Partiet Fred og Rettferdighet (FOR) – Anatomy of a Russian-Linked Influence Operation in Norway

Partiet Fred og Rettferdighet (FOR), a Norwegian political entity established in 2023, exhibits the clear and compelling characteristics of a sophisticated, Russian-linked influence operation. A deep analysis of its political platform reveals a systematic alignment with Kremlin foreign policy. This is compounded by its financial dependence on Atle Berge, a pro-Kremlin oligarch with extensive business and personal ties to Russia, and its amplification of propaganda through key figures like Glenn Diesen. The party's methods, funding, and messaging indicate a concerted effort to promote Kremlin narratives, undermine Norwegian and Western support for Ukraine, and weaken NATO solidarity from within. This case study serves as a critical and detailed illustration of the methodologies and vulnerabilities inherent in modern hybrid warfare directed against European nations.

A Calculated Disruption in the Norwegian Political Landscape

In 2023, amidst a European landscape defined by Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine, a new political entity emerged in Norway: Partiet Fred og Rettferdighet (FOR). Its arrival was not a gradual grassroots movement but a sudden political disruption. FOR immediately launched a high-cost, professionally executed advertising campaign that was fundamentally at odds with its status as a new party with a declared treasury of a mere NOK 50,000 (approx. $5,000 USD). The campaign, estimated to cost NOK 1.4 million for a single week, centered on a provocative message: "Use our money on welfare, not war!". This message specifically targeted Norway’s multi-billion-kroner aid package to Ukraine, sparking immediate public outrage and media scrutiny.

This glaring financial discrepancy, combined with an agenda that sought to reverse Norway's foundational security policies, raised urgent questions about the party's backers and their ultimate motivations. This analysis deconstructs the multifaceted operation of FOR, presenting the extensive evidence that its self-proclaimed pacifist mission is a façade for a pro-Russian influence agenda.

Pillar 1: An Ideological Platform Serving Kremlin Objectives

FOR’s official platform, while using appealing terms like "peace," "justice," and "international law," is meticulously aligned with the strategic narratives and foreign policy goals of the Russian Federation. This is not a coincidental overlap but a systematic reflection of Kremlin talking points on nearly every major international issue.

• Undermining Support for Ukraine: The party’s flagship policy is the immediate cessation of all military support for Ukraine. The party’s website states, "That a war ends with a state ceding territory is not new," a direct rhetorical legitimization of Russian territorial conquest. This stance, promoted under the slogan "Nei til 85 milliarder til krig i Ukraina!" (No to 85 billion for war in Ukraine!), directly serves Russia’s primary war aim: the military subjugation of Ukraine by depriving it of the means to defend itself.

• Antagonizing and Weakening NATO: FOR advocates for Norway’s complete withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an alliance of which Norway is a founding member. The party decries NATO as an "aggressive military alliance" that "undermines international law". This language is indistinguishable from that used by Moscow for decades and directly supports Russia's long-term strategic objective of fracturing and ultimately dismantling the defensive alliance that stands as the primary check on its European ambitions.

• Echoing Russian Disinformation on War Causality: In a classic disinformation tactic, FOR shifts blame for the war away from the aggressor. The party's platform explicitly asserts that "USA's and NATO's wars have destroyed respect for the UN Charter and created the foundation for the war in Ukraine". It further claims the war was "triggered by NATO's aim to include Ukraine as a member". This narrative, which portrays Russia’s unprovked invasion as a defensive reaction, is a foundational element of Russian state propaganda designed to justify its actions to both domestic and international audiences.

• Selective Application of International Law: FOR’s calls to "Restore international law!" are highly selective, consistently targeting Western policies while ignoring Russia's gross violations. The party demands the lifting of economic sanctions on nations often allied with or strategically important to Russia, such as Venezuela, Syria, and Iran. This not only supports Russia's allies but also undermines the international community's primary tool for holding aggressive regimes accountable.

Comparative Analysis: FOR's Platform vs. Kremlin Narrative

‍Issue Area: Cause of Ukraine War

• FOR's Stated Position: The war was "triggered by NATO's aim to include Ukraine as a member." It was founded upon the destruction of the UN charter by "USA's and NATO's wars."
• Corresponding Kremlin Narrative/Stance: NATO expansion and Western aggression are to blame for the conflict, forcing Russia to take defensive military action. Ukraine is a puppet of the West.

Issue Area: Military Aid to Ukraine

• FOR's Stated Position: Demands a complete halt to military aid, arguing it prolongs suffering and that peace may require Ukraine to cede territory.
• Corresponding Kremlin Narrative/Stance: Western military aid is a dangerous escalation designed to prolong the conflict and "fight to the last Ukrainian." It is the primary obstacle to peace.

Issue Area: NATO

• FOR's Stated Position: An "aggressive military alliance" that undermines international law and from which Norway should withdraw.
• Corresponding Kremlin Narrative/Stance: NATO is an aggressive, expansionist, and illegal bloc that threatens Russia's core security interests. Its dismantlement is a key strategic goal.

Issue Area: Western Media

• FOR's Stated Position: Promotes content aimed at discrediting Western media, such as Professor Glenn Diesen's lecture "Russia-gate - The misguided role of media."
• Corresponding Kremlin Narrative/Stance: The Western media is a biased, Russophobic monolith engaged in a coordinated information war against Russia, fabricating stories to demonize the country.

Pillar 2: The Financial Artery – A Compromised Lifeline from Atle Berge

FOR's ability to operate is dependent on the financial backing of Atle Berge, a Norwegian businessman whose deep integration into Russia's economic and ideological sphere makes him an ideal conduit for influence.

