{"id":11561,"date":"2022-03-13T10:21:13","date_gmt":"2022-03-13T10:21:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/2022\/03\/nor-reac\/"},"modified":"2024-11-21T00:12:40","modified_gmt":"2024-11-20T21:12:40","slug":"norwegian-reaction-to-russian-attack-on-ukraine-siri-neset","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/2022\/03\/norwegian-reaction-to-russian-attack-on-ukraine-siri-neset\/","title":{"rendered":"Norwegian Reaction to Russian Attack on Ukraine – Siri Neset"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Like several other European countries, Norway has seen shifts in its\nforeign and security policy as a direct consequence of the war in Ukraine. The\nmore significant ones are downgrading its diplomatic relations with Russia to a\nminimum and changing its laws regarding the sales and export of weapons to a\ncountry in conflict. <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Ukraine is relatively far from Norway, what Russia does in its\nneighborhood is of great concern. Norway has a 195.7-kilometer land border with\nRussia and the two countries also border each other\u2019s exclusive economic zones in\nthe Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fast-evolving situation in Ukraine and Russia\u2019s aggressive attack\nhas led Norway to react with several policy implementations. Many of these align\nwith the EU, US, NATO, UN, and other international policies since Norway sees\nit as vital for the international community to act in unity to support Ukraine\nand counter Russian aggression. As a result, the Norwegian government first condemned\nthe Russian attack on Ukraine at the highest level and with the strongest\nwording. While the Prime Minister, Jonas Gahr St\u00f8re, condemned<\/a> \u201cRussia\u2019s military attack on Ukraine in the strongest possible terms\u201d on\nthe day of the first attack and classified it as a \u201cserious violation of\ninternational law (that) will have dramatic consequences for the people of\nUkraine\u201d, Foreign Minister Anniken Huitfeldt added that<\/a> \u201cthe attack is unjustified, unprovoked and irresponsible. A clear\nbreach of international law\u201d. The Norwegian elite, expert community, and people,\nin general, have also reacted strongly towards the Russian war on Ukraine and support\nthe government\u2019s position. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Diplomatic relations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Russian Ambassador was summoned to a meeting with the Foreign\nMinister on the 25th<\/sup> of February. He was presented with the\nNorwegian position on the situation, including that Russia holds full\nresponsibility for the invasion and that Norway demands Russia to end the\natrocities and withdraw its military forces. In a press conference after the\nmeeting, the Foreign Minister said that Putin had lied about Russia`s\nintentions in Ukraine and the invasion was meaningless.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Norwegian MFA issued a travel warning on February 27, advising against\nall travel to Russia. A week later, on March 5, it announced that Norway was\nreducing its contact with the Russian authorities to a minimum due to the\nlatter\u2019s invasion of Ukraine. Essential\ncontact with the Russian authorities would, however, continue in areas relating\nto maintaining critical public functions and sustainable resource management in\nthe north. Consequently, the Arctic Council and Barents Euro-Arctic Council are\nnot functional at the moment. This is a rather dramatic decision as far as\nNorway is concerned since the Norwegian policy historically has been to\nmaintain diplomatic relations with Russia in times of crisis \u2013 even during the Cold\nWar – to enable a de-escalation of the situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the current case, the Norwegian government has also aligned itself\nwith the sanction policies of the EU and US and has so far acted in accordance\nwith international institutions and alliances, such as the UN and NATO. Moreover,\nthe Ministry of Finance informed<\/a> the Fund Manager\nof the central bank of Norway -Norges Bank- on\nFebruary 28 to immediately freeze all investments made by the Government\nPension Fund Global (GPFG) \u2013 perhaps the world’s\nlargest sovereign wealth fund. At the beginning of the year, the GPFG had Russian shares at a value of roughly NOK27bn,\nroughly 2,75bn Euro. The Ministry has further requested Norges Bank to\nprepare a plan for the complete divestment of the Fund from the Russian market. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Military aid\/support <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norway also decided to send non-lethal military equipment such as\nhelmets and bulletproof vests to Ukraine and additional troops to NATO`s\nEnhanced Forward Presence Battlegroup in Lithuania.