Den grønlandske krise fortsætter med at optrappes efter J.D. Vance-delegationens besøg

Publiceret i EIRNS’ Morning briefing til orientering af vores internationale læsere.

KØBENHAVN 31. marts 2025 (EIRNS) – Det, der startede som andendame Usha Vances »soft power«-tur for at overvære det nationale slædehundeløb i Grønlands næststørste by Sisimiut, endte med at blive et besøg på højt niveau den 28. marts af USA’s vicepræsident J.D. Vance, national sikkerhedsrådgiver Mike Waltz, energiminister Chris Wright og senator Mike Lee (R-UT) på den eneste amerikanske militærbase, Pituffik Space Base. Planerne blev ændret, da det stod klart, at grønlænderne ville demonstrere mod, at den amerikanske delegation besøgte deres byer, da præsident Trump gentagne gange har opfordret USA til at overtage Grønland. Den danske statsminister Mette Frederiksen udtalte, at USA satte Grønland og Danmark under et »uacceptabelt pres«, som landet ville modsætte sig.

Under sin tale hævdede Vance, at russerne og kineserne truer Grønland. Grønlænderne skulle ikke tro, at de ville få det bedre under det kinesiske kommunistparti, og han påstod, at kineserne sætter Grønland i en gældsfælde. I stærke vendinger sagde Vance, at Danmark i årtier ikke har formået at sikre den amerikanske militærbase og grønlændernes sikkerhed. På den ene side sagde han, at Grønland har selvbestemmelsesret til at blive uafhængig, og han håbede, at de ville vælge at komme ind under USA’s sikkerhedsparaply. Men på den anden side understregede han, at USA er nødt til at have kontrol over Grønland af hensyn til den nationale og internationale sikkerhed. På spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt USA ville øge sin militære tilstedeværelse i Grønland, svarede han, at det ikke ville ske med det samme, men i fremtiden. På spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt USA ville bruge militær magt til at overtage Grønland, sagde han, at han ikke mente, at det ville være nødvendigt.

Danske kommentatorer og medier kaldte det »et frontalangreb på Danmark« og et forsøg på at splitte Grønland fra Danmark.

Mens grønlænderne og danskerne åndede lettet op over, at Vance ikke truede med en militær aktion for at indtage Grønland, var det netop det, præsident Trump gjorde samme aften. Og den 29. marts, efter den danske udenrigsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussens udtalelse på engelsk til amerikanerne via de sociale medier, hvor han fordømte »tonen« i kritikken, men sagde, at både øget amerikansk militær tilstedeværelse og mineraludvinding kunne forhandles, insisterede Trump over for NBC News på, at »jeg aldrig tager militær magt af bordet« med hensyn til at overtage Grønland.

Den 28. marts blev den nye grønlandske regering også offentliggjort, og den omfatter fire af de fem partier, der er valgt ind i Landstinget, alle undtagen det parti, der ønsker selvstændighed hurtigst muligt. De andre partier ønsker selvstændighed på sigt, men i et langsommere tempo, der kan sikre velfærd og sikkerhed for befolkningen uden dansk støtte og militær hjælp.

Grønlands nye statsminister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, sagde, at den internationale situation vil være deres første prioritet, og at de vil indlede drøftelser med deres nærmeste allierede Danmark. Dette vil inkludere at gøre relationerne inden for Kongeriget (Rigsfællesskabet), mellem Danmark og Grønland, mere ligeværdige. Nu hvor Grønland har dannet regering, vil den danske statsminister besøge øen til samtaler på onsdag.

Optrapningen af den grønlandske krise forværrer kløften mellem USA og Europa. [mr_]

Foto: Wikimedia Commons, Stig Nygaard




Grønland og udviklingen af arktis. Schiller Institut video fra 2010.

Fra arikvet fra 2010:

LaRouchePAC video i tre dele med dansk tale om økonomisk udvikling i Arktisk og betydning af de arktiske områder for forskning i, hvordan kosmisk stråling påvirker liv.

Med en opdateret introduktion af Schiller Instituttets danske formand Tom Gillesberg om nødvendigheden af den samme type for økonomisk udvikling på Grønland.

Her er 2. del: Link 


Her er 3. del: Link




Krig eller fred? War or Peace?
Interview med Jan Øberg, med-stifter og direktør for Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. Nu med afskrift.
Interview with Jan Øberg, co-founder and director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, now with a transcript.

Afskrift på engelsk nedenunder.
English transcript below.

Ikke korrekturlæst

Schiller Instituttets interview med Jan Øberg: ‘Krig eller fred’

[MR_]

25. februar 2025 (EIRNS)–KØBENHAVN-Jan Øberg, ph.d., en dansk-svensk freds- og fremtidsforsker, gav et halvtimes interview med titlen »Krig eller fred« til Michelle Rasmussen fra Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og {EIR}, den 21. februar 2025.

Jan Øberg er medstifter og direktør for (Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, eller TFF), kunstfotograf, klummeskribent, kommentator og mægler. Schiller Instituttet interviewede første gang Øberg den 21. februar 2022, blot tre dage før det russiske militær gik ind i Ukraine. Han var også taler ved instituttets online-seminar om etablering af en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som foreslået af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, den 25. maj 2022. Bagefter blev han og de fleste af de andre talere sat på Ukraines Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD) hitliste.

I interviewet præsenterer Jan Øberg en dybtgående kritik af Vestens rolle i den nuværende verdensorden og et visionært perspektiv på, hvordan man kan skabe en mere fredelig og samarbejdsvillig fremtid i den nye, udfoldende verdensorden, som BRIKS+ og det Globale Syd er ved at skabe. Her er nogle vigtige pointer i omskrevet form:

Det går rigtig godt for størstedelen af verden, ikke mindst takket være Kinas forskellige initiativer for sikkerhed og en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden, herunder Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet. De, der bor i Vesten, har enten ikke forstået denne forandring, eller også nægter de at acceptere, at de ikke længere er dominerende. Man kan enten slutte sig til resten af verden, eller man kan blive isoleret og selvdestruktiv. En accelererende vestlig militær opbygning udelukker et godt velfærdssamfund og er baseret på forkerte forudsætninger om russiske hensigter.

Nogle aspekter af en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur omfatter:

– Styrkelse af FN;

– Fremtidsorienteret tænkning er afgørende, hvilket de fleste politikere, bortset fra kineserne, helt mangler;

– Fælles sikkerhed: At sikre hinandens sikkerhed og forstå hinanden, så vi undgår misforståelser, der kan føre til optrapning af konflikter;

– At have et defensivt baseret militær uden atomvåben.

Økonomisk samarbejde kan reducere risikoen for konflikt. Med »win-win« mindskes sandsynligheden for krig betydeligt. I stedet for at vestlige lande deltager i Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, menneskehedens største og mest visionære samarbejdsprojekt, isolerer vi os.

Med visioner er der så mange ting, vi kan opnå. Som George Bernard Shaw skrev i et teaterstykke, og Robert F. Kennedy sagde: »Du ser ting og siger: ›Hvorfor?‹ Men jeg drømmer om ting, der aldrig blev til noget, og siger: ›Hvorfor ikke?‹« En ægte fredsbevægelse skal ikke bare kritisere militarisme, men forestille sig en bedre verden og spørge: »Hvorfor ikke?« Visionære debatter er afgørende. Ideer skal ikke afvises som urealistiske, for det mest urealistiske er at fortsætte ad den nuværende vestlige vej og tro, at verden kan overleve det. Vi har brug for et intellektuelt, moralsk og kulturelt skub, snarere end geopolitik.

Ved hjælp af konfliktløsningsprincipper ville han råde regeringer, der forhandler i Mellemøsten og Ukraine, til at inddrage alle parter, definere konflikterne og undgå at placere skylden. Vi har brug for en vision for Mellemøsten som helhed og for at navngive visse elementer.

Jan Øberg is the co-founder and director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, established in 1986.  He is an independent peace and future researcher, art photographer, columnist, commentator and mediator. He has a PhD in sociology from Lund University, Sweden, and has been a guest professor at around ten international universities.

“TFF is an independent think tank, a global network that aims to bring about peace by peaceful means. It inspires a passion for peace from the grassroots to the corridors of power.”

Afskrift:
Transcript:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Here are the questions (shortened):

What is your evaluation of the current world situation in the context of the transition from one world order to another?

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and international president of the Schiller Institute, called for establishing a new international security and development architecture. Why do you think this is important, and what would important aspects be?

How can an economic development perspective and China’s Belt and Road Initiative aid the pursuit of peace, for example, in the Middle East, if it were combined with more broad recognition of the Palestinians, and also in Ukraine?

The Schiller Institute has proposed many economic development programs around the world, including the Oasis Plan for the Middle East — visions of a future we can work towards. You are a peace and future researcher. Why is it important to develop visions of the future to inspire people, something our Western politicians lack?

You are an expert in conflict resolution. What advice do you have for the governments that are involved in peace negotiations in the Middle East and Ukraine?
—————

The Schiller Institute encourages you to go to the homepages of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research homepage, as well as the Schiller Institute, and to participate in the weekly International Peace Coalition meetings, the last of which had Dr. Naledi Pandor, the former South African foreign minister on as guest. (See the links below.)

Se also:

The Schiller Institute’s interview with Jan Øberg on February 21, 2022, just two days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine: 
With transcript: https://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=32493Or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfL_2qs7M50&t=8s

A Schiller Institute in Denmark online seminar, including Jan Øberg: For a New Security & Development Architecture. Vote NO in Denmark. NO to Sweden and Finland in NATO, May 25, 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pji0vjD9Kg

——————-

See also:

A special edition of the International Peace Coalition meeting with Dr. Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s former foreign minister: Ending the Cycle of Violence in Southwest Asia Requires Creating a Future for All its Inhabitants:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnAIm2h6u80&t=38s

The Oasis Plan: Lyndon LaRouche’s Vision for Peace and Economic Development in Southwest Asia (Middle East): 
With English transcript: https://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=36040Or: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjfFHIiXPmE&t=1s

——————

Contact:

TFF Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research:
https://transnational.live

The Schiller Institute:
In Denmark: www.schillerinstitut.dk
International: www.schillerinstitute.com

Executive Intelligence Review:
www.larouchepub.com
www.eir.news

The International Peace Coalition holds weekly internet meetings every Friday at 11am U.S. East Coast Time, 17:00 Central European Time:
https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/ipc_meeting




POLITISK ORIENTERING med formand Tom Gillesberg den 17. februar 2025.
Trump genetablerer forbindelser med Rusland. USA vil ikke betale for Ukraine og Europas sikkerhed.

Se venligst Den Internationale Fredskoalition møde fredag den 14. februar 2025 med
Dr. Naledi Pandor, Sydafrikas fhv. udenrigsminister, som speciel gæst.

Video og oversættelse: https://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=38767




Schiller Instituttet i Folketinget i forbindelse med Kulturnatten

I forbindelse med Kulturnatten, den 11. oktober, havde Schiller Instituttets delegation mange diskussioner med Folketingsmedlemmer, ungdomsorganisationsmedlemmer og andre i alle partiernes receptionsværelser. Det inkluderede seks partiledere. Vores dagsorden var at tale om nødvendigheden for at stoppe faren for atomkrig, både i forbindelse med krigen i Ukraine og Israels krige/militæraktioner i Gaza, Libanon og Iran, samt for at stoppe Israels folkemord i Gaza. 

I stedet opfordrede vi dem vi talte med til at arbejde for en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklings arkitektur. Vi delte følgende flyveblad ud: Én løsning til at stoppe to regionale kriser fra at føre til tredje verdenskrig , men i stedet for afsnittet om vores interview med Malaysias fhv. statsminister Mahatir, havde vi trykt Helga Zepp-LaRouches Ti principper for en ny international sikkerheds- og Udviklingsarkitektur.

 




NYHEDSORIENTERING juni-juli-august 2024: Et fornuftens råd, ikke et krigsråd

Indhold:

Opfordring til at skabe et Fornuftens Råd, 1

Sidste udkald før tredje verdenskrig – eller første skridt mod et nyt fredsparadigme? Den Internationale Fredskoalitions møde nr. 62 den 9. august 2024, 2

Helga Zepp-LaRouche interview med Dialogue Works:
Er NATO blevet fuldstændig vanvittigt?
Israels satsning, der kan udløse kaos!, 4

Deltag i Den Internationale Fredskoalitions Zoom-møder hver fredag kl. 17-19, bagsiden

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Schiller Instituttets diplomatiske seminar i København:
Stop drabene, genopbyg Gaza og regionen med ‘Oase-planen’

af Michelle Rasmussen og Marcia Merry Baker

9. maj – Schiller Instituttet i Danmark afholdt den 8. maj et seminar i København for det diplomatiske samfund og andre gæster med temaet “Stopdrabene og begynd at genopbygge Gaza og regionen med Oase-planen: LaRouche-løsningen for fred gennem udvikling.” Fire ambassadører og mange andre diplomater kom personligt fra tolv ambassader, som repræsenterede Sydvestasien og Nordafrika, nationer andre steder i Asien og Afrika samt Vesteuropa.

Publikum var intenst engageret i løbet af de tre timer, hvor de hørte de spændende præsentationer og deltog i dialogen, hvis fokus både var at bidrage til en øjeblikkelig afslutning på død og ødelæggelse i Gaza og at skitsere en udviklingsvej.

Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, var ordstyrer og fremhævede Schiller Instituttets aktuelle indsats i mange lande for at fremme dialogen om begrebet “fred gennem udvikling” i Palæstina, Israel og globalt for at bidrage til en ny økonomisk og sikkerhedsmæssig verdensarkitektur.

Den 13. april afholdt Schiller Instituttet internationalt en daglang online-konference, som nu er tilgængelig i video-arkiv, med titlen “[Oase]-planen: LaRouche-løsningen for fred gennem udvikling mellem Israel og Palæstina og for hele Sydvestasien.” Siden februar har en 14-minutters video cirkuleret om “Oase-planen”.

Kort fortalt går konceptet ud på, at udvikling af infrastruktur til at levere pålideligt vand, strøm, transport, sundhedspleje, boliger og andre basale ting til støtte for moderne agroindustriel aktivitet er grundlaget for sikkerhed af gensidig interesse. I Trans-Jordan indebærer det opførelse af nye vandledninger og nuklear afsaltning, nye højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer, der forbinder Afrika, Asien og Europa, rigelig elektricitet og meget mere.
I 1975 præsenterede statsmanden og økonomen Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) denne tilgang som ”Oase-planen” for Sydvestasien, da han besøgte regionen,og samme år udsendte han også sit forslag til finansiering af “Den Internationale Udviklingsbank”.
Schiller Instituttets invitation til hele det diplomatiske samfund i København opfordrede til diskussion af et nyt paradigme i denne ånd:

“Død, ødelæggelse og sult er blevet brugt som krigsvåben; økonomisk udvikling skal bruges som et fredsvåben: til at forvandle sværd til plovskær. Vi må alle handle nu for at stoppe drabene og starte genopbygningen.

Schiller Instituttets seminar i København vil være et vigtigt bidrag til dialogen om, hvordan vi kan bringe fred og velstand til denne længe lidende del af verden og indlede et nyt paradigme for internationale relationer.”

Et videoarkiv på engelsk fra arrangementet den 8. maj i København er tilgængeligt her.

Talere: Fred gennem udvikling
De tre hovedpræsentationer begyndte med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, via videolink fra Tyskland. Hun er grundlægger og leder af Schiller Instituttet og har i årtier samarbejdet med sin mand, Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019), om udviklingsdiplomati.

Den anden var H.E. Ambassadør Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian, Den Palæstinensiske Myndigheds ambassadør i Danmark. Disse to fortsatte i dialog deres udvekslinger, der blev indledt på den tidligere internationale Schiller Institut-konference den 13. april, herunder om det presserendespørgsmål om, hvorvidt “politiske” forskelle skal løses, før “økonomisk” udvikling kan gennemføres.

Den tredje taler var Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, som er medforfatter til Schiller Instituttets bog fra 2017: Extending the New Silk Road to Southwest Asia and Africa, og har lavet den arabiske oversættelse af EIR-bogen: The New Silk Road Becomes the WorldLand-Bridge.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche begyndte sin præsentation med titlen: “Oase-planen: Fred kan kun opnås gennem udvikling” med de forfærdelige nyheder om starten på det israelske angreb på Rafah. Hun gav en global strategisk analyse af faren for regional og global krigsførelse og beskrev truslen om endog atomkrig fra optrapningen i Sydvestasien og som en udløber af NATO-Ukraine-Rusland-konflikten.

Zepp-LaRouche opfordrede diplomaterne til at samarbejde om at fremme ”Oase-planen” som en løftestang for at nå frem til et nyt paradigme og en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, den eneste vej ud af den eksistentielle krise, som verden gennemgår. Hun beskrev sine ti principper for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som hun udsendte til international diskussion i 2022.

Stop drabene, begynd genopbygningen
H.E. Amb. Prof. Dr. Hassassian talte om temaet “Stop drabene og start genopbygningen”. Han holdt en meget skarp tale om den igangværende tragedie for det palæstinensiske folk, konfliktens historie og hvad der er nødvendigt for at stoppe folkedrabet. Ambassadøren opfordrede de 12 lande, der var repræsenteret på seminaret, og det internationale samfund til at handle for at stoppe drabene, og han understregede behovet for en politisk løsning baseret på palæstinensisk suverænitet og understøttet af økonomiskudvikling. Diskussionen omfattede spørgsmålet om en to-statsløsning for Israel og Palæstina og, hvordan man kan sætte Oase-planen på den internationale dagsorden.

Ambassadør Hassassian taler ud fra lang erfaring og engagement. Han er tidligere ambassadør i Storbritannien og Ungarn. Han var vicepræsident forBethlehem University på Vestbredden og professor ved University of Maryland, hvor han udviklede et kursus i konfliktløsning mellem Israel og Palæstina. Han var PLO’s chefrådgiver i spørgsmålet om Jerusalems status. Han har en kandidatgrad i internationale relationer fra University ofToledo, Ohio, og en ph.d. i statskundskab fra University of Cincinnati, Ohio. Se hans interview den 15.marts 2024 med Schiller Instituttet.

LaRouches Oase-plan
Hussein Askary præsenterede konkrete områder af den økonomiske geografi og udviklingsprincipperne i Oase-planens tilgang under emnet “Det umulige er selvpålagt: Fred gennem økonomisk udvikling er den eneste vej frem i Vestasien.” Han udfordrede især aksiomerne bag nulvækstbevægelsen og dens politiske udtryk. Han forklarede, at udviklingsprincipper er baseret på den virkelighed, at menneskehedens kreativitet forvandler naturen.

