As we see more and more horrors – attacks on Venezuela, collusion in the killing of participants attending peace negotiations in Qatar, and the continued acceptance of the deliberate slaughter of all human beings living in Gaza – we realise that Charlie Kirk’s “hunch” might have been right.
No abomination, it seems, is too base for certain people. No abomination!
Fortunately, a small ray of decency is making its tortuous way along the Mediterranean. Like a flock of white wagtails seeking winter quarters in the Middle East, some 40 to 50 civilian boats with fluttering Palestinian flags are on their way to Gaza with food, water and medicines. With thousands of participants from more than 44 countries, the Sumud is the largest civilian-led convoy of its kind in history, according to Wikipedia.
Reuters writes: “Italy and Spain have deployed navy ships close to the flotilla for rescue and humanitarian tasks.” Bravo, Italy. Bravo, Spain. Because there have already been a number of drone attacks on the flotilla.
But what about Norway? There are 9 Norwegians in the flotilla. And what about Germany, France, UK? Was recognition of Palestinian statehood no more than nauseating hypocrisy? Are the leaders of the European states no better than the leaders of the USA, i.e. so vile that they merit being locked away on a diet of bread and water for good? 19 sanctions packages against Russia and a military build-up unheard of since WWII, but nothing – absolutely nothing to stop the killing machine in the Middle East.
Not a word will you see in this post about Trump’s speech to the “UNGA”! Not one word! Nor even about Netanyahu’s!
But boy, have I ever enjoyed this:
While I was at it, I stumbled across another speech that figured prominently amongst the youtube videos from the UNGA, that of Prime Minister Mia Mottley of tiny Barbados, with a population of 280.000. That’s right: two hundred and eighty thousand Barbadians. That’s even less than the population of Iceland on the diametrically opposite side of the world. But the Barbadians have a much nicer international calling code: +1. That of Iceland is +354
After the Spaniards and Portuguese had left Barbados, the islands were appropriated by the British in 1627 and (quoting Wikipedia):
… the colony operated on a plantation economy, relying initially on the labour of Irish indentured servants and subsequently African slaves who worked on the island’s plantations.
Yep, the British have a great deal to answer for.
Why am I going on about Barbados? Well I happen to be particularly interested in another island country, Iceland (391.000 people according to the 2025 census) which has done extraordinarily well since it gained its independence in 1944. It operates on the “all hands on deck” principle. It needs hospitals, orchestras, universities, plumbers, electricians, art academies, economists and not least export industries, just like any other country. It can’t afford to let people hang around counting their fingers.
I expect Mia Mottley has not been blessed merely with privilege. She is her country’s prime minister, finance minister and Minister of National Security and the Public Service. Presumably, she is trying to bring down her country’s debt which was the second highest in the world in terms of ratio to GDP, when she took office. The debt has decreased considerably; yet she is serving her second term and is still remarkably popular.
Since Mia Mottley, whom I had never heard of, seems to have attracted a lot of attention in the media, I started listening to her speech, just to – sort of – figure out what sort of scandal she had made.
Nope, no scandal, just an extremely intelligent speech! She balanced it so carefully that most people, I think, would be able to applaud her words. She managed to avoid the Scylla- Carybdis dilemma – whether to offend one side or the other – yet at the same time, she was able to make a few important points. Very important points, amongst them: the need for a “rules- based system”.
Mind you, the very words “rules-based system” raised my hackles when she first uttered them, because they were almost identical to Biden’s “rules-based order”, which basically means US rulesin defiance of international law.
However, Mia Mottley made very clear that she had something entirely different in mind: the UN charter. Do we still agree about the UN Charter, she asks. And I would add: If not, what do we agree about? Her alternative seems to be: Let those who do not agree leave the room. I don’t know what alternative is the best. At any rate, she calls for a reset of global politics. Indeed, a reset is badly needed.
I take my hat off to Mia Mottley of Barbados, a very intelligent lady whose name we should not forget.
