As Trump Vandalizes the Transatlantic Alliance, Norway Feels the Heat
Norwegians have been comfortably rich and safe—until now.
This article is brought to you by American Purpose, the magazine and community founded by Francis Fukuyama in 2020, which is proudly part of the Persuasion family.
With its 2,650 kilometer coastline along the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Barents Sea, Norway is strategically vital for NATO, as well as Northern Europe and the United States. To the north, Norway shares a direct border with Russia, while all maritime traffic from the Baltic Sea must pass through the Skagerrak, the narrow strait between Denmark and Norway, to reach the Atlantic Ocean or head south toward the English Channel.
Before World War II, Norway was neutral, but on April 9, 1940, Norway was invaded by Nazi Germany. The Norwegian fleet and ports demonstrated the country's importance for controlling the North Atlantic. After the war, choosing NATO and the transatlantic defense cooperation was natural. Now, Norway’s geography and strategic importance remain unchanged—but the alliance across the Atlantic has evolved and is quickly deteriorating.
Norway is a member of NATO but not the EU. Norwegian international relationships, particularly with Europe, have not been easy. Norway has never been proactive in her relationship with Europe. One important reason may be that Norwegians have been the underdog in two unions, first with Denmark and then with Sweden.
Supranational organization is often met with scepticism. Denmark and Sweden both chose to join the European Union, while Norwegians have voted “no” in two referendums. The strong resistance to joining, both in 1972 and in 1994 with the newly rebranded EU, is due to fear of loss of self-rule and self-government. In addition, on 25 October 2019, the fiftieth anniversary of Phillips Petroleum’s discovery of the Ekofisk oilfield, the Norwegian Oil Fund passed one trillion dollars. This is more than seven times the size of the state budget, and almost three times the size of mainland GDP. In short, until now Norwegians have been comfortably rich and safe.
This is changing rapidly. There are increasingly regular meetings between EU leaders regarding Europe’s security, relations with Russia and the United States, and the situation in Ukraine, as well as serious customs and trade issues. These meetings are of great importance to Norway—but as a non-EU country, Norway is not guaranteed a place at the table.
International organizations and regulations are crucial for small countries like Norway, and any U.S. retreat from multilateral international cooperation could threaten Norway’s security. Therefore, we must ask:
Is it in Norway’s interest to remain outside the political cooperation of NATO and the EU while our Nordic neighbours fully participate?
If Trump’s presidency affects the U.S.’ relationship with NATO, would it be in Norway’s interest to apply for EU membership and for the EU to strengthen its defense capabilities?
Could the United States lose European and Norwegian friends, influence, and alliances in the long run?
Already, we’ve seen President Trump and Vice President Vance blame Ukraine for starting the war, call the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator and publicly shame him in the Oval Office, support the AfD in Germany, threaten Denmark with acquiring Greenland, and urge Europe to take care of itself or “clean up its mess.”
Questions about Ukraine’s future now revolve around a potential “deal” between Trump and Vladimir Putin. Trump appears to have initiated a solo effort—without his European NATO allies—to negotiate with Putin, excluding Ukraine from the process.
In April 2024, a Norwegian government-appointed committee presented a public report examining alternatives to the EEA Agreement and other agreements Norway has with the EU. The report highlighted that with Trump as the next U.S. president, uncertainty would increase in Europe regarding foreign policy and EU cooperation. This moment has now come, just one month after Trump took office.
As the report points out, Norway may need to align itself more closely with EU defense and security cooperation—especially as Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, and Denmark has lifted its restrictions on participating in the EU’s common defense and security policy. This could reshape Nordic collaboration in this area. However, Norway is not part of this political dialogue as a non-EU member.
So far, Norway has signed a defense agreement with the EU. The former Norwegian Minister of Defense Bjørn Arild Gram stated: “Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has changed our security environment. NATO remains the cornerstone of Norway’s defense and security policy. At the same time, the EU is increasingly seeking to strengthen its role in security and defense, in a way that complements NATO.”
But is this the case? Can Norway rely on NATO as the cornerstone of its defense?
