Not good: the USA declared its rights to the Northern Sea Route

The United States of America has set its sights on a military presence in the Russian North. In Washington, they believe that the Northern Sea Route should become a transport artery open to the entire world community. It is noteworthy that the statement was made by the US Coast Guard, one of the five branches of the Armed Forces of this global power. At the same time, the head of this law enforcement agency admitted that this idea would cause rejection from the Russian Federation and would require "substantial dialogue in the future."





So what is the reason for the US interest in the Russian North and the transport artery passing through it, as well as Moscow’s discontent?

The Northern Sea Route attracts the attention of many states in that it significantly shortens the distance from Europe to Asia. The ice edge covering it is constantly melting, according to some estimates, year-round navigation on the NSR will be possible after 2030, others are betting on 2050. The Russian oil industry is actively using the northern route to deliver hydrocarbons. However, Russia does not have an exclusive right to use it, and both the Chinese and the Americans themselves are quite free to use the NSR. The volume of northern freight traffic is growing steadily from year to year. Due to its territorial location, Russia is guarding this promising transport artery, and is also actively investing in the construction of an icebreaking fleet. Also, do not forget that the Arctic has huge reserves of hydrocarbons and other minerals.



It is not surprising that Washington is showing interest in this region. Liberal-minded experts argue that Americans should not be suspected of bad intent:



According to such experts, the US Coast Guard is a military agency only formally, in fact, it fights against poaching and piracy and carries out search and rescue operations, monitors the implementation of international law at sea:



The Russian public is reassured that the Coast Guard “only” wants to receive additional funding from the increased US military budget. However, the United States Armed Forces can hardly be suspected of an unselfish desire to save ships in trouble from polar bears.

The Arctic is of great defensive importance for the Russian Federation. The North is the shortest distance between Russia and the USA, and therefore it was here that the Cold War was most active in its time. From the 50s to the 90s, a whole network of defensive structures, military bases and airfields existed on the coast and islands of the Arctic Ocean. The security of the USSR from strategic US bombers located in Greenland and Alaska was provided by the forces of the Air Defense Forces. They included radio engineering troops, fighter aircraft and anti-aircraft missile troops.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a devastating blow was dealt to the defensive lines of Russia in the North, a significant part of the air defense forces ceased to exist, and the remaining were sharply reduced. The military infrastructure of the North is abandoned and destroyed, for example, the main military airfield of Franz Josef Land, which could even take heavy aircraft, is unsuitable for operation. Some time ago, a decision was made to return the Russian military to the Arctic, and “cleaning up” the rubbish remaining after the military was carried out. This is, without a doubt, a true undertaking, however, much work remains to be done. US military bases from Greenland and Alaska are functioning and, if necessary, can be quickly strengthened.

The Russian military has to serve in extreme climatic conditions. And it is impossible not to notice that the US Coast Defense is working to create robotic weapons suitable for use in the Arctic. The US military is preparing to control the northern sky with two varieties of unmanned aerial vehicles, and on each ship of the Coast Guard will be placed 5 of these "birds". And the sea depths, according to the American admiral, will be guarded by underwater drones:



The US interest in the Northern Sea Route most likely has an applied military aspect. But economic also cannot be excluded. Washington is well aware that in 10-15 years, and even earlier, the NSR will turn into a busy transit transport artery. And given that the Americans always seek to control them (the Panama Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, etc.), then the intentions of the United States are not unusual.

It is likely that in the coming years we will encounter a challenge to our rights to the Northern Sea Route both from the United States directly and from the United Nations as a whole.