In un certo senso Mosca sta facendo qualcosa che la società europea non può fare da sola: mettere alle strette la sua classe dirigente, farla venire allo scoperto e ridicolizzarla costringendola a mettersi a confronto coi propri limiti, ad uscire dalla propria torre d’avorio ed infine a ridefinire un’identità – quella europea – in dubbio da quasi 80 anni.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Le notizie delle ultime settimane lasciando intravedere spiragli di qualcosa: un qualcosa che è ancora troppo presto per definire, ma in cui molti sperano. Una risoluzione del conflitto che infiamma il fianco orientale d’Europa potrebbe vedere una svolta (si mormora) eppure più tale ipotesi si avvicina, più si percepisce un’ansia generalizzata, come un nervosismo inesprimibile che pervade la classe politica al comando delle istituzioni europee, a tutti i livelli, ma soprattutto a quelli più alti. Lo spaventoso paradosso lo si può articolare in modo assai semplice: c’è paura della pace.

La classe dirigente europea, anzichè remare in direzione di una soluzione definitiva, a lungo termine, del conflitto in Ucraina, al contrario esterna tutta una serie di dubbi e ostilità ad ogni compromesso da far quasi credere nell’esistenza di un avversione a tale pace: in breve, le istituzioni europee nel momento più critico dell’ultimo lustro, esprimono qualcosa di indicibile che di certo non si addice allo spirito dei padri costituenti della comunità europea, votati a edificare una cultura sovranazionale basata sul compromesso, sulla reiezione del nazionalismo e sulla diplomazia. La verità è che siamo di fronte ad un nodo di grandissime proporzioni: il conflitto in Ucraina, sebbene limitato dal punto di vista prettamente geografico, ha effetti geopolitici di grande portata che ridefiniscono gli equilibri di potere ereditati dalla caduta del muro di Berlino. In un contesto come questo, sorgerà una delle domande più difficili: quale destino per l’Europa ? Un continente uscito azzerato dal secondo conflitto mondiale, risorto e fiorito economicamente fino al massimo splendore nelle generazioni post-belliche, pur rimanendo perennemente “monco” ovvero privo di una propria politica di difesa (così come di una propria politica estera indipendente da quella di Washington). I suoi leader si trovano ad affrontare ora qualcosa di mai visto prima nell’esperienza dell’Europa politica, ovvero l’assumersi di una responsabilità storica: in questo caso quella di un insuccesso, nel prevenire e gestire una grande guerra convenzionale ai margini del proprio continente, aver preso decisioni avventate ed ora ritrovarsi messi da parte constatando una propria sconfitta sul campo contro il rivale identificato con Mosca. Per poter comprendere tutto questo occorre tuttavia fare qualche passo indietro e riflettere su cosa sia la leadership europea, cosa rappresenta e come si è formata. Innanzitutto occorre rendersi conto che la classe dirigente europea è forse l’elite più saldamente insediata e meno “sfidata” sulla faccia del pianeta facendo i conti: siedono sul trono di un continente pacificato, vale a dire senza velleità di potenza o nemici naturali da cui doversi difendere, estremamente prospero (a differenza degli USA per 70 anni non ha affrontato vere spese militari), le cui elite sociali di riferimento – anziane e benestanti – non danno problemi particolari. Una torre di avorio unica sul pianeta, che per la prima volta nella sua esistenza ha subito una scossa: la crisi geopolitica che abbiamo visto in questi anni – ancora in corso – primo grande conflitto europeo del XXI secolo (in realtà il primo dal 1945 ad oggi su questo continente) costituisce anche la prima vera sfida alla classe politica europea: quest’ultima in 70 non ha mai dovuto vedersela con un vero nemico, con nulla che potesse mettere alla prova la propria prerogativa al “trono” il loro diritto “sacro” al comando.

