Einar Tangen

"Glenn Diesen, a professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, said that as hegemony declines, the once US-centred international economic system is rapidly being replaced by one of neo-mercantilism, in which technology blockades, financial sanctions, and the control of key corridors have been weaponised. Rebuilding trust in supply chains and financial architecture, he argued, must rely on multipolarity and multilateralism – and mechanisms such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) are becoming key forces for pluralistic balance and multilateral cooperation worldwide." socialistchina.org/2026/11/0…

The Case for Less Unity in Europe: Why Norway and Finland Were Right to Call Putin glenndiesen.substack.com/p/t…

I believe that the call to President Putin by the leaders of Norway and Finland was an important and positive development. Even though nothing was achieved to end the war, it is important for our survival to normalise diplomacy again. I know there are many politicians in places like Germany who recognise that we are heading towards a cliff and want to return to negotiations about the European security architecture, but diplomacy itself has become criminalised. Hopefully, this opens the door to bringing back common sense. A key problem is that we confuse moralism with morality. Presenting all security competition as moral issues is great for moral posturing, but by presenting conflicts as a struggle between good and evil, we end up concluding that diplomacy is appeasement and that peace can only be achieved by defeating the 'evil' opponent. Moralism also stifles debate within our own societies, as opposition to policies framed as morally virtuous is automatically deemed illegitimate. Maybe someday we will look back at this era of war hysteria and flirting with nuclear war as we now do with the Covid hysteria.

I see that several Norwegian newspapers have published the same two statements about me today: 1) Kirill Dmitriev wrote that Denmark deserves to lose Greenland in a retweet of a video posted by Glenn Diesen, and 2) Glenn Diesen claims that NATO provoked Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The ambiguity surrounding the content of my tweet predictably led readers to assume that I had made the same claim or something more belligerent. To provide some context that the journalists left out, here is what I tweeted: "The Prime Minister of Denmark is upset that Finland and Norway broke with 4.5 years of boycotting diplomacy by calling President Putin. God forbid we talk to the other side and start talking about peace."

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.