UPDATE 2023: While the conclusion of this post was clearly wrong (which is in good company with many of us who ventured a guess during this time), the premise that Russia will make a play for the Arctic in the future is still relevant and worth continuing to explore.
We are seeing a battle of wills between Putin and Biden, but the question is, over what? To me, there are two possibilities. 1) Russia wants control over the Russian-backed separatist strongholds in the east of the country, or 2) Russia wants concessions somewhere else, such as the Arctic, and is doubling down on Ukraine so that NATO will double down on Ukraine, which might create more freedom to negotiate outside of the public eye.
If Russia’s real aim here is what they say it is: to stop NATO expansion, I’d be surprised because even if NATO agrees to this, there is no reason that Russia would hold them to their word, and visa-versa. To Russia, years of Russian appeasement after the fall of the USSR have yielded little concession from the US or NATO, so they would have no reason to believe NATO would stop meddling in former Soviet states. To NATO, Russia is a regional bully that uses deceit and hybrid warfare to achieve its ends, so they would have no reason to believe that Russia would stop actions in Ukraine should NATO agree to its unreasonable demands.
So then, what is Putin’s goal? If there is no reasonable expectation that a former Soviet state such as Ukraine is safe from NATO interference, then is he looking for international credibility? Some saber rattling to get the Russian domestic population in line? A way to feel relevant now that they have enough gas money to make a go of it? They do not have a diverse enough economy to survive long without buyers of gas in places like Europe, so I doubt very much that they want all-out war anywhere.
Logically speaking, Russia can’t hope to get much in Ukraine from what they are doing right now; they simply do not have enough troops to mount any effective offense with the hope of keeping the land that they might get. However, I do not think Russia would have painstakingly placed troops, tanks, and other military craft around Ukraine just to stay relevant in the international arena or to get more control over small chunks of Ukraine. Crimea was logistically and militarily significant in a way that I’m not sure these other pro-Russian areas are.
It is possible that Putin just wanted to poke at Bidens resolve, similar to how chess players sacrifice a good piece to read how an opponent reacts. And if they get a better board position from it, then that’s an added bonus. Russia may feign a strike to see how the US and NATO will perry. But that is a pretty elaborate scheme for a simple effect since it includes Belarus, Ukraine, NATO, and the US… that’s a lot of strikes and blocks to account for.
Also, why now? Biden has been in office for a year; if it were simply a poke at Biden, it would have made far more sense to attack earlier when he wasn’t as comfortable. With that said, he would have risked uniting the US, and Biden would have had more support after winning the election (his approval ratings are extremely low right now).
If Russia can spin it so that the US is the loser here, then it would reinforce the image that Biden is a “weak man,” to which the natural inclination would be to see Trump as a “strongman.” I’m not convinced that there was a love affair between Putin and Trump, but I can’t deny that Trump seemed to idolize Putin just a little too much. Democracy rarely dies because of a massive coup or civil war. Most of the time, it fails because a democratically elected leader starts flirting with becoming an autocrat because they do not wish to leave the seat of power.
So part of the strategy might be making Biden look bad, and to jump back to my first possibility, if Russia were to get the rebel-controlled parts of Ukraine, that would undoubtedly be a perceived loss for NATO. But I can’t see where that would get Russia right now. I can 100% see why they feel Ukraine is historically Russia’s, just as China feels Taiwan is historically China’s, but militarily or economically, I’m not seeing much gain. So Putin could be doing this for political reasons to accomplish political gains, but this is a lot of effort to an end that might not make them any internationally stronger and would only lead to long-term sanctions that Russia can’t afford.
So what else could Russia want here?
I’m always speculating that as the world focuses on one thing the real goal is elsewhere. Is Ukraine the distraction or is it the goal? Was Belarus and the refugee crisis the distraction or was it the goal? To me, the arctic stands out as a possible goal. It’s strategic, economic, and as the ice caps melt it becomes logistically significant as well.
Some say that Russia does not have the international power projection or navy it once did, but what about its fleet of icebreakers? What about their military bases in the Arctic? What about the trillions of dollars in natural resources, such as oil and gas, that are projected to be under the ice? The Arctic could be a goldmine for future development (and potential economic expansion and diversification at a later date) and would be well worth the time and energy spent to gain it now.
Once more, we need to ask why now, and it becomes a two-part answer. 1) Because for years, the Arctic had been a non-entity due to the thick ice, but now it’s an emerging paradise, where shipping routes between Russia and China can be cut in half and trillions of dollars worth of natural gas, and oil can be pumped up from the waters. 2) Because every country with a stake in the Arctic is starting to realize its potential.
2021 saw some significant international exchanges in the Arctic. The US deployed long-range bombers to Norway, NATO has been working to consolidate its ice breaker fleet and organize them accordingly, Russia has been expanding its military bases in the Arctic and letting journalists tour them, and Norway has announced Arctic military drills for 2022. Some say there has not been this level of military engagement in the Arctic since WWII.
As tensions in the Arctic increase over shipping lanes, freedom of the sea standoffs, and resource ownership, there has been a need to militarize the Arctic from all sides. You have to keep in mind that the Arctic use to be uncrossable in the winter, which gave Russia far less of a front to defend against. Now, any defensive or offensive actions from NATO in the Arctic will feel much more threatening to Russia since it’s a front they’ve never had to defend. The same goes for Canada, the US, and Norway if Russia also acts.
To me, the stalemate we are seeing in Ukraine is possibly a way for Russia to push other NATO pressure points to achieve concessions in the Arctic in return for a “NATO Win” in Ukraine. Similar to how the Cuban Missile Crisis was a “US Win” that resulted in the US removing missile systems from Turkey. It becomes almost a win, win, win for Russia because if they get some concessions in Ukraine and other former Soviet blocks, then great; if not, then Russia gets the chance to negotiate over the situation in the Arctic, and if nothing else works, they still get the international publicity showing that they are still relevant in international affairs.
We also need to consider the new US reality that Russia and China are playing off each other. Not necessarily with cooperation between the two, but leveraging the distraction that the other has made and forcing the US to respond everywhere will likely result in a slip-up. The US should also not forget the possibility of being stretched too thin and exhausting the US military and political machine.
This strategy would be fairly easy, and all it would take is time. China threatens Taiwan, Russia threatens Ukraine, China militarizes the South China Sea, and Russia goes after the Arctic. Each action forces the US to react and react again, always on the defensive, always trying to play catch up.
Meanwhile, internal divisions and increasing tensions within the US (egged on by Russia and China) cause a political climate where the President cannot respond as freely as they would like.
At some point, it’s too easy to see ties to everything, orchestrated plans when it’s just chaos. A need to make a story about seemingly related events that, in reality, have no connection: so take all this with a grain of salt, as any opinion piece should be taken. Just look at the Cold War, we saw the boogie man everywhere, and that’s arguably what got us into Korea and Vietnam. A “red crisis” that wasn’t really there. Perceived international coordination from Russia and China where there was just nationalism. Perhaps we will look back at this moment and see the boogyman; perhaps we will just see chaos. Only time will tell.
Credits:
Map: Arctic Centre, University of Lapland. Credit for the border data: Runfola D, Anderson A, Baier H, Crittenden M, Dowker E, Fuhrig S, et al. (2020) geoBoundaries: A global database of political administrative boundaries. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0231866. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231866
If you enjoyed this article please repost it or follow Booksmart Breakdown on social media. If there are any topics that feel are impacting Colorado and you would like to have international solutions explored please reach out to booksmart.breakdown@gmail.com.