Si può dunque dire questo a buona ragione: le circostanze odierne sono un inedito banco di prova per tutti costoro, un momento della verità per tutto l’estabilishment politico emerso in Europa dai tempi dell’ultimo conflitto mondiale in poi (il carosello di forze liberal-democratiche, cristiano-democratiche/democristiane, social-democratiche, ecologiste tipiche del panorama partitico occidentale post-bellico): il cosiddetto “arco costituzionale” europeo consolidatosi nel corso di generazioni con il placet d’oltreoceano ossia con la condizionale delle fedeltà indiscussa alle direttiva politiche di Washington.

Ora, tale classe si è messa in un pasticcio più grande di sè stessa senza rendersene conto: ha sfidato una potenza militare (malgrado tutto, la Russia questo ancora è) con la sicurezza assoluta di un successo nonchè di un grande fratello a stelle e strisce, pronto ora e sempre all’intervento in supporto degli alleati. Questi ultimi, mai si sono resi conto della propria funzione di satelliti rispetto al potente alleato ed ora si ritrovano soli a dover gestire un evento per loro ingestibile: un grande conflitto convenzionale che non possono vincere, il cui insuccesso può essere la miccia di una situazione sociale a casa propria già ai limiti per altre ragioni. Per riassumere in altre parole, la classe dirigente europea che oggi osserviamo, si ritrova per la prima volta sul banco degli imputati (assieme al governo di Kiev): i governanti europei nella propria animosità nei confronti di Mosca, si sono esposti oltre il limite massimo fino a trovarsi ora in un vicolo cieco, considerando che la prova di forza che hanno voluto non può essere vinta, ma al tempo medesimo non si può tornare indietro. L’Europa politica – quella di Bruxelles – si è gravemente compromessa, fomentando nelle proprie opinioni pubbliche paure infondate ed isterismi al fine di creare artificialmente un consenso attorno a prese di posizione antirusse e far accettare un coinvolgimento nel conflitto ucraino costato ai contribuenti centinaia di miliardi di euro, a danno delle proprie economie e pace sociale. Il nodo più inconfessabile è proprio questo: si è voluto inventare un “grande nemico” (in realtà inesistente) cui addossare responsabilità di ogni colpa, di ogni male sociale che affligge l’occidente europeo, per non dover affrontare le proprie di responsabilità; in fondo nulla di strano, un meccanismo esistente da secoli ovvero cercare di convogliare le energie sociali verso l’esterno (dandogli un bersaglio, un nemico) per evitare che queste ultime identifichino il problema del male sociale verso l’interno vale a dire nei propri stessi governanti. La riprova di questo si è manifestata in maniera eclatante tanto in Francia quanto in Italia nelle ultime settimane, sotto forma di una protesta di piazza come non se ne vedevano da decenni, che ha costretto la capitale francese allo stato di emergenza per la prima volta da una generazione a questa parte. In Francia come in Germania si è alle porte del successo di forze non convenzionali, alternative nel contesto politico europeo, come Fronte nazionale (ora RN) oppure Alternative fur Deutschland (AFD) che sono sempre meno contenibili: la classe dirigente di Bruxelles – di matrice liberaldemocratica – di questo ha timore e non vi è modo di arginare la “marea sovranista” se non con una “vittoria contro le autocrazie” che però non può esserci nel mondo reale. La responsabilità storica dell’UE è di aver ceduto ad un idealismo che ignora ogni regola di realpolitik, facendosi tutt’una col mito di una superiorità etica inesistente e non applicabile nella realtà oggettiva: atteggiamento che ha finito col danneggiare e addirittura mettere in pericolo la propria base sociale.