Askary brugte eksempler fra sin nylige rejse til Xinjiang for at vise den kinesiske udviklingspolitik for at gøre ørkenen grøn. I diskussionsperioderne kom der mange forskellige spørgsmål op, bl.a. om der er for mange mennesker i verden, og hvad man skal gøre ved terrorisme i Vestafrika, hvor han understregede behovet for økonomisk udvikling som en modgift.

At fremme en global Oase-plan
I løbet af diskussionsperioden besvarede Helga Zepp-LaRouche et spørgsmål, der kom op ved at appellere til det Globale Syd om at lade deres stemmerblive hørt.

Et konkret forslag blandt debattørerne er, at Oase-planen skal være på dagsordenen på nogle af de symposier om sikkerhed, der hvert år afholdes af fonde og nationer. Palæstinensiske stemmer kunne formelt anmode om dette.H.E. Ambassadør Prof. Dr. Hassassian tilføjede at få diskussionen i gang på universiteterne og understregede vigtigheden af Oase-planen som en katalysator for økonomisk udvikling og Schiller Instituttets og LaRouche-bevægelsens arbejde med at fremme den.

Den generelle reaktion på selve seminaret fra diplomaterne var, at de var taknemmelige for idéerne, som er meget forskellige fra det, der rutinemæssigt præsenteres. Som en asiatisk diplomat sagde: “Jeg er helt overvældet. Det vil tage mig dage at tænke over alle de nye ideer, der blev præsenteret.”

Den umiddelbare mulighed for at udtale sig på en formel internationalplatform kommer kun to dage efter mødet i København, hvor FN’sGeneralforsamling den 10. maj har spørgsmålet om en palæstinensisk stat pådagsordenen til debat og formodentlig afstemning.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche rapporterede til Den Internationale Fredskoalition: “Det var et ekstremt vigtigt opfølgningsmøde på diplomat- og ambassadør niveau, og ud af dette møde kom en fuldstændig forpligtelse tilat fortsætte organiseringen, løfte den op på et højere niveau ved at forsøge at få en stor international konference med deltagelse af stater om behovet for alvor at sætte Oase-planen, udviklingsplanen for hele regionen Sydvestasien, på dagsordenen.”




POLITISK ORIENTERING med formand Tom Gillesberg den 3. april 2024:
Vestens “regelbaserede verdensorden” afsløret:
Folkedrab og brud på international lov




Schiller Instituttets video-interview med Palæstinas Ambassadør til Danmark
H.E. Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian den 13. marts 2024

Interviewet af Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, den 13. marts 2024.

H.E. Ambassadør Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian har haft en anset karriere inden for den akademiske og diplomatiske sfære. Hans akademiske ekspertise er inden for internationale relationer og konfliktløsning. Han er uddannet i Jerusalem, på American University i Beirut, og har opnået sin MA i internationale relationer og PhD i statskundskab på Toledo og Cincinnati universiteter i Ohio i USA. Han var professor og til sidst Executive Vice President på Bethlehem University på Vestbredden i Palæstina. Han underviste i konfliktløsning mellem Israel og Palæstina sammen med den israelske professor Edward Kaufman på universitetet i Maryland i 26 år.

Han var også PLO’s førende rådgiver i spørgsmålet om Jerusalems status.

H.E. Ambassadør Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian blev derefter Det Palæstinensiske Selvstyres ambassadør i Storbritannien i 13 år, Ungarn i et år og senest Danmark i de sidste fire år.

Ambassadørens artikler i Palestine-Israel Journal: https://www.pij.org/author/326 Mere omfattende CV: http://passia.org/personalities/351

Interviewet dækker mange områder, herunder især det påtrængende behov for at stoppe det nuværende folkemord i Gaza og volden og undertrykkelsen på Vestbredden, og fordømmer de vestlige politiske lederes manglende støtte til at stoppe krigen; behovet for anerkendelse i FN og internationalt af en uafhængig palæstinensisk stat, og hvad det vil kræve i Israel at nå dertil; hans støtte til LaRouche-organisationens video ”Oase-planen: LaRouches løsning på Mellemøsten” og ideen om fred gennem økonomisk udvikling for Israel og Palæstina; om hans kursus i israelsk-palæstinensisk konfliktløsning på University of Maryland; og hans varme lovprisning af Schiller Instituttet.

Se den 14 min. lange video: The Oasis Plan – LaRouche’s Solution for the Middle East fra LaRouche Organization:
Engelsk: https://youtu.be/hjfFHIiXPmE
Arabiske undertekster: https://youtu.be/551_XoiKUHA

Tilmeld dig Schiller Instituttets gratis online-konference lørdag den 13. april 2024 kl. 11 EDT; 17 dansk tid: Oase-planen: LaRouches løsning for fred gennem udvikling mellem Israel og Palæstina og for hele Sydvestasien: https://schillerinstitute.nationbuild…

Kontakt: Palæstinensisk Mission i Danmark: +45 33 93 22 39; www.infopalestine.dkinfo@infopalestine.dk

Schiller Instituttet i Danmark: +45 53 57 00 51; si@schillerinstitut.dk
Schiller Instituttets hjemmesider:
Engelsk: www.schillerinstitute.com
Dansk: www.schillerinstitut.dk
Arabisk: https://t.me/larouchearabic

 




NYHEDSORIENTERING JANUAR-FEBRUAR 2024:
Danmark har pligt til at forhindre Israels folkedrab

Download (PDF, Unknown)




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 4. januar 2024 med formand Tom Gillesberg:
Danmark skal ikke være vasal til USA men en fri nation,
som samarbejder med BRIKS+ og andre nationer




Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Schiller Instituttets video interview (med afksrift)
efter han blev fyret af Folkeuniversitetet for politiske årsager

Mandag den 14. november 2022

Her er afskriftet på engelsk, som kom i Executive Intelligence Review Vol. 49, Nr. 46, November 25, 2022
Interviewet af Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand.
Videoen findes også på Schiller Instituttets amerikanske YouTube kanal her, hvor knap 6.000 personer har set den indtil den 20. november.

Her er en pdf version. En tekst version findes nedenunder.

Download (PDF, Unknown)


INTERVIEW: Jens Jørgen Nielsen

Danish Historian Fired After Ukraine Blacklists Him

Jens Jørgen Nielsen has degrees in the history of ideas and communication, was the Moscow correspondent for the major Danish daily Politiken in the late 1990s, is the author of several books about Russia and Ukraine. He is a leader of the Russian-Danish Dialogue organization, and an associate professor of communication and cultural differences at the Niels Brock Business College in Denmark; he has been a teacher at the Copenhagen adult night school Folkeuniversitetet for eight years.

Mr. Nielsen has participated in several Schiller Institute conferences, including the Institute’s Danish-Swedish videoconference on May 25, 2022 for a new international security and development architecture. Then, on July 14, 2022 he, along with other speakers at the May 25 conference, was put on the blacklist of “information terrorists” put out by Ukraine’s UK-supported and U.S.-funded Center For Combating Disinformation. There was widespread coverage of this in the major Danish media. The Danish parliament conducted a consultation about this affair with the Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod on Aug. 28, 2022.

He was interviewed for EIR and the Schiller Institute by Michelle Rasmussen in Copenhagen on Nov. 14. The transcript has been edited, and subheads added.

EIR: You have just been fired from one of your teaching posts for political reasons. You are currently teaching a course about the history of Crimea, which you will be allowed to finish, but next year’s courses about “Russian Conservatism” and “History of Ukraine” have been canceled.

Why have you been fired, and what led up to that?

Nielsen: Well, I would say I was not fired for anything which took place in the classroom. Because there have been some evaluations of my teaching and they have always been very good. The latest evaluation was from February this year. And when people were asked about the professional level, 100% were very satisfied. So that’s nothing to do with it. And I’m not politicizing in my teaching. When I teach, I objectively lay out various interpretations and sources, the interests of various nations and actors in the political process. So, it’s not for something I’ve done in the classroom. It’s obvious. Even though the board of directors who wrote me this letter tries to legitimize it by saying that I may be politicizing in the classroom, but they have never attended any of my lessons. They didn’t know what’s going on there, and they never invited me to talk about it. They never invited any of the students who attended the courses. So it’s obvious.

There’s no doubt that it was for something which happened outside the classroom. I was on this Ukranian blacklist that you mentioned. And I gave also an interview to Vladimir Solovyov, a Russian on a Russian TV channel. And I didn’t endorse the war, like some would say. We talked about the explosion of Nord Stream 2, and who may have done it, who might not have done it, what the Danes thought about this kind of thing, and things like that.

 

I was not endorsing the war. That’s very important, because I have my doubts about this Russian engagement in Ukraine. That is another question. But I didn’t endorse it. But the fact that I gave an interview brought about a crisis in the board. The old board had left, and there was a new board. And the old, original board supported me, and the leader of the school said it was okay because there was nothing wrong with my teaching…. What I do outside the classroom, which points of view I had, was up to me. They didn’t have anything to do with it as long as the teaching in the classroom was done objectively and people were satisfied with this.

So it was because I was considered to be a person who showed understanding for Putin. Showed understanding for Putin. And I was asked by a journalist, do you really show understanding for Putin? I said, you have to be aware that you use the word understand. What does it mean? It is very important to understand Putin, what his situation is, his background and his way of thinking, and things like that. It’s absolutely not the same thing as to say it is very good, but you have to understand him. But I think in the Danish media, journalists think it’s an offence, in itself, to understand Putin, and to understand Russia, not either endorsing or not endorsing, but to understand them….

%%’No, We Don’t Have Freedom of Speech’

Well, it seems like we are living in—our thinking—something has happened. It resembles something that happened in Stalin’s time. You have very strict control with people at the university, or you’re allowed to say some things, and you have a lot of taboos you’re not allowed to talk about.

So, for me, it was really a surealistic experience in my own country, which I was brought up to believe is one of the best countries. We have freedom, and we have freedom of speech. We have all these kinds of things. No. It doesn’t really work that way today. And I was surprised about it because I had some illusions about my own country, which I don’t have now. So, freedom of speech. No, we don’t have freedom of speech.

Of course I have not been killed. I will not be put in the gulag…. But when you fire people, you indirectly also tell people at other universities, “Beware about what you write and what you say. Don’t try to say something which is opposed to government policy right now.” This is the logic. This is the conclusion I have reached, that you have to get in line with the government policy….

So I think it’s a sad day. Firstly, I think it’s a sad day for democracy, because in a democracy, we come up with various points of view, and we discuss them, and we find a solution. Secondly, how do you develop new knowledge, if the young people who enter a career as a researcher in this field, indirectly they have been told, ‘Beware. Look at what happens to people who have some controversial points of view…. And I think this is the sad thing. For me, of course, personally, but a sad thing for the country, in terms of developing and knowledge, in terms of having a vibrant working democracy. I think it’s a disaster for those two endeavors, for those two very, very important things in a democracy.

EIR: One of the things that immediately tipped off the controversy was that three of your fellow teachers resigned, saying that if you were allowed to continue, then they would resign. And then, the board of directors started an investigation and they accused you of “politicizing your teaching in favor of the Russian understanding of the war in Ukraine.” On the radio interview on Radio 24/Seven after you were fired, the chairman of the board of directors simply said that you have very strong, very biased opinions.

First of all, is this this true in terms of “politicizing in favor of the Russian understanding of the war in Ukraine” in your classroom? Have have you brought your own political views into your classroom?

Nielsen: No, of course not, because normally when I start a course, I say that I have my own points of view, of course, but I will work here as a professional historian. I will present various interpretations and various viewpoints about this conflict, the situation, because I’m also teaching very ancient history. Regarding Crimea, the first two, three classes were from ancient times and from the Middle Ages, 2000 years of history. So it’s impossible. Putin has not really anything to do with Crimea a thousand years ago. That’s one thing.

And secondly, these people who criticize me, those of my colleagues who would not want to teach if I teach, they have never attended even a second of any of my courses. So, I don’t know what is going on there. And there was one colleague who also participated in this debate on the radio. He has never read any of my books. He did not understand the interview with Vladimir Solovyov because it was in Russian. Well, I asked very humbly, on what basis have you made this decision? Because you don’t know anything whatsoever about me, apart from what some people say on Facebook, and other social media.

So I couldn’t call it anything other than a witch hunt. It seems like a kind of a witch hunt, because it’s as much a witch hunt, as we had here in Denmark and northern Europe 400 years ago, where we picked out some women, and we killed them because, we said that they were probably evil, but we didn’t know exactly how, but probably, they were evil….

%%Students Shocked

We are not discussing anything I said, anything I wrote, anything I have done. We are discussing a picture which someone has made about me being like a Putin follower who likes what is going on, who likes to kill Ukrainian children, and things like that. That’s what’s going on. And I think it’s not at all worthy for a democracy like the Danish democracy. I think it’s outrageous.

EIR: You said that neither you, nor any of your students were spoken to by the board of directors. Have any of your students complained that you were politicizing your teaching, and now, after your firing, have any of the students protested against your being fired?

Nielsen: Yes. Of course. Many of the students there have been protesting now. And if you go back, there was one remark in February. But an evaluation was made where 100% were satisfied with the professional level of the teaching. And 75% were very satisfied and 25% were satisfied. There was no one who was dissatisfied or less satisfied. But there was one who mentioned that it was a little bit too pro-Putin. That was one among 30 people who made this remark. But that was compared to the other 29 or so. It couldn’t, by any means, be a reason for this. Of course, it’s not. Because you could also say that it was at the beginning of the war, and actually, in the classroom, there were several people who were very staunch supporters of Putin—a small group—and a small group who very much disliked Putin; and they had some quarrels between themselves, which has nothing to do with me, because I was not part of that. I think that this was the reason why one person said this. But before that, there hadn’t been anything like that. Nothing of the sort. There have been several evaluations, and apart from this, there haven’t been any remarks at all.

EIR: And you said that that many of your students have written to you protesting your being fired.

Nielsen: Yes. I don’t know exactly how many, but many said they would protest it. How many actually have done it? I’m not quite aware, but I think that there probably will be a lot, because it was a shock, because people have been following me for years. Some of those … have attended all my courses, or many of my courses, and they were shocked, because they didn’t understand it at all.

And I also gave a course on the history of Ukraine last year, and there were really many participants. And the people said they were in shock because I didn’t politicize, I didn’t do anything. I just put forward some facts and various viewpoints. Because when you’re talking about Ukraine, you have very different narratives about what Ukraine is. And even inside Ukraine, you have very different points of view. What constitutes actually a country like Ukraine? I have several Ukrainian friends who have very, very diverging ideas and concepts of what Ukraine is, what constitutes Ukrainian identity. It’s not a simple or unambiguous concept, because it’s very controversial, what it actually constitutes. It’s not that easy. So I had to put forward something.

But many of the people who criticize me, they criticize me because they think I should say exactly what the Western governments and the Ukrainian government say. This is the thing, that I have to say something exactly like the public version of the Ukrainian nationalist government’s interpretation of Ukrainian history. But as an historian, that’s very easy to criticize. Because there are historical facts which run counter to much of the Ukrainian [government’s] way of thinking.

 

EIR: Along that line, the one thing that the board of directors did do, besides referring to these very few student remarks, was that they read one of your books called Ukraine in the Field of Tension. What did they criticize about your book?

Nielsen: They criticized me when I wrote about the so-called annexation. First, I would say that it’s a book written six years ago. So a lot of things have happened since then. But there was a discussion about what does annexation mean? Because, I admit also that the Russian troops did not adhere to the agreement between Russia and Ukraine regarding the lease of the Sevastopol naval port. They were allowed to have 25,000 soldiers to defend the fleet and the port, but the Russian troops had no right to stay in Simferopol. They went from Sevastopol to Simferopol. It´s true. But on the other hand, it´s a very strange annexation where there was hardly any bloodshed. There were two or three people who were killed by accident, and there were 21,000 soldiers in the Ukrainian army in the Crimean garrison, but 14,000 decided to join the Russian side.

 

So it means that it’s a very split country, whatever you may call it. And I also said that, I think it was in the Summer of 2014, Q International American Polling Institute made a survey in Crimea saying that 80 or 90% of the population endorsed the status as a part of Russia. And the same result was arrived at by the German polling company GfK in 2015. So, when the majority of the population accepts this transfer from Ukraine to Russia, is it an annexation? I had a discussion in the book about it: Because you can say, on the one side, it depends, if you look at it like that, you can consider it to be an annexation. But in other ways, it’s not a very typical annexation, because of what I’ve just mentioned.

So they really made a mistake, because they said it shows that I am teaching the history of Russia in favor of the Russian war in Ukraine going on right now. So they are manipulating things to get it to fit into their own narrative. It’s not serious. Not at all. And I’m open to debate about this. Of course I am. But they are not interested in a debate. I wrote a letter to them and they have, of course, not answered the letter.

 

And whatever I wrote six years ago, it is not what I’m saying in the classroom.

%%Liberties Only in Time of Peace?

EIR: As a teacher at the Folk University, don’t you have the right to take part in the public debate, even if some may object to your views? What do you think about that? And why do you participate in the public media debate about Russia and Ukraine?

Nielsen: Well, my case seemed to prove the fact that if you take part, and have some points of view, which do not suit public opinion, or does not suit the government, you will lose your livelihood. You will lose your job. So this is what it proves, that you can lose your job. I have lost two jobs because of this. So it’s obvious that there are some costs connected to it. It shouldn’t be like that. You should not be fired because of some points of view you have, and that you bring into the public discussion such a very, very important question as the war going on in Ukraine right now. So it’s difficult. At any rate, it comes with big costs for those who participate. They can be fired. There can be a witch hunt against them. There can be a campaign against them, smear campaigns, and such kind of things. It has taken place here, and I also understand—I just followed some of my German colleagues, and they have been exposed to something like that.

EIR: Yes, you liken this to a German word “Berufsverbot”. What is that?

