Reidar Kaarboe
Hva Mener Partiene

This is not a conversation with a journalist or a politician - because such a conversation would never take place in Norway. This is a conversation with Gemini, an AI, which I began when I thought of writing a short op-ed for Klassekampen in which I wanted to call for objective arguments for the view that the war in Ukraine was provoked by the US and NATO. So I wanted to test the AI ​​- and it became a conversation that now is published here in its entirety.

My questions and comments are in bold italic large font like this, AI's answers are in normal text, and AI's headlines are in bold normal text.

                                             ♠ ♠ ♠

Are there any arguments that suggest that Russia's war in Ukraine was provoked by the US and NATO? This question has never been posed in Norway, but I think it really is an important one to ask: do such arguments exist or not? Perhaps you have some that you can list briefly?

It is true that this perspective rarely dominates in Norwegian mainstream media, but it is a central part of the international security policy debate – especially within the realist tradition in political science.

Here is a brief summary of the most common arguments making the case for the US and NATO having helped provoke the conflict:

1. NATO expansion eastwards

This is the most important point. From the Russian perspective (and from academics such as John Mearsheimer), it is argued that NATO has broken informal promises made in 1990 not to expand "one inch" eastwards. When countries such as Poland, the Baltic countries [joined NATO], and later the desire to include Ukraine and Georgia followed, this was seen as an existential threat in Moscow.

The argument: No great power would accept a hostile military alliance moving right up to their most important border (often compared to how the US reacted during the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Glenn Diesen
Glenn's Substack

[Speech slightly edited for clarity by this editor.]

The following is my speech at a conference organised by General Michael Flynn at the Gold Institute in Banja Luka, Republika Srpska.

My talk will focus to a large extent on Russia, as it has played a central role in shaping the purpose of transatlantic security over the past 80 years. Furthermore, Russia is a key actor in the multipolar world, an independent pole of power, and China's most important strategic partner. The China-Russia strategic partnership is referred to as Kissinger’s worst nightmare, as his key achievement was to keep these two Eurasian giants apart.

Trump recently met with Xi in Beijing, and shortly thereafter, Putin arrived there as well. The two Eurasian leaders agreed upon a common statement on commitment to a multipolar world. Three years earlier, in March 2023, Xi had told Putin that the world is now undergoing changes not seen for 100 years.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Russia prioritised integration with the West to construct an inclusive Europe – a Greater Europe. With this overarching objective, relations with China and Iran were often ignored and even used as a bargaining chip for Russia to negotiate a place in the West. This is no longer the case; Russia now looks to the East, and countries such as China, Iran, and India are key strategic partners in an effort to reduce dependence on the West and construct a multipolar world order.

Dmitry Medvedev, 3rd President of Russia,
Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council
Russia Today.com (63–80 minutes)

On the eve of Victory Day

Threats by Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from NATO, expressed on March 27, 2026, at an investment forum in Miami, statements by J.D. Vance about Europe’s loss of its identity during an interview with Fox News on March 15, 2026, along with the refusal of European countries to directly join the aggression against Iran and participate in the adventure of the ‘military unlocking’ (and then – blocking) of the Strait of Hormuz are dividing Europe and America more than ever in the last 100 years. These developments demonstrate that European ‘strategic autonomy’, so desired by the liberals, is much closer than it seems. The main question is who will dictate the future agenda in the current toothless and frigid Europe. There are enough applicants: disgusting Brussels eurocracy, chatty and smug Gaulish sodomites and, finally, the German leadership that has grown increasingly vocal about its claims to hegemony in the Old World, while emasculating the responsibility of its ancestors for the crimes of Nazism in the public perception. Let us focus on the latter in more detail.

There is nothing new in the actions of the German leadership (first of all, the descendant of the Nazis Merz & Co). The endeavor to revise the disappointing outcomes of World War II was undertaken by the defeated state almost immediately after the end of the war. The purpose of Nazi followers was to compensate for the political, territorial, ideological and economic costs incurred as a result of the complete military defeat and collapse of German statehood. Along the way, they tried to neatly filter out the atmosphere impregnated by the spirit of Prussian militarism and the stench of National Socialist ideology. The German elites remaining in the western zones of occupation formally and quickly abandoned the legacy of Hitler, who had led his thousand-year Reich to collapse. But they had no desire to truly reject the very ideology of Nazism. Why?

