Although epidemiological data clearly illustrate the need for continued multinational support to communicable disease control in Northeast Europe, the above-mentioned factors impede progress in this respect. While there are good reasons for cultivating partnerships with Russian federal agencies in terms of sustainability, this focus does represent a loss of momentum that may be difficult to overcome.

After the annexation of Crimea, Moscow’s relationship to the western world deteriorated dramatically. This was also true for the bilateral relationship between Russia and Norway. In this article, Norwegian perceptions of its eastern neighbor are discussed. Though clearly biased against Moscow, Norwegian politicians were simultaneously adamant in their emphasis on good neighborly relations with Russia and a will to protect areas of collaboration from spillover effects. This duality, it is argued, reflects a long-standing tradition in Norwegian Russia policies of balancing opposing elements. Though Norwegian media and policy makers were predominantly willing to perform this balancing act, the article also points to examples of unsubstantiated allegations made against “Russia” or “Russian actors”. Originating from marginal outlets, such stories were accommodated by Norwegian mainstream media, which thereby contributed to creating a skewed – or at the very least uncorroborated – image of Russian intentions. From January 2017 onwards, the Russian embassy in Oslo engaged in the public debate. The embassy’s contributions were unusual, more by virtue of their undiplomatic tone than by their political content. Despite current tensions, the author argues that the Norwegian-Russian bilateral relationship is now closer to a historical norm than at any point since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In the autumn of 2015, 5500 migrants traveling through Russia along the ''Arctic route'' applied for political asylum in Norway. Some observers claimed that Russia deliberately channeled migrants towards the north with the purpose of destabilizing Norway and that Russia had changed procedures in their border zone to facilitate the wave of migrants. In this article we briefly discuss the hybrid warfare theory and assess alternative explanations that might account for the sudden increase in migrants. Detailing formal and informal practices in the Norwegian-Russian border regime we argue that Russian practices were not altered in any significant way in 2015, but that the Norwegian side had an incorrect impression of the Russian border regime being more restrictive than it really was. Finland was in a similar situation. The most convincing explanation for the wave of asylum-seekers is the selfinterest of migrants who found a cheaper and less risky route. Both in Norway and Finland the border regimes were tightened as a consequence of the increased migration, however. As a result, their policies became more aligned with Russian priorities.Keywords: migration, hybrid warfare, Russia, border regime, asylum, Norway Den store strømmen av asylsøkere over grensen mellom Russland og Norge høsten 2015 ble heftig debattert av norske politikere og andre meningsytrere. Først og fremst var mange, naturlig nok, opptatt av hvordan situasjonen skulle håndteres på norsk side. Men et annet spørsmål som kom opp i den norske debatten var hvordan den store strømmen av flyktninger oppsto så plutselig. I løpet av noen hektiske måneder søkte 5500 mennesker asyl ved grensestasjonen på Storskog. Flere deltakere i ordskiftet var sikre på at dette var en strøm som var styrt av russiske myndigheter. De antok at Russland ønsket å straffe Norge for landets tilslutning til de økonomiske sanksjonene. Enkelte hevdet at flyktningstrømmen måtte ses som et ledd i en russisk hybridkrig mot Norge Á flyktningene ble kanalisert mot Norge for å destabilisere landet, het det.

No abstract

No abstract