Moreover, Sweden would expect EU and Nordic partner nations to come to its assistance if the country’s sovereignty is at risk. The report, titled ”Resilience,” underscores the need to build a strong defense capability based on increased spending on integrated national defense systems and critical infrastructure.

The cost estimate for the Swedish Defence Commission’s proposals to strengthen the country’s defense amounts to $502 million per year over the 2021-2025 period. The commission serves as a policy development council, shaping defense and security-related legislative proposals to the Riksdag, Sweden’s national parliament.

The commissions’s concluding analysis, according to the report, is that “the global security situation is characterized by instability and unpredictability.”

“Sweden will not remain passive if another EU Member State or Nordic country suffers a disaster or an attack. We expect these countries to take similar action if Sweden is affected. Sweden should therefore be in a position to both give and receive civil and military support,” the report says.

Significantly, the report concedes Sweden is unlikely to be able to deter an extended attack by a major hostile power on its own. The objective will be to develop an armed forces capability that has the capacity to repel and slow the pace of invasion pending the arrival of military support from partner nations.

To this end, Sweden needs to improve its preparedness and readiness to defend its national borders and independence. “In the extreme situation, the Total Defense must have a credible war fighting capability with both its military and civil defense,” the report says.

“The Total Defense concept will bring strengthening in all areas of defense and society, especially the greater integration of national defense with local and regional-level civil defense tasks and organization,” said Peter Hultqvist, Sweden’s defense minister.

The report details the various national and local command-level measures needed to drive closer integration between armed forces and civil defense capabilities. These are expected to be delivered within the total defense operating strategy. Various joint programs to achieve this goal are set to run in the 2021-2025 time frame.

Additionally, the report underlined the urgent need for Sweden to both develop dynamic, value-added defense intelligence capabilities that strengthen the armed forces’ ability to conduct effective defensive and offensive tasks and missions within the cyber domain of future threats.

The Swedish Defence Commission’s next major task will be to deliver a comprehensive assessment of the regional and global security situation, said the commission’s chairman, Björn von Sydow. This report will examine potential effects and consequences for Sweden’s defense and security policies.

“This report is due by mid-May 2019, and it will constitute an important basis for the government’s next defense bill in 2020,” von Sydow said.

The combat uniform deal marks the first time that the armed forces of Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway have united behind a joint procurement project. The NCU project is being led by Nordic Defence Cooperation, or NORDEFCO, the central pan-Nordic organization for military cooperation.

“At present, military organizations in each of the Nordic countries have their own combat uniform systems. In the future, there will be a common Nordic uniform and auxiliary equipment,” said Sanna Laaksonen, a special adviser to Finland’s Ministry of Defence.

Finland’s capital investment in the NCU is estimated to reach $70 million.

The NCU contract has been put out for tender in a competition that Nordic government officials expect will attract a high level of international interest.

A core benchmark in the contract is that the NCU meet a rigid extreme-climate standard, including an optimum level of performance for uniforms customized for Arctic and warm weather conditions.

NORDEFCO is aiming to have a new NCU fully tested and operational within the four Nordic armed forces during the second half of 2021.

The Nordic combat uniform acquisition project is being run by NORDEFCO under a technical arrangement agreed upon by the four Nordic states in connection with NORDEFCO’s Cooperation Armaments Working Group Nordic Combat Uniform project.

The NCU program gained transaction in 2016 when NORDEFCO established a project team comprised of senior defense procurement officials representing the four participating Nordic states.

Cost and value were primary factors driving collaboration in the NCU joint contract, according to Norwegian armed forces Maj. Ivar B. Selvig the head of the NCU project. Norway is the lead Nordic nation in the NCU program.

“Nordic militaries operate in more or less similar climatic conditions. Norway, Sweden and Finland have a greater need for Arctic clothing than Denmark might have, and some countries have special demands regarding the use of the uniforms in jungle conditions. But generally our needs are quite similar,” Selvig said.

The NCU tender covers all branches of the military and will supply all-service combat uniforms for male and female personnel.