Press TV Staff Writer
PressTV

Thirty-eight days into the US-Israeli war on Iran, which began on February 28 with the assassination of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and top-ranking commanders, the US and Israel continue to target civilian, academic, and industrial infrastructure across the country.

On day 38, Tehran's Sharif University of Technology was hit by US-Israeli airstrikes. Civilian sites in Tehran, Shiraz, and Qom were also attacked, and dozens of civilians, including six children, were martyred during overnight aggression by America and the Israeli regime.

Iran's health, oil, and pharmaceutical sectors also reported extensive damage, while the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) stated that the Strait of Hormuz "will never return to its previous state" for the United States and Israel.

US President Donald Trump publicly threatened that the entire nation of Iran "can be taken out in one night," a declaration widely condemned as a clear war crime and a moral atrocity.

American lawmakers, experts, and media described his rhetoric as "deranged," "dangerous," and proof of a reckless push toward unprovoked conflict.

Amid proposals for a temporary ceasefire, Iran firmly rejected any pause that would allow adversaries to regroup, warning that such moves would only prolong and intensify the war.

Global markets and aviation continued to feel the fallout, with rising oil prices, disrupted trade, and mounting international concern over the human and economic costs of a military aggression launched by the US and Israel against Iran. Key developments from Day 38 of the imposed war:

Reidar Kaarboe
Hva Mener Partiene

What arguments lead some to say that the US is a threat to world peace? The US has gone from being a stabilizing big brother to a source of unpredictability and economic pressure. Here are the main arguments that have emerged in the debate among Western allies:

1. Unpredictability and security guarantees

   ● “Transactional” politics: The argument is that under the Trump administration, the US views alliances as business deals. If a country does not “pay enough” (i.e., the 2% target), it is implied that the US may not defend it. This creates uncertainty that Russia can exploit.

   ● US interest in Greenland has caused deep friction. When Denmark recently added the US to its list of national threat assessments, it was precisely because of fears of US pressure or “gunboat diplomacy” aimed at securing control over Arctic resources.

2. Economic warfare against allies

The US is increasingly using its economic power to exert influence, even against its friends.

   ● Tariffs and customs duties: The argument here is that the US is using tariff barriers as a punishment or leverage to get its way in completely different political issues. This undermines the free world market that the West has built together.

   ● Sanctions: The US has a tradition of imposing sanctions that also affect European companies (so-called “secondary sanctions”). This is perceived as an attack on the sovereignty of allies and their right to pursue their own trade policies.

3. Ideological and democratic instability

There is growing concern that the US's internal political divisions pose a threat to stability in the West.

Dmitry Medvedev (Дмитрий Медведев)
Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council
RT.com / Pravovedenie (.pdf)

"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" – The world keeps changing, and not always for the better. We have witnessed the rapid degradation of many supranational legal structures, which have fallen victim to their dependence on the will, funding and values of the so-called collective West. This is true, for instance, for the International Criminal Court (the Hague Criminal Court). The good intentions which guided those who established it two decades ago have evidently paved the road to hell. The further, the more so.

Deplorable as it may seem, it is more than natural. Suffice it to remember the history of this legal institution, which has gone a short way from alleged demand to full uselessness on the edge of absurdity, bias and cynicism. It is important to understand what its current actions are conditioned by, how to react to them and what, in the end, shall replace this international body, which has compromised itself so quickly.

Leonid Savin
Oriental Review

Afghanistan, Central Asia, Eurasian Union, Iran, Pakistan, [and] Russia

Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan represent important and interconnected links of chain in the region

If to use the method of combining political geography and geopolitics, it is easy to reveal that the group of countries located north of the Arabian Sea has several common features. Part of modern Iran and Afghanistan represent historical Greater Khorasan, and the Pashtun belt stretches from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Pakistan and Iran are united by Balochistan (in both countries there are separatist Balochi (Baluchi) movements actively sponsored from the outside). All three countries are Islamic states – the first to gain independence from Britain was the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1947, after the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, this state also moved from the monarchical system to the Islamic Republic (with a specific institution Wilayat al-Faqih), and Afghanistan, in 2021, re–became an Islamic Emirate (previously it was under the Taliban from 1996 to 2001). And in ancient times they were all part of the Sasanian Empire.

