Flashpoint Arctic:How climate change will compel a future war between the United States and Russia Part 2
The United States of America
The United States enjoyed its Cold War victory by increasing its wealth through globalization backed by American military might.[1] One of the consequences of unrestrained commercial exploitation was a greater increase in global emissions and far greater military presence throughout the world. Yet the undisputed scientific facts of climate change are dismissed by the American government and energy companies’ corporate leaders.[2] It is climate change denial which exacerbates global warning. Energy companies have had far worse climate impact than thought by underestimating its methane emission by up to 40 percent.[3] [4] At odds with the administration are the branches of the American military with Secretary of Defense James Mattis declaring that climate change is a national security threat.[5]The Republican-led congress closed the CIA’s climate center.[6]
The America First or Fortress America strategy replaced previous international collaboration.[7] The Trump administration withdrew in 2018 from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iranian nuclear deal, as well as the Paris agreement on combating climate change in 2017. The United States has alienated long standing allies including NATO and embraces authoritarian leaders throughout the world even though Russia and China present a security challenge world-wide including the Arctic. The United States today is embarking on an authoritarian-style rule by an all-powerful presidency that utilizes fake news and disinformation warfare to achieve its goals. A noted concern of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. The US is the world’s largest consumer of oil and gas, using nearly 919.7 million metric tons of oil in 2018 and 29.95 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2018.[8] Priority is given to the exploitation of oil and gas and as such the Arctic has entered the framework of oil politics when a 2008 study by the USGS revealed the potential of hydrocarbons beneath the snow and ice-covered region.
The Effects of Climate Change in the United States
The United States faces domestic and global security challenges driven by climate change. On the domestic front climate change already impacts the country. Extreme weather conditions, coastal erosion, desertification of agricultural lands, and decline not only in volume but quality of water, are just a few of the challenges. The changing climate impacts extreme weather events including heavy rainfall increases with the largest change occurring in the Northeast of United States. Average global temperatures will rise. In the US the temperature from 1901-2016 rose by 1.8°F (1.0°C) and future climate scenarios predict an increase by 2.5°F from 2021-50. The scale and occurrence of forest fires in California and Alaska are projected to increase impacting regional ecosystems. Water sources and agriculture are under stress with droughts ruing farmlands and sources of water such as the Colorado river declining in volume.[9] Earlier melts of ice and snow packs affect western American water sources and droughts will increase.
Climate change denial has many states ill-prepared to handle climate emergencies as seen in 2017 with Hurricane Maria battering Puerto Rico, and Florida and Louisiana in 2006 overwhelmed by Hurricane Katrina. Since 1980 over 258, each with damages of one billion dollars, have struck the United States. In total the cost exceeds $1.75 trillion. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) notes that in 2019 the “US was impacted by 14 separate billion-dollar disasters including: 3 major inland floods, 8 severe storms, 2 tropical cyclones (Dorian and Imelda), and 1 wildfire event. 2019 also marks the fifth consecutive year (2015-19) in which 10 or more separate billion-dollar disaster events have impacted the US.”[10]More than 30 military bases are under threat or have been subjected to extreme weather events.[11]
Threat Perceptions
The Soviet Union and now the Russian Federation is the arch enemy. Russia’s sophisticated art of war demonstrates a highly modernized and mobile force comfortable using cyberwarfare, mercenaries, and conventional high-technology weapons systems. The Russian Federation is modernizing its strategic and conventional forces and is improving its footprint along its Arctic coastline. As such the Arctic is a new frontier pitting the Russian Federation and its allies against the United States and NATO.
China too is expressing global ambitions on an unprecedented scale including the Arctic. Its military expenditure is second to that of the United States. The New Silk Road Economic Belt is another ambitious project seeking to open global markets and resources. China has a cooperative relationship with Russian.
National Strategy
Great strategist such as Clausewitz, Liddell-Hart, Freedman, Strachan, and Corbett have defined the meaning of grand strategy (British), or major strategy or national strategy (both American), in similar ways. [12] Its purpose is to coordinate all resources toward the attainment of the political objective or policy.[13] “War and strategy are eternal, albeit eternally changing as they adapt to new circumstances”[14]. The United States Marine Corps argues that “globalization, diffusion of technology, and demographic shifts are the key factors of today’s strategic environment characterized by uncertainty, complexity, and rapid change, which requires persistent engagement. There is no indication the future operating environment will be any less complex than today”.[15] One thing is undeniable, Freedman’s principle that “everyone needs a strategy”.[16]
For nearly five decades following World War II, national security concerns dominated the American political landscape as the United States engaged the Soviet Union in a worldwide struggle.[17] The national strategy reflected that struggle and avoided a conventional war. The post-colonial third world suffered more than 20 million people as America emerged victories and made capitalism the reigning political-economic system.[18] But even victory saw a rise in international organized crime, quantum increases in international and domestic terrorism, ecological deterioration, disease, mass migration and refugee overflows, multiple outbreaks of ethnic and religious conflict, and a proliferation of failed states. These trends culminated in 9/11 and its painful and protracted aftermath.[19]
American conventional Cold War doctrine required large scale armies opposing communist forces in Europe carefully avoiding nuclear war. The strategy rested on containing the spread of communism even if requiring conventional wars in Korea (1950-53) and Vietnam (1955-75). War in the desert was not a priority for American presidents and military strategists. During the Carter and Reagan administrations the attention remained on conventional arms capabilities even though the focus slowly shifted to one of securing strategic oil resources in the Persian Gulf.
The Cold War shifted dramatically with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979 and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan (1979-89). These two key events, alongside with Arab-Israeli forever wars, saw the United States commit itself to the protection of oil reserves crucial for its global fight against communism and dominance, economically and militarily. The Iran-Iraq War raged from 1980-88. America’s commitment to Iraq was limited but Iran’s post-revolutionary zeal to export its revolution was halted and left Iraq financially exhausted. In 1989 the Soviet Union collapsed allowing America undisputed freedoms in world affairs. Strategic oil interests were under threat by Iraq’s pan-Arab ambition and weak economy as it invaded oil-rich Kuwait in 1990. The massive oil fields of America’s longstanding ally Saudi Arabia were under threat. Although the United States military was ill-prepared for war in the desert, an international coalition was formed and the campaign to liberate Kuwait and stabilize the region was conducted swiftly ending by February 1991. The military’s reliance on high technology was celebrated as a great achievement. But the Iraqi army was terribly inferior.
American strategy thus shifted from conventional, European-based one to wars fought for oil from the First Gulf War (1990-91) forward to the unilateral invasion of Iraq in 2003 in the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001. The United States has maintained a permanent presence in the Middle East and is waging forever wars on terrorism absent a national strategy and one
could reasonably argue that unsatisfactory outcomes thus far in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria are indicators of shortcomings in strategy sometime in the past. Decisions about the size, structure, capabilities, and kit of the US military are often determined by the thrust of strategic guidance that developed years before.[20]
A clear strategy was absent from the White House when it launched it attacks on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).
The 2018 National Defense Strategy was released, the first after a 10-year absence, with two priorities reflecting the Make America Great Again, America First, policy seeking “to restore America’s competitive edge by blocking global rivals Russia and China from challenging the US and allies and to keep those rivals from throwing the current international order out of balance”. [21] It also sought to establish new lines of effort, the creation of a more lethal force with modernization and technology across the entire warfighting spectrum, reform business practices, and strengthening alliances.[22]
The 2018 National Military Strategy (NMS) provides the “Joint Force framework for protecting and advancing US national interests as an overarching military strategic framework”.[23] Its mission areas include how to respond to threats, the deterrence of strategic attack and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as conventional attacks. It seeks to assure its allies and desires to be able to compete “below the level of armed conflict with a military dimension”.[24]
Strategy in the Arctic and Alaska
The United States became an Arctic nation upon the purchase of Alaska in 1867.[25] The Arctic territory of the United States is north and west of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers; all contiguous seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering and Chukchi Seas; and the Aleutian chain. The American position is a secure and stable Arctic region “free of conflict where its interests are safeguarded, its homeland is protected and Arctic States work cooperatively to address shared challenges”.[26]
By controlling the Arctic, it is thought that stability and security can remain in the hands of the few industrialized states as the rest of the world disintegrates into chaos and wars. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo praised climate change and the new opportunities in the Arctic in a speech to the Arctic Council in 2019, one where “we’re entering a new age of strategic engagement in the Arctic, complete with new threats to the Arctic and its real estate, and to all of our interests in the region”.[27] Oil, gas, minerals and fishing territories are there for American companies to exploit and the Arctic Ocean could become the new Panama Canal.[28] Russian militarization and China’s $90 billion in Arctic investments since 2012 have led the United States to “adding to its forces in the Arctic, conducting military exercises, rebuilding its ice-breaking fleet and creating a senior military position for Arctic affairs”.[29]
For the United States the value of the Arctic, apart from raw materials, are the strategic chokepoints near Alaska that allow access to shipping routes for the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Oceans. For the United States, a major strategic point is the southern Chukchi Sea, controlling northern access to the Pacific through the Bering Strait between North America and Russia.[30] “This makes Alaska the perfect power projection platform for the United States from a military standpoint”. [31] Its location is a critical for the ballistic missile defense system. As boundary claims wait for UNCLOS resolutions, friction can occur, especially if a decision or claim is contested by other Arctic Council members. Another issue revolves around the Freedom of Navigation operations (FON) by the US Navy in the Arctic that is a direct challenge to Canada’s sovereignty claims of the NWP and Russia’s NSR but in line with current administrations America First policies.[32]
Crucially for the United States, the strategic areas in the Arctic are undergoing rapid transformation as “average sea surface temperature in August 2017 was 7.2 degrees F (4 degrees C) above the average for 1982-2010 in the Barents and Chukchi seas. The Chukchi Sea showed an ocean surface warming trend from 1982 to 2017 of 1.26 degrees F (0.7 degrees C) per decade”.[33] There is less time than anticipated for the United States to have a well thought out strategy regarding the vital Arctic region.
