In his “Ile Longue” speech on March 2, 2026, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a message that will echo across European capitals for years to come. For the first time, a European leader publicly articulated that France’s nuclear deterrent carries a distinctly “European dimension.” While the ultimate authority to launch remains the prerogative of the French President, Macron made it clear that an attack on a key European partner could trigger a French nuclear response. This is not a symbolic gesture: it reflects a growing recognition that Europe can no longer rely solely on the United States to guarantee its security. In a world where great-power priorities are increasingly transactional, Europe is beginning to define its own strategic boundaries.

The 2026 U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS) reinforced this reality. By designating Russia as a “European responsibility,” the strategy signals a deliberate shift: Washington will focus its conventional forces on the homeland and the Indo-Pacific Theater, leaving Europe to confront the Russian threat largely on its own terms. The nuclear umbrella remains intact, but the implicit promise of automatic conventional reinforcement is fading. Even seemingly peripheral actions, such as elevating Greenland to a primary U.S. homeland interest alongside the Panama Canal, highlight an unmistakable message: European security is now secondary to America’s own global priorities. Transactions, not guarantees, define the relationship, and Europe is taking note.

This strategic recalibration has deepened a credibility gap that European policymakers cannot ignore. Repeatedly questioning of NATO’s relevance, combined with explicit demands for Europe to “Buy American,” has underscored a harsh truth: the U.S. is no longer a guaranteed partner for long-term security. European arms imports from the U.S. surged to $68 billion in 2024, a fivefold increase over the 2017–2021 average, while American threats of trade countermeasures in response to “Buy European” procurement rules have reinforced the perception that collective defense is contingent on economic acquiescence. For many in Berlin, Paris, and Warsaw, the lesson is stark: security can no longer be assumed; it must be actively prepared.

Europe’s response has been both practical and psychological. The continent is actively building a more integrated and networked continental defense architecture, driven by a growing demand for strategic autonomy—particularly in areas such as drone defense, air and missile defense, and long-range strike capabilities. This effort reflects a gradual shift toward forward deterrence, in which credible conventional capabilities are positioned to signal readiness and resilience in the face of potential aggression. Forward deterrence, therefore, is not simply about stationing troops or deploying hardware; it represents a broader strategic mindset in which Europe seeks to reduce its structural dependence on external guarantees. While European defense infrastructure is not yet fully independent of Washington, ongoing investments and integration efforts indicate a clear trajectory toward greater operational autonomy, with more robust capabilities expected to mature between 2025 and 2030.

Meanwhile, France and the United Kingdom through the Northwood Declaration are exploring ways to “Europeanize” their nuclear forces, offering broader protection to allied partners while retaining national control over launch decisions. Macron’s speech embodies this principle: strategic assets—including Rafale jets and the planned next-generation nuclear submarine, “The Invincible”—can now be dispersed across allied territory to provide strategic depth and complicate adversary calculations. For the first time, non-nuclear partners such as Germany and Poland are participating in joint exercises that directly interface with French nuclear capabilities. The psychological message is clear: Europe is beginning to assert a sovereign layer of deterrence that complements, rather than replaces, NATO’s structures.

Poland’s recent statement that it may eventually seek its own nuclear weapons, as President Tusk indicated, also highlights the accelerating sense of urgency in Eastern Europe. So here the question arises that While Macron’s “Europeanized” nuclear deterrent provides a layer of strategic depth, then why Poland seeks to own nuclear weapons? The answer is that Macron’s forward deterrence is not scaled to cover the entire continent comprehensively, particularly in regions most exposed to Russia. For Warsaw, the calculus is simple: if U.S. guarantees are increasingly transactional, and if NATO’s nuclear planning remains centered in France and the U.K., then relying solely on allied deterrence is insufficient.

This development illustrates two broader dynamics. First, it highlights the limits of “second-layer” nuclear deterrence. Even with France operationally dispersing assets and including non-nuclear allies in exercises, some countries may feel compelled to consider independent capabilities to ensure credible protection. Second, it signals that Europe’s forward deterrence is moving from theory into practice, not only in doctrine and exercises but in actual national policy deliberations. Warsaw’s potential pursuit of nuclear weapons is less a provocation than a symptom of the same trend already evident in France and Germany’s expanded conventional and nuclear postures: Europe is taking responsibility for its own security.

Hence, Macrons’ speech represents a redefinition of European strategic autonomy. Between 2021 and 2024, EU defense spending rose by 30 percent, reaching €326 billion, signaling a growing recognition that reliance on Washington alone is no longer sustainable. European governments are investing not just in hardware, but in doctrine, interoperability, and the credibility of their deterrent posture. Strategic autonomy, once rhetorically flourishing, has become an existential imperative. Forward deterrence and strategic autonomy are complementary layers of security designed to mitigate the risk of over-reliance on an American partner whose priorities may shift.