Each country has many more interesting cultural, ethnic, and religious features. Although Afghanistan has no access to the sea, it is organically adjacent to the southern part of the Eurasian Rimland (coastal zone), which for a long time was controlled by the Anglo–Saxons – directly or indirectly.

Glenn Diesen
Glenn's Substack

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 laid the foundation for the modern world order, which is based on a balance of power between sovereign equals to obstruct hegemonic ambitions. The Westphalian balance of power could reduce zero-sum rivalries by championing the principle of indivisible security, as enhancing adversaries' security would also improve one's security.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US has been promoting a revisionist world order based on US hegemony and sovereign inequality, which is legitimized under the banner of universal liberal values. The hegemonic world order aimed to transcend international anarchy, yet it was inevitably temporary and unstable as its durability depended on obstructing the rise of potential rivals and promoting a system of sovereign inequality. The era of hegemony is already over as the world transitioned to a multipolar balance of power, and there is a need to rediscover the principle of indivisible security.

China's Global Civilisational Initiative can contribute to restoring and improving a stable Westphalian world order based on a balance of power among sovereign equals. China's Global Civilizational Initiative, organized around the principle of "the diversity of civilizations", can be interpreted as a rejection of universalism and thus support for sovereign equality. By rejecting the right to represent the values of other people, the Global Civilizational Initiative reassures the world that an intrusive US hegemony will not be replaced by an intrusive Chinese hegemony. The Global Civilization Initiative complements China's economic and security initiatives around the world, which are also organized around the principle that stability requires a multipolar world order.

Daniele Ganser
Journal of 9/11 Studies

The “Strategy of Tension” in the Cold War Period *

[06/02/14] Historians today and in the coming years face a challenging task: they must write the history of the events of September 11, 2001. What they write will be taught in history classes. But what will they write? Will they write that Osama Bin Laden sent 19 Muslims to launch a surprise attack on the U.S.? Or will they write that the administration of President George W. Bush was responsible for the attack, either constructing it or deliberately permitting it in order to shock the U.S. population and to create a pretext for increasing military spending and attacking Afghanistan and Iraq?

Having examined much of the data related to the 9/11 events, I am convinced a new and thorough investigation is needed. But when I have questioned the official narrative of 9/11 in my native Switzerland I have encountered vigorous objections from people. Why would any government in the world, they have asked, attack its own population or, only slightly less criminal, deliberately allow a foreign group to carry out such an attack? While brutal dictatorships, such as the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, are known to have had little respect for the life and dignity of their citizens, surely a Western democracy, the thinking goes, would not engage in such an abuse of power. And if criminal elements within a Western democracy, in North America or in Europe, had engaged in such a crime, would not elected officials or the media find out and report on it? Is it imaginable that criminal persons within a government could commit terrorist operations against innocent citizens, who support the very same government with the taxes they pay every year? Would nobody notice? These are difficult questions, even for academics who specialize in the history of secret warfare. But in fact, there are historical examples of such operations being implemented by Western democracies.

In this essay, I will not deal directly with 9/11 but will look at what we can learn from history. I will report on some of the newest academic data about secret warfare during the Cold War. A secret military strategy that targets domestic populations with terrorism does indeed exist. It is called the “strategy of tension.” And it was implemented by Western democracies.

Leonid Savin
Oriental Review

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was visiting
Moscow on July 8-9 to co-chair the 22nd Russia-
India Annual Summit with President Vladimir Putin.

The 22nd annual Russia–India Summit took place in Moscow.

Arriving in Moscow on July 8, Prime Minister Narendra Modi called Russia India‘s “all-weather friend” and praised President Vladimir Putin‘s leading role in strengthening bilateral relations over the past two decades. The Prime minister also said that for a long time, the world had witnessed an “influence-oriented global order” “But, what the world needs right now is confluence not influence and no one can deliver this message better than India which has a strong tradition of worshipping confluences,” Modi said.

How can these words be interpreted? At first glance, the Indian Prime Minister calls for a kind of convergence. However, the East is a delicate matter, and this phrase can be interpreted both as a fusion of several streams and as a mutual influence.

At a meeting with the Indian diaspora in Moscow on July 9, Modi stressed that “Indians in Russia are strengthening bilateral ties by contributing to the development of Russian society... As soon as they hear the word ‘Russia’, every Indian thinks that it is a trustable friend; a friend in joy and sorrow…“