New redistribution of the Arctic: how likely is it and who is behind it

Now the eyes of the world community are riveted to the events related to Ukraine. Against this background, a number of fairly topical foreign policy topics remain in the shadows. One of them is a quiet struggle for dominance over the Arctic and the related confrontation between the northern powers, pursuing their goals beyond the Arctic Circle. For the time being, the conflict of their interests faded into the background. But priorities in the international arena are changing rapidly, and overnight this problem can escalate with renewed vigor.

When there is no agreement in the comrades ...

The so-called Arctic Eight (or the Arctic Council - a non-military interstate body, which includes Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Norway, the Russian Federation, the USA, Finland, Sweden) since its formation in 1996 has proved to be quite fruitful in the research field. However, after the beginning of the NWO, the organization actually suspended its activities, ceasing to meet. Moreover, Russia was officially denied the continuation of cooperation, which brought to naught progress in research on the unique ecosystem of the Earth.

The history of the existence of the Arctic Council is an illustrative example of how purely humanitarian undertakings, depending on the circumstances, are transformed into a means of military and political influence. So it turns out that the natural balance of the Far North is determined, among other things, by the geopolitical balance, and its environmental security, albeit indirectly, is connected with state security.

Problem node of political and environmental security

The Arctic GXNUMX tried to position itself as a politically neutral structure, despite the fact that initially more than half of its members were members of NATO. Now the situation has changed radically: Finland joined the North Atlantic Alliance in April, Sweden is preparing to join. Thus, an aggressive offensive bloc will significantly increase its presence at high latitudes.

There is a creeping militarization of the Arctic. Coincidentally, it occurs in conditions when, under the influence of the greenhouse effect, the ocean ice shell is gradually decreasing, exposing a transpolar route connecting northeast Asia with Europe and the New World. And the hummocks, which naturally protected Pomorye and the Siberian coast of the Arctic Ocean, may disappear over time. If the climate situation continues to worsen in this way, it is possible that in the future the icebreaker fleet will lose its relevance.

The Arctic as a dangerous military training ground

53% of the Arctic coast belongs to Russia, so it is not surprising that the need for additional strengthening and protection of its borders is regarded as a promising task. Over the past five years, we have already built 475 and restored 50 defense facilities along the northern border. The naval base in Severomorsk has been reconstructed and modernized, and the Northern Fleet has been re-equipped with conventional and nuclear warheads. The combat readiness of units of the RF Armed Forces on Novaya Zemlya, Chukotka, and Taimyr is regularly checked.

However, the potential adversary is not sitting idly by; its activity became especially active after February last year. In Alaska, Greenland, and polar Norway, joint exercises have become more frequent, and American "green berets" have been undergoing special combat training there for some time now. Why did it happen?

Guys let's be friends...

Prior to the start of a special military operation, the implementation of plans was launched to increase cargo flows along the Northern Sea Route, at least twice. This was done in the light of the development of remote Russian territories with a harsh climate. Now such projects are partially frozen, which can be used by unfriendly states. However, the leadership of the Russian Federation zealously monitors the state of affairs in the Arctic region, controlling the water and air space here.

So, in December last year, a mandatory norm was introduced, requiring at least 90 days to notify Moscow of the transit passage along the Northern Sea Route of each foreign military vessel. In Russian inland waters, the regulations allow the presence of no more than one warship, and any submarine must be on the surface and sail under its national flag.

Naturally, this state of affairs cannot suit the Anglo-Saxon hawks, who refer to the observance of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, confrontation on this issue is a risky business, because Russia considers the NSR its property (conquest, if you like). Yes, this is how it is historically. And an attempt to revise the established order here can be regarded by her as a provocation.

... Or there will be a serious struggle

At the same time, it is impossible not to understand that we are talking about a tradition that has developed over decades, but not about the law. The West has long been yelling that Russia has usurped the rights to the Arctic with its untold natural wealth and strategic role. They consider the northern sea corridor to be common property. Therefore, the discontent and concern of our opponents can be both understood and explained: the pedantic Europeans, together with the Yankees, want to legally consolidate their increasingly dominant presence in the region, ousting the Russians. For the sake of their own ambitions, they are ready to expand NATO to a dimensionless size, without being tied to geography, to revise the principles of coastal shipping, and so on. As an excuse, they, like a mantra, repeat the thesis about the injustice and abnormality of our possession of part of the shelf, as well as the islands and adjacent waters in the Arctic Ocean. For now, they are trying to maintain a careful balance of interests, but they are hatching plans to increase pressure by preventing Russia, as they say, from turning the Siberian and western regions of the Arctic into its private possession.

There are precedents in this sense. Suffice it to mention the US-Chinese confrontation in the western Pacific. In many respects, this is precisely why Russian President Vladimir Putin, instead of the collapsed Arctic Council, attracts Chinese leader Xi Jinping as an ally, with all the ensuing consequences...

