The Icebreaker Putin, Biden and Jinping Are Playing

The geopolitical dimension of the climate crisis involves a question of appropriation of land, sovereignty and security. The world is becoming hotter in many senses due to global warming, and in addition to melting ice caps and rising sea levels, the climate has become a threat multiplier for military spending globally. Today, this climate-driven military posture is culminating at the world’s peak, in the Arctic region. The shrinking Arctic has revealed the geopolitical battlefield of once-inaccessible shipping routes, kickstarting the race for potentially priceless minerals and oil deposits. What was once the world’s neutral ground, an undisturbed, barren white sheet of uninhabited land, has now become a hotspot for increased violence and potential conflicts between three invested powers: Russia, the United States, and China. An arms race has begun in the Arctic, and Western efforts are lagging behind.

If governments cannot raise efforts to mitigate global warming for biodiversity’s sake, the question remaining is whether they will take greater action when global alliances are on the line. This climate-induced Arctic conflict demonstrates that the time has come for global warming mitigation to be placed at the heart of national security strategies and defense planning across the world. 

The Arctic Region encompasses eight states: Russia, the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, which sought to preserve the Arctic as a region of cooperation, low tension and respect for international law; an approach referred to as “High North, low tension,” one the Nordic countries were particularly partial too. However, hopes for pacificity between sovereign states in the region seem to be melting down along the ice sheets, as world powers U.S., Russia and China extend their grip on military presence in this new polar arena.

Russia’s increased military presence and operations in the Arctic present one source of tension and China’s increased diplomatic and economic activities in the Arctic are another. Meanwhile, Russia’s war in Ukraine has only amplified friction in the Arctic’s competitive environment, as Russia’s exclusion from the Arctic Council incentivized the country to redirect collaboration towards China – a decision that will undoubtedly strengthen the dual powers. Russia has expanded military forces across their share of the Arctic frontier of 25,000 kilometers, amounting to 53 percent of the Arctic border.

But why is the Arctic region so sought-after, and how has the region changed geographically due to climate change?

Physical changes in the Arctic consist of melting permafrost, intense cyclones, warming sea ice and vegetation alterations. All of which have been driven by emissions and GHG-induced feedback loops within the atmosphere. A monitoring report conducted by the Arctic Council in 2019 concluded that “the Arctic biophysical system is now clearly trending away from its previous state [in the 20th century] and into a period of unprecedented change, with implications not only within but also beyond the Arctic.” These changes raise questions of statehood sovereignty and national security, thereby proving the dire need for states to adopt a climate-defense portfolio in their military strategy.

The melting Arctic has effectively opened a whole ocean entirely, with new navigation routes being explored for the first time in recorded history. The most highly disputed path is the Northern Sea Route, which has paved new transport circuits for containerships and Navy missions, cutting shipping distances by over 6,500 kilometers – roughly two weeks of travel time. Russia upholds its claim over the Northern Sea Route as an inland waterway that falls under its territory, whereas the U.S. defends the idea that the Northern Sea Route is an international route. For China, as the leading exporter of goods across the world, the Northern Sea Route is a pivotal passageway from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, allowing the country to trade with enhanced efficiency. Alarmingly, Russia has already begun expanding its armed presence in the Arctic well beyond U.S. presence, through an abundance of airfields, missile systems and nuclear-powered icebreakers in the region.

The new ocean demands the need to balance competing claims of sovereignty over international waters and maritime borders in the Arctic. Under current international law, the Arctic is not subject to any regulation, triggering a pressing  need to determine the status of the region. The only regulation calming the Arctic waters is the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Currently, Denmark, Norway, Canada and Russia use UNCLOS to lodge legal claims on the Arctic Ocean, however the U.S. is not a party to this treaty, placing the country further behind in the global contest over the polar North. If the U.S. is serious about playing catch-up, signing the UNCLOS treaty would prove worthwhile. However, the prospects of this actually occurring are highly doubtful based on traditional U.S. stance towards binding itself to international law (the U.S. has not ratified any UN treaties since 2002 in fear that tying itself to international laws would make it vulnerable to potential legal sanctions before the ICC).

As opposed to signing the UNCLOS treaty, the U.S. has elected to ramp up military presence in the Arctic, with the White House committing to "enhancing the capabilities required to defend our interests in the Arctic," as outlined in the Oct. 2022 National Strategy for the Arctic Region. Consequently, there has been a soar in U.S. spending on ships, aircrafts, infrastructure and soldiers disguised under the title of ‘climate expenditure’. It is almost ironic to see that although there has been no bipartisan support to curb emissions, there is bipartisan support for responding to Russia and China’s presence on a melting Arctic.

What this ultimately demonstrates is that as we look forward, the grip that the climate now has on national security strategies is only going to grow. The seriousness of potential climate threats are imminent and must be accounted for in state defense budgets and planning.

Rising sea levels, extreme weather, the scarcity of water, loss of ice cover and other climate change drivers are impacting human security today through the spread of epidemics, mass displacement of people and conflicts over receding resources – all of which require a security response.

Soon enough, we may be looking at an altered map of the world, one with military competition occurring in places they never had before. The Arctic is interconnected with the rest of the world through the circulation of water, heat and carbon both in our oceans and atmosphere. Not to mention, it is connected through human systems of transport, energy and mineral production, tourism, and security. In light of this information, disputes of sovereignty over the melting Arctic and invested military powers at bay are of utmost concern for the world at large, calling on a climate defense strategy that takes our environmental crises with utmost severity.