Nielsen: Beruf means your work. Verbot means you’re blocked, your fired, you’re not allowed to work there. And some years back, 40 or 50 years ago, we had this discussion. Are you allowed to work at university, if you have certain points of view? And also at this time, there were people who were fired, some from the right and some from the left, by the way. And we had a discussion. Well, I don’t recall precisely, but it was in around the ’70s, Vietnam, the ’80s, where we had this discussion. I was very young at this this time. And I think it ended up with the fact that we agreed that you should not be fired because of your public opinions. One of the leaders of the Nazi Party in Denmark was a teacher at Aalborg University. I knew this guy. I didn’t like him. But that is off the mark. But there was discussion, and actually, he was allowed to stay there, because there was no complaint about his teaching. He was teaching German language and literature. There was a discussion about it.

So it’s not a new thing. We didn’t have this discussion for many years. Now it’s come back, and it tells that when you have some tension, some conflict, and things like that, our highly valued liberties, they immediately fly away. So it’s a thin layer. Our democracy, the democratic culture here, is maybe a very thin layer. So I wonder, if Denmark enters the war more directly, I think we’ll probably lose all our liberties. We can have liberties when you have peace. There’s no danger. But when you have some tension, they should prove themselves. These liberties should prove themselves in times of tension.

%%’Europe Should Not End Up in Nuclear War’

EIR: And why is it that you have participated in the debate about Russia and Ukraine in the public media?

Nielsen: Because I’m very dissatisfied with the policy. I think that the policy the West is pursuing towards Russia—and also Ukraine—I think it’s hopeless. I think it’s very, very foolish, and is very dangerous, by the way. Well, for Russia, of course, but also for ourselves. I think we’re playing with fire. It’s a very dangerous situation. I think this is the most dangerous situation we have, including the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was 60 years back. Of course, I’m driven by this, that the West, that Europe should not end up in nuclear war. Because I know exactly, that if there will be a nuclear war, Europe will be the first theater which will be hit, and it will really, really, really have consequences which we have not seen in the history of mankind, ever.

We know the potential for nuclear war. We know where it is. And you can be angry with Putin around the clock. But, at the end of the day, there’s no alternative to have some kind of agreement with Russia to find some kind of solution. To defeat Russia is stupidity. And I’m not talking, maybe, because I feel sorry for the Russians. I feel sorry for ourselves. I feel sorry for the Europeans who are following a very shortsighted policy, especially from America, the United States of America. I think Europeans, we should find another approach to the policy, because it’s obvious for everyone now, because of the sanctions, Europe is really in straits. Europe is the part of the world which is hit most by the sanctions. It’s actually not really Russia. It’s Russia to some extent, of course. But Russia can sell their oil anywhere. And we buy their oil. Much of the gas and oil from Russia goes to India, and China, and they sail around the globe, and they end up in Germany for four-five times the price. It’s stupidity. It’s pure stupidity, and that’s why I engage in the debate.

EIR: You’ve also said that in your media debates, you have not legitimized Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, but that you have stressed that it’s important to find out how we got here. Also the responsibility on the western side. I have made interviews with you, actually, before the start of the war in February. I interviewed you in December of last year, and you were warning about—that was at the point where Russia had just proposed two treaties to try to avoid crossing their red lines. But you said that you have also participated in the media debate to find out how can we reach a peaceful solution?

Do you think that you being put on the Ukraine blacklist, and that being widely publicized in Denmark, could have been a factor that led to this situation where you’ve been fired?

%%Arrogance of the West

Nielsen: Definitely, among other factors. But it definitely has played a role, There’s no doubt about it.

And I also need to just add that the two questions are actually interrelated, because to find out what brought us to this point, it will also be very meaningful when you find out how we proceed from here, how to get to a more peaceful solution. So those questions are interrelated actually. You can’t find a road to peace, really, if you don’t find out how we how we got here and how to proceed. So I think that is very interrelated.

But when I look at many of the researchers in Denmark, they have some strange ideologically fixed pictures of Russia. There’s a lot of things to criticize in Russia. That’s not the point. But to find out, more exactly, what’s taking place. And I think that the West should take off their ideological glasses, and look much more realistically at what’s happening on the ground. And then, they will probably, maybe, come to some more effective solutions, I don’t know. But then there’s a chance of it, at least.

 

EIR: You have also warned in your media debates that people who think that if you just get rid of Putin, then the problem is solved—you have warned that there are factions which are very anti-Western.

Nielsen: Yes, sure. Because I think many in Denmark, and in the West in general, tend to forget that Putin was actually very pro-Western in the beginning of his term when it started more than 20 years back. He was President in 2000. They seem to forget it. He actually wanted Russia to become part of NATO. He appealed to the West in his speech in the Bundestag, in the German parliament, and so on, and met with George W. Bush, and things like that. He was very good friends with Tony Blair, I think. There was a hope for the world, but things changed, and I think is very interesting to understand what changed in those years. I think that there were many steps. It’s a little complicated to put it shortly here, but a lot of it, I think, was the West’s arrogance, and the West saying we can do anything, without asking Russia.

The first thing was the bombing of Serbia in 1999, and the extension of NATO, and things like that. And secondly, was the Iraq war, and things like that. So things changed in Russia…. I lived in Russia in the ’90s, and I talked to the Russians. I had another picture. I knew, at this time, that Russia would rise again as a superpower.

And it was important, also, to have some kind of confidence in each other, and to get into a more comprehensive cooperation with Russia. It didn’t happen for several reasons…. And does the West’s attitude have anything to do with it? It definitely has. But this is the discussion.

I think that’s also where many of the discussions tend to stop today, because in the West, many politicians, and also people from think-tanks in the West, tend to think that our way of thinking is the only way of thinking…. I think it’s a very, very dangerous way of thinking. I think they will end up with conflicts.

So, I think it’s important to have, in universities, but also among politicians, to have a discussion. Where has this American-led world brought us today? It has brought us to the brink of catastrophe, to the brink of a breakdown of a lot of things. And many of the Russians are aware of this. They look at it this way, but many in the West have difficulties to see it, because we are blindfolded, more or less, ideologically, and it’s dangerous.

 

%%Voices of Dissent Are Important Now

EIR: Just to conclude, what has to change now, on the western side, and also in Russia, to make it possible for us to switch over to peace negotiations to avoid nuclear war?

Nielsen: The first thing is to have a ceasefire. And it’s interesting: Everyone knows that there had been some steps to make ceasefire in March and April. And it’s very interesting to see who stopped it? It was actually not the Ukrainians, in the first place. It was first, the European Union, and then Boris Johnson from the UK, and also Biden. It was the West that stopped it. There were some attempts in Belarus in the first place, and later on in Turkey. Erdogan invited Russia and Ukraine to some talks, and there are still some talks. There are still some talks about the export of wheat from Odessa, and they’re sitting in Istanbul, while we are talking. And it was because of Erdogan. There are many people in the West who do not like Erdogan. I’m not very much in love with Erdogan, but this is a very, very—it’s the most reasonable step which has been taken. It’s been taken from Erdogan, because he invited Russia and Ukraine.

And now, maybe, it could seem that it’s too late. I don’t know exactly, But it seems now that—because the Ukrainians, Zelensky has now changed his mind. He wants to go to the end, to have a military victory. So he believes that Ukraine can kick all the Russian soldiers out of Ukraine, and the Crimea included. I don’t believe it will be that easy. Definitely. If you look at it a little cynically, it might seem that the Americans want a war of attrition against Russia, so that Russia will be weakened. Because they’re saying that what happened, probably in the beginning of the ’80s, … the Americans made some new armaments, and the Soviet Union could not follow. Eventually, the Soviet Union collapsed. And maybe they are thinking about the same strategy now, which they had in the ’80s with the war in Afghanistan, and also with the armaments, that it will break the back of Russia. But it’s a very dangerous game they’re playing.

I’m definitely not sure it will happen this time, because Russia and China are allied this time, and Russia has strong allies, also, in India, Pakistan and all the Asian countries. Russia has integrated itself into the Asian environment. And I think that it’s not a realistic policy from the United States and Europe. So I think, eventually, it will be bad for us, definitely.

I think it’s important for us that there is a voice of dissent. As I said, that there are some people who will present some other ways of thinking, because many of us who think like that, we are in a minority right now. But things can change very quickly. And I wouldn’t be surprised if, suddenly, there will be a situation where people in the West, people in Europe, and also in America, will say enough is enough. We can’t do it any more, because this huge amount of money we’re sending to Ukraine, I mean, we are taking the money from other projects: infrastructure, education, hospitals, health care system, things like that. So I think that there’s a limit to how long time we can continue this war. And I also think that that goes for Ukraine. How much can they destroy the country, and how many people should be killed? It’s very important that some voices in the West demand that we have this peace process taking place as fast as possible.

EIR: Jens Jørgen, thank you very much. And thank you for your courage in standing up for your views, for your personal views in the media, and for having a professional attitude towards your teaching, where you have been presenting different viewpoints.




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 25. oktober 2022:
Har vi stadigvæk demokrati i Danmark?

Med formand Tom Gillesberg, som er Folketingskandidat udenfor partierne i Københavns Storkreds.




Folketingskandidat Tom Gillesberg: mærkesager

Stop NATO’s krige:
Verden er ikke blevet et bedre sted, fordi Danmark har deltaget i NATO’s mange krige. Det er ikke kun dyrt for os, men endnu dyrere for de lande, som Afghanistan og Irak, der bliver efterladt i ruiner. Nu er man i gang med det samme i Ukraine, hvor ukrainere fortsætter med at dø, fordi vi synes de skal skade Rusland mest muligt. I stedet for at sende våben til Ukraine skal vi støtte fredsforhandlinger, hvor man fjerner enhver militær tilstedeværelse fra NATO og sikrer fred og samarbejde mellem Ukraine og Rusland. Vi skal også have en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsorden, der gælder for alle nationer.

Fred gennem udvikling — Samarbejde med Kina og Rusland og resten af verden:

Vi skal skabe fred gennem samarbejde med Rusland, Kina og resten af verden om at løse de meget store udfordringer, som vi har. Det gælder bl.a. den globale finansielle og økonomiske nedsmeltning på grund af finansiel spekulation, hvor vi har tilladt private finansielle interesser at tage styringen, i stedet for at sætte befolkningernes ve og vel først. Vi skal øge velstanden gennem opbygningen af moderne infrastrukturforbindelser og udviklingskorridorer (inkl. højhastighedstog og magnettog) og ved at gøre videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt tilgængeligt for alle.

Stop finansspekulation og red økonomien med LaRouches fire love:

Den nuværende finansielle og økonomiske krise, som jeg og Lyndon LaRouche har advaret om i mange år, kan løses ved hjælp af LaRouches fire økonomiske love: 1) En Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, 2) Kreditskabelse til nationalt vigtige projekter gennem Nationalbanken, 3) Store infrastrukturprojekter som Kattegatbro og et dansk magnettognet, 4) Rumfart og fusionsenergi.

Andre mærkesager: Danske infrastrukturprojekter; Atomkraft og fusionsenergi, Ja tak!; For en ny klassisk kultur-renæssance; Lær den amerikanske økonom og statsmand Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) at kende.

Kontakt mig for at vide mere, og hvis du ønsker at hjælpe til:

53 57 00 51; info@sive.dk

Se Toms 10 nye valgvideoer og mere på www.sive.dk

 




Schiller Instituttets formand Tom Gillesberg stiller op til valg udenfor partierne i Københavns storkreds

Her er Toms 2 min. valgvideo.

Se de otte andre kampagne 2022 videoer og skriftlige materiale på www.sive.dk




EIR artikel: Dansk udenrigsminister
udspurgt i Folketinget om Ukraines sortliste.
af Michelle Rasmussen

Følgende artikel blev bragt i Executive Intelligence Review vol. 49, nr. 35 den 9. september 2022.
Her kan man abbonnere på EIR tidsskrift.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




English translation: Excerpts from the Danish parliament’s Ukraine list
consultation with Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod

Consultation in the Danish parliament on August 19, 2022 Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod About the Ukraine Blacklist, Which Includes Three Experts in Denmark

(The video, in Danish, and the full transcript, in Danish, may be seen here. )

Translated Excerpts in English 

Member of Parliament Marie Krarup (independent): My reason for raising the question is that I think it is a serious matter, because this Centre to Counter Disinformation — the centre that has made the list of 72 foreigners outside Ukraine –belongs to the Security Council of Ukraine, and the same day that this list was published, the leader, Andrei Shapovalov, said that the people who are spreading disinformation are “information terrorists,” and they must be held accountable as “war criminals.” Zelensky’s adviser Mikhail Podolok has elaborated these views, in interviews and an article in which he calls on other governments to limit the influence of these people and for them to be subjected to what he called “military cleansing”.

 

I am therefore, of course, interested to hear whether the Foreign Minister has taken the initiative to carry out a “military cleansing” of Associate Professor Jens Jørgen Nielsen, peace researcher, Jan Øberg, and Professor in International Politics at Aalborg University Li Xing?

 

Or has the Foreign Minister made approaches to Ukraine to have these persons removed from the list? Or does the Foreign Minister still believe that we are supporting freedom of expression and democracy by supporting Ukraine? Thank you.

 

Minister for Foreign Affairs Jeppe Kofod (Social Democrat): Yes, thank you for that. And thank you to Mrs. Marie Krarup for convening the consultation today.

 

Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine means that we in Denmark and in Europe can no longer take our freedom and our security for granted. Disinformation, lies and propaganda are an integral part of Russian warfare and attempts to undermine the unity of the West. And as a world community, we must therefore continually consider how to respond, with respect for freedom of expression, and our fundamental democratic rights.

 

The Centre for Combating Disinformation, under Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, has published a list of speakers who “promote narratives consistent with Russian propaganda.” However, the list, which includes four [sic: three] people linked to Denmark, is no longer available on the website.

In addition to the consultation today, the list has attracted considerable coverage in the Danish press, where it was received with astonishment and concern. There are concerns about the criteria for inclusion on the list, and about the use of such a list to silence voices in the debate with whom one disagrees.

 

I have therefore also asked the Danish embassy in Kiev to contact the Ukrainian authorities to seek clarification of the activities of the Centre for Combating Disinformation.

 

In this context, we from the Danish side will support the fight against disinformation, which is an essential element in Russia’s warfare against Ukraine.

 

At the same time, we will underline the Danish position, as is well known, that the fight against disinformation should contribute to strengthening, not undermining, democracy, research and freedom of expression.

 

When I have a response from the Ukrainian authorities, I will be happy to return to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. And until then, I would like to take the opportunity to make the government’s policy absolutely clear:

We must stand firm that research and freedom of expression are important democratic values for the Danish government, there should be no doubt about that.

Next, I would argue that Ukraine is threatened in its very existence. Putin has set out to destroy an entire country, a democracy, in fact, deny Ukraine’s legitimacy at all.

 

I think most people can understand that the fundamental principles may well come under pressure in such a situation….

[Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod continued his initial remarks by outlining Denmark’s position on the need to support Ukraine in the war with Russia.] 

Marie Krarup: Thank you for the answer. So that basically means that what the foreign minister has done, is to ask the Danish embassy in Kiev to get in touch with the Ukrainian authorities to seek clarification on the activities of the Center for Fighting Russian Disinformation in Ukraine…. 

That means that contact has been made with the Danish Embassy in Kiev to do something which they always ought to do. I have worked in an embassy myself, and I know how things work there. If there is something going on, in relation to Denmark, then it is obvious that it is the embassy’s obligation to immediately get a clarification of what is going on. 

 

That is what the Foreign Minister has done, about a month after three law-abiding Danish researchers were put on a list in which they were called “information terrorists” and they are indirectly threatened with being brought before a war crimes tribunal. 

 

These are researchers who use the quite ordinary Danish freedom of expression to say quite ordinary and banal things, such as one of them has said, “Western sanctions against Russia are not working.” Then you are added to a list where you are indirectly threatened as a war criminal. And so, the Foreign Minister, in the month that has passed since the three Danish nationals were put on this nasty list, the Danish Foreign Minister has asked the Danish Embassy in Kiev to do its duty? 

 

I think that is a very poor response to the quite unbelievably gross situation that three Danish researchers are being prevented from carrying out perfectly legal research activities because they now have to live with threats hanging over their heads. 

 

Has the Foreign Minister contacted the police and asked them to ensure that the three researchers’ safety is guaranteed?

Jeppe Kofod: I’m afraid I have to, unfortunately, correct Mrs. Marie Krarup. The Danish Embassy HAS contacted the Ukrainian authorities, so it is not the case that I have asked the Embassy to contact them. They have contacted them. And we are awaiting the reply from the Ukrainian authorities. And in that context, the contact that the Danish Embassy has made, the Danish Embassy has also expressed concern about the list, which, by the way, has been taken down, as I understand it. And then, just in relation to the CCD, according to what I have been told, it is the acting leader of this center who is quoted as putting forward the idea that the information space could be protected from disinformation by means of a new law which would allow the prosecution of disseminators of disinformation as war criminals – that is what I think Marie Krarup has referred to. It is said to have been put forward at a round table discussion, with the support of the U.S. Department of State, organised by the National Security Service Academy, the Civilian Research and Development Foundation of the U.S., the International Academy of Information, and the coordination platform the National Security Cluster. We were not present at this roundtable. But there is nothing immediately indicating that the statement is about individuals on the list we are discussing today.

As mentioned, and I would like to stress this, I have asked the Danish Embassy to investigate the statement further, and get an explanation from the Ukrainian authorities about how they will ensure, and I hope that Mrs. Marie Krarup agrees with me, concern for freedom of expression, freedom of research and democracy with such a law.

 

 Once the Ukrainian authorities have given their statement, I will ensure that this committee, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, is informed. And I think it is important that we hear the Ukrainian authorities’ explanation. Also in a situation where there is a lot of misinformation out there….

………..

Excerpt 2:

Marie Krarup: How can the Foreign Minister accept that three law-abiding Danish scientists were put on a list to scare people and make them stop. How can the Foreign Minister accept that? 

 

And, by the way, I must dispute the fact that these answers from the head of the CCD and President Zelensky’s adviser, Mr. Podolok, were not referencing this list. There is a very clear statement that there IS reference to this list, calling on governments to carry out what has been called ‘military lustration,’ which I think should be translated as ‘cleansing’, or to impose sanctions on them. So, will the Foreign Minister follow the call of President Zelensky’s adviser to put these three perfectly law-abiding scientists: a professor at Aalborg University, a lecturer elsewhere, and a peace researcher, will the Foreign Minister follow the call of President Zelensky’s adviser to make sure that these three people can no longer speak freely?…

Excerpt 3:

Jeppe Kofod: … So I think it’s really a slightly skewed debate. There should be a lot more focus on what Russia is up to at the moment. With cyber attacks, disinformation, misinformation, as an attempt to destroy our way of life. I hope that Mrs Marie Krarup will also be concerned about that.