The contract does not cover acquisition of uniforms with ballistic protection or specialist combat uniform systems. And the four nations are expected to retain their camouflage patterns.

“A joint Nordic acquisition provides us with several benefits. If we run this project well, we will get improved quality for the same price or even better quality at a cheaper price,” said Brig. Gen. Peter Kølby Pedersen, deputy director at the Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organization.

Jussi Niinistö has been widely criticized for inviting the U.S. military to “unscheduled exercises” and without using official channels to consult with government colleagues, the parliamentary Defence Committee or the Finnish armed forces’ command structure.

“We were not aware about preparations for any new exercise. Certainly, no kind of preparations have been made. Questions need to be asked about the minister and the entire decision-making system,” said Tuula Haatainen, a Social Democratic member of the Defence Committee.

Jussi Niinistö has dismissed criticism, insisting that he did discuss U.S. forces’ participation in the multibranch exercises with President Sauli Niinistö, who is also the commander in chief of Finland’s military.

“I had discussions with the president of the republic before and during the furor over this issue,” the defense minister said.

The defense minister told a special hearing of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee that he did not extend a formal invite to American forces during his recent meeting in Helsinki with U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

“There was no invitation. I just informed Defense Secretary Mattis of the possibility of organizing international military exercises in Finland after 2020,” Jussi Niinistö said.

The Defence Committee said it was unaware of the multibranch exercises mentioned by the minister, who described the maneuvers in question as being at the “conceptual” stage and not among the list of exercises currently on the armed forces’ schedule for 2018-2021.

The Finnish Cabinet Committee on Foreign and Security Policy is slated to meet with the country’s president in December to ratify which military exercises will take place in the 2018-2021 period.

The defense minister said his “new exercise proposal” would be added to the list of military maneuvers considered at the December meeting.

Finland and Sweden jointly support larger-scale exercises involving U.S. and NATO forces. Finland wants to use future larger-scale multibranch exercises to reflect deepening military cooperation with European Union member states.

The activation of the 24/7 hotline facility happens against a backdrop of concern by Nordic governments over a more unpredictable Russia and the regional expansion of its military infrastructure and capacities.

The new hotline facility is intended to deal with “unexpected, emergency and crisis situations,” including information on troop buildups, exercises and near-border incidents of mutual interest.

The hotline will not be used for airspace violations and intrusions by Russian or Finnish military aircraft, as an existing reporting and resolution process already exists to deal with these events.

Russia has established a similar 24/7, military command-level direct-communication line with Sweden. In the case of both the Finnish and Swedish hotlines, the working language with Russia’s military command is English.

The hotline between Helsinki and Moscow is intended for primary use by national defense ministers and military commanders, or officials delegated by defense ministers or chiefs of defense.

The primary objective of the hotline facility will be to guarantee rapid information exchange when and where needed, said Finnish Defence Minister Jussi Niinistö.

“The direct communication line is vitally important to ensure that there are no misunderstandings. It also shows the goodwill that exists between the Finnish and Russian defense administrations,” Niinistö said.

A decision to install the hotline emerged after a May meeting in Moscow between Jukka Juusti, the Finnish Ministry of Defence’s permanent secretary, and Lt. Gen. Alexander Fomin, Russia’s deputy defense minister.

In establishing a direct line, Russia has purposely singled out Finland and Sweden, the Nordic region’s two unaligned states.

The initiative is linked to Moscow’s desire to strengthen relations with Sweden and Finland in hopes it can persuade both countries to remain neutral and out of NATO.

Although there is little evidence of a strong populist push in either Sweden or Finland to join NATO, both states having been actively deepening military cooperation with the Western alliance through their membership of the Partnership for Peace program.

A new poll by the Helsinki-based research organization Taloustutkimus found that popular Finnish interest in joining NATO is on the wane, while a larger percentage of Finns regard terrorism as a real and present threat.

The poll showed that 22 percent of Finns are positive to NATO membership. This is a 3 percent drop on a similar poll conducted in 2016.

