In mid-March 2021 the Pentagon published a document entitled “Restoring Arctic supremacy”, which presents a strategic plan for the formation of an army grouping to gain supremacy in the Arctic
It should be noted at once that full-fledged U.S. superiority in the Arctic has never existed, the title of the document is simply a manifestation of the phantom pains of the United States to win the “cold war” with the Soviet Union. In addition, the Congressional Research Service in February published a fact sheet “Changes in the Arctic”, which reveals for congressmen the details, which the army specialists are “not at liberty to voice”.
Even in the foreword to the Pentagon document it is stated that the US army will form a division with multi-domain (air, land, sea, space, cyberspace) task force support and with an army brigade based in Alaska. Furthermore, “reestablishing” dominance in the Arctic will require the approach inherent in a total army, with the indication that the US will enlist the help of allies and partners.
Two transit routes, the Northern Sea Route, which runs along the Russian coast, and the Northwest Passage, which runs along the Canadian coast, are of strategic interest to the US in the Arctic. The document states that the Arctic has 13 per cent of the world’s oil reserves (90 billion barrels) and 30 per cent of its natural gas reserves (47 trillion cubic metres) and vast deposits of base and rare-earth metals, even though the area is underexplored.
The role of the Arctic in protecting the United States is a complex geopolitical landscape in the context of great power competition and accelerating climate change. There is already a complex network of partnerships and alliances of different countries in this region. However, the Arctic Council (eight states: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the USA) plays a major role so far. China does not own land beyond the Arctic Circle, but has declared itself to be an ‘Arctic nation’ and has had observer status in the Arctic Council since 2014. The region’s main problem is the establishment of maritime boundaries and rights to economic activities. In this regard, the US military concludes:
“The Arctic could become a contested space where the main rivals of the United States are Russia and China, which seek to use military and economic power to gain and maintain access to the region to the detriment of American interests. The Arctic is seen as a corridor for expanding strategic great power competition between the Indo-Pacific and European regions. The National Defence Strategy marks the current erosion of the US military’s competitive advantage over Russia and China as a central problem”.
Russia, according to the authors, by going beyond international law, imposes its own conditions for activities in the Arctic. In particular, it demands permission for foreign ships to pass through the NSR and its own pilotage. In addition, Russia is constantly expanding its claims in the Arctic, and now counts on 463,000 square miles of sea shelf.
Since 2010, Russia has invested more than a billion dollars to renovate 13 airfields and modernise radar stations, including radars at Cape Schmidt and Wrangel Island, 300 kilometres off Alaska. Moscow is reinforcing its air defence capabilities with S-400 and Pantsir-S1, and its coastal defence capability with Bastion-P missile systems. Russia’s actions to rebuild its military might in the Arctic are primarily aimed at strengthening territorial defences. However, the Americans note Russia’s growing offensive capabilities due to hypersonic weapons, naval modernisation and the use of unmanned underwater vehicles. Given the enhanced EW capabilities, all of this has a serious impact on U.S. defence capabilities.
For its part, almost all of the US Army’s permanent forces in the Arctic zone are located at three bases in Alaska. The document cites a personnel figure of 11,600 at Fort Wainwright alone.
The environment is often cited as the main adversary of Arctic operations. Extreme temperatures, short daylight hours and logistical difficulties make it impossible for the US Army to apply conventional methods of combat. The loss of even a single infrastructure facility can be critical to an entire military operation. The Army is pinning its hopes on training and test facilities to train specially selected personnel and upgrade military equipment for use in the Arctic, and is also stating that the operational requirements for infrastructure will have to be rethought.
The main focus is on multi-domain operational groups (MDTF, brigade-sized), where there is coordinated interaction between different types and branches of troops. According to army specialists, such groupings make it possible to project force not only in the Arctic, but also, if necessary, to extend the area of combat operations outside. In addition, such operational groupings could be deployed to other theatres of military operations with similar environmental conditions.
A fact sheet for congressmen, “Change in the Arctic”, frankly states that since the Cold War, the US Army has had to virtually reacquaint itself with the region. At the same time, maintaining the existing infrastructure requires investment. At Eilson Air Base, the permafrost melt has caused a collapse of repair facilities, along with a storage armoury. Military planners have requested more than $1 billion for 2015-2020 to keep military bases operational.
The US Navy and Coast Guard currently have limited infrastructure in the Arctic for maritime and aviation activities. In May 2018, the US Navy announced the re-establishment of the 2nd Fleet, which had countered Soviet naval forces in the North Atlantic during the Cold War. In the newly formulated establishment goals, the 2nd Fleet will counter Russian naval forces not only in the North Atlantic but also in the Arctic.
Analyses by the Pentagon and the US Coast Guard have highlighted the need for improved surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities in the region. As an example, Admiral Paul F. Zukunft, at a defence press conference in September 2020, said: “When you get above 72 degrees north latitude, it gets pretty dark.” The US Coast Guard recently made a startling discovery in the Arctic.
“We dispatched a boat to patrol the region during a relatively frost-free period of the season. And we came across a joint exercise between Russia and China. Our intelligence community didn’t know this was happening. So we were the first to provide this information, and otherwise we would not have known what was going on at all. We must continue to invest in intelligence in the region.”
The document notes the dismal situation of the US icebreaker fleet, with only two vessels able to go to sea. Consequently, the US Coast Guard initiated a programme in fiscal 2013 to acquire three new heavy polar icebreakers, followed by the possible acquisition of up to three new medium polar icebreakers.
This programme was originally called Polar Icebreaker, but has now been renamed Polar Security Cutter (PSC). The Coast Guard estimates the cost of purchasing the first ship at about $1 billion, $792 million for the second ship and $788 million for the third ship. The total estimated cost would be $2.6 billion. The cost of the first ship includes design costs.
None of the above documents reveals even a rough estimate of the capabilities needed for U.S. dominance in the Arctic. Much of what is described is only a blueprint for which a budget has yet to be allocated and absorbed. Whereas Russia has already built two new Arctic military bases, has the biggest icebreaker fleet, with warships, and now the most powerful icebreaker in the world, the Arctic.
However, one should not rest on our laurels; the peak of shale oil production in the US has passed, and the next White House administration may look at the Arctic as an unexploited pantry of natural resources, if not the current one. With unresolved territorial disputes, the region could become a direct battleground for major powers.