"The spy ships": NRK's investigative journalists publishing flawed evidence of Russian espionage

The Norwegian public broadcaster, NRK, received the “Dataskup award 2023” from the prestigious SKUP-foundation¹ for the television series “The Shadow War”.² The series gave unique insight into the methods NRK used when working with secret sources, and how NRK allegedly revealed espionage and intelligence operations. But what does it take to create this award-winning journalism, what was the secret?

The result of a review of the material NRK published along with the series is as sensational as the “Shadow War”-series itself. NRK simply seems to have misinterpreted all the findings. One question you will surely be left with is: Did they know this themselves?

NRKs contribution to the series was about how they believed Russian civilian ships had been used in intelligence activities along the Norwegian coast.³ Allegedly NRK performed a systematic review of tracks from Russian vessels they claim show that at least 50 Russian ships have had the opportunity to secretly collect information for ten years. They claim to have uncovered extensive, systematic and long-term Russian intelligence activities in the Nordic region.⁴

The information NRK brought forward in the series was sensational and in many ways surprising. The surprise was not primarily that Russian vessels should have carried out intelligence activities, but how NRK claimed they could prove it: Tracks from several vessels maneuvering in a similar fashion off Andøya and in Bjørnafjorden. Was uncovering espionage that easy? The reporting got an almost surreal feel when the Russians supposedly carried out the malicious activites by communicating with old HF-radios.

Here is the first part in a three-part series with the findings from the review.

---

Part 1 - What do the AIS tracks tell?

In the online article, “The spy ships”⁵, NRK described how they investigated the Russian vessels. Using position information transmitted by the vessels themselves through the AIS system,⁶ they looked for Russian vessels they claimed moved in ways that could not be explained by normal activity. The result was presented with five images of AIS-tracks.

But, are these claims true, are there no normal explanations for Russian vessels circling off Andenes or for vessels sailing to the same spot in Bjørnafjorden? That would be incredibly strange, almost too strange to be considered true. Is it for real that these vessels could have carried out secret intelligence operations in Norwegian territorial waters for a decade, all the time with their position publicly revealed by their own AIS-transmitters as NRK claims?

Let us examine the published tracks and see how the claims from the broadcaster’s self-proclaimed spy hunters hold up when scrutinized.

Russian fishing vessel 1

The tracks NRK showed from “Russian fishing vessel 1”⁷ undeniably looks a bit strange, but are these really tracks from Russian intelligence activity? Could the vessel have been spying on the Air Force base at Andenes, as NRK seems to think?

The AIS-tracks were made by the trawler “Melkart 4”. It turns out that every time the trawler passed Andøya, the rescue craft “RS Dagfinn Paust” left port. The rescue craft maneuvered alongside the trawler before returning to Andenes, and the trawler continued its voyage. Perhaps the Rescue Company have been involved in the intelligence activities NRK claims to have uncovered?

Hopefully, believing that is not possible. In 2016 the Norwegian news agency, NTB, reported that the pilot provider company, “Norsk Lostransport”, entered into a 10-year pilot supply agreement with the Rescue Company including - quite correctly - Andenes⁸. An inquiry to the coastal surveillance service confirmed that “Melkart 4” was boarding and setting off pilots.⁹ This ought to qualify as normal activity for a Russian vessel in Norwegian territorial waters, even for the “Shadow War” spy hunters. It looks like the award-winning investigative journalists were not digging deep enough.

The cargo ship

NRK claimed it was suspicious that the cargo ship “Mekhanik Kraskovskij” circled outside Andøya several years in a row.

The tracks from this vessel have similarities with the tracks from “Russian fishing vessel 1”. And every time the vessel passed Andenes, this vessel too was met by a rescue craft.¹⁰ On the last trip northbound in 2015, the rescue craft met with the vessel further south than the coverage of the picture. The coast guard once again confirmed that this vessel too was boarding and setting off pilots.⁹ Yet again tracks with a completely normal explanation.

Russian fishing vessel 2

The researcher Ståle Ulriksen from the Norwegian national Naval Academy, claimed that the tracks NRK displayed from the trawler “Norvezjskoje More”,¹¹ could be an example of illegal seabed mapping in the fjords.

“Norvezjskoje More” is a Russian trawler designed by the Norwegian company Skipsteknisk¹² in Ålesund. It was delivered from the shipyard in Vyborg in the autumn of 2021¹³ and then sailed to Ålesund. Here, Norwegian companies worked with provisioning, i.a. of the onboard freezer facilities.

