Former defense chief: I received a "growth stutter" and a facial expression change when I warned the government about the threat from Russia

Peter Bartram's recommendation in 2015 was clear:

Historical significant savings in the Defense sector should be replaced with investments worth six billion Danish crowns. No one listened, he says today.

Just a year before, Russia had annexed the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine, and as a result, the then defense chief initiated an internal analysis of what was missing in the Defense sector if Denmark one day had to face a more capable and direct adversary.

"Most of what we were buying at the time, the report pointed out that we needed in 2015," says Peter Bartram, who never shared the new information with the public.

The warning was dismissed by the highest political level.

At the time in 2015, Peter Bartram set course for Holmens Kanal number 42, where he was summoned for a meeting with the then defense minister Nicolai Wammen (S), the Defense Ministry's department chief Lars Findsen, and a ministerial secretary:

"I met absolute deaf ears," says Peter Bartram:

"They were angry and gave me a good dressing down in good and well two hours. They were clearly irritated and pointed out that they had not asked for such an analysis, that FE did not evaluate a direct threat to Denmark in the next ten years, and that I should focus on the assigned savings."

He did so.

Few years before – in 2012 – political decisions had been made that the Defense sector in the coming years should save almost 15 percent a year. And in 2015, the year of Peter Bartram's warnings, Denmark was only using around one percent of GDP on Defense.

Today, Lars Findsen says he will not refer to meetings with ministers where he was present. However, he notes that changing defense chiefs normally do not "implement wish lists with potentially large expenditures" without coordinating with the ministry.

"As civil servants in 2015, we worked within the framework of a very broad and solid political agreement and understanding about the Defense sector's economic framework," writes Findsen.

---------------------------

Blank rejection in the minister's office

---------------------------

The reason for the interview with Peter Bartram is an article series where Berlingske examines ( https://www.berlingske.dk/politik/topforskere-paa-et-afgoerende-tidspunkt-i-historien-overhoerte-politikerne ) how Denmark ended up with a Defense without the necessary equipment and personnel to defend itself – and not least, who bears responsibility.

Peter Bartram was the defense chief in the period 2012-2017. It was a time with some of Denmark's most significant Defense budget cuts – and a broad political agreement about the "peace dividend" necessarily had to be harvested, he says.

Despite the annexation of Crimea, Nicolai Wammen and Lars Findsen were dismissive of Peter Bartram's proposals, as he has previously told in the book "Forsvarsløs" by Peter Ernstved Rasmussen, editor of the defense media Olfi ( https://olfi.dk/ ).

Instead, they referred to the latest threat assessment from the Defense Intelligence Service (FE).

"They showed no understanding for my concern. They acknowledged, of course, that there was some unrest in Ukraine. But their main argument was that the intelligence service had evaluated that Russia would not be a threat within ten years:"

My counterargument was that it at least would take ten years to establish the necessary capacity.

In a written response to Berlingske, Nicolai Wammen (S) refuses "in principle" to comment on other areas than his current position as finance minister. However:

"Entirely in principle, I can say that I in my time as defense minister worked within the framework of the agreement on Defense, which a broad majority in the Folketing stood behind," writes he.

---------------------------

Political course based on FE

---------------------------

A number of the country's leading experts have previously evaluated for Berlingske that the cuts in the years after the annexation of Crimea were fatal.

Peter Bartram shares the analysis.

But a large part of the responsibility for the reduction of Defense lies with FE and the cooperation with Christiansborg, says Peter Bartram:

"The intelligence service has a core function, and when FE is used by the political level to say that we should not arm, the assessments should contain the necessary breadth of risks. I could have wished for a greater openness towards potential dangers."

Peter Bartram will not speculate on whether FE's threat assessments in some way were influenced by political desires. He has no concrete insight into this, he says.

There is, however, a "but":

"I have myself experienced that I in other dialogues – especially with the department – have been brought into the understanding that one solution has been more appealing than another. And I have on several occasions experienced that by adjusting the premises and context, large savings can be made. So it depends very much on the context in which it is placed."

The annual threat assessment, which is prepared independently of FE, is a central part of the foundation that Danish defense policy is based on.

Today, the risk assessment states that Russia will be ready to go into another NATO country before Ukraine within two to five years.

