Prof. Glenn Diesen, a renowned political scientist at the University of South-Eastern Norway and a candidate in Norway’s parliamentary elections, is no stranger to controversy. Known for his rigorous scholarship and fearless commentary, Diesen has written extensively on NATO’s eastward expansion and the war in Ukraine—topics that have sparked intense debate in Norway and beyond.
But what should have been a healthy, democratic debate has instead turned into a campaign of misrepresentation and harassment. In a country celebrated for its high educational standards and democratic credentials, it is deeply troubling to witness the vilification of a respected academic simply for expressing alternative views—views grounded in deep research and shared by numerous other global scholars.
In his recent article, "How Peace-Oriented Norway Learned to Stop Worrying and Love War", published on May 26 on his Substack and the Brave New Europe website, Prof. Diesen expresses a deep sense of anguish. He argues that Russia perceives NATO expansion as an existential threat, and therefore diplomacy—not weapons—is the path to de-escalation. "Sending weapons," he warns, "will only escalate the war, destroy Ukraine and take us closer to nuclear war."
Diesen’s position is not an outlier. Academics like Prof. John Mearsheimer and Prof. Jeffrey Sachs have voiced similar concerns. In fact, over the years, more than 100 respected Western academics, statesmen, and diplomats have raised alarms about NATO's eastward expansion. Even some European leaders once opposed arming Ukraine, including Norway’s own Prime Minister, who initially declared that sending weapons was “out of the question.”
In a mature democracy, one would expect such reasoned and evidence-backed views to be welcomed—even by those who disagree. Instead, Prof. Diesen has found himself increasingly isolated, targeted, and blocked from engaging the wider public. This is symptomatic of a larger crisis—a crisis of democracy in Europe.
The political atmosphere has grown increasingly polarized, favoring simplistic binaries of ‘good vs evil’ and ‘us vs them.’ This intellectual rigidity has cost Europe a golden opportunity for a broader, more inclusive security framework—one that might have incorporated Russia instead of alienating it. Had Europe supported early diplomatic efforts during the Trump administration’s Ukraine pivot, the war could perhaps have been averted or ended far sooner. Today, rather than rebuilding a war-torn region, the continent remains mired in conflict.
Disturbingly, this erosion of democratic values is not confined to Norway. Diesen points out that in France, the main opposition leader has been arrested under questionable circumstances. In Germany, the country’s largest opposition party has been labeled “extremist,” opening the door for intelligence surveillance—and potentially, a future ban. In Romania, election results were annulled to bar a winner from running again. In Moldova and Georgia, democratic processes have been tampered with under the guise of countering Russian influence.
This is not the Europe the world once looked to as a beacon of democratic integrity.
Prof. Diesen’s anguish should not be ignored. It is a cry for course correction—a reminder that democracy requires more than elections. It needs space for dissent, openness to alternative narratives, and above all, a commitment to intellectual honesty. If Europe continues down its current path, it risks losing not only geopolitical balance but its very democratic soul.
It is time for Europe to reflect—and to act. The stakes are too high for silence.
---
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Saving Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, Man Over Machine, Earth Without Borders, and A Day in 2071
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor