opinions
Arne O. Holm says
‘Those With Both Feet Planted on the Ground Stand Still’ – On American Bases in the Arctic
Comment: They were supposed to secure the Arctic against Russian attacks. Today, only those who have buried their face deep in a Maga cap, blocking all other views, can maintain that American bases in the Arctic represent security and nothing else.
Published
Modified
This is a comment written by a member of the editorial staff. All views expressed are the writer's own.
The attacks on Venezuela, then Iran, in addition to continuous threats about taking over Greenland, necessitate an update of the discussion of the function of military bases.
Well, I don't know about discussion. There has been a lack of discussion in the political processes that has led to the US' unimpeded access to over 50 military bases in the Arctic.
An unwavering belief in democratic, American institutions keeping Donald Trump under control has made the establishment of such bases mere ceremonial exercises. Political ribbon-cutting as if a new bridge was being opened.
Alluring starting point
The starting point was alluring, but also simplified into one single thesis: USA is our foremost guarantor for peace.
Alluring, because it was an accepted truth that yesterday's NATO was not able to defend itself against an enemy from the East.
Resistanceless puppets in a theatre.
Simplified, because it completely ignored how the US was moving away from a democracy in which institutions were to restrain the autocrat, but which instead have turned into resistanceless puppets in a theater.
On the battlefield, Iran seems quite helpless against an opponent who uses terms like "creating hell" and "annihilating". This leads to resistance materializing in other places in the world, more specifically against American targets in third countries.
This comes in addition to what might exist of hidden terrorist groups in other countries.
The argument that Arctic countries are not part of Iran's targets, because none of them are actively participating in the war, only goes so far. Partly because it would be outright irresponsible to trust Iranian assurances about anything.
But also because no one knows when Trump might find it suitable to draw forces into the war from bases in the Arctic as well.
When the recently concluded military exercise Cold Response started, American warplanes were redirected from the Arctic to the Middle East.
A bomb against the embassy
Just hours after the attacks on Iran began, a 'youngster' managed to detonate a bomb outside the American embassy in Oslo. Anyone who has been outside this embassy could have sworn that such a thing was impossible.
The fact that American bases in the Arctic are already threatened is also confirmed by ever-new security measures. In March, higher levels of readiness were introduced at American bases worldwide, including in the North.
New and larger security zones have been established around facilities, in addition to no-fly zones and control of maritime traffic.
American military police are increasingly asserting themselves at bases abroad, anti-drone technology is being used, and the monitoring of critical infrastructure, such as electricity and water, is placing ever-greater demands on the national host countries.
It is therefore not my claim that American bases in the Arctic not only provide security but also represent a threat.
Old positions must withstand the confrontation with a new reality.
The Nordic Arctic
It is particularly in the Nordic Arctic that American forces have established their bases. Specifically, we are talking about 12 in Norway, 17 in Sweden, and 15 in Finland. Add bases in Iceland, Greenland, and Canada.
In today's situation, the dilemmas are as packed as sardines. They must be met with an honest and open debate.
Positions that might have been valid a year or two ago must withstand the confrontation with a new reality.
In 1974, Tor Åge Bringsværd wrote the book "The one who has both feet on the ground stands still."
That still applies.
