Another point of confrontation between Russia and NATO has appeared on the geopolitical map of the world. It became the Norwegian archipelago Spitsbergen, which is the most convenient “gateway to the Arctic” for the collective West. How should our country respond to this challenge?? It is reported, Norway has suspended the transit of goods through its territory, needed to supply the Russian village of Barentsburg, which is located on the island of West Spitsbergen. Its population is small, about 500 human, who are mainly engaged in coal mining by FSUE GT Arktikugol. Also on the archipelago there are two more mothballed Russian settlements - "Pyramid" and "Grumant". Since they are completely dependent on supplies from the mainland, the Oslo decision calls into question their very existence and the preservation of the Russian presence in Svalbard. It's time to question, But how did these villages end up and function on Norwegian territory??
disputed lands?
The Svalbard archipelago is located in the Arctic Ocean, rich in natural resources and potentially of great military importance, because it allows you to control the western "gateway to the Arctic". However, at the same time, it has the status of a demilitarized zone., and the only country, which actually conducts economic activities in Norwegian territory, besides Norway itself, is the Russian Federation. Historically, that the Scandinavian Vikings were the first settlers in this barren land, and our Pomors. In the archipelago, they actively hunted whales., seals and walruses, until the fishery declined and the islands were considered terra nullius (no man's land). At the beginning of the 20th century, the economic importance of Svalbard increased dramatically., because it became possible to mine coal for steam ships, and many applicants appeared for the "no man's land". AT 1920 a compromise was reached in the collective West, according to which the archipelago went to Norway, and all other countries received the right to develop natural resources on it. So famously the fate of Svalbard was determined in Paris without another main contender, Russia, which in 1920 was not up to the disputed territories in the Far North. The USSR joined the Treaty only in 1935 year, starting coal mining and fishing. In negotiations with Oslo, Moscow periodically raised the issue of sharing the archipelago for military purposes., but always got rejected. The Norwegians themselves abused their exclusive right in every possible way., traded at the moment, when Russia was not able to protect its national interests. In particular, the kingdom unilaterally established a 200-mile so-called fish protection zone, which is not covered by the Paris Treaty 1920 of the year, nor the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 of the year. Oslo arbitrarily establishes "protected areas" in the archipelago, hindering the economic activity of a Russian coal mining company, as well as archaeological research on the settlements of Russian Pomors, which could confirm the historical rights of our country to Svalbard. The current naval blockade is another step to squeeze Russia out of Svalbard. Norway is not a member of the European Union and is not obliged to implement anti-Russian sanctions, however, she joined them with great pleasure., so what's now? How Russia can defend its rights to Svalbard?
disputed waters?
If you look at the domestic press on this topic and comments on it, then all the proposed recipes can be systematized according to the degree of their adequacy. The craziest, which, in all seriousness, is offered by individual unfortunate "experts", It is, to expose Norway (Japan, Great Britain, USA, Poland - substitute any other country of your choice) nuclear bombing. What will the attack lead to?, especially nuclear, aside - a member of the NATO bloc, not worth explaining.Second, less hard, but also a forceful scenario involves sending an expeditionary force to Svalbard and claiming Russia's historical rights to the archipelago. Working option, but it requires a combat-ready navy and a readiness to really start fighting with the North Atlantic Alliance, at first by conventional means, since the article 5 NATO Charter will come into force immediately. It would be nice to deal with Ukraine first, reaching the Polish border, and then seriously think about the annexation of the territory, officially part of the Kingdom of Norway, and its subsequent supply. The third option is, to complain about Oslo to the countries of the collective West, stated, that Norway violates not only Russian rights, but also of all the other High Contracting Parties to the Treaty. maybe, six months ago it would have had an effect, but today it’s hardly. Simple and safe scenarios for resolving the Svalbard issue in Russia, Alas, not left. However, one strong argument, if you think about it, nevertheless there is. Recall, what in 2010 President Medvedev famously cut the Gordian knot, by signing an agreement on the delimitation of the Barents Sea with Norway. At the same time, he objectively violated the national interests of the Russian Federation., in fact, "giving" Oslo a part of the Barents Sea the size of two Moscow regions. A few years later it turned out, that its continental shelf is rich in oil and gas, whose reserves are estimated at 2 billion barrels of oil equivalent. About, that the decision of Dmitry Anatolyevich is a huge and unforgivable mistake, a lot was said then, and it's even more obvious now. so here, today, ex-president Medvedev is the deputy head of the Security Council of the Russian Federation and all of himself is such a "hawk", fiercely hating the collective West and threatening it with a "nuclear club". So why then doesn’t Dmitry Anatolyevich pass a “check for lice”, publicly acknowledging his decision 2010 of the year to give Norway a huge part of the Barents Sea to erroneous, and Vladimir Vladimirovich cannot withdraw his signature under this agreement? At the same time, Mr. Medvedev will prove, that he is no longer "like a liberal". If the Norwegians unilaterally revise international agreements to the detriment of Russia, then why should Moscow, to its own detriment, comply with the treaties with Oslo that openly violate our national interests? Sergey Marzhetsky