 

Marie Krarup: Thank you. I would be very happy to organise a new meeting to talk about combating Russian disinformation, because of course we must counter any kind of lies, of course we must counter any kind of restrictions on freedom of expression – that is absolutely clear, I will do that at any time! 

 

Now, what we are dealing with here is three Danes, perfectly law-abiding debaters, who have been put on a list as an indirect threat to their security. It is an attempt to silence them. Because they make perfectly legal and almost boring statements, such as that the Western sanctions against Russia are not working. Should it be a criminal act to say that? It is true that the list is not available right now. Thank goodness. 

 

That might suggest that Ukraine’s government has figured out that making such a nasty list is shooting itself in the foot. Because it is obviously not an expression of freedom of speech and democracy to put people in the stocks and start behaving like the neighbouring country. Because what is the point of us restricting freedom of expression in Denmark and restricting freedom of expression in Ukraine, and thereby coming to resemble Russia, where freedom of expression is restricted to such an extent. Are we going to turn our countries into tyrannies? 

 

No, we must not! We must fight it! But the list exists! There are clever people who had it printed out as soon as it was available. And here it is. And I’d gladly pass it on. There are many ordinary sensible scientists listed here who are in no way breaking the law with their research. Highly recognized and respected professors, for example, John Mearsheimer, who has been very active in this debate and, of course, has said nothing at all illegal. Has not incited hatred, or violence, or anything, whatsoever. Perfectly legal speech. And that’s what this is all about. We can have many other consultations, about everything else, but right now it’s a consultation about what to do to ensure the freedom of expression of Danish debaters in Denmark? 

 

And what has the Foreign Minister done to investigate what is going on? Does the Foreign Minister think that it is supporting democracy and freedom of expression, to support a government that is asking us to sanction Danish researchers in Denmark? And to be interested in what my opinions or feelings are in other contexts – is just not within the subject of this consultation. I think that something terrible is happening in Ukraine, absolutely terrible, and I want this war to stop. I think it’s a crime that Russia has invaded, that’s just not what it’s about right now. Right now, it is about the fact that the Ukrainian government, which the Danish government supports, is calling for the Danish government to sanction Danish researchers and restrict their freedom of expression. 

 

And I have not received any answer from the Foreign Minister, except something about perhaps the embassy being asked to do its job, or is the embassy just doing it by itself? There is simply no public statement to the effect that we cannot vouch for this. It may be that the next arms shipment will be delayed because we do not think it is OK for a professor of international politics at Aalborg University – he is being criminalised for saying that Western sanctions are not working against Russia. I have not heard the Foreign Minister express any criticism; I would very much like to hear the Foreign Minister do so here. Is it OK for Ukraine to encourage us to sanction perfectly law-abiding researchers in Denmark? 

Excerpt 4:

Jeppe Kofod: Now Russia has started a war of conquest, illegal war of conquest in the country, and there we have to respond again, and defend the Ukrainians. And therefore, there can not be, in any way, as Mrs. Marie Krarup spoke about, talk about our arms donations. The arms donations that we are giving to Ukrainians, for their defense fight, we will continue to do that, and we are working very hard for others to contribute as well, so that we can ensure Ukrainians that they can live without Russian invasion.

They must win, the Ukrainians, and the fact that they must be able to win requires us to continue with our arms supplies, which we certainly intend to do, irrespective of what Mrs. Marie Krarup mentions here.

Christian Juhl (Unity Party): I have put my name on the list. I would like to hear from the minister. We are friends of Ukraine, we support them in this terrible situation. And I think in my time, since February 24, I have spent thousands of hours defending Ukraine, but also spent, about ten minutes, or fifteen minutes looking at the allegations that have been made that Ukraine, in the harsh situation, is actually also at risk of violating some of the basic rules that we think belong in a democratic society. It is also our duty as politicians and ministers to try to see the nuances of the situation. Even if it is serious. So that the foundation stone of the democracy which is to be developed further after the war and after the Russians have withdrawn their troops, must develop. We will have at least as great a task to help with that, in my opinion. Reconstruction, development of the country, etc.

I would like to ask two questions there. When we are friends with Ukraine, it is also important that we are honest friends. Real friends are honest friends, right?

That means that if we find something incomprehensible, we tell each other. Just as I think the ministers who have visited from Ukraine have done to us. They have been very clear when we were foot-dragging, and cut through: This is not what we are talking about, we don’t need friendly words, we need weapons, they say, for example in the meetings. These are honest friends who say such things to their partners. Does the minister think that there can be arguments for restricting freedom of speech in an extreme situation, like the one Ukraine is in at the moment, and it would be legal, in the minister’s opinion, for Ukraine to say, we cannot afford to have freedom of speech here?

 

Or, for example, it has been debated in the media lately that they are preparing an anti-union law in Ukraine, there are a number of European trade unions and individuals who have protested violently against that because, what does that have to do with the war? Because that is a fundamental principle that we also support. So a question: can there be a situation where you have to give up freedom of expression in such an extreme situation as Ukraine is in, during the occupation. In the minister’s opinion?

That’s the one. The other one is: can the minister confirm that we are indeed, monitoring the laws of war on both sides? And that we actually believe that everybody should abide by the laws of war, including occupied countries. Because that forms the basis for things not escalating into a completely crazy situation. Or is this also a place where we have to say that it is only one side that has to respect the laws of war.

I only ask because I think it is important that we have some universal approaches to some of these things.

The last question is a Danish question. I would like to know whether the Minister believes that the three researchers have used blatant propaganda and disinformation, or that the Minister suspects that the three have done so? It is a little because we might as well play it over on the Danish court straight away. If they haven’t done it, then we should defend them, in my opinion. If they have done it, then we need to have it on the table. And then we must know, where does this conflict with Danish law.

[op cut begin]

Marie Krarup: Thank you. It’s not strange to abolish freedom of speech in a country that’s at war. And I have the impression that that’s pretty much what they’ve done in Ukraine. What is strange is that we say that we are defending democracy when we support a country that is asking us to abolish freedom of expression in our own country.

THAT is where I think the problem is. To be handed a list with three Danes on it and be asked by the head of the Center [for Combating Disinformation] and Zelensky’s adviser to sanction them. And when the minister claims that there is nothing to suggest that this is what happened, then I must refer to the statements that the head of the Center, Shapovalov, made, on July 14, about people who spread disinformation, they are information terrorists, and they must face a war crimes tribunal. And something similar was written by the same person in Ukraine’s Pravda on 2 August.

And Zelensky’s adviser, Podolok, said on August 5 about the people on the list that they are calling for them to be sanctioned by other governments, their influence to be limited, and then they are to be subjected to this ‘military purge’, which I don’t quite know what that means.

So that’s what is a call for us, in our country, to put restrictions on perfectly legal Danish researchers’ freedom of expression. THAT’s what I’m asking the minister to address. I am surprised that the Minister has not somehow said to Ukraine, because, as was said earlier, if you are friends, then you are, of course, honest friends. And if we are to help Ukraine become a democracy, as I certainly think we should, then freedom of speech is part of that.

And it may well be that they cannot have it now, in the current war situation, I actually understand that, in their own country, but the fact that they are calling for us, in Denmark, to abolish freedom of expression, in certain areas, is not good. We should therefore say to Ukraine that you have to stop that. You have to take our people off the list. We will not sanction our researchers. We do not think that it is Russian disinformation or an illegal statement to say that “Western sanctions against Russia are not working,” as a professor of international politics from Aalborg University has said.

Does the minister think that’s an illegal statement? Or that it is spreading Russian propaganda to say that Western sanctions against Russia do not work?

[op cut end]

Excerpt 5:

Jeppe Kofod: 1. Ukraine has not asked us to abolish freedom of expression in Denmark, as has been claimed, I want to make that clear.

  1. There is no request from the Ukrainian government to us, about the researchers about whom Mrs. Marie Krarup addresses us.
  2. We have not received any list.

I really think we should be careful that such debates do not get out of proportion, when we consider what it is a task we face, in terms of disinformation, misinformation. You can pick your battles as you like.

 

Excerpt 6:

Marie Krarup: So the Foreign Minister might deny that the list exists? It was published, it was taken down, thank God, shortly after, for example, Jyllands-Posten wrote an editorial about it. So Jyllands-Posten also lives in an alternative reality where they believe that list exists?

It does exist. And there were statements from the head of the center, and from Zelensky’s advisor, Podoljak. I know that the Foreign Ministry has received documentation about that, with the translation of those documents. Where the head of the center, and Zelensky’s adviser, calls on the governments, where the foreign – these are 72 people living outside Ukraine – where they are called on to take action against them. This is not an official request. That is absolutely correct, I fully agree. But it is a public request. And the Foreign Minister is apparently totally indifferent about that.

Documentation has been sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I know, because I myself received it on the same occasion.

So the question is: will the Foreign Minister follow these calls to restrict the freedom of expression of Danish researchers? I think that would be wrong. I also think it would be appropriate to say to Ukraine that we will not do that and call on them to distance themselves from the list. It is very good that it is no longer available on the website; it is still visible on their Facebook page. With photos of the people they don’t like. Who they want sanctioned. So, in that way, it still exists.

I hope it’s not the case that if Russia approaches Denmark, unofficially or officially, and asks to restrict the freedom of expression of some Danish researchers, that they say “never mind”. Or just look out of the window.

Then I wish that they would officially distance themselves from it. Because it is just wrong.

And now that we are talking about a country which we support, and which we support because we say that it is a democracy, I just think it seems odd that no statement is being made. Jyllands-Posten could at least write an editorial about it and denounce it. And I think that the government should do the same. And then guide the Ukrainians in a friendly, honest way and say: this is a bad idea. You should not do that. We will not follow your calls to sanction Danish researchers in Denmark, no matter how terrible the situation you are in. Because they are in a completely terrible situation. It is so appalling. No matter how terrible the situation you are in, we will not destroy our own democracy, our own freedom of expression.

An honest friend of Ukraine should have said that to Ukraine. And you should also do it for the sake of the researchers, who obviously don’t find it nice to have this kind of indirect threat.

So, after this consultation, I assume that the Foreign Minister now, after getting some more information, and hopefully getting a deeper understanding of what this is about, will take action on this, and address the Ukrainian government and say something about that freedom of expression in Denmark must not be destroyed, because there is a terrible situation in Ukraine, and if Ukraine wants to be a democracy, in the long term, then it has to respect freedom of expression.

Will the Foreign Minister do that?

Excerpt 7:

Jeppe Kofod: [About that Marie Krarup alleged that I] denied that there is a list, I have not. I have simply said that we have not received it. We have not received a list, from the Ukrainian Government, sent to the Danish Government of any individuals. I mentioned that it was a list that apparently has been taken down from the website, and I also believe that there are organizations, including the Schiller Institute, that have sent this material, probably to Marie Krarup, and also to me.

Excerpt 8:

Jeppe Kofod: And then once we’ve heard about this list, the work of this Center for Combating Disinformation, we’ll come back, to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Then we can take the debate further there, if it is still relevant. (00:58:35:00)

Marie Krarup: I would like to, if it’s possible. But I’m glad the minister doesn’t deny it. Actually, that’s not what it was about. What I find embarrassing is that the minister has not taken action to defend the freedom of expression of Danish researchers. Thank you for giving me the floor.

Christian Juhl – [Thanks the minister and Marie Krarup.] We would like, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, to receive a written briefing, when it is available, with the facts about it, and then we can consider an extension of the consultation. Thanks to all.

The video, in Danish, and the full transcript in Danish may be seen here. 

————————
Jyllands-Posten editorial, August 11, 2022 at 6:30pm. Jyllands-Posten is one of the three major Danish daily newspapers. Here are some excerpts.

FOR SUBSCRIBERS

Title: Ukraine and free speech

Kicker: It is worrying when Ukraine blacklists researchers and others who have a different view of the conflict from the unequivocally pro-Ukrainian one.

Beginning: “If not before, then certainly since February 24 this year, the Ukrainian people and their President, Volodymyr Zelensky, could not have any doubt that a united West and the EU are fully behind them….

[In speeches, Zelensky] “skillfully appealed to unity and emphasized what we know, that Ukraine’s struggle for freedom is ours too. It has helped to underline and convince, even more, that Ukraine naturally belongs in Europe, and eventually in the European Union – one day on the other side of the war.

“But to get there, there are conditions to be met. Among them is the fundamental acceptance of free speech. Even before the war, there were stories that freedom of expression, particularly for the media, did not always enjoy favorable conditions in Ukraine, and it is obvious that this is even worse in a war like the present one. But that is why it is still necessary for the country, and especially its President, to show that it accepts free speech and the right to disagree.

“The Centre for Countering Disinformation sounds like something out of George Orwell’s ‘1984’, but it is a center under Ukraine’s National Security Council. The center presumably has a central function during the war, but it has also recently been used to blacklist 72 international politicians, thinkers and researchers, including four Danes [really three Danes and one Swede- mr]: Russia expert Jens Jørgen Nielsen, peace and conflict researcher Jan Øberg, chairman of the Schiller Institute in Sweden Ulf Sandmark and Aalborg University professor Li Xing.

“What the four Danes have in common is that they took part in a seminar at the end of May on alternatives to the current security policy structure in the world in order to reduce tensions and the division of countries into, for example, members and non-members of NATO. Li Xing, among others, opposes Russia’s attack on Ukraine, but he has also questioned the long-term impact of the sanctions policy based on his research. Both – the theme of the seminar and the questioning of Western sanctions policy – are of course perfectly legitimate in a free and open society.

“It is therefore worrying when Ukraine blacklists researchers and others who have a different view of the conflict. For it can hardly be seen as anything other than an attempt to silence them and label any angle other than the pro-Ukrainian one as pro-Russian, and thus on the wrong side of history.

“Ukraine’s fight for freedom in the face of its opposite, Putin’s barbaric unfreedom, is heroic and deserves all our support. But in rejecting free speech, free research and free debate, it is precisely Ukraine and its President who are in danger of moving to the wrong side, far from the ideals that they will hopefully pursue on the other side of the war, to emphasize that they are part of us, as we now see their struggle as ours.” End of the editorial.

It should be noted that Jyllands-Posten led an international campaign for free speech after they printed derogatory cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in 2005. Now, they have something much better to defend.

pictures: Marie Krarup: screen grab
Jeppe Kofod: Michelle Rasmussen




Udenrigsminister Jeppe Kofod skal i samråd om Ukraine-listen
fredag den 19. august kl. 13-14.
Tilmeldingsinformation.

Opdatering: Fra Folketingets hjemmeside:
Samrådet er åbent for alle, men tilmelding er nødvendig, også for pressen. Der er et begrænset antal pladser, som tildeles efter i først-til-mølle-princippet. Tilmelding skal ske senest kl. 11.00, dagen inden samrådet bliver afholdt.

Tilmelding på 
e-mail

Samrådet finder sted i  vær. 2-133.

Gæster udefra bør beregne ekstra tid til registrering i Besøgsindgangen på grund af sikkerhedstjek.

Samrådet tv-optages og vil blive vist direkte her på hjemmesiden. Optagelsen vil efterfølgende kunne (gen)ses her på siden og under “TV fra Folketinget”. Desuden vises samrådet forskudt på Folketingets tv-kanal.

For regler for fotografering og optagelse af film og lyd under åbne samråd, se linket her.
Aug. 5, 2022 (EIRNS)–COPENHAGEN, Aug. 5 (EIRNS) — Den 1. august anmodede formanden for Folketingets Udenrigsudvalget Bertel Haarder (Venstre) den danske udenrigsminister Jeppe Kofod om et samråd om Ukraine-listen på vejen af udvalgsmedlem Marie Krarup (uafhængig). Ethvert folketingsmedlem har ret til at kræve, at enhver minister mundtligt besvarer skriftlige spørgsmål, der tidligere er stillet. På Folketingets hjemmeside annonceres anmodningen om samråd og de to spørgsmål. 

 

På Folketingets hjemmeside:
 

Samrådsspm. om den ukrainske liste over udlændinge, som “fremmer” den russiske fortælling mv., til udenrigsministeren

Samrådsspørgsmål U

Vil ministeren forholde sig til den ukrainske liste over udlændinge, som “fremmer” den russiske fortælling, herunder bedes ministeren svare på, om listen efter regeringens opfattelse er udtryk for respekt for ytringsfrihed, demokrati og andre værdier, som ministeren mener, Danmark bør fremme i verden?

 

Mener ministeren, at Danmark fortsat kan begrunde sin støtte til Ukraine med våben og penge med, at Danmark således er med til at støtte demokratiske værdier uden for Danmark? Der henvises til ”Ukraine offentliggør liste over udlændinge, som fremmer ”russisk fortælling” om krigen i Ukraine, tre danskere figurerer på listen”, bragt på www.mreast.dk den 29. juli 2022.

Af: Marie Krarup (UFG)
Til: udenrigsminister Jeppe Kofod ()
Dato: 01-08-2022
Status: Ikke besvaret
Emne: udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik

 

Link: https://www.ft.dk/samling/20211/almdel/URU/samspm/U/index.htm
 
Billede: Michelle Rasmussen



Jyllands-Posten leder imod Ukraines sortliste:
Ukraine risikerer at bevæge sig over på den forkerte side,
når det handler om det frie ord

Jyllands-Postens leder den 11. august kl. 18.30:

Link: JP mener: Ukraine risikerer at bevæge sig over på den forkerte side, når det handler om det frie ord

  • 11/08/2022 KL. 18:30
  • FOR ABONNENTER

Ukraine og det frie ord

Det er​ bekymrende, når Ukraine sortlister forskere og andre, der har et andet syn på konflikten end den entydigt proukrainske.

