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
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

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.