Europe is thus navigating a delicate balance. It is neither abandoning NATO nor discarding the U.S. nuclear guarantee. Instead, it is learning to prepare for a future in which guarantees are no longer unconditional. The era of unquestioned extended deterrence is ending, and the continent must act with foresight. Forward deterrence is more than a strategic posture; it is a signal to Moscow, to Washington, and to Europe’s own citizens that the continent is willing and able to take responsibility for its own defense.

Europe is no longer a passive theater under American protection. It is a region preparing to defend itself, thoughtfully and decisively, in a strategic environment defined by uncertainty, transactional alliances, and shifting global priorities. Macron’s “Ile Longue” speech may have been delivered in France, but its message resonates across the continent: the future of European security will be determined not by the automatic extension of U.S. deterrence, but by Europe’s own willingness to claim responsibility for its survival.

Qurat-Ul-Ain Shabbir, a PhD scholar at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, is currently serving as a Research Officer at the Centre for International Strategic Studies AJK. Her research interests lie in the global nuclear order and geopolitical dynamics. The views of the author are her own.

Beyond the American Umbrella: Europe’s Turn to Forward Deterrence was originally published on Global Security Review.

Deterrence does not rest solely on possessing nuclear weapons. It also depends on the assurance that those weapons cannot be neutralized, constrained, or rendered ineffective by an adversary’s ability to maneuver, surveil, or strike first. Geography, therefore, matters. In the emerging strategic environment, Greenland occupies one of the most consequential geographic positions in the world.

Denial as the Foundation of Nuclear Survivability

The survivability of U.S. nuclear forces, particularly the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad, is the cornerstone of strategic stability. Ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) provide the most secure retaliatory capability precisely because they operate undetected at sea. But stealth is not automatic. Submarines must transit known maritime corridors to reach patrol areas, and those corridors create opportunities for adversary interference.

For U.S. and allied forces operating in the Atlantic and Arctic, two choke points are decisive: the GIUK Gap (Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom) and the Bear Gap between Greenland and Svalbard. These routes connect the Arctic Ocean to the North Atlantic and serve as the primary pathways for submarines moving between bastion areas and open-ocean operating zones.

If Russian or Chinese submarines could transit these gaps freely, they would be able to threaten NATO SSBNs, target transatlantic sea lines of communication, and position themselves for nuclear or conventional strikes against NATO territory and U.S. nuclear forces. Denying that access—rather than reacting after the fact—is what preserves nuclear survivability. Greenland makes such denial far more feasible.

Greenland as a Strategic Gatekeeper

Greenland’s location enables persistent surveillance, early warning, and anti-submarine warfare operations across the Arctic–Atlantic interface. Sensors, airfields, space and radar infrastructure, and command-and-control nodes associated with Greenland enable the United States and NATO to monitor adversary movements and constrain their ability to maneuver undetected.

This is not about tactical confrontation; it is about strategic denial. Greenland’s geography makes it exceedingly difficult for Russian or Chinese forces to move quietly from the Arctic into the Atlantic, increasing the likelihood that such efforts would be detected, tracked, and, if necessary, intercepted. When combined with American technology, Greenland adds uncertainty, constrains their options, complicates operational planning, and reduces incentives for escalation.

Russia’s Arctic Strategy and the Olenya Complex

Russia’s own posture reinforces Greenland’s importance. Moscow has invested heavily in the Arctic, operating 32 bases, expanding air and missile defenses, and increasing submarine activity across the High North. The Kola Peninsula hosts a substantial portion of Russia’s nuclear forces, supported by infrastructure such as the Olenya nuclear weapons storage facility, which underpins long-range aviation and missile operations.

Russia’s objective is twofold: to shield its own nuclear forces within a protected Arctic bastion, and to enable submarines and aircraft to push outward into the Atlantic when required. Those outward movements would be designed to threaten NATO’s reinforcement routes, hold allied territory at risk, and directly threaten U.S. strategic forces and American cities.

By enabling the U.S. and NATO to better monitor and deny access through the Arctic gaps, Greenland limits Russia’s ability to mobilize and deploy 40 percent of its submarine force. This denial mission directly strengthens Euro-Atlantic security by reducing the coercive value of Russian nuclear signalling or capacity for destruction.