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for sending defensive weapons to Ukraine, the debate ran high, like in\nseveral other countries, mainly because Norway has since 1959 had a strict\npolicy on the export of firearms. The guidelines for dealing with\napplications concerning the export of defense-related products are based on a\ndecision from 1959 that makes it clear that an assessment of the foreign and\ndomestic policy situation in the area in question is required before any\nexports are permitted and that Norway will not permit the sale of arms or munitions\nto areas where there is a war or the threat of war, or to countries where there\nis a civil war. An addendum to this came in 1997, stating that a careful\nassessment of the foreign and domestic policy situation in the area in question\nand a broad-based evaluation of license applications for the export of defense-related\nproducts are required. Finally, in 2019 a direct reference to international\nhumanitarian law was included. As such, sending weapons to any conflicting\nparties under any circumstances is not easy for Norway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even\nthough the public debate was not as fierce as one may have expected, concerns\nwere raised as to the fact that Norway would not have reasonable control of the\nweapons and where they could end up, perhaps potentially in the hands of Russians\nor militias further down the road. Furthermore, what the future consequences\nmight be of such a sudden change in the policy for Norwegian weapon control\nthat has been a fundamental norm in regulations for 60 years. Many officials\nare also concerned that this change is taking place without a thorough debate\nand risk analysis before the decision. There was also a debate within the\nexpert community about whether sending weapons to Ukraine might lead to an increased\nrisk of aggression from Russia towards Norway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, there was a concern that Norwegian weapon export to Ukraine\nmight affect the perception of Norway as a prominent humanitarian actor and\nthat it could endanger its humanitarian work around the world and possibly\nimpact negotiations negatively on humanitarian access to war zones, including\nUkraine. Norway has already provided NOK 250 million -about 25,4 million Euros-\nin humanitarian support in response to Russia\u2019s attack on Ukraine, primarily to\nthe UN Refugee Agency, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement,\nand the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund. This has now been increased to a total of\nNOK 2 billion \u2013 203,5 million Euros.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless,\nthe Norwegian government decided on February 28 that it would donate 2.000 M72 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine \u201cto defend\nitself against the military attack from Russia\u201d PM St\u00f8re added<\/a> that, although \u201cNorway has a restrictive policy concerning the export\nof defense-related products\u201d, it is aligning its actions with its close allies\nand the other Nordic countries as \u201cUkraine is now in a desperate and\nextraordinary situation\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Closing of Norwegian\nairspace and Norwegian ports<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norway closed its airspace for\nRussian flights on February 28 and extended this ban to Svalbard and Jan Mayen\n\u2013 Norway\u2019s territories in the Arctic Ocean on March 1. The restricted area\nincludes the airspace over the Norwegian territorial waters and applies to all aircraft operated by Russian air carriers,\nincluding marketing carriers in code-sharing or blocked-space arrangements, or\nfor any Russian registered aircraft, or any non-Russian-registered aircraft\nthat is owned or chartered or otherwise controlled by any Russian natural or\nlegal person, entity or body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nbanning of Russian ships from European ports is currently being discussed in\nEurope, and some countries have already adopted a few restrictions. In Norway,\nthis has so far not been discussed much publicly. Still, the Minister of\nFisheries and Ocean Policy stated that Norwegian ports would not be closed to\nRussian ships. But the debate is now rising in the Norwegian media, and the\nopposition is criticizing the government. The background for the Minister`s reluctance\nis said to be the critical environmental cooperation between Russia and Norway\nin the Barents Sea to safeguard the ecosystem, including the fish population.\nHowever, as some news agencies have reported<\/a>, it also has\nto do with the vital fishing industry in the north and the intertwined\ninterests of Russia and Norway therein. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other Areas of Contact<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equinor, Norway`s largest energy company, has, in addition to acting in\ncompliance with Norwegian, EU, and US sanctions, decided to stop new\ninvestments into Russia and to start the process of exiting Equinor\u2019s Russian\nJoint Ventures. Equinor has been in Russia for over 30 years and entered a\ncooperation agreement with Rosneft in 2012. Similarly, Hydro announced that it will not enter into new contracts with Russian\nproducers until further notice. It evaluates existing commitments’\noptions, including a potential freeze of commercial relationships with Russian\ncounterparts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other Norwegian major international companies like Telenor and\nStatskraft have not commented on the situation or their dealings with Russia.