Paul Stronski & Grace Kier
The severity of the confrontation in the Arctic depends not only on the US administration, but also on the actions of Russia (and China). A more restrained position of Moscow – on the level of rhetoric and issues of military presence – could help Biden cope with the pressure of those who insist on a more aggressive US Arctic policy, and find areas for cooperation in the region that meet the interests of both countries.
At the end of May, the chairmanship of the Arctic Council passed to Russia, which means that the importance of this region can grow both in Moscow’s foreign policy and in its relations with Washington. Moreover, the Biden administration has already shown that it intends to reconsider the approach of the Trump team to the Arctic. It is not yet clear exactly what the revision will be, but it is already clear that now the White House intends to work closely with allies on this issue and focus on ecology and the fight against climate change.
That is, the United States is demonstrating a great readiness to view the Arctic as a zone of broad international cooperation, which is necessary to effectively combat global warming. This is a positive turnaround from the days of Trump, whose administration saw in the region only a space for geopolitical rivalry, primarily with China. Now security issues may recede into the background for the United States, but Washington is unlikely to be able to completely ignore them.
Ecology and more
Biden’s priorities became clear almost immediately after the inauguration – he returned the United States to the Paris climate agreement and suspended the issuance of licenses for the development of deposits in the National Arctic Reserve in Alaska. Despite numerous problems in Russian-American relations, Biden’s team has repeatedly made it clear that they do not consider them an obstacle to dialogue and cooperation with Moscow on a number of other issues.
For example, the US president’s special envoy for climate, John Kerry, has already entered into a dialogue with his Russian counterparts Sergei Lavrov and Ruslan Edelgeriev, and at the US-sponsored virtual climate summit, a prominent role was assigned to Vladimir Putin. These steps are in the spirit of successful US-Russian cooperation in the Arctic since Obama, which includes fisheries, search and rescue operations, the use of icebreakers in emergency situations and the environment.
At the same time, the Biden administration will develop some of Trump’s initiatives, for example, those related to strengthening the civil and military capabilities of the United States in the Arctic. Washington will also have to figure out how to respond to what many see as an expansion of Russia’s presence in the region – the de-mothballing and reconstruction of Soviet-era military installations.
To do this, the Biden administration will need to develop tools with which it will defend American interests in the Arctic. Trump’s efforts to strengthen NATO’s naval capabilities and protect American airspace in Alaska are likely to continue.
However, this does not mean that the new administration will recognize the Arctic as a field of strategic rivalry with Russia and – increasingly – with China. Biden is now focused primarily on combating the consequences of the pandemic, which means that he is unlikely to agree to allocate significant funds for the development of new military facilities or the creation of a new fleet of nuclear icebreakers in order to participate in a great-power competition in the Trump style.
Sources of concern
Of course, Washington will continue to regard Russia as a key state in the Arctic and take into account the growing importance of the region for its economic development and security. The sanctions imposed by the US and the EU on Russia’s unconventional energy projects, including in the Arctic, slowed down their implementation, but did not force the Kremlin to completely abandon the development of minerals in the region.
As the Biden administration revises its sanctions policy, it will likely have to take into account the oil and gas projects that Russian companies are pursuing in the Arctic with foreign partners – it is too early to speculate about what action will be taken. Americans regarding these projects.
Also in the United States, Russia’s attempts to establish strict control over the passage of foreign ships along the Northern Sea Route (NSR), as well as the environmental problems that may be associated with its use, are of increasing concern. Although Washington also lacks those who doubt the success of Russian efforts to develop and operate the NSR, the costs are too high. It is also unclear whether this route will meet all modern requirements and standards of international cargo transportation.
The Kremlin’s penchant for demonstrative military activity in the Arctic worries neighboring Arctic states, among which there are important allies of Washington. Recently published strategic documents such as the Strategic Naval Plan in the Arctic and the Military Strategy in the Arctic show that the new US administration is concerned that Russia is increasing its military capabilities in the region, as well as that China is building up its economic, political and military presence.
However, it is not yet clear whether this will trigger a larger US or NATO military exercise in the region. In general, the current military activity in the Arctic resembles the confrontation between NATO and the Soviet Union in Northern Europe during the Cold War and remains one of the elements in the larger conflict between Russia and the West.
As for China, it does not have direct access to the Arctic, but defines itself as a “near-Arctic state” and is active in scientific, investment and trade activities in the region, including Greenland. The latter at one time worried President Trump a lot. The Biden administration also does not recognize the Chinese claims as justified and considers it necessary to counter Beijing’s influence in the region.
Alaska, caribou and indigenous peoples
The topic of the Arctic may be one of the main topics in the discussions of Russian and American foreign policy experts, but the US Congress and the American society as a whole do not show much interest in it. Arctic problems are close only to the residents of Alaska, whose representatives in Washington have long been demanding an expansion of the US economic and military presence in the region and the modernization of the outdated American icebreaker fleet. Alaska Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, who praised the Strategic Naval Plan for the Arctic, insist that the US military in the Arctic must be better adapted to modern realities.
This activity by Alaska officials and the military, coupled with growing distrust of Russia in American society, could pose a serious obstacle to the Biden administration’s attempts to re-establish cooperation with Moscow under Obama in order to provide additional impetus to the fight against climate change. The situation is further complicated by Russia’s military build-up and hostile actions against American ships and aircraft off the coast of Alaska and against military exercises by American allies in other parts of the region.
Biden’s commitment to rebuilding relations with allies, bringing the United States back to the Paris Climate Agreement and promising to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 should help Washington expand international cooperation in the Arctic. Both during the election campaign and as president, Biden talks about how important the system of alliances and especially NATO is to the United States – a topic that did not inspire enthusiasm among his predecessor Trump.
The current administration supports both formal allies in the Arctic (Canada, Denmark, Iceland and Norway) and like-minded partners (Finland and Sweden), both within NATO and on a bilateral basis. The United States will continue to actively interact with other members of the Arctic Council, including Russia.
Examples of successful cooperation have already begun to emerge – this is the recent agreement between the United States and Canada on the protection of caribou pastures in the Arctic Reserve. Under the previous administration, when Trump constantly clashed with Canada and the American Democrats over plans for the development of the region, this was hard to imagine.
Another example of Biden seriously intending to tackle the environment in the Arctic was the decision of the US Department of the Interior (first led by Native American Deb Holann) to impose a moratorium on the development of Alaska minerals on an area of ??113.3 thousand square kilometers. This was done, first of all, to meet the expectations of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, but of course, Alaska will also benefit significantly from this.
Holann’s appointment to the cabinet underscores the Biden administration’s commitment to expand ethnic representation in government and strengthen the rights of indigenous peoples in the United States more broadly. Empowering Arctic indigenous peoples has in turn been a part of the Arctic Council’s mandate since its inception, and Holann’s appointment could strengthen the US on this issue, which is not particularly enthusiastic in Moscow.
The Biden administration does not want a conflict in the Arctic, but is responding to what it sees as a growing threat from Russia. The recent redeployment of American B-1 bombers to Norway is a response to the increased frequency of flights in the region by Russian strategic bombers deployed on the Kola Peninsula. The likelihood of a serious military incident in the Arctic is not as high as in Europe, but the ever-growing tension between Russia and the West could aggravate the region as well.
Biden, it seems, is seriously seeking to prevent such a development of events, but the severity of the confrontation in the Arctic depends not only on the US administration, but also on the actions of Russia (and China). A more restrained position of Moscow – at the level of rhetoric and issues of military presence – could help Biden cope with the pressure of those who insist on a more aggressive US Arctic policy, and find areas for cooperation in the region that meet the interests of both countries.