Two days before the vessel left Ålesund, after a stay just shy of two months, the ship made a test trip in the Storfjord and the Vartdalsfjord returning the next day.¹⁴ According to a source with intimate knowledge of the project, this is the way to do it, a completely normal procedure when delivering new ships. The Norwegian Armed Forces’ Operational Headquarters, FOH, informed upon request that the vessel was in Norwegian waters to carry out repairs. The tracks NRK showed in the Vartdalsfjord and the Storfjord were trawl-testing with an open trawl bag, and FOH stated that they had no indications of illegal surveying being carried out.

A newly built ship making a test trip verifying its equipment, AIS tracks with a perfectly normal explanation.

The training area for submarines

“They seek emergency shelter in areas where Norway and allied countries practise with their submarines.”

It looks as if NRK had their share of a technical problems displaying the AIS-tracks from the Bjørnafjord.¹⁵ This is a mistake made by NRK, and not an example of Russian vessels switching off their AIS transmitters. According to NRK, several civilian Russian ships visited the area, without port calls. Some of them “sped back and forth”, before leaving the fjord again.

NRK showed tracks from nine vessels being anchored at Strandvikflaket, one of the Coastal Administration’s pre-evaluated emergency shelter areas,¹⁶ and one vessel anchored in the anchorage area just west of Selsneset. In addition, they showed tracks from two cargo vessels sailing through a narrow strait, Lukksundet, and into the Hardangerfjord to Odda and Tyssedal, and one vessel north of Våge.

How did these vessels end up on Strandvikflaket? Could that be directed by Russian intelligence activities against NATO and Norway’s submarines, as NRK claims as a possibility? A search for “stormy weather” in southern Norway during the time the vessels were at anchor yielded results for all of them. There were easily identifiable media reports of closed roads and canceled ferries due to bad weather.¹⁷

The Norwegian Defense Forces issued a press release on January 1. 2023 about Matritsa, one of the vessels being anchored in 2022.¹⁸ A boarding crew from the frigate “KNM Otto Sverdrup” inspected the trawler, which had sought shelter from bad weather. They found no significant deviations. Specifically addressing the media, the Norwegian Defense Forces wrote that “Matritsa” was moved to the anchor area at Strandvikflaket in Bjørnafjorden from an assigned anchorage in the Fensfjord which was closed down due to bad weather.

This is interesting. The vessels were assigned to the anchorage site. It is highly unlikely that the Russian intelligence services are responsible for this assignment, as it is stated in a press release from the Norwegian Armed Forces. Nevertheless, NRK’s spy hunters showed the AIS tracks from this vessel among the inexplicable. “Volk Arktiki” seeking shelter in 2023, was boarded and searched by the police and the Coast Guard. However, nothing suspicious was found on this vessel neither, according to Bergens Tidende.¹⁹ But NRK did include this vessel among its inexplicable AIS tracks too.

According to the Maritime Traffic Center and FOH, all the anchored vessels were referred to the anchorage site due to bad weather. The Norwegian Maritime Traffic Center points out that many of the anchored vessels are medium-sized cargo vessels with deck cargo prone to shifting in rough seas, as it did for “Mekhanik Fomin” in 2017.²⁰ Perhaps not such inexplicable tracks after all, NRK?

What about the tracks outside Våge, providing justification for NRK’s claim that “some vessels are speeding back and forth” in the Bjørnafjord? Is there an explanation for these tracks?

The local paper “Tysnesingen” announced that the sail ship “SS Shtandart”, a replica of a ship built in the beginning of the 18th century, would visit Tysnesfest in 2015.²¹

“The first “Shtandart”, which was built according to the British Admiralty’s specifications, sailed from 1703 to 1719. Today’s copy of “Shtandart” was launched in St. Petersburg in 1999… When SS Shtandart visits Tysnes, they will have open ship, sailing training sessions in the fjord and not least, a pirate show!”

After the visit to Våge, “Shtandart” continued to Ålesund to participate in the “Tall Ships Race” competition.²² NRK apparently think it is important to point out that this vessel may have conducted intelligence activities against NATO and Norway’s submarines. Or could it just have been training sessions the replica of the 300 year old sail ship was engaged in?