The Taloustutkimus survey was commissioned by the Advisory Board For Defence Information, a parliamentary committee that focuses on security policy.

Norway’s arms export policy has come under close scrutiny from a number of political parties led by the Socialist Left Party, or SV, in the national parliament.

The push for tighter controls arises as latest data reveal Norwegian arms exports rose by 10 percent in 2016 to 3.6 billion kroners (U.S. $442 million). The figures indicate that the Middle East is becoming a more important market for Norway’s defense companies.

“There should be more checks and balances to our exports that prevent the weapons and munitions we export from being used in conflicts, such as the war in Yemen where Saudi Arabia is the key actor. Norway’s foreign ministry is unable to say if Norwegian weapons are being used in such conflicts,” said Petter Eide, a lawmaker with the SV and a member of the parliamentary Justice Committee.

The SV, which is lobbying support from among the Liberal, Centre, Labour and Christian Democrat parties, hopes to pressure the government into banning arms sales to Saudi Arabia and its ally nations in the Middle East who joined the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen’s civil war.

“Ideally, we should see a halt to the sale of weapons, munitions and other military hardware to countries in the Saudi Arabia domain fighting in Yemen,” Eide said.

Consequently the SV wants the ban to extend to Saudi Arabia’s main allies in Yemen, including Oman, Jordan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

The SV expects to harness support from Labour and the Centre. Together, the three parties were part of the red-green coalition that governed Norway from 2005 and up to parliamentary elections in October 2013.

The present government, in the shape of Prime Minister Erna Solberg’s Conservative-Progress coalition, has shown no immediate urgency to introduce new policies to tighten existing arm export rules and regulations.

Norwegian Foreign Affairs Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide insists Norway already imposes a rigid code of transparency to military equipment exports, which must adhere to a “strict and clear regulatory framework.”

Søreide, Norway’s former defense minister, added that while armed conflicts and other global threats remain challenging, Norway will continue to rigorously examine all applications for arms exports to areas where “risks are high.”

“All export applications are thoroughly and concretely evaluated on an individual basis,” the minister said.

Rocket engines, weapon systems and ammunition are among Norway’s leading export products. The country’s two biggest exporters are Kongsberg and Nammo.

Of the $442 billion in exports recorded in 2016, $357 million comprised weapons systems and munitions. Exports of dual-use items, involving civilian products with military uses, amounted to $37 million.

Norway’s arms export regulatory agency refused 34 applications for licenses to export defense-related products in 2016.

To ensure Norway has a viable defense industry, the government needs to help enable defense companies to participate in international cooperation, Søreide said, adding that Norway will continue its long-term approach and ensure predictable export controls.

“The defense industry is a driver of technology development, including in the civilian sector, and it is important for innovation and value creation all over the country,” Søreide said.

The Danish government reached a decision in June 2016 to acquire 27 F-35A aircraft at a cost of $3.1 billion. The F-35As will replace the Air Forces’ F-16s. Denmark acquired 44 F-16AM and F-16BM fighters from General Dynamics in the 1980s. The number of actual operational aircraft is about 29.

The Rigsrevisionen operates as the Danish Parliament’s independent watchdog on major capital spending programs. The agency wants the government to explain how the Ministry of Defence’s final assessment accounted for risks associated with key assumptions in the decision; this includes the inherent risk that the Danish armed forces might be unable to deliver all the tasks required with the 27 F-35 combat aircraft ordered from Lockheed Martin.

Moreover, the audit agency is suggesting the government may need to update estimated costs linked to the acquisition to more clearly reflect risks associated with calculated life cycle costs for the F-35A.

The MoD has estimated the life cycle costs for the 27 F-35A combat aircraft at about 66 billion krones (U.S. $10 billion) over 30 years.

Significantly, the central thrust of the questions raised by the Rigsrevisionen are not directed at the F-35A’s operating capabilities or suitability per se, but target optimization and the capacity of the 27 aircraft to deliver the full-range of tasks as set out in the Danish government’s decision-making document linked to the purchase.