In definitiva sì, la conclusione del conflitto ucraino mette in tensione perchè costringe ad una resa dei conti inedita nella politica interna delle pricipali economie europee: una classe dirigente che verrà soppesata e valutata di fronte all’opinione pubblica, scontando il tutto con una potenziale catastrofe elettorale neigli anni a venire che rischia di sostituirla. Proprio a tale proposito, di recente il sociologo ed editorialista italiano Alessandro Orsini ha lanciato una provocazione direttissima, affermando che la Russia di V. Putin in un certo senso sta contribuendo ad una futura “rivoluzione” europea, dal momento che la socnfitta del regime di V. Zelensky può comportare anche il declino rapido di tutta la corrotta classe al potere a Bruxelles che ha legato le sue sorti all’esito alle sorti dell’Ucraina. Quindi, in un certo senso Mosca sta facendo qualcosa che la società europea non può fare da sola: mettere alle strette la sua classe dirigente, farla venire allo scoperto e ridicolizzarla costringendola a mettersi a confronto coi propri limiti, ad uscire dalla propria torre d’avorio ed infine a ridefinire un’identità – quella europea – in dubbio da quasi 80 anni.

By Hüseyin DOĞRU

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Built to fight foreign interference, Europe’s security apparatus is now turning on its own people. Muslims and critics of Israel are first in line.

On 8 October 2026, the European Parliament passed a deeply Islamophobic resolution on “Islamist entryism”. Behind the text is the hand of the European People’s Party, the conservative bloc that holds sway over EU politics. Backed by the liberals of Renew Europe and the far right, it was put to a vote and passed 381 to 167. The resolution is put forward as a way to shield European democracy from extremists, but its provisions are enough to give pause to anyone with an eye on the future of our rights and freedoms in Europe.

Take for instance the matter of “hatred of Israel”. The resolution puts this undefined notion forward as an indicator of ideological radicalisation, while also sounding the alarm on the “instrumentalisation of anti-discrimination frameworks”. One has to wonder at the implications: does this mean that a campaign against discrimination or even criticism of a state under accusation for war crimes can be subsumed under the EU’s widening net of security threats?

This resolution is more than an assault on a Muslim population already demonised in Europe; it is part of a broader, unexamined shift in the Union where dissent is viewed with suspicion. I am living with the consequences of it.

From foreign interference to domestic dissent

For years, the EU has been building a security apparatus around the alleged threats of disinformation, foreign interference and hybrid warfare.

Central to this is Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI), a framework developed largely in response to “Russian information operations”. The EU’s diplomatic service describes FIMI as a “mostly non-illegal” pattern of behaviour that can negatively affect political processes and values.

The definition is telling in what it leaves out. Political officials, not judicial ones, are left to decide what constitutes a manipulation of European values and what does not. What becomes of political critique and journalism when their arbitrary judgments are applied?

In May 2025, the EU sanctioned me and my media company, red., under its Russia-related hybrid-threats regime. My alleged offence was my journalism, particularly my coverage of Palestine solidarity protests in Germany, which the EU claims supported Russia’s efforts to destabilise Europe. The evidence against me consists of screenshots of factual posts from red. and my personal social media accounts, most of them reporting or criticism of German domestic and foreign policy. Not one page of the evidence dossier so much as mentions Russia.

Without a criminal charge, trial or conviction, my bank accounts were frozen and I was banned from working and travelling.

Then there is the question of administrative sanctions. The EU will say due process is observed since one can take them to court, but by the time a judge is sitting in on the case the damage has been done. Livelihoods are in ruins, bank accounts frozen and lives in disarray, all while the sanctioned individual endures years of expensive and politicised legal wrangling to have restrictions lifted. It is an extraordinary power to wield; the punishment is meted out first and the chance to contest it later, with no need to prove criminality. Violate a sanction and you face prosecution and prison, even if your only offence was buying nappies for your own babies, which could be deemed to have circumvented the rules.

On 8 October, the same day Parliament voted on “Islamist entryism”, the EU Council renewed the sanctions regime I am listed under until October 2027 and reinstated the reasons for my listing. The new text still describes the protesters whose university occupation red. covered as “anti-Israel rioters”. To justify the renewal, the Council cited a Parliament report from September on hybrid threats. One institution supplies the political mood, another uses that mood to put names like mine on a list.