The government research vessel

Below the image of AIS-tracks from the seismic vessel “Akademik Lazarev”, NRK wrote: “These are the tracks from “Akademik Lazarev”. With the equipment they have, they can map the seabed and show where fiber and power cables, and oil and gas pipes are located. We have asked the ship owner about the movements, but have not received an answer.”²³

The vessel is able to tow one seismic cable and was equipped with two single-beam echo sounders.²⁴ One cable means that the ship can perform a 2-dimensional survey of the bedrock in the vertical plane below the line the ship is sailing,²⁵ and a single-beam echo sounder allows them to map the sea depth directly below the keel of the vessel.²⁶ In addition, there was a third party onboard the vessel, operating their own equipment, a gravitometer and a magnetometer being towed behind the vessel.²⁷

The equipment onboard “Akademik Lazarev” is completely unsuitable for mapping pipes and cables on the seabed, as NRK claims. So where did NRK get the allegation from?

Eigil Sundvor, editor in chief of the “Shadow war”-series used an article in the newspaper “Dagens Næringsliv” (DN) from 2021²⁸ as justification.²⁹ According to DN, the Business Security Council (Næringslivets Sikkerhetsråd) had followed the movements of “Akademik Lazarev” on the Norwegian continental shelf for a period of time. They believed that the ship had carried out extensive mapping of critical Norwegian infrastructure, such as cables and pipelines. Also, the council was approached by actors in the oil and gas industry expressing concern, and allegedly the vessel had been towing a sonar.³⁰

But could this possibly be true, could the vessel have been towing seabed mapping equipment not being part of the approved survey across more than half of Norway’s economic zone?

During such surveys, the client hiring the vessel has a representative onboard, and during these surveys there was an additional third party onboard operating their own equipment. Both of them deny that the ship was towing a sonar.³¹ The vessel did not have the capability to map cables and pipelines on the seabed with the onboard equipment, and the allegation that the vessel was towing a sonar is pure fiction.³²

In summary

What has the examination of NRK’s AIS-tracks shown so far?

The allegedly unusual tracks from “Russian fishing vessel 1” and “The Freight ship” off Andenes were vessels boarding and setting off pilots. “Russian fishing vessel 2” was a Norwegian designed trawler arriving directly from the shipyard for provisioning, performing a normal test trip of its equipment. “The training area for submarines” showed ten vessels assigned to anchorage at Strandvikflaket in stormy weather, two cargo vessels on their way to and from Odda and Tyssedal, and training sessions with a replica of a sail ship from the 18th century. The “government research vessel” did not have the equipment needed to map pipes and cables on the seafloor as claimed.

A bit less sensational than what NRK reported. The next part deals with the trawler “Taurus”. How does NRK’s findings about the trawler stand up to closer examination?

---

Part 2 - Was “Taurus” spying?

NRK really made great effort trying to prove that the Russian trawler “Taurus” may have been engaged in intelligence activities. They showed videos of six AIS-tracks they claimed could not be explained by normal activity. In addition, they displayed a long sequence with AIS-tracks claiming that the Coast Guard vessel “KV Bison” met with the trawler in Tromsø harbor and escorted the Russian trawler past the American nuclear submarine “USS South Dakota” being docked at Tønsnes north of Tromsø. And they carried out a “mission” of their own, attempting to document that “Taurus” was spying on the submarine.

Now, let’s see how NRK’s findings stand up when examined.

Andøya

NRK claimed that “Taurus” could be performing intelligence activities when the vessel headed west towards Andøya in January 2016.³³ The tracks they showed had similarities to the tracks they previously displayed from “Russian fishing vessel 1” and “The Freight ship”. Not surprisingly, this too could be explained by normal activity. “Taurus” met a rescue craft and yet again the Coast Guard confirmed that a pilot was leaving the vessel.⁹

NRK showed AIS-tracks from “Taurus” north of Andøya from the end of April 2016,³⁴ and put these movements in the context of the announcement of a military firing exercise in the vicinity. In the exact same area as “Taurus” was operating, the fishing banks “Sveinsgrunnen” and “Malangsgrunnen”,³⁵ there were similar AIS-tracks from more than 15 other trawlers. Codfish spawn here in March and April and it looks like the fishing was excellent. It appears that “Taurus” was doing what the vessel was designed for, it was fishing.³⁶ Surely that qualifies as normal activity, also for the diligent spy hunters in NRK?