Although the MoD will take a close look at the auditor’s analysis and conclusions, the Danish government remains fully committed to proceeding with plans to acquire the F-35A, said Defence Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen.

“We will examine the Rigsrevisionen’s calculations and pay attention to them. That said, I believe that our figures have a very solid basis. I cannot see how we cannot achieve them,” Frederiksen said.

The MoD’s core appraisal calculates that the F-35A will be able to complete 250 flight hours per year, and a higher number if the military is required to operate the aircraft in support of NATO or as part of other international missions.

The questions raised by the Rigsrevisionen, which have been presented to the Danish Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, form part of a new cost and performance analysis by the agency behind the government’s F-35A procurement decision.

Inaccurate estimates?

The Rigsrevisionen’s report is timely. The MoD is set to present documentation to the Danish Parliament’s Finance Committee before the end of November, seeking funding approval for the procurement.

The basis for the government’s fighter-type decision will be incorporated into the request for funding approval along with supplementary details and a specification of the scope of the final procurement made by the MoD.

The government needs to study the auditor’s report and refresh its efficiency and optimization calculations if required, said Rasmus Jarlov, the Conservative party’s spokesman on defense.

“What is important is that the calculations and assumptions that formed the basis for purchasing the F-35 are accurate. This will not affect the decision to acquire the aircraft,” Jarlov said.

Titled “The basis for the Danish Ministry of Defence’s decision concerning procurement of 27 F-35 combat aircraft,” the Rigsrevisionen’s analysis report contends the MoD has failed to “provide evidence of a number of key assumptions underlying its calculations,” adding that the MoD’s figures do not adequately reflect uncertainties connected to these assumptions.

“Our study shows that the MoD’s calculation of the total number of flying hours for the 27 F-35s does not reflect potential shortcomings of the assumptions concerning average number of flying hours per year or the availability rate of the aircraft,” according to the report.

As a result, the auditor concludes “there is a risk that the requirement for flying hours has been under-estimated and the total number of flying hours over-estimated.” The report adds that the MoD may have also “under-estimated the costs allocated to cover risks which may increase the estimated life-cycle costs.”

The acquisition of 27 combat aircraft was never intended to cover all of the military’s long-term operational needs, said Leo Mundt, a political analyst based in The Hague, Netherlands.

“The original plan was to acquire 48 aircraft, but this was considered unaffordable within the framework of the more frugal Danish budgeting for public contracts. The proposed number was scaled down in stages to 27. It’s likely that the [Danish Air Force] will in coming years acquire a sufficient number of multirole drones to support its core F-35 fleet and give the force greater operational flexibility and strength,” Mundt said.

The MoD has already signaled its intent to optimize the operational efficiency of F-35s by micromanaging flight hours and placing a greater prioritization on mission-specific deployments.

“If the [Rigsrevisionen’s] calculations are more accurate than the MoD’s own task-based flight hours assumptions, and 27 F-35s prove to be insufficient to meet all duties, then the main choices are to either purchase more aircraft or reduce flight hours,” Mundt said.

The Air Force’s F-16s are slated to be retired by 2024. The F-35A planes are scheduled to be delivered between 2021 and 2027.

Questions over the basis for the government’s decision-making around the Fighter Replacement Program had been raised by the Parliament’s Defence Committee in May 2016, ahead of the MoD’s announcement in June to procure the F-35A.

The committee cross-examined senior MoD officials, including the defense minister, regarding flyaway and life cycle unit costs and technical calculations relating to each of the short-listed aircraft in the Fighter Replacement Program. These included the Airbus-led European consortium’s Eurofighter Typhoon and Boeing’s F/A-18F Super Hornet.

Experts from the New Fighter Program Office were also questioned by the Defence Committee in May 2016.

HELSINKI ― Finland’s arms exports rose to $150 million in 2016 amid continuing efforts by the country’s defense industry to grow sales to markets in the Middle East. However, the increase in export business to the region, and in particular those states engaged in the military conflict in Yemen, is proving a cause for concern in some political quarters in Finland.

