The public dismantling of my academic position and reputation persists in Norway. A recent media piece includes three assertions about me that are either misleading or untrue.
1) The article rejects my claim that my research is being criminalized by simply quoting dismissive remarks from the university, without providing any real counterarguments.
Academics are now barred from analyzing rival powers’ policies by examining their security perspectives, as such efforts are branded by the government, its affiliated NGOs, and media as “legitimizing” adversaries and endorsing their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out, accusing me of spreading propaganda and condemned two podcasters for engaging with me (given I have already been blacklisted in Norwegian media). How was this allegation from the Defence Minister proven? I argued that NATO expansion was a trigger for the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister dismissed as dangerous “Russian propaganda” without any need to back up this vile claim. I can present vast evidence, including statements by American and European leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others, but the intent is not to debate—it is to vilify, censor, and silence. By targeting a single academic who questions official narratives, the government asserts exclusive authority over the truth. While academics should face scrutiny and criticism, these attacks are deeply personal, leaving no room for me to defend myself. How else can this be seen than as criminalizing academic research?
I’m even prevented from speaking at events in Norway, with cancellations following every engagement I agree to. The last occasion I was to participate happened because I would share the platform with former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper forced the cancellation of a church-hosted event, and when the alternative venue stayed open, the journalist falsely announced in print that it, too, was cancelled to deter attendance. Is this normal? I have to use my vacation time to attend conferences because any event I join gets labeled “controversial,” prompting NGOs and journalists to attack the hosting university’s reputation. Is this usual? Every article on me merely brands me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without clarifying these terms or addressing my points.
Like former CIA director Burns, I have argued that dragging Ukraine into NATO’s sphere would provoke war and lead to Ukraine’s destruction. This viewpoint is branded “pro-Russian.” Advocating respect for the majority of Ukrainians who favor negotiations to end hostilities is also labeled “pro-Russian,” whereas boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for conscription of Ukrainian women is considered “pro-Ukrainian.”
2) Instead of engaging with my arguments, journalists resort to quoting personal attacks against me, mentioning that the Norwegian Helsinki Committee has described me as a propagandist. This “non-governmental organisation” receives funding from the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), established by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to influence foreign civil societies. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has relentlessly smeared me on social media, pushed for my dismissal, written defamatory articles, urged cancellation of my appearances, sent letters to my university, and even posted photos of my home online. This governmental “human rights” group uses human rights rhetoric to justify war.
3) Lastly, to avoid discussing my key points, they cite a fact-check by the state-controlled media (NRK), which invited the state-run military defense institute (FFI) to review three of my statements from a debate last year. What claims did they “disprove”?
My first was that only 20% of Ukrainians favored NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker countered that the number rose by mid-2014 (after Russia’s annexation of Crimea), a response that ignores my focus on the earlier period and seems designed to confuse.
My second claim noted that Zelensky stated in a March 2022 interview with The Economist that some Western countries desired a prolonged war with Russia to weaken a strategic competitor, even if it meant Ukraine’s destruction. The fact-checker argued not all Western nations sought a long conflict and it wasn’t official policy. I never suggested it was official policy, specifically pointing to the US and UK supporting such a strategy.
The third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-check disputed this, citing only one statement by David Arakhamia. They omitted acknowledgments from mediators Turkey’s foreign minister and former Israeli prime minister, who confirmed Russia and Ukraine were near a deal, yet the US and UK preferred continued fighting to weaken Russia. Zelensky’s ex-adviser Arestovych and Ukrainian negotiator Ambassador Chaly confirmed Putin’s readiness to end the war. The former German armed forces chief credited Boris Johnson with undermining the process, while Johnson himself argued against a “bad peace” and called for “strategic patience.” Essentially, I am being fact-checked by those advancing war propaganda.
Regrettably, none of my arguments receive attention in Norway where debate is nonexistent and no one is interested in facts. “Reality” has lost meaning, replaced by rigid war narratives protecting uncomfortable truths. I once thought the endless defamation resulted from misunderstandings or failed communication, but now it’s clear the persistent accusations and labels are intentional fabrications and distortions.
Original article: glenndiesen.substack.com
About the Author
