Scenario: Trouble in Arctic

[Vivendi]

It's 2019, the world has mostly recovered from the economical recession that started in 2008, with oil prices reaching new levels.

The UK economy however is still weaker than before the recession. The Falklands oil rush never materialized, it turned out that there was much less oil than some had predicted.

In Norway, a "far-right"-wing party won the last elections and has formed a government.

Spring 2019; a boat towing a dril rig leaves the UK and starts moving north. When it leaves UK EEZ and keeps moving north, alarm bells immediately start ringing in Norway, and Oslo asks London for an explanation, but none is given.

While the oil rig moves north, the Norwegians notice that "by coincidence" a UK frigate is also moving north.

The Norwegian government is suspecting the final destination of the oil rig, and their suspicions are ultimately confirmed: The oil rig, now openly escorted by the frigate, is heading for the Svalbard archipelago. The Norwegian coastal guard has been put on the alert. The ships Svalbard and Nordkapp are already in the Svalbard region. The Norwegian government decided to stick to OPVs and keep the Nansen class frigates at a distance "to not escalate the situation".

When the oil rig is about to enter the EEZ around Svalbard the Norwegian OPV immediately instructs the rig to not enter the zone. Ignoring the instructions, the rig continoues ahead. One OPV moves in front to the tug boat, to force it to stop. The frigate move in and warns the OPV to get out of the way. The OPV refuses to move, and in the end the frigate fires a warning shot, and tells the OPV that the next shot will be aimed at the OPV.

Scenario I
The OPV backs off and the oil rig moves ahead. Norway tries to fight the battle politically and diplomatically.

Scenario II
The OPV does not back off. The frigate fires at the OPV, disables it and kills 15 sailors in the process. The other OPV starts a rescue operation and calls for assistance. The frigate and oil rig moves ahead.
In the middle of the night the frigate suddenly detects a strong radar signal emitted from an approaching F-35 that decided to announce itself. It hails the frigate and informs the frigate that the frigate and the two other vessels must immediately leave the Svalbard EEZ; failure to do so will force the stealthy F-35s in the area to engage the frigate, using their NSMs.

Comments? I would think scenario I is the most likely; but could scenario II also happen? If yes, what do you think would happen next? If the british vessels do not turn around, would the F-35s armed with NSM be capable of disabling the frigate? And how would the UK respond? (I can imagine several scenarios here, all that would end rather badly for Norway...)

I did not specify the type of UK frigate -- perhaps type 45 or 23? Could it affect the outcome of scenario II?


V

 

[Feanor]

Both are NATO members. Both are fairly rational European countries, with limited geo-political aspirations. Things would have to go very far indeed for this type of situation to be possible.

 

[ASFC]

What is the point of this thread? It is not even vaguely plausable.

When I first saw the title I was expecting a scenario between the US/Canada/Norway/Denmark and Russia-which is slightly more plausable.

 

[Marc 1]

When I first saw the title I was expecting a scenario between the US/Canada/Norway/Denmark and Russia-which is slightly more plausable.

When I first saw the title I thought something had jackknifed!

OP, I think you mean the Arctic.

 

[Vivendi]

Both are NATO members. Both are fairly rational European countries, with limited geo-political aspirations. Things would have to go very far indeed for this type of situation to be possible.

First, let me apologize for not providing more background information.

Svalbard and the sorrounding areas have a very special history and status.

Norway's view: http://www.regjeringen.no/nn/dep/ud/Om-departementet/Utenriksminister-Jonas-Gahr-Store/Taler-og-artiklar/2006/Svalbard--an-important-arena.html?id=420843

It is frequently claimed in the public debate that Norway’s role in Svalbard is only to manage the archipelago in the best interests of the world community, or of the parties to the Svalbard Treaty. This is wrong. Several possible solutions were discussed before the status of Svalbard was determined. One of these was just such a management role for Norway. But it was rejected in favour of granting Norway full and absolute sovereignty over the archipelago. Since 1925, Svalbard has been part of the Kingdom of Norway, and will continue to be so.
[...]
It was recently reported in the media that the UK has protested against Norway’s plans to establish an economic zone around Svalbard, where we now have a fisheries protection zone. This is not the case. The UK has put forward its views on the legal status of the sea areas outside Svalbard’s territorial waters. Some of these views coincide with ours, whereas others do not. We do however agree on the importance of responsible resource management, including in the sea areas around Svalbard, in accordance with the provisions of international law.