Dækning af lederen i Officielt EU-Website/ Europa-Kommissionen/Repræsentationen i Danmark:

https://denmark.representation.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-i-dagens-aviser-fredag-den-12-august-2022-2022-08-12_da

Udvidelse: Ukraine og det frie ord
Jyllands-Posten skriver blandt andet i sin leder: “Om ikke før så i hvert fald efter den 24. februar i år har den ukrainske befolkning og landets præsident, Volodymyr Zelenskyj, ikke kunnet været i tvivl om, at et samlet Vesten og EU bakker landet fuldt op. […] Og den tidligere skuespiller Zelenskyj har ud over at være en autentisk og stærk leder af sit land også – i sin grønne army-T-shirt – afsløret sig som en blændende kommunikator og fortolker af mediesamfundet. […] Det har været med til i endnu højere grad at understrege og overbevise om, at Ukraine naturligvis hører til i Europa og med tiden i EU – en dag på den anden side af krigen. Men for at nå dertil er der betingelser, der skal opfyldes. Blandt dem er den grundlæggende accept af det frie ord. Allerede inden krigen var der historier om, at ytringsfriheden for især medierne ikke altid havde gunstige vilkår i Ukraine, og at det under en krig som nu er endnu værre, er indlysende. […] Center for Modvirkning af Desinformation lyder som noget fra George Orwells ”1984”, men det er et center under Ukraines Nationale Sikkerhedsråd. Centeret har formentlig en central funktion under krigen, men det er for nylig også blevet brugt til at sortliste 72 internationale politikere, tænkere og forskere, heriblandt fire danskere: Rusland-eksperten Jens Jørgen Nielsen, freds- og konfliktforskeren Jan Øberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Sverige Ulf Sandmark og professor på Aalborg Universitet Li Xing. Fælles for de fire danskere er, at de i slutningen af maj deltog i et seminar om alternativer til den aktuelle sikkerhedspolitiske struktur i verden for at mindske spændinger og opdelingen af lande i f.eks. medlemmer og ikkemedlemmer af Nato. Bl.a. Li Xing er imod Ruslands angreb på Ukraine, men han har også baseret på sin forskning sat spørgsmålstegn ved sanktionspolitikkens virkning på lang sigt. […] Derfor er det bekymrende, når Ukraine sortlister forskere og andre, der har et andet syn på konflikten.”
Kilde: Jyllands-Posten, s. 28

 




DR’s hjemmeside: Aalborg-professor er på sort liste hos de ukrainske myndigheder

Her er linket: Aalborg-professor [Li Xing] er på sort liste hos de ukrainske myndigheder




NYHEDSORIENTERING MAJ-JUNI 2022:
Dansk-svensk videokonference d. 25. maj 2022:
For en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer,
ikke en styrkelse af geopolitiske blokke.
NEJ til at afskaffe forsvarsforbeholdet
NEJ til Sverige og Finland i NATO

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Afghanistan: Den humanitær krise, og hvad der skal gøres.
Interview med H.E. Ahmed Farooq, Pakistans ambassadør til Danmark

May 31, 2022 interview with H.E. Ambassador Ahmed Farooq, Ambassador of Pakistan to Kingdom of Denmark.  
Contact: www.pakistanembassy.dk
Interviewed by Tom Gillesberg, chairman, Schiller Institute in Denmark, and Executive Intelligence Review’s Copenhagen bureau chief.
Contact the Schiller Institute in Denmark: si@schillerinstitut.dk ; +45 53 57 00, Danish: www.schillerinstitut.dk
English: www.schillerinstitute.com

This transcript appears in the June 10, 2022 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.  Subscribe to Executive Intelligence Review (larouchepub.com)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

På engelsk:

This transcript appears in the June 10, 2022 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

[Print version of this transcript]

INTERVIEW: Ambassador Ahmad Farooq

Twenty-Two Million People in Afghanistan Continue To Face a Dire Humanitarian Emergency

The following is the edited transcript of the interview with His Excellency Ambassador Ahmad Farooq, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Kingdom of Denmark, conducted by Tom Gillesberg, May 31, 2022 at the Pakistani Embassy in Denmark. The video of the interview is available here.

Tom Gillesberg: I’m Tom Gillesberg, Chairman of the Schiller Institute in Denmark, and also with Executive Intelligence Review. I’m here at the Pakistani Embassy in Denmark with His Excellency Ambassador Ahmad Farooq, the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Kingdom of Denmark since April 2020. Before that, the Ambassador held several posts in connection with the United Nations: Counsellor/Alternate to the Rome-based UN Agencies; Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the UN; member of Pakistan’s Security Council team; Director General dealing with counter terrorism at the UN and other multilateral forums; and Director, dealing with the UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, Counter Terrorism, UN Peacekeeping and other political and peace and security issues.

Your Excellency Ambassador Farooq, I’m very glad you agreed to give us an interview. You gave a speech to the Schiller Institute in Denmark’s Afghanistan seminar in October 2021, “Afghanistan, What Now? Peace Through Economic Development,” where you especially described the dire situation in Afghanistan at the time, and how the Afghanistan war had affected Pakistan. Since then, the people of Afghanistan have suffered through seven months of winter conditions, and the humanitarian situation is much worse, probably the worst in the whole world. Could you please describe the humanitarian emergency for the people of Afghanistan right now?

View full size

Michelle Rasmussen
H.E. Ahmad Farooq, Ambassador of Pakistan to Denmark.

Ambassador Ahmad Farooq: Thank you very much, Tom. I would first of all like to thank you and the Schiller Institute for coming to the Pakistan Embassy in order to discuss this important issue that is being faced by the people of Afghanistan and the region. The Schiller Institute, I must say, has been doing a very good job, in highlighting what is happening in Afghanistan, so I would like to begin by thanking you for that.

You have very rightly said that Afghanistan has been going through a very difficult situation, and when we met at the Schiller Institute in October, things were not as bad. But we could see which way the situation could go, if the international community did nothing to help the people of Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, what we had foreseen at that time did play out in the following period. What we now know—and these are statistics [that] have come out from the United Nations—is that over 22 million people in Afghanistan continue to face a dire humanitarian emergency. Over 1 million Afghan children are malnourished and at the risk of dying. The winter period, in particular, has been very hard on the people of Afghanistan, because of the food shortages and because Afghanistan had been facing a prolonged drought even before things happened in August of last year. That, combined with the economic situation that Afghanistan faced after the withdrawal of the international forces in particular, has helped to further compound the humanitarian crisis being faced by the people of Afghanistan.

So, it continues to be a very difficult situation there. The region itself, obviously, has suffered from this conflict for over four decades, and we continue to do so. There is a lot of concern in Pakistan, as it is a very sad and difficult situation that we see which the people of Afghanistan are currently facing.

View full size

Ibn Sina (Avicenna), 980–1037, the great doctor, philosopher, and political advisor.

Gillesberg: Obviously, much too little humanitarian aid has reached Afghanistan. The Schiller Institute has been pleading for emergency action. We also did that very much in the seminar together with you, to alleviate the sufferings of the Afghan people. And our founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche has proposed Operation Ibn Sina, named after the great doctor and philosopher and political adviser from the region, born in 980, also known in the West as Avicenna. Operation Ibn Sina is a call for mobilizing emergency humanitarian aid and building a modern health system as a focus for sparking the long-term development of Afghanistan’s infrastructure and economy. What do you think of this? And what must be done to prevent even more millions of people from starving and many dying?

Ambassador Farooq: I think—and it is the position of the government of Pakistan in this regard—that the international community needs to come together and address the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, and that there is need for engagement with the authorities in Afghanistan. There is a need for coordinated provision of humanitarian assistance for the people of Afghanistan.

So far, what we are seeing is that there is a sporadic effort, and obviously, many Western countries that were present previously in Afghanistan, no longer have any presence there. Then, we also had a significant presence of the United Nations which mostly is not there anymore. Then, there is this issue of how to deal with the authorities in Afghanistan, and what we generally see is an effort to try to bypass them when dealing with the people of Afghanistan.

Now, Afghanistan is a large country in terms of size, area, and also in terms of the size of its population; it’s over 40 million people. The way we see it, it is not possible for a good, coordinated humanitarian effort to reach the most vulnerable people in the country when you are trying to bypass the authorities. This is something we have been calling upon the international community—that everybody needs to come together and look at what the humanitarian needs are in Afghanistan. The other issues, the political issues, obviously, those also have to be dealt with, but the priority has to be on how we can prevent further suffering in Afghanistan.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, we have been trying to facilitate, for example, the UN humanitarian effort. Most of it in the past was also being routed through Pakistan, and we have an arrangement with the UN on how they can again direct their humanitarian actions through Pakistan. So that is happening.

But again, I think the principal obstacle is this issue—that the policies which the Western countries have come up with, is that whatever they do there, they have to bypass the authorities. And that, in itself, is preventing a more sustained and coordinated effort to help the people there.

So when you mention about the initiative which Helga Zepp-LaRouche has launched, it is a very good idea. It’s something that should have a lot of traction, particularly for Muslim countries, because obviously Ibn Sina comes from our part of the world, and could provide a sort of rallying point for Islamic countries to help the people of Afghanistan. So, anything that can be done should be done. We are of the view that it is our obligation to help those poor people there.

Gillesberg: Could you say more about what the government of Pakistan is concretely proposing, and what they are doing in relation to Afghanistan?

Ambassador Farooq: Well, being the most immediate neighbor of Afghanistan, and a country which has suffered throughout the last four decades, both in terms of the humanitarian angle—we have been hosting over 4 million refugees at any given point in time, and over 3 million still continue to live in Pakistan, we have faced the security dimension of the instability in Afghanistan, especially over the last 20 years, so we have a deep interest in having a stable Afghanistan as our neighbor.

View full size

UNICEF/Omid Fazel
Refugee camp in Afghanistan, May 18, 2020.

Right after the events of August 2021, we coordinated with the international community, first in the evacuation of the international staff, diplomats, Afghan nationals that the international community wanted to evacuate from there. We have been trying to coordinate efforts among the neighboring countries of Afghanistan. So, Pakistan hosted a conference in September of the six neighboring countries; then another conference was held in Tehran, Iran, in October, and we participated in that. We then hosted the meeting of the Troika-Plus: This is a grouping of China, Russia, the United States, and Pakistan, so we hosted that, and on the sidelines of that meeting, there was also a meeting of this grouping with the Taliban delegation. Then we hosted the emergency meeting of the Islamic countries’ Foreign Ministers in December, which was focused, specifically, on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan.

So our effort has been to promote engagement with Afghanistan, bring the international community together, so that we, specifically, deal first with the humanitarian situation. Bilaterally as well, Pakistan has contributed, despite our economic difficulties, about $30 million in terms of humanitarian assistance. We have been facing the challenge of COVID, and despite that, we have tried to keep cross-border movement of people, as well as trade of goods and services open, so that the people of Afghanistan do not suffer more than they have to. And we recently also allowed a shipment of wheat from India: This is a sensitive issue in Pakistan, but for the benefit of the Afghan people, we allowed an overland shipment of Indian wheat from India to Afghanistan.

So, we continue to engage with the international community in terms of what we can do to help Afghanistan.

Gillesberg: Pakistan also organized the conference in Islamabad of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) about Afghanistan, on March 22-23 this year. What was the result of that meeting?

Ambassador Farooq: Yes, as I mentioned in my previous response, actually the emergency session on Afghanistan was held in December. And there were two important outcomes of that conference: First was that a special humanitarian trust fund was created for Afghanistan; and then the Organization for Islamic Cooperation also appointed a special representative to deal with the humanitarian situation. These were the two key decisions that were taken at the December meeting. In March, we had a regular session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the OIC, which basically operationalized those two decisions. So now that trust fund is operational, and countries have started to contribute money to that, which would then be channeled to Afghanistan through the Islamic Development Bank. So the OIC has its own set of organizations that can deal with these humanitarian issues, and we feel very happy that we were able to coordinate, and to have this work done for Afghanistan.

Gillesberg: What is your message to people in the U.S. and in Europe, regarding Afghanistan, and what should happen?

Ambassador Farooq: Our consistent message to our European and other Western partners is that we have to come together: It’s our obligation to help the people of Afghanistan, and it is important to continue to our engagement even with the authorities of Afghanistan. We do understand that there are sensitivities with regard to issues relating to political inclusion, as well as human rights, especially the rights of women and girls. But we believe that in order to make progress on these issues as well, we have to continue our engagement. Pakistan has been, as I mentioned, part of several initiatives in terms of trying to bring countries together on Afghanistan, and we have consistently joined the international community in expressing the same concerns that they have, in terms of human rights, in terms of political inclusion, and especially the rights of women and girls. So we share those concerns, but we believe if we are to make progress, we have to continue our engagement with the country.

View full size

OIC
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on March 22-23 in Islamabad, Pakistan operationalized a special humanitarian trust fund for Afghanistan, and appointed a special representative to deal with humanitarian aid.

Then, the most important aspect, I think, that has to be addressed is the economic meltdown which has happened in Afghanistan, because without a functioning economy, you cannot deal with the humanitarian situation. The world cannot be expected to just keep pumping in money in terms of providing food and medical assistance: The country eventually has to stand on its own two feet. And for that, we have to ensure that the banking system of the country is functional, and we have to look at this issue of the sanctions that exist against the Taliban authorities, because when you have that kind of a situation, it is not possible for a country to do business internationally. So these, I think, are some of our key messages to our international partners, for how we bring about stability in Afghanistan, and take them out of the current sad situation.

Gillesberg: This also includes, of course, that part of these sanctions has been to freeze all the accounts of the national government of Afghanistan, so they do not have Afghanistan’s money to spend on dealing with the situation in Afghanistan; but it’s also a big factor that Afghanistan has been cut off from the whole SWIFT system, which means that Afghanis living abroad are not able to send money back home.

Ambassador Farooq: Exactly. So this is what I’m trying to say, that the international connectivity of Afghanistan with the banking system—the banking system of Afghanistan, it is clear, has collapsed. There is an issue of liquidity, which the United Nations is trying to address, and we appreciate that. More needs to be done. When you mention about freezing of Afghan assets, again, they have the money to take care of their people for some time, but because of the sanctions, they don’t have access to it. And lately, we were also disappointed with the decision that part of that money has been sequestered to pay, to compensate the victims of, for example, the 9/11 attack. So this again, is an unfortunate decision, because that money was the money of the people of Afghanistan: They need it. They are starving to death. So that consideration should have been given.

Gillesberg: Well, now, on top of all the calamities, you can say, in that situation, you also have a war between Russia and Ukraine, with the U.S. and NATO actively engaged in many ways, and which also directly affects the situation with these enormously rising food prices, and all of the other things involved. Now, could cooperation to help the people of Afghanistan maybe be a way for the great powers to begin to cooperate to solve their problems?

Ambassador Farooq: Well, it has been most unfortunate for the world as a whole that we have this conflict in the heart of Europe in the 21st century, which was unthinkable until a few months back, and unfortunately, it has diverted the focus of the international community from grave humanitarian situations like Afghanistan, like Yemen, also some situations in Africa, and the entire focus is now on this war: So this is most unfortunate.

Frankly, sitting in Europe, and looking at the positions which the opposing sides have taken on this conflict, I really don’t see a possibility of some kind of a compromise—I mean, cooperation on Afghanistan that could help solve this conflict. It has to be the other way around. There has to be peace in Ukraine, which would be for the betterment, I think, of the entire international community. And Pakistan was among the first countries that raised these concerns, that this conflict would have serious consequences for the global economy, and especially for the developing countries that are dependent on import of food items, grain, import of petroleum products.

And it is playing out: You have seen what has happened in Sri Lanka. Pakistan itself is facing very serious economic issues on the external front, because we also import wheat, we also import most of our petroleum products, so it has put a serious strain on our economy. I’m sure there are many other countries that are facing these difficulties. So what we urge all the players that are involved in this conflict is, that we have to find a peaceful solution through dialogue, through diplomacy, because conflicts and wars don’t provide any solution. That has been our consistent perspective in respect of Afghanistan, and we say that, also, in the case of Ukraine.

Gillesberg: Well, most people and most politicians normally say, “first we have to create peace, and once we create peace we can begin to collaborate.” The Schiller Institute has always insisted that it’s the other way around, that you create peace through development: That if nations engage with each other, in really taking care of their common interests by having economic development, then you also have the opportunity for long-term peace.

The Schiller Institute is right now circulating a petition that was released a few days before the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, entitled, “Convoke an International Conference To Establish a New Security and Development Architecture for All Nations,” modeled on the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which, after 30 years of war in Europe, which really was over 100 years of war in Europe, the conflicting parts then agreed that peace could only come about by taking into account the interests of every country. Also, the regional economic development programs are essential for increasing global security. Do you have any comments on this proposal?

Ambassador Farooq: I think it’s a good proposal. But if you look at it from a historical perspective, didn’t this happen at the end of the Second World War when we created the United Nations, and the United Nations Charter has all those elements—respect for territorial integrity, non-use of threat or force; solving disputes through peaceful means—all this was there, and then the whole global architecture was created, the financial and economic architecture that was meant to promote peace and development. And the European Union, itself, is the best example that once countries start to cooperate economically, then the chance of having a war is reduced significantly. We are seeing this in the Southeast Asian region, where we have ASEAN. So it is correct.

But at the same time, we still see, that there are forces, or it’s perhaps when a certain generation which has gone through these difficult times is phased out, and there is a new generation, they forget about how destructive wars are, and you see the start of another war happening. There has to be a consistent effort by humanity that wars don’t provide any solutions, and we have to look at cooperation between the countries, and through that find peace.

So, this petition you have launched, it’s very timely, but now we have a war here, and we have to find a peaceful solution to it, because conflicts, as I said, are no answers to any differences between countries.

Gillesberg: Well, Mr. Ambassador, it’s been very interesting talking to you about these matters, and much more could be brought into the discussion, but is there anything else, at the end of the interview, you would like to say to the viewers?

Ambassador Farooq: Well, it’s been an interesting time for me, serving as Pakistan’s ambassador to a member of the European Union. And I believe that it is important to develop a better understanding of each other, in order to have peace, stability, and global prosperity. The world is facing huge challenges: COVID was just one example, but the bigger challenge and threat that the entire globe is facing is climate change. And what we are seeing is, for example, that the situation in Ukraine tends to dilute your focus from the bigger challenges that we all are collectively facing. So there is a need for bringing the world together to address those challenges in which everybody has a stake.

One of the key things for us which has come out of this conflict in Ukraine, is that we didn’t want to take any further sides in great power conflicts, because we believe that developing countries have to focus on the betterment of their people, and we have to look at what bigger challenges we are facing in the future.

Gillesberg: Also, when you have a conflict, where the obvious unsaid question is, when will this escalate into thermonuclear war, if the dynamic is not changed, it’s difficult to see how you can be a “winner” by simply choosing sides.

Ambassador Farooq: Exactly.

Gillesberg: Then it might be better to change the dynamic.

Ambassador Farooq: That is correct.

Gillesberg: Well, Your Excellency, thank you very much for the interview. And let’s talk again later, when, hopefully, some of these issues are getting a more interesting development, which gives more opportunity for actually solving the problems.