The inimitable Alex Krainer writes “What matters is what people believe – not what they know”. And a growing number of people in the USA believe that two official storylines are definitely not passing the smell test. One storyline attempts to account for a dead villain, the other concerns (or covers up) the murder of a leader who knew he was risking a great deal by publicly starting to doubt the Zionist narrative and by flouting Netanyahu.
We may possibly never get to know what crimes Epstein committed, for whom and with whom. We won’t be told who protected him or how and why his life ended in 2019. Personally, I would never have given the matter a second thought if it hadn’t been for a sudden and very unexpected rush of vehement denials on the part of the current US government: Not only is there nothing to investigate, they say; the man is simply not worth our attention. Obviously, then, this is hot stuff!
Nor would I have given Charlie Kirk a second thought – after all, I’m not a Conservative Christian US patriot, and murders are run of the mill in the USA – if it hadn’t been for the link, indirect as it may seem, between the two men: Israel.
I say no more, except that when your government insists on feeding you, in rapid succession, brazen lies about things that matters to you (as substantiated, in the case of Charlie Kirk, by The Greyzone), you start remembering past storylines that you doubted. You remember all sorts of other things, too, the 2008 bailouts, for instance. You ask yourself questions such as “They call this a Democracy?” “Where do all our taxes go?” “Why is Nancy Pelosi so rich?” And “why on earth are we cancelling the first Amendment?”
Above all, I would wonder, if I were a US citizen: Why are we so hooked on Israel?
Most things can be explained, one way or another. Sometimes, for lack of a better explanation, we resort to conspiracy theories, but as I never tire of repeating, history is full of conspiracies. Kings and queens have conspired, Cromwell conspired, Nixon conspired even JFK conspired. I bet most of us normal people have taken part in conspiracies, too, if only to get rid of an intolerable boss.
With this in mind, I put to you that there must be a reason why a generally well-educated population seems reduced to the level of a troupe of first-graders when discussing the Ukraine war. (More precisely, they don’t discuss at all. There is nothing to be discussed. Russia invaded, Russia is bad and we must defend Ukraine. Period. )
I put to you then, that something or someone has interfered with people’s minds, and I don’t believe in witchcraft. I do believe in something else, about which Mike Benz spoke at length to Glenn Diesen the other day. I have no proof that similar forces are at work in Norway, but the results certainly suggest they are.
Here is the substack video of Glenn Diesen’s interview with Mike Benz (no paywall). Since the video is very long, I am indicating below what they discuss at approximately what time in the video. I looked up some of the sources MB refers to and include the links.
00:00 …….. relationship between civil society and spy agencies since WWII
62:00 …….. Norway top of list of donors to Ukraine Media Center
Since Norway is at the top of the list of donors to a regime change operation in Ukraine, I expect the Norwegian government does what it takes to keep domestic criticism of NATO and the USA under wraps. So far, however, there has been no whistle blower.
The “thing” is here today too. Are we under occupation?
Russia’s decision to withdraw from the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture is, of course, deeply disturbing, but not entirely surprising in view of the Convention’s opening words:
The member States of the Council of Europe, signatory hereto, Having regard to … Recalling that, … Noting that … Convinced that the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment could be strengthened by non-judicial means of a preventive character based on visits,— Have agreed as follows:
Russia was kicked out of the the Council of Europe in 2023, is consequently not a member, and has no representative in the “Committee” referred to in Article 1, which according to Article 4 should have one member from each of the member states. Russia’s withdrawal was, hence, a mere formality.
That is not to say that prisoners are not tortured in Russian prisons. If you run a search on the internet you will find hundreds of lurid descriptions of mistreatment in Russian prisons. I have found none of mistreatment in Ukrainian prisons. I do not doubt that there is mistreatment of prisoners in Russian prisons. I am, however, not at all convinced that there are none in Ukrainian prisons.
