The case summarized an analysis written by a top bureaucrat in the Ministry of Defense claims that the Right promoted “systematic falsehoods” on defense policy in the period 2013-2016. The analysis deals with statements from the Right peaks Ine Eriksen Søreide and Erna Solberg in the Storting, media, chronicles and lectures. Ine Eriksen Søreide, who was the Minister of Defense in the period 2013–2017, rejects the production. She is also critical that an official in the Ministry of Defense directs such claims to a single party. Fridthjof Søgaard, who has made the note, denies that he is party politically motivated and emphasizes that the note stands at his own expense. (The summary is made by a KI service from Open AI. The content is quality assured by news’s journalists before publishing.) “About incorrect allegations of factual conditions are systematically made and over time, it is not unreasonable to call it a campaign based on falsehoods.” It is read in a note written by Fridthjof Søgaard, director of strategic development in the Ministry of Defense. It is published in the IFS Insights series, which the Department of Defense Studies is behind. From 2001 to 2014, Søgaard was expedition manager in the Ministry of Defense, the second highest position an official in a ministry can hold. In the study “Untruths put in the system – also in political Norway” he looks at how the Right commented on defense policy in the years 2009–2016. The starting point are claims that the Right peaks Ine Eriksen Søreide and Erna Solberg joined the Storting, in the media, chronicles and lectures. The conclusion is fierce: There were systematic falsehoods in Høyre’s defense policy communication in the years 2013-2016, according to the analysis. Defense policy: Fighter aircraft during practice over Poland. Photo: Sigurd Tonning-Olsen / Defense Ine Eriksen Søreide has for a number of years fronted Høyre’s defense policy and was the Minister of Defense in the years 2013–2017. She thinks the production is wrong and says it has selective use of history and quotes. “But perhaps the most startling is that an official in the Ministry of Defense makes these types of claims against a single party,” she tells news. Read more of Søreide’s statements at the bottom of the case. “Grossly misleading” When the Right came into government in 2013, according to the analysis, the party had decided to talk about the Armed Forces along three main tracks: The defense had been built into the red -green years. Second, in 2013, the change of government in 2013 signed a new era of rebuilding. But the restoration would take many years, because the defense was almost with a broken back. -As this review has shown, the first two points meant a systematic dissemination of falsehoods both about the predecessors in government and about the Solberg government’s “cleanup”, writes Søgaard. He refers to several cases where the Right described the situation in a way that did not match what emerged in budgets and defense plans. It was, among other things, about how much money was set aside for the Armed Forces, how much practice and training took place and about an alleged strengthening of the Army and the Home Guard. 14 Different claims are fact checked. Among other things, it is stated that Høyre’s claims about strengthening the army in all budgets are “grossly misleading”. Right-wing board: Ine Eriksen Søreide, Erna Solberg and Frank Bakke-Jensen during a press conference in 2021. The Right took the government offices in 2013. She points out that there was a great need to strengthen the Armed Forces when the Solberg government took over in 2013. Not least, Russia’s annexation of Krym in Ukraine in 2014 was a wake-up call. – It also needed re -priorities in the current long -term plan, including significantly higher activity, says Søreide. She strikes back to Søgaard: – When the opposition is wrongfully accused of lies, it can hardly be seen as anything but a political play, four months before the parliamentary elections. This is how Ine Eriksen Søreide comments on the case when the Solberg government took office in 2013, there was a great need to strengthen the Armed Forces. After prolonged downgrading of the Armed Forces, there was a large backlog in maintenance, spare parts and preparedness, there was little operational activity and considerable personnel shortage, and the development had to be turned around. The Armed Forces did not meet the current requirements for clear times and preparedness, and the clear times and preparedness were also inadequate and outdated in the face of the new and dramatic security policy situation following Russia’s annexation of shrink in 2014. It also needed re -priorities in the current long -term plan, including with significantly higher activity. From the beginning, the Solberg government decided to bring out the real condition of the Armed Forces, and be completely open and honest. Very thorough state analyzes were carried out in the Ministry and from other competence environments, including the Chief of Defense and the Intelligence Service. The Armed Forces Research Institute, the country’s foremost research environment on defense economy, was drawn very close to the work after being almost overridden for a number of years. The government also set up its own security policy investigation. There were substrates and figures from all these investigations that were made available