Åsmund Weltzien

Sikkerhetspolitiske rammebetingelser i bevegelse

Verden preges av mer kompleksitet og usikkerhet enn på flere tiår. Kanskje har vi har allerede vent oss til hyppigere omveltninger. Mennesker er tilpasningsdyktige. Kanskje har vi ikke fullt ut tatt inn rekkevidden – også for Norge – av skredet av hendelser og endring i Europa og internasjonal sikkerhetspolitikk siden 2014. Norges sikkerhetspolitiske omland har blitt mer polarisert og mer fragmentert. Samtidig er noe dypere synliggjort; grunnpilarene for norsk sikkerhets og forsvarspolitikk er i bevegelse. Retningen er også mindre medstrøms for småstaten Norge enn nordmenn har vent seg til i nærmest hele perioden etter den andre verdenskrig. Denne analysen belyser utviklingstrekk som påvirker rammebetingelsene for Norges sikkerhet. Noen trekk skiller seg ut: Geopolitisk maktforskyvning utfordrer den institusjonaliserte verdensorden, og USA har vist tegn til å en mer avventende holdning til rollen som garantist og ledende stormakt. Samtidig kan et mer komplekst trusselbilde tvinge NATO til endringer som utfordrer samholdet i alliansen. Sett fra et norsk ståsted: Hvilke dilemmaer, utfordringer og nøkkelspørsmål vil kunne møte norske beslutningstakere i årene som kommer?

Russian foreign policy as an instrument for domestic mobilization

Despite numerous declarations, the Russian authorities have done very little about domestic reforms, such as economic modernization. By contrast, Russia’s external policy has been extremely active, and is extensively debated within Russia itself. On the surface, it may seem that the domestic agenda is fully suppressed by the external one. In reality, however, foreign policy plays an important instrumental role, as the main tool for achieving domestic consensus and mobilization. It is public approval of the country’s foreign policy, together with ‘Russia-friendly’ interpretations of international processes, that create openings for the political elite to postpone domestic reforms. Various strategies for domestic reforms have recently been elaborated on the order of the President – but there are no indications that they will be realized anytime soon.

‘Violent Extremism’ in the Lake Chad Basin. Understanding the Drivers of the Boko Haram Insurgency.

Burden-sharing in NATO. The Trump effect won’t last

The Trump Administration has adopted a more confrontational and transactional approach to burden-sharing in NATO. It has threatened to “moderate” its commitment to the Alliance unless the European members increase their defence spending (US Mission to NATO 2017), and contribute more to out-of-area operations. Since President Trump entered the office, European defence spending has risen at a quicker pace, and the nature of the defence debate in Europe has changed. The Europeans are no longer debating whether they need to increase their spending; the questions discussed are how fast and how much. Is this evidence of a “Trump effect”, and will it last? This is the question addressed in this policy brief. Because it is hard to predict the future, we adopt an historical perspective.

Strengthening the Peace and Governance Nexus within the African Union. Enhancing synergy between the African Governance Architecture (AGA) and the...

The vision of the African Union (AU) is to achieve “an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens and representing a dynamic force in the global arena”. The attainment of that vision hinges on three foundational imperatives: democratic governance, peace and security, and sustainable development. The focus of this report is on the interlinkages between democratic governance on the one hand and peace and security on the other. The report examines the two overarching mechanisms that were established by the AU to strengthen democratic governance and attain peace and security; namely the African Governance Architecture (AGA) and the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA).

How The Joint Strike Fighter Seeks To Preserve Air Supremacy For Decades To Come

Since its inception in 2001, the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has cleared several technical and political hurdles as it is nearing the end of its development stage, formally known as System Development and Demonstration (SDD), which is expected to be completed in the spring of 2018. The JSF is designed to be a game changer – with the combined air-to- air and air-to-surface capabilities – which means that it can both support ground troops and naval forces – when it comes to targeting enemy strategic targets during warfare. The JSF, also known as the F-35 Lightning II Program, can also operate in areas where the F-16 cannot. Furthermore, the JSF program has established comprehensive planning processes that seek to identify and analyze technological advances by adversaries such as North Korea, Russia, China and Iran as they seek to respectively close their military gaps with Washington.

Building Bridges for Success:Rethinking Peace Operations Training for Complex Environments

Witnessing the changes in armed conflict since the 1990s, several global political-level agendas have emerged, recognizing the growing human suffering from armed conflict and the long-term consequences on societies. These high-level agendas, such as Protection of Civilians (POC), Women, Peace and Security (WPS), and Children in Armed Conflict (CAAC), address crucial issues that fall under a broader human security approach, and are to be addressed by peace operations. As such, they have at an increasing rate been included in strategic level doctrine and policy. The three global UN peace and security reviews published in 2015 stress the need for a shift to more people-centered, inclusive processes, establishing better context awareness, and investing in cooperation with external counterparts significantly. If peace operations are to remain relevant and effective in achieving international peace and security, this needs to be taken into account. This shift within peace operations requires that the preparation and training of peacekeepers follow suit in order to meet the challenges faced in increasingly complex environments. This policy brief therefore advocates for the adoption of an integrated approach to peace operations training, putting greater emphasis on comprehensive, people-centered approaches and contextual analysis.

Public opinion in Putin’s Russia. The public sphere, opinion climate and ‘authoritarian bias’

Russian public opinion polls regularly report approval ratings of 84% to 86% for President Vladimir Putin – but can we trust those figures? This question has come to the fore after the events of 2014. Although Putin’s decision to annex Crimea, with the subsequent broad confrontation with the West, was seen by many as extremely damaging for the country’s long-term development, Putin’s approval ratings have shown almost unquestioning support for his policies. Does this support reveal deep-rooted anti-Westernism in Russian society, or an imperialistic mood? Or is it the result of intense propaganda campaigns and polling fabrications?