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...
Den første KI-krigen 1:2
Da krigen i Ukraina startet, flyttet mange vestlige selskaper til hovedstaden Kyiv for å utvikle kunstig intelligens som kunne brukes av ukrainern...
Climate, Peace and Security Fact Sheet: South Sudan
South Sudan is one of the least peaceful countries in the world and one of the most vulnerable to climate change. Rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns have led to both drought and flooding, impacting river flows and the groundwater availability and water quality for a population highly reliant on agriculture and pastoralism. Decades of violent conflict have also eroded the population’s coping capacities. Weak governance and the lack of infrastructure further undermine the capacity of state and social institutions to adapt to climate change. Beyond the existing tensions between armed groups in South Sudan, the spillover effects of the war in Sudan are exacerbating a complex and persistent humanitarian crisis.
Russia’s strategic interest in the Arctic: a comparative perspective
The main objective of this brief study is to examine what we define as ‘Russia’s strategic interest in the Arctic’ from a comparative perspective in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine. There are different ways of mapping a country’s strategic interest in an issue. This research paper adopts a quantitative approach to measuring the level of strategic interest that official Russia has expressed in the Arctic and compares this interest in the Arctic with interest in the Barents Sea, Baltic Sea and Black Sea regions. Measuring interest comparatively is done by mapping how much attention is being given to these four regions by various Russian actors who shape or examine Russian policies in their key communication channels. Due to the format of this study, it does not explore what drives this interest, focusing only on a quantitative examination of the number of references to the regions in question in the chosen set of information channels.
How to make sense of the new era in transatlantic relations
This seminar will explore the challenges facing the transatlantic relationship, with a particular focus on legitimacy, integration, and security.