Pelshval

Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Category: Foreign policy (Page 1 of 4)

The Ukrainian tragedy

11.07.2026 /

In a recent post, written in Norwegian, I suggested that the roots of the ghastly war that is dismantling Ukraine stretch back to World War I, when they were to a large extent the result of external interference. That should not be a surprise to anyone. After all, then as now, major powers attempted to steer the geopolitical course of events in order to diminish the influence of competitors and hoping to be able to help themselves to new resources.

I should add that now as then, the powers-that-be are willing and able to constantly lie through their teeth. Being a competent liar is top of the list of “job requirements” for presidents/prime ministers and their henchmen. Remember Bill Clinton’s limpid blue eyes, “I never had…”?

As an aside, I believe that the general public’s inability to get our heads around the mendacity of our leaders is part of our problem here in Europe. We have almost all been inculcated with the commandment “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour” and/or that the Prophet Muhammad warned that giving false witness is one of the greatest sins. So we are helplessly discombobulated by the never-ending whirlwind of lies.

The Central Powers lied to their hapless Ruthenian subjects back then, and European leaders are lying to us now. We are defenceless, because we simply cannot fathom that “civilised people” can be so devastatingly cynical.

Some lies about the Ukraine war do admittedly get exposed. For example, Ivan Katchanovski has demonstrated beyond all possible doubt that the “Maidan massacre” was committed not by the “regime” but by coup plotters. The problem is that we are not only unable but also unwilling to believe we have been hoodwinked.

While exposing lies about the present requires endurance, exposing lies about the past requires the painstaking work of plodding though archives.

Since I wrote my previous post, a well-referenced article has come to my attention that does in fact reveal a great deal more than what I suggested. It is written by someone who is unabashedly Russian.

Born and raised in the USSR/Russia, I offer a Russian perspective grounded in archives, statistics, and objectivity—untangling Cold War propaganda and beyond.

The Root of the Ukrainian Conflict Or Did Lenin Really Create Ukraine?

The article is long (42 pages), but I found that every page was well worth the time I spent reading it.

Not just Trump

20.06.2026 /

Until recently, we here in Norway blamed Putin for almost everything but bad weather. That is, of course, because our EU-centric media have framed foreign affairs in such a way that we know next to nothing about the real world outside our borders. You may ask: Why is that? Have the Norwegian media been given orders? Or are they merely incompetent, misinformed or plainly stupid?

To be frank: I don’t know.

Today Reuters quoted the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on the issue of “dialogue”. There was every reason to welcome dialogue, he agreed. However:

“The Europeans have a very serious misconception: They assume that negotiations with Russia must be conducted from a ​position of strength and based on Russia’s weakness. This is the biggest mistake… Such talk will lead ⁠nowhere. …Does this stem from European incompetence, misinformation, or stupidity? We don’t know for sure, but it’s a fact.”

Putin ​has said that he is open to talks with European governments but that they should make the first move because they were ​the ones to cut off ties. The EU has imposed 20 rounds of sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.

Most Norwegians do not get even this little titbit in their news feeds. So they have no way of knowing that the reason there are no peace talks between Europe and Russia is that European leaders refuse to discuss the root causes of the war.

Of course Norwegians could read RT, because it is actually not blocked in Norway. But no Norwegian in his or her right mind would be caught dead reading “Putin talking points” (code speak for “Russian “propaganda”). The implication being, of course, that on our side, we don’t do “propaganda”.

I must really urge my fellow countrymen to challenge his/her super-ego and read RT. Today for instance, I found a mildly ironic review of a newly published book about the sabotage of the Nord Stream Pipeline and the former Ukrainian erotic model, ‘Freya’, “the bravest diver in the whole group”. I briefly scanned the page and caught the word “Norwegian”. When I zoomed in to it, this is what I saw:

As images of bubbling gas leaks [after the destruction of Nordsream] hit international media, a separate story went almost entirely unreported: less than 24 hours after the second round of blasts, Poland and Norway celebrated the opening of the Baltic Pipe, a gas pipeline transiting Norwegian gas to Poland via Denmark, passing over Nord Stream just south of Bornholm.

