“…NATO
is turning its attention back to collective defence, and expectations of the EU
in the area of security are increasing. In the north, Russia is strengthening
its military capabilities and presence. This has implications for Norway”.
Setting the Course for Norwegian
Foreign and Security Policy
Leangkollen, Norway, 7 February, 2018. Can Norway defend itself? The snow rolls down to
the spectacular Oslo Fjord. Comfortable houses dot the landscape like raisins
on a giant Christmas cake. Norway is one of the most beautiful and wealthiest
countries on Earth. Over the past couple of days I have had the honour to attend and speak at one of the great security policy conferences here. The 53rd
Leangkollen Conference has been organised brilliantly (as ever) by my dear
friend Kate Hansen Bundt and her outstanding team at the Norwegian Atlantic
Committee.
And yet I come away from Leangkollen uneasy. Norway is yet another small European country
dancing on the head of a strategic pin to justify why it does not meet the NATO
Defence Investment Pledge of 2% GDP.
Yes, Oslo has increased its defence budget over the past couple of years
by an impressive 9.8%, but still only spends 1.6% of GDP on defence. And, although
Norway now spends some 25% each year on new equipment, easily surpassing the
20% the Alliance called for at the 2014 NATO Wales Summit, the Norwegian Armed
Forces are simply too small for the country’s Defence Plan to work in an
emergency. So, here is why Norway must
again increase defence expenditure.
The Threat to Norway’s North: Examine Russia’s massive military
exercise Zapad 2017 closely and one
vital aim becomes clear - the decapitation of Norway’s North, North Cape and
the Finmark along a line from Tromso via Kirkenes to just over the Norwegian-Russian
border at Pechenga. The reason can be found in Severomorsk, the headquarters of
the increasingly powerful Russian North Fleet.
In a war Moscow would seize both Moscow’s North Cape and the island of
Svalbard to protect the ingress and egress of Russian ships and nuclear-powered
attack submarines. Russia would also move to strengthen the so-called ‘bastions’
from which Russian ‘boomers’ could fire submarine-launched ballistic missiles at
North America and the rest of NATO Europe.
Russia’s growing pressure on the
North Atlantic: Russian air and maritime forces are also exerting growing
pressure on the so-called Greenland-Iceland-UK gap in an effort to exclude NATO
forces from a vital North Atlantic area of operations. These include regular and provocative flights
either close to or within Norwegian air space.
It is prevent such Russian ambitions why NATO Secretary-General
Stoltenberg is calling for a new/old Atlantic Command.
Russia’s Militarisation of the
Arctic:
Whilst Norway claims to have a co-operative relationship with Russia over the
Arctic Moscow is also steadily militarising the region. Russian air bases at
Naguskoye, Rogachevo, Sredny Ostrov, Temp, and Zvyozdny are being modernised
and strengthened, along with Russian ‘Naval Infantry’ (marines). Such bases not only threaten Northern Norway,
Finland and Sweden, but also Norwegian territory in the Arctic.
The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund: The Fund is designed to help
Norway cope with a ‘rainy day’ when the oil and gas revenues decline. In
September 2017 the Fund passed $1 trillion, which is roughly the size of Mexico’s
entire economy. Norway’s armed forces
are also a form of ‘insurance’. Of all
the NATO European allies Norway can spend 2% GDP on defence. Such a level of defence
expenditure would still be historically low and would hardly represent the
militarisation of Norwegian society.
Norway is free-riding and it needs to stop – for its own sake and that
of the Alliance collective defence upon which the defence of the country
depends.
NATO has a Norwegian Secretary-General: Jens Stoltenberg also spoke at the
conference. During the Afghanistan
Campaign the Dutch sent forces into Uruzgan, one of the more testing provinces
partly because the then ‘Sec-Gen’ was Dutch. It is hard for Stoltenberg to
insist that other NATO members spend 2% GDP on defence when his own rich country,
of which he was once prime minister, does not.
Norway’s nonsensical Base Policy: Norway’s Long-Term Defence Plan is based on the need to “…strengthen the
basis for receiving Allied support”. And yet Norway permits “…no permanent
bases for foreign combat forces in Norwegian soil”. Indeed, even though the US
Marines Corps has pre-positioned equipment in Norway Oslo refuses to permit the
permanent basing of such forces, even if they are from NATO allies. This is dangerous nonsense. Even if the US (or
even the UK) could reinforce Norwegian forces it would clearly take far longer
than the current Norwegian Army could hold out.
The question I posed at the conference is one I now regularly
pose to leaders: what if conventional deterrence fails? In fact, the answer is staring right back at
me. The Leangkollen Conference takes place in a complex of buildings that were
once called the “Eagle’s Nest”. They were built for the traitor Vidkun Quisling
who in 1940 helped facilitate the Nazi invasion of Norway. If deterrence is going to fail one of the most likely places for it to fail is Norway and NATO's Northern Flank. And yet, there is a big snow-hole right in the midst of Norwegian defence policy. Whilst it talks about the importance of Allied support the politics of Norwegian defence still seem to be based on the principle that Norway can defend itself, even when it is clear it cannot.
Can Norway defend itself? No. Can NATO defend Norway? No, not unless Oslo changes its defence policy, which brings me to one final thought. During the conference a leading
Norwegian politician welcomed European solidarity against ‘Brexit’. Let me be clear; people who want my country
to defend them should be careful not to attack it. Clear?
Julian Lindley-French
