By Glenn DIESEN
Join us on Telegram
, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
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.
Original article: glenndiesen.substack.com
Courtesy of Mihirkant Upadhyaya
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Mihirkant Upadhyaya, 42, who works at Intel and lives in Oregon. The following has been edited for length and clarity. Business Insider has verified his employment and education.
After studying computer engineering for my bachelor's, I pivoted into physics.
Two master's degrees and a Ph.D. in nanoscale science and engineering later, I got my dream job in the semiconductor industry at Intel in 2015.
As my career evolved, I realized I also wanted to do an MBA to step up my game.
During my Ph.D., I focused on a semiconductor manufacturing technology called EUV lithography. I was excited to work at Intel because it does both chip design and manufacturing, so I knew I'd get a good overview of the chip-making process.
You don't need a Ph.D. to work in semiconductors, as there are so many areas outside the lab you can work in, like finance and legal.
On a personal level, though, having a Ph.D. helped me feel prepared to step into the workforce. It gave me discipline and the ability to be comfortable with ambiguity. My research mindset and technical background gave me the confidence to take ownership of outcomes and tasks.
There were definitely moments where I had self-doubt doing a Ph.D. You watch your peers go on to earn big bucks after their bachelor's and master's while you live on a modest stipend. However, the experience shaped me into who I am. I'd say I'm more patient, sharper, and more resilient.
After about five years in research and development at Intel, I moved into supply chain roles, which have involved managing relationships and negotiating contracts. At this point, I realized I was missing certain skills.
My current role has a greater emphasis on executive communication and financial analysis. When I presented to an executive team, my manager had to step in on a number of occasions to get the room to respond, making what I was saying more high-level using business-driven terms. I also didn't quite understand certain things when I worked with the finance teams on contract negotiations.
To step up my game, I started a two-year hybrid MBA course in September 2025, alongside my full-time job. It was energizing to get back to the classroom at age 41.
I take one week off a quarter to do in-person sessions, and the rest of the time I'm doing online learning three days a week. My company is partly funding this, which is useful since MBAs can carry a $100,000 price tag.
Courtesy of Mihirkant Upadhyaya
By the time I've finished my MBA, I'll have done nine years of postgraduate study, investing an estimated $100,000 into that education, aside from scholarships and tuition waivers. Without question, it's been worth it. I haven't pursued the degrees to accumulate credentials, but to serve my career at various stages of my life. The MBA is addressing a concrete skills gap I identified after years in my industry.
The AI boom made me take a hard look at what I bring to the table. I saw that some of what I did could eventually be automated. That realization was humbling.
Instead of trying to compete with what AI is already good at, I wanted to strengthen the areas where I knew it fell short. AI is great at processing and analyzing information. It has scale and speed, but it lacks the truly insightful judgment that a person can gain from years of learning a skill.
Courtesy of Mihirkant Upadhyaya
In my previous role at Intel, I found that AI couldn't tell me how to troubleshoot issues involving new or custom-made equipment because the context was so unique to my situation.
Meanwhile, in my current role, while AI could probably help me generate financial models, it can't read the room, build relationships, or have synergy with another person. My MBA course benefits me in this regard because we do lots of group activities, even online through Zoom, where we can interact with each other.
I think that in the age of AI, finding a field you really care about, becoming an expert in it, and staying curious to keep learning can help you become irreplaceable.
Intel declined to comment in response to a request from Business Insider.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon doubled down on closing the Department of Education (ED) as planned to demonstrate to Congress that the federal agency she leads is no longer necessary.
"Signing these interagency agreements means, in fact, that the Department of Education is contracting with these agencies to perform the functions that they've been given," McMahon told Fox News Digital.
"The first big block of work was transferred over to the Department of Labor."
Throughout his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to eliminate the ED, later signing an executive order directing his administration to begin dismantling the agency.
As part of that effort, the Department of Labor (DOL) is taking on a major role in the day-to-day administration of adult education, family literacy and career and technical education (CTE) programs under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and the Perkins Act.
While Labor manages operational duties, the Department of Education retains statutory responsibilities and oversight while shifting services to states and grant recipients.
"It started first with CTE — Career and Technical Education — then K–12 and finally higher education as well," McMahon said.
McMahon explained that she wants to show lawmakers that federal support for students won't falter without a standalone Cabinet department.
"I've asked Congress with this proof of concept in these interagency agreements: 'Let me prove to you that it works,'" she said.
"Ultimately, Congress has to vote if we do close the Department of Education, and if I, in fact, am able to fire myself. Hopefully, they will vote [for it], because I believe the outcome will be better for students, and that is the goal. That is certainly the president's goal."
The agency took another major step by partnering with the Department of the Treasury, which agreed to take over key operations related to federal student loans and collections on defaulted debt.
The student loan partnership with Treasury and the workforce initiative with DOL are part of a broader series of interagency agreements. According to Department of Education officials, the goal is to demonstrate a "proof of concept" to Congress that essential federal education functions and funding flows can be successfully reallocated across executive branch agencies without disruption.