“Thank you, USA,” Poland’s now-foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, tweeted. Sikorski deleted his tweet two days later.

You may remember, but then again, if you are Norwegian you will probably not even have heard about him, Seymour Hersch and his famous article, according to which the US with the assistance of Norway took down Nordstream. His substack articles require a paid subscription, so I have directed you to the Helsinki Times for a discussion of it. Democracy Now’s conversation with Sy Hersch himself is surely also worth listening to (and there is a transcript).

Nor, to my knowledge, has the Norwegian press said a word about the controversy between Poland and Ukraine over the recent state burial of a Nazi collaborator and war criminal. Reuters didn’t devote much space to the matter, but enough to trigger curiosity.

Although Norwegians have been prevented from understanding the role played in Ukraine by successive US administrations, some Norwegian ire has shifted from Putin to Trump.

***

Personally, though, I find Trump rather more entertaining than the stony-faced Sir Keir, the rubber-faced Macron or the German fellow who looks and sounds as though he has just escaped from an insane asylum for former war criminals, I do not – repeat – not – approve of Trump’s policies. I believe that inter-state matters should be handled by adults. Alas, neither the members of his administration nor those handling EU foreign policy qualify as such, although I suspect they may have taken a course in “How to get rich, quick!”

I admit that I rather liked Trump’s comment that not everybody who lives in an apartment building is a member of Hezbollah. I liked his outburst that “Everybody hates Israel because of this!” Above all, I recognise that his MAGA voters hoped he would concentrate on improving conditions for ordinary US Americans.

Moreover, there is no denying that the US on Trump’s watch has lost face due to the Iran debacle. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is very good news indeed, though you may disagree with me.

Bear with me, though: You see, I claim – and again you may disagree – that USA has been, for decades a malevolent global force. And Trump, who has dismantled what little remained of a semblance of Democracy in his own country, with his ICE and unconstitutional extravagances, has merely allowed US hubris abroad to break US legs. Again. (Remember Afghanistan?)

Ordinary US citizens are paying the price. I am sorry. However, EU citizens are also paying the price.

BUT TRUMP IS JUST A SYMPTOM, NOT THE CAUSE

(to be continued)

***

So let’s take a look at the Iran debacle:
Yes, Trump, not Biden, not Obama, was the one who attacked Iran, out of the blue during on-going negotiations. He was pressured by a homicidal maniac, it is true. (Mind you, Naftali Bennet will be no better than Netanyahu!)

History books will say that he, Trump, was to blame for the underhanded attack on Iran on 28 February.

BUT former presidents have been waging economic war on Iran ever since Iran got rid of the US puppet — a pompous, fascist “shah” — in 1979. In fact, Iran was the most sanctioned country in the world until it was surpassed by Russia after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Take a good long look at the so-called Timeline of U.S. Sanctions. The US thought it would be able to force the country to its knees, and obviously now thought it had succeeded in so doing. After all, economic sanctions amount to warfare. They don’t merely hurt the targeted country’s “regime” (a popular word these days for all governments pursuing policies that do not serve “US national interests” – which is a euphemism for the “financial interests of a limited number of people”).

I repeat for emphasis: “US national interests” is normally used as a euphemism for the “financial interests of a limited number of people“.

The Lancet wrote in 2025:

All economic sanctions ultimately function as sanctions on health. Through their direct effects on access to medical products, provision of health-care services, and civilian mental health, as well as their indirect effects on determinants of health such as food security and socioeconomic development, sanctions inevitably or even intentionally undermine people’s right to health. Moreover, the adverse effects of sanctions on health are most pronounced among children, women (versus men), and the most marginalised populations.


