Annexing the Arctic: an update

Instability in the Arctic is caused by both environmental and political factors — so what are we doing to help?

May 16, 2022

Each day new information about Russia, Ukraine, and the current war comes to light. Thank you for your patience as I continued to edit last week’s newsletter!

My very first newsletter discussed Russia’s goal of controlling the Arctic Ocean & North Pole. In case you missed it, you can get a full explanation of the situation by clicking the box below:

In Circulation

Annexing the Arctic

Russia, it seems, likes to place itself at the center of attention nowadays. Lately its blatant war of aggression within Ukraine is rightfully taking over the headlines; many journalists and analysts are reminding us that Putin has been behaving as if actions have no consequences for some time. They like to point out the USSR’s wars in Czechoslovakia, C…

2 years ago · 1 like · Diana Haemer

It seems odd that a country would want to claim sovereignty over an ice-covered place, but this will not always be the case for the resource-rich Arctic. As noted in my IPCC series, the UN’s most recent climate report admits that even if all emissions are cut and adaptation measures are immediately implemented, our climate will get worse before it gets better. Even countries with a more unified agreement are moving too slowly to address our planet’s most pressing problem, although some are concerned with how a changing climate will impact their security and defense. You’d be forgiven for arguing that Russia has been quicker (if not the quickest) to accept and adapt to climate change, albeit not in a collaborative and peaceful way.

The report itself highlights the human cost of global warming & maladaptation, yet climate disinformation is a huge issue, particularly in the United States. Ironically, many elected officials who publicly doubt global warming’s existence voice ardent support for the military, an organization that is actively planning for climate change-induced problems. Recently, the New York Times wrote about the US Navy & Coast Guard’s attempts to shore up America’s defenses in the North Pole; three weeks ago, the European Union wrote an update to its Arctic policy in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So what is happening in the Arctic, according to both scientists and defense experts? And how is our changing climate interfering with already-volatile geopolitics?

The science situation

This year was the first time the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote a chapter specifically on what will happen in the Arctic and Antarctic. By the year 2040, the world will start to see “tangible effects taking place in our environments,” especially in the vulnerable & rapidly changing polar regions. The main risk to Arctic environments is glacial & sea ice melt, which will exacerbate sea level rise and ocean acidification.

ICE MELT: The decreasing extent of sea ice in the Arctic indicates that tipping points have already been reached in the polar oceans. Arctic sea ice is at its lowest levels since measurements began in 1850: ice extent in the late summer, when there is already the least amount of ice, has decreased by 72% since 1979! Furthermore, the Greenland Ice Sheet’s melting rate is seven times higher than in the 1990s. As ice melt intensifies, the Arctic will become increasingly ice-free by each summer’s end over the next decades — indeed, it is predicted that the first time that the Arctic will have no seasonal sea ice will happen before 2050. Both glacial and sea ice melt changes the makeup of the water by making it less salty, lessens its density by diluting the nutrients, & alters the water column’s temperature. The IPCC discovered that Arctic flora and fauna will likely see irreversible damage to their ecosystem and habitat if Earth warms more than 2°C:
This chart from the IPCC report shows how the Arctic will experience the effects of global warming sooner than the Antarctic. This is because Antarctica is a continent & can store heat better than the Arctic Ocean.
SEA LEVEL RISE: Arctic waters are also projected to warm by 4°C by 2080; since water expands as it warms this will only exacerbate SLR. When land-based ice masses (like glaciers) melt, they add additional water to the ocean, causing sea levels to rise more quickly in some parts of the globe. If global temperatures rise above 2°C, the impacts of warmer waters and SLR will arrive decades earlier than current predictions. Furthermore, IPCC scientists believe ice sheets may take centuries to respond to any temperature changes — this means that we are today seeing the impact of warming that began during the 1850s/Industrial revolution. Their data suggested that “sustained mass loss” from the Greenland & Antarctic ice sheets could cause a 2.3-3.1m rise in sea levels at 1.5°C and a 2-6m rise at 2°C warming. Since Arctic coastal settlements are particularly exposed to climate change, adaptation would need to occur at much greater scale than ever done in the past.
OCEAN ACIDIFICATION: Polar regions are expected to be hit the hardest by OA in future decades. Cold, dense waters are rich in nutrients, but as more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans the poles will become undersaturated with calcium carbonate, effecting measurable change on polar ecosystems. Additionally, the melting of sea ice, glaciers, and ice sheets impacts thermohaline circulation, or the movement of water vertically and horizontally throughout the world’s oceans. Since the polar seas account are where deep water is formed, it is extremely likely that a large influx of meltwater could slow down the global ocean conveyor belt. This would allow the effects of acidification to both become more permanent and spread down the water column to more vulnerable parts of the seas.

Both sea level rise and ocean acidification will cause immediate and likely irreversible damage to marine flora and fauna. The loss of ice impacts the behavior of marine mammals and birds; for the time being it is causing an increase in phytoplankton productivity, which is good in the short-term but could be harmful if such blooms become a permanent fixture of the Arctic. Furthermore, as other zones of the ocean become inhabitable, other species will migrate northwards to relatively cooler waters, increasing the probability of invasive species in the Arctic. Even with less than 2°C warming, biodiversity in the North Pole is expected to keep declining by as the century moves forward.

