Op-ed: Security for the High North: The Cold War

This is an opinion piece written by an external contributor. All views expressed are the author's own.

The “Grand Alliance” of leadership that had fought World War II was never destined to last. The western democracies, including the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) compared to the state controlled communist Soviets, had little in common, now that the shared enemy was defeated. The Soviet view of history resulted in paranoia about defensible borders and resentment of the West to the extreme. The Cold War was now on, as President Truman developed a strategy to confront Soviet aggression.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949, with twelve original members in one of the first attempts to contain the spread of Soviet influence. For the most part, it worked as advertised with the United States and its Allies behind the solid consensus called containment.

Article Five of the NATO treaty is known as the collective defense clause and is a commitment to defend a member nation if they are attacked. In the age of modern weapons, we might not have time to debate intentions. The purpose of a treaty is to make the decision prior to hostilities. If a member gets attacked; the entire alliance responds. A solemn promise.

The Marshall Plan

The Marshall Plan was an economic stimulus to support America’s prior adversaries and allies alike. The intent was economic recovery and General Marshall reasoned that we had to strengthen the economies of Europe to help prevent Soviet influence. The financial aid plan included the Nordic countries, including Sweden but not Finland. This may have been the wisest investment in world peace ever recorded.

Each of the Nordic countries had their own experience in World War II so it was only natural that they would reach different conclusions from the most devastating war in history.

Sweden would gravitate toward neutrality while Iceland, Norway and Denmark would seek security in the NATO alliance as charter members.

Finland had fought three wars within the confines of what we call the Second World War: pulling off a “David versus Goliath” feat against the Soviet Union. In the post-war years, Finland was able to trade with the West while keeping a watchful eye on the Soviet Union.

In fact, Finland was the only nation on a Soviet border that managed this during the Cold War.

An early lesson learned with joint NATO operations was the need to plan to fight together as a member of one team.

This is not easy to do, even within your own military; things can get out of control due to different radios, types of weapons, ammunition, and different ways of calling for artillery or planning air power.

The ability to work together, have weapons, shared communications and tactics is called interoperability. It begins before weapons procurement and continues during planning and training at every level. To prove that NATO nations can work together, training events have routinely taken place.

Difficult combat operations in the High North during the war were the catalyst for a series of exercises such as Battle Griffin. Here, U.S. Marines joined with Norwegian Army troops to exercise in Arctic conditions.

Marines are appreciative of the ability to train in Norway but the welcome by the King and other senior leaders is a memory they will cherish forever. There have been numerous other joint exercises that have continued this excellent tradition.

Training in harsh conditions

The challenge for our militaries is to conduct tough, realistic training (individual and collective) in austere environments that can replicate the
stress of combat. All the Nordic countries now offer NATO troops the chance to obtain world-class training in the High North.

If our troops can operate there, they will be a success anywhere.

NATO also had to confront the Soviet nuclear triad. Planes, missiles, and submarines attacking across the Atlantic would most certainly involve transiting Arctic air or sea space.

The Soviet Kola peninsula was and remains the center of the Russian ballistic missile fleet along with other military assets.

As the polar ice cap is reduced, more opportunity for commerce or military operations will present themselves in the Arctic. It remains key strategic territory whose value is going to increase due to resources and the fact that a large part of the Arctic domain is shared by Russia.

Thanks to Lech Walesa, the Cold War ended in 1991 with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the separation of the Russian Federation from former Soviet Republics such as Ukraine. The free world took a breath, believing that the end of the Cold War would lead to a “peace dividend.”

After a period of reduced tensions, a regenerated Russian threat returned. In 2007, speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Vladimir Putin expressed outrage that Russia had been marginalized. This was a warning to the West that, for the most part, went unheeded.

The Russian attack in Crimea in 2014 was a wake-up call for many. February 2022 saw an all-out war against Ukraine, with many European and all the Nordic countries providing weapons, vehicles, and training to stop Russia in Ukraine.

We might call this Cold War 2.0 but there is nothing cold about it.

Lessons Learned:

– The Marshall Plan was successful beyond all expectations. The U.S. supported Europe in the early 1950’s because this was the moral and ethical course of action. Europe has paid the U.S. back many times over by being reliable and trustworthy allies.

– NATO worked as advertised to contain Soviet aggression in Europe. It is a defensive alliance and has never attacked anyone. (Note to our Russian Friends.)

– The Nordic countries are leading the fight to support Ukraine against Russian aggression. Ukraine is not asking for troops, but they need weapons and our financial support. Peace without guarantees is meaningless, and peace should not result in Russian aggression being rewarded.

– Containment worked to stop the spread of Soviet influence, and it could work against Russia now. Appeasement was not effective when confronting Hitler in 1938, and it will not work now when confronting Vladimir Putin in 2025.