The enemy within

The Islamist entryism resolution takes this logic in another direction. “Entryism” refers to political groups infiltrating established institutions to influence them from within. In this case, the Parliament warns that Islamist networks are using charities, youth organisations, universities and other parts of civil society to gain influence over European politics. The idea was imported from Paris; the resolution leans on a May 2025 report by the French interior ministry, the same ministry that once governed Algeria’s Muslims as colonial subjects.

The threat is no longer just a foreign power supposedly interfering in European affairs. Now the EU is turning its attention to an enemy within.

The phrase has a history. In July 1984, Margaret Thatcher told Conservative backbenchers that Britain had fought the “enemy without” in the Falklands and now faced the “enemy within”. She meant the striking miners.

The way in which the resolution singles out “hatred of Israel” as a sign of radicalisation without defining the term is noteworthy. A couple of paragraphs on it concedes this is not a bar to “legitimate criticism” of the state, yet it offers no guidance on how the line between the two will be drawn, or by whom. Since when has hostility to a government been cause for suspecting extremism? Or are we to assume Europeans must love Israel? One might ask whose interests are really being served. The European Commission tells us the EU was Israel’s top trading partner in 2024, with €42.6 billion in goods. To call for an end to that trade or an arms embargo is not a danger to democracy, but to the business interests of Europe.

Working with other organisations, maintaining certain associations or allegedly misusing anti-discrimination campaigns can also become grounds for suspicion. Among the warning signs the resolution lists are “the recurrence of certain partnerships”, “proximity to already identified networks” and even “the production of activist reports”.¹⁷ The resolution calls for restrictions on institutional access and funding, as well as tighter checks on visas, residence permits and mobility involving people, including academics, linked to individuals designated as “hate preachers”.

Even the European Network Against Racism is cast in doubt, its funding said to raise “serious questions”. When an anti-racism body is conflated with entryism, the whole concept is made to look suspect. Under the terms of the resolution, a professor could be slapped with travel restrictions because of a tenuous association with a so-called “hate preacher”, having broken no law in the process. We have seen this sort of thing before. In 1972, Germany’s Radikalenerlass saw the domestic intelligence service vet some 3.5 million public sector applicants. Communists and others on the left were dismissed or denied their jobs as teachers, postmen or train drivers for who they were rather than any act they had committed.

The resolution also tells us which Muslims Europe is willing to tolerate. It promises support for “Muslim representatives” who defend democratic values and resist “Islamist pressure”.²² The good Muslim, in other words, is the one the state approves of.

Not being legally binding does not make the resolution any less alarming. The Parliament has rubber-stamped the idea that lawful activity is a security risk, laying the groundwork for enforceable restrictions down the line. The same rationale once used to counter foreign interference is now being turned on organisations and people here in Europe.

Repression in the name of democracy

Both the FIMI sanctions regime and the Islamist entryism resolution are justified in the name of defending democracy and protecting European values. Yet the EU is increasingly treating the exercise of those very freedoms as grounds for suspicion.

None of this is happening in a vacuum. Europe is rearming on a scale not seen since the Cold War (the Commission’s ReArm Europe plan alone aims to mobilise up to €800 billion) while standing by Israel through the destruction of Gaza. A state preparing for war needs a quiet home front. Those who object, to genocide abroad or to paying for rearmament with cuts at home, have to be recast as foreign agents or fifth columnists.

What counts as “hatred of Israel”? Who decides when fighting discrimination becomes “instrumentalising” it? When does criticism of EU foreign policy become foreign interference? And how many connections does it take before a journalist, academic or activist is branded a security threat?

These are not abstract questions for those of us already living with the consequences. The EU’s authoritarian turn exposes the limits of its professed liberal values, where freedom of expression and political participation are celebrated until they challenge the interests of capital and the states that serve it. Liberal democracies have always kept a second rulebook in the drawer, for strikers, communists and the colonised.

What began as a campaign against foreign interference is increasingly being turned against dissent at home, with Muslims and critics of Israel, already among the most marginalised and harassed people in Europe, first in the firing line. But they won’t be the last. Trade unionists, climate activists and anyone who stands in the way of the war economy should take note.

