U.S. Moves on Arctic Protection

The White House has just responded to Russia and China’s threatening Arctic moves.

Over the past several years, 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 Russia’s Northern Fleet has added the Ilya Muromets icebreaker, the Elbrus supply ship, the Admiral Gorshkov frigate and the Ivan Gren landing ship, and the Pashin fuel tanker, all of which add to Moscow’s growing supremacy of the Arctic.

In 2018, Moscow’s North Fleet received five combat ships, five supply ships, 15 aircraft and 62 radar stations and missile-radar complexes. 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.”

Moscow is not alone in its Arctic moves. Former U.S. State Department official Daria Novak recently noted that China, if unchecked, could move from a strategy of war by other means to one of limited open conflict over the abundant natural resources in the Arctic and the military and economic benefits gained by controlling the new Transpolar Passage.

In response, the White House, on June 9, issued a “Memorandum on Safeguarding U.S. National Interests in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions.” The purpose of the move is “ To help protect our national interests in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and to retain a strong Arctic security presence alongside our allies and partners, the United States requires a ready, capable, and available fleet of polar security icebreakers that is operationally tested and fully deployable by Fiscal Year 2029.”

Specifically, the U.S., according to the document, will develop a polar security icebreaking fleet acquisition program to defend U.S. and allied interests in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. The fleet may not look like the traditional strong-hulled vessels currently employed, and it will not include just ships. According to the Memorandum, it will include “unmanned aviation, surface, and undersea systems; space systems; sensors and other systems to achieve and maintain maritime domain awareness; command and control systems; secure communications and data transfer systems; and intelligence-collection systems. This assessment shall also evaluate defensive armament adequate to defend against threats by near-peer competitors and the potential for nuclear-powered propulsion.” Russia has used armed, nuclear powered vessels to gain dominance of the region.

Patients are evaluated and their pain is classified into three main levitra buy levitra categories. best prices on levitra Drugs are shipped through couriers take less transit time and are delivered at door steps. The patients usually go back home from PSRI in high spirits after their treatment. samples of levitra The reason for abandon cialis sale numbers of ED issues in men is not unknown.

America’s primary means to have a presence in the Arctic is the aging Coast Guard vessel Polar Star. In an effort to replace it, Washington will examine an array of options, including possibly buying or leasing icebreakers from allied nations with proven experience in this special brand of shipbuilding.

Arctic affairs are becoming increasingly vital. With reduced ice cover now occurring during the warmer seasons, it provides an important shipping route. In addition, its strategic location makes it a potential source of military conflict. Russia has forty icebreakers, and is arming them with advanced and powerful weaponry. By comparison, the U.S. has only the Polar Star, and the Polar Sea, and a smaller vessel, the Healy.

Looming over all the other considerations is the Arctic’s vast mineral wealth. As one Russian source explains, “The Arctic contains a wealth of petroleum and mineral resources. Currently, the region produces about one tenth of the world’s oil and a quarter of its natural gas.”

Beyond energy, both mineral and seafood resources are heavily abundant, making the region a relatively untapped source of vast wealth. Considering the aggressive moves by both Moscow and Beijing, the U.S. and its allies are being forced to move quickly to prevent being shut out of gaining a fair share.

Photo: US Coast Guard

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.