In NATO’s early years, the alliance declared that the Arctic Ocean should be the primary location for its naval forces, but U.S. foreign policy after the Cold War ignored the region and instead focused on a strategy of encircling Russia in Eurasia. Washington forgot the Arctic’s geopolitical relevance, prioritizing the destabilization of Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Meanwhile, Moscow remained ever focused on the Arctic, and in 2007 planted its flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole. Despite 7 out of the 8 countries bordering the Arctic being NATO members (the U.S., Canada, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden), NATO has declared that Russia’s military capabilities are one-third greater than those of NATO.

The second largest Arctic power is not even a NATO member but China, which declares itself a “near-Arctic state” despite lacking direct access to the Arctic Ocean. As a result, NATO is trying to catch up: in addition to military exercises and the construction of new bases (primarily led by the United Kingdom), U.S. President Joe Biden, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Finnish President Alexander Stubb have signed a new strategic agreement at the NATO summit in Washington, the ICE Pact, which declares that the three countries will build new icebreaker ships. The Finns are known for their icebreaker ships, but the American and Canadian fleets are in deplorable condition (the U.S. has only one, which pales in comparison to one of Russia’s 50).

Also at the NATO summit, the U.S. presented its “2024 National Strategy for the Arctic Region,” warning that both Moscow and Beijing are increasingly working together to facilitate their activities in the north, particularly in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: “Over 80 percent of Russia’s natural gas production and nearly 20 percent of its oil production comes from the Arctic, and Russia is increasingly turning to the PRC to finance this extraction and to purchase these resources.” With climate change and melting glaciers, many natural resources that were previously inaccessible are now becoming available, prompting Russia and China to engage in joint exploitation projects. The U.S.

Geological Survey estimated in 2008 that there are 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Arctic, representing 22% of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources. The Arctic also holds trillions of dollars’ worth of silver, copper, gold, and other precious minerals and metals. With the melting ice, access to Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR) has also opened up, a maritime corridor that significantly reduces transport time between Europe and Asia. Additionally, Russia has begun to increase its military presence in the north, reopening old Soviet military bases abandoned after the fall of the USSR and establishing new ones. Access to Russian facilities and ports will allow China to utilize its military capabilities in the Arctic, including icebreakers and semi-submersible ships, thereby opening a new front with the U.S. if a war breaks out over Taiwan—a second front that the U.S. would undoubtedly struggle to manage. Thus, Washington justifies its increased attention to the region with its rivalry with China, claiming that greater NATO investment in the area is necessary.

Although think tanks like the Atlantic Council, the Wilson Center, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which are known as mouthpieces for the State Department and CIA, have rushed to demonstrate how necessary NATO’s militarization of the Arctic is to deter Russia-China collaboration, it actually does the exact opposite. After Arctic Council members cut off cooperation with Russia in 2022 and Sweden and Finland abandoned neutrality to join NATO, militarization would force Russia to collaborate even more with Beijing in the region.

 NATO should create more opportunities for dialogue (like the Arctic Council) to avoid starting any war, not provoke Russia and China further: regardless of how much investment is made to develop military power in the region, NATO will not surpass Russia and China in the Arctic in the coming years or perhaps even decades. The Arctic houses Russia’s most advanced naval assets, most military facilities, and over two-thirds of the Russian Navy’s nuclear strike capabilities. The Nordic states do not even have the capability to detect Russian forces operating at their borders. Any attempt to start a war in the Arctic would undoubtedly end in NATO’s humiliating defeat. We want peace, not war, and certainly not military suicide!

By Daria Gusa