and used as the basis for the government’s political communication. Søreide points out that these processes are also described by the Defense Commission in their report: “The Norwegian defense policy rhetoric was tightened and characterized by the development of the Armed Forces. From 2014, the Government Solberg conducted a comprehensive review of the situation in the defense sector and found a significant backlog in maintenance, emergency preparedness and ammunition. It was also found that planning and the Armed Forces’ operational ability were not adapted to the security policy situation. This led to a new commitment to the defense sector and an increase in defense budgets. The government focused on fighter aircraft, special forces, intelligence and surveillance. It was also facilitated for increased national and allied activity, especially in the north. ” This process was probably painful for many who had strong ownership of what had happened earlier in the 2000s, but it was necessary to identify what needed to be done, in what order and what it would cost. I would definitely do the same again. According to the Ministry of Finance’s figures, the allocations for defense purposes increased by 37.2% in the Solberg government’s reign. Without that turnaround, it would not have been possible to continue the strength being done now. Søgaard firmly denies that he is “party politically motivated”. He says he will not be part of any polemics with Søreide and refers to a footnote in the analysis. “The author has a liberal basic attitude and nourishes no special sympathies for specific government constellations,” he says. – Is the note motivated by a need to justify choices made in the years until 2014, when you were an expedition manager? – No. The choices made in these areas in the years I was an expedition manager – such as budget levels, levels for military activity and overall priorities of resource use in the defense sector – were not made by me, but partly by the department that was responsible for the long -term planning, and partly of the political level. Søgaard emphasizes that the note is at his own expense. It “may contain assessments that are not also the Ministry of Defense,” it says. Some of the claims that are fact -checked about budget development before 2013 claims: “The government has increased the defense budget after almost a decade of flat or downward budget development […]. ».» “Last SP was in government, there was a real cut of more than 3 per cent in the appropriations for defense purposes. […] We launched a huge turnaround after years of reduction. ” Fact check: Norwegian defense spending had a real growth of 1.0 per cent on an annual average in the period 2005–2013 (Stoltenberg II government)-otherwise almost equal to the GDP development in the same period. The defense budget really increased by over NOK 800 million in 2009 in the period 2009–2012, as was the plan. We will return to the budget development after the Solberg government took over in the fall of 2013. About the Armed Forces’ activity level before 2013 claims: «[…] Large parts of the Navy were to the quay in 2012 […]. “” In 2009, there were no homework exercises at all. ” “[Vi må unngå å havne] In the situation we were in before we took over in 2013, where the vessels lay to the quay, where the chariots were in the garages and the planes were in the hangars, […]. ».» “There was less training and rehearsal.” Fact check: In the long -term period before the Solberg government took over, more training, practice and activity in general – not less. As stated in Figure 1, only the Coast Guard had a lower level of activity in 2012 than in 2008. The number of sailing hours in the Navy was in 2012 on par with the number in 2015 (29 126 and 29 304 respectively). The Home Guard’s efforts were essentially practiced (over 80 per cent) as provided in 2009 (20 days for command/15 days for crews), including in the abstinent of the larger regional exercises Insert 09 and Bjørgvin. About “consistent strengthening” of the army’s economy claims: “We have strengthened the army […] consistently in all budgets […]. ».» «The Government [har] Throughout this government period, a significant boost carried out in the defense economy. […] Of course, this will benefit the Armed Forces all departments. ” Fact check: The claim for strengthening the army in all budgets is grossly misleading. This is best illustrated by looking at the Army’s Army Budget Consumption (Accounting) decreased by nearly NOK 400 million 2015 from 2012 to 2015. Only from 2014 to 2015, consumption (ie accounting figures) was reduced by NOK 176 million 2015. The cut was the greatest in material operation (cf. text over surrounding- ie actual budget consumption- from year to year Increased maintenance delay) by NOK 74 million 2015 (– 6.1 per cent). In 2015, the Army’s consumption in material operations was the lowest in many years. As has emerged earlier in this analysis, the Army’s consumption of budget funds in 2016 was the lowest in the fixed kroner of at least five years. In light of this, it is also relevant to recall the concerns of the Right over the red-green treatment of the same defense branch: In the recommendation for the proposal for a long-term plan for the defense sector 2013–2016, the party’s committee members expressed many years “concern about the condition of the Army” published 28.04.2025, kl. 17.58
ttn-69