Ålesund

“On one occasion, it appears like “Taurus” stopped fishing and sailed directly to Ålesund.³⁷ Coincidentally, there was a major NATO exercise in Trøndelag when the trawler passed.” Could this have been done to carry out intelligence gathering during the “Trident Juncture” exercise, as NRK seems to think, or is there an explanation for these tracks showing normal activity too?

It turns out that the vessel continued from Ålesund to Vegsund, a few nautical miles east of Ålesund, and then entered the floating dock at a shipyard.³⁸ All ships need to dock for repair and maintenance from time to time, this is completely normal.

Malangen

NRK showed AIS-tracks from “Taurus” in the fjord Malangen.³⁹ Two other Russian trawlers also circled in the fjord during the same time period.⁴⁰ The weather forecast for the area the day in question in April 2021 was strong gales, poor visibility and heavy seas.⁴¹ Could this be intelligence activity as NRK claims to have shown, or could it be that the vessels had sought shelter from the weather?

The Operational Headquarter for the Norwegian armed forces, FOH, responded when inquired that the vessel, in compliance with current regulations, had applied for permission to seek shelter in Malangen due to bad weather. In the context of the prevailing weather conditions in the area, they considered the activity as part of normal vessel operations.

Hekkinga

NRK claimed it could be intelligence activity when “Taurus” followed the fairway from Tromsø through Malangen and east of the island Hekkinga in 2019, “a few hours after an American nuclear submarine crew change” as they put it.⁴²

“Taurus” was docked in Tromsø when the submarine carried out the crew change. The submarine crew change was performed with the vessel MS Skaaskjær⁴³ from Sommarøya⁴⁴ doing two return trips in one and a half hours. After the crew change was completed, “Taurus” sailed through Malangen and the area where the crew change had taken place, 9 hours after the submarine had left.

If “Taurus” knew at which time the submarine was supposed to change crews, arriving nine hours late is very strange. And if the trawler didn’t know, how could this have been an intelligence gathering attempt?

Nuclear submarine in Tromsø

In the beginning of May 2021, an American nuclear submarine entered Tromsø. At the same time, the trawler “Taurus” sails slowly by. First on the trip south, and then when sailing north again the next day.⁴⁵

Yet again NRK was sloppy. They claimed that “Taurus” passed the American nuclear submarine both on its way south to Tromsø, and then on its way north again the next day. This is not true. The submarine, “USS New Mexico”, arrived at Tønsnes, with the AIS-transmitter on, after “Taurus” passed Tønsnes on its way south. The visit of the submarine received broad press coverage in Norway,⁴⁶ and also the Norwegian Defense Forces and the US Navy published close-ups of the submarine during the visit.⁴⁷

And according to the AIS-tracks, “Taurus” did not slow down when passing as NRK claimed. Neither when passing Tønsnes on their way south, without any submarine quayside, nor when they passed on their way north again, with the submarine docked at Tønsens.

USS South Dakota

NRK claimed that the Coast Guard vessel “KV Bison” arrived in Tromsø to meet with and escort the trawler “Taurus” in connection with the nuclear submarine “USS South Dakota” docking at Tønsnes in early December 2022. According to NRK, the Coast Guard vessel circled in Tromsø harbor and payed particular attention to the trawler when it left the quay. “KV Bison” then supposedly positioned itself in front of the trawler on the voyage north from Tromsø. NRK also stated that the fog was unusually dense this evening.

“Taurus” docked at the bunker wharf at the same time as “KV Bison” arrived outside the port terminal in Tromsø. The Coast Guard vessel launched a man overboard boat (MOB) doing a return trip to the pilot station before the Coast Guard vessel headed north again. Just shy of an hour later, “Taurus” left the bunker wharf.

Now, aligning NRKs presentation to reality becomes very hard. How could the crew of the Coast Guard vessel pay particular attention to the trawler when it left the quay in Tromsø, when “KV Bison” already was more than 10 km north of the quay, it was dark, and the fog, according to NRK, was unusually dense?

