Follow us on social

Biden should use his summit with Putin to reset relations on the Arctic

Biden should use his summit with Putin to reset relations on the Arctic

Both sides have an interest in demilitarizing the region and enhancing cooperation.

Analysis | Global Crises

Mark Twain once said, “History never repeats itself, but it often does rhyme.” Just as Moscow and Washington have clashed over the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into eastern Europe, so now the two sides must contend with political and military encroachments in the Arctic. Next week’s summit in Geneva between President Joe Biden and his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, has a sense of geopolitical déjà vu to it. But it is not too late to step back from the brink of another unnecessary confrontation, this time in the Arctic.

Rather than repeat the strategic mistakes of the past, Washington should embrace a more pragmatic foreign policy towards Russia, pursuing competitive coexistence rather than military dominance in the High North. Fortunately, this summit, coming as Russia has assumed the two-year rotating chairmanship of the Arctic Council, presents the Biden administration with a strategic opening.

Nearly six months into his presidency, however, President Biden seems intent on making the worst of a bad situation. He agreed in an interview that Putin was “a killer” and upbraided the Kremlin over its treatment of prominent Putin critic Alexei Navalny, while imposing a raft of new sanctions against Moscow.

The Biden administration has also upped the ante in the Arctic, announcing plans with Canada to modernize the Arctic missile-surveillance warning system, deploying B-1 Lancer bombers to Norway for the first time, and concluding a revised agreement with Oslo to allow for the construction of U.S. military facilities at three Norwegian airfields and a naval station. In 2022, the U.S. military intends to deploy to Norway alongside other NATO personnel for the largest military exercise in the Arctic Circle since the end of the Cold War.

The main reward for all this military activity has, thus far, at least, been Putin’s colorful words. The Russian leader vowed to “knock out everyone’s teeth,” if the United States and its allies should dare to challenge Russia’s territorial claims. Much as NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine was intolerable to Russia and led to its use of force to prevent their accessions, Moscow is sensitive to U.S. military activities in the Arctic near its northern border.

With territory spanning more than half of the world’s Arctic coastline, an economy dependent on new resource-extraction projects, and the bulk of its nuclear second-strike capabilities based in the region, Russia has valid national security interests in the Arctic. Russia’s military buildup there as the sea ice melts should thus come as no surprise. The Kremlin has amply demonstrated through its military interventions and political interference in eastern Europe that it will resist what it perceives as unnecessary and provocative Western encroachments near its borders. The Arctic is not any different, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently confirmed. “We hear whining about Russia expanding its military activities in the Arctic,” he said. “But everyone knows that it’s our territory, our land.”

Against this backdrop of worsening tensions, Russia took the helm of the Arctic Council last month. Established in 1996, the Arctic Council has emerged as the preeminent intergovernmental forum for addressing issues of environmental protection and sustainable development in the Arctic. Membership in the Council includes all eight Arctic nations (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States) and permanent participants from various indigenous groups, as well as 13 non-Arctic observer states, most notably China.

As chair of the Arctic Council, Russia has responsibility for hosting ministerial meetings and customarily defines the priorities of the council throughout its tenure, albeit under the constraints of a consensus-based decision-making process. Russia’s priorities for its chairmanship, like those of its predecessors, include sustainable development, environmental protection, socio-economic development, and strengthening the Arctic Council. Washington should take the ample opportunities provided by Russia’s council agenda to engage and cooperate with Moscow on these issues, especially climate change. Russia’s 20220 Arctic Strategy acknowledged the environmental impacts of climate change on the region and pledged to protect the Arctic environment.

Similarly, the Biden administration has placed a renewed focus on climate change and diplomacy. Pursuing cooperative action on climate change could help to build mutual understanding and lay the groundwork for future engagement on more sensitive issues. Both President Biden’s inclusion of Putin in the White House’s virtual climate summit and Climate Change Envoy John Kerry’s outreach to his Russian counterparts underscore the Biden administration’s intent to pursue climate cooperation with Russia. Finding common ground with Putin is the path forward, and President Biden would be well served to continue his foreign policy toward Russia in this direction.

Yet climate cooperation alone will ultimately be insufficient to convince Putin to reassess his long-held assessment that the West poses a military danger to his country. Changing the trajectory of U.S.-Russian relations will require a fundamental reorientation of U.S. foreign policy toward competitive coexistence.

At its core, this more measured approach to relations requires U.S. respect for Russia’s core national security interests. What might that look like in the Arctic? Washington should try to strike a bargain. The Biden administration would cede an enlarged role for the United States and NATO in the Arctic, allaying Russian fears of hostile encirclement. In return, the Kremlin would agree to some reasonable limits on its power projection capabilities in the Arctic and relinquish its claims to the international waters of the Northern Sea Route. Such a deal would not eliminate U.S.-Russia rivalry, but it would help to manage it.