The IPCC report’s final conclusions on polar regions are if warming does not exceed 2°C, sea ice melt and surface-level ocean acidification are reversible. If it does, sea ice loss conditions could persist well into the 22nd century. While increased boat traffic due to ice loss can benefit trade, transportation, and tourism, it can also render Arctic marine ecosystems less resilient to climate change. The report emphasizes that lives and livelihoods will be jeopardized by more than 2°C warming: transport infrastructure (bridges, roads, power lines) are already suffering because of ocean warming, flooding from storm surge, and sea ice loss. However, the IPCC interestingly does not mention the likelihood of military conflict. They conclude multi-level ocean governance is a “feasible” and necessary way to adapt to climate change. However, Russia’s blatant ignorance of international advice is hindering Western countries’ goal of resource management and political coexistence.

(Poli)ticking time bomb

All countries with territorial claims to the Arctic are either in the EU or align with the EU — except for Russia. After the invasion of Ukraine, every opinion is now categorized as pro-Russian or non-Russian; that is, a binary exists in all areas of international relations, particularly where a large swath of unoccupied territory is concerned. In order to understand the non-Russian side of Arctic affairs (see my old post about Putin’s plan for dominance), I examined the US and EU’s current climate strategies.

The problem with this map is that it does not show the average annual extent of sea ice. Doing so would show readers what the Arctic *actually* looks like, otherwise it just looks like a regular ocean.

Earlier this year, the US Army released its first-ever Arctic strategy: it aims to make all non-combat vehicles electric by 2035 (with similar combat vehicles coming 15 years after), halve emissions by the end of this decade, and “train a generation of officers on how to prepare for a hotter, more chaotic world.” Pentagon strategists are “increasingly alarmed about the security implications of climate change:” as the world becomes less familiar, there is increased potential for wars & international instability. As reported by the IPCC, when our planet reaches or exceeds 1.5°C warming, water and food scarcity will affect more people; such strain on resources risks undermining “fragile governments,” aka fledgling democracies. Essentially, climate change is threatening the US’s philosophy of broadening the boundaries of the free world. Army Secretary Christine Wormuth is convinced that adapting proactively to climate change will help fulfill the Army’s mission “to fight and win the nation’s wars.” Her statement in the publicly released portion of the report essentially says that the only way to modernize the military is to optimize the use of resources and build resilience to climate threats. Teaching soldiers to fight with new weapons in new conditions is part of the process, and those who say climate change distracts the military from the real threats they should be fighting are short-sighted. These people no doubt also believe that change is a waste of time, not realizing that change happens whether we’re prepared for it or not.

“Climate change threatens America’s security and is altering the geostrategic landscape as we know it. For today’s Soldiers operating in extreme temperature environments, fighting wildfires, and supporting hurricane recovery, climate change isn’t a distant future, it is a reality.”
Army Secretary Christine Wormuth

However, the Army’s climate action plan has not been implemented yet because there is no funding for it in the current defense spending plans. This is troubling, for the Pentagon accounts for 56% of the US government’s carbon emissions and 52% of its electricity usage. The consequences of waiting may have drastic and urgent consequences. Climate-driven phenomena, particularly ice melt in the Arctic, could cause a conflict for control of this neutral, newly navigable area of the globe. The Army’s strategy plainly says disappearing sea ice is “inviting greater strategic competition.” Alaska residents have observed winter sea ice retreating 6 weeks earlier than normal and not returning until the first week in December as opposed to October or November. Warmer temperatures mean that the habitable ocean areas for valuable fish stocks like cod & salmon will move northward. And rare minerals and fossil fuels “are becoming a growing target for exploration;” increased access to these commodities will lead to a growth in boat traffic from both trade and tourism. As well as improving climate literacy in their own ranks (yay!), the US Military resolves to conduct additional training exercises with Iceland, Canada, and Norway to improve readiness for potential combat in the Arctic. (This also may be why the Air Force has recently deployed dozens of F-35 fighter jets to the region) In fact, Russia has been demanding other nations to seek its permission to travel along the Northern Sea Route and threatened to use military force to “sink vessels that do not comply.”

Compare the dashed path with the minimum extent of sea ice map below. As the Arctic warms, the Russian side of the ocean becomes the most navigable part.

Summer sea ice is at its lowest extent since scientists began collecting data. Click the above graphic for more information.

Diplomacy has stalled since February 24th, the date Russia invaded Ukraine. While there is no imminent threat to peace in the Arctic, leaders are worried about the fate of future research and commercial expeditions, believing Russia’s goals of presence and power will render any negotiations moot just as they have in Ukraine. Indeed, just two months ago a member of the Russian parliament demanded that Alaska, purchased by the United States from Russia in 1867, be returned to Russian control, which the New York Times notes is “a possibly rhetorical gesture” that symbolizes the deteriorating relationship between the First and Second World. Nevertheless, the American Navy worries that “peace and prosperity [specifically in the Arctic] will be increasingly challenged by China and Russia.” China? Although the country doesn’t border the Arctic Ocean, it has declared itself a “Near-Arctic State” (because those exist) and, in partnership with Russia, has promoted “sustainable development and expanded use of Arctic trade routes.” In other words, China too wants to colonize and claim a piece of the ‘hottest’ new frontier.