While Europe’s political establishment continues to congratulate itself on defending democracy, the machinery for silencing its opponents is being built in plain sight.

Original article:  braveneweurope.com

Pepe LUENGO

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

En los últimos años alguien está poniendo el mundo patas arriba. Los gobiernos ya no gobiernan; delinquen. Los médicos ya no curan; hacen de la enfermedad un negocio. Los jueces ya no juzgan; manipulan la justicia. Los científicos ya no hacen ciencia; hacen pseudociencia. Los medios de comunicación ya no informan; desinforman. Las religiones ya no predican amor, sino odio… Y así podríamos seguir con una lista interminable.

¿Te has parado a pensar en que todo lo que nos enseñaron desde pequeñitos puede que sea una gran mentira? Hay una evidencia: la gente que se atreve a cuestionar las cosas llega a la conclusión de que absolutamente todo nuestro sistema esta cimentado sobre mentiras. Da igual por donde empieces (Estado, gobierno, democracia, sistema financiero,…), todo es una farsa. Y los acontecimientos que estamos viviendo últimamente, como la reciente “pandemia”, el cambio climático antropogénico, la invasión de Ceuta o cualquiera de las guerras actuales, más de lo mismo.

Todo lo que nos contaron sobre la necesidad incuestionable de someternos a un gobierno, sobre la función que desempeña el sistema financiero, sobre el papel del Estado, incluso sobre la libertad que supuestamente disfrutamos en las democracias occidentales son flagrantes mentiras. Mentiras, por otra parte, que nos fueron inculcadas por padres y educadores sin ser conscientes de que nos contaban una milonga. Sin embargo, estas mentiras son mantenidas y acrecentadas por políticos y medios de comunicación a sabiendas de que son mentiras.

La realidad es que estamos gobernados por una panda de plutócratas, agencias gubernamentales y poderosos lobbies bancarios que manipulan el mundo con total impunidad.

En el transcurso del tiempo, una banda de banqueros internacionales ha creado un sistema de control financiero privado para dominar la política de cada país y la economía mundial. Familias de banqueros como los Rothschild, Morgan, Warburg, etc., junto con la masonería y otras organizaciones nada transparentes como el Club Bilderberg, el CFR. o el Club de Roma, han establecido un cártel financiero y de poder internacional durante los últimos 200 años.

Siendo los amos del dinero -tomándose muy en serio el lema de “quien controla el dinero gobierna el mundo”- se han hecho los dueños de los respectivos gobiernos que manejan a su antojo.

Los amos del mundo han creado una sociedad disfuncional, donde si no cumples con los estándares establecidos -trabajar y consumir toda una gama de productos innecesarios- eres considerado “persona non grata”, por decirlo de una manera suave. Nos han programado para competir con nuestros semejantes y para que nuestra vida sea un cúmulo de metas profesionales y económicas, donde el fin último es la acumulación de bienes materiales. Luego, cuando te mueres, todas esas metas que conseguiste y los bienes materiales que acumulaste se quedan aquí. Lo único bueno que dejas –si es que lo dejas- es tu legado del conocimiento; el resto, un montón de cosas superfluas. Así que la pregunta es: ¿merece la pena tanto esfuerzo?

La mayoría de la gente que peina canas sabe por experiencia propia que esta es una forma de vida demencial que, sin embargo, se ha extendido por todo el mundo. Porque disfrutar de la vida –y cuando hablo de disfrutar de la vida no me estoy refiriendo a viajar en un crucero de lujo, etc.- no requiere ningún esfuerzo. Basta con deleitarse con las experiencias sensoriales que nos brinda la vida en cada momento, disfrutar de las maravillas de este extraordinario planeta azul y compartir conocimiento y alegría con nuestros semejantes.

Cuando tienes salud, familia y amigos que te quieren, una actividad provechosa y ningún conflicto es que la vida no te va nada mal. Entonces, ¿por qué se empeñan en convencernos de todo lo contrario?

