General Billy Mitchell once described Alaska as "the most strategic real estate on the planet." He made a good point; I've maintained for many years that whoever holds Alaska holds a commanding view of, and control over, the Pacific Ocean, at least north of the equator. The United States holds Alaska, and Hawaii as well, which one would think would give us pretty good command of the Pacific.
Of course, with our Navy in the shape it's in, that command may be questionable. But that's a topic for another story.
The other aspect of America's holding Alaska has to do with the Arctic and its resources. The Arctic is becoming a strategic hotspot - and the Russian bear holds much of the Arctic in its taloned paws:
The Arctic was once defined by its lack of potential conflict — encapsulated in the saying “high north, low tension.”
Countries that struggled to cooperate closer to the equator have, for decades, found diplomacy more relaxed among the icebergs, where military considerations took a back seat to environmental research and shipping policy.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shattered that calm. A polar defense race is underway as the United States and its NATO allies become increasingly skeptical of rival powers’ operations in one of the world’s frostiest regions.
Operating in the Arctic presents a whole new set of problems, not only with personnel but equipment. Arctic temperatures make any attempt at moving ships and assets difficult; in any possible Arctic conflict, forces would have to contend not only with their opponents but with the harsh environment - extreme cold in winter, mud in summer. Here in the Great Land, we have military forces who are training to deal with these conditions - but vast as Alaska is, it looks rather small compared to Russia's Arctic holdings.
The Russians have historically been pretty good at dealing with these conditions. They have had a lot of practice, as invaders from Napoleon to Hitler learned to their sorrow.
Russia is developing its Arctic assets even as I write these words, and the buildup is impressive:
Pavel Devyatkin, an American based in Moscow and a senior fellow for the Arctic Institute, told the Washington Examiner that the Kremlin sees maintaining a strong posture in the region as crucial for Russian security, economic interests, and national identity.
“50% of the Arctic coastline is Russia. Half the population is Russian. Russia, in many ways, is the most Arctic nation,” Devyatkin said. “For the U.S., we just have Alaska — people in the lower states don’t really think of America as an Arctic nation, so it’s not such a big consideration. We don’t have the centurieslong commitment to being an arctic country [that] Russia does.”
“Russia has developed its ports, its transport system there. Most of its oil and gas is from there. About 10% of its GDP is generated in the Arctic [through] oil and gas exports and natural resources,” he continued.
The United States has one port in the sub-Arctic - Anchorage. We have no other Arctic port in the Pacific. Our military assets in the Great Land are primarily ground and air forces. The nearest major naval forces are based on the mainland West Coast and in Hawaii. But Russia? Russia is building up its Arctic assets, as Pavel Devyatkin points out:
The Kremlin is investing heavily into the production of new security infrastructure in the Arctic Circle and conducting large-scale exercises to reestablish its defensive posture. Hundreds of dormant military facilities in the region dating back to the Soviet Union are operational for the first time in decades.
“For geographic reasons, because it’s the whole northern border for them, it’s very important for their security posture,” Devyatkin told the Washington Examiner.
The Air Force reports that Russia’s military has amassed approximately “55 icebreakers, 37 surface vessels, and eight nuclear submarines” on its Arctic coast.
The United States has, technically, two icebreakers in the region, which, when you factor in downtime for maintenance and replenishment, means that Uncle Sam has one icebreaker available at any given time. That's compared to Russia's 55. And nuclear submarines, Russian and American, can range the Arctic Ocean freely.
In the Atlantic, on the other hand, Russia has more competition in the far north. The Arctic Council nations include the United States, Russia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Of those, all but Russia are NATO nations. So any conflict in the Arctic would very likely be a two-front conflict, with Russia facing opponents to east and west across the Arctic.
That, in fact, may well be the one thing that gives Russia pause. That, and the fact that much of the Arctic, with its abundant resources, is already Russian territory. It's unlikely, for all his blustering, that Tsar Vladimir I is all that anxious to take on NATO directly; his army has so far proved incapable of taking Ukraine, much less sustaining a war against all the NATO powers with all that would entail.
Russia has been increasingly bellicose lately - and they would appear to have some new allies. Tsar Vladimir I has made overtures to China, and North Korean troops are now fighting alongside Russian troops in Ukraine.
The most bothersome aspect of all this is that for the next few weeks, we have a president - a commander in chief of all our armed forces - who is incapable. But that will be changing, and soon. President-elect Trump would do well to look at the Arctic, at America's presence there - and our interests in the far north, not least of which are our energy resources. Because Russia is sure looking at the Arctic - and building up their assets there. An Arctic arms race may not be desirable, but it may be inevitable.
For those of us who remember the last Cold War, these are worrying developments. The United States is not prepared for conflict in the Arctic, but conflict in the Arctic, to paraphrase Leon Trotsky, may well be interested in us - and north of the Arctic Circle, all warriors are cold warriors.