NATO command has been probing ways to unify the Western block on the arctic shelf issue. What is perceived as a new Russian hegemony in the Arctic sea lines of communication is being mitigated by calls from NATO alliance members to increase NATOs role in the thinning ice of the High North. The Norwegian Deputy Minister of Defense Espen Barth Eide cannot see how NATO can "avoid defining its role in this area,” alluding to the only available military counterbalance in the region. He outlines what he sees as the challenge to Western Arctic security:
- existing and potential conflicts of interest in the area which could undermine its stability;
- the Russian Northern Fleet’s continued role in the Russian nuclear triad, the sheer weight of the Kola military infrastructure and their “vital strategic importance to Russia”;
- continued use of the Barents Sea as a training ground for military forces and as a testbed for new weapon systems;
- new sea lines of communication enhancing the High North’s military-strategic and economic significance after the Arctic becomes free of ice, which will reduce the sailing time between North America and Asia by 40%; and
- the possibility of deteriorating relations between Russia and the West.
Analysis
Eide challenges NATO to increase its military exercises in the region to demonstrate "collective solidarity" through increased surveillance flights and integrated defense systems. But he cautiously notes that such "an increased NATO profile in the Arctic should be tailored not to provoke Russia, but to demonstrate Allied interest in the area. This could be done by establishing a presence sufficient to act as a stabilizing factor in conceivable crisis scenarios and provide opportunities for interaction with Russian counterparts." This seems like wishful thinking or a rhetorician's attempt at a joke. NATO entire mission is geared towards Russian containment and military posturing. Eida may be thinking it unwise to provoke a Russian response in their own back yard, but is hoping that his remarks go unnoticed by his Russian counterparts. Besides, what shape would a NATO stabilizing force take if not provocative to Russian interest? A NATO military build up in the arctic region is surely going down the wrong path; it presupposes that Russia will be an uncooperative international player by not respectfully allowing the safe passage of vessels through its waters.
Eida follows up his earlier comment by suggesting that neither side undertake a military presence by adding that “such a presence would not necessarily have to be permanent and threatening in the shape of military hardware and personnel, but should be linked to planned training activities, exercises and visits,” I guess he is eluding to the Georgian NATO training exercises that so outraged Russia recently. If he is suggesting that no military hardware is needed than why send NATO? Is he not just suggesting that national coast guards in a strictly search and rescue role be sufficient? In that case NATO need not intervene.
You can read the enter NATO press release [here]
Janes adds to the debate [here]
