Researcher
Karsten Friis
Contactinfo and files
Summary
Dr. Karsten Friis is a Research Professor in NUPIs Research group on security and defence.
His research area is security and defense policies in Europe, with an emphasis on NATO, the Nordic region, the Arctic, transatlantic relations, intelligence, cyber security and the Western Balkans. He has published and led several major projects on these topics. Friis is also a frequently used commentator in the public discourse - not least in relation to Russia’s war against Ukraine.
Friis is a political scientist with a PhD from the University of Groningen, a Cand. Polit from the University of Oslo and an MSc from the London School of Economics. Friis has been associated with NUPI since 2007. Before that, he was a political adviser to the OSCE Mission to Serbia (2004 to 2007), the OSCE in Montenegro (2001) and in Kosovo (1999). Friis was also part of the EU's negotiating team for the referendum on independence in Montenegro in 2006. In addition, Friis has worked for several years in the Norwegian Armed Forces and served at NATO/KFOR in Kosovo.
Expertise
Education
2018 PhD, University of Groningen
1998 Cand Polit, Political Science, University of Oslo
1995 Master, International Relations, London School of Economics
Work Experience
2007- Senior Research Fellow/Senior Advisor/Advisor, NUPI
2004-2007 Political advisor for OSCE, Serbia/Montenegro
2001-2004 Advisor, the Norwegian Armed Forces
2000-2001 Political advisor, OSCE, Montenegro
1999-2000 Analyst/E-off, NATO/KFOR HQ, Kosovo
1999 OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission
Aktivitet
Filter
Clear all filters
The Politics of the Comprehensive Approach - The Military, Humanitarian and State-building Discourses in Afghanistan
Peacekeeping and Counter-insurgency - Two of a Kind?
This article demonstrates that there are more similarities between peacekeeping and counter-insurgency than often recognized. In today's ‘war among the people’, the counter-insurgent cannot succeed with offensive military capabilities alone and must seek to apply also non-kinetic and defensive methods; whereas the peacekeeper often is forced to apply ‘robust’ and kinetic means to implement a mandate. As a result, the two concepts seem to be converging and share some commonalities. The article compares the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations ‘capstone doctrine’ and the US Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual to argue that the two doctrines share similarities in six areas: (1) a focus on civilian solutions; (2) a need for protection of civilians; (3) international coherence; (4) host-nation ownership; (5) use of intelligence in support of operations; (6) limitations on the use of force. The article suggests areas where the two doctrines could mesh with each other.