China, the Arctic, and Global Deterrence

Although China is not an Arctic power by geography, it increasingly behaves like one strategically. Beijing’s naval expansion and interest in Arctic routes reflect its ambition to operate on a global scale. Chinese submarines operating in cooperation with Russia, or benefiting from shared intelligence and surveillance, could complicate the maritime balance in the North Atlantic.

Preventing Chinese submarines from accessing these waters is therefore as important as containing Russian forces. Even a limited Chinese presence would require diverting allied assets and introducing new strategic risks. Greenland helps pre-empt that outcome by reinforcing allied control over Arctic approaches and denying adversaries the ability to open a northern axis of competition.

This denial function links Greenland directly to Indo-Pacific security. The same U.S. nuclear forces that deter conflict in Asia depend on freedom of manoeuvre and survivability in the Atlantic and Arctic. If those forces are threatened in one theatre, credibility erodes in all others.

Air, Missile, and Early Warning Dimensions

The Arctic is also a critical domain for air and missile operations—America’s planned “Golden Dome.” Long-range bombers and ballistic missiles generally follow polar trajectories to maximize range and payload and minimize warning time. Greenland’s position enables early detection, tracking, and integration into broader air and missile defense architectures.

By denying adversaries access to Arctic airspace, Greenland reinforces strategic stability by reducing incentives for first-strike calculations over the North Pole. This capability is essential in an era of increasingly compressed decision timelines.

Conclusion

Greenland matters because it enables strategic denial by denying Russian and Chinese submarines, aircraft, and missiles access through the Arctic and North Atlantic gaps that connect global theatres. That denial preserves the survivability of U.S. nuclear forces, protects allied homelands, and sustains the credibility of extended deterrence across both the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions.

In an age defined by competition over access and geography, Greenland is not peripheral but essential to maintaining the balance of power and preventing great-power conflict.

Natalie Treloar is the Australian Company Director of Alpha-India Consultancy, a Senior Fellow at the Indo-Pacific Studies Center (IPSC), a Senior Analyst at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies (NIDS), and a member of the Open Nuclear Network. Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.

Greenland, Strategic Denial, and the Survivability of U.S. Nuclear Forces was originally published on Global Security Review.

That contradiction has come into sharp relief during the presidency of Donald Trump, whose blunt interest in Greenland exposed what European diplomacy had long obscured. The controversy was framed as eccentricity or provocation, but the underlying grievance was familiar. For decades, the United States has underwritten European security while European governments reduced their defense investments in favor of generous welfare systems and subsidized industry, confident that the American half of the alliance would absorb the risk. The Greenland crisis has simply made that imbalance visible.

Greenland’s Strategic Reality

Greenland occupies a unique strategic position. It sits in the western hemisphere astride the Arctic approaches to the “GIUK Gap,” hosting critical space and missile-warning infrastructure essential to NATO’s early-warning architecture. The 2004 Defense Greenland Agreement between the United States and Denmark, Amending and Supplementing the Agreement of April 27, 1951, explicitly limits the US defense area in Greenland to Thule (Pituffik) Air (Space) Base only.

With Arctic sea lanes opening and undersea infrastructure becoming a focal point of competition, Greenland’s strategic importance is no longer peripheral but central. The question now confronting Europe is whether the small Kingdom of Denmark and, by extension, Europe, can demonstrate even minimal sovereignty over a territory it insists is non-negotiable but has left undefended for some 250 years.

Article 3 of the NATO Treaty states: “In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” Put plainly, Denmark is obligated to maintain—on its own and on a continuous basis—the capacity to defend all its territory. By that standard, Denmark has failed to meet its Article 3 responsibilities for a very long time, if it ever has.

Despite its strategic importance, Greenland remains vulnerable and economically neglected. This is not an accident or a bureaucratic oversight. It is the result of a long-standing assumption—that the United States would indefinitely guarantee European sovereignty and sustain its social-economic model. That assumption no longer holds. Strategic competition is shifting away from open confrontation toward constant pressure, probing actions, and fait accompli. In this world, sovereignty is not something you can merely declare. It is something you must demonstrate.

Trump, Europe, and the Sovereignty Question

Trump’s narrative about Greenland was widely dismissed as transactional or unserious. Stripped of tone, however, the message was structural: As the Arctic presents opportunity, Greenland is even more strategically vital to North American security than ever before, and someone must take responsibility for securing and developing it.

This tension among NATO allies reflects a broader post–Cold War pattern. Europe expanded its regulatory, economic, and political influence while allowing NATO military funding and capability to atrophy. The resulting system elevated process, norms, and legalism over hard power security, sovereignty, and deterrence.