NRK had modified the display of the AIS-tracks in the article, making it look like the distance between the vessels was half the real distance. On request, the Coast Guard stated that “KV Bison” carried out normal Coast Guard patrolling during the period, and as a natural part of this task, scheduled a port call in Tromsø to pick up a crew member.” The Coast Guard was not aware of any contact at all between the NRK-journalists and the crew of the Coast Guard vessel.⁴⁸

To summarize, the Coast Guard itself did not have any knowledge of NRKs reporting claiming the Coast Guard vessel met with “Taurus” and escorted it from Tromsø. It would be very interesting to know where NRK got this story from. If they did not make this up themselves, who could have been the source of this story?

At the time NRK’s AIS-video showed that the vessels were passing Tønsnes, NRK wrote: “Outside Grøtsundet, “Taurus” slowly sails past the American nuclear submarine. The trawler then picks up speed and passes the Coast Guard vessel and disappears headed for the fishing grounds.”

Yet again, NRK was “sloppy”. According to the AIS-tracks, “Taurus” sailed at a speed of about 6 knots in the Tromsø sound and increased to cruising speed long before passing Tønsnes and “USS South Dakota”.

The “mission”

In the second episode of “The Shadow War”, journalist Eriksen was out sailing in her own boat in what she called a “mission”, following “Taurus” and attempting to document espionage from the trawler.⁴⁹ It was not possible to see any submarine quayside in the video footage NRK showed from “Taurus” passing Tønsnes and “USS South Dakota” in the dark. And Eriksen did not make any comment about the vessel keeping suspiciously low speed as the article claimed.

NRK immediately afterwards showed footage of the submarine they had shot much closer to the quay than where “Taurus” passed.⁵⁰ It was very easy for the viewers getting the impression that this was what the trawler saw.⁵¹ The misleading effect was strengthened by NRK also showing a map with “Taurus” much closer to the quay than where the trawler actually sailed according to the recorded AIS-tracks.

The day before departure, “Taurus” postponed the pilot booking twice before canceling the pilot altogether. Eriksen said it was hard to imagine that this was coincidental. A nuclear submarine was about to arrive at Grøtsund (Tønsnes). This may seem suspicious at first glance, but what do we find if we examine the reasons for the postponements?

“Taurus” was supposed to bunker, replace the trawl wire and change crews during the port call. Two days before arrival, a pilot was routinely booked for the return voyage to the Barents Sea, with a tentative departure time at midnight December 2.

On the day before departure, the time of completion of the work replacing the trawl wire became apparent. The departure time was then revised, and the pilot booking adjusted accordingly. The bunker quay was not available at the revised time and the pilot order was hence postponed once more. Harbor pilotage to the bunker quay was carried out according to the booking, but due to capacity problems in the pilot service, “Taurus” was requested to sail without a pilot after bunkering. The vessel is not obliged to use a pilot and accepted the request, normal procedure according to the pilot service itself. And, as we could see from NRK’s video footage from the “Shadow War”, this was no problem. The visibility was outstanding, there were no “unusually dense fog” as NRK claimed in its article. Not that suspicious after all.

The journalists Eriksen and Gulldahl also hinted it was strange that “Tarurus” was docked in Tromsø for such a short period of time. According to NRKs own reporting, “Taurus” was in Tromsø in 2019, staying in port for 39 hours, and in 2021 the vessel stayed in port for 37 hours. This time the trawler stayed in port for 88 hours. Surreal that a stay more than twice as long as previously was portrayed as suspiciously short.

Was “Taurus” really spying?

A pilot disembarked outside Andøya, the vessel was fishing with 15 other trawlers north of Andøya, it docked for repairs at a shipyard east of Ålesund, sought shelter from stormy weather in the Malangfjord, was 9 hours late to witness a crew change on an American nuclear submarine east of Hekkinga, sailed past Tønsnes before an American nuclear submarine docked in May 2021 and was not met by the coast guard vessel “KV Bison” in Tromsø harbor.

The nuclear submarines “Taurus” passed at Tønsnes both arrived while the vessel was already quayside in Tromsø. If this was not a coincidence, the trawler must have been informed of the submarines’ port call schedules in advance. It would have been interesting if NRK had shed some light on how this could have happened.

