The U.S. Must Take the Lead in a Destabilized, Increasingly Militarized Arctic
- Published August 14, 2024
- By James G. Foggo III and Russell J. Handy
The end of an era of cooperation is turning the Arctic region into an unsettled proving ground for nations competing for access to natural resources, trade routes and military advantage.
At the heart of the breakdown in relations is Russia’s annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasion of Ukraine, actions that alienated fellow Arctic nations. Further tensions have been caused by Russia’s increased activity in the Arctic due to warming waters that make passage possible as Russia expands investment there, asserts its boundaries and facilitates China’s entry into the region.
With the end of a cooperative framework, the Arctic is rapidly becoming the next contested area in great power competition, and the U.S. is in danger of being a day late and a dollar short. It is time to take the lead and invest both civilian and especially military resources in this incredibly important geo-political region of the world. Failure to do so may have serious consequences.
The strategic importance of the High North
The High North is defined as the region north of the Arctic Circle, or above 66.5 degrees latitude. The region encompasses 6 percent of the earth’s surface in an area of 8.2 million square miles, two-thirds of which comprises the Arctic Ocean.
The area is rich in resources and is estimated to hold one-third of the world’s natural gas, 13 percent of global oil reserves and vast quantities of minerals and rare-earth metals. The Arctic also offers three valuable trade routes for navigating the polar region, including the Northwest Passage, the Transpolar Sea Route and the Northern Sea Route, the latter of which is normally open for only a brief period each year.
Finally, the region is of continuing military strategic importance due to its proximity to the U.S. and Russia and as a crucial link between the Atlantic and Pacific theaters of operation. Its location is also essential for communications infrastructure including satellites.
Access rights to resources are held by eight Arctic nations including Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia and the U.S. However, due to the region’s economic and strategic advantages, both Arctic and non-Arctic nations seek a presence in the region.
The end of cooperation
Until recently, the High North enjoyed geopolitical stability and cooperation among the Arctic nations, including the establishment in 1996 of the Arctic Council. An independent intergovernmental body, the council began its mission by serving as the leading intergovernmental forum promoting cooperation and coordination among the Arctic nations, Arctic Indigenous peoples and other inhabitants with a focus on sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic.
As the council evolved, its members supported creation of an adjunct Arctic Chiefs of Defense Conference consisting of periodic meetings during which the highest-ranking military leaders of the Arctic nations would resolve issues, foster collaboration and provide transparency for regional military operations. This stability earned the region the label of “High North, Low Tension.”
Unfortunately, these cooperation efforts were deeply damaged when Vladimir Putin illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and then attacked the sovereign territory of Ukraine in 2022. As a result of these acts of aggression, the council members ostracized the Russian Federation and froze communications. Putin acutely felt this due to reliance on foreign investment and technology to fuel his plans to achieve polar great power status.
But Russia has proven surprisingly resilient, and its economy has rebounded. Its military has also been boosted by a resilient industrial base. There is currently no dialog with Russian political or military leaders in the chambers of the Arctic Council, and this has resulted in a situation akin to having a “hot line” where neither side picks up the phone when it rings.
Warming waters increase access and interest
The changing climate is also changing the dynamic. While accessing the Arctic’s resources and trade routes previously had been difficult due to the challenging environment, the region is now warming at least twice and perhaps as much as four times the global rate, contributing to a reduction in Arctic ice, which is now at historical lows. An examination of satellite imagery shows that the Arctic region is now more blue water than white ice.
With more open water and unhindered passage through the Arctic region for longer periods, the great powers are taking on a new level of interest. For example, Russia, with more than 50 percent of the Arctic coastline – and more than half of the Arctic population – has invested heavily in the economic, societal and military development of its Arctic zone.
It has also sought to monetize the Northern Sea Route, declaring that passage through the Northern Sea Route requires sovereign state permission, 45 days’ notice, pre-paid tariffs for safe passage and the requirement to use Russian pilots and Russian icebreakers as escorts, which is rejected by Western nations that demand the right to transit passage of an international strait in accordance with the U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea.
Furthermore, since 2001 Russia has challenged the status quo and traditional boundaries on the continental shelf bordering the Russian Federation in the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS).
In fact, in August 2007, the Russians planted a one-meter titanium flag at the base of the Lomonosov Ridge, near the North Pole, which the Russians claim is connected to the Siberian continental shelf of the Russian Federation.
Canada and Denmark challenge these claims with both submitting their own claims due to their own sovereign interest in oil and gas exploration in this area. The Russians have a good chance of a favorable ruling, potentially giving the Russian Federation control over 460,000 square miles or 70 percent of the Arctic continental shelf, inclusive of the oil, gas and mineral harvesting rights therein.
James G. Foggo III and Russell J. Handy
Adm. James G. Foggo III (U.S. Navy, ret.) is dean of the Center for Maritime Strategy and an adviser for Stellar Solutions, Inc. He previously served as commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa and commander of Allied Joint Force Command Naples. Lt. Gen. Russell J. Handy (U.S. Air Force, ret.) is an independent aerospace defense contractor and an adviser for Stellar Solutions, Inc. He previously served as commander of Alaskan North American Aerospace Defense Region, Alaskan Command, and Eleventh Air Force at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.