Ambassador Farooq: Thank you Tom. It’s always a pleasure to interact with the Schiller Institute.

clear

clear

clear




Hvorfor Danmark bør afstå fra et intensiveret geopolitisk militært engagement,
af næstformand Michelle Rasmussen:

Fra videokonferencen den 25. maj 2022.

Jeg vil lige bruge et par minutter på at tale om den danske situation, idet jeg afløser Tom Gillesberg, der er formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark.

Schiller Instituttet i Danmark siger helt klart, at folk skal stemme NEJ ved folkeafstemningen, som skal afholdes den 1. juni. Folkeafstemningen drejer sig om en situation, hvor fem partier i den danske regering i forbindelse med Ukraine-krigen stemte for at få en folkeafstemning, som en del af et nationalt forsvarskompromis, herunder Socialistisk Folkeparti, som i første omgang havde sørget for fravalgene. Det var tilbage i 1992, hvor den danske befolkning først havde stemt NEJ til Maastricht-traktaten. Derefter kom forhandlingerne, der førte til Edinburgh-aftalen, frem til fire undtagelsesbestemmelser. Derefter stemte befolkningen JA til at acceptere Maastricht-traktaten.

En af undtagelserne var, at Danmark ikke ville deltage i de fælles europæiske EU-militære aktiviteter. Vi mener, at befolkningen skal stemme NEJ. Det ville være en måde, ikke blot at forhindre Danmark i at øge sine militære aktiviteter med EU, men også at sætte en stopper for en militariseringsproces, der især siden 2001 har været i gang. Personligt er jeg amerikansk statsborger, og for nylig er jeg også blevet dansk statsborger. Og jeg vil sige, at Danmark, mit nye hjemland, i stedet for bare at følge med i USA’s politik, mit oprindelsesland, at Danmark i stedet burde arbejde for at ændre USA’s politik.

Lyndon LaRouche opfordrede for mange år siden til en fire-magts-aftale. Hvis USA, Rusland, Kina, Indien og Rusland samarbejder om at etablere et nyt retfærdigt økonomisk verdenssystem, et nyt kreditsystem, kunne dette har været grundlaget for konfliktløsning gennem økonomisk udviklingssamarbejde. Som Li Xing sagde, er det bedste alternativ til krig at få iværksat et økonomisk samarbejde. [Dermed kunne den nuværende konflikt have været undgået.]

Siden 2001 har Danmark deltaget i alle de krige, som USA, tilskyndet af briterne, har indledt, fra Afghanistan under statsminister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, og det var især under statsminister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, som senere blev NATO’s generalsekretær, at militariseringen blev optrappet. Danmark deltog i krigene i Irak, og så havde vi Libyen. Vi var med i de andre krige, der kom bagefter.

Nu er Danmark i forhandlinger med USA om etablering af en bilateral forsvarsaftale, som formentlig vil omfatte permanent udstationering af amerikanske tropper på dansk jord, hvilket vil sige, at udenlandske tropper for første gang i fredstid vil blive permanent udstationeret her.

Der var et spørgsmål til de fem partier, der kom med dette nationale forsvarskompromis, fra en journalist til de to højrepartier, Det Konservative Folkeparti og Venstre, om, hvad de ville sige, hvis USA ville bede om at forhandle om opstilling af atomvåben i Danmark. Og deres svar var: “Jamen, det må vi da tale om.” Det er også en total kursændring i forhold til den tidligere danske politik.

Den anden ting er, at det ikke er nok at stemme NEJ ved folkeafstemningen. Det vil ikke løse problemerne. Men det vil være en måde at dæmme op for denne trinvise militarisering.

For det, Schiller Instituttet siger, er, at nøglen til en mere fredelig verden ikke er at øge militariseringen, men at etablere en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og økonomisk udvikling, hvor man kan undgå krigsudbrud. Som Jan Øberg påpegede, kan man have konflikter, men hvordan sikrer vi, at de ikke fører til krig? Hvordan kan vi løse disse konflikter på en fredelig måde?

Det er her, at idéen om fremgangsmåden med den Westfalske Fred dukker op. Jeg vil snarest stille et spørgsmål til Helga for at få mere at vide om det.

Danmark har også haft en anden tradition. Et af vores slogans her har været, at i stedet for krigsførelse skal vi bygge broer. Der er en dansk tradition for økonomisk udvikling, partnerskab med lande om vandudvikling, om brobygning og om energiudvikling. Det er det, vi skal fremhæve.

In English:
I will just take a few minutes to speak about the Danish situation, standing in for Tom Gillesburg, the chairman of the Schiller Institute in Denmark.
The Schiller Institute in Denmark is definitely saying that people should vote NO in the referendum, which is to be held on June 1st. The referendum concerns a situation where after the Ukraine war, five parties in the Danish government voted to have a referendum as part of a National Defense Compromise, including the Socialist People’s Party, which had organized the opt-outs in the beginning. Back in 1992, where the Danish population had first voted NO to the Maastricht Treaty. Then,  the negotiations that led to the Edinburgh agreement came up with four opt-outs. Then, the population voted YES to accept the Maastricht Treaty.

One of the opt-outs was that Denmark would not participate in the joint European EU military activities. We think that people should vote NO. This would be a way, not only to prevent Denmark from increasing its military activity with the EU, but would also put a stop to a process of militarization that has been going on, especially since 2001. Personally, I’m an American citizen, and recently, I also became a Danish citizen. And I would say that Denmark, my adopted countr, ought to, instead of just following along with the policies of the United States, my native country, that Denmark should, instead, work to change the policies of the United States.

Lyndon LaRouch, many years ago, called for a four power agreement. If the United States, Russia, China and India would cooperate to establish a new just world economic system, a new credit system, this could be the basis of conflict resolution through economic development cooperation. As the Li Xing was saying, the best alternative to war is to get economic cooperation going.

Since 2001, Denmark has participated in every war that the United States, goaded on by the British, have launched, from Afghanistan under Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, and it the militarization was especially escalated under Prime Minist Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who later became the NATO’s general secretary. Denmark participated in the the wars in Iraq, and then we had Libya. We had the other wars that came after that.

And now Denmark is in negotiations with the United States for setting up a bilateral defense treaty, which will probably include permanent stationing of United States troops on Danish soil, which would be that foreign troops would be permanently stationed here for the first time in peacetime.

There was a question to the five parties that came up with this National Defense Compromise from a reporter to the two right parties, the the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party (Venstre), about what they would they say if the United States would ask for negotiating about stationing of nuclear weapons in Denmark. And their answer was, “Well, we’ll have to talk about it.” This is also a total reversal of the previous Danish policy.

The other thing is that it’s not enough to vote NO in the referendum. That will not solve the problems. But it will be a way of of stemming the tide of this step by step by step militarization.

Because, what the Schiller Institute is saying, is that the key to a more peaceful world is not increasing the militarization, but it is establishing a new security and economic development architecture, where you can avoid the outbreak of war. As Jan was saying, you can have conflicts, but how do we make sure that it doesn’t lead to war? How can we solve these conflicts in a peaceful way?

And that is where the idea of the Peace of Westphalia approach comes in. I will soon ask a question to Helga to explain more about that.

And Denmark has also had a different tradition. One of our slogans here has been, instead of war fighting, bridge building. There is aa Danish tradition for economic development, partnership with countries about water development, about building bridges, about energy development. And this is what we need to be emphasizing.

So, I would like to introduce, then, the question period, by asking the question to Helga. This is from Sarah on YouTube, who would like to ask Helga “What is a foreseeable path to reaching a position to propose the peace of Westphalia? Is war the only way? How much can transparency work towards reaching this goal?” To sum it up. What is the idea of the Peace of Westphalia? How can these principles of peace building be used today? And how can we actually implement this?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
The answer will come soon.




Hvorfor Sverige og Finland ikke bør tilslutte sig NATO.
Why Sweden and Finland Should Not Join NATO:
Speech by Ulf Sandmark, chairman, Schiller Institute in Sweden, May 25, 2022

Præsentation på Schiller Instituttets seminar “Vi har brug for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, ikke for en styrkelse af de geopolitiske blokke” den 25. maj 2022.

På vegne af Schiller Instituttet i Sverige, som er medvært for dette seminar, vil jeg gerne byde alle velkommen og især takke de talere, der er kommet før mig, for deres fremragende præsentationer.

Jeg vil forsøge at besvare spørgsmålet: “Hvorfor bør Sverige og Finland ikke tilslutte sig Nato?”

Faktisk var ansøgningerne om at blive medlem af Nato unødvendige, uforsvarlige og vanvittige. De var unødvendige ansøgninger, fordi der ikke var nogen trussel mod Sverige eller Finland. Rusland havde travlt på andre fronter, og der var ingen hensigt om at angribe vores lande.

De var uforsvarlige, fordi de øger truslerne mod Rusland i strid med OSCE-traktaten, især princippet om inklusiv sikkerhed, som betyder, at man ikke må øge sin egen sikkerhed på bekostning af andres sikkerhed i henhold til traktaten, og det er faktisk også i overensstemmelse med FN-traktaten. Det var også uforsvarligt, fordi vi nu har etableret en konfrontations linje i Nordeuropa. Under Den kolde Krig var der tidligere en meget stærk konfrontationslinje på kontinentet med store hære, der stod over for hinanden i Tyskland m.m.. Nu vil vi få den samme konfrontationslinje i Nord, hvilket gør det til et ustabilt område. Hele Østersøen vil blive blokeret med en amerikansk politik kaldet 2A/AD, “Area Denial”-politikken, som nu diskuteres i det svenske Krigsvidenskabelige Akademi.

Ansøgningerne var vanvittige, for det vi har nu er en absolut, enorm nuklear provokation, muligvis en omvendt Cuba-krise med Sverige og Finland placeret så tæt på Rusland og især deres baser for atomubåde i Arktis. Allerede nu er det tilladt for B-52 strategiske bombefly at flyve ind i svensk luftrum i henhold til værtslands-aftalen med Nato. Jeg vil gerne dele dette billede fra den 18. februar
der viser en amerikansk B-52 Stratofortress fra Bomber Task Force, som eskorteres af svenske kampfly over Sverige. Ved denne lejlighed var der ikke kun én B-52, men to. Hver af dem kan bære 12 Tomahawk-missiler, der kan have atomare sprænghoveder. Det betyder, at disse B-52, der flyver fra Storbritannien ind i svensk luftrum, fra svensk territorium på få minutter kan tilintetgøre 24 russiske byer. Det var en enorm provokation. Det var faktisk på samme tidspunkt, som den ukrainske hær øgede beskydningen af Donbass med tredive gange.

Som Jan Öberg havde mistanke om, var det et planlagt angreb for at få Sverige ind i Nato. Det var som et bagholdsangreb. Den svenske tidligere forsvarsminister Sven Tolgfors har i en bog (2016) skrevet, at man kunne forvente, at en sikkerhedskrise ville kunne ændre den svenske Nato-politik. I en sikkerhedskrise skal vi være forberedt på at gøre det rigtig hurtigt.

Vi kan også se, hvordan det er kommet i stand. Bare få uger med frygt og hysteri ændrede Finland og Sverige sig. Dette pludselige skift er stadig et chok for især den svenske befolkning. Det, der var sandt for to måneder siden, er nu forkert. For to måneder siden sagde statsminister Magdalena Andersson: “Et svensk Nato-medlemskab ville destabilisere regionen”. Nu skulle svenskerne omprogrammeres af presset fra massemedierne.

Som svenskerne har for vane, at være “de bedste i klassen”, der mestrer den type “gruppetænkning”, som Jan Öberg ligeledes nævnte. Nu forventes det, at Sverige vil være “den bedste i klassen” til krig mod Rusland og Kina. Vi befinder os i en enorm identitetskrise blandt svenskerne og især blandt de socialdemokratiske vælgere.

Tyrkiets modstand mod at tillade medlemskab for de nye ansøgere er et eksempel på den manglende suverænitet i Nato. USA skal nu “løse” problemet. Hvor er den så højt besungne frihed og suverænitet, som Nato skal forsvare, blevet af? Svenskerne er chokerede over at se, hvordan Tyrkiet behandles nu, hvor USA formodes at lægge pres på deres beslutning.

Faktisk forsvarer Tyrkiet nu den svenske og finske suverænitet mere end vores regeringer. Forhåbentlig vil flere NATO-medlemslande tilslutte sig Tyrkiet. Det vil i det mindste give os mere tid her til at stoppe dette vanvid. Ved at blokere vores Nato-ansøgning forsvarer Tyrkiet hele Nato og verden mod en omfattende atomvåbenkrise. Tyrkiet er faktisk den voksne person i rummet ved at organisere fredsforhandlingerne mellem Rusland og Ukraine, hvilket Sverige og Finland burde have koncentreret deres diplomatiske indsats om i stedet for at tilslutte sig Nato!

Men Sverige og Finland bør tage sine skæbner i egne hænder. Vi skal genetablere vores tidligere fælles mission for fred og økonomisk udvikling. Vi bør deltage i etableringen af en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer, som erstatter geopolitik og storfinansens plyndring af vores nationer. Nato har kørt os over. Sammen med andre nationer i verden kan vi nu gøre Nato forældet og begrave det.

Det første skridt for Sverige og Finland bør være at slå sig sammen med Italiens premierminister, Mario Draghi, som netop har fremsat et fredsforslag for Ukraine. Denne form for internationalt samarbejde kunne også få Tyrkiet til at presse på for at få fred i stedet for krig.

For det andet er vi nødt til at inddrage den økonomiske dimension, fordi det kan være afgørende for hele Sveriges og Finlands beslutning om ikke at blive medlem af Nato. Hele Europa er nødt til at imødegå sanktionernes økonomiske chok. Det er en neoliberal chokterapi på steroider, der kaster befolkningerne direkte ud i elendighed. Sanktionerne er [ikke til for at hjælpe Ukraine, men er] en ondsindet plyndring for at frigøre de finansielle gældsbobler på ryggen af befolkningen, industrien og middelklassen, hvilket gør millioner af mennesker i Vesten fattige og medfører massiv sult i udviklingslandene.

Faktisk vil den udplyndring i krigstiden, som de vil foretage ved at aflaste den finansielle boble, være meget større end den udplyndring, som det militærindustrielle kompleks foretager, og lige så uproduktiv.

Det vi har, er de fire love, som Lyndon LaRouche har foreslået for at standse denne chokterapi. Vi bør stoppe centralbankernes pengetrykning for at redde det svigtende finanssystem. Vi bør indføre en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling for at kunne nægte at betale for spekulationsboblerne. Med en adskillelse af bankerne vil vi være i stand til at genetablere bankerne som banker for produktiv kredit. Derefter kan vi oprette en nationalbank for udvikling, der udsteder produktive kreditter.

Helga har allerede peget på denne politik. Jeg vil gerne fremhæve den igen, fordi den kunne være det absolutte centrum for modstanden mod krigspolitikken og Nato-ansøgningerne. Det, vi har brug for nu, er forordninger til at håndtere nødsituationer med hensyn til fødevarer, energi og elektricitet. Vi plejede at have et reguleret elektricitetssystem her i Sverige med en meget billig og sikker strømforsyning. Det kan vi vende tilbage til. Vi kan vende tilbage til regler for fødevareforsyningen, for landbruget og industrien, der er forbundet med fødevareproduktionen, og for energien, faktisk for hele økonomien.

Det vigtige er princippet om, at mennesket kommer først, at beskytte produktionen og boligerne. I denne krise vil mange mennesker miste deres job, fordi virksomheder vil gå konkurs. Mange mennesker vil miste deres hus, fordi de vil få problemer med at betale deres renter i en galopperende inflation. Det, vi har brug for, er en fastfrysning af huslejer og gældsbetalinger. Det er nødvendigt for at beskytte befolkningen og produktionen. Vi er nødt til at investere i den mest avancerede teknologi med høj energitæthed for at øge produktiviteten. Dette er at bekæmpe inflationen på den rigtige måde.

Vi har nu en situation i Sverige, hvor halvdelen af den svenske befolkning er vred over det svenske etablissementets og regeringens forræderi. Der afholdes et valg den 11. september. Der bør ske store forandringer her, som må og kan blokere for Nato-medlemskabet og modstå krigsfremstødet mod Rusland og Kina!

Vi har denne mulighed nu for at udnytte den opstandelse i befolkningen, der skyldes den økonomiske krise, til at stoppe ansøgningen om Nato-medlemskab. Så dette er vores store chance nu.

Vi bør stræbe efter at arbejde for dette, og Sverige og Finland bør stræbe efter ikke at være bedst i Nato-klassen for krig og økonomisk plyndring, men bedst i klassen for fred og udvikling!

Tak! Det var det, jeg ønskede at sige.

English:

Presentation to the seminar ”We Need a New Security & Development Architecture, Not a Strengthening of Geopolitical Blocs”. (https://youtu.be/G5Xkq-xfFgQ?t=8779 )

Thank you,

On behalf of the Schiller Institute in Sweden, being the co-host of this seminar, I would like to welcome everyone and especially thank the speakers ahead of me for their excellent presentations.

I will try to answer the question: “Why Sweden and Finland should not join Nato?”

Actually, the applications to join Nato were unnecessary, reckless and insane. They were applications unnecessary because there was no threat to Sweden or Finland. Russia was busy on other fronts and there was no intention to attack our countries.

They were reckless because they are increasing the threats to Russia in violation of OSCE treaty, especially the principle of inclusive security which means that you are not allowed to increase your security at the cost of other´s security according to the treaty, actually this is also according to the UN treaty. It was also reckless, because we now have established a line of confrontation in the North of Europe. There used to be in the Cold War a very strong confrontation line on the Continent with big armies standing against each other in Germany and so on. Now we will have the same confrontation line in the North making it an area of instability. The whole Baltic Sea will be blocked with an American policy called 2A/AD, the “Area Denial”-policy, which is now discussed in the Swedish Royal Academy of War Sciencies.

The applications were insane because what we have now is an absolute, immense nuclear provocation possibly a Cuban missile crisis in reverse with Sweden and Finland positioned so close to Russia and especially their bases for the nuclear submarines in the Arctic. Already now B-52 strategic bombers are allowed into Swedish airspace according to the Host Nation Agreement with Nato. I would like to share this picture from February 18th

showing U.S. a B-52 Stratofortress from the Bomber Task Force being escorted by Swedish fighter planes over Sweden. On this occasion there was not only one B-52, but two. Each one of them can carry 12 Tomahawk missiles that could have nuclear war heads. It means, that these B-52 flying from Great Britain into Swedish airspace could, from Swedish territory within minutes, extinguish 24 Russian cities. It was a huge provocation. It was actually the same time, as the increase of the shelling by thirty times in Donbass by the Ukrainian army.