With a low efficacy rate and a significant and uneven impact on health, it is questionable whether economic sanctions meaningfully reduce the number of deaths relative to military aggression.
[all highlighting by Pelshval]

In other words, since “it is questionable” whether the number of civilian deaths caused by sanctions is “meaningfully” lower than that caused by military warfare, sanctions are relatively cheaper for the US taxpayer, but no less devastating for the affected country.

So the US has been actively and fiercely engaged in warfare against Iran for decades. Why? Forget about “terrorism”. The US has itself actively engaged in terrorism whenever and wherever it has seen fit, just like Israel; still does.

Not even tangentially does the matter of human rights enter into US equations.

The US would like to have, once again, a puppet regime in Iran, simple as that. The oil, of course, the minerals. Now, though, in 2026, there is the additional pressing need to prevent the strengthening of Iran’s ties with China, before it is too late.

Trump has been doing to Iran what any president would have been pressured into doing, not so much by Israel as by the “limited number of people” who basically run USA behind the scenes. As things have turned out, it is too late.

So the problem is not Trump. It’s the system. Trump was the product of a system that since the introduction of increasingly neoliberal policies from the 1970s on (reversal of progressive taxing, deregulation – e.g. the repeal of the Glass Steagal Act – etc.) has dramatically degraded the living conditions of the greater part of the US and UK populations and shrunk the middle class of the two countries.

As Trump has had to admit defeat, Dems in Congress are as furious as Republicans in Congress. Obviously, most of these people – the people in Congress – do not have the interests of the majority of US citizens at heart.

Their purely political problem is that what the US is doing in the Middle East is increasingly unpopular with US voters, in spite of suppression of criticism of genocidal Zionism. So they happily use Israel as both a scapegoat and an excuse for lingering in the Middle East, while plotting how to “end aid to Israel” and replacing aid with something worse.

AS Trita Parsi writes:

Trump owns this failed war, but if the Democrats help torpedo the MOU and war resumes, then they will co-own the next war.

Wars become interminable when leaders convince themselves that ending them without victory is politically more costly than continuing them without hope. Once that trap is sprung, every setback becomes an argument for one more deployment, one more escalation, one more year. The objective shifts from achieving a realistic political outcome to avoiding the admission that the original objectives were unattainable.

That last paragraph describes exactly what is going on in Europe now. Alas. But let me not digress from my agenda today, which is, I repeat:

Trump is not the problem. The system is.

***

So, by way of a very brief conclusion – because were I to recite the entire litany of US war crimes over the past 150 years, I would have to write an entire book (such books have been written, though, ref. William Blum) — I quote the article Democratic Party’s Corollary to the Donroe Doctrine:

Beneath the rhetoric of inter-party conflict lies a broad bipartisan consensus in favor of promoting US hemispheric hegemony and crushing governments that resist it – with Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua at the forefront. While Democrats frequently portray Trump as reckless, they generally accept the underlying premises of economic coercion, political intervention, and regime-change pressure. Their objections mainly focus on the execution of policy rather than its legitimacy.

The rest of the article is well worth your attention, as is the website where I found it: https://www.antiwar.com/regions/

As for the system, ladies and gentlemen, you can call it rotten, if you wish, but that is not exactly clarifying. I maintain that there are two characteristics of the system that are particularly egregious:

  • It is, and has been ever since WWII, hegemonic, i.e. it claims the right to call the shots globally with or without the endorsement of the UN.
    • Consequently, it does not play by any other rules than those that it lays down arbitrarily, according to its needs.

  • It is Neoliberal. Now the Wikipedia article about Neoliberalism is very confusing, but most critics of Neoliberalism stress the following policies:
    • market fundamentalism,
    • deregulation of capital markets and the corporate sector,
    • low taxation on capital income
    • privatisation of the public sphere, and above all:
    • accelerating financialisation
    • => All of which leads to “austerity”,
      • i.e. the lowest 90 % of the population suffer the consequences while the top 10 % thrive.

That is the problem.
Trump is merely the symptom of his country’s malaise

The General Assembly matters

27.09.2025 /

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 rules in 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.

Not bewitched

14.09.2025 /

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

05:00 …….. CEPPS quote; the story behind NED;
The memo: the inauguration of organized political warfare.

07:20 …….. The Italian election 1948 and subsequent abuses

11:00 …….. Jimmy Carter’s relationship with CIA; Republican reaction

13:40 …….. “executive branch expansion”; 1983 NED created

14:50 …….. “plausible deniability” issue

17:00 …….. from “covert” to “overt” to “covert:

18:00 …….. Biden stealth agreement; NED structure including:
Chamber of Commerce and labour union wings

22:00 …….. CEMA, NED’s Center for International Media Assistance.

25:00 …….. Belarus 2020 Carl Gershman was prank-called

26:00 …….. Nuland’s referrence to the $5 billion of financial assistance in 2013

27:00 …….. Soros’ and other players’ involvement in energy market.

30:00 …….. The Soros family relationship with US government, including
the Open Society Institute and hedge funds

33:00 …….. hedge funds and political influence

36:00 …….. war through commercial ventures

39:00 …….. Tom Donalan

41:00 …….. Georgia: staged colour revolution attempt

42:00 …….. Biden on the firing of Viktor Shokin, former General Prosecutor Ukraine

43:00 …….. Ukrainian civil society is funded top to bottom by USAID

44:00 …….. details of work to create a new mythology for Ukrainians

47:00 …….. USAID paid Ukrainian pensions

49:00 …….. election of Zelenski 2019

50:00 …….. CIA fronts like Chemonics

51:00 …….. Ukraine Media Center and the red lines memo

53:00 …….. details of red lines memo!!

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?

Regimeendring

03.09.2025 /

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.


***

Bildet nedenfor er hentet fra https://nocoldwar.org/

Flere detaljer

The future for Europe

11.07.2025 /

We are seeing, I think, the outlines of what lies ahead in the medium term, at least. The European leaders are definitely not going to admit they made an extremely unwise choice back in 2021, in following the lead of the USA by refusing to back down on the issue of NATO membership to Ukraine.

Though a number of European leaders must long since have understood how disastrous their adherence to NATO policies was, they will only acknowledge their mistake posthumously, at best. The European countries have invested too much in their infantile narrative, which is that you cannot, may not, shall not negotiate with Putin, whose demands are a priori evil.

They have faithfully followed the US course of explaining the Ukraine conflict as one between Good and Evil. They have suppressed information to their own populations. They have more or less bankrupted their own treasuries to provide financial support and arms to Ukraine. They have failed to take issue regarding the disruption of gas supplies from Russia, which rendered their own industries uncompetitive. Now they are even considering following US orders to break off business ties with BRICS countries.

How much money does your country send to Ukraine every month? My country sends enormous sums, in addition to arms. I very much doubt that the Ukrainian people are seeing any of it. Zelensky and his gang are certainly getting richer by the day. So why aren’t the media loudly asking: “Just how is all of this taxpayer money helping Ukraine and the Ukrainian people?”

Meanwhile Russia has long since won the Ukraine war. At least militarily. A large portion of Ukraine’s population has fled. Much of the remaining male population has died.

Until recently, Russia did not seem to be in a hurry; the front line moved sluggishly. There is no indication, except statements from Western leaders, that Russia wished to conquer more than Donbas until quite recently. Indeed, one would think that Russia has more than enough territory. Occupying antagonistic populations over any period of time is very costly, regardless of who the occupant is.

