Considering the uncertain times, we are in, climate change and the actualities of an equivocal future are circling the Arctic region at a faster pace than any other place in the world. Irreversible changes like escalating sea levels, climate feedback loops, geopolitical shifts, ecological alterations, new prospects for resource mining, and a myriad of other changes, are bound to have instant and permanent ramifications across the globe. The Arctic has enormous basins of natural reserves serving the global market, and mining on a colossal scale essentially reinforces all other economic activities. There are possibly billions of dollars in unused oil and gas reserves in the Arctic, which if exploited may prolong the calamities. The highly volatile, geopolitical hotspot; has long become the focus of international collaboration and rivalry, with major superpowers claiming stakes in the region. Eight nations have maintained power in the region: Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States (via Alaska). These countries share several interests, and collaborate on search-and-rescue operations, impose maritime security conventions, and preserve the welfare of native Arctic communities. Nevertheless, there are mounting dissections between Russian and the rest of the Arctic nations. China’s growing jurisdiction in the region also adds to the chaos.
With no discrete governing bodies in the Arctic, multiple organizations i.e Arctic Coast Guard, North Pacific Coast Guard cooperate in the region. The most prominent among them is the Arctic Council, a union of eight nations, precepting the climate changes, sustaining the aboriginal communities and forming an emergency response team. While these do not partake in security issues, the ones that do, i.e NATO, Arctic Security Forces Roundtable, and the Arctic defense chiefs do not include Russia, given its annexation of Crimea. Though, with Russia assuming the governing chair of the Arctic Council last week, Kremlin may now have much more competency to fulfil its geopolitical agendas.
Russian interests in the region have profound historical ties that date back to the 16th century. While the present-day ambitions of the Kremlin have garnered much Western attention, given the new prospects in the region for routing and exploration of its resources, due to climate change.
Heightened Stakes
The Arctic ice has always played an important part in maintaining the Earth’s energy equilibrium. Significantly increased commercial shipping traffic in the Northwest Passage, more deep-sea oil and mineral explorations along with climate change and global warming, have led to a steady melt in the thick ice fields in the Arctic. With glaciers melting, even larger chunks of land are being exposed for exploitation, in a loop of climactic catastrophe.
Further, these highly feasible technological advances, in a region that holds as much as 40 percent of untapped global reserves of oil, minerals, gas, abundant uranium and fisheries galore, have the potential to spur conflicts and revamp the geopolitical map of power and influence among superpowers, while menacing life sustaining structures of our planet. Minor disagreements have even persisted among allies over territorial and navigation rights. Expansion of military bases and deployments among the Arctic nations in a quest to protect their resources, routes and networks has also become a bone of contention in recent years.
Especially now, with growing the climate crisis and race for resources, the Arctic has become of pristine importance. The thawing of Arctic ice is probable to elevate sea levels and amend the chemistry of oceans worldwide, with erratic ramifications. The unchanging patterns of ocean currents may be affected which may, eventually, interrupt weather cycles.
Russian Quests
In recent years, the Arctic has been projected as an imperative priority for the Russian foreign, economic, and military policies. Russia has strenuously gone above and beyond, to expand its regional claims to the area. Deeming the far north to be a new frontier, the Kremlin has devised a key strategy to advance the area.
Russia has been overpowering the region by exerting its military strength, dominating the only viable trade route between the West and Asia, the Northern Sea Route; and exploiting a large chunk of gas and mineral resources. A new base built to shelter around 150 soldiers and intended to secure Russia’s Northern Fleet to be autonomous and self-sufficient has been made functional recently. Obstacles like the high projected expenses and technological shortfalls owing to the exploratory processes did not pose a major threat to Russia’s Arctic ambitions since exploratory projects were made to be accessible to international energy companies with tech and capital investments. Further, the expansion of the Northern Sea Route (NSR) along the coastline, provided diversification of energy policy, by connecting the Russian markets to Asia, and as a result, a much-reduced reliance on Europe as an energy market.
Russia has three key interests in the Arctic; military, energy and shipping. The Russian Arctic strategy has always been an integral part of the Kremlin’s foreign policy, predominantly solicitous to Russia’s great power status. The Russian investments in the Northern Sea Route and its economic and military ambitions in the region, are all deemed to be in line with and symbolic of the Soviet expansionist prowess.
