Arctic region – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its report on Russian domination of the Arctic.

According to Pavel Devyatkin, writing for The Arctic Institute “Russia has increased Arctic military drills, opened or reopened military bases, constructed icebreakers, and established advanced radar stations to enhance its control of the region…US Secretary of Defense James Mattis declared that Russia is taking ‘aggressive steps’ to increase its presence in the Arctic…the Basics of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic Region declared that all activities in the Arctic should be tied to the interests of ‘defense and security to the maximum degree.’ “In February 2013, Russia’s official Arctic strategy was expanded when President Putin approved the Development Strategy of the Russian Arctic and the Provision of National Security for the Period Until 2020… [it notes that] National security in the Arctic requires an advanced naval, air force and army presence in the Arctic. Further aims include developing the Russian icebreaker fleet, modernizing the air service and airport network, and establishing modern information and telecommunication infrastructure. In August 2007, Russia resumed strategic bomber and Northern Fleet patrols in its Arctic waters for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Russia has also invested significantly in its naval capacity in the Arctic. The Northern Fleet is…the most powerful of the four Russian fleets with the greatest number of icebreakers and submarines. The Northern Fleet’s sea-based nuclear deterrence capability makes it a fundamental part of Russia’s military. Russia has expanded naval patrols near Norwegian and Danish territories, increased the operational radius of the Fleet’s submarines, and commenced below-ice training for submarines.

“The Ministry of Defense has announced that they aim to put more than 100 military facilities into operation in 2017. Since 2015, Russia has constructed six new bases that have included new airfields, ports and army bases.¹⁶⁾ These actions show that Russian security policy in the Arctic is more than simply upgrading existing military infrastructure…In addition, traditional armed forces are becoming involved in the Arctic to learn military tactics for Arctic warfare. Although Russia’s military activities in the Arctic are mostly aerial and naval, there are garrisons of Russian ground troops and security services throughout the Russian Arctic.”

Beyond icebreakers and bases, 2018 has been an active year for Russia’s militarization of the Arctic. A Telegraph report filed by Alec Luhn in Moscow noted that the nation’s annual Victory Day Parade featured a new “fighting snowmobile” equipped with a machine gun. “With a speed of 40 miles per hour and a range of 300 miles, the snowmobile keeps its two-man crew warm in an enclosed cabin and… [has] a 7.62mm PKP machine gun mounted on the back.

Apart from the normal health issues a man also levitra 10 mg on sale at drugshop tends to have some other unfavorable susceptibilities. The training is given by a certified and experienced driver instructor so that you learn in a faster viagra effects women and simpler way. Differentiate between a sham and real product: Some companies offer fake sildenafil 50mg tablets enhancement products to derive money from you. The jungle conditions add to the excavation difficulties. cheap viagra price Far more worrisome, reports Newsweek’s Damien Sharkov, for the first time since the USSR’s collapse, Russia sent military jets over the North Pole towards North America.

Deemer notes that “At present, NATO and the United States lack a well-developed strategy to address and counter Russian aggression in the Arctic. … NATO and the United States should instead pursue a renewed strategy of containment, constructing military installations in two specific regions: northern Norway and northwestern Alaska. Expanding on a January 2017 reshuffling of troops that led to 300 U.S. Marines being stationed at Vaernes Air Base, NATO should construct bases in the Norwegian states of Nordland, Troms, and Finnmark. At the same time, military installations in the Northwest Arctic, North Slope, and Kotzebue Sound would provide a NATO presence at the mouth of the Northern Sea Route. An already-established Canadian and Danish military presence on the opposite side of the Arctic and in Greenland would complete this strategy of containment. Russia would find itself with NATO forces to the west in Norway, the east in Alaska, and to the north across the Arctic. Any Russian territorial claims could be legitimately disputed and Russia would largely be limited to resources found on the Russian mainland, maintaining the global power equilibrium and advancing U.S. interests abroad…[However] any diversion of NATO troops to pursue such a strategy would inevitably leave NATO less formidable elsewhere, namely in Western Europe.”

Photo: U.S. Navy

The submarine USS Connecticut and fast-attack submarine USS Hartford breakthrough the ice in support of Ice Exercise 2018 near Ice Camp Skate in the Arctic Circle

A major power has taken extraordinary military steps to dominate a strategic region, but there has been barely any significant discussion of the fact in the media.

Russia has moved unprecedented amounts of armed forces into the Arctic region. It has near total military supremacy on the top of the planet, and it is continuing to add to its domination. Russian sources quoted the Kremlin’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu boasting that during the spring, Russia’s Northern Fleet accepted the Ilya Muromets icebreaker, the Elbrus supply ship, the Admiral Gorshkov frigate and the Ivan Gren landing ship. State tests of the Academician Pashin fuel tanker are currently under way, all of which add to Moscow’s growing supremacy of the Arctic.

Shoigu stated that in addition “…before the end of the year the North Fleet would receive five combat ships, five supply ships, 15 aircraft and 62 radar stations and missile-radar complexes. As a result, 56.7 percent of all of the North Fleet’s weapons and equipment will be the most modern models.” RT added that “Russia has continued construction of military bases in Arctic regions and conducted exercises in extreme conditions to boost the combat readiness of military personnel.”

Jonathon Deemer, in a Lint Center analysis notes that “Since Vladimir Putin’s return to the Russian Presidency, the Russian Federation has pursued an aggressive policy of militarization of the Arctic. Not only is Russia revamping Soviet-era bases near the Finnish border and in northern Siberia, it is also constructing new bases off the Russian mainland extending to Aleksandra Island (the northernmost island of the Franz Josef Land Archipelago) and Sredny Ostrov.”

In May, NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller noted that “NATO must be more active in the area… there are real military challenges developing to which the NATO alliance has not paid sufficient attention for many, many years and we need to up our game…” The U.S. has only two icebreakers committed to the Arctic, while Russia has forty. The U.S. Naval Institute quotes Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Paul Zuknft’s statement in support of new icebreakers:“If you do not have presence to exert sovereignty, you’re a paper lion.”

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has noted, Russia is engaging in new and extremely worrisome activities in the Arctic. According to The NATO Association’s Aleksi Korpela “…the erection of military bases and deployment of forces rings ominous to contiguous states and those with Arctic possessions or interests. This issue has become especially controversial in the last few years, as Russia has expanded its military infrastructure following the creation of a new strategic district: The Arctic Joint Strategic Command (OSK) …”
My rule? If your generic cialis from canada physical address changes, you need to call me before you put the car in various places. A complete history and a thorough examination can rule in or out a wide range of possible problems. cheap cialis Hypnotherapy slovak-republic.org levitra samples is truly the most natural way to nourish your body and soul. Additionally you will find that there are no side effects associated with this tablet shop viagra online and the good thing is that they are as effective as their branded counterparts are.
Mark Galeotti has written in the Moscow Times that “Russia is using extortion in the Arctic… Russia’s icebreaker fleet is a particular ‘ice-power’ asset: It is the world’s largest and includes the massive nuclear-powered vessel 50 Years of Victory… This is all very impressive, but it begs the question of just what these forces are meant to do. Bombers cannot dig for oil, infantry cannot collect taxes from passing Chinese container ships. But they can board and occupy oil rigs, seize cargo ships and threaten any forces that seek to challenge Moscow’s right to do this. After all, it may be impossible to ‘occupy’ the Arctic, but Russia is developing assets that could deny it to anyone else.”

In 2015, the military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported that a new Russian Arctic command was under development, including four new Arctic brigades, 50 airfields by 2020, increased long-range air patrols by Russian bombers and a total of 40 conventional and nuclear icebreakers, with 11 more planned. That same year, the BBC reported that Russia was developing a new naval infrastructure in the region. In addition to a new air defense base on Sredniy Island, five island bases were being built by 1,500 workers – at Alexandra Land, Rogachevo, Cape Schmidt, Wrangel and Kotelny. During that year’s summer months, according to Defense News, Russia launched military exercises in the region that included over 1,000 soldiers, 14 aircraft and 34 special military units.

Moscow’s military aircraft have flown provocatively close to Arctic-area territories belonging to NATO members. The Kremlin’s Arctic military buildup occurred even as the United States reduced its military spending under the Obama Administration.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Photo: U.S. Coast Guard

Russia has 42 icebreakers, the U.S., only 1 in the region.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.