Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Western Europe, Russian Aggression, Putin, Zelensky, China, and India: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (8)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2022/05/22

Abstract

Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies, including World Genius Directory, NOUS High IQ Society, 6N High IQ Society just to name a few. He has several IQ scores above 160+ sd15 among high range tests like Gift/Gene Verbal, Gift/Gene Numerical of Iakovos Koukas and Lexiq of Soulios. Tor Arne was also in 2019, nominated for the World Genius Directory 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe. He is the only Norwegian to ever have achieved this honor. He has also been a contributor to the Genius Journal Logicon, in addition to being the creater of toriqtests.com, where he is the designer of now eleven HR-tests of both verbal/numerical variant. His further interests are related to intelligence, creativity, education developing regarding gifted students. Tor Arne has an bachelor`s degree in history and a degree in Practical education, he works as a teacher within the following subjects: History, Religion, and Social Studies. He discusses: European interpretation of the Russo-Ukrainian war; the major losses and wins for the Western countries in this war; Putin; Zelensky; the massive disagreement with the Russian Federation’s actions from the United Nations General Assembly; other major players on the world stage; China; African states; the post-colonial states with large economies; this conflict on 1 to 10; reactive commentary; nuclear weapons; the Nordic countries; the U.N. condemnation; the “neutral zone”; health; bold moves and a legacy; a bilateral conflict; a war in the economic sphere; cyberwarfare; democratic development; Sino-Russian relations; and any sympathetic statements by Western European leaders.

Keywords: China, India, NATO, Russia, Tor Arne Jørgensen, United Nations, Western Europe, Zelensky.

 Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Western Europe, Russian Aggression, Putin, Zelensky, China, and India: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (8)

*Please see the references, footnotes, and citations, after the interview, respectively.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the European interpretation of the Russo-Ukrainian war at the moment?

Tor Arne Jørgensen[1],[2]*: The general view that we in Europe have, and with that I mean the Nordic countries bordering Russia in particular, is that with this war and the possibility for aggression that Russia poses against us, especially against Sweden and Finland which are not included as per today into the NATO alliance are viewed as grave to say it mildly.

An imminent accession into NATO for these two Nordic countries will not be an easy decision by the two nations leaders to make, as the border with Russia and an ever-increasing narrowing of the “neutral zone” if one can call it that between NATO alliance and Russia. Thus, it is not an easy decision to make, as this neutral zone and its weathering can accelerate an all-out escalation of the conflict between the West and the East. Russia and the West do not benefit from such a direct neighborhood, a neutral zone must be established so that the war does not become global.

Here in the West and especially Europe, we must hold back, send the proper signals to the United States, not to push more than necessary, by that I mean, purposely to create stability and going forward to perhaps put an end through acts of diplomacy and dissolving warring between Russia and Ukraine. This sums up what we in Europe now hope for in my view.

Jacobsen: What have been the major losses and wins for the Western countries in this war?

Jørgensen: The losses are clear, with the intention of looking at oil and gas, but not nearly as bad as for Russia, as this has so far been a disaster for its economy. Western military victories are probably not something to be viewed, as any territories have not been taken or given over by eastern states. So the losses are seen only in economic terms so far, while the victories are noticed by increased support against dictatorial tyranny, and the advance of democratic values.

Jacobsen: What did Putin underestimate?

Jørgensen: The Ukrainian leadership and the will of the Ukrainian people to resist Russian aggression.

Jacobsen: What did Zelensky underestimate?

Jørgensen: He was probably not aware of the role he was to play during this war, in which the similarities with England’s greatest statesman of all time, Winston Churchill has been made openly. Furthermore, the West’s enormous support as to both humanitarian and military, and as well as an overall global compassion and support from all generations young and old.

Jacobsen: How has the massive disagreement with the Russian Federation’s actions from the United Nations General Assembly changed the international discourse on the war?

Jørgensen: The fact that the Russian Federation has a permanent seat at the Security Council and thus cannot be removed indefinitely by allowing the current government to continue to govern as they please. But the suspension from the UNHRC and the symbolic significance it has is possibly a sign of a shift in the balance of power, or the influential effect that the Russian Federation has in its executive mandate.

Whether this will then be what it takes to create a new or alternative direction through changed attitude towards the United Nations and its Security Council, or whether new guidelines should be considered of what a member state can allowed itself to do in accordance with human rights violations in wartime remains to be seen. That a change in membership conditions should be brought up for debate is clear.