El día que dejemos de escuchar en nuestra mente todas esas retahílas programadas sobre el éxito, la competitividad, la codicia y el miedo a todo lo que no se encuentre dentro de nuestra zona de confort es cuando realmente empezaremos a vivir. Porque la vida no es más que eso que sentimos cada mañana al despertar, y no una programación continua de nuestro tiempo, por parte de otros, que es lo más valioso que tenemos en esta vida.

La nuestra es una civilización profundamente enferma. Una civilización donde se le ha dado la vuelta a todo: hombres que ahora son mujeres y viceversa o delincuentes que tienen derechos y víctimas que no los tienen.

Veamos, a modo de ejemplo, el reciente caso de la invasión de Ceuta. En Ceuta los invasores son protegidos por el gobierno que sufrió la invasión y sus gobernados, los Ceutíes, abandonados a su suerte. Y lo más incongruente: el país invadido da las gracias al país invasor y tilda de fascistas y xenófobos a los invadidos que piden una solución. Esta es la locura a la que hemos llegado en una sociedad distópica, donde se le ha dado la vuelta a todo.

La pregunta es: ¿cómo ha sido posible esto? Pues mediante la contaminación de nuestras mentes a través del relato. Porque quien controla el relato controla nuestro pensamiento; quien controla nuestro pensamiento controla nuestro comportamiento; y quien controla nuestro comportamiento influye en nuestras opiniones, estado de ánimo y, por supuesto, en nuestros miedos. Por lo tanto, llegar a ejercer una influencia de la percepción del mundo que nos rodea se ha convertido en la manera más sutil de ejercer el poder. Por cierto, esto lo hace de maravilla nuestro Presidente de Gobierno, Pedro Sánchez.

Pero las cosas son de esta manera porque la mayoría de la gente ha aceptado voluntariamente la esclavitud, ya que el ser humano es el único animal en la naturaleza que se deja gobernar. La absurda idea de elegir un amo que le controle y domine es lo mejor que ha podido salir de su cabecita. Obviamente, es el gobierno quien desempeña el papel de amo. Por lo tanto, la sumisión al gobierno, y el voto para legitimarlo, hace responsables de la situación actual a todos aquellos que siguen estas prácticas. Y lo más incongruente. Si lo han querido así ellos mismos, ¿de qué coños se quejan?

El “populacho” –pobre e ignorante- parece empeñado en su propia desgracia. Ha perdido su dignidad dejándose despojar de su riqueza y su libertad sin la más mínima resistencia. Y aunque bien es verdad que desde tiempos inmemoriales ha sido pobre e ignorante, es a partir del Covid-19 cuando, además, se ha vuelto extremadamente imbécil. Y así no hay manera.

By Glenn DIESEN

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

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.

Original article: glenndiesen.substack.com

Depois de pressionar Washington a manter o apoio a Zelensky, as lideranças europeias enfrentam um novo desafio: convencer Trump a abandonar as oportunidades de aproximação com Moscou em favor dos interesses de Bruxelas.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Desde o encontro entre Donald Trump e Vladimir Putin em Anchorage, em agosto de 2025, os governos europeus têm trabalhado para impedir uma mudança significativa na política americana em relação à Rússia. Para as lideranças da União Europeia, qualquer entendimento entre Washington e Moscou representa um risco à estratégia adotada desde o início do conflito ucraniano. Por isso, seus representantes intensificaram os esforços para convencer Trump de que as propostas russas não merecem confiança e de que o apoio militar a Vladimir Zelensky deve continuar.

Essa campanha conseguiu preservar importantes elementos da política ocidental de confronto com Moscou. Entretanto, a situação no campo de batalha continua desfavorável para a Ucrânia, enquanto os governos europeus demonstram dificuldades para apresentar uma perspectiva realista de vitória. A insistência em prolongar o conflito tem um custo crescente para os próprios países europeus, que precisam conciliar suas ambições geopolíticas com problemas econômicos e sociais internos.

