'Gangs from Sweden' are 'the Biggest Threat' to Norwegian Society

That's according to Norwegian police's 2025 Threat Assessment--and by 'Sweden' they mean consequences of mass immigration, which police also says (in so many words)

In yet another blow to the current narrative of Russia! Russia! Russia! and Mr. Putin in particular being the biggest threat (whatever happened to climate change here?), Norway’s police issued its 2025 Threat Assessment.

You’ll never believe what it considers the biggest societal threat.

Right: organised crime in the form of cross-border ‘gangs’, mainly operating out of Sweden.

Please remind me why Norway is buying new main battle tanks?

War being the New Peace, Nordic Leftists Celebrate Militarism

For the same reason every militaristic régime did so in the past: to shore up domestic support by pointing to the foreign bogeyman.

Sigh.

The below content comes to you in my translation, with emphases and [snark] added.

---

The Gov’t was Supposed to Crush the Gangs

Police now believe that the gangs are more dangerous than ever. They warn of the destabilisation of the whole of society [orig. hele samfunnet].

By Trond Lydersen and Per-Ivar Kvalsvik, NRK, 21 May 2025 [source]

‘This is how the government will crush gang crime’, the government promised when it launched last year’s revised state budget.

600 million [about US$ 60m] was supposed to ensure that the police crushed the criminal networks.

But it didn’t work out that way.

The threat from organised crime in Norway is large and growing.

That’s according to Kristin Kvigne, director of Kripos [National Criminal Investigation Service (Wikipedia), akin to the FBI (but Norway isn’t a federal country)].

The head of Kripos speaks of criminal networks that have developed. Police have not been able to stop them. This is despite the fact that they are now working in a much more efficient and coordinated manner.

‘The gangs haven’t stood still this year either’, says Kvigne [everyone with an inkling of evolutionary theory understands this (which, apparently, excludes police and politicos™) rack up the pressure, it’s adapt or die].

Long Term Views

According to the police’s threat assessment, organised crime is currently the most serious threat to society in Norway [dang, there goes the second spot to Mr. Putin, I suppose; I’ve got some more things to say about this below].

Minister of Justice Astri Aas-Hansen (Ap) says the government takes this development seriously [given history and this gov’t’s track record in particular, this should send shivers down the spine of everyone].

[NRK] The head of the Kripos says that gang crime is on the rise. And last year, the government said that gangs should be crushed. How do you think it has gone?

[Justice Minister Aas-Hansen] I realise that this is a long-term effort, and that the police must be fully committed [the Minister implies police hasn’t been]

The Minister of Justice emphasises that last year’s efforts will continue [spending of taxpayer money will continue until gang crimes are trending down]:

It will yield results over time. More arrests, more seizures, more confiscation of illicit products, more investigations, and more convictions [how does the gov’t know about the ways the courts will adjudicate matters?].

[I’m reproducing the brief exchange in the original below—for one reason: the woman in the picture is Minister of Justice Aas-Hansen, and she is on the record stating the following (it’s in the caption of the picture, which is why I’m reproducing this screenshot here:

Justice Minister Aas-Hansen believes (orig. tror) the government’s appropriation against the gangs will produce results

Irrespective of anyone’s opinions or belief (note that the noun tro means faith, incl. in a religious sense), I submit that this kind of faith in gov’t isn’t warranted.]

Conservatives and Progress Party Demand More

Progress Party leader Sylvi Listhaug [that would be the ‘right-wing populists’, poised to become Norway’s biggest party right-of-centre (my analysis from last autumn), displacing the Conservatives (Høyre) of former prime minister Erna Solberg] believes the government is not taking the message from Kripos seriously. They want an extra NOK 1.2 billion [about US$ 120m] for police and stricter penalties for young offenders [I’m not at-all against ‘law & order’ policies, esp. in light of the threat assessment, but here follows what, for all intents and purposes, would be a ‘dog-whistle’ (and not merely in US parlance)], as per Listhaug:

Youth crime is exploding throughout the country. Swedish criminals have established themselves in all police districts.

We also need more tools for the police, increased penalties, and new legislation that can catch more criminals [first of all, laws don’t ‘catch more criminals’; second, if a Norwegian politico™ calls out ‘Swedish criminals’ he or she doesn’t mean native Swedes but foreign born and/or naturalised immigrants holding Swedish citizenship—and by omitting this crucial detail, there’s a lot to unpack here, esp. as the way this police threat assessment is portrayed, it points towards Sweden’s massive problems caused by mass immigration are currently spilling over]

Peter Frølich, spokesperson for justice policy in the Conservative Party, is also calling for new laws [won’t help at-all if said new legislation doesn’t address the root causes, i.e., open borders with Sweden (hey, we’re all Nordic, isn’t it) and mass immigration]:

They’ve spent four years working on a law that would make it easier to confiscate the gangs’ luxury symbols. They failed to deliver anything to the Storting.