The Norwegian Armed Forces’ Operational Headquarters grants foreign vessels permission to sail in the territorial waters. NRK has shown that there are two routes to the Barents Sea from Tromsø. If FOH was worried about the intelligence threat against the American submarine quayside at Tønsnes, they could easily sent “Taurus” the other way, west through Malangen, and not north past the submarine. In addition, the trawler was inspected by Customs officers before departure.⁵²

The allegedly suspiciously short port stay was not short. It wasn’t foggy. There were no signs in the AIS-tracks of the vessel slowing down when passing the submarines. The departure postponement and the pilot cancellation had normal operational causes. NRK manipulated the display of the AIS-tracks. They shot video footage much closer to the submarine than where the trawler actually passed, and made the viewers believe this was what the trawler saw. And the Coast Guard itself had no knowledge about the Coast Guard vessel allegedly meeting the trawler as NRK claimed.

NRK suspected “Taurus” was taking pictures of the submarine. Then they published pictures of the “USS South Dakota” from a much more advantageous position than the vessel itself had the opportunity to do. It is simply very hard to imagine “Taurus” being able to take pictures with more information about the submarines than the pictures NRK showed in the “Shadow War”, and the pictures the Norwegian Defense forces, the press corps and the US Navy published during the port call of the “USS New Mexico” in 2021.

All the AIS-tracks had normal explanations. And the allegedly suspicious events during the trawlers passage of the submarine at Tønsnes were not that suspicious after all. The whole thing was a little less suspicious than how NRK portrayed it. It is actually very hard to see any suspicious activity at all.

In the last part, we will look at NRK’s role and how NRK has handled the information they have found.

---

Part 3 - What did NRK find?

NRK described the 30-year-old trawlers as “completely modern”. They claimed “Taurus” on its way south in the beginning of May 2021 slowly passing a nuclear submarine at Tønsnes without any submarine quayside. And they really went out of their way to portray “Taurus”’s passage of “USS South Dakota” as suspicious.

The Coast Guard was not the source of the story they told about the coast guard vessel “KV Bison” meeting “Taurus” and monitoring “closely” at a distance of 11 km in the dark when the trawler left the quay. The coast Guard confirm what the AIS-tracks show, “KV Bison” visited Tromsø to pick up a crew member, not to escort the trawler. NRK also changed the display of the AIS-tracks, depicting the distance between “Taurus” and “KV Bison” leaving Tromsø as half of what the AIS-data show.

“Taurus” was shown passing much closer to “USS South Dakota” in the map in the second episode of the series than where it sailed, and the footage of the submarine was recorded much closer to the submarine than where “Taurus” passed according to the AIS-data. And neither the allegedly suspiciously short port stay, the slowing down when passing the submarines nor the fog match reality.

It does not look like NRK made any attempts whatsoever to identify the cause of the activity they claimed to be inexplicable. Tracks from pilot embarkation and disembarkation, anchoring during storms at Strandvikflaket, sailboat off Våge and “Taurus” docking for repair were easily visible in the AIS data examined by journalist Gulldahl. It would be interesting to know why such readily available information was not included in the published material.

The less you now, the less you can explain, right?

“Dagens Næringslivs”’s reporting about “Akademik Lazarev” was used by NRK, but not the news reports about the official inspections of the “Matritsa” and “Volk Arktiki”, nor about “SS Shtandart” visiting Våge. Neither was the wide press coverage with close-ups of “USS New Mexico” in 2021 mentioned. What was the reason for this biased selection of press sources?

The journalists did not ask the pilot onboard the “Taurus” if he observed anything suspicious when passing Tønsnes with a nuclear submarine quayside in May 2021. Nor did they ask a single question to the “secret services” about the story concerning the “intelligence agent” allegedly visiting the vessel, nor to “James” about why the Russian vessels openly sent position reports while they supposedly were on a sabotage mission. And they did not ask how “Taurus” was supposed to know that nuclear submarines were making port calls at Tønsnes before the trawler itself made port calls in Tromsø.

NRK did not shed any light on the regulations governing foreign vessel port calls and sailing in Norwegian territorial waters. The Defense Operations Headquarters (FOH)⁵³ administers the port of call regulations containing a number of provisions foreign vessels must comply with; duty to report entry in advance, requirement to follow the main fairways, mandatory reporting etc. ⁵⁴ It is very strange that NRK did not use FOH as a source. As we have seen, they have recorded information that could explain a number of the allegedly unexplainable movements of the vessels. This is tantamount to not using the police as a source in a criminal case.