The renewed United States demand for Greenland exposes the limits of that model. If Denmark cannot even mount a minimal defense of its own territory, the problem is not American overreach, but European credibility.

The UK Corollary

In a striking act of geopolitical idealism, the United Kingdom has agreed to cede sovereignty over Diego Garcia to Mauritius—an “own goal” that harms US interests. Long regarded as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier,” Diego Garcia has been a cornerstone of US and UK power projection across the Middle East, East Africa, South Asia, and beyond for decades.

After years of legal and diplomatic pressure—culminating in adverse rulings from international courts and the United Nations—the UK concluded that continued unilateral control of the Chagos Archipelago was politically unsustainable in this rules-based international order. In 2024, London agreed to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius, a state increasingly influenced by Beijing, while attempting to preserve military access through a long-term, UK-funded lease.

On paper, operations continue. Leverage shifts from occupant to owner. Sovereignty matters: once surrendered, access rests on political permission rather than power. A future Beijing-aligned Mauritius could abrogate agreements or revoke leases, leaving the US and UK strategically stranded, “out of runway” and out of business in the Indian Ocean.

Like Diego Garcia, Greenland’s strategic value lies in assured access. Trusting that allies will always act in America’s best interest is folly. Access without ownership is always conditional; sovereignty without power is fragile. Both cases reveal the same risk—vital territory left exposed at a moment when great-power competition demands clarity, presence, and resolve.

Sovereignty Requires Adequate Organic Defense

Defending Greenland does not require national militarization on Cold War terms. It does not require large permanent formations or aggressive posturing. But it does require capability, presence, and integration of real forces tied to real geography. The fantasy of the [European] Liberal [global] Rules-based order is no longer sufficient alone.

A credible defense posture requires permanent ground, air, and naval forces. Presence must be sufficient to assert territorial control, secure the Arctic approaches, and protect key infrastructure. Additionally, it requires fifth-generation airpower, supported by NATO enablers sufficient to project air sovereignty and assert control over the airspace of the GIUK, along with integrated maritime and subsurface awareness to control approaches, advanced air and missile defense for critical nodes, and the logistics infrastructure required to sustain operations in an Arctic environment.

This is not an escalation; it is the minimum viable defense posture for the territory Denmark claims sovereignty over, NATO depends upon, and the Western Hemisphere demands. Anything less than that is not restraint; it is abdication.

What Denmark Can Do

For Denmark to retain its kingdom, it must fervently acknowledge that China and Russia are expanding their Arctic ambitions and that continuing to ignore or neglect this threat risks losing Greenland to another great power’s orbit. Denmark does not need to defend Greenland alone, but it must lead and meet its Article 3 responsibilities. Sovereignty cannot be subcontracted. First, Denmark must accept that a visible, persistent presence is non-negotiable. A battalion-sized force and a fighter squadron on Greenlandic soil are not a burden; they are a declaration of responsibility.

Second, Denmark must align force posture with geography. Arctic defense is not a side mission; it is central to Denmark’s strategic responsibilities and credibility. That requires prioritizing basing, sustainment, and readiness over symbolic deployments there or elsewhere.

Third, Denmark must integrate defense with economic development. Resource extraction, energy production, and infrastructure are not separate from security; they are its foundation. Without an economic base, defense remains episodic and less affordable. For the collective West, energy and critical element security is national security. If Denmark cannot execute these steps—even with allied support—then sovereignty is no longer exercised; it is merely asserted.

How Europe Can Contribute Without Posturing

Greenland offers Europe an opportunity to demonstrate what regional shared deterrence looks like. Contributions need not be equal in scale, but they must be meaningful in effect. Rotational air defense units, maritime patrol aircraft, icebreaking capacity, logistics support, and infrastructure investment tied directly to defense requirements would materially strengthen deterrence without grandstanding.

This is where Europe’s economic power must finally align with its strategic claims. Shared deterrence is not about symbolism or declarations. It is about complementary capability and sustained commitment.

Can Europe Move Fast Enough?

The decisive variable is time. Ten-year roadmaps and aspirational targets are irrelevant. Greenland’s exposure is immediate. The longer Europe delays, the more it reinforces the perception that sovereignty exists only on paper. Delay only serves to validate President Trump’s strategic demand.

Credible deterrence must begin within weeks, not months or years. Initial deployments need not be perfect, but they cannot be symbolic political statements devoid of the credible military capacity required for the mission. They need to be visible, permanent, and expandable.