Aas-Hansen now says that new bills are on the way [which is odd, isn’t it, a few months before the next election—reeks like shenanigans or incompetence (my money would be on both)]:

We're prioritising this and listening to the police’s needs when it comes to the tools they need in the fight against gangs. We have seen a significant increase in confiscated amounts since the right-wing government was in power, and we will be submitting a bill to the Storting [Parliament] that makes it a criminal offence to recruit young people to commit crime [may I add a law forbidding certain things to add to that list? I mean, that’s certainly also going to help™]

Can Destroy Society

Kripos Director Kristin Kvigne warns that organised crime can grow so large that it becomes difficult to stop [look at that—a narco state]:

We need to step up our efforts [what’s prevented you from doing so? I mean, it’s not as if there was no organised crime before 2022…]. We must do what we can to keep the most dangerous networks down so they don’t get a foothold that destabilises our entire society.

[NRK] Is that what you fear?

[Kripos Director Kvigne] That’s what I fear. I fear that crime at a very high level can threaten both democracy and the welfare state.

[NRK] And that could happen if we don’t step up our efforts?

[Kripos Director Kvigne] It could happen if we don’t manage to maintain a level of effort that balances it out. We see this in countries that are quite close to us how complicated it can get when organised crime gets stuck [this, once more, is the quite-obfuscatory reference to neighbouring Sweden].

---

A Brief Glance at the Police’s Threat Assessment

For the record, here’s the linked content; and off we go (page numbers are added to assist those who so desire to locate these paragraphs).

The Police Threat Assessment is an annual report that reflects the police’s most up-to-date and comprehensive understanding of the Norwegian crime situation. This year’s report has a special focus on crime threats that threaten society [p. 8]

In their definitions section, there is this gem (p. 9):

This year’s threat assessment emphasises crime that threatens public security, economic values, fundamental societal structures, critical infrastructure and societal functions, and nature, animal welfare and cultural heritage [not all these threats™ carry the same weight, though, I’d argue].

Threats to public safety are understood as crime threats that affect individuals’ movement in the public space, activity in the digital space, or participation in the public debate [see what I mean? That doesn’t mean I’m against cruelty vs. animals, but it’s not the same thing (although I’m in favour of banning Moslem and Jewish slaughtering practices for that reason)].

Threats to economic values are understood as crime threats that lead to direct damage and economic loss [that’s an obvious category]…

Threats to fundamental societal structures are understood as crime threats that undermine or exploit fundamental societal structures, such as a fair labour market and business, the legal system and democratic principles [if you’re against our democracy™, police will come after you].

Threats to critical infrastructure and societal functions are understood as crime threats that damage or impede critical infrastructure and societal functioning…

Threats to nature, the environment, and animal welfare are understood as crimes that threaten biodiversity, climate, and ecosystems [that’s now on police’s radar, too]. The consequences include both loss of wildlife and poor animal welfare.

Basically, everything is a threat™, and to me the most troubling aspects are the criminalisation of everything (incl. ‘biodiversity’ and ‘climate’), but also the way police explains™ the background and origins of these threats (p. 10-11):

The national crime situation will be affected by the international security policy situation. At the beginning of 2025, the world is characterised by several major conflicts, including in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa. War, conflict, and regional instability create refugee flows and other irregular migration…

International conflicts and political processes often generate political engagement among the population, but also provide a backdrop for hate crime and social unrest [as if both are of the same weight], which can be expressed in public expressions of opinion, such as demonstrations.

And by page 12, we’re where police apparently wants to move:

The research literature describes...a grey zone below the threshold of armed conflict, where it can be unclear which authority is responsible for dealing with such threats. For the police, this is misleading. There is no grey zone—only a blue zone, which is the police’s area of responsibility.

Here, we’ll merely note the underlying problem since around 1900 of the increasing blending of what used to be a more clear-cut understanding of ‘war’ and (vs.) ‘peace’.

I note, in passing, that WW1 was the last war that ended with a peace treaty in the conventional sense of the term (although this is the first conflict that supposedly ended™ with the armistice on 11 Nov. 1918, as opposed to how wars used to end throughout recorded history, that is, with a peace treaty).