Russian ambitions have been fortified with the oil and gas resources making up for almost 60 percent of Russia’s export revenues and upward of 30 percent of its federal budget. Russia further has three primary military interests in the Arctic; its ability to lock the second-strike capabilities of its ballistic missile submarine (SSBN); its ability to operate in the North Atlantic and European Arctic in case of a conflict with NATO and military protection for its economic and commercial investments in the Arctic. The Arctic strategy has been an extremely vital part of Russia’s strategy to deal with Europe. Russia has accomplished its goals in the Arctic with diplomatic, economic, military and legal measures, often overriding the rules of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Russia’s outset of its security needs and NATO’s symbiotic-defense and deterrence obligations have led to an apprehensive impasse along the union’s northern border as their militaries function in close proximity. Moscow’s fears of a gradually melting Arctic and the subsequent territorial vulnerabilities on the Far Northern border add to its bolstered military presence in the region. Theoretically, Russia is procuring new external borders that need to be safeguarded from latent invaders. As per Russia’s naval doctrine, Moscow is working its way towards becoming a maritime power, especially in the Arctic and Atlantic. The NSR assures access to the Atlantic and Pacific.
Though, Russia’s military bearing in the Arctic is indeterminate. Russia’s mission of fortifying the SSBN’s sanctuary, and its military and economic infrastructure, in case of a conflict with NATO is highly volatile. Improvements and amendments in the Arctic infrastructure are faced with resource constraints given the conditions.
As for the climactic degradation of the Arctic, Moscow’s policy remains ambivalent. The Kremlin emission targets under the Paris Agreement are higher than the current levels, while curbing oil and gas production is not contemplated. Despite recommending complex infrastructure to manage the climate crisis, not much change has been observed.
Implications for USA and NATO
The US has reiterated; conserving the freedom of exploration, a major concern in the Arctic, for a long time now. NATO and its democratic alliance have heightened movements in the Arctic to enhance cooperation for the same.
The principal catalyst for US interest in the Arctic development and petroleum industries is to preserve rules-based international norms, especially during the rise of Sino-Russian powers in the regions. Washington looks to the Russian military as a menace in the region and is the primary reason behind the joint U.S.-Canada North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), which has been working to protect the aerial and coastal routes to North America. The recent military gridlock has witnessed jammed navigation broadcasts, and vessel shadowing.With China considering the Arctic a part of its Polar Silk Road, in the Belt and Road Initiative, it deems itself a near-Arctic state. China’s active role and potential economic gains from the region pose a matter of concern for the powers in the Arctic. Considering Chinese interests in the region and Russia’s increasing presence in the Arctic, diplomacy and deterrence are the only two trails for the US to hold its ground.
The dynamic is similar to that of the “security dilemma” principle, wherein states heighten their security, instigating the others to do the same. An unmitigated conflict between NATO and Russia would be disastrous for both the sides. All the stakeholders in the region have potentially been trying to avert an escalation. While NATO averts for credibility to its obligation to mutual defense, whereas Russia averts to maintain its geopolitical and economic claims.
Recommendations: Arctic Security
There are multiple points of contention complicating the Arctic security dilemma further. Technological and engineering overtures in extracting natural resources, oil, gas, metals may spawn capital conflicts in the future. Territorial rights and navigation rights may serve as dissidence, as regions become easier to navigate with the increase in climate change. Further convoluting the imbroglio, are Russian stipulations for restrictive movements and implying Russian approval for transit. It is vital for NATO and its allies to bargain for likely diplomatic solutions for handling the impasse—that is, laws of the road to alleviate the perils of catastrophes or incidences with the probability of escalation. Further prospects for collaboration should be discovered on issues of mutual concern, such as the security of maritime shipping, climate protection, fortification of fisheries, and crisis management. Striking a balance between deterrence and defence and a rational collaboration with Russia in the Arctic needs to be considered. Managing the Arctic edifices need to be prioritized in a way that the region is not used for coercive purposes.
Hely Desai is an incoming MPhil candidate at the University of Cambridge. Her primary interests are conflict and peace building, civil unrest, diplomacy and foreign policy interventions and mediations.
Image Courtesy: “Arctic Ice” by U.S. Geological Survey