Hmm, I really wanted to read about Norway's reasoning for this. When I click on the link, Firefox tells me: edit:...
Hmm, I really wanted to read about Norway's reasoning for this.
When I click on the link, Firefox tells me:
Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to www.thelocal.no. PR_END_OF_FILE_ERROR
The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.
It's working for me, but you're not missing much. They're being very vague about this and didn't even announce it properly, it's just one item among a thousand others in the newly released budget...
It's working for me, but you're not missing much. They're being very vague about this and didn't even announce it properly, it's just one item among a thousand others in the newly released budget for 2020, and not one of the talking points.
However, the reasoning is fairly obvious: Norway doesn't want to antagonize Russia. All of Norway's defense decisions are carefully weighed so as to be an effective deterrent to Russia without needlessly increasing tensions. This goes all the way back to the cold war when Norway was the only NATO member that directly bordered the Soviet Union. It's become more relevant in recent years due to Russia's increased aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere. Norway is currently trying to make a deal with Russia to release a convicted spy, retired border guard Frode Berg, and this month there will be celebrations of the 75-year anniversary of the Russian liberation of Eastern Finnmark. This celebration will be attended by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. (Relations between the two countries were so cool that a year ago there were plans to celebrate the liberation of parts of Norway by Russia without inviting any representatives of Russia; eventually, the government relented.)
Norway is kind of squeezed up against the lair of a huge bear (Russia) and the bear, or eagle in their corner (the US) is threatening to pull out of the fight. So in essence, putting a missile defense system in Norway at this time is politically impossible. This decision shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Indeed. In addition, the NATO missile defense system is going to be expensive. The chief of defense is already making a huge ask in today's budget wanting not just to reach NATO's 2% GDP defense...
Indeed.
In addition, the NATO missile defense system is going to be expensive. The chief of defense is already making a huge ask in today's budget wanting not just to reach NATO's 2% GDP defense spending goal/commitment, but indirectly states that a reasonable defense of the country must go higher (I'd estimate on the order of 2.3 - 2.6% og GDP.
That's a big ask. Bruun-Hanssen doesn't want his preferred plan to be thrown aside without any political examination because it's just too expensive, although all his four plans explicitly state that Norway won't have adequate defense against all ballistic threats to various degrees.
I'd say it's a huge deal that he today explicitly states that Norway isn't on track to reach its NATO obligations that Norway's already committed to following the current plan and expenditure for defense. And that it will take billions to get there. That's a big deal.
Hmm, I really wanted to read about Norway's reasoning for this.
When I click on the link, Firefox tells me:
edit: https://outline.com/https://www.thelocal.no/20191008/norway-decides-against-participation-in-nato-missile-defence-system
It's working for me, but you're not missing much. They're being very vague about this and didn't even announce it properly, it's just one item among a thousand others in the newly released budget for 2020, and not one of the talking points.
However, the reasoning is fairly obvious: Norway doesn't want to antagonize Russia. All of Norway's defense decisions are carefully weighed so as to be an effective deterrent to Russia without needlessly increasing tensions. This goes all the way back to the cold war when Norway was the only NATO member that directly bordered the Soviet Union. It's become more relevant in recent years due to Russia's increased aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere. Norway is currently trying to make a deal with Russia to release a convicted spy, retired border guard Frode Berg, and this month there will be celebrations of the 75-year anniversary of the Russian liberation of Eastern Finnmark. This celebration will be attended by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. (Relations between the two countries were so cool that a year ago there were plans to celebrate the liberation of parts of Norway by Russia without inviting any representatives of Russia; eventually, the government relented.)
Norway is kind of squeezed up against the lair of a huge bear (Russia) and the bear, or eagle in their corner (the US) is threatening to pull out of the fight. So in essence, putting a missile defense system in Norway at this time is politically impossible. This decision shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Indeed.
In addition, the NATO missile defense system is going to be expensive. The chief of defense is already making a huge ask in today's budget wanting not just to reach NATO's 2% GDP defense spending goal/commitment, but indirectly states that a reasonable defense of the country must go higher (I'd estimate on the order of 2.3 - 2.6% og GDP.
That's a big ask. Bruun-Hanssen doesn't want his preferred plan to be thrown aside without any political examination because it's just too expensive, although all his four plans explicitly state that Norway won't have adequate defense against all ballistic threats to various degrees.
I'd say it's a huge deal that he today explicitly states that Norway isn't on track to reach its NATO obligations that Norway's already committed to following the current plan and expenditure for defense. And that it will take billions to get there. That's a big deal.