POMOR 2013: For the cameras only

The annual POMOR exercises in which the navies of Norway and Russia participate are timed to coincide with 9th May celebrations in Russia and the allied victory over German forces in Europe more generally. The 2013 exercises commence this week. It is not the only military exercise to include Russian forces. The bi-annual Northern Eagle exercises which include Norwegian, Russian as well as US naval forces are also notable in this regard. It is mistakenly believed that these exercises represent a profound sense of military cooperation between states in the High North. This is quite simply not the case.

The exercises constitute mere exercises in gesture politics which convince few beyond academia and the general public. The POMOR exercises are simply an expanded PR stunt on part of the two sides to mark the defeat of Nazi regime in 1945. From leaked diplomatic cables it is clear that Norwegian officials would like to conduct goodwill military exercises more often in an attempt to broaden cooperation with the Russian Federation. However, these are often turned down by their Russian counterparts. In one such cable Deputy Director for Security Policy Jan Olsen at the Norwegian Ministry of Defence stated that

the GoN puts forward a work plan each year with Russia for military cooperation, and maybe half of what is proposed is actually accomplished. [1]

Rather than being genuine showcases of military cooperation,  special events marking the end of WWII have often revealed deeper underlying tensions between northern states. It is worth recalling the September 2010 incident which followed celebrations in Murmansk commemorating the wartime alliance between the US and the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. On this occasion, the frigate USS Taylor was pursued closely in the Barents Sea by a Russian TU-95 bomber. The plane made a pass at a height of only 100 feet above the frigate with its bomb bay doors open. The following day, two Ka-27 anti-submarine helicopters buzzed the USS Taylor whilst it was still in the Russian part of the Barents Sea, coming as close as 30 yards to the vessel. This highly unusual and apparently aggressive manoeuvre was discussed by U.S Admiral Roughead and his Russian counterpart, Admiral Vysotsky. In April of last year, shortly before the start of the POMOR 2012 drills, a MiG-31 was involved in a near-miss with a Norwegian Orion aircraft after the Russian interceptor had come 'uncomfortably close' to the slow moving surveillance plane. Paradoxically, it seems such commemorative events are often useful opportunities for the Russian Federation to demonstrate its hostility towards its neighbours. 

---

[1] U.S. Embassy in Oslo, ‘EUR/RPM Director discusses NATO, Arctic and Afghanistan with Norwegian officials’, 26 January 2010 (Oslo 000045).

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'.

MiG-31 re-deployment to the Arctic undone

Still fresh in his new role as Defence Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergei Shoygu has recently reversed some decisions made by his apparently wilfully incomptent predecesor, Anatoly Serdyukov. One such reversal is the revocation of the plan, announced in September 2012, to redeploy MiG-31 interceptors to Novaya Zemlya. According to the military, neither the aircraft nor the airbase of Rogachevo on the remote Arcitc islands are anywhere near ready to accommodate such a deployment.

Some commentators might be led to think that, owing to the fact that the fiercest rhetoric on the Arctic comes from the Generals and Admirals of the RF, that they would be the most willing to project Russia's military capabilities in the region. However, according to Russian military sources, it appears that the initial MiG-31 decision was entirely political and had not been agreed to by the Air Force High Command. It seems that the Hawks are in the Kremlin as much as in the Arbat. It also adds further doubt to the official reason for the re-deployment of the MiG-31 which was given as missile defence That itself was likely a figleaf for the real purpose of power projection in the Arctic Ocean to support the wider political and strategic objectives of the RF.

Rogozin threatens Norway and Poland

In a continuation of the war of words on Facebook and Twitter between the Russian Deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry Rogozin, and the Norwegian Foreign Minister, Espen Barth Eide, on 12 January 2013, the Russian appeared to threaten Norway and Poland stating:

'Norwegian and Polish politicians should not engage in rhetoric but seriously consider the consequences for their peoples of {the deployment} from 2018 of the US Missile Defence System’ which would lead to a ‘military-technical response’ from Russia.

However, it was Rogozin’s rhetoric that Eide was responding to. Referring to the recent commissioning of the first of the Borei class of SSBN with the Russian Navy Rogozin had stated, ‘Tremble, Bourgeois! You’re done for’.[1] Barth-Eide protested that ‘a language that remains of the Cold War is used too often'.

Such strong rhetoric on the part of the Russians is often dismissed as little more than pandering to a Russian domestic audience. However, it is known that this rhetoric is taken seriously in the wider Norwegian analysis. According to a leaked cable from the U.S. embassy in Oslo from 2010, one Norwegian official from the Ministry of Defence, ‘described the growing "convergence of Russian rhetoric and military capability," which could create a more "interesting" situation with Russia as it furthers its ambitions in the Arctic High North'.[2] It is this combination of military capacity and unfriendly intentions which the Norwegians see as unsettling and is why Russia’s use of such rhetoric contributes to raising tensions in the Arctic.

[1]This is a translation of the original Russian, ‘Drozhitye, boorzhooi! Kirdik vam’.

[2] U.S. Embassy in Oslo,’ EUR/RPM DIRECTOR DISCUSSES NATO, ARCTIC, AND...’ 26 January 2010, (Oslo 000045).