Norway is most likely choosing the South Korean Chunmoo for this, not HIMARS.
From the article below (my translation):
"Buying American has the limit that upgrades are difficult. ... The South Korean Chunmoo is not just a comparable product, but a system with development potential."
There's also the issue on how much the US can be trusted when Hegseth can pull intelligence sharing and upgrades at a whim, and the delivery challenges that plague US manufacturing. We want these systems now, not in 2036.
DN is a major Norwegian business newspaper with good connections to the military, this is probably a planted leak to prepare the Americans for the loss of the contract.
The Norwegians would be accepting significant risk to buy American technology given Norway’s stance on Greenland - and America’s approach to its former allies, not partners/customers.
Fascinating to read a non-Norwegian analysis of this, but I think you do it exactly as the Norwegian military and politicians are thinking. (And yes our defense minister is Tore Sandvik but he doesn’t have to pound the table to get that money from ex general secretary Stoltenberg now finance minister. Neither will any in the opposition parties raise any objections.) Regarding the buy in win US systems, that isn’t popular, but I think unavoidable. (Israeli systems would be a suicidal proposal for oh so many reasons.) But here is the thing. We distinguish between Trump and US. While we see some development in US as unavoidable, like a stronger focus on the Pacific, less interest in Europe, more interest in internal issues and less world police man etc (but I think you underestimate the benefits of being world policeman) etc we believe that another administration might at least respect us as paying customers. We want a positive relationship. We don’t want the break up, and if it happens it should at least be amicable. And you have things we need. Until the Germans put their shit together on this.
I want to add context to this, apart from what appears a made decision to go with Chunmoo and not US HIMARS, Norway recently decided on new frigates, ordering the UK Type 26 over the US, German and French bids. New subs and tanks? German made.
The strategic partnerships with close neighbours Germany and UK appear to have been a deciding factor in both cases, reading between the lines of the messaging around these contracts, there was a not too subtle 'we can't rely on the US' message. Which is also a theme through public discourse, even while our government says everything is hunky dory because 'the US relies on our intelligence gathering on the northern borders with russia'... They're either lying or dangerously naive, the latter a distinct possibility.
The same is written, not so subtly, in the DN article.
In an understatement typical of Norwegians they write (my translation):
'The general attitude is that Norway has bought a lot of American defense materiel through the years'
This is very loaded phrasing in Norwegian (I know it doesn't seem so, but it is), signalling that people are fed up with the Americans. Couple that with US support for Israel's Gaza mayhem, and the chatter about 'kill switches' and reliance on continued library updates for the F-35s (not to mention the insane cost overruns and operating costs).
HIMARS is still great, if old, but there are production backlogs, the missiles cost an arm and a leg, and need US targeting data which Hegseth can turn off between beers.
The US is seen as risky these days, so we'll buy more European and South Korean systems, cheaper, faster deliveries, from more stable governments. It won't be long before Ukrainian manufacturers start competing seriously, with battle proven products, tested and proven against the very same adversary we're re-arming for.
The US also has a manufacturing backlog so bad we can't count on deliveries in any reasonable time frame - and it could all be redirected at a moments notice, like they did with 155 ammo allocated to Ukraine, which was shipped to Israel instead.
Since the US now has codified that Europe is a threat, it would seem prudent to avoid too many eggs in the US basket.
There will be more US contracts, as Hans said there is still stuff they have that we need, but the days that the US won on walk-over are gone.
The benevolent, if flawed, USA that middle aged people like me grew up with is gone. She may come back, and she may not. Europe must grow up and start acting like adults, which the US will not like at all.
Anyone who thinks the US relationship can be repaired as soon as Trump is gone has not been paying attention, these aren't even Trump policies, it's the Heritage Foundation, JD Vance, Thiel, Musk, Miller, and Dark Enlightenment, all rolled into one, which will persist for years.
"(B)ut I think you underestimate the benefits of being world policeman..."
Exactly correct. Therein lies a major source of U.S. instability, and the cause of our current decline and loss of respect. Too many Americans think that we are protected from events in Europe by a magically secure, vast ocean. They do not see that our wealth since World War II and our day-to-day comforts are directly threatened by the war in Ukraine and our idiot president's backing Putin instead of our true allies. (Thank you for crediting the gap between Americans and the insane results they get from not understanding their own elections.)