The EU, for its part, renounced ties with Russia, at least regarding their Arctic policies. They released a statement two months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, calling February 24th a Zeitenwende, or turning point, in relations between the Union and Russia that could “further bind or drive us apart” depending on one’s perspective and reaction. They now aim to exclude Russia from their collaboration efforts to preserve & protect the Arctic and blame Russia for disregarding & hindering the EU’s climate readiness goals as set by a 2021 Joint Communication. This original statement highlighted the unique importance of geopolitics to the Arctic region, and the Union reaffirmed its support for a peaceful presence in the North Pole to counter “an ever-recurring narrative of militarization and great power competition.” If Russia’s territorial claims to the Arctic Ocean are accepted by world leaders, “various EU-supported actions on Arctic data, monitoring or research will become less effective” because half of the circumpolar region will be controlled by a hostile foreign power.

The human toll of a faraway war

As more countries join the EU and NATO, the inclusion of local communities — and exclusion of Putin’s government — will become vital to Europe’s adaptation plans & data collection expeditions. Despite the current political focus, the EU has always put climate change at the forefront of their Arctic agenda (although they are currently suspending any “scientific cooperations” with Russia). The collapse of any legally binding international frameworks would be especially injurious to Indigenous communities who provide a unique knowledge of the Arctic. European leaders worry that the Nenets, Khanty, Evenk, & Chukchi peoples are being threatened by Putin into complying with Russian agenda. A particularly troubling example of this is the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) issued a statement supporting the ‘special military operation’; according to the Arctic Institute, “dissidents reported that the organization has been co-opted by the Russian government in the years leading up to its Arctic Council chairmanship.” If the independence of these Indigenous people, who can observe real-time changes in the Arctic, is under attack, measuring the impacts of climate change on human communities will range from extremely difficult to impossible.

RAIPON’s territory is in green — notice how their territory is exactly where Putin’s government has been launching its ‘scientific’ expeditions from.

The IPCC Report states explicitly that climate-driven changes to ice and weather patterns “have substantially affected traditional coastal-based hunting and fishing activities.” Low-lying coastal societies are endangered by sea level rise, ice loss, acidification, and weather extremes. The loss of ice also represents a loss of cultural heritage, for travel on sea ice plays a vital part in Indigenous communities, providing freedom and mental wellbeing. As traditional ways of life are threatened, the resulting changes “would be transformative rather than adaptive.” With each day Russia’s war of aggression continues, remote areas like the North Pole will fall further into jeopardy.

Will there be any thawing of tensions?

The region faces many challenges, both environmentally and politically. One way the EU can ameliorate the situation is to decrease their consumption of Russia fossil fuels. While this may help it “achieve strategic autonomy,” its energy infrastructure is not large enough to handle current energy demands. Thus European nations will need to use gas & oils from the North Pole, further damaging the Arctic environment — and deepening their dependence on the region. Most carbon deposits lie in the Russian-controlled areas of the Arctic Ocean, so decreasing reliance on hydrocarbons has become a “de-facto reality.” However, the green technologies and energy-efficient products the EU is investing in rely on certain minerals that are also abundant in the Arctic. If Russia succeeds in controlling the region, Europe could face an energy supply crisis.

Russia has also conducted military exercise in the Bering Strait, an area between Alaska and the Russian mainland that is just 55 miles wide. This area is the homeland of Alaska Natives, who depend on the environment for hunting and fishing; the President of their Federation says the military’s presence within the Arctic Circle must be done in ways that do not harm the already fragile & volatile biome. The US for its part is investing hundreds of millions of dollars to expand a port in western Alaska, hoping to transform it into a hub for Coast Guard and Navy vessels. The US plans to deploy three new ice breakers, bringing the total number of those ships to five — Russia, meanwhile, has more than fifty.

Unfortunately, the world’s view of the Arctic has shifted from preserving its environment to protecting it from hostile militaries. Therefore, it is important that those with power over the region prioritize mitigating climate change’s effects while actively adapting to new conditions. Last year Congress gave the military $801 billion for regular defense spending yet did not provide any separate or additional funding for the Army’s climate action plan. Many Republican politicians complain at our unpreparedness to deal with the Russian threat but balk at the idea of helping the Department of Defense meet the challenges of our evolving climate. Perhaps those who truly doubt the existence of climate change should call a special hearing to demand answers as to why the Defense Department wants to ‘waste’ resources trying to adapt to future conditions. Conditions, I might add, that could have been avoided if elected officials had simply allocated the money towards prevention and mitigation of climate change in the first place…! While the DoD hasn’t traditionally been filled with environmentalists, former secretaries and experts alike are confident that any action the military takes towards adapting to climate change will trickle down into other areas of government. Perhaps President Biden’s leadership will help move our world away from the fires of disaster.

But until that happens, the time to do anything about the thawing of the Arctic will melt away like its ice.