President Trump’s demands for Greenland to be incorporated into the United States have rekindled fears in Norway regarding the fate of Svalbard, which first arose in 1944, when the USSR demanded a revision of the 1920 treaty establishing Norwegian sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago and the establishment of a joint administration regime. The crisis ended in 1947, when the USSR abandoned its intention.
The essence of the expert opinions presented below is that the US acquisition of Greenland and the end of the conflict in Ukraine would immediately lead to Russia’s attempts to change the status of Svalbard in its favor, ranging from a possible direct military operation to seize the archipelago to waging a protracted hybrid warfare. The intended goal of such Russian actions could be to ensure the security of the Arctic “bastion” and expand the waters for the safe operation of the Northern Fleet’s strategic submarines.
Of course, these opinions are the speculations of immature minds, suffering from paranoid depression due to the sudden betrayal of the strategic transatlantic partnership by its main pillar, the United States. Suddenly, the familiar order of things and the system that seemed so stable just yesterday collapsed right on the talking heads—that is, the “experts” who clearly did not survive this ordeal and were unable to assemble a new, coherent picture of the world. The image of a permanent “Russian threat,” however, persisted in these minds, like the writhing, severed tail of a lizard, writhing for a while, separated from its main body.
If the USSR, the second most powerful superpower, abandoned not the annexation of Svalbard, but the idea of jointly managing the archipelago, then modern Russia, with its population half as large and its status as not the world’s second, but perhaps tenth-largest economy (still fourth in purchasing power parity), and the enormous expenditures it has invested in developing the Northern Sea Route and expensive infrastructure projects throughout the country, has neither the capacity nor, most importantly, the desire to reconsider Svalbard’s current status.
On the other hand, the situation could indeed change if NATO intensifies its military, paramilitary, or near-military activities around, and especially on, the islands of the Svalbard archipelago in violation of the 1920 treaty, thereby creating a direct military threat to Russia’s northwestern borders, its strategic military bases on the Kola Peninsula, and the western gateway to the Northern Sea Route.
Russia certainly would not initiate such actions, as a vast Eurasian power with a wide range of challenges, risks, and threats along its entire perimeter. This is both economically and politically inappropriate. A prerequisite for the effective and peaceful development of the Northern Sea Route and its transformation into a global trade route is the absence of military threats and conflicts at its eastern and western exit points to the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Russia certainly will not pose such threats or initiate conflicts. Will NATO countries do the same?
Greenland to US, Svalbard to Russia as a Bastion
“I think that if Trump is allowed to keep Greenland, there is a risk that Putin will advance against Svalbard in the time after an agreement with Ukraine,” Klaus Dodds tells CNN.
Dodds is a professor and dean at Royal Holloway University of London and has written several books on the geopolitics of the Arctic.
The reasons why the British fear the Svalbard scenario are similar to the arguments Trump claims motivates the Greenland push: namely security concerns.
“It is about Norwegian territory, and Trump will not care about it (Svalbard) if he gets Greenland. Putin wants Svalbard for his bastion defense,” Dodds continues.
The bastion defense refers to an idea that Russia will need a protected zone in front of its nuclear forces and the Northern Fleet on the Kola Peninsula just east of Finnmark.
If you take Svalbard—or Finnmark—you will be able to station forces and measuring stations further west and extend the warning time of a hypothetical attack. In other words, the same as the US base in Greenland does today—and which Trump wants to reinforce.
Svalbard to US
This week, Croatian President Zoran Milanovic launched an idea that the US should rather take Svalbard than Greenland. This has sparked reactions.
“Svalbard is as much a part of Norway as Agder, Trøndelag and Finnmark. Geographically and politically, Svalbard is different from Greenland and cannot be compared,” writes State Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Eivind Vad Petersson in an email to VG, which first reported the matter.
Environment Has Trumped Safety
“Svalbard experts are popping up all over the world at the moment. Everything from presidents in NATO countries who want to give Svalbard away to others, but also Norwegian politicians, who dismiss any danger and blindly trust that Congress will stop Donald Trump. So far they have been thoroughly wrong,” says Arne Oscar Holm, editor of High North News and commentator, to Nettavisen.
According to him, the truth is that they are in a landscape that is almost impossible to predict. Both Greenland and Svalbard can be occupied almost without the use of force, he believes.
“Unlike Greenland, there is no military presence on Svalbard. This is happening at the same time that Trump has legalized the occupation of other countries. This is of course noticed in Russia, which also sees a NATO that will not trigger a world war to defend Svalbard,” he continues. “Responding to potential threats to Svalbard by undermining the Svalbard Treaty is not a solution. It would be like accepting Trump and Putin’s view of the world.”