http://www.atlanterhavskomiteen.no/Publikasjoner/Internett-tekster/Arkiv/2008/FN%206-2008.pdf

Of the contracting parties dealt with here, the United Kingdom seems to represent the most consistent challenge to the Norwegian position on Svalbard, as their legal arguments as well as their political interests seem to coincide. When the Norwegian government established the fishery protection zone, the United Kingdom reserved their position29 and referred to their former note expressing their reservation regarding the continental shelf outside Svalbard.30 The British government has also later reminded Norwegian
authorities about what they describe as their legitimate rights on Svalbard.31

Although I cannot find a reference right now, the UK arranged a conference in 2007(?) to discuss resource management in the arctic region. They invited all the countries with interests in the region, but not Norway...

With regards to NATO; yes, both countries are member of NATO and this will probably help keep conflict levels low, but does not mean conflicts cannot happen. Apart from the obvious example of Turkey vs. Greece, a more relevant example is the "cod wars" between NATO countries Iceland and the UK. Unlike Norway, Iceland has no military. The Brits did send their warships into these these conflicts, and shots were fired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_war

On 12 November, V/s Þór encountered the trawler Hackness which had not stowed its nets legally. Hackness did not stop until Þór had fired two blanks and one live shell off its bow. Once again, HMS Russel came to the rescue and its shipmaster ordered the Icelandic captain to leave the trawler alone as it was not within the 4 nm (7.4 km) limit recognized by the British government. Þór's captain, Eiríkur Kristófersson, protested that he would not do so, and ordered his men to approach the trawler with the gun manned. In response, the Russel threatened to sink the Icelandic boat if it so much as fired one shot at the Hackness. More British ships then arrived and the Hackness escaped.
[...]
A second incident occurred in 1976, when HMS Andromeda was dented when Þór sailed close to her bow. Þór sustained a hole in its hull. The British Ministry of Defence said that the collision represented a "deliberate attack" on the British warship "without regard for life". The Icelandic coastguard on the other hand insisted Andromeda had rammed Þór by "overtaking the boat and then swiftly changing course".[citation needed]

Britain deployed a total of 22 frigates against the four Icelandic patrol vessels V/s Óðinn, V/s Þór, V/s Týr, and V/s Ægir, as well as two armed trawlers V/s Baldur and V/s Ver.[8][9] The Icelandic government tried to acquire U.S. Asheville class gunboats, and when denied by the American government they tried to get Soviet Mirka class frigates. In addition to the frigates, the United Kingdom also deployed a total seven supply ships, nine tug-boats, and three support ships to protect its fishing trawlers, although only six to nine of these vessels were on deployment at any one time. [9]

[...]
The Last Ramming
On the evening of 6 May 1976, after the end of the third Cod War had already been decided, the Icelandic ship Týr was trying to cut the nets of the trawler Carlisle. Captain Gerald Plumer of nuclear-armed HMS Falmouth decided to ram V/s Týr. The Falmouth at the speed of 22+ knots (41+ km/h) steamed into the ship, almost capsizing her. However, Týr did not sink and managed to cut the nets of Carlisle anyway. This resulted in another ramming. At that moment Týr was heavily damaged and propelled by only a single screw and pursued by the tug-boat Statesman. In this dire situation Guðmundur Kjærnested, captain of V/s Týr gave orders to man the guns, in spite of the overwhelming superiority of firepower the Falmouth enjoyed.

Countries don't have friends or enemies, they have only interests.


V

 

[Vivendi]

When I first saw the title I thought something had jackknifed!

OP, I think you mean the Arctic.

Yes, it should be arctic not artic, my apologies. I am slightly dyslectic.

V

 

[Vivendi]

What is the point of this thread? It is not even vaguely plausable.

Which part did you find "not even vaguely plausible?" Don't you think the UK would be interested in oil from the Svalbard region? Or do you doubt that Norway would try to prevent the Brits from drilling?

In any case I think you under-estimate the probability of this happening. A Norwegian officer wrote his Master degree a few years back on conflicts in the arctic region. He described two scenarios: one involving Russia, and one involving the UK, Svalbard, and oil... His argument for using the UK-Svalbard scenario was that the UK has demonstrated "strong interest" in obtaining oil (and/or gas) resources from this area, furthermore, in recent years they have expressed in very clear language that they disagree with Norways legal view on this.


