Russia's New Share of the Arctic

Russia, eight years after placing a flag via submarine on the seabed of the North Pole, recently announced that it has submitted a formal claim for 1.2 million square kilometers of Arctic sea shelf to the United Nations. It’s territory that would contain about five billion tons of oil and gas resources, according to reports.

The U.S., meanwhile, continues to be anchored by constraining policies, misplaced priorities, restricted leasing opportunities and nonstop federal regulatory hurdles, says David Hunt, a retired U.S. Army colonel.

MarEx spoke to Hunt on what the situation means for the U.S.

Is there anything interesting about the timing of the Russian claim lodgment?

It is clear that Russia plans to be a dominant player in the Arctic. Russia was on good behavior prior to the winter Olympic Games, but it has since become very aggressive in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, Iraq, Syria and now the Arctic. This is not happenstance. The Arctic is a very serious game to the Russians, one that deserves a proportional response from the U.S.  To date, however, we are not even on the same playing field.

Is it reasonable from a Russian perspective?

The latest move by Russia follows a similar claim the country made in 2002, which the United Nations later rejected for lack of evidence, as well as a symbolic move in 2007 in which Russia staked a flag undersea at the North Pole. The bottom line is that the Arctic’s geopolitical, security and economic importance to the U.S. and Russia’s aggressive military posture demands much greater U.S. engagement and assertiveness in leading the hemisphere’s presence in the region, regardless of how reasonable or unreasonable Russia’s most recent territorial claim may be. 

What problems does it present for the U.S.? 

In recent years, the Russians have increased their military force in the Arctic’s northwest Murmansk region, adding tens of thousands of troops, plus new radar and guidance system capabilities, new nuclear-powered submarines, and icebreakers that will increase the reach and capabilities of Russian vessels in the Arctic. Russia is also constructing an assortment of Arctic search-and-rescue stations, deep-water ports, airfields and air-defense radar stations, and in the last year alone, at least eight Russian aircraft have been intercepted near Alaskan airspace.

The country has also upped its military spending by 33 percent even though it’s in the middle of an economic downturn. All of these moves underscore that Russia is clearly seeking to be a dominant, if not the dominant, player in the Arctic. The formal claim to the United Nations is a true indicator of their intentions.

Recent discoveries suggest that the Russian Kara Sea could hold some of the world’s largest oil reserves — which has only accelerated Russia’s expansion north. U.S. Arctic energy development could help keep Russia’s economy and military advance in the region in check.

Russia’s Arctic presence is a direct threat to U.S. national security, both geographically and militarily. Military dominance of the Arctic would allow Russia to attack in any direction against high value targets such as Alaska.

Why are you critical of the U.S. stance on the Arctic and Russia? 

By virtue of Alaska, the United States is an Arctic nation.  Yet we continue to play catch-up in our own backyard, as our policies do not reflect the urgency that is needed to be a leader in this vital region.

As Russia moves to militarize the Arctic and take advantage of the region’s commercial opportunities through shipping, energy and other activities, the U.S. is making plans to draw down our forces in the region and is not establishing the regulatory environment and infrastructure presence necessary for the nation to fully realize our Arctic economic development opportunities. 

In October 2014, then-U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel acknowledged at the Washington Ideas Forum that opening waterways in the Arctic and increased commercial activity by Russia presents a challenge to U.S. interests. While the Department of Defense and other U.S. agencies have outlined strategies to respond to the changing landscape of the Arctic, actions to date have been muted.

In addition, rather than placing millions of acres of the U.S. Arctic off-limits to potential energy development, the U.S. should be taking actions that will increase our energy and national security by reducing our reliance on foreign energy from places like Russia. 

The Arctic holds nearly one-quarter of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas resources, with U.S. waters in the region home to an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Experts say that’s enough to create millions of jobs, billions in revenue and heat every home in America for more than 30 years. For the U.S., that is not only good news economically, but also represents a huge opportunity geopolitically.

With Russia on the ropes due to low oil prices, increased engagement and development in the U.S. Arctic offers a golden opportunity to protect the nation’s security while simultaneously applying even more monetary pressure on Russia.

What should the U.S. do now?

The U.S. government must demonstrate that it sees the Arctic as a region of significant geopolitical importance and increase U.S. investments in Arctic defense and infrastructure, including developing a fleet of icebreakers.

For the U.S., the most effective response to Russia’s increasing influence would be to exert its own. A beefing up of defense assets and infrastructure combined with energy development in the Arctic can serve as an effective counterpunch to Russia. The U.S. can better defend its territory and resources while diluting the influence of Russian energy.

Should other nations be concerned?

Yes. Russia isn’t the only country trying to claim the resources locked beneath the Arctic Ocean. Denmark, Norway and Canada have been amassing scientific evidence for more than a decade in an effort to increase their piece of the region’s resource-rich pie. In fact, Russia continues to engage in Arctic territorial disputes with Canada. 

Is there anything else you would like to say?

Now is the time for the Obama administration to exert leadership in the U.S. Arctic through sound policies that reflect the region’s critical importance to America’s security and economy. That means keeping the activities of nations like Russia in check by making investments that expand the U.S. military’s presence and abilities in the region and making decisions that enable increased U.S. Arctic economic activity and deployment of the infrastructure necessary to support it.  

David Hunt, a retired U.S. Army colonel, is a former security adviser to the FBI. He served as counterterrorism coordinator for the 1988 Summer Olympic Games in Seoul, South Korea.