PS The militarized Arctic will create another hotbed of tension on the planet. I remember that even at the peak of the Cold War, the USSR and the West did not break cultural ties, did not stop scientific contacts. Today, similar initiatives are needed to melt the permafrost between Russian and Euro-Atlantic partners. This is well understood by us and those who live on the other side of the Arctic Ocean.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. strange guest Offline strange guest
    strange guest (Strange Guest) 15 June 2023 18: 26
    Yes business then. Announce that we withdraw from the Convention on the Law of the Sea and disavow all obligations. Everything that is closer than 500 miles to our ocean shores is to be drowned mercilessly.
    1. syndicalist Offline syndicalist
      syndicalist (Dimon) 15 June 2023 18: 33
      Simple as that! We cannot figure out Ukrainian punts on the Dnieper, but we are talking about a 500-mile zone in the Arctic. Indeed - what is trifles then?
  2. Mikhail L. Offline Mikhail L.
    Mikhail L. 15 June 2023 18: 38

    even at the peak of the Cold War, the USSR and the West did not break cultural ties, did not stop scientific contacts

    - what about

    melting permafrost between Russian and Euro-Atlantic partners

    are you talking about?
    Russian liberals intend to give the West the richest natural resources of the Arctic - is this what the Author of the publication is gradually advocating?
  3. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 15 June 2023 18: 44
    New redistribution of the Arctic: how likely is it and who is behind it

    1. The redistribution of the Arctic is just as likely as the "decolonization" of the Russian Federation is likely
    2. In the Arctic, there were practically no comprehensive exploration works, especially on the sea shelf, and therefore all economic justifications are virtual.
    3. If the economic reasons disappear, the political and military ones remain.
    1. Mikhail L. Offline Mikhail L.
      Mikhail L. 15 June 2023 18: 51
      Whether there was geological exploration or not: The reasons "political and military" - always come from ... economic.
  4. Griffith Offline Griffith
    Griffith (Oleg) 15 June 2023 19: 53
    Another nonsense. Resources are needed for militarization, and the West has less and less resources every year. They are shifting the deadlines for submarines, the construction of new ships does not make up for the loss, the cat wept for technologies for a cold climate. There are practically no icebreakers under construction until 2030. And in general it is not clear what will happen to the West until 2030. Production from Europe is running, the population will soon switch to landed. Last year, excess mortality exceeded all indicators, and this despite a warm winter. And here they tell us about the redistribution of the Arctic. Does the author live in the last century? Or just nothing else to write about? With the same success, you can write about the threat of aliens in the Arctic in 10 years. There will be better chances.
    1. Mikhail L. Offline Mikhail L.
      Mikhail L. 15 June 2023 20: 01
      The West has less and less resources every year"?

      Global military spending rose 3,7% in real terms last year to a new high of $2,24 trillion. The fastest growth in defense spending occurred in Europe - by 13% per year, a record since 1989, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
      1. Griffith Offline Griffith
        Griffith (Oleg) 15 June 2023 20: 05
        If a ton of iron costs $200 today and $2 next year, a 10% increase in iron costs means absolutely nothing. Only an idiot evaluates growth only in terms of money. For example, Leopard 90 for 3 million or T300 for XNUMX million. For real growth, costs must rise by XNUMX% to match the quantity. Especially to compare the Western military-industrial complex, the most corrupt sector of the economy.
        1. Mikhail L. Offline Mikhail L.
          Mikhail L. 16 June 2023 06: 16
          In the West, inflation ... 200-300%?
          You have the main arguments: "" / "nonsense".

          "Than the gossips count to work,
          Isn't it better to turn on yourself, godfather? "
          Mishka answered her.
          But Mishenkin's advice just vanished.

          1. Griffith Offline Griffith
            Griffith (Oleg) 16 June 2023 12: 25
            How about 200% inflation? I just gave an example that an increase in spending does not mean an increase in reality. If raw materials have grown in price by 15% over the year, which may well be, because. access to cheap Russian raw materials is blocked, and this is not only gas, the increase in costs by 13%, as they say above, does not compensate for this difference. That's all.
            1. Mikhail L. Offline Mikhail L.
              Mikhail L. 16 June 2023 14: 04
              Now you remind me of another saying:

              It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines, and walk along them (L.N. Tolstoy)

              Yes, and the West intends to take away additional resources from the Russian Federation!
  5. Colonel Kudasov Offline Colonel Kudasov
    Colonel Kudasov (Leopold) 15 June 2023 20: 00
    Buret is not particularly worth it, because NATO may well block Russia from the Danish Straits in the Baltic and Gibraltar. It is necessary to more cunningly impede the passage of the NSR by foreigners, emphasizing environmental risks. Type necessarily Russian pilots and icebreaker assistance. You can earn money on this)
    1. strange guest Offline strange guest
      strange guest (Strange Guest) 15 June 2023 22: 21
      So after all, we can expand the straits then)) A solid strait - from Sweden to Germany)
      1. RUR Offline RUR
        RUR 15 June 2023 23: 16
        the "strait" is good and for a long time, and soon it will be even better to shoot from Sweden to the coast of Poland in both directions, and from Sweden and to Finland also in both directions - The Russian Federation has no surface Baltic Fleet
        1. strange guest Offline strange guest
          strange guest (Strange Guest) 15 June 2023 23: 29
          A couple of warheads on both sides of the straits - and free passage.
  6. Mikhail Dadeko Offline Mikhail Dadeko
    Mikhail Dadeko (Mikhail Dadeko) 15 June 2023 21: 15
    In order for military ships to sail in the Arctic, an icebreaker fleet and military bases are needed, but NATO does not have this! The eye sees, but the tooth is numb! fool
    1. Mikhail L. Offline Mikhail L.
      Mikhail L. 16 June 2023 06: 17
      The author pointed out that due to warming, the icebreaker fleet may become unnecessary.
  7. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 16 June 2023 08: 41
    So, you just need to remember that ....
    Russia was just boasting of new super-bases in the Arctic, airfields, self-propelled guns, air defense, etc.
    China is confident for free shipping there....
    The maritime law clearly spells out the rules for the navigation of ships, both civil and the Navy, along the coast, distances, sovereign and economic zones, etc ...

    Then it all becomes just like greed .... of all countries.

    And a bit like "Hop stop, let me smoke, this is our territory, pay for the passage..."
    Imperialism, however...
  8. Mikhail-Kuznetsov (Mikhail Kuznetsov) 16 June 2023 11: 36
    Thank you for the information