While media attention has shifted away from all the chaos going on outside of the United States in light of the 2016 campaigns, events going on far north may begin to demand the spotlight. Despite the thawing of relations with Russia since the end of the Cold War, Russian leadership has, in recent years, began to isolate itself on the global stage. Acts of aggression condemned by the West from the 2014 invasion of Crimea to several cyber attacks with possible Russian sponsorship, have caused Russia to backtrack in relations the US and allies. Russia’s power-hungry President Vladimir Putin has largely been considered the force behind this.
Now a new front is opening up for further tension in US-Russian relations with recent developments in the Arctic. Perceived by US officials as a display of dominance, Russia has sent a reported 80,000 troops to the northern ice cap to conduct what they are calling procedural drills. On top of this, Russia has recently claimed a large amount of the arctic territory and constructed and upgraded several military bases in the area, further bolstering their claim to the region. Historically, Russia has had many disputes over its arctic claims with other states, particularly Norway. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union though, they have made several concessions and agreements, appeasing most of the global community, but under Putin’s leadership there is little reason to believe that Russia will not attempt to backtrack on these as well.
While it is unlikely Putin is intending these actions to be taken as acts of aggression (most likely they are simply another attempt to show his strength), the US should not sit idle on this issue. Putin’s constant disregard for the sovereignty of other nations as well as international cooperation must be scaled back.
Why is Putin so interested in this seemingly useless, cold wasteland? Most political scholars and advisors believe that it is because Russia wants to be the first to lay claim to any natural resources, primarily the Arctic’s large swaths of untapped oil. Possibly more important is Russia’s desire to control the possible northern trade route, a seaway that many scholars may be seasonally available if more arctic ice melts in the upcoming years. Russia has even openly admits to the Arctic Council she intends, “to promote the efficient use of the Northern Sea Route for international shipping under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation.”
U.S. response to Russia’s actions must be one of tactful strength. These next upcoming two years, the US will be chairing the Arctic Council, a forum for arctic nations designed to essentially promote cooperation in the region. This would provide the Obama administration with the perfect opportunity to address these issues and put pressure on Putin. While the White House has already decided to make the focus of these meetings climate change, they should be able to tie in discussion on the northern trade route and push the issue from an international angle.
Outside of council, the US and allies must directly address the problem of Russian aggression and boost its presence in the arctic. Our failure so far to hold Putin accountable for actions in Ukraine only testifies to this need. Obama has already requested the construction of another icebreaker ship for the US Coast Guard, which currently has only two of these functional, but compared to Russia’s fleet of 40+, we are still lagging. Unarguably, more needs to be done. Over the next few decades, the U.S. must expand its Arctic presence not only to stake a claim but to actually engage Russia and its overambitious leader. For both the world and our sake, we cannot stand to lose another diplomatic battle to Putin.
