How Peace-Oriented Norway Learned to Stop Worrying and Love War

Prof. Glenn Diesen

How Peace-Oriented Norway Learned to Stop Worrying and Love War
By Prof. Glenn Diesen

Norway identifies itself as a model of a liberal and tolerant peace-oriented nation. Yet, a collective mindset has developed with intense distrust and loathing of anyone who deviates from the government’s official truth and war narratives.

Here is a social experiment to test the claim above. I am a professor of political science, but I am also a politician running for Parliament. My recently established political party is primarily an anti-war party, and we started a poster campaign on public transportation in Oslo. The core message was that we are for negotiations and against weapons for the war in Ukraine. This seemed like a reasonable position as Norway previously had (until 2022) a policy of not sending weapons to countries at war (as it escalates and can make us a participant), and our country used to advocate for diplomacy and negotiations as the path to peace. Norway has abandoned these policies and unified under the new mantra that “weapons are the path to peace”, and we have boycotted basic diplomacy with Russia for more than three years at a time when hundreds of thousands of young men died in the trenches. Was our peace-oriented nation ready to at least consider the argument that we should return to our former policies of negotiating instead of fueling the war with more weapons to fight the world’s largest nuclear power?

The country lost its collective mind... Politicians called it a dangerous Russian influence operation. I had taken the side of Russia in supporting the invasion. I am an agent for Russia spreading Russian propaganda. It was argued that the national intelligence services should get involved, as I am likely financed by the Russian state. Soon thereafter, the national intelligence agency, PST, reassured the public that they are looking into people who may, at the behest of a foreign power, attempt to make Norwegians critical of the government’s policies on sending weapons to Ukraine.[1] Almost every media outlet in the country framed the issue on the premise that I am “pro-Russian” and “anti-Ukrainian”. People began tearing down the posters, and some compared their political vandalism with liberating the country from Hitler during the Second World War. People were intoxicated with self-righteousness and moral superiority as the tribe united in virtue and the fight for freedom. Their hatred of the evil “other” was celebrated as evidence of their righteousness as they formed a resistance against us, fascist agents of Russia who support the destruction of Ukraine and would like to see Russia conquer Europe.

At this point, it should be noted that I consider myself a friend of Ukraine. I have warned against war in Ukraine for the past 20 years, and I have obviously not supported the invasion of Ukraine. Much like many political leaders across the West have argued over the past 30 years, I believe that NATO expansion triggers a security competition and eventually war, much like it would if Russia established its military infrastructure in Mexico. My argument is that Russia considers NATO expansion an existential threat and responds based on these convictions, irrespective of NATO not agreeing with Russia’s threat assessments. I therefore argue for diplomacy and against sending weapons, as it will only escalate the war, destroy Ukraine, and take us closer to nuclear war.

I consider this to be a pro-Ukrainian position and a pro-Western position, to speak in the language of my tribal countrymen who do not care for arguments about security competition. It should be noted that our own Prime Minister argued after the Russian invasion that it was “out of the question” to send weapons, yet this position has since been criminalised and reserved for agents of Russia. I discovered that my position is not sufficiently anti-Russian, since I believe the broken security architecture is the source of the war, and the discourse in Norway is reduced to basic tribal loyalties of picking one side or the other. Norwegian society only tolerates arguments that are based on the premise that we are not to blame and our solidarity must be based on condemning the “other”. The premise of an “unprovoked invasion” is therefore sacred. Consequently, enhancing our security by mitigating the security competition with Russia is impossible, as we are not allowed to discuss Russian security concerns. War predictably becomes the only path to peace.

The political campaign resulted in a televised public debate where our former defence minister / foreign minister was represented on the other side. In what resembled a show from Jerry Springer rather than a debate, her tactic was to be condescending and accuse me of being a propagandist for Russia. Whatever could have resembled an actual argument was premised on the idea that I am “pro-Russian”, while the government is “pro-Ukraine”. My dissent was thus a threat to national security. The purpose was never to discuss whether Russia is pursuing an empire or responding to what it considers to be an existential threat, and the purpose was certainly not to discuss whether weapons and boycott of diplomacy are the path to peace.