As to how international conflicts are supposedly starting, WW2 was the last such conflict that was declared (a declaration of war is technically the creation of a dedicated legal state of affairs); no international conflict fought with arms since 1 Sept. 1945 has been initiated as such, and this may have to do with the creation of the UN into whose purview these matters now fall (but in the final analysis, the above-related blending of external and internal threats is totally in line with these overall trends).

The same applies to the once clear-cut distinction between military and civilian spheres of gov’t; now, there’s but ‘a blue zone’ in the ‘grey zone’ of existence.

Some of the ‘highlights’ of the report incl. the following aspects:

• Illicit drugs (pp. 19-20):

  Comparisons with other countries in Europe show that Norway is currently one of the countries with the highest average use of cocaine...

  The heroin market in Europe has been significantly affected and supply reduced over the past year as a result of the new Afghan regime’s shutdown of opium production…

  Police in several countries are concerned that heroin addicts are moving to more potent synthetic opioids.

• Violence and homicides (p. 21)

  The year 2024 started with a high number of murders, as 11 people were killed in January alone. The average for the last ten years is 28 murders a year. In both 2023 and 2024, the number of homicides was slightly above average, and common to both years was an increased number of homicides in close relationships.

• Offences for profit (p. 23)

  The number of robberies has increased slightly over the past two years, and a large proportion of the offences are committed by perpetrators under the age of 18. This is linked to an increase in so-called ‘youth robberies’, particularly in the Oslo region. The statistics show that a few young repeat offenders are involved in most of the crime [this is also mentioned on p. 39: crime pays way better than ‘regular’ work for teens]

The real (sic) zinger in the assessment, though, is the section on ‘future threats’ (pp. 30-35):

Several networks are also cynical in their recruitment and exploitation of children and young people to commit crimes such as violence [they do so because of Western laws protecting minors under 14].

According to Europol, more than 86 per cent of the most threatening criminal networks in Europe have set up their own or infiltrated other legal corporate structures [ever heard of that?]

Several of the drug networks in Norway have been established over several years and are highly resilient and adaptable. Drug crime is often both organised and linked to other forms of crime…

Police are seeing increasing professionalisation and cooperation between various networks and independent actors…

And while this is all very interesting (of course), the true zinger is on p. 36, which is also what’s most notably absent from the afore-cited NRK piece:

The system-threatening and serious crime that previously took place primarily in Sweden has developed over the past year and to some extent spread to Norway and the other Nordic countries...

Sweden is the Nordic country where serious crime has developed most seriously in recent years. According to an independent, international organisation that conducts research into the prevalence of global crime, Sweden ranks highest among the Nordic countries in terms of the prevalence of organised and economic crime. In recent years, all police districts in Norway have reported varying degrees of presence of actors associated with Swedish criminal networks, particularly linked to drug offences.

And this is due to…(drum roll):

Norway continues to be an attractive market for the sale of drugs because the market price is higher and the opportunity for profit is therefore greater in Norway than in Sweden [if there’d be no buyers…the same applies to prostitution, by the way]. Geographical, linguistic, and cultural proximity between Swedish and Norwegian organisations makes it easier for the networks to establish and maintain relationships.

In recent years, police have identified several violent assignments carried out by Swedish organisations on behalf of Norwegian criminal networks. In the coming year, Swedish and Norwegian actors affiliated with Swedish criminal networks will continue to commit threatening and violent offences in Norway, either as part of their own activities or on behalf of others. In recent years, violent crime has been committed in both the private and public spheres. The violence is mainly linked to personal conflicts, as well as rivalry between actors for territorial control and control of market shares in the drug trade. Over time, Swedish criminal networks have built up a high level of violence and fear capital that is sought after by criminal networks and actors in Norway.

There you have it: it’s ‘the Swedes’ who are to blame.

At no point, though, it is mentioned that these trajectories may (sic) relate to immigration policies (although the prose is about as clear as can be, in my opinion).

Digital ID to the Rescue? Not. So. Fast.

There is much, much more, though, and the below lines are from pp. 40-41:

Police recognise that legal services are increasingly being misused by criminals at several stages of the criminal value chain. This applies, for example, to the distribution of drugs to reduce the risk of detection or the misuse of trust-based services to prevent criminal prosecution…

…abuse of other people’s BankID [that would be Norway’s digital ID, in case you’re buying into that entire ‘digital ID will save us all’ nonsens]. Digitised car sharing services have become increasingly popular in urban areas over the past year. These services enable more people to use a car when needed, without the financial and practical obligations of car ownership. However, these services are also increasingly being used by criminal networks to transport and distribute drugs, and the threat is expected to grow...