Russia knows full well that it would not benefit from conquering territory that is adamantly anti-Russian unless… and here comes the crux of the matter … unless the goal were to somehow paralyse the Ukrainian Fascists who, funded by the West, are probably the dominant force in Ukraine, not in number but in terms of power. They have used the same methods to gain the upper hand as Fascists used in Germany and Spain in the late 1930s. Western news media have been silent about them since 2014, and since Ukraine is currently a totalitarian state, details are hard to come by. What is certain is that the Fascists insist, and have done so since the very beginning, on continuing this war at any cost.

After the recent western-aided “Spiderweb” attacks on several important military airfields deep inside Russia, the Russians appear to have decided to step up matters. Moreover, it is now also clear that Trump will make no progress in persuading Zelensky to engage in realistic negotiations (many analysts suspect that the Fascists control him and that he is no more than an expensive puppet), so Russia appears to have decided that there are no non-military options and that all of Ukraine will have to be occupied and forcibly demilitarised. Such, then, is the embarrassing result of the West’s long and very costly campaign against Russia.

***

In the medium term, there will be no negotiated peace. Ukraine will be an occupied country. Zelensky and his thugs will form a government in exile, lavishly funded by Western countries. Just as the Iranian Shah Junior has been nurtured for decades, at the expense of and unbeknownst to the US taxpayer, Zelensky and his court in exile will be generously remunerated for many years to come. Why? Because he and his court will serve as the pretext for an Orwelllian “never-ending-war“, the aim of which is to perpetuate US dominance, or rather the dominance of the US dollar, the reserve currency.

We shall have a war between Europe and Russia allegedly aided, but in reality initiated, by the USA; in reality a war in which Europe will be a US proxy, though Trump doesn’t seem to know it yet. This will, to begin with, probably take the form of a nominal cease-fire punctuated by acts of sabotage and terrorism, military and economic support to Russian political dissidents, etc. In short the usual “regime change” paraphernalia at which the British and the US Americans excel. Meanwhile, Europe will be rearming at full speed.

The rapidly accelerating arms race will hopefully not culminate in outright nuclear warfare, but with such idiots at the helm, you never know. Arms contractors will be very happy, but we will see the pauperisation of growing swathes of our populations who will find comfort only in cheap digital entertainment. We have already seen incipient authoritarian tendencies in most of the so-called free Western countries, which are becoming ever more repressive.

Such is the prospect in the medium term, I think. How long the medium term will last is anybody’s guess. The long term is another matter, altogether. The silent majority cannot fail to notice that this whole business, the “defence” of Israel, and the battle between “Good” and “Evil” is all a whole big bag of lies. Even cheep digital entertainment and gaming may not be capable of turning us into zombies. We must hope that sooner or later we will be able to hold our leaders to account. It’s been done before.

***

Post Scriptum: Jacques Baud, formerly a colonel and strategic and intelligence analyst, has written no less than three books about the Ukraine war, most recently “Covert Wars in Ukraine”. I believe he has correctly predicted what has happened all along and from the very start. In this 75 minute interview, he maintains that Europe and Ukraine will be forced to the negotiating table. Personally, I don’t see this happening, but his analysis – long though it is – is so knowledgeable that I believe it is well worth listening to. And who knows, maybe a negotiated settlement is possible, after all.

Heinous derangement

12.06.2025 /

For months, commentators and geopolitical analysts have been biting their nails, fearing that the Zionist lobby would be able to prevail upon the US president to support the Israeli wish to annihilate Iran.

For months, US presidents – first Biden, then Trump – have stood their ground. Now, however, the US is withdrawing personnel from all the countries in the Middle East. It looks as though the lobby of the deranged will succeed. Trump is, after all, a weak president, while the military-industrial complex is anything but. And Israel does, after all, have “the Bomb”.

So maybe, the Evangelists and the ultra-orthodox Jews will at long last see an end to their earthly tribulations, as they reach Wagnerian suicidal orgasms enjoying Armageddon.

Idiots!