To defend its long coastline, Norway faces significant logistical challenges. The distance between Oslo, the capital, and Tromsø, known as the “capital of the Northern Lights,” is around the same distance as between Oslo and Rome. Even if the Europeans can join forces, the United States’ military capacity is necessary to defend Norway in a potential crisis.
Even though former NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg (who’s from Norway) has been known for his ability to communicate with President Trump and agreed that Europe needed to increase its defense spending, Trump has so far chosen to create uncertainty about NATO and has refused to provide security guarantees for Ukraine.
Can Norway then trust that the United States would deploy the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman—which visited Oslo last year—to secure Norway if Russia shifts its focus to the Arctic and Tromsø, the hub for all air transport to the Svalbard archipelago?
The Kola Peninsula and Murmansk are just 200 kilometres from Kirkenes, another Norwegian city strategically located near the Barents Sea. Norwegian airspace frequently experiences jamming and GPS disruptions, while the Kola Peninsula hosts a Russian submarine base with nuclear weapons. This part of the Russian military remains fully operational.
If President Trump makes a deal with Putin where Russia gets to keep the occupied territories in Ukraine, the United States secures access to Ukraine’s metal resources. Ukraine only receives a ceasefire without security guarantees, which would reveal much about how Trump views geopolitics as a transactional process where great powers divide spheres of influence. At the same time, smaller states are left to fend for themselves.
In such a scenario, Norway must consider how Trump would approach the Arctic. His previous remarks about buying Greenland show that he sees the Arctic as a strategic region with economic and military value. Would he then make similar “offers” regarding Bjørnøya, the Norwegian archipelago Svalbard, or Norwegian ports along the Barents Sea? To make it clear, Norway has sovereignty over Svalbard, but the archipelago has a special status through the Svalbard Treaty of 1920. The treaty grants Norway full sovereignty over Svalbard but also comes with certain unique obligations:
Norwegian law applies, but with some limitations. For example, Svalbard is a demilitarized zone, and military installations are not allowed.
All countries that signed the treaty have equal rights to conduct commercial activities, fishing, and hunting on the archipelago. This means that, for instance, Russia has operated coal mining on Svalbard for a long time in Barentsburg.
What if Trump cancels this treaty? Or what if he wants to take control of vital military security surveillance, operated from Norwegian military installations along our coast?
The Barents Sea is also rich in fish, oil, and gas and holds great military significance. Control over the Norwegian coast would provide the ability to monitor and potentially block Russian nuclear-powered submarines from the Kola Peninsula—an attractive prospect for a president who views international relations in zero-sum terms.
Whether Trump sees Norway as a loyal ally or as a small state whose interests can be bargained away in a larger geopolitical deal will depend on how he weighs the value of Norwegian cooperation against the potential benefits of an agreement with Russia.
This makes it critical for Norway to ensure a firm anchoring in NATO and the EU while strengthening its defense capabilities in the north.
My answers to the initial questions I posed are:
It is in Norway’s interest to fully participate in the EU.
Norway must strengthen its defense and capabilities, doing so in cooperation with the Nordic and Baltic countries, as well as with the UK and the EU.
The United States may lose friends, influence, and alliances in Europe and Norway—alliances it may need to counter potential increased Russian military aggression in the Arctic in the years to come.
We no longer know if we can “count on the Americans.” The alternative is clear: Norway must fully commit to Europe and work toward better security and defense with our Nordic and European neighbours and friends.
Mathilde Fasting is an economist and historian of ideas at Civita, a Norwegian liberal think tank and host of Liberal Halvtime, Civita's weekly podcast. Her books include After the End of History and The Norwegian Exception.
Follow Persuasion on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube to keep up with our latest articles, podcasts, and events, as well as updates from excellent writers across our network.
And, to receive pieces like this in your inbox and support our work, subscribe below:
 | A guest post by
|
thank you, Ms. Fasting, for your discussion of Norway's situation.
As just one American, I send best wishes to you and your country. I am very sorry that my country has unleashed Trump upon the world. Wasn't what I wanted, for sure.