During the cold war, NATO required reinforcements and supplies from North America, in order to survive a Soviet attack. That meant a second Battle of the Atlantic would have to be fought, in order to keep those sea lanes open. Which meant that Iceland was the hinge upon which all of NATO rested.
Iceland served as a key waypoint for underwater listening arrays, designed to pinpoint and broadcast the locations of Soviet subs as they sought to break out into the open Atlantic. Its air base at Keflavik was defended by American fighters, and would serve as the most important base and waystation for allied sub-hunting aircraft. Even as it operated as a key stopover point for tactical transports like the C-130 Hercules, and for reinforcing fighter jets flying their routes to Europe's front lines. Assuming, of course, that this strategic prize and ally could be defended from Soviet attack and invasion.
A couple of years ago, with the Soviet Union gone and no Battle of the Atlantic on the horizon, the USA left Keflavik AB and went home. In truth, there as little reason to stay. Iceland itself remains a NATO member, but has no standing army, no air force, and a coast guard rather than a navy. All was well, and even Russia's ambitious territorial claims in the arctic and sharp increase in patrols and incursions remained issues for others to deal with. Then along came the 2008 financial crisis, and the country hit real financial trouble. Iceland's President has criticized its Scandanavian neighbours, and the UK, for their lack of help. Russia, on the other hand.... Now Iceland is making noises about looking at new friends, and its President just invited Russia to use Keflavik. Even the Russians were stunned - but if I was Putin, I'd do a deal and base aircraft there for the psychological edge alone.
Another triumph for European diplomacy...
I have to say I didn't see this coming. And given how saturnine I typically am, I am ashamed I didn't.
We'll see what, if anything, the newly-anointed O and his legislative maybe-supermajority does about it. My guess is: very little.
I'd argue that perhaps "very little" would be the right answer here.
I can see why Russian Backfire bombers and Bear maritime patrol aircraft at Keflavik might upset the Norwegians, or even the British. I'm less sure why the USA should care.
If it happens, and if the British and Europeans decide they don't like it, they're free to spend more on defense. Or to gin up a diplomatic and financial initiative to reverse Iceland's direction.
The one issue that Russians at Keflavik would create is great military difficulty in reinforcing NATO countries like Poland or Lithuania from North America, if they are attacked by Russia.
Realistically, Germany almost certainly denies NATO any use of its territory in that eventuality, anyway, so I'm not sure Iceland changes much.
But there's always value in having more options, and hence an argument to keep the Russians out. The question remains how to do that, and who should.
This is well within the capabilities of Scandanavia and the UK to handle, and the 40 years of babying Europe needs to end. I'd be inclined to let them handle it, even if the USA might be able to handle it better. Step in only if things clearly get out of hand.
The tone of the linked article is amusing, in a dark way. Iceland's president is blaming its neighbors and (former) friends for... not stopping Iceland's banks from joining the Wall-St.-Bubble-Celebration/Frenzy. If only you had warned us that our decision to pawn the nation's economy through highly-leveraged speculation was risky!
As shivering Poles, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Slovaks, etc. can attest, Russia is a reliable, trustworthy commercial partner. BP would agree, I'm sure. No hardball games here.
I think this the perfect icing on the cake of a miserable foreign policy over the past 8 years. A final raspberry to a Confederacy of Dunces.
So much for the Neo-Con empire building. Iceland has gone over to the insurgency. Hilarious.
I wonder about the SOSUS assets we HAD to have left. Those aren't so easily dismantled. Anybody out there have the straight skinny on what the status is?
I'm almost positive it is still running. We still track Russian submarines wherever we can. I think they were sharing the technology with marine biologists at one point to monitor whales and such.
One of the links states that the President of Iceland has no authority over foreign affairs. Wikipedia identifies the office as a largely symbolic head of state position (like the Queen of England). So, I still think it would be up to Iceland's parliament to decide whether they feel their security interests are with Finland and the Ukraine.
IMO Britain went too far when it recently declined its turn in NATO to deploy to Iceland. Before it was about money, then it was about security.
TOC,
I know this is hard to believe, but stuff happens beyond America's shores, and other countries also have responsibilities.
Um, Joe, the articles from Barents and the BBC are over two months old.
More to the point, while I remember reading those reports at the time, I also remember reading at almost exactly the same time-- within a week-- that Iceland also wanted to join the EU. I found some text evidence for that to confirm my memory, which makes me believe (as I did at the time) that Iceland was just throwing a tantrum to get some attention.
I also remember (but have not found confirming evidence) reading reports a few weeks later that Iceland had backed off.
I have also (briefly) sought, and failed to find, any confirmation that Iceland and Russia actually went through with any of this.
Am I completely missing something here?
To my knowledge, nothing has happened as of yet. And of course, inviting the Russians to Keflavik and joining an economic union are not mutually exclusive at all.
I will say that as tantrums go, that one was pretty extreme. What as said falls into the category of "things you don't say lightly."
Perhaps it did have the desired effect, and triggered action in Europe that headed things of at the pass. If so, congrats to the countries that stepped up.
But I'll have to see more evidence (time, or definitive statements) before I can award any congratulations.
Meanwhile, it's an interesting illustration of some dynamics in Europe: of Russia's potential influence, of not thinking beyond national borders during the economic meltdown, and of poor attention to national as well as European security considerations on the part of several countries. All worthy of interest, and note.
#8 from Joe Katzman at 9:49 pm on Jan 14, 2009
TOC,
I know this is hard to believe, but stuff happens beyond America's shores, and other countries also have responsibilities.
Precisely, Joe. Something that the NeoCon foreign Policy never seemed to understand