The 2019 Department of Defense specific Arctic strategy outlines the need for building an Arctic awareness, enhancing operations, and strengthening rules-based order. The strategy doctrine draws form the 2017 National Security Strategy and 2018 National Defense Strategy, both of which focus on competition with Russia and China.[34] ”As with most strategies, the Pentagon’s Arctic strategy leaves implementation to the services and the combatant commands”.[35]One of America’s weaknesses is a lack of ice breakers totalling two in comparison to Russia’s 40 or more nuclear and conventional ones.[36]
The Coast Guard’s Arctic Strategy relies on international cooperation and institutions which is reflected in its strategy.[37] It the most Arctic experienced branch, and its strategy reflects the need to enhance its capability to operate effectively in a dynamic Arctic domain, to strengthen the rules-based order, and to innovate and adapt in order to promote resilience and prosperity. [38]
Crucial to American strategic thinkers is the need to realize that Russia and China are a threat to the US interests in the Arctic, the American homeland, and economic interests including access to shipping routes. Russia might also “use Arctic capabilities to interfere with the deployment of US forces to Europe or the Asia-Pacific…. Ignoring climate change will ultimately put America at a strategic disadvantage”.[39]
Strategy in the Arctic and Alaska
By 2020 the United States military has spent trillions of dollars in the forever wars and is unable to account for 25 percent of its budget. The military is one of the largest users of fossil fuels spending “$4 billion a year to power its bases at fixed locations and consumes tens of billions of barrels of fuel per year."[40] Small wars experts dominate the administration, refining their version of successful COIN operations with the help of scholarly think tanks, defense contracting firms, and Congress. Conventional war has been declared anachronistic because the new-founded method of waging current and future wars rests on the Revolution of Military Affairs, a dependence on network-centric technologies and sterile precision-guided warfare.
The Pentagon struggles under its own bureaucracy, group-think, and deceit to the American people. Nonetheless, the United States has created the world’s greatest military empire in history with nearly 800 bases including Lily pads of 200 personnel or less, in 80 countries.[41]
The United States is ill equipped to deal with near-peer competitors in the Arctic region. Much like the United States thought its wars were to be fought on the European continent during the Cold War, it ended fighting wars in the deserts and mountains, and finally in urban centres, of the Middle East and Afghanistan. Political and military strategists too have ignored the Arctic by and large, focusing on current and future hybrid warfare, fought amongst the people in urban environments, reliant on high technology and firepower. The vast expanse of the Arctic, its lack of population and transportation systems will pose enormous challenges to the Pentagon.
The United States military, abandoned by sound strategic decision-making from the White House, is left on its own to devise strategies dealing with climate change and its impact on its bases abroad and at home. And importantly, new emerging security threats. Although the primary focus remains on warfare within the people from block to block, fighting Hybrid warfare and executing COIN tactics, the military will also have to increase its abilities in humanitarian missions world-wide. In the Arctic the American military is inferior to its Russian counterparts. The Navy, with its 2ndFleet being responsible for the Atlantic and Arctic, and its Marine Corps elements have rotated to Norway. The Coast Guard is primarily responsible for the Arctic.[42] Air defense, missile defense, and air power projection crucial for an Arctic defense. The Army support the Alaskan National Guard. “Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command operates Ground-Based Interceptors to defend the US homeland from long-range ballistic missile attacks.[43] The Army’s Special Operations Forces (SOF) provide options to armed conflict.[44] But neither the Air Force nor the Army have Arctic strategies.