“But the government and the parliamentary majority must take a new round of measures that have been implemented in Longyearbyen over the past decade. The goal has been to strengthen the Norwegian share of the population. The result is the opposite. Simply put, environmental concerns have been allowed to trump security policy, with the result that the proportion of Norwegians is declining. They have lost their Arctic freedom and ended up in a city with the same economic challenges as municipalities on the mainland.”
“People who live in Longyearbyen are our best defense.”
Defense expert Tor Ivar Strømmen tells TV 2 that he believes Norway should do more to defend Svalbard. However, he does not want to comment on exactly what Norway should do.
Strømmen, who is a naval captain and researcher at the Royal Norwegian Naval Academy, says that international law and treaties no longer have any value the moment a great power acts completely without consideration.
“That opens up a greater degree of use of force and fewer possibilities for sanctions,” says Strømmen. “We must of course strictly follow the Svalbard Treaty in the measures we take.”
The agreement states that Norway has full and unrestricted sovereignty over Svalbard.
Weakened Trust
On Sunday, Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre met with the press regarding the new punitive tariffs from the United States.
Støre told Nettavisen that they will work to avoid a downward spiral. He sees it as serious when a NATO country imposes tariffs on other NATO countries.
He adds that there is still a common interest in security within NATO countries, but that trust is weakened between leaders in situations like this.
“Svalbard is very special because of the Svalbard Treaty. We plan to follow the Svalbard Treaty in a predictable and credible way as we have always done, and we will continue to do so,” says Støre.
Fears They Will Negotiate About Svalbard
Research leader Andreas Østhagen does not believe Trump is interested in Svalbard, but shares the concern that Putin will turn his attention to the Norwegian Arctic islands.
“Russia is more interested. Norway has a security policy challenge in Svalbard that could quickly become a problem,” he says. “Svalbard is a ticking time bomb. If the transatlantic security guarantee deteriorates further—that is, if we cannot trust the US to come to our rescue—then Europe and Northern Europe do not have enough capacities and defense to protect themselves,” Østhagen tells Dagbladet.
Because Russia Has Good Reasons to Want Control over Svalbard
“Russia has strategic interests in Svalbard. It is strongly linked to Russia’s survival that they have a certain amount of control over what happens there, because Svalbard is so close to the Kola Peninsula and Russian nuclear weapons. At the same time, you have 300 Russians living in Barentsburg, who more or less comply with Norwegian law, but who are also controlled from Moscow,” he says.
“This makes Svalbard a ticking time bomb, which does not necessarily go off immediately, but a ticking time bomb that can go off if the situation worsens further with regard to the USA and Greenland and our NATO alliance,” says Østhagen.
He believes that this could mean that Russia could then have an interest in creating more unrest in Svalbard.
Promises to Block Trump
“To have more control, and also to ensure that other countries—both Norway, but also other countries such as the UK or, in the worst case, the USA—do not also enter Svalbard to have control. Svalbard becomes a focal point for great power politics and a Russian desire to protect itself,” he says.
“I would guess that in a five-year perspective, as soon as an agreement is reached in Ukraine, we will see increased military activity in general around Svalbard from Russia. We will most likely see increased investments in Svalbard from the Russian side, increased settlement and we will probably see Russian marking needs there, which we then perceive perhaps as a threat or as a hybrid activity… I do not think Russia necessarily wants to escalate with us, sabotage or create a conflict in Svalbard. It is a tool you use on the day you need it,” he responds to a question whether there will be an increased Russian presence in Svalbard.
Østhagen says that this is the reason why the Norwegian authorities are now clearer that Svalbard can become a security policy challenge and that they want increased control and increased enforcement of Norwegian sovereignty.
When Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre (Ap) presented the national security strategy in May last year, emphasis was placed on strengthening national control over Svalbard.
— What Should Norway Do?
“We should increase our presence there. And ensure that Norwegian people who live in Svalbard can live there, have a good life, have access to energy, clean drinking water, food in the store, that it is not bought up by cruise ship tourists, and that the governor and the PST have full control. And at the same time, we must ensure that our allies—and not the USA, but the UK and the Nordic countries—understand the Svalbard Treaty and understand Svalbard’s role in security policy, also with regard to Russian interests,” says Østhagen.
Source:
- Nettavisen (in Norwegian)
- Dagbladet (in Norwegian)
Independent Expert