As Jan Öberg suspected, it was a planned attack to bring Sweden into Nato. It was like an ambush. The Swedish former Minister of Defense, Sven Tolgfors, has written in a book (2016) that a security crisis could be expected to shift the Swedish Nato policy. In a security crisis we must be prepared to make it really swift.

We can also see how it came about. Just in few weeks out fear and hysteria Finland and Sweden shifted. This sudden shift is still a shock to especially the Swedish people. What was true two months ago, is now false. Two months ago, Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said: “A Swedish Nato membership would destabilize the region”. Now the Swedes are supposed to be reprogrammed by the mass media pressure.

As the habit of the Swedes are to be “the best in the class” as master the type of “Group think”, which Jan Öberg also mentioned. Now it is expected that Sweden will be “the best in the class” for war against Russia and China. We are in a huge identity crisis among Swedes and especially among the social democratic voters.

Turkey`s opposition to allow membership to the new applicants, sets an example of the lack of sovereignty in Nato. The US is now supposed to “fix” the problem. Where is the so much heralded freedom and sovereignty, which Nato is supposed to defend? The Swedes are shocked to see the treatment of Turkey now, when the US is supposed to put pressure on their decision.

Actually, Turkey is now defending the Swedish and Finnish sovereignty more than our governments. Hopefully, more Nato member nations will join Turkey. It will at least give us more time here to stop this insanity. By blocking our Nato-application, Turkey is defending all of Nato and the world against a huge nuclear weapons crisis. Turkey is actually the grown up in the room, in its organizing the peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, something Sweden and Finland should have concentrated its diplomatic efforts on, instead of joining Nato!

However, Sweden and Finland should take our destiny in our own hands. We must reestablish our former common mission for peace and economic development. We should take part in the establishing a new architecture for security and development for all nations, replacing geopolitics and the robbery by high finance against our nations. Nato has run us over. Together with other nations in the world, now we can make Nato obsolete and bury it.

The first step for Sweden and Finland should be to team up with Italy´s Prime Minster, Mario Draghi, who has just put forward a peace proposal for Ukraine. This kind of international cooperation could also pull in Turkey to put pressure for peace instead of war.

Secondly, we need to bring in the economic dimension because this could decide the whole process of Sweden and Finland not to join Nato. All of Europe need to counter the sanction economic shock wawe. It is a neoliberal shock therapy on steroids, throwing the peoples directly into misery. The sanctions are [not there to help Ukraine but are] an evil looting to unload the financial debt bubbles on to the back of the population, industry, middle class making millions in the West poor, bringing massive starvation to developing nations.

Actually, the war-time looting they will do, by unloading the financial bubble, will be much bigger than the looting being done by the Military Industrial Complex, and as unproductive.

What we have, are the Four laws proposed by Lyndon LaRouche to halt this shock therapy. We should stop the Central Bank money printing for bailing out the failing financial system. We should implement a Glass Steagall bank separation to be able to refuse paying the speculation bubbles. With bank separation we will be able to reestablish banks as banks for productive credit. Then we can establish a National bank for development, issuing productive credit.

Helga pointed already to this policy. I want to point to it again because this could be the absolute center of the resistance to the war policy and the Nato applications. What we need now are regulations to address emergencies of food, energy, electricity. We used to have a regulated electricity system here in Sweden with a very low cost and secure power supply. We can go back to that. We can go back to regulations for the supply of food, for farming and the industry hat is connected to the food production and for the energy, actually for the whole economy.

What is important is the people first principle, to protect production, protect housing. In this crisis many people will lose their jobs because businesses will go out of business. Many people will lose their houses because they will have difficulties to pay their interest in a run-away inflation. What we need, are the freezing of rents and debt payments. This is necessary to protect the people and the production. We need to invest in the most advanced technology with high energy density to increase productivity. This is to fight inflation the real way.

We have a situation now in Sweden where half the Swedish population are angry over the betrayal by their establishment and government. There is an election coming on September 11. There should be huge changes here that can and must block the Nato membership and resist the war drive against Russia and China!

We have this opportunity now to use the uproar in the population because of the economic crisis, to stop the Nato membership application. So this is our big chance now.

We should strive to work for this and Sweden and Finland should strive for not being best in the Nato class for war and financial looting, but the best in class for peace and development!

Thank you! That is what I wanted to say.




Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Baggrunden for krigen mellem Ukraine-NATO og Rusland. Background of the war between Ukraine-NATO and Russia.
Speech at the Schiller Institute’s seminar May 25, 2022.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen er uddannet i idé- og kommunikationshistorie, Moskva-korrespondent for dagbladet Politiken i slutningen af 1990’erne, forfatter til flere bøger om Rusland og Ukraine, leder af organisationen Russisk-Dansk Dialog og lektor i kommunikation og kulturforskelle ved Niels Brock Handelshøjskole i København.
 
Mange tak for invitationen. Jeg synes, at denne konference er meget aktuel og yderst relevant, for jeg har levet i mange år – man kan se på farven på mit hår – og man kan være sikker på, at jeg har levet i flere årtier. Jeg kan ikke huske, at vi i alle disse år efter Anden Verdenskrig har befundet os i en situation, som den vi befinder os i nu. Jeg var en lille dreng under Cuba-krisen i 1962 og vidste ikke særlig meget om den, men erindrer, at mine forældre og alle voksne var meget nervøse over situationen. Men alligevel vil jeg sige, at jeg nogle gange ser tilbage på denne tid under Den kolde Krig, og finder at tingene var meget bedre på dette tidspunkt. Jeg havde aldrig troet, at det skulle komme til dette punkt. Nogle gange vågner jeg op om morgenen og håber, at alting var et mareridt, men er bange for, at det ikke er tilfældet. Er bange for at være i live, og sover ikke, drømmer ikke; det er virkeligheden lige nu. Jeg vil blot sige om Cuba-krisen, at Khrusjtjov og Kennedy fandt et fælles sprog, som man siger på russisk [sætning på russisk 57:01], og de kom godt ud af det sammen, og de fandt en løsning ret hurtigt. De respekterede på en eller anden måde hinanden. Tænk på Nixon og Brezhnev; deres forhold var – selvfølgelig var de modstandere, konkurrenter – selvfølgelig var de det, men de havde en vis respekt for hinanden. Det samme gælder for Reagan og Gorbatjov osv. Så derfor mener jeg, at tiden lige nu er forfærdelig, fordi vi ikke har denne respekt. Hvis man ser på, hvordan de beskriver Putin i alle medierne, og det har de gjort i de 15, næsten 20 år, så er det som nedgørelse, åbent had, foragt og den slags ting. Jeg synes, det er et meget dårligt varsel, det er et meget dårligt tegn på, at vi går nogle meget besværlige tider i møde.
 
Jeg vil gerne tale lidt om to spørgsmål, som meget sjældent bliver stillet, og som meget sjældent bliver besvaret. Det første spørgsmål, som jeg vil tale lidt mere udførligt om, er: “Hvordan er vi endt der? Hvordan er det sket, at vi nu, 30 år efter Sovjetunionens opløsning, er endt i denne situation, hvor vi faktisk er tættere end nogensinde før på menneskehedens udslettelse?” Jeg synes, det er et meget grundlæggende spørgsmål. Det andet spørgsmål er naturligvis: “Hvad gør vi? Hvordan skal vi komme ud af dette? Hvordan kommer vi til forhandlingsbordet for at forhandle om fredsbetingelser og den slags forhold?” Og måske et tredje spørgsmål er naturligvis: “Hvordan opbygger vi en ny verden? Det er ikke lige nu, for nu handler det om, hvordan vi forhindrer en atomkrig?”
 
Jeg vil behandle disse to spørgsmål. Hvordan nåede vi dertil? Jeg tror, Jan Øberg vil tale lidt mere om, hvad vi skal gøre, eller måske snarere, hvad vi ikke skal gøre. Jeg har været med i næsten 30 år, faktisk også i denne årrække hvor jeg arbejdede i Rusland, jeg arbejdede på nogle ambassader i de tidligere sovjetrepublikker, og begyndte at lære det russiske sprog allerede før det. For det andet blev jeg gift med en russer for 30 år siden, i 1992. Vi havde håb om en ny verden, vi havde lige forladt Den kolde Krig, og vi havde håb om, at vi skulle leve i en fredelig verden. Og her er vi så, 30 år senere. Men der er noget håb; vi er ikke blevet skilt, vi har ikke planer om at blive skilt, så der er lidt håb, vil jeg mene.
 
Tilbage til det, der er sket. I 1991, da Sovjetunionen blev opløst, og Warszawa-pagten blev opløst, rejste jeg meget i Rusland. Jeg var meget i Rusland, og jeg havde russiske venner. De var alle entusiastiske, de var alle optimistiske. “Nu går vi ind i en ny verden. Nu har vi en harmonisk verden præget af harmoni og fred og udvikling og den slags ting.” De sagde, at de udtrykkeligt ønskede at være en del af Vesten; de ønskede at dele vores værdier og den slags ting. Hvis man har dette billede i begyndelsen af 1990’erne, var det meget svært at leve i Rusland, fordi alt brød sammen, og der var kaos. Men de ønskede at være en del af Vesten. Så det interessante spørgsmål er, hvad skete der egentlig? Hvorfor gik det ikke sådan? Der er flere trædesten i dette, vil jeg sige, for allerede i begyndelsen af 1990’erne kom Bill Clinton til magten i USA. Han støttede først en plan om, at de østeuropæiske lande skulle blive en del af NATO og lade Rusland stå udenfor. På den måde vil jeg påstå, at han afviste Gorbatjovs forslag om at opbygge et europæisk hus. Der var faktisk en plan om at opbygge et europæisk hus, men det var et europæisk hus baseret på militæret, og Rusland stod udenfor. På dette tidspunkt advarede mange folk i FN, selv i Europa, om, at det ikke ville fungere; det ville helt sikkert ikke fungere, for selv de liberale i Rusland, og mange af disse pro-vestlige liberale sagde: “Det er en meget dårlig idé”.
 
Men det fungerede på denne måde, fordi Clinton insisterede ihærdigt på dette. Det startede på dette tidspunkt. Så havde de, jeg ved ikke, om det var uheld, måske var det med vilje, at de godkendte Polen, Ungarn og Tjekkiet, samtidig med at man begyndte at bombe i Serbien. Serbien er en meget tæt historisk allieret for Rusland.
 
Så på dette tidspunkt var jeg journalist. Jeg talte med en masse mennesker. Jeg talte med Sakharovs enke, Jelena Bonner; jeg talte med alle de liberale – hvem talte jeg ikke med på dette tidspunkt? Og alle var meget skarpt imod dette. På dette tidspunkt, jeg tror, hvis man skal sætte et årstal, var det 1999, et år hvor splittelsen faktisk begyndte; måske begyndte den lidt tidligere, men på dette tidspunkt var den åbenlys. Så kom Putin ind i billedet; han skabte ikke denne situation. Mange mennesker tror, at russerne var liberale, og at den onde Putin kom til. Nej! Det er den anden vej rundt. Faktisk fulgte Putin det russiske folks dagsorden, og endda ikke kun det, for sjovt nok var Putin meget ivrig efter at komme med i NATO. Det er meget interessant at tale om dette i dag. Han ønskede, at Rusland skulle tilslutte sig NATO, det sagde han i hvert fald i et interview med BBC i 2000, da han først blev præsident.
 
Men selv i Afghanistan støttede Putin Vesten. Han hjalp Vesten i Afghanistan. Han gjorde alt for at opnå venskab. Han holdt en tale i Forbundsdagen i Berlin, og han gjorde alt, hvad han kunne. Men han fandt ud af, at det var forgæves, fordi Rusland var dømt til at blive udelukket fra denne nye sikkerhedsarkitektur, fordi den europæiske sikkerhed bestod af NATO uden Rusland.
 
Jeg tror, at alt begyndte at forværres fra dette tidspunkt. Man kunne foretage nogle tiltag. Jeg vil blot nævne nogle få. Man kan sige, at der i 2008 var et NATO-topmøde i Bukarest i Rumænien. På dette tidspunkt var George W. Bush præsident, og han inviterede Georgien og Ukraine til at blive en del af NATO. Frankrig og Tyskland var ikke så begejstrede for dette, så de afviste det faktisk. Men det blev holdt på dagsordenen, at disse to lande fik en invitation. Putin var til stede på denne konference, og han var meget, meget vred. Men der skete ikke rigtig noget. Man kan sige, at løsningen på NATO-topmødet var den værst tænkelige løsning, fordi man for det første fik ukrainerne og georgierne til at tro, at de ville få opbakning fra NATO, hvis de angreb Rusland, eller som Saakashvili i Georgien gjorde i 2008. For det andet øgede den russernes mistanke, og det løste ikke noget. Ud fra det blev det endnu værre. I Ukraine havde man selv på dette tidspunkt en meget russofobisk regering. I Ukraine er der ca. 50 % russisktalende personer, som ikke ønskede at tilslutte sig Rusland, men at have venskabelige forbindelser med Rusland og i det mindste være neutrale som en stat. Mange mennesker i de vestlige dele af Ukraine mente noget andet, nemlig at de skulle tilslutte sig NATO og EU. Så det er på mange måder et splittet land.
 
I det mindste blev Ukraine på dette tidspunkt i 2008 inviteret [til at blive medlem af NATO]. Det er interessant nok, at 17 % af den ukrainske befolkning ønskede at tilslutte sig NATO, mens 66 % ikke ønskede at tilslutte sig NATO. Jeg synes, at det er meget interessante tal, for det siger alt om, hvordan USA havde en dagsorden om at trække Ukraine ud af den russiske sfære, og de skjulte det ikke engang. Zbigniew Brzezinski, som var national sikkerhedsrådgiver, skrev en bog om ”det store skakbræt” {Grand Chessboard}: han skrev åbent, ja, vi ønsker at rive Ukraine ud af Ruslands område. Så hvor meget stabilitet kan man opbygge der? Og tingene blev endnu værre.
 
Interessant nok blev Viktor Janukovitj fra Regionernes Parti i 2010 valgt til præsident, og i 2012 havde hans parti og nogle andre partier flertal. De gik ind for, at Ukraine fortsat skulle være et neutralt land, og for det andet gik de ind for et tæt samarbejde med Rusland med hensyn til gasleverancer og leje af flådebasen i Sevastopol og på Krim osv. Derefter havde de en diskussion – Helga har allerede nævnt det – om associeringsaftalen med EU. Janukovitj læste den meget omhyggeligt og fandt ud af, at den ikke var særlig velgørende for Ukraine, og han afviste at underskrive den.
 
Så kom Maidan og alle den slags ting, og i februar 2014 var der faktisk, hvad jeg ville kalde et kup. Efter min mening kan man ikke kalde det andet end et kup. Det var ikke i parlamentet. Der var ikke nok stemmer i parlamentet, og det var et militærkup, intet mindre end det, vil jeg påstå.
 
Derefter kom ødelæggelsen af Ukraine, for i den østlige del havde de stemt i byer som Lugansk, hvor næsten 90 % havde stemt på Regionernes Parti, i Donetsk var det 85 %, og det samme på Krim, 85 % havde stemt på dette parti, som netop var blevet smidt ud af regeringen. Så de reagerede naturligvis på dette. Og på Krim skete der en løsrivelse fra Ukraine, og de blev i sidste ende en del af Rusland.
 
Herefter startede krigen: Den ukrainske hær begyndte at angribe de republikker, der havde erklæret sig uafhængige. For man kan sige ud fra et juridisk synspunkt, at hvis man kan lave et kup i Kiev, kan man også lave et kup i Donetsk. I Donetsk og Lugansk havde de i det mindste folkeafstemninger. De valgte nye regeringspartier i disse to republikker. Så, sanktionsregimet begyndte allerede der, og der skete en endnu kraftigere forværring af forholdet mellem NATO og Rusland, meget voldsommere. På dette tidspunkt var der faktisk en reel krig i gang i Donbass, den østlige del af Donbass, som er en region i Ukraine.
 
Mange mennesker i Danmark, – jeg diskuterede på nuværende tidspunkt disse ting med mine danske landsmænd, og jeg sagde: “Måske ved du, at 14.000 mennesker er blevet dræbt i denne krig?” “Hvad? Nej, det er russisk propaganda.” Jamen, det er det bestemt ikke, for det er en vurdering fra OSCE, Organisationen for Sikkerhed og Samarbejde i Europa, som jeg vil mene nok er den eneste kilde, vi har til den slags tal. Mindst nogle tusinde af disse 14.000 er civile mennesker, og blandt disse er der mange børn. Men russerne kan også se, at vi ikke græder over disse børn, og vi hejser ikke russiske flag for disse børn i vores lande i Vesten. Så mange russere har en tendens til at tænke “OK, så hvis vi ønsker at sikre de russisk talendes sikkerhed, bør det være Rusland, for EU er slet ikke interesseret.” Den ukrainske regering er bestemt ikke interesseret i at beskytte menneskerettighederne for de mennesker, der ønskede at bevare deres sprog eller have nogle normale forbindelser med Rusland.
 
Dette er altså noget, der foregår i Rusland og i det mindste i en del af det opdelte land, Ukraine. I februar 2015 var der en meget interessant konference i Minsk, og Lukashenko var vært. Der blev indgået en aftale mellem Frankrig, Tyskland, Rusland og Ukraine og også disse to republikker. De underskrev en aftale, ifølge hvilken Ukraine skulle have direkte forhandlinger med lederne af de to republikker – Donetsk og Lugansk – med disse to republikker. Ideen var, at Ukraine skulle ændre sin forfatning for at tillade autonome enheder i Ukraine. Tanken var, at Donetsk og Lugansk skulle være autonome enheder i Ukraine, der skulle bestemme, hvilket sprog der skulle være, og som også skulle bestemme, om de skulle have vetoret i spørgsmål om militærpolitik og lignende forhold. Jeg tror faktisk, at det var det bedste, man kunne opnå, og jeg vil gerne rose Merkel, fordi hun indgik denne aftale uden USA’s umiddelbare støtte. Hun gjorde det på egen hånd; hun tog Hollande fra Frankrig med sig og indgik denne aftale, som var det bedste, man kunne opnå på det tidspunkt.
 
Men meget hurtigt blev det klart, at den ukrainske præsident Petro Porosjenko ikke var herre i eget hus, som vi siger, fordi han ønskede at få det igennem i parlamentet. Hvad skete der? Nogle af disse højrefløjsgrupper, som Helga også omtalte, eksploderede. Medlemmer af parlamentet, tre mennesker blev dræbt på dette tidspunkt. De truede Porosjenko, og sagde at hvis han overhovedet ville fortsætte med at gennemføre disse bestemmelser i Minsk II-aftalen, ville han blive dræbt i en kælder. Han ønskede ikke at blive myrdet i en kælder, så han stoppede det. Senere, Zelenskij, gjaldt det samme for ham. Han sagde, da han stillede op til præsidentvalget, at han ønskede at skabe fred. Han ønskede også at opfylde Minsk II-aftalerne, og hvad skete der? Han blev også truet, og der skete ikke noget. Både Porosjenko og senere Zelenskij sagde, at vi ikke vil opfylde denne aftale. Det er klar tale, kan man kalde det.
 
Men på dette tidspunkt sagde Tyskland og Frankrig ikke noget. Man kunne have forestillet sig, at de ville have sagt til den ukrainske regering: “Vær nu venlige, I har underskrevet en aftale. Vi forventer, at I vil opfylde aftalens bestemmelser.” Så meget mere, så denne Minsk II blev en del af FN’s politik. Sikkerhedsrådet har vedtaget den som officiel FN-politik, men den ukrainske regering var ligeglad med den, og intet vestligt land ville nogensinde nævne, at de skulle opfylde denne aftale.
 
Nu kan jeg se, at jeg er ved at løbe tør for tid. Jeg vil blot sige, at hvis man går lidt længere frem, kom Zelenskij til magten – 70 % af den ukrainske befolkning støttede ham. Hvorfor? Fordi han sagde, at han var for fred; han ville gerne have en aftale med Rusland; han vil løse deres problemer med forhandlinger i Donbass, med Lugansk og Donetsk. Men han blev også truet, og han veg tilbage fra denne politik. I stedet inviterede han endnu mere [militær støtte fra USA] fra 2017-18, det var under Donald Trump. Ukraine blev bevæbnet mere og mere, og de begyndte at have fælles militærøvelser. De installerede også militær teknik i den østlige del, og også i Ukraine. Så man kan sige, at selv om Ukraine ikke var en del af NATO, så var NATO selvfølgelig i Ukraine. Jeg vil gå endnu længere og sige, at der sidste år, i 2021, var flere interessante ting. For et år siden, eller endnu tidligere, det var i marts sidste år, hævdede Zelenskij, at han var nødt til at erklære krig. Han sagde, at han gerne ville tage Krim og Donbass tilbage med militæret og støttet af NATO, ikke med NATO-soldater, men med NATO-udstyr, NATO-træning og lignende ting.
 
I 2021 var der en flådeøvelse i Sortehavet med deltagelse af 32 lande. Yderligere kan man sige, at i februar 2022, den 16. februar, hvis man ser på OSCE’s vurdering af, hvad der skete, hvor de tæller hvor mange eksplosioner, hvor mange skyderier, hvor mange drab, hvor mange dette og hint – det er deres job at gøre dette. De udtalte, at der fra den 16. februar var en stigning på næsten 30 gange flere eksplosioner. Hvad betyder det? Det betyder, at den ukrainske hær på dette tidspunkt allerede havde startet en krig! 110.000 ukrainske soldater var klar i Donbass og klar til at gå ind i Donbass. Desuden havde de som sagt hævdet, at de gerne ville indtage Krim.
 
Så nu er vi nået frem til den 24. februar. Putin var nødt til at forholde sig til situationen. Jeg billiger ikke Putins beslutning. Jeg er ikke sikker på, at det er rigtigt; jeg siger ikke, at det er rigtigt. Men han stod i en meget, meget vanskelig situation. Så denne situation kom ikke bare ud af det blå, ud af ingenting: Der er naturligvis en sammenhæng, der er en historie forud for dette. Hvis vi gerne vil løse problemet, bør vi finde måder at finde fredelige løsninger på. Jeg mener, at vi bør begynde her. Vi bør starte med “Hvorfor er vi endt her?” Vi er også nødt til på en eller anden måde at undersøge “Hvorfor endte vi her?” Måske har vi begået nogle fejltagelser, måske har vi gjort nogle ting her i vores del af verden. Måske har vi gjort noget, der kunne få Putin til at tro, at vi havde onde hensigter. For meget ofte siger vi, at NATO er en defensiv organisation, som ikke kunne drømme om at forstyrre noget som helst. Men hvis man ser på, hvad der sker i Ukraine i det sidste år, i hvert fald fra marts 2021 til februar 2022, hvis man ser på, hvad der skete der, hvis man sidder i Rusland og ser på, hvad der sker der, er det meget, meget tydeligt, at der er intentioner om at tage det tilbage.
 
Dette er en rød linje for Rusland. Det har de sagt. Der er ingen tvivl om, at Rusland har en rød linje, og på en eller anden måde er man nødt til at agere på den. Jeg siger ikke, at det er det rigtige at gøre, men at sige at Putin er en galning, at han bare er blevet skør eller noget, det synes jeg ikke er relevant. Jeg siger ikke, at han har truffet den rigtige beslutning, men han er ikke gal. Han ser faktisk på verden fra en anden vinkel.

English: Jens Jørgen Nielsen, degrees in the history of ideas and communication, a Moscow correspondent for the major Danish daily Politiken in the late 1990s, author of several books about Russia and Ukraine, a leader of the Russian-Danish Dialogue organization, and an associate professor of communication and cultural differences at the Niels Brock Business College in Denmark.
English:

Thank you very much for the invitation. I think this conference is both very timely and very relevant, because I have lived for many years — you can look at the color of my hair — you can be sure that I have lived for several decades. I don’t remember during all these years after the Second World War, we are in a situation like we are in now. I was a small boy during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. I didn’t know very much about it, but I remember my parents and all adults were very nervous about it. But still, I would say now I sometimes look back at this time of the Cold War, and I think things were much better at this time. I never thought I should come to this point. Sometimes I wake up in the morning and hope everything was a nightmare, but I’m afraid it is not. I’m afraid I’m alive and I’m not sleeping, I’m not dreaming; it is reality right now. I’ll just say about the Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev and Kennedy, they found common language like they say in Russian [phrase in Russian 57:01], and they got along and they found a solution pretty quickly. They somehow respected each other. Think of Nixon and Brezhnev; their relationship was — of course they were opponents, competitors — of course they were, but they had some respect for each other. Same goes for Reagan and Gorbachev and so on. So, that’s why I think that the time right now is awful, because we don’t have this respect. If you look at how they describe Putin in all the media, and have been doing so for I would say 15, almost 20 years, it’s like denigration, open hatred, scorn and such kinds of things. I think it’s a very bad omen, it’s a very bad sign that we are in for some very troublesome times.I would like to talk a little about two questions which very seldom are being asked, and very seldom being answered. The first question, which I will talk a little bit more about at length is, “How did we end up there? How did it come to be that now, 30 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, we ended up in this situation where we are actually closer than ever to the annihilation of the human race?” I think it’s a very basic question. Of course, the second question is “What do we do? How shall we get out of this? How do we get to the negotiation table to negotiate peace terms, things like that?” And maybe a third question, of course, “How do we build a new world? It’s not right now, because now is about how do we prevent a nuclear war?”I will handle these two questions. How did we get there? I think Jan Øberg will talk a little bit more about what we should do, or maybe even more, what we should not do. Well, I can say that I’ve been around for almost 30 years, actually also this time I was working in Russia, I worked at some embassies in the former Soviet Republics, and started to learn the Russian language even before that. Secondly, I was married to a Russian, 30 years back, in 1992. We had hopes for a new world, we had just left the Cold War, and we had hopes that we should live in a peaceful world. And here we are, 30 years later. But there is some hope; we are not divorced, we are not planning to do so, so there’s a little hope there I would say.Back to what has happened. In 1991, when the Soviet Union was dissolved, and the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, I travelled a lot in Russia. I was very much in Russia, I had Russian friends. They were all enthusiastic, they were all optimistic. “Now we are entering a new world. Now we have a harmonious world marked by harmony and peace and development, and things like that.” They said they emphatically wanted to be part of the West; they wanted to share our values and things like that. If you have this picture in the beginning of the 1990s, it was very difficult to live in Russia because everything broke down and there was chaos. But they wanted to be part of the West. So, the good question is, what actually happened? Why didn’t it turn out this way? There are several step stones in this, I would say, because already in the beginning of the 1990s, Bill Clinton came to power in the United States. He first endorsed a plan of the Eastern European countries becoming part of NATO, leaving Russia outside. In this way, I would say he declined the proposal of Mr. Gorbachev to build a European house. There was actually a plan to build a European house, but it was a European house based on military, and with Russia being outside. At this time in the United Nations, even in Europe, many people warned that it would not work; it definitely would not work, because even the liberals in Russia, and many of those pro-Western liberals said, “It’s a very bad idea.”But it worked this way, because Clinton was very much insisting on this. And it started at this time. Then they had, I don’t know if it was bad luck, maybe intentionally, that they adopted Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, at the same time as it started to bomb in Serbia. And Serbia is a very close historical ally for Russia.So, at this time, I was a journalist. I talked to a lot of people. I talked to Sakharov’s widow, Yelena Bonner; I talked to all the liberals—who didn’t I talk to at this time? And everyone was very sharply opposed to this. At this time, I think if you should put a year, it was 1999, a year when the split actually began; maybe it started a little earlier, but at this time it was obvious. And then, Putin came into this situation; he didn’t create this situation. Many people think that the Russians were liberals and that the evil Putin came along. No! It’s the other way around. Actually, Putin took the agenda of the Russian people, and even not that, because funny enough, Putin was very eager to join NATO. It’s very interesting to talk about this today. He wanted Russia to join NATO, at least he said so in an interview with BBC in 2000, when he first became President.But even in Afghanistan, Putin supported the West. He helped the West in Afghanistan. He did everything to become friends. He made a speech in the Bundestag in Berlin, and he did everything he could. But he found out that it was in vain, because Russia was doomed to be left out of this new security architecture, because European security was NATO without Russia.I think everything started to deteriorate from this. You could make some stepping stones. I’ll just mention a very few. You can say that in 2008 there was a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania. At this point, George W. Bush was President, and he invited Georgia and Ukraine to become part of NATO. Well, France and Germany were not that enthusiastic about this, so they actually turned it down. But it was kept on the agenda, that these two countries had an invitation. And Putin was present at this conference, and he was very, very angry. But nothing happened really. And you can say the solution at the NATO summit was the worst conceivable resolution, because first, they made the Ukrainians and Georgians think that they would have the backing of NATO if they attacked Russia, or like Saakashvili in Georgia did in 2008. And secondly, it raised the suspicion of the Russians, and it didn’t solve anything. From that, it became even worse. In Ukraine, even at this time, you had a very Russophobic government. In Ukraine, you have approximately 50% Russian speakers, who wanted not to join Russia, but to have friendly relations with Russia and at least be neutral as a state. Many of the western parts of Ukraine, many people there thought otherwise, that they should join NATO and the European Union. So, it’s a divided country in many ways.But at least at this point in 2008, Ukraine was invited [to join NATO]. Interestingly enough, 17% of the Ukrainian population wanted to join NATO; 66% did not want to join NATO. I think those are very interesting figures, because it says everything about how America had an agenda to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit, and they didn’t even hide it. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Advisor, wrote a book about the {Grand Chessboard}: he openly wrote, yes, we want to tear Ukraine out of the orbit of Russia. So, how much stability could you build there? And things got even in worse.And interestingly, in 2010, Viktor Yanukovych from the Party of Regions, was elected President, and in 2012 his party and some other parties had the majority. And they were in favor of Ukraine continuing to be a neutral country, and secondly, they were in favor of close cooperation with Russia in terms of gas deliveries and the rent of the naval base of Sevastopol and Crimea, and so on. Then, you had a discussion — Helga already mentioned it — about the Association Agreement with the European Union. And Yanukovych read it very carefully, and found out that it was not very benevolent for Ukraine, and he declined to sign it.Then, came the Maidan, and all this kind of things, and in February 2014 there was actually what I would call a coup. In my opinion, you cannot call it anything but a coup. It was not in the Parliament. There were not enough votes in the Parliament, and it was a military coup, nothing short of it, I would say.Then came the destruction of Ukraine, because in the eastern part they had voted in towns like Lugansk, almost 90% had voted for the Party of Regions; in Donetsk it was 85%; Crimea the same, 85% had voted for this party, which had just been kicked out of the government. So, of course, they reacted to this. And in Crimea, there was a secession from Ukraine, and they eventually became a part of Russia.So, then the war started: The Ukrainian Army started to attack the republics that had declared themselves independent. Because you can say from a legal point of view, if you can make a coup in Kyiv, you can also make a coup in Donetsk. At least in Donetsk and Lugansk they had referendums. They elected new government parties in these two republics. So, at least there, the sanctions regime started and even much more deterioration between NATO and Russia, much more. At this time, it was actually a real war going on in Donbass, which is the eastern part of Donbass, which is a region of Ukraine.Many people in Denmark, I would now discuss these matters with my fellow Danes, and I say “maybe you know that 14,000 people have been killed in this war?” “What? No, it’s Russian propaganda.” Well, it’s definitely not, because it’s the assessment of the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I think is probably the only source we have for these kinds of figures. At least some thousands of this 14,000 are civilian people, and among those, many children. But the Russians can also see we don’t cry for these children, we don’t raise Russian flags for these children in our countries in the West. So, many Russians tend to think “OK, then, if we want to secure the security of Russian speakers, it should be Russia because the European Union is not at all interested.“ The Ukrainian government is certainly not interested in protecting human rights for those people who wanted to keep their language or have some normal relations to Russia.So, this is something which is going on in Russia, and at least in part of the divided country of Ukraine. In February 2015, there was a very interesting conference in Minsk, and Lukashenko was the host there. It was an agreement between France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine, and also those two republics. They signed an agreement according to which Ukraine was supposed to have direct negotiations with the leaders of those two republics — Donetsk and Lugansk. The idea was that Ukraine was supposed to amend its constitution to allow for autonomous entities in Ukraine. The thought being that Donetsk and Lugansk would be autonomous entities in Ukraine, deciding about which language there would be and deciding also about having veto in questions about military policy, and things like that. And I think it was actually the best you could achieve, and I think at this point I would commend Merkel, because she made this agreement without the immediate support of the U.S.A. She did it on her own; she brought Hollande from France with her, and made this agreement, which is the best you could achieve at the time.But, very soon, it became clear that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was not the master in his own house, as we say, because he wanted to get it through in the Parliament. What happened? Some of these right-wing groups that Helga also talked about, exploded. Members of the Parliament, three people were killed at this point. They threatened Poroshenko, and said that if he would even go on and realize these provisions in the Minsk II Agreement, he would be killed in a basement. He didn’t want to be killed in a basement, so he stopped it. Later on, Zelenskyy, the same goes for him. He said when he ran for President that he wanted to make peace. He wanted also to fulfill the agreements of Minsk II, and what happened? He was threatened too, and nothing happened. Both Poroshenko and later Zelenskyy said that we will not fulfill this agreement. It’s clear speech, you would say.But at this point, Germany and France didn’t say anything. You could have imagined that they would have told the Ukrainian government, “Please, you signed an agreement. We expect that you will fulfill the provisions of the agreement.” So much more that this Minsk II became part of the United Nations policy. The Security Council has adopted it as official UN policy, but the Ukrainian government didn’t care about it, and no Western country would ever mention that they should fulfill this agreement.Now, I see that I am running out of time. I’ll just say that if you go a little further, Zelenskyy came to power — 70% of the Ukrainian population supported him. Why? Because he said he was for peace; he would like to have an agreement with Russia; he will solve their problems with negotiations in Donbass, with Lugansk and Donetsk. But he was threatened also, and he went back from this policy. Instead, he invited even more [military aid from the U.S.] from 2017-18, it was during the reign of Donald Trump, Ukraine was armed more and more, and they started to have common military exercises. They installed military technique also in the Eastern part, and also in Ukraine. So, you could say that even though Ukraine was not part of NATO, NATO was in Ukraine, of course. I would go even further, and say that last year, in 2021, there were several interesting things. One year ago, or even more, it was in March last year, Zelenskyy claimed that he had to declare war. He said he would like to take back Crimea and Donbass with the military, and supported by NATO, not with NATO soldiers, but NATO equipment, NATO training, and things like that.And in 2021, there was a naval exercise in the Black Sea with 32 countries participating in this. And further on, you could say that in February 2022, on Feb. 16, if you look at what the OSCE assessment is of what happened, where they count how many explosions, how many shootings, how many killings, how many this and that—it’s their job to do this. They said that from Feb. 16th, there was an increase of almost 30 times more explosions. What does that mean? It means that the Ukrainian Army at this point already had started a war! 110,000 Ukrainian soldiers were ready in Donbass and ready to enter Donbass. Also, they had claimed, as I said, that they would like to take Crimea.So, now we go to Feb. 24th. Putin had to deal with the situation. I’m not endorsing Putin’s decision. I’m not sure it’s right; I’m not saying it’s right. But he had a very, very difficult situation. So, this situation did not just come out of the blue, out of nothing: Of course, there’s a context, there’s a history before that. And if we would like to solve the problem, we should find ways to find peaceful solutions. I think we should start here. We should start with “Why did we end up here?” And also, we need to somehow look into “Why did we end up here?” Maybe we made some mistakes, maybe we did some things here in our part of the world. Maybe we did something that could make Putin think that we had evil intentions. Because very often we say NATO is a defensive organization that couldn’t dream of upsetting anything. But if you look at what is happening in Ukraine in the last year, at least from March 2021 to February 2022, if you look at what happened there, if you sit in Russia and watch what’s happening there, it’s very, very obvious, that there is the intention of taking this back.This is a red line for Russia. They said so. There’s no doubt that Russia has a red line, and somehow you have to act on it. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but to say that Putin is a madman, that he just became crazy or something, I think it’s not relevant. I’m not saying he made the right decision, but he’s not a madman. He looks at the world from another angle, actually.RASMUSSEN: Thank you very much, Jens Jørgen.