United Nations or chaos

21.04.2025 /

Why, my friends ask, why do I keep on making a spectacle of myself, antagonising people left, right and centre? Why can’t I just sit back and enjoy spring, friendships, books, music, films? In short, why can’t I just enjoy life till it ends (i.e. till the war starts)? All my screaming from barricades won’t change anything, they say.

They are probably right about that last bit. I can’t change a thing. Even the late Pope Francis wasn’t able to change much, bless him. (I am not being ironic: I think he was a good and brave man. He is rumoured to not have been very brave during the Videla dictatorship, but he made up for it.) So if even the pope, … how can I presume to imagine that my barricades will make a difference?

Well, for one thing, I am not alone. There are others. Many others in fact. All over the world. Don’t forget: numbers matter. True, you have powerful people like Santa Ursula, Sir Keir Rodney and the not-yet-chancellor Merz, not to mention Macron le Beau – all fabulously unpopular. How do they propose to continue staying in power without introducing autocracy?

True, most people have few sources of information other than the corporate press, in which Norwegians have such bizarre faith. (I still blame Stoltenberg for my compatriots’ tragic ingenuousness.) But if people were aware of all the lies we have been served over the years, not to mention all the news that was deliberately withheld from us, they would not be pleased. So I write and make a spectacle of myself, and others – all over the world – write or run podcasts and youtube channels. More and more and more dissenting blogs and podcasts and youtube channels pop up every day.

If you think that these people are all disgruntled socialists, take a look at Cyrus Janssen’s youtube channel, for instance. He is anything but.

Most people who know that Zelensky is a consummate liar are, it is true, silent. At least here in Norway where criticising Zelensky is simply not done and ridiculing him is tantamount to sacrilege. Here we say that Zelensky was “badly mistreated” in the Oval Office. Zelensky did not misbehave. Trump did. Of course, hearing such statements I regularly walk straight into the trap, defending Trump, which is simply not done here either. Ever.

Now I don’t often defend Trump, but honestly, Zelensky was being rude and as obstreperous ( I can’t resist using the word) as a biker on a cocaine high. And as far as Trump is concerned, I will say this for him: The root causes of the growing problems that await him and US voters are not of his making, though the medicine he is proposing will not work.

My compatriots will not be tearing down the walls of any Bastille, for the simple reason that the walls around us here are made not of stone nor of hardship, but of silence. But elsewhere there is loud rumbling. And since even the EU still consists of nominally Democratic independent states, we can hope that voters will demand change. In the US, likewise. Big change.

The most important change of all, though, concerns the United Nations, where to this day the former colonial powers, UK and France and the biggest bully of all, the USA, hold not only permanent seats but powers of veto. This must NOT GO ON.

As things stand, the most powerful killer apes act with total impunity. The UN charter is all but forgotten, and the world – at least the West – is degenerating into anarchy. Possibly no state should hold veto power.

I leave it to you to design a new Security Council.

Personally, I shall just sit back and enjoy, as my friends recommend. I shall enjoy the thought of a world where the UN Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights are once again universally revered. You may find these documents outdated, but that is what we agreed upon back then, and that is what we shall have to work from.

I shall enjoy the thought of a Security Council that has almost unanimously voted to impose a global boycott on trade with Israel, and a whole raft of economic sanctions on Israeli war criminals. I shall enjoy the thought of a Security Council that sends UN peacekeeping troops to protect the people of Gaza and the West Bank. Then and only then can talks begin – and they will probably require much patience – as to how Israelis and Palestinians can settle their ancient differences. Will they cohabit as equals (this would require compensations for land stolen from the Palestinians) between the river and the sea? Or will they occupy separate lands after the eviction of all the illegal settlers on the West Bank?

When all this is settled, the boycott will end and sanctions will be lifted.

I shall enjoy the thought of a world where we have, once more, international law, not chaos. There will still be wars. There will be bullies. But there will be a common understanding of International Law, a yardstick, as it were, by which to asses adherence to international rule of law.

There will once more be a global organisation with authority to chastise future bullies.

