Gerard Rouwkema 🇨🇺 🇷🇸 🇵🇸🇱🇧

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.

Schröder, ehemaliger Kanzler, LEGT DIE WAHRHEIT OFFEN: „Frieden sabotiert! Schröder äußert sich: „Warum der Krieg endlos in die Länge gezogen wird. Es ist das größte Skandalon unserer Zeit: Während täglich Menschen in der Ukraine sterben, Städte in Trümmern liegen und die Energiepreise in Europa durch die Decke gehen, wird Frieden systematisch verhindert. Nicht durch Zufall, nicht durch Missverständnisse – sondern durch absichtliche Sabotage hinter verschlossenen Türen.“ Der ehemalige Kanzler Gerhard Schröder, enthüllt in einem sensationellen Interview, wie historische Chancen, den Krieg zwischen Russland und der Ukraine zu beenden, absichtlich sabotiert wurden. Russische und ukrainische Delegationen trafen sich in Istanbul. Ein Abkommen schien in greifbarer Nähe: Neutralität für die Ukraine, Sicherheitsgarantien und eine Lösung für den Donbass-Konflikt. Doch dann kam der berüchtigte Besuch des britischen Premierministers Boris Johnson in Kiew. Laut Schröder und anderen Quellen überbrachte Johnson eine klare Botschaft des Westens: „Kämpft weiter, wir stehen hinter euch – mit Waffen, Geld und politischer Unterstützung.“ Ein Friedensabkommen? Vom Tisch. Die Eskalation war beabsichtigt. Gerhard Schröder, der Putin seit Jahren persönlich kennt und einer der letzten westlichen Staatsmänner war, die echte Diplomatie betrieben, spricht von einem „System zur Verlängerung des Krieges“. „Es geht nicht um Freiheit oder Demokratie“, sagt er weiter. „Es dreht sich um geopolitische Macht, um Russland um jeden Preis zu schwächen und um Milliarden an militärischen Gewinnen. Jeder, der von einem Waffenstillstand spricht, wird als Putin-Apologet hingestellt. Das ist keine Demokratie mehr, das ist eine Diktatur der öffentlichen Meinung.“ Die Beweislage, die Schröder und investigativer Journalismus zusammentragen, ist vernichtend. Interne Memos des US-Außenministeriums, durch Whistleblower geleakt, zeigen, dass es bereits im März 2022 klare Anweisungen gab, keine Verhandlungen zu unterstützen, die Russland „belohnen“ könnten. Schröder nennt es „moralische Selbstentwaffnung“: Deutschland, einst die treibende Kraft hinter der Ostpolitik, wurde zum Vasallen amerikanischer Interessen. Besonders explosiv ist die Rolle der NATO-Erweiterung. Schröder weist darauf hin, dass Warnungen aus Moskau bereits auf dem Gipfel in Bukarest 2008 ignoriert wurden. Putin betrachtete den Beitritt von Georgien und der Ukraine als existenzielle Bedrohung. Statt Kompromisse zu suchen, gingen die Provokationen weiter: Militärmanöver an der russischen Grenze, Waffenlieferungen und die Ausbildung ukrainischer Truppen durch westliche Spezialeinheiten. „Das war kein Verteidigungsbündnis mehr“, sagte Schröder, „das war ein aggressives expansionistisches Projekt.“ Hinter den Kulissen florierte ein Netzwerk aus Think Tanks, Waffenlobbyisten und neokonservativen Hardlinern. Namen wie der von Victoria Nuland, die eine zentrale Rolle bei dem Putsch auf dem Maidan-Platz 2014 spielte, tauchen wieder auf. Milliarden Dollar an US-Hilfe flossen nicht nur in die Ukraine, sondern auch zurück in die Taschen amerikanischer Unternehmen. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin und andere Waffengiganten buchten Rekordgewinne. Inzwischen frieren deutsche Familien, weil die Nord-Stream-Pipelines – ein Projekt, an dessen Verhandlungen Schröder maßgeblich beteiligt war – in die Luft gejagt wurden. Bis heute gab es keine echte Untersuchung. Schröder geht noch weiter. Er berichtet von geheimen Treffen, in denen hochrangige westliche Vertreter offen zugaben, dass ein schneller Sieg für die Ukraine unrealistisch sei. Dennoch wurde die Erzählung vom „Kämpfen bis zum letzten Ukrainer“ aufrechterhalten. Zehntausende junge Männer starben in sinnlosen Offensiven wie jener bei Charkiw oder im Donbass. Zivilisten in Donezk und Luhansk, die seit 2014 unter Beschuss stehen, wurden in den westlichen Medien systematisch ignoriert. „Das ist keine Voreingenommenheit, das ist Propaganda“, sagt Schröder bitter.

Eerste zorgpremie voor 2027 stijgt met recordpercentage: 'Wen er maar aan' ift.tt/stN7iLk