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.
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...
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.
Chapter 1: Dilemmaer i norsk utenrikspolitikk
In this introductory chapter of the book "Dilemmaer i norsk utenrikspolitikk", we discuss Norway’s room for maneuver, trade-offs, and choices in facing the major foreign policy dilemmas of our time.