Kremlin Shady Horse’s: Glenn Diesen – Russian propaganda aligned rhetoric, defender of Russia’s aggression, blames NATO for expansionism

The project “Shady Horses” delves into investigating Russian propaganda dissemination within Western countries through prominent individuals, often referred to as “talking heads.”

By analyzing the influence and messaging of these figures, the project seeks to shed light on the tactics employed to spread Russian narratives, their impact on public opinion, and their potential connections to foreign organizations.

Glenn Diesen, a Norwegian political scientist with an academic background and recognition for his contributions, has drawn criticism from academics and Scandinavian media for his affiliation with Russia Today (RT)  and aligned rhetoric with Russian propaganda’s narrative, specifically blaming NATO for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This comes as no surprise given his affiliation with the Moscow-based Higher School of Economics until 2020.

Diesen claims to be an expert in Russian foreign policy, conservatism, and Eurasian integration. He is a member of the Valdai Discussion Club, a think tank reportedly linked closely to Putin and feels that his rhetoric matches with Russia so much so that he is safe to travel to Minsk for “expert debates.” 

Diesen says the West is fighting an information war against Russia, and his rhetoric goes so far as to blame NATO’s ‘aggressive’ policies for the Kremlin having no choice but to invade Ukraine, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Therefore, it frames Russia’s actions as responses to Western provocations. 

Moreover, Diesen’s language choices are strikingly similar to Kremlin narratives, especially when he refers to the ‘collective West,’ a term strategically used in Russian propaganda to portray Russia as a valiant defender against a formidable foe. By echoing this narrative, Diesen contributes to the Kremlin’s portrayal of Russia as a brave nation standing up to unjust policies, distorting the balance of power, and seeking support for the ostensible underdog.

On his YouTube channel, Glenn Diesen communicates with mouthpieces of pro-Russian and Eurosceptic views.

For instance:
See Shady Horse episodes for:
Karin Kneissl
Clare Daly

Diesen’s consistent alignment with Russian propaganda, his language reminiscent of Kremlin narratives, and the biased selection of interviewees all contribute to a narrative that portrays the West as the aggressor and Russia as the defender, distorting the true nature of events in Ukraine. 

This, therefore, qualifies him for “The Kremlin’s Shady Horses of Russian Propaganda.”

Who is this Shady Horse?

Glenn Diesen, a Norwegian political scientist

Where are they from?


What have they been saying?

Thousands of Nazis were welcomed to Canada, many participated in the Holocaust
– Nazis (then and now) were reliably anti-Russian and anti-communist
– Most of Canada’s Nazis came from Ukraine and the Baltic States


This is very dark. Would we plan a “forever war” in Ukraine if we were fighting with our own soldiers and losing men at such horrific rates?
– No good diplomatic solutions anymore, but surely it is time to pivot from maximalist aims and start talking?


This is bad news for Zelensky. Artificially linking the Ukraine War to the Israel-Gaza War is imperative to stay relevant and get the necessary attention and funding. The war appears to be lost for Zelensky.


Kiev [Kyiv*] complain’s about the West’s “war fatigue”
– It is time to negotiate. “Supporting” Ukraine with more weapons at this point entails prolonging a war that has already been lost.


“Helping Ukraine” to the last Ukrainian


The “pro-Ukrainian” policy now would be for NATO to offer an end to its expansionism in negotiations with Russia, to get the best possible deal for Ukraine and end the war as soon as possible. Sacrificing Ukraine in the hope to weaken Russia has been a horrible strategy.


How is victory defined? Can Ukraine and NATO take Crimea without triggering nuclear war? Moscow deems this to be an existential threat.
– We should answer this question before seeking to defeat the world’s largest nuclear power.


However, what happens when it is accepted that Russia is winning. Is it “support” for Ukraine if extending the conflict will only result in more Ukrainian casualities, loss of more territory, and the possible destruction of the Ukrainian state?