The American military remains unchallenged because of its military budgets. In 2019, the United States was the world’s largest defense spender, “widening the gap between it and the second largest spender, China.”. [45] And congressional appropriations from 2001-2016 have totaled more than $8.5 trillion.[46]
The budget for 2020 is $738 billion.[47] It includes 30 provisions and amendments that directly impact Alaska and the Arctic. They range from strategic Arctic port designation to replacing Small-Unit Support Vehicle with the Cold-Weather All-Terrain Vehicle, missile defense against cruise and hypersonic missile threats as well as modernization efforts for training 5th generation combat aircraft and range complexes.[48] America’s footprint in the Arctic is far smaller than that of the Russian Federations,
Conclusion
The perceptions of the Russian Federation and the United States are similar – each sees the other as an existential threat and a renewal of an arms race. Conflicts will arise in the Arctic itself or possibly from spillovers of other wars as resources diminish globally because of climate change and consumption.
Today the Arctic is held up as an example mutual and peaceful. It is about scientific cooperation, coordinated search-and rescue missions, and prevention and combatting pollution. But by 2040 the stakes will be even higher as climate change races forward. The world in 2040 will warm by more than 1.5°C (2.7°F) but current global emissions project a 3°C increase. The Arctic will be on the forefront of a new conflict. American political and military strategy is mired in forever wars and lacking a guiding national strategy, leaving the military on its own strategies absent civilian oversight.
The United States, both in strategic thinking and military capabilities, is far behind the Russians in the Arctic. Not all is quiet on the northern front.
Defense spending by the numbers. Image: IISS.[49]
[1] Bacevich (2020) p.4
[2] "Revealed: Quarter of all Tweets about Climate Crisis Produced by Bots." The Guardian, 21 February 2020
[3] "Oil and Gas Firms 'have had Far Worse Climate Impact than Thought'." The Guardian, 19 February 2020
[4] "In Florida, Officials Ban Term 'Climate Change'." Miami Herald, 8 March 2015 and "Why Republicans Still Reject the Science of Global Warming." Rolling Stone, 3 November 2016 and "Donald Trump and the Triumph of Climate-Change Denial." The Atlantic, 25 December 2016and Germain (2015)
[6] Nesbit, (2018) p.268
[7] Brands (2018) p.102
[8] Garside (2019)
[9] "Colorado River Flow Shrinks from Climate Crisis, Risking ‘severe Water Shortages’." The Guardian, 20 February 2020
[11] "Climate Change and US Military Bases." American Security Project
[12] Strachan (2005) p. 38
[13] Liddell Hart (1967) p. 322
[14] Gray (1999) p.176
[15] “Strategic Plan 2040: Marine Corps Installations East” Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, 2017
[16] Freedman (2013), p.ix
[17] Hooker, Jr. (2014) p.10
[18] Chamberlin (2018) p.562
[19] Hooker, Jr. (2014) p.11
[22] Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America
[23] Description of the 2018 National Military Strategy The Joint Chiefs p.1
[24] Description of the 2018 National Military Strategy The Joint Chiefs p.1
[25] The United States." The Arctic Council
[26] The United States." The Arctic Council
[27] “Pompeo Warns of the Dangers of Russian and Chinese Activities in the Arctic." The Washington Post, May 6 2019
[28] "The Arctic is Melting. Mike Pompeo Seems to Think this is a Good Thing." Newsweek, May 7 2019
[29] "Pompeo Warns of the Dangers of Russian and Chinese Activities in the Arctic." The Washington Post, May 6 2019
[30] "World Factbook: Arctic Ocean." Central Intelligence Agency
[31] Forsyth (2018)
[32] Lajeunesse and Hubert (2019) pp. 238-9 and Pincus (2019)
[33] “A Greener, Warmer and Increasingly Accessible Region." National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[34] Report to Congress Department of Defense Arctic Strategy (2019)
[35] "The Arctic Institute’s Reaction to the 2019 Department of Defense (DoD) Arctic Strategy." The Arctic Institute
[36] Micallef (2017
[37] Rodman (2019)
[38] USCG Arctic Strategic Outlook (2019)
[40] "The Military is the Largest Single User of Fossil Fuels. Elizabeth Warren Wants to Change that." Pacific Standard, 21 May 2019
[41] Vine (2015) and "The US has Military Bases in 80 Countries. all of them must Close." The Nation, 24 January 2018
[42] Demy (2019)
[43] Report to Congress Department of Defense Arctic Strategy (2019)
[44] Report to Congress Department of Defense Arctic Strategy (2019)
[45] Beraud-Sudreau (2020)
[46] "Costs of War: Pentagon Budget." Watson Institute International & Public Affairs Brown University
[49] Beraud-Sudreau (2020)