A Profile in Pro-Kremlin Allegiance

Atle Berge is not a passive donor; he is an active participant in the Russian system. He maintains longstanding business interests there, having personally retained control of his concrete factory in Murmansk after his family's company divested. He reportedly resides in Russia for significant periods, boasting of living "like a count," and is purportedly in the process of acquiring Russian citizenship. He is an open supporter of Vladimir Putin and Russia's war in Ukraine, confirming he has given and "will give further amounts" in the millions of NOK to FOR because the party shares his political views.

Incendiary Rhetoric and Alleged Intelligence Links

Berge’s actions go beyond financial support. He infamously commented "Masse gode bombemål" (Lots of good bomb targets) regarding a Norwegian humanitarian aid convoy, a shocking endorsement of Russian military aggression against civilians. Furthermore, he has alarmingly implied connections to Russian intelligence, mentioning meetings with "high powers in Russia" where a specific Norwegian journalist critical of Russia was discussed. The journalist, Thomas Nilsen, interpreted this as a clear signal that "Berge is exchanging information with Russian intelligence". Such actions, if proven, would represent a direct threat to Norwegian citizens and national security.

The Funding Mechanism: Exploiting a Systemic Vulnerability

The funding itself exposed a critical weakness in Norway's defenses against foreign influence. At least NOK 1 million was channeled to FOR through Berge's Norwegian-registered company, Berghagen Invest AS. This allowed Norway's Party Law Committee (Partilovnemnda) to rule the donation formally legal, as it came from a Norwegian entity controlled by a citizen with voting rights. This ruling, however, ignores the spirit of the law, demonstrating how foreign-aligned interests can legally bankroll political disruption, effectively masking the ultimate origin and intent of the influence.

Pillar 3: The Propaganda Network – Amplification and Legitimation

The FOR operation relies on a symbiotic network designed to legitimize its message and provide it with a veneer of credibility.

Glenn Diesen: The "Academic" Propagandist

Professor Glenn Diesen is the network's key amplifier. As a top FOR candidate and campaign figurehead, he lends his academic title to the party's cause. His history, however, reveals deep ties to Russian state propaganda:

• He has been a regular commentator on the sanctioned Russian state-controlled network RT and contributes to conspiracy-promoting websites.
• Fellow academics have condemned his work, with historian Sven G. Holtsmark stating his claims "overwhelmingly mirror Kremlin propaganda," while the Norwegian Helsinki Committee noted his role at RT was to give "legitimacy to what clearly appears to be the Kremlin's version".
• Most damningly, Diesen co-authored a 2020 op-ed with Arne Treholt, a Norwegian convicted of high treason for espionage for the Soviet KGB. Their piece argued Russia has "legitimate interests and security needs," a collaboration that fundamentally compromises Diesen's academic objectivity.

The Network’s Functionality: A Self-Reinforcing Loop

The relationship between Berge, Diesen, and FOR creates a closed, self-reinforcing propaganda loop. Berge's Russian-aligned funding supports the party (FOR), which provides a political platform to elevate the "expert" commentary of Diesen. Diesen’s commentary then lends a false air of academic credibility to the party’s Kremlin-aligned agenda. This structure is a hallmark of sophisticated influence operations designed to launder propaganda and inject it into mainstream discourse.

The "Real Agenda," Official Scrutiny, and Strategic Aims

When the evidence is synthesized, FOR’s "real agenda" becomes clear. It is not about peace, but about promoting a geopolitical outcome favorable to Russia.

Expert Assessment: This conclusion is supported by specialists. OSINT analyst Jørn Sund-Henriksen has starkly described FOR as "et russisk proxyverktøy" (a Russian proxy tool), whose "rhetoric, activities, financing, and use of disinformation follow established Russian intelligence strategies to weaken societal trust, undermine democratic institutions, and reduce support".

Official Scrutiny: The party’s activities have attracted official attention. While Partilovnemnda was constrained by the letter of the law, Norway's Police Security Service (PST) confirmed it was "monitoring the situation". This occurs in a context where the PST has already issued specific warnings about Russian influence operations in Norway.

Strategic Goal: Normalizing the Unacceptable: Beyond immediate policy goals, the long-term objective appears to be the normalization of pro-Russian and anti-Western viewpoints within Norwegian political discourse. By generating controversy and forcing a national debate, the party, as its leader Marielle Leraand admitted, successfully got its "message out". Over time, this continuous exposure can erode political consensus and make radical, foreign-aligned positions seem like a legitimate part of the political spectrum.

A Clear and Present Test of Democratic Resilience

Partiet Fred og Rettferdighet is not a fringe political anomaly. The overwhelming evidence—from its ethically compromised funding by a pro-Kremlin oligarch to its systematic parroting of Russian propaganda and its reliance on figures with ties to Russian state media and convicted spies—paints an undeniable picture. FOR functions as a "Russian proxy tool", an entity seemingly designed to execute an influence operation against a key NATO member state.

Its real agenda is to weaken Norwegian and international resolve against Russian aggression, foster deep-seated anti-NATO sentiment, and normalize a worldview that serves the interests of the Kremlin. The emergence of FOR is a stark reminder of the persistent and evolving threat of foreign influence operations. It is a direct test of Norway's legal frameworks, political integrity, and societal resilience. The "peace" this party champions is meticulously tailored to serve the strategic interests of Vladimir Putin's Russia, not the people of Norway or the cause of genuine global security

‍