The UN’s reputation as a peacekeeping organization during peacetime or not is being put to the test more now than ever before since the organization first began just after WWII and the foundation from which it was built on. Sees now a change of organizational absolutes as an inevitably necessity, viewed from the current situation regarding the Russian-Ukraine war and the powerlessness in which the United Nations finds itself in the same manner as during the time of the League of Nations.

Jacobsen: What about other major players on the world stage either by economy or population size, or both? How is India taking this wartime issue? 

Jørgensen: India’s economic implications resulting from the war between Russia and Ukraine have their clear effect as to the fall in the global market, prompt from the fall in the stock market, specifically with reference to India’s dependence on oil in various forms, including sunflower oil coming from both countries (Russia-Ukraine). Furthermore, technological implicit in the tech sector, not to forget the pharmaceutical sector.

India can certainly adjust towards a more independent policy line, where a rather marginalized strategy, result to a reducing of outsourcing, may in the long run prove to be beneficial not only for India, but for most countries whereas their independence or promos must be reconsidered as these the type of conflicts as we now see will probably not remain isolated in the future. The protection of one’s natural resources, and upscaling of and for one’s close bilateral relations across close neighbors, can break outstretched and more insecure imports of the most vulnerable of resources.

Jacobsen: What is China doing now in reaction if any?

Jørgensen: It seems to me that China keeps a low profile still and cleverly so, because one must keep in mind that China has here a unique opportunity to observe the West’s and its reaction with reference to the Russia -Ukraine ongoing conflict. How stable and structured is NATO today, where is the community’s trust, and to what extent is NATO’s military might view today. One must not look at today’s NATO in the same manner as to its military capabilities as the former League of Nations and to what it had in its arsenal nor its lack of a tight alliance. NATO is probably stronger today than ever before. But I must admit, that to what extent NATO’s role had to play after the fall of the Iron Curtain back in -89, when the need of such an alliance was no longer so pressing in what seemed to be peacetime and added in the Warsaw Pact’s dissolution during the summer of -91.

But back to China and the role of the Chinese government now, is I think, to sit tight, wait, stay calm, take notes regarding, strategically, materially, economically, and finally the key most important thing, honor, to keep their honor and not lose face, something that Russia has so solemnly now done perhaps irrepealably damage its own role as an historically important powerhouse. This is probably what will be mostly important for China to do now, furthermore, its role ahead in terms of the China -Taiwan controversy and adding NATO’s role in its support of Taiwan and thus resistance from the Chinese government of the probability of an extended formation of a NATO pacific alliance.

Jacobsen: How are African states, e.g., Nigeria, taking this into account in terms of impacts on their economy?

Jørgensen: What cannot be avoided in this context is the importance that Ukraine attaches to the world’s food supply, as Ukraine is the main grain stock for many of us. African northern states feel this even more, as many of these states are daily dependent on the supply of stable and secure grain delivery from Ukraine in particular, the same can be said with regards to food oils which then constitute an increased importance in the supplement in grain / food exported from Ukraine to the world.

For those countries that are completely dependent on the safe supply of grain to feed their compatriots, this is a very unfortunate situation to be in, far worse than many of the western countries that have alternative solutions to consider ensuring stability of a stable grain stock etc.

Jacobsen: What about the post-colonial states with large economies, e.g., the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel (and South Africa)?

Jørgensen: If one considers the United States, as they are not dependent on Russian oil to the same extent of what Europe is, with Germany as the most dependent state in Europe of Russian oil and gas. Nor when it comes to access to stable business routes to ensure food deliveries to its own population.

The same could be said at least to some extent regarding Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa as well, where one should take certain restrictions in the requirement for stable energy sources regarding fossil fuels, and to a certain extent again in the degree of self-sufficiency of food supply, and the availability of various grains and oils directed towards the food industry. It should probably also be added that Australia’s atomic political foundations, are self-supported through sufficiency by and for one’s own omittance of the import need prompt to the state’s existence, is thereby marked to be define as self-sufficient in accordance with the Australian statutes of sustainability.

Jacobsen: If we scale this conflict on 1 to 10 with 10 being WWI and WWII, and 1 being global peacetime, where does this conflict sit on this spectrum?

Jørgensen: From what you suggested as to what scale to use, I will probably lean towards 3 or 4 out of 10 as of current time, where a upscaled to a clear 4 out of 10 within the next 2 months, for then to be scaled down again to 2 out of 10 within the next 8-12 months.

Jacobsen: There was reactive commentary immediately on social media about WWIII. How much of this is simply hysterics rather than realistic appraisal about the situation in the earlier parts of the war and now?