Then the media, functioning as a branch of government, stepped in to “fact-check” the debate. Or more precisely, the media only “fact-checked” one side, while the obvious lies told by our former defence minister / foreign minister went unchecked. Also, the “fact-checkers” were more like narrative checkers, as I was accused of “using several arguments that fit Russia’s most important narratives about the war in Ukraine”.[2]

The more dishonest media never bothered to check the facts supporting my arguments, and instead approached “fact-checking” by picking one ambiguous source to conclude I am not reliable. For example, I made the argument that Boris Johnson sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement at the behest of the US and UK, yet the newspaper then only picked Davyd Arakhamia as an ambiguous source. Why did they not mention the two mediating sides, the Turkish (the foreign minister and President Erdoğan) or the Israeli (former Prime Minister Bennett), who confirm the negotiations were sabotaged to use Ukrainians to weaken a strategic rival? Why did they not cite the former head of the German military, General Kujat, who says the same? Why not reference interviews with American and British leaders who argued that the only acceptable outcome was regime change in Moscow? Why did they not cite the words of Boris Johnson himself as he expressed his disdain for the negotiations and warned against a “bad peace”?

The more honest media had the decency to at least publish the facts I presented, although they still had to muddy the waters. For example, I argued that the West knew that we backed the coup in Kiev in 2014 and pushed NATO expansion, despite knowing that only a small minority of Ukrainians (about 20%) wanted NATO membership and despite knowing it would likely trigger a war. The evidence cannot be disputed, so the fact-checker argues the Ukrainians were “ignorant” of NATO’s mission and had been propagandised, and points out that after the Russian invasion, there has been a majority support. This information and these claims have absolutely nothing to do with the argument that we knew only a small minority wanted NATO membership in 2014, and we knew it would likely result in war. All the “fact-checking” was intended to discredit.

The considerations of the rational individual have been defeated in Norway by the tribal mindset and groupthink. The government’s policies and war narratives represent virtue and truth, and all opposition is thus immoral and deceptive. The premise of every argument from politicians and their stenographers in the media was that they were on the side of the innocent Ukrainian victim, and I represented the evil Russian aggressor. There is no interest in engaging with arguments; rather, there is an obsession with exposing the hidden evil intentions of their opponents. Toward this end, anything is permitted in the “good fight”. The national intelligence services warned, with a not-so-subtle hint to me, that they are aware of efforts to polarise the public. Not only is it completely unacceptable for me to enter Parliament as I allegedly represent Putin, but my employment as a professor at a Norwegian university is also problematic, as I repeat “Russian narratives”. How did Norway become authoritarian and gung-ho about war?

The Propagandised Norwegian

I will write here about “the Norwegian”, the collective national consciousness that serves the purpose of overwhelming the rational individual. Sigmund Freud famously recognised that the individual is rational, although human beings are also influenced by an irrational group psychology. Human beings have throughout their entire history organised in groups for security and meaning, and adjusting to the group is one of the dominant instincts in human nature. Carl Jung famously wrote about the limits of reason: “Free will only exists within the limits of consciousness. Beyond those limits there is mere compulsion”.[3]

The key component of group psychology is to divide individuals into “us” (the in-group) and the “other” (the out-group). When human beings are exposed to uncertainty and fear, there is an instinct to demand internal solidarity and denounce the out-group. Authoritarian tendencies tend to thrive when exposed to external threats.

The literature on political propaganda originates primarily from Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, who built on his uncle’s work. Bernays recognised that manipulating the stereotypes of what represents “us” and the “other” diminishes the relevance of objective reality and the considerations of the rational individual. When we use military force, is it for freedom, and when our adversaries do the exact same thing, it is to advance empire and destroy freedom. The core of propaganda is therefore to present the world as good versus evil, and as superior versus inferior. The Western political propaganda that previously framed the world as the civilised versus the barbaric has been recast as the struggle of liberal democracy versus authoritarianism. If the public accepts this basic premise, the complexity of the world is simplified and dumbed down to the extent that dissent is immoral and dangerous. All that matters then is that you display loyalty to the in-group.

Walter Lippmann famously argued that political propaganda had the benefit of mobilising the public for conflict, yet it had the disadvantage of preventing a workable peace. When the public has bought into the premise that they are in a struggle between good and evil, how could they accept mutual understanding and compromise? The propagandised public reaches the conclusion that peace depends on the good defeating the evil. In almost every conflict and war of the West, the opponent is presented as a reincarnation of Hitler, and the Western political-media establishment lives perpetually in the 1930s as negotiations are appeasement and war is peace. This is profoundly problematic as the first step in reducing the security competition is recognising mutual security concerns.

