Cancelling "Controversial" Scholars

Banning dissent with vague labels that make no sense

In response to an article in Khrono, I want to challenge the label "controversial" that was used to describe me. Controversial means that there are strong and conflicting opinions to what I am arguing.

But academics should use scientific methods to challenge established truths. This is particularly important in international conflicts where consensus in society is to a large extent shaped by the human instinct to respond to threats with conformity and solidarity.

Every time there are attempts to censor and cancel me, it is based on the fact that I have "controversial" arguments about Russia and the war in Ukraine. If my arguments are based on hard facts that are important for understanding the war in Ukraine, then it can still be labeled as "controversial" if it contains information that has been left out of the public debate.

Let me give one example of how reality can become "controversial". There is now a strong consensus in Norwegian society that Russia's invasion was not a reaction to NATO expansionism, but motivated by territorial expansion. Was this established truth shaped through the scientific method where freedom of speech allowed us to present all the facts? Or has society been under enormous pressure to present this conflict as a battle between good and evil forces, where even explaining is condemned as defending? There is overwhelming evidence that Russia invaded to prevent NATO expansion, yet it is never reported in the media. How is it possible that none of our journalists report on facts that can be proven and are of the highest relevance to the public to understand this conflict?

In war, the human instinct to seek safety in the group is strengthened. We only discover in retrospect that the war narratives were full of errors, and that the poor analysis led to a bad policy that harmed our own security interests. Since the demand for conformity is great and we punish dissent and deviation from the group, academia is an important balance as ignoring reality undermines the possibilities for peace.

If we believe that Russia will continue to invade new countries, then it supports the argument that "weapons are the path to peace" - even if it could result in a major war. But if Russia wants limitations on NATO's presence along their borders, then there are possibilities for peaceful solutions.

When the word "controversial" is combined with "pro-Russian", it becomes impossible to discuss arguments. Suspicion of the person becomes the main focus. The term "pro-Russian" is a charged and tendentious term as it suggests that the person concerned has chosen a side against our country, that there is loyalty with the out-group against the in-group.

I argue that the West's policy towards Russia over the past 30 years has put us on a collision course and undermined our own security. Should this be labeled as "pro-Russian" and "anti-Western" arguments? The point of departure for conflict resolution is understanding the other party's security concerns. Is it possible to analyze international security with such restrictions on freedom of expression?

It is possible that I am wrong in my analysis of Russian intentions and there are obviously counter-arguments, but in academia and in an open society, arguments must be allowed to compete in order to get the best possible understanding of reality.

Labeling dissenters as "controversial" is a method of legitimizing censorship and cancellation. This is particularly problematic as the strong consensus in society was formed by leaving out very basic information.

https://www.khrono.no/jeg-en-kontroversiell-forsker/881452?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0CVRe92voCoaax03gAEO_LcPhiftvDPLrqkXeMj49udEu-z3tcAP_WBuU_aem_ZmFrZWR1bW15MTZieXRlcw