“We need to question some export permits, especially to states in the Middle East that are experiencing civil unrest and at war with their neighbors. It is questionable whether we should be selling military materials to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are involved in the conflict in Yemen,” said Erkki Tuomioja, a Social Democratic lawmaker who formerly served as Finland‘s foreign minister.

According to the Finland-based security think tank SaferGlobe, a record 63 percent of Finland’s defense export revenues in 2016 were generated from sales to Middle Eastern countries.

The Ministry of Defence has approved nearly 100 “export permits” to defense companies covering materiel sales to Middle Eastern countries since 2015.

The significant increase in the value of Finland’s exports to the Middle East in 2016 can be largely explained by a number of standout deliveries by state-controlled Patria, the country’s largest defense group.

Patria has sold its Nemo mortar systems to Saudi Arabia. In 2015, the company secured a contract to deliver 40 eight-wheel drive armored modular vehicles to the United Arab Emirates. Patria has also sold AMVs fitted with the Nemo mortar system to Qatar.

Additional Finnish military exports included Sako sniper rifles and Boomeranger special operations boats. Another Finnish company, Marine Alutech, has sold 14 Watercat K13 interceptor boats to Oman.

Patria recently strengthened efforts to sell its AMVXP armored wheeled vehicle, which is integrated with Kongsberg’s Protector Dual Remote Weapon Station, to markets in the Middle East.

“Finland has long held the ambition to stimulate exports to the Middle East. This ambition is now realized,” said Kari Paasonen, a senior research analyst at SaferGlobe.

Finland continues to apply strict due diligence before granting export permits for military weapons and systems, said Ilkka Kanerva, parliamentary Defence Committee chairman and National Coalition Party member.

“The increase in sales to the Middle East in 2016 was mainly due to a single, exceptionally large deal,” said Kanerva, referencing Patria’s AMV delivery contract with the UAE.

The core of Patria’s exports in 2017 are likely to be in Europe rather than in the Middle East.

The company recently obtained a contract to deliver Compact Airborne Networking Data Link terminals and high-power amplifiers to Airbus Defence and Space in Germany. Patria also secured a four-year contract to maintain the Norwegian military’s Bell 412 helicopters.

HELSINKI ― Opposition leaders in Norway have asked Prime Minister Erna Solberg’s center-right government to explain the precise role of U.S. Marines stationed on a rotating basis in the country.

The presence of the 330-strong Marine Corps unit forms part of expanding cooperation between Norwegian and U.S. forces, particularly in the area of joint multibranch exercises in the Arctic region’s High North close to Norway’s border with Russia.

“There are questions for the government to answer here. It is clear the defense forces needs more funding to improve capabilities and adequately defend Norway. One wonders if U.S. troops are going to be used to plug gaps and weaknesses in Norway’s defenses,” said Liv Signe Navarsete, the Centre Party’s spokesperson on defense.

The prime minister ran on ticket based upon strengthening defense infrastructure in September parliamentary elections. However, increases in military spending and the defense budget in recent years have proved insufficient in meeting all of the Norwegian Armed Forces’ operational needs.

Norway’s military is experiencing manpower shortages across all core services. This is particularly the case in the Navy, which is struggling to reach optimum manpower levels to provide full crews to all of its recently acquired frigates and other surface vessels.

The military’s Northern Brigade and rapid response Army units in the High North are also experiencing personnel shortages in specialized skills areas.

Fundamentally, the leaders of the Center, Socialist Left and leftist Red parties want the government to clarify what status and long-term operating role U.S. forces will have in Norway

“There has been no real debate about the role of U.S. forces. There is concern that we may be looking at a significant shift in Norwegian defense policy without an informed debate,” said Audun Lysbakken, leader of the Socialist Left party.

The U.S. Marine Corp is stationed in Værnes, midwest Norway. The Ministry of Defence has described the unit’s central role as “rotation-based training.”

The presence of U.S. Marines in Værnes also forms part of Norway’s broader national security policy, with the Marine Corps serving as an added “credible deterrent” directed at Russia and one that reinforces the elevated visibility of the U.S. and NATO in the region.