The Consequences of Failure

Failure in Greenland would reverberate far beyond the Arctic. If Denmark cannot defend Greenland with allied assistance, then European claims of strategic autonomy collapse and NATO’s credibility fractures geographically. The United States will either act unilaterally or disengage selectively. Resource development will proceed without European leverage. Most damaging of all, failure would confirm a lesson Europe can no longer afford: that idealism and process cannot substitute for balance-of-power realism, and that international norms cannot enforce themselves. Where previous US presidential administrations relied on alliances, basing agreements, and quiet influence, President Trump has framed the issue in transactional terms: if Greenland was strategically vital, someone had to take responsibility for securing and developing it.

Conclusion

Greenland is not a crisis invented in Washington. It is the result of allied neglect and free riding. Persistent underinvestment in defense, miscalculation of threats, and a readiness among many allies to subordinate their sovereignty to international norms have produced a growing crisis of confidence in the United States. This can only be reversed with real power projection and a NATO commitment to peace through strength.

Denmark does not need to match American power. It needs to demonstrate agency, urgency, and empathy. Denmark and greater NATO must listen to its most powerful ally and address its security concerns with great alacrity. Rather than escalating the rhetoric, Denmark should admit its negligence and mitigate the shortfall now. Europe does not need to replace the United States or drive it out of the alliance. It needs to stop pretending that sovereignty is cost-free or that it can be reliably substituted with treaties in perpetuity.

This President demands more of the alliance to defend America’s northern approaches. If Denmark and the rest of NATO cannot meet that demand, the United States will. What is being asked is reasonable. The Arctic is now NATO’s second front. If Europe cannot meet that demand here, it has become sovereignty insolvent and should stop speaking of autonomy elsewhere. Because in the end, reality does not respond to intention, only to real and persistent power.

Col (Ret.) Kirk Fansher is a senior fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Col (Ret.) Curtis McGiffin is vice president of education at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Views expressed by the authors are their own.

Can Denmark Defend Greenland from Trump? was originally published on Global Security Review.

For eighty years the United States pursued a policy of globalism with worldwide military commands to implement this policy. It is prohibitively expensive and is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Observers point out that the US defense budget was $849 billion in 2024, but this is only part of the overall annual expenditure on defense. Most countries include veterans benefits in their defense budgets. The United States treats these costs differently. Today the Veterans Administration (VA) budget stands at $369.3 billion and is rising rapidly because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which drove healthcare and retirement costs higher.

As Table 1 shows, the VA budget rose about 10 percent per annum, resulting in the VA budget rising to the second largest amount of discretionary funding in the federal budget.  Further, as the breakdown of annual expenditure shows, medical costs are growing as the soldiers who went to war as young people are now in their forties and their health issues are becoming chronic while the injuries they suffered are becoming more difficult to treat due to age-related complications.

Table 1

Veterans Administration Budget 2018–2025

Source: US Veterans Administration (2024)

Combined expenditures for fiscal year 2025 will surpass $1 trillion. Given America’s growing debt such expenditure is difficult to sustain, especially if Washington’s global military footprint continues to expand at a rapid pace. Finding the manpower to wage war is becoming increasingly difficult for the United States.

The Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts saw the United States suffer 8,492 combat fatalities.  Compared to the 58,000 deaths in Vietnam and 53,000 in Korea this number was significantly smaller. A critical reason was excellent triage care and swift evacuation of wounded soldiers from the battlefield. To get soldiers to serve in an all-volunteer force, the United States was offering $20,000 to $40,000 enlistment bonuses. Today, those numbers are even higher.

Further, in his autobiography, Hillbilly Elegy, Vice President J. D. Vance discussed how the American working class, which his family belonged to, blamed George W. Bush and Barack Obama for making them cannon fodder in Afghanistan and Iraq. This feeling, combined with the high number of walking wounded (over 50,000) who came back from the wars with physical and psychological trauma, led to a growing reluctance amongst America’s combat-age population to go to war. In such circumstances, reducing military expenditures and the nation’s global military footprint makes sense.

In this context, Trump’s plan for hemispheric defense is a return to the Monroe Doctrine of the nineteenth century, where the United States maintained its military supremacy over the Western hemisphere and kept out foreign powers. Defending the Western hemisphere is easy. As Otto von Bismark once said, “The Americans are a very lucky people. They’re bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors, and to the east and west by fish.”

In the 21st century, the United States remains the predominant naval power in the Atlantic Ocean as well as in the Eastern and South Pacific, making it difficult for any aggressor to penetrate America’s defensive walls. Fielding an American military force that is based around a blue-water Navy and a globally deployable Air Force is a cost-effective strategy because it takes away the expense of overseas bases. In fact, recognizing that in a conflict with China there could be political unwillingness in Asia to host F-35s, the first Trump administration decided to build a new generation of lower yield nuclear weapons that could be launched from cruise missile–carrying submarines.