Jørgensen: A changed state in and around the theme of World War III, is for me not from the state one sees as of today nor what was at the start a realistic picture to form or take in. Why do I say this, probably because Russia’s interests do not, even if Putin and his state may impromptu us to believe, that an end war is a possible comprehend rum? That a long-term planning as it is then described regards to the world media, one quickly sees that his plan (Putin) and his cabinet failed miserably.

For me, when one lays a plan A, then one lays plan B-C-D… In the early stages of the war, the long supply lines regarding the 6km long convoy that was to make Russia and its immense power for the “world to fear,” resulted in a complete ridicule for all of us to watch. After this rather embarrassing mockup by the dreaded Russian war machine, one thinks and sees that this cannot be well planned. If well planned, Russia would have had to be aware of which corner they would paint themselves into when they started their war campaign.

Now Russia is almost looked upon as a global outcast, the Russian leadership is detested completely by a united West. The Russian leader has destroyed the pride of his country and what trace of honor that must be left should now not remain permanently destroyed. A third world war seems to me to be impossible for Russia’s people, internal government, nor for Russia’s allies. Even the participation of Syrian mercenaries will probably not change the outcome of this war, nor will Sweden’s and Finland’s incorporation into NATO’s safe embrace.

Finally, I would like to point out that the West is a greater threat to a third world war with its constant tightening of the net around an ever increasingly pressured Russia, whereby their allies can counteract NATO’s patronage of Russia’s autonomy.

Jacobsen: Would Putin use nuclear weapons? Would NATO nations consider the use of their nuclear weapons if so? In either case, these seem insane, as this is “mutually assured destruction.” 

Jørgensen: We only have this one planet, we all play in the same sandbox, the world has too much to lose. Look at China and all the developments that they are now experiencing, they are one of the world’s strongest economies. They and India will not let Russia end the world in the quest to acquire lost lands. Everyone realizes that the Soviet Union and its heyday are over, and the President of Russia must realize this once and for all.

Jacobsen: Will this grave picture from the Nordic countries create a necessity for wartime participation from most of them on the side of Ukraine? If so, which nation-states?

Jørgensen: If one looks with regards to the application for NATO membership for both Sweden and Finland, thus marking a possible historic Nordic shift, then the Nordic alliance in addition to the alliance with NATO as an extra boost security against Russian aggression. By that said, will then Russia remain a lasting threat for the Nordic countries to deal with, do not think so. Separate we are small and maybe few, but united we are strong and somewhat plentiful.

Finland alone has previously shown the world that they can certainly hold their ground, for example during the Russo-Finnish war back in 1939 -40, where Russia invaded Finland, the Finnish forces not only held their stand, but also manage to push back the invading forces for quite some time. But at the same time, it should be duly pointed out that Russia’s in that sense increased cooperation in every sense with China, as well as North Korea, where Russia’s support in a military sense has been marked in China as well as North Korea’s military with reference buildup after the end of World War II.

One should further keep in mind that the Cold War was never really over, but forever-expanding regards to NATO expansion, the NATO alliance has been eating away more and more of territorially sovereignty on its way towards the Eastern Front, whereby the current tense situation now runs counter to everyone’s astonishment?!

It should also be said that the United States and its status as the world’s only superpower, can no longer be stated as factual.

Iran, Russia, North Korea, and USA, yes, all countries that have nuclear weapons capabilities for use in their arsenal are now to be considered a superpower as their nuclear armaments can reach all targets across the globe. The quintessential question to be asked now is, by what purpose is it to use these weapons, aren’t we all still live in the same sandbox?? If we were to start a third world war, then the outcome would be very possible, as Albert Einstein once said, If, this becomes a reality, that is, World War III, then “the next one will be fought with sticks and stones.” The idea of ​​being bombed back to the Stone Age, where all hope of restoration is to be regarded as utopian wishful thinking, think of a Mars-like scenario, and end of civilization as we know it, the reality hits you.

Jacobsen: Does the U.N. condemnation, overwhelming, of this situation, justify legal ramifications and an investigation into the crimes and human rights violations by Russia against civilians and Ukrainian sovereignty?

Jørgensen: Undoubtedly yes, although one can ask questions of a more investigative position, so yes, here there is no doubt about its legality nor one’s legitimacy.

Jacobsen: How has the “neutral zone” evolved over time?

