On October 28, the program "Thinkers' Tea Party" interviewed Glenn Diesen, a professor of international relations at the Southeast University in Norway, who had recently visited Russia and China. He is a well-known Western expert on geopolitics and Russian affairs.
When asked if his stance on issues related to Russia has been rejected by the European academic community and public opinion, Grunn Disson, a professor at the University of Southeast Norway, told Observer Network that he and his family are planning to leave Norway. The continuous public criticism and external pressure have seriously affected his work and life.
He accused some so-called “non-governmental organizations” of actually receiving government funding. Additionally, there are American organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which are also labeled non-governmental organizations, but they receive financial support from the U.S. government. Such organizations are used to influence civil societies in other countries. In 2020, shortly after returning to Norway, these organizations began publishing negative articles about him in the media and social media platforms. This situation happened almost every week; whenever someone invited him to an event, they would try to prevent him from speaking by canceling the invitation.
He always emphasized that Europe’s current policies will destroy Ukraine, because we shouldn’t continue to do this. But these people don’t care about his actual views at all; the Norwegian Defense Minister even publicly called him a “Russian propagandist”.
Dison once questioned the Norwegian Defense Minister about why he spoke in that way. The Norwegian Defense Minister argued that Dison believed NATO was behind this war, but this was a topic that could be discussed through historical evidence. However, the person in question refused to engage in any debate. They simply categorized Dison’s views as Russian propaganda and labeled him as a “Russian propagandist”, while claiming that the media should not interview him at all.
Deisen said that if you only present the most basic idea: there is a security competition between countries, where one might undermine the security of the other, then both parties should seek solutions. You might be treated in such a way. In Norway, he even felt that if one insisted on such an approach, one would have to worry about their own security. The only narrative allowed seems to be "We represent justice, while Russia represents evil." In such circumstances, it is almost impossible for a scholar to work normally.