The Norwegian government is eager to scale up training with U.S. and NATO forces in Norway. The MoD has formed an expert group to examine ways of expanding collaboration in the specific area of more regular and larger-scale training and exercises with allied forces.

The MoD’s budget for 2018, which delivers a real increase in spending of $350 million, includes a higher level of funding for training and exercises, as well as “snap,” mission-specific drills.

Most of the planned training and exercise activities will be located in the High North and involve Norway’s Northern Brigade, which is headquartered in Troms, inside the Arctic Circle.

The modular-designed Northern Brigade is the Norwegian military’s largest combat force. It comprises several battalions, motorized infantry, armored vehicles, combat engineering, intelligence, artillery, logistics, communications and medical units.

Future high-visibility exercises hosted by the local military include NATO’s Trident Juncture 2018. The exercise, which will involve about 35,000 troops from up to 30 nations, will focus on cold-climate military training.

Newly appointed Defence Minister Frank Bakke-Jensen, points to force-strengthening measures in the High North as evidence of the government’s long-term commitment to robustly “defending Norway’s borders.”

Bakke-Jensen replaced Ine Eriksen Søreide, who was named Norway’s foreign minister in Solberg’s post-election administration.

As part of its defense reinforcement program in the High North, the Norwegian military has established a full (400-strong) cavalry battalion, supported by a heavy artillery unit, at Porsangermoen in Finnmark. Porsangermoen is located approximately 125 miles west of Norway’s border with Russia.

The Norwegian military has stationed a new, 200-strong ranger company unit armed with light anti-aircraft and anti-armor weapons at the Army’s Sør-Varanger garrison, which is located about 3 miles from Norway’s border with Russia’s Kola Peninsula.

In addition, the military’s regiment at Skjold in the Troms region is being converted into a mechanized battalion.

The Kremlin’s discontent with Finland centers on the nonaligned Nordic country’s deepening defense relations with the U.S. and NATO. Fundamentally, Russia’s chief concern is that Finland, as part of a long-term plan and expanded defense strategy, may decide to join the Western alliance and extend NATO’s reach.

Russia’s warning to Helsinki, delivered by its ambassador to Finland, Pavel Kuznetsov, is fueled by Moscow’s fear of having large-scale NATO forces along its approximately 840-mile border with Finland.

“While each country has the right to define its own national security and defense policy, everyone understands that should the NATO infrastructure advance towards our borders, Russia would be forced to take appropriate countermeasures,” Kuznetsov said.

In Finland, such countermeasures are understood to largely mean economic sanctions and damaging trade curbs on Finnish exports and capital investments in Russia.

Possible future membership of NATO is also likely to hurt Finland’s collaborative industrial relationship with Russia.

Moscow has tried, unsuccessfully, to promote strong military cooperation with Helsinki as a strategic political tool to weaken Finland’s closer links to NATO.

To this end, Russia opened defense-industrial collaboration talks with Finland in 2013, offering Finnish companies the prospect of subcontracting to large defense contracts in Russia.

The talks resulted in the defense ministries in both countries establishing working groups to identify potential areas for defense-industrial cooperation, including the possibility that primary Russian defense programs could be opened to Finnish subcontractors.

Talks never reached the bilateral negotiations, stalling in February 2014 when Russia sent troops and military equipment into Ukraine. This action triggered an immediate sanctions response by the U.S. and the European Union that also blocked military equipment exports and cooperation with Russia.

Support for NATO membership is growing in certain political quarters in Finland. Nils Torvalds ― a member of the European Parliament and the Swedish People’s Party of Finland’s candidate in the January 2018 presidential election ― is openly campaigning for Finland to join NATO.

“Finland’s long-term security needs would be better served inside the NATO alliance. Our long-term policies should not be dictated by Russia as has happened in the past,” Torvalds said.

Finland has participated in NATO’s Partnership for Peace program since 1994. Finland recently opened in Helsinki ― in cooperation with NATO and the EU ― a cyber defense center to counter hybrid threats.