An American president with courage and a brain would have adopted a simple foreign policy long ago. Upon seeing the simple truth that Europeans lived with social programs that Americans did not have while those same Americans guaranteed European security, he would have complimented Europe on its success and declared that, with such spending prioritized over defense, it was time to gradually withdraw the United States from Europe over a guaranteed timeframe indexed to Europe's defense spending. Keep refusing to increase defense spending, and the United States would gradually draw down to perhaps half or a quarter of its original strength over a period of guaranteed years, and then actually do it. If the Europeans increased their defense spending by stated amounts, the drawdown would not occur. This would have pressured Europe to increase defense spending while allowing it to control the size of U.S. forces in Europe.
Might that have altered European pensions and healthcare? Tragic, isn't it, that they should have had to live with American levels, but at least the message would have been clear, with Europe understanding that American taxpayers had no plans to fund their aversion to military spending forever.
Exquisite food to nourish vlad putin’s aleady flourishing paranoïa. In his nightmares he sees more and more waves of european troops invading his crumbling “empire”. Lol. Gonna drive him close to sheer wild madness. Could he strike with nukes first ?
There are many Norwegians in my background. They are not talkers, by any stretch. They sit quietly and assess, and, like a chess grandmaster, when they move, they've already solved for your first 10-15 reactions before you've even absorbed the blow. The patience, quiet, and devistation of a glacier.
"The Army is no longer just the shield. It becomes a knife." And instantly my brain goes "this was written by chatGPT".
I don't even know if that's true or not. Maybe it was a human who wrote that phrase. But regardless I can't focus for the rest of the piece because I'm too distracted from that chat-gpt-language and I just stop reading.
it looks like the kremlin made a grevious mistake in invading ukraine, it has instead opened a hornets nest in the process
Yes. In the Nordics it sent Finland and Sweden into NATO. Disastrous for Russia. But then again Putin doesn’t think that way.
Excellent and timely analysis as always.
Norway is most likely choosing the South Korean Chunmoo for this, not HIMARS.
From the article below (my translation):
"Buying American has the limit that upgrades are difficult. ... The South Korean Chunmoo is not just a comparable product, but a system with development potential."
There's also the issue on how much the US can be trusted when Hegseth can pull intelligence sharing and upgrades at a whim, and the delivery challenges that plague US manufacturing. We want these systems now, not in 2036.
https://www.dn.no/kommentar/forsvaret/langtrekkende-presisjonsild/sor-korea/sor-korea-treffer-blink-med-flere-hundre-missiler/2-1-1915111
EDIT:
DN is a major Norwegian business newspaper with good connections to the military, this is probably a planted leak to prepare the Americans for the loss of the contract.
The Norwegians would be accepting significant risk to buy American technology given Norway’s stance on Greenland - and America’s approach to its former allies, not partners/customers.
Yep, time to de-risk.
Fascinating to read a non-Norwegian analysis of this, but I think you do it exactly as the Norwegian military and politicians are thinking. (And yes our defense minister is Tore Sandvik but he doesn’t have to pound the table to get that money from ex general secretary Stoltenberg now finance minister. Neither will any in the opposition parties raise any objections.) Regarding the buy in win US systems, that isn’t popular, but I think unavoidable. (Israeli systems would be a suicidal proposal for oh so many reasons.) But here is the thing. We distinguish between Trump and US. While we see some development in US as unavoidable, like a stronger focus on the Pacific, less interest in Europe, more interest in internal issues and less world police man etc (but I think you underestimate the benefits of being world policeman) etc we believe that another administration might at least respect us as paying customers. We want a positive relationship. We don’t want the break up, and if it happens it should at least be amicable. And you have things we need. Until the Germans put their shit together on this.
I want to add context to this, apart from what appears a made decision to go with Chunmoo and not US HIMARS, Norway recently decided on new frigates, ordering the UK Type 26 over the US, German and French bids. New subs and tanks? German made.
The strategic partnerships with close neighbours Germany and UK appear to have been a deciding factor in both cases, reading between the lines of the messaging around these contracts, there was a not too subtle 'we can't rely on the US' message. Which is also a theme through public discourse, even while our government says everything is hunky dory because 'the US relies on our intelligence gathering on the northern borders with russia'... They're either lying or dangerously naive, the latter a distinct possibility.
