NIAS Polar and Ocean Studies

Photo Source: National Geographic
   NIAS Course on Global Politics
National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS)
Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore
For any further information or to subscribe to GP alerts send an email to subachandran@nias.res.in

CWA # 1496, 22 October 2024
NIAS Polar and Ocean Studies
The New Cold War: Military Build-up in the High North

  Rohit Paswan

In the current geopolitical scenario, the Arctic is increasingly gaining acknowledgement as a distinct region of interest worldwide. Composed of eight sovereign states, namely, the US, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Denmark, and Iceland, the region has a history of cooperation and great power competition. 

However, these dynamics are transforming the stakeholders of the region are reexamining the region for its strategic importance and economic potential. As to why it is happening now can be answered by the following factors: (a) climate change induced alteration of the region through diminishing ice coverage, (b) improved technology in the field of science and defence, (c) discovery of natural resources, (d) new geopolitical developments. 

Due to the changing environment of the Arctic, several Arctic countries are claiming undefined areas as part of their territory, causing conflict over ownership and creating an atmosphere of tension in the region. This in turn is leading to the militarization of the region by the Arctic states. 

Geopolitical trends such as Russia planting its flag in the seabed of the North Pole and the annexation of Crimea caused security dilemma in the West, reducing dialogue between them. Instead, increased military exercises by the US and NATO in the region ultimately lead to military build-up in the High North. These series of events can be interpreted either as a New Cold War or the continuation of the old Cold War.

How the geopolitics of the world is translating to the geopolitics of the Arctic?
The diminishing ice coverage in the Arctic is opening the region to new opportunities and challenges for global players. Earlier the region was characterized by international cooperation where arctic states worked together to protect the fragile environment and its indigenous communities. 

However, a transition from cooperation to conflict began in 2007 with the Russian claim over North Pole which caused security concerns among the other Arctic states. Further, the US Geological Survey's report on the discovery of large amounts of oil and natural gas increased the economic interest of both Arctic and non-arctic nations.

Moreover, the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 further deteriorated the relation between the two blocs. The West retorted by putting sanctions on Russia and calling it out on the international forum. However, the complete boycott of Russia happened with the breakout of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022 where once again the West attempted to isolate Russia from the international community by putting sanctions on it. The spill-over effect of the Crimean annexation and the War in Ukraine affected cooperation in the Arctic as it limited the dialogue and deconfliction between the two, leading to the militarization of their respective arctic regions. 

Another global power that is increasing its presence in the Arctic is China. The growing Chinese interest in the region is because of the Arctic's economic potential and strategic importance. Hence, despite not being a geographically Arctic nation, China proclaimed itself to be a “near Arctic State” to justify its involvement in the Arctic.  

Additionally, the increasing proximity between Russia and China is visible through Chinese investment in infrastructure projects along the Polar Silk Road as part of its Belt and Road Initiative and resource extraction in Russia and Greenland. These activities are a growing cause of concern amongst US and its NATO allies. Thus, China’s tilt towards a particular side can cause major shifts in the balance of power between the two blocs.

How is regional conflict amongst Arctic states increasing the extent of militarization in the region? 
While the Arctic States continue to highlight some traits of cooperation in regional affairs, it is evident that the politics between the great powers such as Russia, China, US and some of the European Union members impact the dynamics of the Arctic and possibly contribute to the increase of militarization in the region. 

The causes for these conflicts are multifaceted, namely, the competition for Arctic resources, territorial disputes, and the strategic importance of the Arctic which threaten to create friction between the five Arctic nations, Norway, Denmark, Russia, Canada, and US. 

Keeping in mind that the international system is anarchic in nature and states are sovereign actors, the scope of conflict and confrontation cannot be ignored. Moreover, conflict and disturbance in the Arctic can also be caused by external involvements in the region as the profits from the Arctic transcend regional boundaries and reach other continents and countries.

One of the major players in the region is Russia, thus its geopolitical choices vis-a-vis the other major powers, most evident through the power struggle between Russia and the US, have the most significant impacts on the ground. The increased military movement that has arisen as a result of the growing tension between them has created an environment of instability in the region. 

In response to the Russian military expansion, other states have started to strengthen their military presence in the region through fleet expansion by increasing the number of icebreakers in their navy, developing cold weather-resistant infrastructure, increasing military exercises in collaboration with other Arctic nations, and forming an Arctic-orientated strategy.

Apart from Russia, Canada has emerged as one of the significant players in the region. The investment made by the Canadian authorities consist of turning their deepwater port into a naval base on Baffin Island, improving their defense capabilities, increasing the number of ice breaker in the naval fleet, establishing Canadian winter forces, building six to eight ice hardened offshore patrol vessel, cooperating regionally in the field of security and governance, enhancing the extent of military exercises in the region, and conducting joint military operations such as Nanook with US and Denmark in air, sea and land.