A questão fundamental é saber até quando Trump estará disposto a acompanhar essa estratégia.

O presidente americano tem demonstrado que suas decisões dependem de uma combinação de interesses econômicos, objetivos políticos internos e cálculos de poder. Sua relação com a Europa é marcada por desconfiança em relação às elites tradicionais, que frequentemente tentam apresentar suas próprias prioridades como obrigações comuns do Ocidente. Trump, por sua vez, prefere negociar diretamente e cobrar contrapartidas concretas de seus parceiros.

Essa postura explica por que a aproximação com Moscou continua sendo uma possibilidade relevante. A Rússia possui recursos naturais, capacidade industrial e importância estratégica suficientes para tornar a cooperação bilateral atraente para setores econômicos americanos. Mesmo em um ambiente de rivalidade política, existem oportunidades que um empresário experiente como Trump dificilmente ignoraria sem uma razão convincente.

O recente acordo de comércio de diesel, com a Rússia exportando toneladas de combustível para Washington para aliviar o aumento nos preços, foi um exemplo muito interessante das possibilidades de negócios estratégicos e lucrativos entre ambos os países. O levantamento parcial de algumas sanções econômicas americanas foi, no mesmo sentido, uma sinalização de que esta parceria pode progredir ainda mais no futuro próximo.

Em acréscimo, o comércio de energia é apenas uma das áreas em que os interesses americanos podem divergir das preferências europeias. A normalização de determinadas relações econômicas com a Rússia poderia beneficiar empresas dos Estados Unidos e ampliar a margem de negociação de Washington. Para Trump, a possibilidade de obter vantagens concretas constitui um argumento importante em favor de uma diplomacia mais flexível.

A União Europeia, contudo, tem interesse em deteriorar as relações russo-americnas o máximo possível. Sem o envolvimento dos Estados Unidos na guerra, os governos europeus teriam maiores dificuldades para sustentar militarmente a Ucrânia e manter a pressão sobre Moscou. A proclamada autonomia estratégica europeia continua limitada pela dependência de capacidades militares, inteligência e recursos americanos.

Por essa razão, Bruxelas precisa manter Trump comprometido com uma política que em nada corresponde às suas próprias prioridades. Seus representantes podem recorrer à pressão diplomática, à retórica sobre a segurança europeia e aos vínculos históricos da aliança atlântica. Resta saber se esses instrumentos serão suficientes para impedir que o presidente americano explore alternativas mais vantajosas para Washington.

A Rússia, nesse cenário, tem motivos para acompanhar com atenção as divergências entre os dois lados do Atlântico. Moscou pode defender seus interesses nacionais por meio de negociações diretas com os Estados Unidos, sem aceitar que a União Europeia determine previamente os limites de qualquer entendimento. Uma relação bilateral mais pragmática também poderia reduzir o espaço de atuação daqueles que apostam na continuidade indefinida do conflito.

Naturalmente, Trump não oferece garantias de uma aproximação duradoura. Sua política externa é imprevisível, e os setores americanos favoráveis à confrontação com a Rússia continuam exercendo influência. Os europeus ainda dispõem de instrumentos para tentar condicionar as decisões de Washington.

Entretanto, a margem de manobra de Trump permanece considerável. Ele não chegou à Casa Branca para preservar os interesses de uma elite europeia que frequentemente critica e tampouco precisa aceitar todas as suas avaliações sobre a Rússia.

A verdadeira disputa será pela definição dos interesses que orientarão a política americana. Se Trump concluir que a negociação com Moscou oferece benefícios superiores aos custos da confrontação, a pressão europeia poderá perder força.

Para Moscou, essa possibilidade representa uma oportunidade diplomática. Para as lideranças europeias, constitui um alerta sobre os limites de sua influência. E para Trump, é a chance de demonstrar que a relação transatlântica não lhe impõe uma obrigação permanente de seguir as prioridades políticas da Europa.