Carl Schmitt, the scholar from Hitler’s Nazi Party, argued that organising politics along the friend-enemy binary also enabled governments to purge dissent. Schmitt’s concept of the enemy within strengthens political unity by purging those who do not display in-group loyalty and fail to conform to the beliefs and behaviour of the social order. The Norwegian has now experienced a decade of non-stop obsession with the Russiagate Hoax, Covid and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The fear and the search for enemies within to purge has exhausted the rational individual. We have now outsourced our critical thinking to the government and seek comfort in Orwell’s two-minute hate, in which we join the media-fuelled moral outrage against the enemies of the state. The moral indignation gives safety, meaning and unity.

The problem is spreading across Europe. In France, the main opposition leader has been arrested in what is seemingly a politically motivated attack. In Germany, the largest political opposition party has been labelled an “extremist organisation”, which enables the intelligence agencies can go after members. It is likely also a first step to banning the opposition party. In Romania, the election results in the presidential election were cancelled, and the winner was not allowed to run again. In the do-over of the Romanian elections, France and the EU were accused of interfering in the election to make sure the Romanians would not vote the wrong way again. Interference in Moldova and Georgia was also done under the banner of defending democracy from Russia. The irony is that the internal solidarity of the West as a “liberal democratic community” is, to a large extent, reliant on the Russian “other” playing the role of the bogeyman, which creates the groupthink that tears away at the liberal character of the West.

People tend to exaggerate what they have in common with the in-group, and exaggerate the differences with the out-group. The Norwegian has some contempt for America when compared with Norway, especially when they vote the wrong way. The Norwegian can, for example, not understand why the Americans would vote for Trump. This is because the Norwegian does not actually know why Americans voted for Trump, since the Norwegian media functioned as a campaign manager for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It is common to portray Americans as stupid, aggressive, and under Trump, it is not uncommon to introduce the word fascism. However, when in conflict with Russia, the American transforms into the in-group. With the simplistic division of good versus evil, the American is cast as the good guy. The US has a security strategy of global primacy, yet the Norwegian is suspicious of arguments that the US security strategy does not consist of advancing liberal democratic values. By extension, NATO is a “force for good”, and you would not question it unless you are seeking to sow divisions to undermine our goodness. NATO occupied Afghanistan for 20 years in a strategic part of Central Asia so small girls would be allowed to go to school, Libya and Syria was destroyed to defend human rights, and the expansion of the military bloc is solely motivated by the goal of offering protection to other peoples. Moscow could not possibly think the US would ever attack Russia, while ignoring the current proxy war and the continuous talk of possible wars with Iran and China. The Norwegian must refer to NATO as a defensive alliance even whilst it is bombing countries that never threatened a NATO country. Leading NATO countries are now complicit in genocide in Gaza, yet the benign liberal democratic identity we have assigned to ourselves is impervious to reality. If you criticise the West, it is not because you advocate for course correction, but because you stand with our enemies.

The Norwegian as a Moral and Liberal Authoritarian

Liberalism is renowned for having an internal contradiction that must be managed. Liberalism is based on tolerance to accommodate the rights of the individual to deviate from the group, yet liberalism is also based on the assumption of universalism in terms of all societies conforming to the liberal ideals.

The Norwegian accepts that all people are different and tolerate diversity, yet his liberal convictions are universal and more developed in Norway, others must thus follow the same path. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. The Norwegian has embraced liberal principles such as mass immigration, radical secularism, gay marriage, gender ideology and humanitarian wars, and will ostracise and crush anyone who does not follow the same conviction. For example, believing that marriage is between a man and a woman was an acceptable opinion 15 years ago, but today it makes you intolerant and there is no tolerance for your intolerance. The Norwegian politician may not know the first thing about China, with its thousands of years of history and population of 1.4 billion, yet the Norwegian politician has a remarkable confidence in knowing exactly how China should be run as a country.

The Norwegian has been trained to speak in the language of morality to suppress factual discussion. Framing all arguments as moral implies that the opponents are immoral. Critical debate and open debate suffer as rational arguments, and nuance is replaced with moral righteousness and condemnations.

“Helping Ukraine”

The good versus evil premise that cannot be contested is that the Norwegian government is on the side of Ukraine, it is “pro-Ukrainian”, it “supports” and “helps” Ukraine. In contrast, dissidents such as myself who criticise the government’s policies are “anti-Ukrainian” who legitimise or support the invasion in solidarity with Russia. For the Norwegian, even a democratic debate between the two sides is morally repugnant as it gives voice to Russian propaganda.

I usually counter the false premise by arguing that NATO’s “help” entailed supporting the toppling of Ukraine’s government in 2014, which did not have the support of the majority of Ukrainians or their constitution. This was largely done to “help” Ukraine join NATO, but only about 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO in 2014. The US merely “helped” when it took control over key governmental positions in Ukraine and had to rebuild Ukrainian intelligence services from scratch as an ally against Russia, from the first day after the regime change in 2014.

