morradis

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.

I know several former Soviet dissidents, such as Edward Lozansky, who moved to the United States, where he worked with former American presidents. Lozansky asked me if I could produce some recorded online lectures on geoeconomics. I asked my university here in Norway, but they were opposed to the idea because it could cause a lot of problems. I told Lozansky that I could not contribute, as recording online lectures for an American-Russian university established to improve relations between Russia and the West would give Norwegian journalists too much ammunition for smears and to threaten the reputation of my university. What is the purpose of articles like this? What exactly have they managed to catch me out on? This is a continuation of six years of intimidation since I returned to Norway. Always go after the person, never the argument. Make life as difficult as possible for your opponent, and do it publicly, so that everyone stays in line. My great crime is arguing that Russia considers NATO expansion an existential threat, something that should be entirely uncontroversial given the extensive documentation supporting this position. Why do I believe it is important to acknowledge this? Russia will use force to push NATO back, and for Ukraine, this means that without a diplomatic solution that takes Russian security concerns into account, Russia will seize strategically important territory and destroy the remaining infrastructure so that Ukraine cannot be used by NATO as a front line. If I am right, NATO's policies will lead to the destruction of Ukraine and potentially to a nuclear war between NATO and Russia. It is not easy to determine whether I am right, because debate in Norway has been criminalized by labelling dissenting voices as “Russian propaganda.” Unfortunately, arguments and evidence no longer matter in Norway today, where we are only allowed to discuss the supposed evil intentions of those who disagree with us. The freedom of academic discourse must be restricted because all dissent is dismissed as an attempt to “legitimize” the enemy. In the past, we had journalists who discussed the security concerns of the opposing side. Today, we have journalists who investigate those who discuss the security concerns of the opposing side. How can we improve our own security in Norway when we are not even allowed to discuss the security concerns of Russia, China, Iran, and other countries of that kind? When acceptable debate is reduced to a narrative of a struggle between good and evil, weapons become the path to peace, while diplomacy and mutual understanding are portrayed as weakness and betrayal. The punishment for academic dissent in Norway is endless personal attacks and derogatory name-calling. Journalists and NGOs affiliated with the state repeatedly contact my employer. Every time I am invited to give a talk, the event is cancelled. Journalists only email me to demand that I respond to accusations without providing any serious justification for them. Journalists investigating me in search of something they can use against me recently gained access to my university records. The only thing they had to use against me was that I had asked about producing some online lectures for Lozansky on political economy. Other recent articles about me have focused on my request to reduce my position at the university to 80% after journalists complained about my outside activities, as well as fake news claiming that I congratulated Putin on the election victory. I do not believe it is a coincidence that "An Enemy of the People" was written by one of our own, Henrik Ibsen. Outside Norway, there are academic debates in which opposing arguments are presented without vicious personal attacks. Outside Norway, there is political opposition in which every member of parliament is not required to support arms shipments to a war and boycott diplomacy. Outside Norway, there are diplomats who believe in diplomacy and journalists who believe in journalism. My advice to young Norwegian academics in security studies or political economy who argue for positions that are not supported by the political and media bubble is this: Get out of the country.