Government contributions

The astonishing collaboration between the chief of the domestic intelligence service (PST), Johan Roaldsnes, the anonymous, British source “James”, and the journalists is in fact sensational. A radio receiver, standard equipment for fishing vessels built around 1990, became military communication equipment in completely modern vessels following contributions from all these three parties. A bizarre transformation that never could have happened without the journalists receiving a tip from a “secret source” in the police,⁵⁵ and the domestic intelligence service, incredibly, not being able to identify a 30-year-old commercial Soviet radio receiver themselves. The charade was crowned with intelligence service chief Roaldsnes’ surreal assessment that it is scary and threatening having an HF-radio onboard a fishing vessel.

NRK claimed it was suspicious and possible intelligence activity when their analysis showed that several Russian ships passed Andenes and stopped and circled nearby. In the method section from the Dataskup award, the journalists stated that the findings were reviewed and confirmed by researcher Ståle Ulriksen from the Norwegian Naval Academy.⁵⁶ A source who, like NRK’s spy hunters, does not seem to have a clue about what he was talking about, the vessels boarded and disembarked pilots.

In addition, the military intelligence service got a lot of screen time in the series. Overall, it appears like NRK has made themselves a mouthpiece for the “secret services” and the Naval Academy, without any attempt to validate the information they provided. And as we’ve seen, it looks like these institutions either do not know what they are talking about, or alternatively, they are trying to mislead us.

Other parties meddling?

Taking photos of, or describing Norwegian military facilities, installations and units, is prohibited for foreign vessels according to the port call regulations.⁵⁷ But an American nuclear submarine quayside at the municipal quay at Tønsnes is neither secret information, a Norwegian military installation nor a Norwegian military unit.

The sound of an American submarine might possibly be a piece of secret information. If the Russians got hold of the sound of an American nuclear submarine at a municipal quey in Norway, this is hardly relevant for Norwegian defense, security or preparedness. As the pundit Arne O. Holm previously has commented, the nuclear submarines are used to promote the interests of the USA.⁵⁸

But if the Americans complained about “Taurus” passing the submarines, it may affect our relationship with them. NRK has shown a strikingly keen interest in “Taurus”’s passage of the “USS South Dakota” at Tønsnes. It was in connection with this incident they changed the display of the AIS-tracks and told the story about the Coast Guard vessel “KV Bison” meeting the “Taurus”, a story the Coast Guard itself did not know anything about.

Did these issues influence the “The Shadow War”? After all, NRK made extensive use of the “secret services” as sources, and it seems that they were the ones singling out “Taurus” as an espionage vessel with the unconfirmed story about the “intelligence agent” visiting the vessel,⁵⁹ perhaps on behalf of others. And we did not get any information about who tipped off the intelligence service, mediating contact with the retired Brit “James” with the sensational claims about the “Nord Stream” sabotage.

The role of the public broadcaster, NRK

NRK was very vague in showing how the claimed intelligence activity could have been carried out. The one closest to describing this was the national Naval Academy researcher Ståle Ulriksen, claiming that the trawl testing of the fresh off the dock, Norwegian designed trawler, “Norvezjskoje More”, could have been seabead mapping in the fjords. Seabed mapping is prohibited in the port call regulations.

When NRKs chief news editor Sundvor stated that the intelligence activity they claim to have uncovered was “extensive, systematic and long-lasting”, it is hard to understand this in any other way than NRK claiming they have shown intelligence activity against state secrets,⁶⁰ or other illegal intelligence.⁶¹

As it now turns out that all the instances NRK claims were abnormal movements of vessels, have completely normal explanations NRK easily could have found themselves, and it is documented wrong that military communication equipment was found onboard fishing vessels, there is no longer any justification for Sundvor’s claim. “Taurus”’ two passages of Tønsnes with an American nuclear submarine quayside can in no way be described as “extensive, systematic and long-lasting”, regardless of the reason for the passages.

And when NRK in addition modified the display of AIS-tracks, and used stories the sources themselves were not aware of, it looks like they have tried arousing suspicion of a criminal offense, without any justification. It does actually look as if it is the accuser, NRK itself, who has become the offender.⁶²

There is good reason reflecting a bit on this.

The Russians are extremely unpopular at the moment. However, do we, the populace of Norway, benefit from using misinformation from the public broadcaster and the intelligence service to confront this new situation? It is in fact, a bit sad, if we are not able to find other tools than precisely the same means the Russians are criticized for using in dealing with this. The differences become blurred.

---

Large picture at the top: AIS-Tracks from Russian vessels in the Bjørnafjord.

---

References