureigenen Interesse liegt. Und dass man sich schämen sollte, ihr in den Rücken zu fallen und das als "Frieden" zu verkaufen.

Es gibt ja das Narrativ der Putin-Versteher, der Westen habe nach dem Mauerfall der Sowjetunion versprochen, keine neuen Mitglieder in Mittel- und Osteuropa aufzunehmen. Es ist längst bekannt, dass das nicht stimmt. Gut, dazu auch noch einmal Gorbatschow zu hören.