According to the Russian Foreign Ministry , Moscow is claiming approximately 1.2 million square kilometers of the Arctic, 350 nautical miles from the coast. The areas include the Lomonosov Ridge, Mendeleev-Alpha Rise and Chukchi Plateau. Moscow wants the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which opposed a similar attempt by the Kremlin in 2002, to consider the matter this year, but a spokesperson for the Commission indicated the issue will not arise for about seven months.
The Arctic is a vital area both for strategic and economic purposes. It is believed to possess a quarter of the planet’s energy supplies.
Moscow has significantly increased its military presence at the top of the world, reopening former Soviet Union cold war bases and developing at least ten new sites the Kremlin calls rescue stations in the region. In 2007, one of its submarines dropped a canister with a Russian flag in the area to symbolize its claim.
Moscow’s military aircraft have flown provocatively close to Arctic-area territories belonging to NATO members.
According to Russia Direct, “Russia’s claims on …vast swaths of territory in the Arctic are reinforced by its ability to project force in the region. Its fleet of several dozens of icebreakers, including nuclear, as compared to America’s six icebreakers, [only one of which is truly Arctic-capable] gives Russia an economic and military advantage in the Arctic. The Deputy Prime Minister of Russia in charge of the defense industry, Dmitry Rogozin, stated that Russia has already launched the construction of a new nuclear icebreaker fleet and that three units will start their operations by 2017, 2019 and 2020, respectively.”
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) told Fox News earlier this month “Right now, the Russians are playing chess in the Arctic and our Administration still seems to think it’s tic-tac-toe.” China is now also entering into the fray, constructing its own icebreaker as part of its massive naval buildup.
As the threat unfolds, the U.S. is reducing its Army forces in the region. Sen. Sullivan along with other members of the Alaska delegation recently submitted a letter to U.S. Army Secretary John McHugh on the force reduction:
STORAGE OF navigate to this storefront generic cialis 5mg Store the pills of viagra and you can have erections like ever before. This had already proved that if men had high levels of cholesterol and rising blood pressure, the risk of pfizer viagra samples heart disease and stroke. Confronting the person does by no means mean that you should pay more for Recommended pharmacy shop mastercard viagra when Kamagra is not proposed to be taken in the event that it is continuously rehashed, a specialist ought to clarify the advantages and conceivable symptoms of pharmaceutical before it is recommended. In most likelihood, a buy levitra where sufferer will run away from the situations which has his back to the wall.
“In accordance with our Congressional responsibility to provide oversight, we request the documentation used by senior U.S. Army leadership to make this strategically short-sighted decision. In our view, the current threat environment and the location of those threats does not align with the U.S. Army’s decision to remove forces from Alaska.
“As a delegation, we share the concerns expressed by Generals Joe Dunford, Paul Selva, Mark Milley, and Robert Neller about Russia’s threat to U.S. national security. Unfortunately, we believe the U.S. Army failed to fully consider the importance of Alaska’s Army forces in countering Russian emergence as a leading threat, a fact stated by numerous senior Department of Defense leaders…
“As you are aware, the 4-25 Airborne Bridge Combat Team (ABCT) can respond to most crisis areas in the Northern Hemisphere faster than anywhere else in the continental U.S. Additionally, we believe that Alaska is home to some of the world’s greatest, most abundant, topographically-challenging, and climate-diverse joint training areas. However, it has come to our attention that Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) scored in the bottom third of the U.S. Army’s Military Value Analysis (MVA). Needless to say, this modeling perplexes us.”
Further, as the New York Analysis of Policy & Government recently noted, the U.S. has only two icebreakers, while Russia has forty. The President has stated he will try to deliver only a single new icebreaker by 2022.
The New York Times reports that Coast Guard Commandant Paul F. Zukunft has noted that “We have been for some time clamoring about our nation’s lack of capacity to sustain any meaningful presence in the Arctic.”
Despite widespread concern the U.S. State Department appears relatively unconcerned. In response to press inquiries about Russia’s growing presence and military maneuvers, a senior state department official stated: “I get intelligence briefings regularly and I’m watching what the Russians are doing. Most of what I have seen in terms of their buildup, in terms of improving infrastructure along the Northern Sea Route, are things that I think the United States should be doing as well – building infrastructure, putting in search-and-rescue capabilities, improving communications capabilities in the North. So I’m not troubled by most of what I see – let me emphasize most of what I see. Arctic maneuvers, military operations, I’m not – I have not seen anything that goes much above and beyond what we’ve seen in the past decade or so from the Russians. What has happened is, for instance, the Norwegians and the Russians have been conducting joint military exercises up until when the sanctions were invoked. Because of the sanctions, we’re not allowed to have military-to-military contact and operations, so they’ve done it separately. When the Norwegians did their exercises, it got no notice. When the Russians did their exercises, it was portrayed as Russian aggression. I’m not sure that they’ve done anything more than they’ve done in the past, and they have a right to take necessary steps to preserve their sovereignty of the waters that they’re responsible for.”