Since the submission of the Special Rapporteur’s first report [in 2023] the human rights situation in the Russian Federation has deteriorated further. There is now a structural, State-sponsored system of human rights violations legalized by new or revised legislation utilized to suppress civil society, dissenting views and political opposition. An environment of absolute impunity has been created, coupled with a lack of independent institutions to safeguard the rule of law and access to justice. Public anti-war expression or dissent of any kind is criminalized, the use of violence by law enforcement is condoned and arbitrary arrests and detentions are widespread. … [my highlight]
Not good. Not good, at all. And the fact that the situation in the USA is pretty bad, too is no excuse. (To my surprise, Russia isn’t even on the statista.com list over per capita incarcerations. USA even has more prisoners in all than China, the other big “authoritarian” state. In fact, China isn’t on the per capita list either.)
However, the 1.8 million prisoners in US prisons have not been incarcerated because they objected publicly to US wars and regime change operations. I believe that you can express pretty well anything in any format in the US, without the police’s interfering. And that is certainly good. What is less good is that it doesn’t matter what you say or how many of you say it, because your congress and your government will do exactly as they please, or rather, as their donors please. And in the end you will end up saying what they want you to say, anyway, regardless of what you wanted to say, but forgot.
The very word “drugs”, for instance, works like magic. Likewise, the words “terrorism”, “Democracy”, “justice” serve as electrical triggers in your brain. Judicious use of such words will bring you in line in a jiffy.
Same here in Norway, where most people agree on just about everything (except wealth tax), so there is no iconoclasm to crack down on. We are all mildly woke, all reasonably polite about our insignificant differences of opinion. And the only thing we are passionate about is the “defence of” Ukraine against Russia. (In other contexts – political or otherwise – Norwegians find passion vaguely indecent.)
We are not even passionate about Gaza, just sad. Very, very sad.
Our media is so in step with official US / EU geopolitical perspectives that just about the entire population here parrots the remarkably cynical and/or ignorant Kaja Kallas. Don’t ask me how and why my compatriots are so ignorant about the country they are “passionate” about. The history of the conflict, for instance, does not seem to interest them in the least. Nor do they understand that Ukraine has long since lost the war, and that prolonging it only entails further deaths, further destruction and misery. You’d think our leaders had put all peacenics behind bars. They have not.
Don’t ask me how they do it, because I have no idea! It is truly a mystery. We even have access to Russian media and to Chinese media. We have access to a plethora of dissident US media. (We have hardly any dissident media of our own.) Still, there is only negligible criticism of EU warmongering.
How do they do it? Has the Norwegian population been bewitched?
Of what use, pray tell, is freedom of expression without freedom of thought?
Today, walking the dog, I see that somebody has parked this hideous thing just outside my town, the capital of my country. The press is silent about it.
Those who have been following me over time know of my tremendous esteem for Glenn Greenwald’s doggedly non-partisan reporting, currently on Rumble. However, I have not listened much to him lately. He naturally tends to concentrate on US affairs, and frankly, they don’t interest me much. After all, I live in Europe, where we have a war which eclipses all other issues, at least from the point of view of the interventionist political elite.
The other day, I read that the US had wiped a little open boat off the map. To use D.H. Wallace terminology, the US had “demapped” 11 persons in an open boat in international waters. I wondered briefly why on earth the US would do such a thing, then shrugged the matter off as “typical”. Please note: I shrugged. SHRUGGED about the massacre – extra-judicial killing – of 11 people in international waters. I add, to my defence that the Norwegian media wasted little ink on the matter.
I decided to listen to what Glenn Greenwald had to say about the matter (to be frank, I was more interested in hearing his take on the latest developments in the Epstein saga promised in the same episode).
Glenn Greenwald brought me back to earth quite robustly. He had no intention of fluttering gently over the extra-judicial killing of 11 persons by the US.
Instead he sternly asked the MAGA voters, “Do you believe, do you really believe that this was about drugs?” Raising his voice slightly, he went on: “What is the difference between the neocon policies that you, the MAGA people, oppose, and this?” Saying this, he looked me – the telespectator (MAGA or otherwise) – straight in the eye, accusing me or whoever else was watching him of condoning the incident with complacency.