The Quest for Territory

Since coming to power, Donald Trump suggested Canada become the 51st state and the purchase of Greenland. Denmark has stated that Greenland is not for sale while in Canada Trump’s statements led to a revival of Canadian nationalism and a boost in the fortunes of a very unpopular liberal party. President Trump’s motivation for such efforts is clear.

In terms of minerals, a United States that has full access to minerals in Canada and Greenland is on par with the mineral wealth of Russia. Acquiring Canada and Greenland would also make the United States and Russia the two most prominent Arctic states and would freeze out attempts by China to acquire influence in the region.

Trump’s demands caused global leaders to wonder about the rationality of such pronouncements but what he said is based in political and historical facts. The United States purchased the Virgin Islands of St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John from Copenhagen in 1917 and, subsequently, bought Water Island from a private Danish company in 1944. If the citizens of Greenland choose, via referenda, to join the United States, such a purchase has historical precedent.

In the case of Canada, the Quebecois have periodically asked for independence and Ottawa conducted referendums to see if the population of Quebec wants to secede. So far, secessionists suffer defeat each time. It is interesting to note that the Atlantic provinces of Canada—New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island—previously said that Quebec’s secession would lead to their joining the United States. British Columbia, which is divided from Canada by the Rockies and whose economy is tied to the West coast of the United States, would potentially follow suit. Canada would then consist of Ontario and the northern part of Quebec where the native population has made it clear that they have no interest in joining the Francophone nationalists.

The fact is that Canada has a fragile economy that could breed long-term discontent.  Further, in Quebec, the Parti Quebecois’ charismatic leader Paul St. Pierre Plamondon, who is likely to win the provincial election in April, wants a third independence referendum by 2030. If that happens, Trump’s territorial realignment may come to pass. In a world where all or part of Canada is part of the United States and Greenland is an American territory, the United States is in far less need of Europe or Asia. With only 11 percent of the American economy derived from exports, an internally focused United States is not a nation in a bad position.

Amit Gupta is a Senior Fellow in the National Institute of Deterrence Studies. The views in this article are personal. He may be contacted at amit.gupta1856@gmail.com.

Hemispheric Defense: An Idea Whose Time Has Come was originally published on Global Security Review.

Over 4,300 miles of Russia’s Siberian Plateau are undergoing renovation—including a floating nuclear power plant—to support new civilian settlements and 17 full-service Northern Sea Route (NSR) ports, tightening control over regional petroleum supplies and commerce through increased Russian military presence.

Oil and gas exports top Russia’s priorities, representing 60 percent of total revenue and 30 percent of the Russian government’s overall budget. Rising ocean temperatures are providing new access to minerals on land and sea. Multi-billion-dollar contracts with Gazprom, Rosneft, and Novatek will develop the Vostok oil field and Yamal Liquid Natural Gas plant. Once complete, these facilities could rival the Nord Stream Pipeline and increase Putin’s influence.

Russia possesses the largest icebreaking fleet—40 ships compared to the United States’ two—escorting the most maritime traffic through the NSR. Warming seas will likely increase demand for shippers seeking shorter transit times between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, while new ports will serve increased maritime traffic. Putin is also considering a Trans-Siberian Railway between seaports and an Arctic road that expedites cargo across Russia’s interior.

The Northern Fleet projects growth to 50 icebreaker vessels as part of its full-spectrum operations to “phase NATO out of the Arctic.” One year into the Ukraine war, Russian global positioning satellite (GPS) jamming incidents affecting foreign sea vessels in the NSR nearly doubled.

In 2022, Norway reported Russian intelligence gathering drones over its Svalbard archipelago and energy-processing facilities. Russia thinly veils this activity as responses to action against it in Ukraine and correlates operations between the two theaters.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) decrees Arctic Circle nations possess up to 200 nautical miles of contiguous seabed, extendable with supporting scientific data. In 2007, a Russian submarine planted a flag on the seabed beyond its border, claiming the Lomonosov Ridge and 1.2 million additional square kilometers of seabed, drawing Canada and Denmark into a legal battle over economic exclusion area infringement.

On December 5, 2022, Putin updated the “Rules of Navigation on the Water Area of the Northern Sea Route.” The revision now prohibits foreign military vessels in internal waters unless heading to port, re-designates the NSR straits as internal waters (instead of international routes), requires military vessels receive permission 90 days before passage, and allows only one warship at a time. Russia enforces its perceived territorial gains with bomber overflights of the NSR, citing security, but obfuscates where security ends and militarization begins.