The assessment, which was published in a special edition, landed in February of this year just before the security conference in Munich ( https://www.berlingske.dk/internationalt/tom-jensen-det-er-den-mest-bemaerkelsesvaerde-tale-af-en?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AerBZYPBqRFEsxXm2SUx8ckZoitN1w3pjZ2NZMaLbNIPbvgHvEVaMzr8I18Ruzo3fBc%3D&gaa_ts=67fcd31d&gaa_sig=gd0FMnXxnPx1Iq3IiJKyXZ52H7i30Gz1rw78tVaRGyFTd2JMKdQkvYOlWQ5mWMKR9dgRH1RrpCyDBZRdXlD0FQ%3D%3D ). A few days later, it was highlighted by the government, when Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen (S) set the big defense procurement in motion with the unmistakable message to the incumbent defense chief Michael W. Hyldgaard: "Buy, buy, buy."

According to Peter Bartram, the head of FE should be a military position.

It is not the case today, which, according to the former defense chief, can have the consequence that FE does not always have the required insight to take all factors into account when preparing an analysis.

It's not just about counting tanks, underlines Peter Bartram:

"I think the difficult part is to evaluate a range of military capabilities and components now and over time, as well as understand the modern battlefield. I am therefore a supporter of the fact that the chief position again becomes occupied by a general or admiral."

--------------------------------

The defense chief threw in the towel

--------------------------------

Peter Bartram has on several occasions experienced a direct intervention in his area of responsibility.

He refers to a specific incident in the time after Russia's annexation of Crimea, where the department and the defense minister – at the time Nicolai Wammen (S) – wanted Peter Bartram to express himself in a certain way in the media about Russia in a case about Denmark's security situation.

They wanted him to express himself in the media about Denmark's security situation.

There was just one problem.

According to Peter Bartram, he could not say anything meaningful about Danish security without also highlighting the development towards the east, which, according to the defense chief, had an impact on how Denmark should act in defense and security policy.

"I made some citations with my press department that I thought could be used. But they would not hear of it," he remembers.

Instead, they wanted Peter Bartram to express a message formulated by them, and which the defense minister had approved.

"I think I came closer to the threat from Russia than it was politically desirable, because I had thought to go in the direction of saying that we were forced to act more in line with what Russia was doing," he says.

He refused:

"I could not accept the citations that were put forward for me, and therefore held on to my own words."

He had submitted himself to historical savings, but he neither could nor would stand on the line for the citations, which therefore never saw the light of day in the public eye.

For four days he heard nothing. Several of his press department employees thought he was fired.

On the fifth day, he had a serious conversation with department chief Lars Findsen:

"He informed me that they had investigated whether they could fire me for disobedience."

They could not.

In an email to Berlingske, Lars Findsen writes that he in his time as department chief could have "long and troublesome conversations" with Peter Bartram.

The episode can he, however, not recognize, as Peter Bartram describes it.

"I can not recognize Peter's account of the fact that the ministry had investigated him for disobedience, let alone considered firing him, as he describes it, which, as he describes it, does not give any meaning processually," writes Lars Findsen.

---------------------------------------

Blind faith in peace and political stubbornness

---------------------------------------

When Peter Bartram looks back on the groundbreaking period as defense chief, two focus points stand out:

Checklists with economic savings and the desire to participate in as many possible international missions.

"My first year went almost exclusively with developing and setting the myriad of initiatives in motion to meet the savings target of 2.7 billion," he says.

Peter Bartram tried on several occasions – as in the episode after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 – to make politicians aware of future dangers by trimming Defense.

But he acknowledges that he in the main submitted to his assigned savings task:

"I saw it as my task to get the best defense out of the reduced budget, which had broad political support.

He is therefore unsure of what he could have done.

"If I had left the Defense in anger, it would not have removed the savings, and many would certainly have stood in line to criticize the highest military chief for not accepting democracy. One must remember that it was a completely different time."

Did you have a gut feeling that turned out to be right?

"No, not really. To let gut feelings guide my leadership lies so far from what I believe in; and it is, as a defense chief, to serve democracy and translate political decisions – not to fight against them."

Were you too trusting in peace, or did you experience a stubbornness in implementing the planned policy?

"It may be a combination."

Warning: This article was translated by a Large Language Model, in case of doubt, you can always visit the original source.