And, yes, I felt guilty, although I certainly am not MAGA. I felt and definitely was guilty of assuming international law is no longer. International law still exists, but because of Gaza, because of the impunity of the savage crimes being committed by the Israelis with US blessings, all other crimes seem negligible. Because the USA is complicit in the crimes in Gaza, and because all other Western states are subordinate to the USA, international law is not being upheld.
That does not mean that the UN charter is null and void. That does not mean that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all the UN conventions, including the Genocide convention, have not been globally agreed upon and ratified. Above all, I am convinced that if they were asked, the overwhelming majority of normal human beings all over the world (excepting of course the Israelis) would loudly cheer as the articles of the Declaration of Human Rights were read out to them.
I have assumed, but I have been wrong, that the “anything-goes-as -long-as-you-are-strong-and-dastardly-enough-LAW” applies. Biden referred to that law as “the rules-based order”. No such law has ever been ratified by any global authority. The Western nations tagged along behind “Daddy”, as they always do, but we all knew, or should have known that it was a hoax. No such law, no such order, exists. If we forget that, we become as degenerate as those who authorized the hoax in the first place, as well as the crimes committed in pursuance of it.
The USA has killed much more than the 11 unknown nationals and certainly not for the first time. (In that respect, I was right in muttering “typical”.) It has effectively killed the principles underlying its own judicial system. What is null and void, then, is US rule of law.
Glenn Greenwald did not say that. He is, after all, a US citizen, I think. But he was unusually, vitriolic about the issue, when he returned to it in a subsequent episode, yesterday, in fact. JD Vance and Rand Paul clash over due process
So now the United States government just has the power to go around and blow up any ship it wants, whatever ship it wants, and just declare afterwards that it was filled with drugs and drug dealers? .… to bomb wedding parties… there was someone there who had ties to a terrorist group… We don’t show evidence either before or after, we just claim the right to go around droning anybody we want.
And that was just the start. Glenn Greenwald felt, I think, shame and deep contempt for those who are complacent about such acts.
And he made me feel deeply ashamed. We are sliding, morally, I mean, losing our grip. Not just in the USA, but also here in Norway.
A few days prior to our national elections, students in upper secondary school all over my country carried out their own “election”. The result was interesting, to say the least, because the two parties furthest to the right won 47 per cent of the votes. These parties are primarily interested in getting rid of taxes, particularly the wealth tax. (I should add that only a small minority of Norwegians pay wealth tax.) The environmentalist party won only 4 per cent.
So youngsters here are not worried about the accelerating ecological breakdown. They are not overly concerned about growing inequality, and they certainly do not care for any redistribution of wealth. In short, the exercise seems to indicate a) a disturbing degree of ignorance b) a lack of interest in the common good.
I should, however, take comfort in knowing, or at least hoping, that Norway has not yet degenerated to the point of carrying out extra-judicial killings in international waters.
Siden opprettelsen av National Endowment for Democracy (NED) i 1983, har USAs regimeendrings-operasjoner offisielt hatt som mål å “fremme demokrati” i de aktuelle landene. Det var visstnok Reagan som i sin tid slo i bordet og konstaterte at (slik jeg tillater meg å omskrive hans uttalelse): “vi må ta rotta på Vietnam-syndromet!”
Vietnamkrigen hadde kostet 58 000 USAnske liv. Også avsløringene om hvordan USAnske styrker utslettet hele landsbyer med giftige brennende gasser, skapte avsky i USAs befolkning. Etter Vietnam satt USA igjen med sorg, avsky og skam. Til overmål tapte USA krigen.
Skam er som kjent ikke noe som bør undervurderes. I et land hvor en av de første setningene barn lærer er at “America is the greatest nation on earth“, var skam på vegne av landet ikke bare smertefull, som den ville ha vært her, men direkte traumatisk.