When 73% of Ukrainians voted for the peace platform of Zelensky in 2019, NATO decided to “help” destroy the popular peace mandate as it represented “capitulation”. Nationalists, supported by the “NGO” Ukraine Crisis Media Centre, presented “red lines” that Zelensky was not allowed to cross.[4] Zelensky had his life threatened repeatedly and publicly if he dared to cross these red lines, and he eventually abandoned his peace mandate. Several Western governments, including the Norwegian government, finance this “non-governmental organisation”.[5] There is an abundance of evidence that the US sabotaged the Istanbul peace negotiations in April 2022 and wanted a long war that uses Ukrainians to bleed Russia, yet the proxy war is fought under the banner of solely “helping” Ukraine. Criticising the idea that NATO, the world’s largest military alliance and an important instrument to advance US global hegemony, is solely preoccupied with helping Ukraine, is a key premise that cannot be challenged. Anyone attempting to question it is met with vicious attacks and accusations of standing with the enemy.

To ensure that the groupthink is managed, “democratic institutions” such as government-funded NGOs are tasked to herd the masses. The government-funded Norwegian Helsinki Committee, another “non-governmental organisation”, is also financed by the US government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Reagan and the CIA Director established NED in 1983 as a “human rights organisation” to manipulate civil society in other countries. It is an ideal propaganda arm for the government, as competing power interests in the world and subsequent conflicts can be sold to the public as a struggle between good and evil. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee, a government-financed “non-governmental organisation”, writes regular hit-pieces on me, smears me non-stop on social media as a Putin-propagandist, attempts to cancel my invitations to speak, and attempts to have me fired by always shaming the university for giving me credentials that I allegedly abuse to spread propaganda. This includes calling and sending letters to the university. I must hide my address and phone number as the public is regularly told I am “anti-Ukrainian”, while an employee at this “human rights organisation” posted a picture of the sales advertisement of my house on social media. The leader of this NGO that has spent more than four years to smear, intimidate, censor and cancel me explained to the media that it was done as a nice gesture to help me sell my house. When I compared their intimidation to the intimidation of the brownshirts at universities, the scandal was that I compared this virtuous “democratic institution” to the brownshirts.

The Norwegian as a Sociopath

The rational individual is humanistic, but the collective consciousness of the Norwegian has taken on sociopathic traits with a lack of empathy, chronic lying, deceit, aggression, irresponsibility, and an absence of remorse.

The Norwegian is taught to express empathy for Afghans when it justifies occupation, Syrians when it justifies regime change, Libyans when it justifies military intervention, etc. However, once the strategic objective is achieved, there is no attention or empathy expressed. As we leave behind death and destruction, there is no remorse, as our alleged intentions were good. In Ukraine, the Norwegian is taught to have great empathy when it comes to advancing the war efforts. In contrast, the Norwegian will react with suspicion and anger if anyone mentions the suffering of the people in Donbas over the past decade, “military recruiters” dragging people off the streets and out of their homes, the attacks on the media, the denial of political rights, language rights, cultural rights or religious rights. The empathy for Ukrainians is instrumental, it is evoked or suppressed based on the purpose it serves.

Ukrainians who want to fight the Russians make the headlines, while Ukrainians such as former Western-backed presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko have disappeared from the media after she accused the West of using Ukrainians to weaken Russia. Ukrainians who fail to play the role of wanting to fight to the last man are also met with suspicion and should not be allowed to speak on behalf of their country. The narrative must be defended from facts, and in the good fight, it is virtuous to lie and deceive. Irresponsibility is now framed as being principled, as, for example, Russia’s nuclear deterrent must be referred to as an unacceptable nuclear blackmail that must be rejected. Insisting on continuing to fight a losing war in which Ukrainians lose more men and territory every day is “pro-Ukrainian”, because the alternative is a Russian victory that is “pro-Russian”. The deeper the belief in the righteousness of the cause, the easier it becomes to love the war that serves it.

[Many thanks to Matthew Alford for the audio reading of this article.]

[1]

PST snakker om utenlandsk påvirkning etter FOR-debatten

[2]

Faktasjekk: Partiet Fred og rettferdighet (FOR) og russiske påstander om krigen i Ukraina

[3] Jung, C.G., 1973. Letters 1: 1906-1950. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p.227.

[4]

Joint statement by civil society representatives on the first political steps of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky | UACRISIS.ORG

[5]

Donors - Uacrisis.org