\nYara, however, is highlighting the issue of food security and asking the\ninternational community to do more in this regard and, at the same time, lower\nthe dependence on Russian supplies. Some private businesses in Norway have also\ninitiated different boycotts of Russian goods and services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Norwegian ski federation has banned Russian and Belarus athletes from\nparticipating in competitions in Norway, and the Norwegian Olympic and\nParalympic Committee and Confederation of Sports have been working towards\ntheir international headquarters to suspend all Russian and Belarus athletes\nfrom entering the international competition as well as Russian are suspended\nfrom holding positions within different international sports organizations.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Within different interest organizations in the culture sector, there is\nan ongoing discussion regarding a boycott of Russia. That is, whether a sanction\nshould be implemented for Russian theatre, opera, and art from performing in\nNorway and Russian artists from displaying their art. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, about 1000 Ukrainian refugees have entered Norway as of March\n11, and the government is preparing for many more to come. On March 4th,<\/sup>\nthe government decided to offer temporary collective protection to Ukrainians,\nwhich provides an exemption from individual assessment and allows protection to\nan entire group of people. It practically means that displaced Ukrainians will\nnot have to undergo a time-consuming process of individually reviewing their\ncases. The last time this was done in Norway was during the Kosovo conflict in\nthe late 1990s. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

****<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All in all, the reaction to the Russian war on Ukraine has been\nforceful, swift, and largely united the government, elite and expert\ncommunities, private business and culture institutions, as well as the general\npublic. Moving forward, the debate regarding Norwegian ports might very well be\nnext in line. However, it most likely will be one of the more difficult discussions\ngiven the potentially high impact on the fish industry and potential risks\nregarding the highly vulnerable ecosystem in the Barents Sea, where Russian and\nNorwegian interests are intertwined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>
\n
Siri Neset<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Siri Neset is a political psychologist and an associate research fellow at Chr. Michelsen Institute, Norway. Neset`s academic interests include foreign policy decision-making, security studies, geopolitics, Turkish domestic and foreign policy, and U.S. relations with MENA. Her work is focused within the intersection between theoretically informed approaches and policy related issues <\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

To cite this work :<\/strong> Siri Neset, \u201cNorwegian Reaction to Russian Attack on Ukraine\u201d, Panorama<\/em>, Online , 13 March 2022, https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/blog\/2022\/03\/03\/putin-yol\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copyright@UIKPanorama. All on-line and print rights reserved. Opinions expressed in works published by the Panorama<\/em> belongs to the authors alone unless otherwise stated, and do not imply endorsement by the IRCT, Global Academy, or the Editors\/Editorial Board of Panorama. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Like several other European countries, Norway has seen shifts in its foreign and security policy as a direct consequence of the war in Ukraine. The more significant ones are downgrading its diplomatic relations with Russia to a minimum and changing its laws regarding the sales and export of weapons to a country in conflict. Although […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":144,"featured_media":9011,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[512,486,507],"tags":[656,760,621,644],"class_list":["post-11561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-crisis-in-ukraine","category-opinion","category-russia","tag-english","tag-putin-en","tag-russia","tag-ukraine"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11561","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/144"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11561\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9011"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalpanorama.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}