The same is written, not so subtly, in the DN article.
In an understatement typical of Norwegians they write (my translation):
'The general attitude is that Norway has bought a lot of American defense materiel through the years'
This is very loaded phrasing in Norwegian (I know it doesn't seem so, but it is), signalling that people are fed up with the Americans. Couple that with US support for Israel's Gaza mayhem, and the chatter about 'kill switches' and reliance on continued library updates for the F-35s (not to mention the insane cost overruns and operating costs).
HIMARS is still great, if old, but there are production backlogs, the missiles cost an arm and a leg, and need US targeting data which Hegseth can turn off between beers.
The US is seen as risky these days, so we'll buy more European and South Korean systems, cheaper, faster deliveries, from more stable governments. It won't be long before Ukrainian manufacturers start competing seriously, with battle proven products, tested and proven against the very same adversary we're re-arming for.
The US also has a manufacturing backlog so bad we can't count on deliveries in any reasonable time frame - and it could all be redirected at a moments notice, like they did with 155 ammo allocated to Ukraine, which was shipped to Israel instead.
Since the US now has codified that Europe is a threat, it would seem prudent to avoid too many eggs in the US basket.
There will be more US contracts, as Hans said there is still stuff they have that we need, but the days that the US won on walk-over are gone.
The benevolent, if flawed, USA that middle aged people like me grew up with is gone. She may come back, and she may not. Europe must grow up and start acting like adults, which the US will not like at all.
Anyone who thinks the US relationship can be repaired as soon as Trump is gone has not been paying attention, these aren't even Trump policies, it's the Heritage Foundation, JD Vance, Thiel, Musk, Miller, and Dark Enlightenment, all rolled into one, which will persist for years.
Have to agree
"(B)ut I think you underestimate the benefits of being world policeman..."
Exactly correct. Therein lies a major source of U.S. instability, and the cause of our current decline and loss of respect. Too many Americans think that we are protected from events in Europe by a magically secure, vast ocean. They do not see that our wealth since World War II and our day-to-day comforts are directly threatened by the war in Ukraine and our idiot president's backing Putin instead of our true allies. (Thank you for crediting the gap between Americans and the insane results they get from not understanding their own elections.)
An American president with courage and a brain would have adopted a simple foreign policy long ago. Upon seeing the simple truth that Europeans lived with social programs that Americans did not have while those same Americans guaranteed European security, he would have complimented Europe on its success and declared that, with such spending prioritized over defense, it was time to gradually withdraw the United States from Europe over a guaranteed timeframe indexed to Europe's defense spending. Keep refusing to increase defense spending, and the United States would gradually draw down to perhaps half or a quarter of its original strength over a period of guaranteed years, and then actually do it. If the Europeans increased their defense spending by stated amounts, the drawdown would not occur. This would have pressured Europe to increase defense spending while allowing it to control the size of U.S. forces in Europe.
Might that have altered European pensions and healthcare? Tragic, isn't it, that they should have had to live with American levels, but at least the message would have been clear, with Europe understanding that American taxpayers had no plans to fund their aversion to military spending forever.
For Norway, read NATO.
Or license one of Ukraine’s domestic missiles?
Exquisite food to nourish vlad putin’s aleady flourishing paranoïa. In his nightmares he sees more and more waves of european troops invading his crumbling “empire”. Lol. Gonna drive him close to sheer wild madness. Could he strike with nukes first ?
There are many Norwegians in my background. They are not talkers, by any stretch. They sit quietly and assess, and, like a chess grandmaster, when they move, they've already solved for your first 10-15 reactions before you've even absorbed the blow. The patience, quiet, and devistation of a glacier.
The announcement came today, Chunmoo was chosen.
I read a line like:
"The Army is no longer just the shield. It becomes a knife." And instantly my brain goes "this was written by chatGPT".
I don't even know if that's true or not. Maybe it was a human who wrote that phrase. But regardless I can't focus for the rest of the piece because I'm too distracted from that chat-gpt-language and I just stop reading.
Is there any advantage over a long range firing east rather than west or does the speed outweigh the effects we see on long flights.