Norway has a rather unique approach to its national security among all of the Arctic states. Norway’s historic Arctic security policy can be characterized by the term “High North, low tension,” a term actually coined by the Norwegian government to describe their goals for Arctic security. Norway has a long history of being a diplomat in the Arctic sphere of influence, particularly between Russia and the rest of the world. But this also puts it in a precarious position, being a European nation, sharing a land border with Russia, and being a NATO member and close ally of the United States. The increased militarization of the Arctic in these nations as well as their deteriorating relations plays a big role in Norway’s security perspectives today- a conflict brewing on its literal doorstep.
The most important security concerns in Norway today are varied but mostly have to do with external factors such as global relations. Russia’s activities in the north are by far Norway’s biggest security concern at this moment. Russia’s militarization and technology advancement in the Arctic has forced Norway to focus heavily on monitoring, deterrence, and strengthening their defenses not only as a nation but as a NATO member. Arctic military training and infrastructure development in Norway have significantly increased in the last decade. Norway is also very focused on control of their EEZ and territory in the Barents Sea as an important fishery and oil and gas resource but also a potential region of conflict with Russia. Controlling this energy-rich territory is particularly crucial to Norway, as it is estimated that up to 30% of the nation’s oil reserves may be found in the Barents Sea. Questions of control over this region, oil development, or transport are certainly high on Norway’s security priorities. China’s interest in the Arctic is another security concern of many Arctic nations, Norway included.
Given the multitude of security concerns faced by Norway today, one might wonder if their goal in the Arctic is still to reduce tension. The answer is that “High North, low tension” is still the ultimate goal, but pragmatically, Norway has had to make some adjustments in line with global conflicts and tensions. Yet, even with Russia-NATO escalations and changes in priorities in the Arctic, Norway still remains an important pillar of peace and cooperation in this region especially as they enter the chairmanship of the Arctic Council. Norway’s past relationship with Russia and their ability to hold good, clear dialogue about regional and national issues with this neighbor (as demonstrated by these two recent news articles) serve as an example to the rest of the Arctic nations on how to handle emerging security concerns.
https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/us-researchers-look-norway-insights-managing-relationship-russia
My additional source: Østhagen, Andreas. “Norway’s Arctic policy: still high North, low tension?.” The Polar Journal 11, no. 1 (2021): 75-94.
I focused on the same nation – I do believe their goal in the Arctic is to reduce tension. It is realistic that all nations in the region benefit from stability, and will behave as such. In the articles we read, I found the government of Norway’s multiple assertions that Russia has behaved well in the region and complied with international law and therefore they will continue bilateral cooperation interesting in the context of the nation’s activities further south. I believe this hair-splitting benefits Norway. They do have to adjust their defense tactics, but I do not necessarily think this takes away from an intention to maintain neighborly relationships. I like the phrase used in the first article you shared – “strategic ambiguity.” This article asserts that the country does not actually prefer this tactic and tends towards clarity. The author is much more knowledgable than I and I am sure they are correct. However, I do think Norway takes advantage of strategic ambiguity on my very minimal reading.