Seven Arctic military locations anchor Russia’s Arctic military monopoly and are or have received upgrades to military capabilities. First, the Novaya Zemlya Archipelago is where Russia conducts nuclear testing. Intelligence suggests upgrades to facilities could mean atmospheric testing may resume. Second, the Nagurskoye Air Base is seeing a runway expansion, air defense missiles added, and a new meteorological facility completed. Third, Rogachevo Air Base is getting upgrades to radars, air defense missiles, electronic warfare capabilities, and signals intelligence assets. Third, Sredniy Air Base is receiving a runway expansion. Fourth, Northern Clover Base is receiving observation, air defense missile, and equipment-testing upgrades. Fifth, Wrangel Island’s deepwater port, radar station, air defense missiles, and signals intelligence collection, used to monitor American bases in Alaska, were all upgraded. Sixth, air defense missiles were emplaced at Cape Schmidt.

These Arctic military upgrades show Russia’s intent to monopolize Arctic commerce and create a new avenue of attack against NATO. Wrangel Island can house submarines and surface ships, establishing Arctic entry control between Russia and Alaska. Bases at Nagurskoye and Rogachevo establish similar control on the opposite end of the Arctic Ocean, creating guarded entry points supported by the new military installations along Russia’s Arctic coast.

Canada’s Arctic region directly across from Russia is mostly uninhabited but contains two Cold War–era early warning radar sites supporting NATO. In 2022, then Canadian Chief of Defense Staff Wayne Eyre called the Arctic “a key area of concern,” warning North America’s Arctic coast may be vulnerable and prompting joint exercises focused on northern nuclear attacks. Exercises Joint Viking and Joint Warrior included new members Sweden and Finland but do not match Russia’s increased regional presence.

America’s early warning facility at Thule, Greenland, is crumbling from under-investment and melting permafrost, while the Danish government monitors over 400 Russian infrastructure projects. China envisions itself a near-Arctic country under its Belt and Road Initiative and acquired a decommissioned Russian military facility. Rather than pursue a large footprint, China bankrolls many of the ongoing Russian projects. The Danes warn Chinese ownership of Arctic facilities can create safe havens for Russian forces and bring both adversaries to NATO’s polar doorstep.

The once-isolated Arctic Ocean is bustling with Russian activity as former Russian Premiere Mikhail Gorbachev’s proclaimed “zone of peace” becomes militarily contested. Russia continues its brand of strong-arm diplomacy using military force as an enabler for commercial expansion and financial gain.

NATO must prepare for what a Russian Arctic Ocean monopoly could mean for international commerce and security. Simply admiring the problem is no longer an option. Deterring Russian aggression means the United States and its NATO allies must expand their own capability to levels that dissuade Russian action.

Dan Wasserman is a contributor to Global Security Review. The views expressed are his own.

Russia’s Arctic Ocean Monopoly was originally published on Global Security Review.

Over the years, global climate change severely and observably impacted the environment, resulting in rapidly melting glaciers, ice covers on rivers and lakes breaking up much earlier than anticipated, and unprecedented levels of animal migration, as increasing numbers are displaced from their natural habitats. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global temperature could increase from 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

The effects of climate change are more visible than ever before in the Arctic. The Arctic sea ice extent for October 2018 averaged 6.06 million square kilometers (approximately 2.34 million square miles), the third-lowest level recorded in October from 1979 to 2018. To put this in perspective, the sea ice extent was 2.29 million square kilometers (1.42 million square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average, and 170,000 square kilometers (105,633 square miles) greater than the record low observed for October 2012. As global temperatures rise, the natural resources within the Arctic region are increasingly easier to access, prompting greater frustration from environmentalists.

The melting of the Arctic sea ice has coincided with the discovery of energy deposits as well as the development of the technology needed to access those resources. These developments have caused the members of the Arctic Council—states with territorial claims in the Arctic—to pay increased levels of attention to the region.

The Arctic Council is made up of Canada, Finland, Denmark (Greenland), Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States (Alaska). Of these, Canada and Russia hold the most territory (Russia controls the most Arctic territory of any Arctic state). Being a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which states that a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 nautical miles offshore, Russian claims cover approximately 40 percent of the Arctic.

The Arctic plays host to substantial natural resources. A 2008 report released by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that the Arctic holds around 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 44 billion barrels of liquid natural gas, and 90 billion barrels of oil—the vast majority of these being offshore. As more territory becomes accessible, excess reserves of gold, zinc, nickel, and iron already found in part of the Arctic may be discovered. From the connectivity perspective, the two major sea routes that permit ships to pass through the Arctic run along the Russian and Canadian coasts, i.e., the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage.

