As melting ice opens up trade routes in the Arctic Ocean, the Far North is becoming another geopolitical battlefield between the United States and its adversaries. The U.S. Coast Guard has fewer ships able to puncture through the frozen sea than China or Russia, and some writers fear that America’s Arctic interests are becoming vulnerable to authoritarian expansion. Washington might end up like a nervous boy on a first date — unable to break the ice.
“Both Putin and Xi have made clear,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said, “that the High North is key to their strategic interests.” Indeed, Wall Street Journal reporters William Mauldin and Alan Cullison have highlighted the authoritarians’ Arctic activity, including Russia’s increased presence in the region and Beijing’s use of its intelligence network to back Moscow’s activities in the area.
If the two nations can control the North Pole, they may rake in a large economic haul. A trip from the Netherlands to Japan — assuming cargo ships can indeed get through — could be cut in half, making the route extremely attractive to shippers. Operating high-traffic Arctic shipping lanes would create a large source of revenue for Moscow and Beijing.
Preempting those economic benefits, Russia has already claimed the right to regulate one of the two routes — known as the Northern Sea Route — although the United States has rejected that claim. The Kremlin has also been securing its Arctic position by constructing new military bases above the Arctic Circle and growing its fleet of 36 icebreakers, which is significantly larger than China’s four and Washington’s two.
Fearing that Russia may repeat China’s expansion into the South China Sea, the United States has also begun strengthening its polar position, including a new diplomatic outpost north of the Arctic Circle in Norway. “If we’re not there and we allow them to test our waters, it starts to look more like the South China Sea,” Coast Guard Capt. Stephen Adler said.
Don’t Mind the Arctic Gap
Operating in the Arctic requires icebreakers, and Mauldin and Cullison believe that America’s smaller fleet constitutes a threat to American national security. Paul Avey, professor at Virginia Tech, disagrees, as he explains in defense magazine War on the Rocks.
“It is not clear how Russia or China would leverage icebreakers to exclude the United States from the region, or how the United States would utilize icebreakers to overcome such attempts,” Avey writes. If Russia were to close the Northern Sea Route to American ships, slow-moving icebreakers would be unable to push through the Kremlin’s military assets; instead, they’d simply be blown out of the water. Avery also stated that Russia, regardless of geopolitical concerns, has a greater need for icebreakers than does the United States, since it has more coastline and citizens north of the Arctic Circle.
Avey does highlight the concern that the lack of necessary icebreakers may give other nations an opportunity to impede on America’s exclusive economic zone. However, he believes that possibility to be unlikely, as exclusive economic zones have been firmly established by treaties, and nothing has indicated that any of the eight Arctic nations have any plans to encroach on the other’s territory. If that were to happen, “capabilities other than icebreakers would be better suited to dislodging them should diplomacy fail.” (READ MORE: Air Force Introduces Arctic Strategy)
In the same vein, Air University professor and Air Force veteran Josh Caldon has pointed out that Russia and China are more economically tied to the Arctic than is the United States, requiring both to develop more icebreakers to access and preserve their economic interests.
Russia’s economic drive to establish operations in the Far North is far greater than America’s; it hasn’t been blessed with the extensive natural ports of America. Add to that a dictator’s ability to force settlers to develop the Arctic and, therein, guarantee a workforce despite the harsh environment — as was done in the tsarist and Soviet days. In addition, increasing sanctions have boxed Russia out of Western markets over the years, and China has served as an economic partner for the Kremlin’s Arctic ambitions, giving Beijing a stake in what goes on north of the 66th parallel.
This is not to say that the West should simply abandon the Arctic to the authoritarians. As Caldon points out, NATO can also play a significant role in the region. Assuming Sweden successfully joins the alliance, every Arctic nation will be militarily allied to Washington except for Russia. Those other nations — Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Canada — already have greater capabilities and interests in the region than does the United States. Assigning Arctic security to its better-equipped allies, explains Caldon, frees up Washington to focus on other regions of the globe more critical to its defense, reducing the need for more expensive icebreakers.
Whether or not more icebreakers are needed to secure the polar frontier, rising global tensions and temperatures are putting the geopolitical struggle on thin ice as the Arctic becomes heated by great-power competition stronger than any since the Cold War.
Halfway through earning a master’s in national security at the Institute of World Politics, Mason Stauffer is part of The American Spectator’s 2023 intern class. When he isn’t preparing for his future career in the national security sector, Mason can usually be found hiking through the National Park System or playing his trumpet.
READ MORE:
Trump’s Folly? President Seeks to Purchase Greenland