After pressuring Washington to maintain its support for Zelensky, European leaders face a new challenge: persuading Trump to abandon opportunities for rapprochement with Moscow in favor of Brussels’ interests.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Since the meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Anchorage in August 2025, European governments have worked to prevent a significant shift in American policy toward Russia. For European Union leaders, any understanding between Washington and Moscow threatens the strategy they have pursued since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict. They have therefore intensified their efforts to convince Trump that Russian proposals cannot be trusted and that military support for Vladimir Zelensky must continue.

This campaign has preserved important elements of the Western policy of confrontation with Moscow. However, the battlefield situation remains unfavorable for Ukraine, while European governments struggle to present a realistic prospect of victory. Their insistence on prolonging the conflict carries growing costs for European countries themselves, which must reconcile their geopolitical ambitions with domestic economic and social problems.

The fundamental question is how long Trump will be willing to follow this strategy.

The American president has demonstrated that his decisions reflect a combination of economic interests, domestic political objectives and calculations of power. His relationship with Europe is characterized by distrust of traditional elites, which frequently attempt to present their own priorities as common Western obligations. Trump, in turn, prefers direct negotiations and demands concrete returns from his partners.

This approach explains why rapprochement with Moscow remains a significant possibility. Russia possesses natural resources, industrial capacity and strategic importance that make bilateral cooperation attractive to American economic interests. Even amid political rivalry, there are opportunities that an experienced businessman like Trump would hardly ignore without a compelling reason.

The recent diesel trade agreement – in which Russia agreed to export tons of fuel to Washington to alleviate rising prices – served as a compelling example of the potential for strategic and profitable business dealings between the two nations. Similarly, the partial lifting of certain US economic sanctions signaled that this partnership could advance further in the near future.

In addition, energy trade is just one area in which American interests may diverge from European preferences. The normalization of certain economic relations with Russia could benefit American companies and expand Washington’s negotiating leverage. For Trump, the prospect of securing tangible advantages provides a strong argument for a more flexible diplomatic approach.

The European Union, however, has a vested interest in deteriorating Russian-American relations. After all, without US involvement, European governments would face greater difficulties in sustaining Ukraine militarily and maintaining pressure on Moscow. Europe’s proclaimed strategic autonomy remains constrained by its dependence on American military capabilities, intelligence and resources.

Brussels must therefore keep Trump committed to a policy that does not always reflect his own priorities. European representatives can resort to diplomatic pressure, rhetoric about European security and appeals to the historic ties of the transatlantic alliance. Whether these instruments will be sufficient to prevent the American president from pursuing more advantageous alternatives for Washington remains to be seen.

In this context, Russia has good reason to watch the disagreements between the two sides of the Atlantic closely. Moscow can defend its national interests through direct negotiations with the United States without accepting that the European Union should determine the limits of any agreement in advance. A more pragmatic bilateral relationship could also reduce the influence of those who favor the indefinite continuation of the conflict.

Naturally, Trump offers no guarantees of lasting rapprochement. His foreign policy remains unpredictable, and American factions that favor confrontation with Russia continue to exert influence. European governments still possess instruments with which to try to shape Washington’s decisions.

Nevertheless, Trump’s room for maneuver remains considerable. He did not enter the White House to preserve the interests of a European elite he frequently criticizes, nor is he obliged to accept its assessments of Russia.

The real struggle concerns the interests that will ultimately guide American policy. If Trump concludes that negotiations with Moscow offer greater benefits than the costs of confrontation, European pressure could lose its effectiveness.

For Moscow, this possibility represents a diplomatic opportunity. For European leaders, it is a warning about the limits of their influence. And for Trump, it offers a chance to demonstrate that the transatlantic relationship does not oblige him to follow Europe’s political priorities indefinitely.

Not for the first time, there is a conspiracy among members of the established parties to exclude one element of our politics and make it effectively taboo, says Prof James Alexander: they want to keep the 'stasis quo'.

The post Notice How the Establishment is Trying to Defend the Stasis Quo appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.