While popular opinion in Finland increasingly weighs on the side of the country remaining untied to global military alliances, latest polls show that just 21 percent of Finns support joining NATO. About 51 percent of Finns are opposed, preferring that Finland retains its nonaligned status.

The government plan ― detailed in the Ministry of Defence document “Proposal for new defense agreement 2018–2023“ ― is directly influenced by Russia’s “more confrontational” behavior and strengthening military presence in the Baltic and High North regions.

Denmark has allocated $3.5 billion for its defense budget in 2017. The defense proposal, if implemented, would scale up year-by-year spending and increase the military’s annual budget by $770 million to $4.27 billion in 2023.

“The government’s defense deal proposal marks a substantial investment in Danish defense. A strong defense underlines our determination to remain a core nation in NATO,” Danish Defence Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said.

In a move that will please the U.S. and NATO, the MoD is proposing to grow its defense spending by 20 percent over the next six years.

A substantial part of proposed new spending would be directed at weapons systems’ acquisitions, special forces expansion and enhanced preparedness-based capacity-building across the naval, ground and air services.

“Denmark needs to build better military capabilities. The larger budget set out in the defense proposal is also intended to enable Denmark to provide a deeper commitment to NATO and contribute more to the alliance’s collective deterrence and defense,” Frederiksen said.

‘Total Defense Force’

The Danish government is scheduled to present a completed defense policy initiative to the leaders of the country’s opposition political parties by the end of October. The proposal will form the basis for new plans to transform Denmark’s military organization into a leaner and operationally oriented structure equipped with greater firepower and fighting capabilities.

The establishment of a “Total Defense Force” ;remains the cornerstone of Danish defense policy and strategy under the new proposal.

To this end, the defense proposal contains an unprecedented level of both ambition and commitment to strengthening Denmark’s land, sea and air capabilities. The Navy’s frigates are to be equipped with both short-range and long-range missiles to counter hostile aircraft and missiles, while offering improved protection of Danish airspace.

The investment proposal linked to the 2018–2023 capacity-building initiative includes the establishment of a 4,000-strong, medium-heavy “rapid” deployment brigade. Moreover, programs are to be implemented to modernize anti-submarine warfare capabilities along with frigate air defense systems and capacities.

The establishment of a new brigade, which the MoD hopes can be fully operational in 2024, would run parallel to the reorganization of Danish defense forces. The proposed brigade would be given additional enhanced capabilities, including more battle tanks, ground-based air-defense, anti-tank weapons, and artillery systems.

The brigade, which is envisaged as operating as an independent unit with its own command structure, would have the capacity to be deployed by the country’s defense forces to the Baltics in a time of crisis.

In such a scenario, Denmark could become a staging area for reinforcements from NATO allies sent to the area to protect the sovereignty of the NATO-aligned Baltic-rim states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Further capacity-building programs are earmarked to cover the acquisition of unmanned aerial systems for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, in addition to the development of a much-expanded, military-led cyber defense capability.

The defense proposal, said Frederiksen, is in line with existing policies to construct combat military units and capacities that can quickly be deployed in support of NATO members and other allies. The emphasis, he said, would be on improving operational capacities.

“Danish defense capability, since the end of the Cold War, has been developed to be an expeditionary force that can operate far from Denmark to fight terrorism together with troops from other countries,” Frederiksen said.

The defense proposal has received a cautious welcome by most opposition party leaders. Some parties are looking for a higher level of spending and more resources to protect Denmark’s extensive territorial interests in the Arctic region, including Greenland.

Any effective defense plan must comprise policies and measures to deal with Russia’s military strengthening in the Baltic Sea and High North, said Henrik Dam Kristensen, the Danish Social Democratic Party’s defense spokesman.

“Russia is deploying missiles in Kaliningrad close to our border. These missiles can easily reach Denmark. We need effective measures to counter this threat. The buildup of Russian troops along the borders of the Baltic states also poses a destabilizing risk to security in this region,” Kristensen said.