Samtidig ble stadig flere klar over de hårreisende sporene USA stadig vekk etterlot seg i Sør- og Sentralamerika (jf. Costa Gavras filmklassiker “Missing”). Blodige kupp, fascistiske diktaturer, etnisk rensing av indianere og sultelønn for arbeiderne. (United Fruit, som vi kjenner som Chiquita hadde for eksempel klart å tilrane seg 40 % av den dyrkbare jorda i Guatemala. Dulles brødrene – en CIA-direktør og en utenriksminister – hadde begge store eierinteresster i United Fruit.) Intern motstand i USA var blitt problematisk for den politiske ledelsen.
Så NED ble skapt, ikke for å endre USAs utenrikspolitikk, men for å fremme den på en måte som ikke vakte avsky. Journalisten David Ignatius hyller i 1991 NED i en mye sitert artikkel i Washington Post, “Innocence abroad: the new world of spyless coups“.
En inngående beretning fra desember 2019 i Le monde diplomatique, “Fiks ferdig regimeendring“, beskriver hvordan NED virker, og bruker som eksempel bakgrunnen til en av de mange foretakene som i dag tilbyr hverken mer eller mindre enn det vi kan kalle “regimeendringstjenester”. Det startet nemlig med at en 30-talls studenter i Serbia rullet i gang opposisjonsbevegelsen “Otpor” i slutten av 1998. De demonstrerte mot Milosevic til han ble tvunget til å gå av i 2001. Her et sitat fra nevnte artikkel:
Ifølge Paul McCarthy, daværende regionalleder for NED, skal Otpor ha fått en stor andel av de tre millioner dollarene den amerikanske organisasjonen brukte i Serbia fra september 1998. Midlene ble brukt til demonstrasjoner og propagandamateriell (t-skjorter, plakater og klistremerker med knyttneven), samt skolering og koordinering av aktivister.
Det hører forresten med til historien at Milosevic etter sin død i fengsel faktisk ble frikjent for de fryktelige krigsforbrytelsene i Bosnia-krigen, jf. Counterpunch, 01/08/2015, The “Exoneration of Milosevic: the ICTY’s Surprise Ruling“.
Initiativtakerne til Otpor stiftet flere år senere regimeendringstjenesten CANVAS, Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies. Slår man opp dette på nettet, ser man at det er svære greier. Wikipediasiden er dessverre ikke oversatt til norsk. Men det fremgår at CANVAS har “jobbet med demokratiaktivister” i mer enn 50 land inkludert Iran, Ukraina, Georgia, Hviterussland og Azerbajdsjan. Jeg nevner disse nettopp fordi de omringer Russland, som under den kalde krigen da landet het USSR, var USA’s “hovedfiende”.
Det ikke-kommunistiske markedsøkonomiske Russland er fortsatt hovedfienden, nå riktignok sammen med Kina. Grunnen er naturligvis ikke lenger at Russland eller Kina truer USA ideologisk. Grunnen er heller ikke at Russland er mindre demokratisk enn mange av USAs nære allierte.
At USAs utenrikspolitiske, militære og, ikke minst, økonomiske eliter anser Russland og Kina som trusler er nok sammensatte, men mange statsvitere og andre analytikere viser til Wolfowitz-doktrinen (1992). og Zbigniew Brzezinski’s epokegjørende verk, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997), som styrende for USAs utenrikspolitikk.
Ifølge Wikipedia-siden om Wolfowitz-doktrinen (dessverre ikke oversatt til norsk), slås det ufravikelig fast at USA er og skal fortsette å være den eneste supermakten, og at man der forbeholder seg retten til å ty til forebyggende inngrep og angrep (preemptive strikes), dersom landets interesser trues.
Om The Grand Chessboard står det forunderlig lite i norsk Wikipedia. Innledningsvis i selve boka skriver Brzezinsky: .
