Earth to Orbit - Building Bridges in Space (DISCOVER)
DISCOVER analyses the key drivers of cooperation and conflict in space governance, highlighting the importance of international collaboration for global security and the stability of m...
The Joint Expeditionary Force and its Contribution to European Security
The paper has three chapters. Chapter I identifies and assesses the advantages of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) and makes a comparison with other European defence and security frameworks. Chapter II examines how the JEF has responded to Russia’s war against Ukraine and the subsequent dramatic changes it has driven in European security. Chapter III considers the challenges to the UK, the JEF and European security following the war in Ukraine and the 2024 US presidential election. It provides recommendations for the new UK government for the further development of the JEF to best contribute to European security. The Conclusion argues that the UK must take the opportunity to strengthen the JEF to respond to a deteriorating security environment.
How to Support Ukraine: Peace Will Require Ukrainian Strength
A revived Western effort to finance Ukraine’s war effort will send a clear message to Russia of the West’s commitment. It may also help revitalize the West’s defense industrial production and leave U.S. and European security on firmer footing. This will be costly, but it is a cost that both the United States and Europe can easily manage. Furthermore, continued Western support should go hand in hand with a renewed effort to address its critical manpower shortages. The war and the world may be currently turning against Ukraine. But this is not a permanent condition. Russia is also suffering greatly, experiencing massive battlefield losses and economic strain. Europe, the United States, and Ukraine can turn the tide of the conflict back in Kyiv’s direction. Doing so is likely the only way to bring Russia to the negotiating table.
Kan Trump avslutte krigen?
President-elect Donald Trump’s statements claiming he will end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours have received considerable attention. What is interesting is not the feasibility of achieving this within a day – which no one believes – but rather the fact that he expresses a desire to bring the war to an end. President Biden’s repeated pledges to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes” have been rightly criticized by Republicans and others for lacking strategic vision. Trump, by contrast, appears to seek a plan to conclude the conflict. However, there is a significant difference between the intention to act and the ability to deliver. What, realistically, can Trump do?
Våpen alene er et blindspor
The path forward in what is undeniably a political crisis in inter-state relations appears, on the surface, to be rather straightforward: rearmament. Attention is then directed toward quantifying and benchmarking—counting both the numbers and each other: What is required, and who is doing the most? This has become a prevailing pattern throughout the war in Ukraine, where militarization is perceived as the only effective response. For a Ukraine that stands to lose U.S. support, prioritizing weapons is indeed crucial at this moment, in order to secure leverage at the negotiating table being set by Trump. But for Europe, an arms-only approach is a dead end—and this is something European leaders ought to recognize. As the metaphorical iron curtain threatens to once again divide the peoples of Europe, we need pragmatic leaders who take diplomacy seriously, writes Julie Wilhelmsen in this op-ed.
Resisting Radicalization: Exploring the Nonoccurrence of Violent Extremism
Precarious living conditions across the Balkans, the Middle East, and North Africa create fertile ground for radical ideas. Yet, despite genuine grievances and legitimate grounds for anger, most people living in these regions are not radicalized and do not embrace ideas that lead to acts of violent extremism. Which raises the question ... why? To answer this question, the authors of Resisting Radicalization investigate the nonoccurrence of violent extremism in what they term enabling environments. Their work, the result of a multiyear international project, has critical implications for the future of P/CVE (Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism) programs. This book is a result of the EU Horizon 2020 project PREVEX (Preventing Violent Extremism in the Balkans and the MENA: Strengthening Resilience in Enabling Environments). Project number: 870724
Moral- og realpolitikk i en ny verden
The scenes from the White House on Saturday unsettled even the most seasoned analysts. The anticipated signing of the mineral agreement—which was expected to provide Ukraine with an indirect American security guarantee that the country desperately needs—did not take place. Instead, the public witnessed an open dispute between President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and President Volodymyr Zelensky. The deal that may now emerge in the aftermath of these events is unlikely to be the one Ukraine had hoped for. Subsequent commentary on social media has largely focused on identifying who initiated the quarrel. These responses have tended to fall into two polarized camps, each assigning clear blame to one side—either Zelensky or Trump and Vance
Hva nå?
It is time for Norway to develop a foreign policy for security—one grounded in issues rather than party politics, writes Julie Wilhelmsen in this op-ed. This is not an argument for withdrawing Norway from NATO or breaking ties with the United States, but rather an attempt to initiate a debate on how to create greater room for action in a policy area that Norway must independently formulate. It is an invitation to engage in rational and knowledge-based reasoning—something we, as “like-minded” actors, should pursue to find the best solutions in a time when global challenges are growing ever more complex and there is a notable absence of clear leadership anywhere in the world. It is, of course, uncertain whether Norwegian leaders will have any leverage in the White House when the time comes. Moreover, should any of the proposals I have outlined be pursued, they will undoubtedly generate significant dissonance among domestic audiences after years of rhetoric suggesting that “weapons are the path to peace”—an approach that has at times appeared to serve as Norway’s new moral compass. Yet, a strategy that combines deterrence with reassurance in security policy, and that promotes diplomacy in international affairs, is both needed globally and, from a historical perspective, a well-established Norwegian position. Such an approach could make Norway more secure and enhance the credibility of Norwegian foreign policymakers.
Den første KI-krigen 2:2
Kunstig intelligens endrer måten vi kriger på, men hvordan fungerer det, egentlig? I denne episoden ser vi nærmere på hva som skjer når droner sty...