The Northern Sea Route runs from the Barents Sea, near Russia’s border with Norway to the Bering Strait between Siberia and Alaska. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) would dramatically reduce the transit time for ships traveling from East Asia to Western Europe. On the other hand, the Northwest Passage connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

Shipping lanes connecting Europe with East Asia currently run from the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal to the Red Sea, transiting the Malacca before reaching East Asia. The distance is roughly 21,000 kilometers (13,049 miles) and the typical transit time is around 48 days. The Northern Sea Route would cut the distance to 12,800 kilometers, reducing transit time by 10 to 15 days. According to a paper published by the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis:

“The direct impact of the opening of the NSR is that international shipping (volume by distance) is reduced by 0.43%, but global trade volumes increase by 0.21%. The total percentage of world trade that will be rerouted through the Northern Sea Route will be around 5.5%.”

The paper further estimates that 15% of all Chinese trade will be through the Northern Sea Route. The optimization of the NSR will result in a significant rerouting of the world shipping lines and would have a drastic impact on the usage of the Suez Canal and the Malacca Straits to reach the Southeastern and East Asian Markets. According to CPB research, roughly 8% of global trade currently transits the Suez Canal, and it is estimated that level would be reduced by two-thirds once the Northern Sea Route becomes fully operational. To illustrate, from 2008 to 2012 the average number of commercial ships transiting the Suez Canal each year was approximately 15,000—the re-routing of vessels through the NSR, according to CPB research, would reduce that number by 10,000.

The rapidly melting sea ice has prompted some analysts to predict that the shorter shipping route could largely replace the Suez Canal Route that connects the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Such a conclusion overlooks the fact that ships using the Suez Canal Route make stops at ports in Southeast Asia and the Middle East when transiting between Europe and East Asia. In other words, to be commercially viable, large container ships using the Suez Canal route need to make deliveries to several customers along the way.

In contrast to the Suez Canal Route, the territory that lies along the Northern Sea Route is sparsely populated, meaning low demand for imported goods. Moreover, replacing one trade route with another could have a drastic impact on the economies of the countries that rely on the transit fees of the southern maritime trade route. Lastly, the Northern Sea Route is only safe to navigate during the summer when the straits are relatively ice-free. Even then, escort icebreaker vessels are often necessary to navigate the waters as there is always a risk of unpredictable ice conditions. Additional variables, such as a lack of search and rescue teams and support infrastructure, along with high insurance premiums for shipping vessels, need to be taken into account when evaluating the viability of the Northern Sea Route.

This is not to say, however, that the NSR is not a serious competitor to the southern sea route. Many scholars have argued that global shipping companies may become more interested in the NSR as it becomes more accessible and viable when compared with the longer and piracy-prone traditional Suez Canal Route. Specifically, the NSR makes more economic sense for shipments of oil and liquid natural gas (LNG). Increased energy trade through the NSR would largely benefit Russia, which has heavily invested in maritime transport ventures and energy projects in the Arctic.

The Russian government’s planned Murmansk Transport Hub will construct new roads, railway infrastructure, ports, and other facilities on the western side of the Kola Bay. It is described as one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Russia and by far the largest in the Arctic. There are also plans to upgrade the M18 highway between Murmansk and the Norwegian border. The new road will significantly improve the route between the border towns of Nikel, Russia and Kirkenes, Norway. The Sabetta Port project is a joint project undertaken by Novatek and the Russian Federal government to service the Yamal LNG project and a nearby gas field operated by Novatek. The port will facilitate gas shipments of both eastwards and westwards along the Northern Sea Route. Furthermore, the Russian government also plans to produce the LK-60 icebreaker and the LK-60 II icebreaker, which are required for cargo ships to access the NSR.

The economic benefits of the Northern Sea Route, combined with large-scale Arctic infrastructure development projects and the existence of substantial energy resources of energy resources to be tapped, make the Arctic a lucrative prospect for Russia and the other Arctic states. However, the strategic desirability of the Arctic trade route will depend on many factors, including the continuous melting of ice, development of modern vessels to sustain harsh weather conditions, an upward trend in global trade, increased demand in Asian markets, persistent piracy around the Horn of Africa, growing instability in the countries around the Suez Canal region, and heightened congestion in the Strait of Malacca. All these factors will further contribute to the geostrategic importance of the Arctic as a natural resource and transportation hub. At the same time, however, the growing importance of the region may also lead to increased competition.

Melting Arctic Sea Ice Opens New Maritime Shipping Route was originally published on Global Security Review.