Another advantage is that people without a driving licence, including minors, can be drivers [huhum, how would that work?]…Young foreign workers in passenger transport and food delivery services are also being exploited to lend their employee identity for payment [ah, it’s because gangs offer money to third parties to let them (ab)use their own digital ID].

Another legal service used to facilitate criminal behaviour and avoid prosecution is investment passports. An investment passport is a citizenship and new nationality passport that is granted to private investors to transfer new capital into the country’s economy [you could do all that as a non-citizen, but as a citizen, you’d also get a ton of other advantages; please don’t ask me where the logical difference to state-facilitated money laundering is].

And there is this gem on p. 45:

Increased digitalisation in society has also meant that such systems have been connected to the internet, which creates vulnerability to cyber attacks, including ransomware.

And there you have it in a nutshell, in addition to other digital absurdities, such as the following found on p. 49:

A survey by the Norwegian Media Authority [orig. Medietilsynet] shows that as many as 26 per cent of children between the ages of 9 and 11 and 84 per cent of children between the ages of 12 and 14 use Snapchat, despite the fact that the platform has a 13-year age limit [great parenting, by the way]. Contact between children and adult buyers of self-produced sexualised material is in many cases initiated by the child itself through social media [in case you’re wondering what could go wrong]…

Children who first start selling self-produced material to strangers are at an increased risk of ending up in a situation where they are tempted or pressurised to sell more material, or end up meeting the buyer physically to sell sexual services. Many of the buyers have previously committed child sexual abuse or other serious criminal offences…

The self-produced material that is sold will in many cases be shared between actors with a sexual interest in children. In recent years, the police have seen that a lot of new sexual abuse material has been self-produced material.

I suppose that ‘the internet’ should be restricted to adults, then, as should be cell phones, smart or otherwise.

I’ll stop here because the following section on ‘environmental crimes’ deserves its own posting.

Bottom Lines

Even if you don’t read Norwegian, I think it’s fair to state that the state broadcaster’s rendition of the report is…faulty, at best. I consider it a shitshow.

As to the contents, well, I’ll leave you with a parable from my line of work: while digitisation of everything was ongoing before Covid, the WHO-declared, so-called Pandemic™ has turbocharged academia in this regard.

While some of the consequences are, well, expectable—such as low attendance in digital (sic) classes or faculty meetings—among surely the most idiosyncratic (stupid) ideas has been the shift to digital exams, incl. what’s called ‘home exams’. The latter used to refer to the drafting of a paper, but nowadays, we’re increasingly talking about AI (ab)use and plagiarism, too.

The most absurd issue here, though, is that in-classroom exams are also done on computers; while often this is done via ‘secure’ browsers (that disallow use of certain other applications, such as regular web browsers for the duration of said exam), the solution™ is: more admin, more surveillance, and a bigger IT department.

I’m often the lone voice advocating to return (sic) to pen and paper-based exams, which would eliminate these problems to a large degree. Needless to say, most academics are opposed to this, for it would inconvenience both them and students (but it would improve hand-writing skills among the latter).

I told my friends in Czechia about this when I travelled to Prague in March—and my interlocutors told me they’d had the same debates™. They also resolved to return (sic) to pen and paper-based exams, which resolved the issue in a cost-efficient manner.

As to digital services and esp. AI (sic), well, let me conclude today’s posting by recommending Kate Crawford’s Atlas of AI (Yale UP; 2022); from the publisher:

What happens when artificial intelligence saturates political life and depletes the planet? How is AI shaping our understanding of ourselves and our societies? Drawing on more than a decade of research, award‑winning scholar Kate Crawford reveals how AI is a technology of extraction: from the minerals drawn from the earth to the labor pulled from low-wage information workers to the data taken from every action and expression.

Crawford reveals how this planetary network is fueling a shift toward undemocratic governance and increased inequity. Rather than taking a narrow focus on code and algorithms, Crawford offers us a material and political perspective on what it takes to make AI and how it centralizes power. This is an urgent account of what is at stake as technology companies use artificial intelligence to reshape the world.

And to make you read the book, here’s a few blurbs from the same website:

“This study argues that [artificial intelligence] is neither artificial nor particularly intelligent. . . . A fascinating history of the data on which machine-learning systems are trained.”—New Yorker

“A valuable corrective to much of the hype surrounding AI and a useful instruction manual for the future.”—John Thornhill, Financial Times

Happy (?) reading.