25 February: An emblematic day for the High North

25 February 2013 saw a series of announcements which appear to underscore the inherent character of Arctic. Firstly, Norwegian Minister of Defence, Anne-Grete Strøm Erichsen, stated that Norway would welcome larger NATO exercises in the Arctic. This is in spite of the already substantial increases seen in recent years in the annual COLD RESPONSE exercises. The announcement seems to constitute a dog-whistle message with the United Kingdom as the primary intended recipient. At the time of the statement, UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was visiting Royal Marines engaged in military exercises in Northern Norway. Unlike many other NATO allies, the UK has a particular interest in Norway's security. The purpose of Hammond's trip to the Arctic was, according to media, 'to survey the Armed Forces’ role in protecting key energy supply routes across the Arctic' in a post-Afghanistan 'era of contingency'. The following week, a contingent of US special forces personnel conducted war games in the Finnish Arctic, in spite of the Nordic county's neutrality.

In an apparently unrelated move the same day, Russian President Vladimir Putin, pointed to several alarming developments for the region, including possible NATO expansion as well as plans for the European missile defence system. With this in mind, he stated that 'a danger of militarising the Arctic exists'. Although it does not break with Russia's assertive Arctic policy, pursued since 2007, this certainly marks a departure from the 'zone of peace' language that Putin has used in past years in which pessimistic forecasts from the region were categorically discounted. It serves to underline the meme of this blog that the High North is indeed an area of high tension.

Russian Ladoga 2013 Exercises: Target Finland

Russian military exercises in the Republic of Karelia near the Finnish border are due to start next week. Since the Georgia conflict in 2008, relations between Finland and Russia have deteriorated, particularly over the issue of possible Finnish membership of NATO. In the immediate aftermath of the South Ossetian War, Finnish defence officials noted Russia's use of camouflage patterns which were strikingly similar to those fielded by Finnish forces. As a result, military spokesman, Captain Karhuvaara stated that 'If Russian Minstry of the Interior Troops were to invade Finland, we would encounter serious trouble'. More generally, the recognition that Russia's threshold for using military violence was lower than anticipated has led to greater defence cooperation with other western states. It will be instructive to see how this year's drills compare with the Zapad and Ladoga 2009 exercises which were largest ever Russian exercises since the defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The latter were formally separate but may be considered as part of an extended series of exercises which took place in August and September 2009. Zapad 2009 featured a simulated tactical nuclear strike against Poland and thereby heralded the emergence of a military doctrine which legitimises the introduction of tactical nuclear weapons in a regional conflict against a non-nuclear power. This year, Finland may receive more of Russia's attention. According to the Russian Federation, NATO expansion to the Russo-Finnish frontier would by itself constitute a military threat. This point was made most bluntly by General Makarov last year when he compared Finnish behaviour to the situation in the Caucasus before 8 August 2008; that is to say, casus belli. This point is made explicit in article 17 of the 2009 Russian National Security Strategy which reads: 'The defining factor in relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will remain the unacceptability for Russia of plans to bring the Alliance’s military infrastructure forward to Russia’s borders'.[1] In accordance with Russia's military doctrine, this would necessarily lead to a military response. However, by wielding threats toward Finland, Russia may be encouraging the opposite outcome of that which it desires.

---

[1] National Security Council, 'Strategiya natsional’noy bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii do 2020 goda'

My (belated) response to an unbalanced article critical of NATO in the Arctic

In a series of interviews with Voice of Russia, Anti-NATO activist Agneta Nordberg describes the relatively minor steps being considered by Sweden in the Arctic without any reference to the far more significant measures taken by the Russian Federation which has caused the Sweden response. The result is an extremely unbalanced perspective which requires a rebuttal:

'It is the behavior of the Russian Federation which is escalatory. Russia is currently preparing to field its Arctic Group of Forces near the Norwegian and Swedish borders consisting of at least one combined arms brigade under Northern Fleet command. Russian military expenditure will increase by over 25% this year alone. Its defence spending accounts for more than 3.9% of GDP. The Swedish equivalent is only a humble 1.35%. 'Demonizing Russia'? Russia needs no assistance on that front. After all, it was Gen Makarov who, in July 2012, made the link between the Georgian Conflict and the Arctic by effectively threatening Finland; likening manoevures in Finland to the situation in the Caucasus before 8 August 2008. Russian threats towards its neigbours is the reason why the latter flee to NATO for safety. Stop NATO in the Arctic? On the contrary; NATO is our protection. NATO keeps us safe and warm. It is interesting to note that, because of their disdain for the US and NATO, the Anti-NATO Left and the Kremlin regime are fellow travelers on this is issue. Hatred makes strange bedfellows indeed'.