The Norwegian media is uniquely ridiculous in its smear campaigns. When I tell people abroad about the brazen and lazy propaganda, they often assume I am exaggerating. This week there have been two more smear pieces published about me. The first story in the media is about my tweet on the results of Russia’s parliamentary election, in which I wrote: “Big win for United Russia. President Putin's party, United Russia, won 57.83% of the vote in the parliamentary election, which is a significant increase from 49.8% in 2021”. In short, I merely stated the election results, which are important as United Russia now has a majority in parliament. The newspaper reported that I was “cheering” Putin’s victory and “congratulating” Russia. Another newspaper wrote that I was spreading Russian propaganda because I made the election seem legitimate. Another absurd story was published today with the headline: “Several cases against Norwegian Russia researcher”. The article is about accusations submitted to my university regarding an alleged breach of ethical research practices, which is intended to give the reader the impression that my research and publications have violated research ethics standards. What the newspaper does not mention is that anyone can send a letter with accusations to the university, and there is no shortage of radical activists seeking to silence academics. However, these accusations mean nothing when there is no substance to the accusations, and for that reason these accusations did not lead anywhere. However, such accusations are catnip for journalists who engage in smear campaigns and do not mind misleading their readers. The newspaper cites a smear piece in the complaint to prove that I may have breached ethics standards: I had cited US Ambassador William Burns (who later became the CIA Director) as he had written in 2008 that if NATO attempted to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit – Russia would possibly intervene military even though this is not something Russia would want to do. In the smear piece against me, it is claimed that Burns did not imply anything of the sort and he did not even use the word “intervene” (vagant.no/professor-diesens-…). However, anyone can go into the cable to read that Burns wrote: “In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene… Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face” (wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/0…). The propagandists are citing their own smear pieces as evidence. However, it does not matter that all these accusations are built on lies, because from now on journalists can refer to me as the academic who has been ‘accused’ of spreading propaganda and violating ethical research standards. The process is the punishment, so it does not matter that the accusations have no substance. The most absurd smear piece came last year, when one of the largest newspapers wrote that I had been exposed for participating in an “influence operation.” In reality, I had attended a conference devoted to the 200th birthday of Immanuel Kant in his place of birth, Kaliningrad. My speech, published on my Substack (glenndiesen.substack.com/p/t…), was about the crisis of modernity and questioning the durability of secular morality, yet the journalist insisted that the conference was actually about confronting NATO in the Baltic Sea. The evidence published to prove this was a secret influence operation was a list of foreign guests with the headline “List of possible participants of the event for the Baltic region.” However, it was written in Russian, so it probably looked very incriminating. The timing of the article was interesting as it was more than a year after the conference, although I had just run for parliament, and I had been caught in a large media campaign to discredit me. For context, it is important to note that in Norway, every single member of parliament is in favour of sending weapons to Ukraine, and none are calling for diplomacy with Russia. All the newspapers repeat government talking points and smear any dissent. At least in countries like Germany and France, there is opposition. The complete lack of dissent is believed to reflect their “moral clarity,” as opposed to authoritarian means of keeping the war going. Arguments are never discussed, instead the norm is personal attacks and simplistic rhetoric denouncing critics of NATO’s policies as “pro-Russia” and “anti-Ukrainian”. The vast majority of Ukrainians want a negotiated settlement, yet the media label me “anti-Ukrainian” for suggesting that our government should open diplomatic channels with Russia to resolve the dispute over the European security architecture. Meanwhile, these self-proclaimed “pro-Ukrainians” consistently ignore the will of most Ukrainians, and when they see the manpower shortage, their response is to push for deporting Ukrainian refugees, lowering the conscription age of Ukrainian men, or calling for the forced conscription of Ukrainian women as well. The war propaganda and smear campaigns in this country are characterized by laziness, aggressiveness, and arrogance.