Jørgensen: The expansion of the “neutral zone” between the West and the East, where a constant invasion, or rather a narrowing of territorial sovereignty based on one’s origins after World War II as it is hereby put forth, regards to the eastern part, and then the expansion of territorial sovereignty in pictorial sense, in a more recent historical perspective indisputably proven with reference to Western NATO alliance due presence.

Jacobsen: Putin is old. Is his health an issue?

Jørgensen: When it comes to age, one would say no, Putin’s age is not a decisive factor in this context.

Jacobsen: Is there a sense, by him, of wanting to make bold moves and a legacy through the invasion? Or is his concern more geostrategic, or both?

Jørgensen: Simply put, to speak of a person who was despairing of the weathering powerlessness that arose in the following days after the Cold War when the Iron Curtain fell. The dissolution of the Soviet Union, a disintegrating nation where total chaos reigned, no one would nor could respond when a desperate Putin asks for advice of his leaders; “what happens now?” A former KGB agent, who has his special field within spreading misinformation promoted for the desire to create fear and control by the few over the many.

A brilliant bureaucrat, where a rapid rise after the end of the Cold War, in which former President Boris Yeltsin at the very beginning of the 21st century, puts Putin as his appointed prime minister and further heir to the presidency at the very beginning of a new millennia. One now sees, at least in some way a clear comparison with the Nazi leader during World War II.

What can be speculated about now is, will we then see a similar demise likes the one we teach our children in schools regarding Hitlers last days in his private bunker or not, will history repeat itself or not once again…?

Jacobsen: What is the process, historically, of other nations being drawn into a wartime scenario, and then a bilateral conflict becoming regional if not global?

Jørgensen: Extensions of alliances, inaugurations of warlords, decisions by and for the incorporation of territorial sovereignty, where a “safe haven” of a supreme guardianship calls out to you. A confident big brother who takes care of the little man, whereby the suppressing duty for little brother is to do everything that big brother says he must do or else, similar to the whim of a madman.

This is a short, but all so true description of the Western alliance, and it does not improve in any way with reference to its eastern counterpart. This is what we (the people) must endure by our wants or not. So yes, the small ones are eaten up by the big ones, the powerful ones rule the impaled ones. Expansions have been made, are now being made, and will in the future be leading for world politics where give and take every day, controls the outcome for peacetime or not …

Jacobsen: Is this primarily a war in the economic sphere at this point?

Jørgensen: The economic implications that we all see and feel in our everyday lives are palpable. What leads in the future can quickly overshadow the financial consequences. As they are the first to emerge, and what is experienced the longest after the actual warfare is over in accordance with clean-up and all the humanitarian work in the aftermath.

Jacobsen: What about the current forms of war found online with digital technology, espionage, hacking, surveillance, and cyberwarfare in general? Have these been much of the conflict?

Jørgensen: Yes, based on Russia’s history of cyber warfare, manipulation, and attempts to gag neighboring states according of their rule of law, democracy, and freedom of speech regarding the general population both abroad and at home. So yes, this is a well-known tactic from the Russian government, historically as well as to current time conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Jacobsen: How many countries, in varying degrees of democratic development, count as “democratic” globally compared to autocratic? I am aware of a march towards more democratic, secular, and Enlightenment views globally – unsure as to how much, though.

Jørgensen: The democratic index points in the direction of an expanded perspective, with a downward spiral for the autocratic forms of government. If you look at the index today, full democratically governed countries would be around 6.4% and countries with fully autocratic rule would then be around 37% but take these numbers with precaution as they can vary.

Jacobsen: How will, or are, Sino-Russian relations impacting the war? Has the Chinese Communist Party made any formal statements or motions regarding this war?

Jørgensen: The camaraderie between China and Russia is better than it has been for a long time, the border conflict that took place back in spring of -69, has today by no means no remnants of any lasting disputes between these two countries. So no, it does not mean that a consequence of that past tense historical conflict in any regards has been a major factor to calculate into the current wartime conflict between Russia and Ukraine. China and its position now have been all about keeping calm, looking at what is happening by observing the situation in anticipation of its outcome pro-con.

Jacobsen: Have there been any sympathetic statements by Western European leaders towards Putin, as in understanding the aggression against Ukrainian people and the annexation of Ukrainian territory?

Jørgensen: Believes and believes that most Western leaders dissociate themselves from what Putin has now messed up. A clear response in a statement of support for what is happening now, would be met with disgust by a united NATO alliance and a united European population led by the United States. My reply to the initial question is then clearly presented.

Footnotes

[1] Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies.

[2] Individual Publication Date: May 22, 2022: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/Jørgensen-8; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2022: https://in-sightpublishing.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.