Should the US Increase Military Presence in the Arctic?

With socio-political turmoil amongst great powers increasing every day, the United States has a tough decision to make: should it increase its military presence in the Arctic? 

This article delves into the benefits and negatives of sending American troops up into the polar north.

What is the Arctic?

Though the specifics of certain countries may be up for debate, the general international consensus suggests that the Arctic Circle passes through the Arctic Ocean, Scandinavian Peninsula, North Asia, Northern America, and Greenland. 

Most notably, Russia and the United States both have a presence in the Arctic. With a large part of Russia considered to be a part of the circle, as well as the US with Alaska, many anticipate tensions to flare up in the backdrop of heightened international conflict. 

Why should we go into the Arctic?

The United States has many soft power and diplomatic goals in the region, but among those lies an important friend: Greenland. While it may have the population of a small town, Greenland also has untapped reserves of over 1/4th of the world’s rare earth minerals. Among its many applications, rare earth minerals, or REMs, are critical green technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, and more. 

At face value, it may seem as though presence is not needed, as the US and Greenland are allies. Though relations between the two countries may seem strong, Greenland is looking for the next step— security assurances and protection for its transition towards being an independent state. Absent security assurances and a sustained presence (which Greenland saw in the past with the Thule air base), many top officials from Arctic states have defended strong opinions about not handing over their precious minerals. 

Though the correlation between boots-on-the-ground presence may not bode well with mineral mining, past military programs have proven that cohesion is possible. One such is a US army program that invests in startups that mine earth minerals, meaning that both presence and investment are possible. 

Why should we not?

The US may have a vast majority of amicable Arctic neighbors, especially ones in the Arctic Council. However, Russia, arguably the US’s greatest foe in current geopolitics, has a substantial presence in the region. 

Opponents of increased presence in the Arctic argue Russia, with its hair-trigger defense on high alert, would preemptively strike US forces in the region. Despite a missile attack against the US from its European foe seeming outlandish, a litany of factors and military literature both support such claims. 

Many argue that Russia’s military posture, specifically in the Arctic, assumes a defensive realist position. A military theory championed by the controversial yet distinguished political scientist and professor at the University of Chicago, John Mearsheimer, defensive realism states that aggression from one actor justifies harsh counteraction from another actor, even though they were not initially aggressive. Given that the Arctic is crucial to Russia’s economy (both current and future), especially in its current economic woes, scholars claim that Russia has no offensive incentives to attack any countries in the region. 

An action that would push Russia over the tipping point, however, would be an influx of US troops near its borders. Updated Russian military literature envisages a preemptive strike should Russia not be able to fund a war, in this case, a two-front war in both Ukraine and the Arctic Circle. In the eyes of the Kremlin, nuclear de-escalation involves a preemptive attack, to scare off “trespassers” and deter future threats. 

Whether or not this hyper-specific scenario would lead to such conflict, and maybe even the fabled nuclear war, is unknown. However, an increase in presence in the last place Vladimir Putin has hegemony would certainly raise some eyebrows.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the economic and environmental benefits of increasing presence in the Arctic may be overwhelming, a conflict with Russia is the last thing anyone would want, especially with a great power competition reaching new heights. 

While the US certainly has a vested interest in the Arctic region, it also has a large incentive to ensure global security at a time when its power is under increased scrutiny.