V

 

[ASFC]

It is not vaguely possible that the two countries militaries would lock horns over the issue-the idea somehow that the UK would rather send in Frigates, and Norway send in Fighter Jets, than do a business deal with Norway (which given the UK has some quite sizeable oil companies, I see as more plausable).

Using the Cod Wars as a precedant for this event is IMO wrong-the law of the seas has changed since then, the UK is a part of that law change. Back then, what Iceland was doing was new, and the UK disagreed with that.

Like I said, given the nature of UK oil and Gas Companies they are much more likely to come to a business arangement to buy the supplies (even if they have to drill it themselves)....than fight you for it.


Frankly I just don't see it a viable scenario. You are painting it as if somehow the two countries don't get on, and would rather fight than make a business deal, why?. I live in the UK and i'm not aware that we don't get on with the Norweigens, or that Svalbard is an issue for the UK. I'd also point out that the RN is not what it was, the UK can't just 'spare a frigate' to escort a drilling platform into somebody elses EEZ.

The only way I can see this happening is if countries don't follow treaties signed in the 1920's-yet the Russians still mine on the Island (and did for much of the Cold War). If they can explore Svalbards mineral deposits peacefully, I don't see why another member of NATO can't. Hence I don't see a 'military scenario' existing (although I agree a political argument/debate between the two countries might/does exist).

 

[Vivendi]

It is not vaguely possible that the two countries militaries would lock horns over the issue-the idea somehow that the UK would rather send in Frigates, and Norway send in Fighter Jets, than do a business deal with Norway (which given the UK has some quite sizeable oil companies, I see as more plausable).

Using the Cod Wars as a precedant for this event is IMO wrong-the law of the seas has changed since then, the UK is a part of that law change. Back then, what Iceland was doing was new, and the UK disagreed with that.

Like I said, given the nature of UK oil and Gas Companies they are much more likely to come to a business arangement to buy the supplies (even if they have to drill it themselves)....than fight you for it.


Frankly I just don't see it a viable scenario. You are painting it as if somehow the two countries don't get on, and would rather fight than make a business deal, why?. I live in the UK and i'm not aware that we don't get on with the Norweigens, or that Svalbard is an issue for the UK. I'd also point out that the RN is not what it was, the UK can't just 'spare a frigate' to escort a drilling platform into somebody elses EEZ.

The only way I can see this happening is if countries don't follow treaties signed in the 1920's-yet the Russians still mine on the Island (and did for much of the Cold War). If they can explore Svalbards mineral deposits peacefully, I don't see why another member of NATO can't. Hence I don't see a 'military scenario' existing (although I agree a political argument/debate between the two countries might/does exist).

It is not an issue of "not getting on" with each others. It is about resources, and access to resources, and it's about agreeing (or disagreeing) on who owns the rights to those resources.

I think the cod wars are relevant, the point is exactly that Iceland had one view, the UK disagreed with that view, similarly the UK has expressed disagreement with Norway over Svalbard. This is not in the headlines, still the disagreement is there, as mentioned previously.

Please note that the Svalbard EEZ that I mention in my scenario is currently not established, and if/when it happens, my feeling is that it will probably not be accepted by the UK, somewhat similar to what happened when Iceland started to expand their EEZ; this was initially not accepted by the UK. And we saw what happened.

I agree of course that the first option will be negotiations and trying to settle things in a peaceful manner -- in this respect I agree my "scenario" is certainly lacking a prelude that could make the scenario more probable, i.e., a description of negotiations that would break down, etc. However my point is that if the UK really believes that they have a right to drill for oil around Svalbard, then the UK would expect Norway to agree on that If Norway disagrees, well then we have a problem.

In any case I agree the conditions must change before the scenarios I described could become probably -- my point is that they may change, and that the core of the disagreement is already present. Choosing not to invite Norway to the conference to discuss these issues (like the UK did in 2007) indicates to me that the UK may want to "control" the dialogue and process with Norway as much as possible. Again, it's not about being friends or enemies, it's just about "interests". The Norwegian Foreign minister was deeply dissatisfied by being kept out of that meeting, which included most (if not all) other countries that have some interests in the arctic region. By not inviting him, the UK did not improve relations to Norway, on the contrary...!


V

 

[Runi_dk]

I don't think that UK nor Norway would risk a conflict like this one..

Like ASFC, I think it would be much more interesting to discuss a scenario between the US, Canada, Norway, Denmark and Russia, and I think that it is a very real possibility that we will see some conflict in the near future about the Arctic.