Med över 600.000 prenumeranter och sammanlagt över 184 miljoner visningar på Youtube har Glenn Diesen blivit en inflytelserik röst i den internationella utrikespolitiska debatten.

I sina analyser och samtal med forskare och andra debattörer granskar han det amerikanska imperiets maktpolitik, Europas underordning under Washington och framväxten av en världsordning där väst inte längre dominerar. Kritiken av USA:s globala dominans är ett återkommande tema i hans publiceringar.

Hemma i Norge möter professorn vid Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge däremot en offentlighet där hans forskning och argument ersätts med etiketter som "prorysk" och "kontroversiell".

Han har nu ansökt om tjänstledighet utan lön från den 11 januari 2027 till årets slut och planerar att tillbringa tiden i Kina och Australien, rapporterar Khrono.

"Jag använder egna pengar och semesterdagar till att forska utomlands för att undkomma smutskastningskampanjen i norska medier och pressen som sätts på universitetet. Jag vill ta mig ut ur landet för att få möjlighet att forska", skriver han i ett mejl till tidningen.

Diesen forskar om eurasiatisk integration och det geoekonomiska samarbetet mellan Ryssland och Kina. Enligt honom har möjligheterna att arbeta med dessa frågor i Norge blivit starkt begränsade, eftersom akademiskt samarbete och forskning "kriminaliseras".

I ett längre inlägg går han till motangrepp mot behandlingen av honom. Texten har även publicerats på hans Substack.

The very public execution of my professorship and reputation continues in Norway. Today’s media article about me makes three claims that are misleading and/or false.
1) The article dismisses my claim that my research is being criminalized as the journalists merely cite the dismissive comments from the university - no arguments are apparently required.

It is not possible for an academic anymore to analyse the policies of rival powers by assessing their security concerns, as it will be smeared by the government, the government’s NGOs and the media as “legitimizing” the enemy and supporting their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out with the accusation of spreading propaganda and criticised two podcasters for even speaking with me (as I have already been cancelled by the media in Norway). How was this accusation by the Defence Minister substantiated? I had argued that NATO expansion triggered the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister denounce as dangerous “Russian propaganda”, with no need to substantiate his vile accusation. I can cite a sea of evidence and also refer to statements by American and European political leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others to make my case. However, the purpose is not to engage in debate, but to smear, censor, and cancel. By going after an individual academic for challenging official truths, the government has already claimed a monopoly on the truth. Academics should have their arguments scrutinised and criticised, but these are severe personal attacks from the government without the possibility of even defending myself. How is this not criminalising the research of an academic?

I cannot even speak at any events in Norway without the event being cancelled. The last event I agreed to speak at was because I shared the stage with the former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper had the event at a church cancelled, and when the backup location did not also cancel, the journalist simply printed in the paper that it had been cancelled so people would not show up. Is this normal? I must use my allotted holiday days to attend conferences because any event I attend can be presented as “controversial,” and then the NGOs and journalists will go after the reputation of the university. Is this normal? Every newspaper article about me merely refers to me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without ever assigning meaning to these labels or presenting my argument.

I have argued, much like former CIA director Burns, that if the West attempts to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then there would be war and Ukraine would be destroyed. This is considered a “pro-Russian” argument. Arguing that we should respect the will of most Ukrainians who want negotiations to end the war is also considered a “pro-Russian” argument, while in contrast, boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for the conscription of Ukrainian women is “pro-Ukrainian”.

2) To avoid addressing any of my arguments, the journalists go on to uncritically cite personal attacks against me, pointing out that I have been called a propagandist by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. This is a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was set up by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to manipulate the civil society of other states. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has been relentless in its smears on social media to have me fired, writing hit pieces in the media, pushing to cancel my speaking events, writing a letter to my university, and even posting a picture of my house on social media. This is a governmental "human rights organisation" that cites human rights concerns to build the case for war.

3) Lastly, to further avoid addressing my actual arguments, they simply cite the fact that arguments I made at a debate last year have been “wholly or partially debunked” by a fact-check. The state-run media (NRK) invited the state-run military defence institute (FFI) to fact-check three of my claims. What claims did they "debunk"?

My first claim was that only 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker argued that the number went up by the middle of 2014 (after Russia responded by seizing Crimea), which is a completely meaningless comment intended to muddy the waters, as my argument was about the previous era.

My second claim was that Zelensky had argued in an interview with The Economist in March 2022 that there were some Western countries that would like a long war with Russia to weaken a strategic rival, even if it would result in the destruction of Ukraine. The fact-checker argued that not all Western countries wanted a long war and that it was not an official policy. I never claimed it was an official policy, as it was primarily the US and UK pushing for a long war.

My third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-checker claimed this was incorrect and suggested that it could only be based on one statement by David Arakhamia. The fact-checker did not want to mention that both mediators also confirmed it: Turkey’s foreign minister and the former Israeli prime minister both said that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal, but the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians. Zelensky’s former adviser Arestovych confirmed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador Chaly, who participated in the negotiations, confirmed that Putin was willing to do almost anything to end the war. The former head of the German armed forces confirmed that Boris Johnson sabotaged it, and Boris Johnson himself wrote articles warning about a “bad peace” and arguing for “strategic patience.” I am being fact-checked by war propagandists.

Unfortunately, none of my arguments matter because in Norway there is no debate and no interest in any arguments. Reality means nothing anymore as war narratives must be defended against inconvenient truths. I used to be naïve and think that the endless smears were caused by misunderstanding, as I had simply not been able to convey my arguments properly. However, the endless articles with smears and labels are deliberate lies and deceptions.

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) October 22, 2026

Diesen pekar bland annat ut Norges försvarsminister, som anklagat honom för rysk propaganda och kritiserat två poddare för att ens intervjua honom. Bakgrunden var hans analys att Natos utvidgning utlöste Ukrainakriget.

Han framhåller att han kan hänvisa till mängder av belägg och uttalanden från västerländska politiker, diplomater och underrättelsechefer till stöd för sitt resonemang. Men någon saklig diskussion är kritikerna inte intresserade av, konstaterar han.

"Syftet är inte att delta i debatten, utan att smutskasta, censurera och tysta."

"Genom att angripa en enskild akademiker för att han ifrågasätter officiella sanningar har regeringen redan gjort anspråk på monopol på sanningen", skriver Diesen.

Han understryker att akademikers argument ska granskas och kritiseras. Det han beskriver är i stället personangrepp, inställda framträdanden och påtryckningar mot arbetsgivare.

Enligt Diesen har Norska Helsingforskommittén försökt få honom avskedad, arbetat för att stoppa hans föredrag och till och med publicerat en bild av hans bostad i sociala medier. Organisationen hör till hans mest aktiva kritiker och anklagar honom för att bedriva rysk propaganda.

Professorn vänder sig också mot hur hans krav på diplomati framställs. Att argumentera för förhandlingar och varna för att Ukraina förstörs av kriget stämplas som "proryskt", skriver han, medan stöd för mer krig framställs som stöd för ukrainarna och godheten.

Även NRK:s faktagranskning av hans tidigare uttalanden får kritik. Enligt Diesen har granskarna bemött påståenden han inte gjort och förbigått uppgifter som stöder hans analys av västmakternas agerande.

Universitetet avvisar beskrivningen att hans forskning kriminaliseras. Institutionschefen Bjørn Hansen hänvisar till den lagstadgade akademiska friheten och uppger att inga forskningsprojekt som Diesen velat genomföra har avslagits.