"I call it my proof of concept to show Congress that it works, that the money still gets to schools and to students where they need it," McMahon told Fox News Digital.
"Some of the programs in the Department of Education were being duplicated in other agencies or handled better elsewhere," McMahon added. "So, let's be efficient. Let's make sure the money gets where it needs to go, let's measure that by student outcomes and let's hold teachers and administrators accountable for what they're doing."
Andrew Gillen, a higher education policy research fellow at the Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital that shifting major core duties like student loans and formula grants marks a substantial change from previous interagency agreements, which historically focused on minor administrative support.
McMahon previously argued during the government shutdown that the ED acts primarily as a pass-through entity for federal money, contending that its day-to-day functions are nonessential.
"Congress appropriates the funds. The funds come through the Department of Education, and some of that funding still goes to other agencies to get to students and schools," McMahon told Fox News Digital.
"Primarily, the money was passed through the Department of Education to then get to the states and local authorities for education."
ED announced earlier this year that the agency moved out of the Lyndon B. Johnson Department of Education building so the Department of Energy could move in by August. The move is what the officials call "a prudent step to save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and further reduce the federal education bureaucracy."
The Trump administration is also seeking to reduce the department's footprint by returning more power to the states.
The ED launched a new process allowing states to seek greater flexibility in using federal education funds and reducing administrative burdens. Iowa became the first state to participate in the effort.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The Department of Education sent states a letter in July 2025 encouraging them to apply for the waiver, which would give state education officials more discretion over federal dollars and reduce compliance costs.
FIRST ON FOX: A conservative legal group is calling on the Trump administration to investigate a Rhode Island school district over a policy that allegedly allows school officials to facilitate students' gender transitions behind their parents' backs, accusing the district of violating multiple federal civil rights laws.
America First Legal (AFL) filed a formal complaint Tuesday with the Justice Department and Department of Education targeting Westerly Public Schools in Westerly, Rhode Island, over a transgender student policy adopted in 2017.
"Westerly Public Schools' policy blatantly violates federal law, tramples on parents' rights, and embraces radical gender ideology," Ian Prior, senior counsel at America First Legal, told Fox News Digital in a statement. "Male students claiming to be female receive every privilege while actual female students are shoved aside. AFL is calling on the Department of Justice and the Department of Education to step in and hold WPS accountable."
BLUE STATE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCUSED OF DEFYING SUPREME COURT, HIDING GENDER TRANSITIONS FROM PARENTS
The complaint from America First Legal alleges that Westerly Public Schools' transgender student policy, adopted in 2017, allows school officials to facilitate students' gender transitions, including changes to names, pronouns and school records, without parental notification or consent. The group also alleges the policy permits students to use bathrooms, locker rooms and participate in sports based on their gender identity rather than biological sex, while requiring students who object to seek separate accommodations.
The policy defines "Gender Identity" as "a person's deeply held sense or psychological knowledge of their own gender. One's gender identity can be the same or different than the gender assigned at birth. Most people have a gender identity that matches their assigned gender at birth. For some, however, their gender identity is different from their assigned gender."
The guidance for secondary students reads, "Generally, notification to a student's parent(s)/guardian(s) about their gender identity, expression, or transition is unnecessary, as they are already aware and supportive. However, some transgender students do not want their parents to know about their transgender status. These situations must be addressed on a case-by-case basis and require schools to balance the goal of supporting the student with the desire that parents be kept informed about their children."
It continues, "In these circumstances, school administration should ask the superintendent for direction on how to proceed. If the administration determines that notifying the family carries risks for the student, it should work closely with the student to assess the degree to which, if any, the family will be involved in the process and must consider the age, health, well-being and safety of the student."
America First Legal alleges the district's policy violates multiple federal laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), by withholding information about students' gender transitions from parents, and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), by allowing certain student evaluations without parental consent.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THREATENS KANSAS SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDING OVER TRANSGENDER STUDENT POLICY
The group also argues the policy violates Title IX by permitting students to use bathrooms, locker rooms and participate in sports based on gender identity rather than biological sex, potentially compromising female students' privacy, safety and athletic opportunities, and is urging the Trump administration to investigate the district, require changes to its policies and ensure compliance with federal law, including parental notification requirements.
The complaint marks the latest effort by America First Legal to challenge school policies it argues infringe on parental rights. The group previously developed resources in 2022 to help parents use the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) to hold schools accountable. AFL pointed to a recent Trump administration lawsuit against Kansas City Public Schools in Kansas over allegations involving undisclosed student gender transitions and violations of FERPA and the PPRA, saying it is seeking a similar outcome in Westerly.
The Department of Education told Fox News Digital that it does not confirm complaints.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice told Fox News Digital in a statement that, "The Department has received the complaint and will review it. As a matter of policy, the Department does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations. The Justice Department is committed to enforcing Title IX and to protecting the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children."
Fox News Digital reached out to Westerly Public Schools for comment.
Login