Det endelige målet for amerikansk politikk bør være godartet og visjonært: å skape et virkelig samarbeidende verdenssamfunn, i tråd med langsiktige trender og menneskehetens grunnleggende interesser. Men i mellomtiden er det avgjørende at det ikke dukker opp noen eurasisk utfordrer som er i stand til å dominere Eurasia og dermed også utfordre USA. (KI-oversettelse).
Det høres vakkert ut, men bokas mål er likefullt å skissere hvordan USAs overherredømme kan sikres mot ev. eurasiske utfordrere.
Tross uttalelser tidligere i år fra utenriksminister Marco Rubio om at USA har innsett at det “unipolære øyeblikket er forbi”, er Russland helt klart fortsatt en torn i øyet for den økonomiske og militære eliten i Washington. Det gjelder altså å sette kjepper i hjulene for samarbeid mellom Russland og nabostatene, og å forhindre allianser som kan svekke USAs overherredømme. Prioriterte tiltak har lenge omfattet økonomiske sanksjoner, men det viser seg at effekten av disse i beste fall lar vente på seg. Skikkelige regimeendringsoperasjoner kan gi bedre resultater men er imidlertid svært tid- og ressurskrevende. Det er blant annet derfor Trump bruker tariffer. Han håper at næringslivet i de aktuelle landene vil tvinge landenes ledere til å underkaste seg USA.
Regimeendringsoperasjonene i Georgia og Ukraina har vært meget godt dokumentert (om ikke i norske “redaktørstyrte” aviser). Mindre kjent er tilsvarende operasjoner i Syria.
The Irregular Warfare Initiative er et slags digitalt kompetansesenter til bruk under utarbeidelsen av USAs nasjonale sikkerhetsstrategier. Der kan man finne en analyse av operasjonen Timber Sycamore i Syria. Et knippe sitater fra analysen:
CIA’s mål for denne skjulte operasjonen var å styrte regimet til Bashar al-Assad. Samtidig pågikk en operasjon i full åpenhet mot ISIS, men fokuset for Timber Sycamore var regjeringen til Bashar al-Assad, ikke ISIS. … USAs beslutning om å gi seg i kast med et program for å bli kvitt Assad fikk utilsiktet støtte fra tidligere motstandere som al-Qaida, ISIS og deres lokale støttespillere. … Et tidligere eksempel på en skjult operasjon i Syria var rettet mot den daværende Sovjet-vennlige regjeringen i 1957. CIA hadde da funnet ut at Sovietunionen vurderte militær intervensjon i Syria og den syriske regjeringen hadde tatt i mot et betingelsesløst lån fra Sovietunionen. … Den USAnske regjeringen overså President Assads tilbud om å abdisere i et sovjetisk meklingsforsøk…
(min oversettelse)
Tydeligere kan det ikke sies, vel? The Irregular Warfare Initiative avviser påstander om at USA aktivt samarbeidet med Al Qaida. Til dette vises det til en e-post fra Jake Sullivan til Hillary Clinton allerede i Februar 2012: “Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria.” (sitert av Aron Mate: In Syria dirty war, “our side” has won.
Det som først of fremst besørget Assads fall var likevel USA’s folkerettsstridige økonomiske sanksjoner mot Syria. Dette drøftes blant annet i Responsible Statecraft, “Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent”. Økonomiske sanksjoner er en form for beleiring. Målet er å sulte ut de beleirede. Resultatet av USAs bidrag til demokratisering av Syria er altså langt annet enn godartet: mer enn 12 år med ufattelig nød og en vedvarende flyktningekrise. Vi har dessuten nylig sett omfattende massakrer begått av de nye makthaverne.
Nå som krigene i Ukraina og Palestina fyller mesteparten av mediebildet om verden utenfor vår kjøkkenhage, har man knapt lagt merke til det som skjer i Armenia. Men også der ser det ut til å ha vært iverksatt en regimeendringsoperasjon.
Det voksende samarbeidet mellom Russland og Iran er ikke i USAs interesse.
Lille Armenia ligger midt mellom de to store landene. Handelspolitisk sett har Armenia tradisjonelt derfor vært nært knyttet både til Russland og Iran, gjennom den såkalte Zangezur-korridoren. Det blåser nå opp til konflikt om korridoren, da Azerbajdsjan og Tyrkia er interessert i å kontrollere den, og det ser ut til at de vil lykkes med det.
For å være presis: Armenia var knyttet til Russland og Iran. Men i etterkant av Armenias såkalte “fløyelsrevolusjon” i 2018, kom en relativt upopulær fyr til makten. Nikol Pashinyan er åpenbart en brikke i Vestens spill for å svekke forbindelsen mellom Russland og Armenia. Det eneste han har gjort for sitt land til nå er å krympe det, mens Azerbajdsjan vokser. En overskrift i en avis som utgis i Nederland, The Moscow Times, jubler at Armenia Is Breaking Up With Russia – And Putin Can’t Stop It.
Det er påfallende at Armenia (dvs. Pashinyan) nå heller vil samarbeide med Tyrkia, som i sin tid begikk folkemord mot armenerne (og som fortsatt nekter for det) enn med Russland som normalt gir sine allierte bedre handelsbetingelser enn EU, for ikke å snakke om Tyrkia.
På Sonar21 dukket det opp en artikkel datert 6. juli 2025 skrevet av en “gjesteskribent”, D. Davidian: “Armenia’s Prime Minister is Trapped. Det kan tenkes at forfatteren er den samme som under overskriften Exclusive Interview with Mr. David Davidian, Lecturer at the American University of Armenia analyserer den tragiske etniske konflikten i Nagorno Karabach og Tyrkias og Israels innblanding i armenske anliggender.
Men i innlegget på Sonar21 finner vi en punktliste med blant annet følgende:
Antallet registrerte NGOer i Armenia forblir uklart. Det offisielle antallet i 2019 var 4222 og antall stiftelser var 1120, men russiske kilder hevder av antallet NGOer høsten 2023 er rundt 9000. Et slikt antall er påfallende for et land med et innbyggertall på rundt 3 millioner. Vestlig-støttede NGOers rolle i farge-revolusjoner er viden kjent. Nikol Pashinyan har selv uttalt at han nådde toppen på ryggen av NGOer. Dette er en klassisk fremgangsmåte i alle vestlig-inspirerte farge-revolusjoner.
I 2017 fremmet han forslag til Parlamentet om å forlate Den eurasiske økonomiske union.
Siden han kom til makten i 2018, har Pashinyan hatt 5 sikkerhetssjefer, men 6 ledende statstjenestemenn har mistet livet under mistenkelige omstendigheter.
Etter en rekke telefonsamtaler i oktober 2020 mellom Pashinyan og den russiske presidenten Putin, på den ene siden, og mellom Azerbajdsjans president Aliyev og Putin, på den andre, ble det foreslått å avslutte kampene. Forslaget gikk ut på at Armenia skulle beholde kontrollen over store deler av det som i Sovjettiden hadde vært den autonome regionen Nagorno-Karabakh og tilliggende områder. Det ville bli satt ut Russiske fredsbevarende styrker. Men Pashinyan avslo tilbudet og hevdet at dette ville medføre kapitulasjon.
(min oversettelse).
Det hører med til historien at Armenia tapte hele Nagorno-Karabach og det armenske flertallet ble brutalt drevet ut.
Flere av Davidians påfølgende punkter tyder på at den godeste Pashinyan fører en høyst forunderlig politikk som i alle fall ikke fremmer armenske interesser. Kan det være slik at Armenia rett og slett er en eurasisk bananrepublikk? Jeg merker meg for øvrig at Amnesty skriver bl.a. om “reports of increased pressure and harassment against journalists” i 2024, og Pashynians politiske motstandere (inkludert ledere i den armenske kirken) blir nå jevnlig arrestert og fengslet.
Dette hører vi ingenting om.
Landets viktigste eksportartikler er forresten gull, kobber og diamanter. Da er det vel lov å tenke sitt.
