Follow us on social

google cta
26896891638_b7a2b3887d_o-scaled-e1666985650685

Russian aggression gives US excuse to focus military, and more, on Arctic

In its new strategy, Washington will “seek to uphold international law, rules, norms, and standards in the Arctic.”

Analysis | Global Crises
google cta
google cta

With Russian aggression inducing a rethink of Arctic policy and strategy among its circumpolar neighbors, and climate change continuing to thaw the polar world at an intensifying pace, the United States has been intensively refocusing more of its strategic and diplomatic attention on the Arctic region, culminating in a series of recent Arctic organizational, policy and strategy updates.

These include the White House’s August 2022 announcement of its plan to establish a new ambassador for the Arctic region, followed in September with the formation of the new Arctic Strategy and Global Resilience Office at the Pentagon.

Then in October, the White House unveiled its new National Strategy for the Arctic Region, updating strategy from 2013 for today’s complex and fast-evolving strategic landscape. As noted in its executive summary, the new Arctic strategy “addresses the climate crisis with greater urgency and directs new investments in sustainable development to improve livelihoods for Arctic residents, while conserving the environment. It also acknowledges increasing strategic competition in the Arctic since 2013, exacerbated by Russia’s unprovoked war in Ukraine, and seeks to position the United States to both effectively compete and manage tensions.”

The updated strategy includes four pillars — Security, Climate Change and Environmental Protection, Sustainable Economic Development, and International Cooperation and Governance. On this fourth pillar, the strategy asserts, “Despite the challenges to Arctic cooperation resulting from Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, the United States will work to sustain institutions for Arctic cooperation, including the Arctic Council, and position these institutions to manage the impacts of increasing activity in the region.” The United States will “also seek to uphold international law, rules, norms, and standards in the Arctic.”

As a headline in the October 10 edition of High North News aptly summarizes, “New US Arctic Strategy Foreshadows Increasing Hurdles for Cooperation in a More Complex Region.”

As described in its introduction, “Despite current tensions stemming from Russia’s unprovoked, full-scale invasion of Ukraine,” the new U.S. strategy “seeks an Arctic region that is peaceful, stable, prosperous, and cooperative” with “guardrails to manage competition and resolve disputes without force or coercion … working primarily with our allies and partners to solve shared challenges.” Russia will continue to be isolated to the sidelines, as its “war of aggression against Ukraine has rendered government-to-government cooperation with Russia in the Arctic virtually impossible. Over the coming decade, it may be possible to resume cooperation under certain conditions. Russia’s continued aggression makes most cooperation unlikely for the foreseeable future.”

Despite newly re-awakened concerns with the challenge presented by Russia to Arctic security, there is still much in the updated U.S. Arctic strategy that is familiar, with an echo of the collaborative dynamic embraced in past American Arctic strategies and policies. Indeed, the new strategy is not the first to note new challenges to the cooperative Arctic, with such concerns finding more prominence in policy statements after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and China’s self-declaration as a “Near-Arctic” state in 2018.

Importantly, the U.S. strategy update offers much reassurance on the role of indigenous peoples and perspectives. Two of its four pillars directly address indigenous peoples and their wellbeing. From the Climate Change and Environmental Protection pillar, Washington “will partner with Alaskan communities and the State of Alaska to build resilience to the impacts of climate change, while working to reduce emissions from the Arctic as part of broader global mitigation efforts, to improve scientific understanding, and to conserve Arctic ecosystems.”

As part of the Sustainable Economic Development pillar, Washington has pledged to “pursue sustainable development and improve livelihoods in Alaska, including for Alaska Native communities.” Moreover, the United States “will be guided by five principles that will be applied across all four pillars,” with the very first of these five being “Consult, Coordinate, and Co-Manage with Alaska Native Tribes and Communities,” elevating co-management to a prominent guiding principle for Arctic strategy.

The United States thus remains “committed to regular, meaningful, and robust consultation, coordination, and co-management with Alaska Native Tribes, communities, corporations, and other organizations and to ensuring equitable inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge.”

The updated Arctic strategy, with its echoes of more cooperative times, offers a reaffirmation of hope that the Arctic will continue to be a region defined more by cooperation than conflict — even if in the near-term such cooperation is confined to the expanded footprint of NATO’s Arctic members, with Russia excluded. Importantly, Arctic indigenous peoples feature more prominently as partners in America’s Arctic strategy as the 7 democratic Arctic states become more closely aligned within NATO in their collective effort to deter Russian aggression from extending beyond the storm engulfing the Black Sea to the still calm and ever hopeful waters of the Arctic.


BEAUFORT SEA (March 10, 2018) The Seawolf-class submarine The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN 22) breaks though the ice in the Beaufort Sea in support of Ice Exercise (ICEX) 2018. The five-week exercise that allows the U.S. Navy to assess its operational readiness in the Arctic, increase experience in the region, advance understanding of the Arctic environment and continue to develop relationships with other services, allies and partner organizations. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication 2nd Class Micheal H. Lee/Released)180310-N-LY160-744 Join the conversation: http://www.navy.mil/viewGallery.asp http://www.facebook.com/USNavy http://www.twitter.com/USNavy http://navylive.dodlive.mil http://pinterest.com https://plus.google.com
google cta
Analysis | Global Crises
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.