Denmark is also seeking to increase its military capabilities to secure its land and sea in the Greenland. Denmark’s force, the Danish Greenland and its other force commands are combined into a joint service Arctic command. Further, a specialized Arctic response force is also commissioned for the security and surveillance of the region. The country is using combat aircraft for surveillance and increasing Arctic maritime presence through their RDN Vaedderen.

Meanwhile, Norway has moved a part of its armed forces in the north such as the modern frigate fleet, and jet fighter force. Norway’s claim over the Gakkel Ridge as an extension of its Svalbard continental shelf is pushing Russia to enter Norway’s air traffic zone. Russia's frequent maneuvers into the airspace of one of the founding members of NATO that is Norway is causing insecurity among the NATO members and therefore escalating the military buildup in the Norwegian region.

Hence, the military escalation of the Arctic states is proof of their regional conflicts as the security dilemma caused by one state pushes the other states to increase their military strength. Thus, military escalation is an unavoidable situation in an anarchic world order where every sovereign state is strengthening its military might as part of deter and defence strategy.

The Russian Arctic strategy and NATO’s response
During the Cold War, the Arctic held strategic importance for both blocs because of its geography. The physical proximity that exists between the US and Russia in the Arctic region and the placement of weapon systems was the best staging location for striking at each other, indicating the significance of the region for a deterrence policy.

To explain why States behave the way they behave, the realist perspective argues that the end of the Cold War which fostered an era of cooperation and peaceful coexistence between great powers is nothing more than a period of recovery after which the power struggle will come into play again. In the anarchic world system states are driven by their national interests that persuade them to meet their end goal through any means. Thus, cooperation and peaceful coexistence are utopian concepts in an anarchic system. States as rational actors navigating themselves in a system that is shaped by power politics, national interest, and the pursuit of security and self-preservation.

The application of theory into practice can be seen in the classic case of the Russia-NATO rivalry, both of whom are major players in the region and thus have greater influence than others in the Arctic. After the end of the Cold War, NATO’s strategy was to include the members of the former Warsaw Pact and the USSR such as the three Baltic states to balance out Russia. While the Baltic states saw this as an opportunity to find a way into the European Union and be reintegrated with Europe, some others saw it as an opportunity to overcome their historic military asymmetry against the greater power. However, the Russian administration interpreted it as a threat to its national security.

At the 2007 Munich Security Conference, Russia argued that the West was taking advantage of its weakness and attacking its interests. This was followed by a period of extensive Russian military rebuilding and modernization. In the same year, Russia hoisted its flag in the seabed of the North Pole through its polar expedition.

Russia has the largest Arctic coastline. The region contributes to around 10 per cent of its GDP and 20 per cent of exports. Russia maintains more than 40 icebreakers, seven of which are nuclear. It is also constructing new ones to protect its transportation and communication. The strategy of reopening and modernizing the Soviet-era Arctic bases, establishing an Arctic command, and adapting “the fundamental of Russian state policy in the Arctic up to 2020 and beyond” by the Russian Security Council, means increasing military presence, conducting more frequent exercises such as patrolling the arctic coastline, deploying an advanced air defence system, testing new weapons designed for arctic condition, increasing submarine activity and large scale military exercise including multiple branches of forces.

In response to the Russian increased military presence, other states have started to strengthen their presence through expansion of their military in the area.

The US has created an Arctic roadmap to counter Russian military expansionism. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the Russia-Ukraine war have changed the level of engagement between Russia and the US, by reducing the dialogue and deconfliction between the two sides and instead, has increased the security dilemma culminating in both camps increasing their military capabilities in their respective regions. As a result, US is building its military might and developing an Arctic centric policy as part of its deter and defence strategy which includes a new Atlantic command to monitor and manage the arctic region. US has already reestablished its 2nd fleet in the region and built new ice breakers called “polar security cutters” to make its presence felt in the region.

The 2018 Arctic exercise, Trident Juncture, conducted between the US, NATO, Sweden and Finland was the largest military exercise since the Cold War. Moreover, US carrier strike groups conducting high-end warfare training in the High North have become a cause of concern for Russia. Nevertheless, NATO and the US are focused on improving cold weather combat capabilities, developing specific arctic strategies, improving military infrastructure, building new cold resistance ports and airfields, and enhancing surveillance over Russian military activities. These activities improve their military interpretabilities and cold weather skills and establish credible deterrence in the High North.

Conclusion
With time, the Arctic region will be characterized by growing economic potential because of its maritime trade routes and resources, environmental concerns, increasing military conflicts, and the spillover effect of geopolitical developments. Thus, the phrase “high north, low tension” does not seem feasible in the near future.

The unpredictable weather and the hostile environment of the Arctic make it challenging to operate in the region. Therefore, sustaining a military presence there is expensive. However, resource allocation to the deployed forces needs to be judicious and meet global standards. Yet, these obstacles are not stopping the Arctic States from expanding their range of Arctic military operations. They are driven by two factors, i.e. to exploit the economic potential of the region and to demonstrate their military might. To do so, the nature of militarization is transforming from a predominance of air and undersea confrontation characteristic of the old Cold War to land and maritime presence in the open sea. 

The two major powers in the region, the US and Russia, have both been strengthening and expanding their forces be it in the domains of Arctic air, sea, or land to deter others. Thus, the geographic proximity of both countries in the Arctic and their security dilemma has pushed them to their old Cold War position of antagonism.  Therefore, the temporary decrease in their strength does not indicate the end of the Cold War but rather can be defined as a “period of thaw” that resprouted in the form of military build-up in the High North that is but a continuation of the old Cold War. 

References
Gosnell, Rachael, “The Militarization of the Arctic is not Certain”, CISSM Policy Brief, Center for International and Security Studies, Maryland, December 2018
Hellqvist, Elsa, “Frozen Diplomacy: Regional Causes for the Increased Militarization in the Arctic”, Dept. of Government Political Science C, Uppsala University, (2020)
Huebert, Rob, “A New Cold War in the Arctic?! The Old One Never Ended!”, Arctic Yearbook, (2019), Dept. of Political Science, University of Calgary
Osthagen, Andreas, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Three Levels of Arctic Geopolitics”, The Arctic and World Order (2020), Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press: Chapter 15, pp. 357-378.
Spohr, Alexandre Piffero, et. al, “The Militarization of the Arctic: Political, Economic and Climate
Challenges”, UFRGSMUN, UFRGS Model United Nations Journal, (2013), Volume 1, p. 11-70, ISSN: 2318-3195

Print Bookmark

PREVIOUS COMMENTS

NIAS Global Politics Database
March 2024 | CWA # 1251

NIAS Africa Team

Africa This Week
NIAS Global Politics Database
February 2024 | CWA # 1226

NIAS Africa Team

Africa This Week
The World This Year
December 2023 | CWA # 1189

Hoimi Mukherjee | Hoimi Mukherjee is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science in Bankura Zilla Saradamani Mahila Mahavidyapith.

Chile in 2023: Crises of Constitutionality
The World This Year
December 2023 | CWA # 1187

Aprajita Kashyap | Aprajita Kashyap is a faculty of Latin American Studies, School of International Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi.

Haiti in 2023: The Humanitarian Crisis
The World This Year
December 2023 | CWA # 1185

Binod Khanal | Binod Khanal is a Doctoral candidate at the Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi.

The Baltic: Energy, Russia, NATO and China
The World This Year
December 2023 | CWA # 1183

Padmashree Anandhan | Padmashree Anandhan is a Research Associate at the School of Conflict and Security Studies, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangaluru.

Germany in 2023: Defence, Economy and Energy Triangle
The World This Year
December 2023 | CWA # 1178

​​​​​​​Ashok Alex Luke | Ashok Alex Luke is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science at CMS College, Kottayam.

China and South Asia in 2023: Advantage Beijing?
The World This Year
December 2023 | CWA # 1177

Annem Naga Bindhu Madhuri | Annem Naga Bindhu Madhuri is a postgraduate student at the Department of Defence and Strategic Studies at the University of Madras, Chennai.

China and East Asia
The War in Ukraine
October 2023 | CWA # 1091

Annem Naga Bindhu Madhuri

Issues for Europe
IPRI Quarterly Forecasts I Triggers, Trends, and Trajectories
July 2023 | CWA # 1012

Bibhu Prasad Routray

Myanmar continues to burn
2022: The World This Year
December 2022 | CWA # 879

Padmashree Anandhan

The Ukraine War
Europe: Heatwaves, Wildfires, Droughts, and Ice Melt in Alps
November 2022 | CWA # 838

Rishma Banerjee

Tracing Europe's droughts
NIAS Africa Weekly
March 2022 | CWA # 705

NIAS Africa Team

In Focus: Libya
The World This Week: 150th Issue
December 2021 | CWA # 630

GP Team

Europe in 2021
Pakistan Reader
October 2021 | CWA # 588

Abigail Miriam Fernandez

TLP is back again
NIAS Fortnightly on Science, Technology & International Relations
August 2021 | CWA # 528

STIR Team

Space Tourism
Science, Technology and International Relations
September 2019 | CWA # 162

Lakshman Chakravarthy N

5G: A Primer
South Asia Monthly Brief (Nov 2018)
December 2018 | CWA # 71

Mahesh Bhatta | Centre for South Asian Studies, Kathmandu

Nepal
South Asia Monthly Brief (Nov 2018)
December 2018 | CWA # 70

Nasima Khatoon | Research Associate, ISSSP, NIAS

The Maldives
South Asia Monthly Brief (Nov 2018)
December 2018 | CWA # 69

Harini Madhusudan | Research Associate, ISSSP, NIAS

India
South Asia Monthly Brief (Nov 2018)
December 2018 | CWA # 68

Sourina Bej | Research Associate, ISSSP, NIAS

Bangladesh
South Asia Monthly Brief (Nov 2018)
December 2018 | CWA # 67

Seetha Lakshmi Dinesh Iyer | Research Associate, ISSSP, NIAS

Afghanistan