On wars and countries

18.04.2025 /

Anyone who hasn’t read Nikolai Petro‘s book The Tragedy of Ukraine doesn’t know the first thing about Ukraine, not even the last thing. The above word “anyone” , by the way, includes Russians and Ukrainians and, until today, myself. Mind you, I thought I knew a lot. I certainly knew a lot about the war, but the war does not explain Ukraine.

I will repeat that: The war does not explain Ukraine.

How we see a war tends to define how we see the countries involved in it. Many of us tend to side with the underdog, and will develop all kinds of favourable ideas about that country. For instance, I never thought much of the Houthis in the past (religious fundamentalism is not normally something I tend to vote for) but now I consider them heroes. Having almost been exterminated after years of Saudi bombing and starvation, they understand the Gazans better than most. And the very fact that they are still on their feet, defending Gaza in the face of heavy US bombardment is truly remarkable. Yes, they are indeed heroes. You, however, might disagree with me.

But the Houthis are not my concern here. I am. Or rather we are. We who watch wars from a safe distance while people are killing each other. Some of us are horrified, some are angry, some pretend to shrug and remind themselves that we are, after all, just the distant offspring of killer-apes.

So while I gladly admit I don’t know the first thing about Yemen and the Houthis, I honestly thought I knew a lot about Ukraine.

My ignorance, or rather the ignorance of just about everybody other than the warring parties, is part of the problem. How many of our involved diplomats and statesmen actually speak or read Russian or Ukrainian, for instance? How much do they actually know? Are they as ignorant as the rest of us, who only have second-hand knowledge handed down to us filtered by political agendas. I suspect they are.

Until you see “Table 3.2: Ukrainian Officials on the Treasonous Nature of Maloross Ukrainians” in the afore-mentioned book, you will not fully understand that the war was inevitable.

Inevitable.

I have not yet read all of Nikolai Petrov’s book, and I fear I shall be in for further shocks and surprises. For now, I merely repeat: If you care at all about Ukraine, get hold of the book! Read it!

Syria

15.12.2024 /

I am not going to write about Syria. I have never been to Syria and know very little about the country.

I do, however, remember that I learnt and knew – with absolute certainty when it happened – that the USA (starting with NED) played a dirty game in Syria’s civil war. The US was heavily engaged there from the very start. Or before.

Like Libya and Iraq, Syria was once a country with very respectable living standards, relatively high levels of education and health services, but no free press. In 2011 people started clamouring for a free press. Protesters were imprisoned and viciously tortured.

The Syrian government claimed they were cracking down on terrorists. Of course, most of the protesters were not terrorists.

But there were terrorists, and they were being trained and financed by the USA which could not countenance that Assad was under Russian influence.

Did I already mention that Syria was once a country with very respectable living standards, relatively high levels of education and health services?

I might even mention it a third time, since the USA is not a country with very respectable living standards, availability of higher education and decent health services. Much good the free press and the circus of democratic elections have done the majority of US citizens.

Anyway, the US has since imposed “sanctions” on Syria, has stolen Syria’s oil and has occupied its most valuable and productive agricultural land. In short, the USA has done what it regularly does to countries that offer citizens outside Europe respectable living standards, relatively high levels of education and health services:
It has tried to starve the country to death.

This I did not know. Not until now, when I have spent quite a lot of time and effort trying to understand why Assad’s troops simply caved in, why Turkey is playing its strange game, why Russia walked away, and why Israel is applauding a Jihadist occupation of Syria. Very confusing indeed unless you understand the background, which the corporate press painstakingly declines to do.

So rather than tell you all about Syria, I leave you with Chris Hedges, or rather with Alastair Crooke [yes, that is how the name is spelt] to whom he addresses a few questions. I must warn you: The former MI6 officer and diplomat has a weak voice but a most extraordinarily nimble mind.

« Older posts

© 2026 Pelshval

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