As President Biden prepares for his first summit with the Russian leader, he should not let this opportunity to set U.S.-Russian relations on a new course slip past him. In his meeting with Putin, he should accept Russia’s call for a resumption of high-level military talks on the Arctic. The Arctic Council’s official remit, the Ottawa Declaration, explicitly excludes military security issues. As a result, alternative forums developed for discussing military matters, most importantly, the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable and the Arctic Chiefs of Defense Staff Planning meetings.

Since suspending military-to-military cooperation with Russia in 2014, however, Arctic states have lacked a multilateral mechanism for military dialogue. Resuming these forums would build trust, increase transparency, and encourage what U.S. Naval War College associate professor Lyle Goldstein calls “cooperation spirals.” One sure lesson of the Cold War was that opening up strategic dialogue and establishing military rules of the road made competition safer for both sides to avoid inadvertent military conflict.

Yet, at last month’s meeting of Arctic Council foreign ministers, Secretary Antony Blinken rejected out of hand his Russian counterpart’s proposal to revive Arctic military talks. This was a strategic misstep. Russia wants desperately for the West to recognize and respect it as a great power. It also sees its council chairmanship as an opportunity for status recognition and is therefore eager to make its tenure at the helm a great success. President Biden should use Russia’s status recognition concerns to advance U.S. interests in his upcoming meeting with Putin.

A better approach starts from acknowledging Russia has core interests in the Arctic and aims for mutual accommodation. The biggest obstacle to charting a new course will not come from Moscow but the foreign policy establishment in Washington. If President Biden can resist the threat-mongering, he could still achieve competitive coexistence with Russia in the Arctic.

The views expressed in this article represent the personal views of the author and are not necessarily the views of the Department of Defense or of the United States Air Force.

110319-N-UH963-293 ARCTIC OCEAN (March 19, 2011) Sailors and members of the Applied Physics Laboratory Ice Station clear ice from the hatch of the Seawolf-class submarine USS Connecticut (SSN 22) as it surfaces above the ice during ICEX 2011. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kevin S. O'Brien/Released)|040419-N-6027E-002 North Pole (Apr. 19, 2004) - The crew of the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Hampton (SSN 767) posted a sign reading "North Pole" made by the crew after surfacing in the polar ice cap region. Hampton and the Royal Navy Trafalgar class attack submarine HMS Tireless took part in ICEX 04, a joint operational exercise beneath the polar ice cap. Both the Tireless and Hampton crews met on the ice, including scientists traveling aboard both submarines to collect data and perform experiments. The Ice Exercise demonstrates the U.S. and British Submarine Force's ability to freely navigate in all international waters, including the Arctic. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Journalist Kevin Elliott. (RELEASED)
Analysis | Global Crises
The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers

KYIV, UKRAINE - July 12, 2023: Destroyed and burned Russian military tanks and parts of equipment are exhibited at the Mykhailivska square in Kyiv city centre. (Oleksandr Popenko/Shutterstock)

The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers


Two years ago on Feb. 24, 2022, the world watched as Russian tanks rolled into the outskirts of Kyiv and missiles struck the capital city.

Contrary to initial predictions, Kyiv never fell, but the country today remains embroiled in conflict. The front line holds in the southeastern region of the country, with contested areas largely focused on the Russian-speaking Donbas and port cities around the Black Sea.

keep readingShow less
Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin

A woman lays flowers at the monument to the victims of political repressions following the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, in Moscow, Russia February 16, 2024. REUTERS/Stringer

Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin


President Biden was entirely correct in the first part of his judgment on the death of Alexei Navalny: “Putin is responsible, whether he ordered it, or he is responsible for the circumstances he put that man in.” Even if Navalny eventually died of “natural causes,” his previous poisoning, and the circumstances of his imprisonment, must obviously be considered as critical factors in his death.

For his tremendous courage in returning to Russia after his medical treatment in the West — knowing well the dangers that he faced — the memory of Navalny should be held in great honor. He joins the immense list of Russians who have died for their beliefs at the hands of the state. Public expressions of anger and disgust at the manner of his death are justified and correct.

keep readingShow less
Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

ProStockStudio via

Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

Military Industrial Complex

Nuclear weapons aren’t just a threat to human survival, they’re a multi-billion-dollar business supported by some of the biggest institutional investors in the U.S. according to new data released today by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and PAX, the largest peace organization in the Netherlands.

For the third year in a row, globally, the number of investors in nuclear weapons producers has fallen but the overall amount invested in these companies has increased, largely thanks to some of the biggest investment banks and funds in the U.S.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis