INTRODUCTION

At the beginning of the 21st century, the rapid planetary-scale climate change, promising the opening of new profitable sea trade routes and greater opportunities for the development of vast natural resources, made the world community pay special attention to the previously rarely mentioned at the international level and, in fact, abandoned vast expanse of the Arctic Ocean.

The Arctic, the region with the North Pole as its geographical center, includes the northern parts of Europe, Asia, and North America, as well as the Arctic Ocean. There are no generally recognized boundaries there. The Arctic states with official Arctic status are the Russian Federation, the United States, Canada, Norway, and Denmark. The legal regime of the Arctic is determined by the norms of international law and the national legislation of the Arctic states.

The region is increasingly attracting the attention of the great powers and other states due to its huge untapped resource potential. According to the US Geological Survey, the “last pantry” of the Earth contains 30% of the world’s natural gas reserves, 13% of oil, and 9% of coal, as well as significant amounts of metals (uranium, copper, titanium, silver, gold), diamonds, and graphite (Sidorov, 2018). The temptation of appropriation and use of these natural resources, as well as attempts to establish American control in the region, is gradually heating up the atmosphere in international relations. According to Professor of the US Naval War College L. Saunes, “The Arctic is increasingly characterized by military buildup and presence, amongst others as a manifestation of great power competition between the USA and Russia” (Saunes, 2020). Here, a new type of conflicts of the 21st century is emerging and, apparently, will develop in the future. The vast resource potential and geopolitical position as a global transport artery have led to the transformation of the Arctic into a powerful magnet that attracts not only the Arctic countries but also many European states and even China, located far in the south.

STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE NORTHERN REGION

A characteristic sign of the third decade of the 21st century is the growth of publications in the international media, expressing the concern of the public about the buildup of the presence of the great powers’ armed forces and military activity in the Arctic. This activity vividly shows the unfolding struggle for influence and control over the natural resources of the Far North.

Until the early 1980s, the area of the Arctic Ocean was divided by the above-mentioned five Arctic states into sectors, the peaks of which rested on the North Pole. However, after the adoption of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, the former demarcation lost its meaning.

Today, the territories and water areas of the polar countries are governed by the norms of this convention, which provides the five Arctic countries with the right to control the continental shelf, including the seabed, its subsoil, and resources located outside national territorial waters. In accordance with art. 76 of the convention, a state that has access to the Arctic Ocean may declare as its exclusive economic zone a territory extending 200 nm from the coast. It can be increased by another 150 nm if this state proves that the shelf is a continuation of its land territory.

An Arctic state has a preemptive right to extract minerals in its economic zone. The situation is complicated by the lack of internationally recognized clarifying documents on the ownership by the Arctic states of specific sectors of the Arctic Ocean and islands in its waters.

Disputable issues are settled by international institutions formed by the Nordic countries: the Arctic Council (AC), the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC), the EU, and NATO. The leading place among them belongs to the Arctic Council, established in 1996, which deals with the main problems of interstate cooperation in high latitudes. The AC members are Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark, and Norway, as well as the northern countries of Iceland, Sweden, and Finland. The AC observers, in addition to a number of European countries and the EU, are China, Japan, India, South Korea, and Singapore.

The coastal states do not want external players to interfere in their Arctic disputes. Attempts to coordinate problems between the European countries (Russia, Norway, and Denmark) by diplomatic means have not yet yielded tangible results. Contradictions are accumulating and intensifying.

The United States is staking on the internationalization of the Arctic maritime spaces, including the Northwest Passage (NWP), controlled by Canada, and the Northern Sea Route (NSR), controlled by Russia. Washington assumes that the Nordic countries only own 12-mile zones along their coasts. Russia, Norway, and Denmark dispute among themselves the extent of the continental shelf: Russia considers the Lomonosov Ridge, passing under the North Pole, as a continuation of the Siberian continental platform, while Norway considers it as part of the margin of the North American continent, and Denmark, as a continuation of the Greenland tectonic plate.

The positions of the Arctic and subarctic states in relation to the Arctic Ocean region were formed as follows. Four of the Arctic five states are Western NATO members (the United States, Canada, Norway, and Denmark), and they see Russia as the main opponent in the struggle for Arctic resources. The United States has also added China to the list of competitors. At the meeting of the Arctic Council in May 2019, as H. Brands points out in his book, the then US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, alluding to China, said that predatory powers were making raids on that region. “Do we want the Arctic Ocean to transform into a new South China Sea?” he asked (Brands, 2019).

The position of the US European allies is different from the American one. Europeans view the Arctic not just as a zone of economic and geopolitical rivalry. In the first place, they see in it a region in which climate change over time can cause great damage to the entire Earth, and therefore, they believe, close cooperation of all Arctic states is necessary. Based on this and relying on its own Arctic strategy, the EU advocates “equal” access to the Arctic resources and transport communications—the NWP and NSR—and the development of a new legal regime that would meet the interests of European states.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, Russia has been paying special attention to the Arctic, allocating significant financial resources for economic activity and protecting the borders of its Arctic zone, including the security of the NSR. The Ministry for the Development of the Russian Far East and Arctic supervised the Arctic direction in the Russian Federation.

THE ARCTIC IN US FOREIGN POLICY

The United States received the status of an Arctic state in 1867, upon acquiring Alaska from the Russian Empire. Of the numerous states that form the United States, it is their only northern territory, which is located in the Arctic reaching the coast of the Arctic Ocean. The harsh climate of high latitudes and the remoteness from the main territory of the United States led to the corresponding underdevelopment of the industrial and economic infrastructure of Alaska. In addition, until the mid-20th century, the Arctic was not among important areas of American foreign policy.

Only in the years of the Cold War, during the military–political confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, did the Arctic become a strategic region for Washington. Its significance was determined by its geographical position, convenient for launching intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)—in the event of an escalation of tension or a military conflict with the group of Soviet armed forces deployed nearby.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Washington lost interest in the Arctic region. The personnel of American military bases in the Arctic were sharply reduced: for example, at the Thule base in Greenland, they decreased from 6000 to 100 people; 2000 military personnel were withdrawn from Iceland; a number of radars, which had actively operated during Soviet‒American confrontation, were closed in Alaska [2].

The Arctic direction of foreign policy under President W. Clinton (1993–2001), formulated in Presidential Directive No. 26 (NSC-26), was determined by several theses, the most important of which were ensuring the security of the United States and the region, protecting its environment and bioresources, and economic development of the polar zone within the framework of cooperation between the eight Arctic states [3]. The approach to the region testified to its peripheral nature and non-inclusion in the national priorities of the 1990s. One cannot but agree with the opinion of O.V. Terebov, a researcher at the RAS Institute for US and Canadian Studies, that, “despite all the repeatedly declared importance of the Arctic for the United States, it does not have such vital importance for it as it does for Russia, Canada, and Norway” (Terebov, 2019, p. 230).

Only at the beginning of the 2000s, in connection with the intensification of Russia’s activities in the Arctic, and especially after the Munich speech of President V.V. Putin at the international security conference in 2007, the US leadership began to show increased interest in the Arctic. The situation changed dramatically at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, when, together with the already evident acceleration of climate change, Russia intensified its activity in the Arctic in terms of developing the NSR, building modern port infrastructure there, and opening new oil and gas production facilities; Russian military presence in the Arctic increased, and new military facilities were created there. The United States regarded the manifestation of independent actions of the Russian Federation in the Arctic as a challenge. This created the impression that Washington’s policy towards the region primarily responded to the emerging need to take part in the rivalry of the great powers.

COURSE TO MILITARIZATION OF THE FAR NORTH SPACE

Washington responded to the “Russian challenge” in the official Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower [4]. On October 17, 2007, the Chief of Staff of the US Navy in the administration of George W. Bush (2001–2009), Gary Roughead, at a symposium in Newport (Rhode Island) unveiled the modern US naval strategy. It, in fact, declared the internationalization of the above-mentioned Arctic maritime spaces controlled by Canada and Russia. The main objective of this strategy was to protect the territory and interests of the United States abroad. As the document noted, “Climate change is gradually opening up the waters of the Arctic, not only to new resource development but also to new shipping routes.” At the same time, it is important to maintain the global mobility of American military and civilian ships and aircraft throughout the Arctic region [4].

The further efforts of the US military and political leadership in the Arctic were presented to the American public in detail in the report The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030, which emphasized the creation of a special ice navy: the construction of ten new icebreakers and a sharp increase in the presence of American submarines in the Arctic Ocean [5].

To counter the Northern Fleet of Russia, the American leadership decided to restore the United States Second Fleet, which had previously controlled the Atlantic and was disbanded in 2011. This was announced in May 2018 by the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral John Richardson, in his speech at the naval base in Norfolk. According to the admiral’s statement, as soon as 2022, the Americans, together with the Europeans, intended to form the Atlantic Joint Command, responsible for the western part of the Russian NSR. In justifying the restoration of the Second Fleet in the Atlantic, Admiral Richardson referred to the national military strategy, stating that the United States had returned to the era of competition between great powers. Therefore, it was deploying the Second Fleet, making it responsible for the North Atlantic to the North Pole and for the East Coast of the United States (Dzherelievskii, 2018).

On December 17, 2020, the US Navy Marine Corps and Coast Guard released a joint document, A Blue Arctic: Regaining Arctic Dominance: Predominance of Integrated Naval Power, which underlies the new US naval strategy in the Far North, published in early 2021 [6]. It focuses on the confrontation between America and Russia and China, defined as sources of long-term threats to the national security of the United States: “Without sustained American naval presence and partnerships in the Arctic region, peace and prosperity will be increasingly challenged by Russia and China, whose interests and values differ dramatically from ours” [7].

The above-mentioned documents focus on the modernization and strengthening of the combat capabilities of the US Navy and the militarization of the Arctic in general. In this context, on January 20, 2021, the then Secretary of the Navy, Kenneth Braithwaite, stated that the US Navy was committed to ensuring all levels and types of presence “under, on, or over the Arctic” and intended to guarantee its partners freedom of navigation in the North. According to him, this is a bolder position, which they consider their right and responsibility as the dominant naval force in the world [7]. US dominance in the northern latitudes is focused on the NSR, which is under the sovereignty of the Russian Federation. Braithwaite made it clear that the US Navy was going to begin regular patrols near the Russian Arctic borders to prevent Moscow from advancing in the Far North [7].

The National Interest magazine, summing up the assessments of publications on the Arctic by American authors, comes to the unequivocal conclusion that the key factor determining the current situation in the Arctic zone is the confrontation between the United States and Russia and China [8].

The statements and actions of the Biden administration, which sharply criticizes Russia and China for their “global aggressiveness” and seeks to create strong alliances to counter Beijing and Moscow, fully coincide with the main provisions of the Blue Arctic strategy, which defines the strengthening of partnership and cooperation as one of the three priorities.

US MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE ARCTIC

The military–political leadership of the United States has begun to implement practical measures aimed at containing Russia in the Arctic region. The main emphasis is placed on the need to increase the number of military exercises of NATO forces in parallel with the buildup of the American military presence in the region. Not only NATO member countries but also “neutral” Sweden and Finland take part in the exercises. For example, in May 2020, a strike group of ships from the US Sixth Fleet entered the Barents Sea, where they conducted exercises together with British warships. They trained launching missile strikes with cruise missiles against the bases of the Russian Northern Fleet, as well as searching for and destroying Russian submarines. A feature of NATO maneuvers is that “they are carried out in the immediate vicinity of Russian borders and involve the development of tasks for mining sea areas and controlling Russia’s northern airspace” (Zhuravel’, 2018).

In 2020, according to Admiral M. Gilday, the United States conducted 20 exercises and operations in the Arctic, most of which involved partner countries. The main objective of such events is the deployment of a more deadly, stable, and flexible combat group capable of providing the United States with an advantage in this key region [9]. The Coordinator of the State Department for the Arctic, J. Dehart, even called the region “NATO’s northern flank” [10]. Russia sharply reacted to this statement of the State Department representative, regarding it as “hostile and provocative” and emphasizing that the United States does not have “the same voting rights in the Arctic as Russia.”

The US Arctic Doctrine stipulates that the Northern Sea Route must be blocked. In accordance with this directive, Norway and the United States are planning to restore the Navy base at Olavsvern, 350 km from the border with Russia, which was decommissioned in 2002. The US Navy’s Seawolf-class nuclear submarines are planned to be stationed there. In this case, American submarines will pose a serious threat to the security of the Northern Sea Route, especially near Murmansk and the coast of Murmansk region [12].

Another major step taken by the Biden administration was the deployment of four B-1B Lancer strategic bombers to Norway. They will be placed at the Orland airfield, where 200 American troops will arrive. An air strike force with 96 high-precision cruise missiles is being formed on the northern borders of Russia [13]. The northernmost facility in the Arctic is the American air base at Thule in Greenland. The fighters located there demonstrate the ability of the US Air Force to carry out year-round operations in the conditions of the Far North. In addition, a group of F-35 and F-22 Raptor fighters (150 aircraft) will be deployed at two air bases in Alaska. In 2018, the construction of a Long-Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) began at the Clear Air Force Station [14].

The ground component of the US Arctic Command is represented by two brigades in Alaska, and, according to Chief of Staff of the US Army J. McConville, the formation will be reinforced by another motorized rifle brigade. According to reports, the Alaska grouping on a divisional scale will include units from various branches of the ground forces. To expand combat capabilities in the Arctic direction, this structure will be strengthened by the Air Force and Navy [15].

At the same time, the US Department of Defense launched an active campaign to recruit soldiers and officers for service in the Far North. Military personnel are attracted by high salaries and more comfortable special conditions of service. The ground grouping should also be strengthened by the potential of the US Coast Guard—its maritime, military, and multipurpose units. The Coast Guard operates 210 aircraft based at its 24 airfields. Relying on the powerful domestic and joint NATO military potential, the United States expects to put competitive pressure on Russia and establish its control over the Arctic under the cover of the alliance of the Arctic states and NATO.

STRUCTURE AND MILITARY POTENTIAL OF RUSSIA IN THE ARCTIC REGION

The new Joint Strategic Command (JSC) of the Russian Armed Forces, the Northern Fleet, created in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 803, performs the functions of a military district. It is entrusted with the task of comprehensively ensuring the security of Russia in the space from Murmansk in the west to Anadyr in the east [16].

The basis of the new command is the ships of the Northern Fleet (NF), withdrawn from the Western Military District: 38 large surface ships and 42 submarines, including seven out of 10 combat-ready strategic missile submarines [17]. The JSC received not only units of the Northern Fleet but also units from the Central and Eastern military districts. In the near future, the Northern Fleet will be replenished with three new Borei-project nuclear missile carriers, three multipurpose nuclear Yasen’-project submarines, and two frigates—Admiral Kasatonov and Admiral Golovko [17].

Since 2014, the Federal Agency for Special Construction (Spetsstroy) of Russia has been actively building military camps and airfields in six remote regions of the Arctic—on Alexandra Land (Franz Josef Archipelago), in the village of Rogachevo (on Novaya Zemlya), on Srednii Island (Severnaya Zemlya), on Cape Schmidt, Wrangel Island, and Kotel’nyi Island (Novosibirsk Islands). In recent years, 13 airfields have been restored, built, and modernized in the Far North (including Tiksi, Nar’yan-Mar, Alykel’ (Noril’sk), Amderma, Anadyr, Rogachevo, Nagurskoye), as well as an aviation training ground and ten radar complexes and aviation guidance points, including at Cape Schmidt and Wrangel Island, 300 km from Alaska.

Air defense is being equipped and enhanced. Russian air defense in the Arctic is represented by the 45th Air Force and Air Defense Army. The air defense proper includes the 1st Air Defense Division, which combines three antiaircraft and two radio regiments. The air defense units are armed with the most modern means of combating an air attack—the S-400 air defense system and the modernized Pantsir-S1 air defense system. The division protects the Arctic borders of Russia from aircraft, cruise missiles, and UAVs of any possible aggressor. As part of the 45th Army, a new antiaircraft missile regiment has been formed, which is located on the Novaya Zemlya Archipelago. The Commander of the Navy, Admiral N. Evmenov, announced plans to create another air defense division in the Arctic.

The main land strike force of the Northern Fleet is the 14th Army Corps, which includes the 200th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (Arctic) in Pechenga and the 80th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (Arctic) in Alakurtti, Murmansk region. In addition, the 61st Separate Marine Brigade, four tactical groups on the islands of the Barents and Kara seas, as well as special forces and combat and logistics support units, are subordinate to the Northern Fleet JSC [17].

On Kotel’nyi Island, which is in the center of the NSR, a battery of supersonic Bastion coastal missile systems is deployed. Outside of their operation, including in the area of eternal ice, the naval aviation of the fleet operates. New Bal missile systems are being put into service with coastal defense units. They ensure the security of territorial waters and strait zones; the protection of coastal facilities and coastal infrastructure, including naval bases; and the protection of the coast in the most dangerous directions in terms of landing.

The airspace over almost all the northern borders of the country is well protected. In terms of retaliatory deterrence and a possible preemptive strike, Russian strategic aviation has increased combat air patrols in the Alaska region in recent years. From here, our new missiles reach targets in the United States, including the East Coast, in minutes. For example, the number of flights of “Bears” (TU-95) has sharply increased. In 2015, there were only six of them, while in 2020 the number of combat patrol flights in the Arctic reached 60. MiG-31BM supersonic interceptors protect the NSR. In addition, UAV crews will constantly monitor the situation in the Russian part of the Arctic, including the environmental and ice conditions in the near sea zone and along the Northern Sea Route.

CONCLUSIONS

Dialogue between the United States and Russia was aborted in 2014 as a result of the termination of military cooperation between Western countries and Moscow. The current situation in the Arctic is characterized by the fact that containment and military confrontation remain almost the only signals that America sends to Russia. This was recently reaffirmed by the U.S. Secretary of State, A. Blinken. At the session of the Arctic Council in Reykjavik on May 19, 2021, he stated that the intensification of Russian military activity undermined the common goal of a peaceful and sustainable future for the Arctic and that Russia was making illegal maritime demands, and in particular, regulating the passage of foreign ships along the Northern Sea Route, which was contrary to the law of the sea [18].

Washington does not hide that the United States intends to oust Russia from the Arctic and block China’s access to high latitudes. However, Russia will not give up its sovereign lands and the large reserves of natural resources stored in the Arctic, and China will not tolerate its removal from the economically, politically, and militarily extremely beneficial activities in the Arctic zone. The transformation of the confrontation through the increased tension into a military clash in the Far North, the scale and significance of which will surpass all military conflicts of our time, is fraught with a global war.

Although Washington’s foreign policy in the Arctic is implemented mainly by strong supporters of the Cold War, there are also sound voices on the American side. Thus, Rear Admiral Saunes, a professor at the US Naval War College, together with a colleague from the same college, W. Berbrick, published a report that emphasizes the importance of preventing military conflicts and establishing cooperation in ensuring security in high latitudes [19]. The report recommends restoring multilateral cooperation in the Arctic. It proposes, for example, to resume contacts with Russia within the framework of the current Forum of defense ministers of the Arctic States. “The forum offers an opportunity for dialogue to help prevent misunderstandings and unintended security escalation.”

On the Russian side, Nikolai Korchunov, Ambassador-at-Large of the Russian Foreign Ministry, spoke in favor of regular meetings with the heads of the military departments of the Arctic countries: “Russia supports resuming the annual meetings of the Chiefs of the Armed Forces in the Arctic states in order to prevent deterioration of the military-political situation in the Arctic” [19].

The leadership of the US Armed Forces understands the danger of growing military–political tensions in relations with such powerful military powers as Russia and China, and individual high-level military persons take it upon themselves to advocate dialogue with Moscow in the interests of peace and stability in the Arctic. This, in particular, was expressed by the head of the Northern Command of the US Armed Forces, General Glen VanHerck. At the online briefing on March 31, 2021, the general supported the idea of preventing conflicts and maintaining stable relations between our countries in the Arctic region, as well as in cyberspace and space. He holds that we need to establish norms of behavior to avoid unintentional escalation, so that we were not in a state of crisis [20]. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Mark Milley, also spoke from the position of strategic realism, stating that the United States had embarked on a dangerous course, maintaining an excessively high level of rivalry with Russia and China. It would be wiser to create conditions for a future that would prevent war between the great powers [21].

Positive signals from the US military indicate the presence of a countertrend in the United States to the current unbridled escalation of tension, which, however, is much weaker than the official course of confrontation. Healthy voices also sound confidently among experts and politicians. Henry Kissinger, for example, called on the United States to establish a balance with global powers. According to him, if we imagine that the world plunges into endless rivalry, the collapse of the world order is inevitable, and its consequences will be catastrophic [22].

The US ruling circles should listen to and consider the consensus that has developed in the expert community about the inability of the US to continue its hegemonic policy due to shrinking material resources and economic and strategic opportunities. Jerry Hendrix, Vice President of the Telemus Group military consulting company, points to this in particular in the National Review. He holds that economically and strategically America can no longer afford to continue trying to be everything to all peoples. Instead, the nation should strive for excellence in the target spectrum of such engagement (Hendriks, 2021).

Strategic realist politicians and the military, in our opinion, will gradually increase resistance to the course of dangerous balancing on the brink of nuclear war and, possibly, will lead to an adjustment of the aggressive US foreign policy.

Assessing the possible actions of the Americans in the foreseeable future, we agree with the opinion of the Russian researcher M.Yu. Gutenev: “The economic and military‒political aspects will remain the foundation of Washington’s policy in the Arctic for the next decades” (Gutenev, 2019, p. 139).

The United States, Russia, and China will face difficult maneuvering and adaptation to unfavorable circumstances. Objectively, there is a wide field of activity for multilateral diplomacy. Due to the rich Arctic resources and the significant future economic benefits associated with the NSR, aggravation of contradictions and crises cannot be avoided. At the same time, the obligations arising from the internationally recognized borders and natural rights of the Arctic countries, combined with respect for the sovereignty and rights of states that do not have privileges in the Arctic but have the right and desire to participate in the development of the northern region, leave the opportunity, using active diplomacy, to redirect potential conflicts towards dialogue and political settlement.

SOURCES

1. H. Brands, “America is losing the battle of the Arctic,” Bloomberg Opinion, July 31 (2019). https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-30/russia-china-are-crushing-the-u-s-in-the-battle-for-the-arctic. Cited September 29, 2021.

2. Media: Iceland and the United States signed a declaration on the return of American troops to the island. TASS, June 30 (2016). https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/3420429. Cited October 1, 2021.

3. Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-26. The White House, June 9 (1994). https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-26.pdf. Cited October 4, 2021.

4. A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century: Seapower, Newport, R.I., October 17 (2007). http://www.navy.mil/maritime/. Cited September 29, 2021.

5. The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030. https://info.publicintelligence.net/USNavy-ArcticRoadmap.pdf. Cited December 21, 2018.

6. D. Mikhailichenko, “Bluprint: US naval principles in the Arctic,” GoArctic, Jan. 12 (2021). https://goarctic.ru/abroad/blueprint-voenno-morskie-printsipy-ssha-v-arktike/. Cited September 15, 2021.

7. V. Prokhvatilov, “‘Blue Arctic’: How will Russia respond to the new ice strategy of the US Navy?,” Voenno-Politicheskii Zhurnal, Feb. 22 (2021). https://vpoanalytics.com/2021/02/20/golubaya-arktika-chem-otvetit-rossiya-na-novuyu-ledovuyu-strategiyu-vms-ssha/. Cited August 10, 2021.

8. H. Brands, “America is losing the battle of the Arctic,” Bloomberg Opinion, July 30 (2019). https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-30/. Cited January 29, 2021.

9. The US Navy conducted 20 exercises and operations in the Arctic in 2020, Admiral Michael Gilday, TASS. https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/11074895. Cited January 29, 2021.

10. “The State Department called the Arctic the northern flank of NATO,” Izvestiya, May 3 (2020). https://iz.ru/1044555/2020-08-05/gosdep-nazval-arktiku-severnym-flangom-nato. 05.08.2020. Cited November 29, 2020.

11. US “Arctic Doctrine”: Northern Sea Route will be blocked, RIA Novosti Oct. 18 (2019). https://ria.ru/20191018/1559911797.html. Cited January 29, 2020.

12. I. Polonskii, “Northern Sea Route: Military threats and vulnerable areas,” Voennoe Obozrenie, Jan. 29 (2021).

13. A. Kots, “‘Let’s not leave the Russians a chance’: What weapons the US is transferring to Norway,” RIA Novosti, Feb. 11 (2021). https://ria.ru/20210211/norvegiya-1596529151.html.

14. N. Protopopov, “’A direct threat to Russia”: What the Pentagon is hastily building in Alaska,” RIA Novosti, Mar. 12 (2021). https://ria.ru/20210312/radar-1600810877.html. Cited September 12, 2021.

15. K. Ryabov, “New US Arctic strategy,” Voennoe Obozrenie, Mar. 23 (2021).

16. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 803, On the Northern Fleet. http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202012210110. Cited September 12, 2021.

17. S. Yuferev, “Weapons for the war in the Arctic,” Voennoe Obozrenie, Oct. 25 (2018).

18. M. Vasil’eva, “Russia will lead the Arctic Council,” EURONews. https://ru.euronews.com/russia-to-chair-arctic-council. 2021.05.19. Cited November 29, 2021.

19. H.-G. Bye, “Russia should be invited back to Arctic security forums, New report suggests,” High North News, Jan. 26 (2021). https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/russia-should-be-invited-back-arctic-security-forums-new-report-suggests. Cited November 28, 2021.

20. “US military commander advocates dialogue with Russia,” Izvestiya, Apr. 1 (2021).

21. C. McFall, “Top military official warns US peace with China and Russia ‘fraying,’” Fox News, May 26 (2021). https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-peace-with-china-russia-fraying-joint-chiefs-chairman-says. Cited November 28, 2021.

22. P. Antonopoulos, “Kissinger warns Washington to accept new global system or face a pre-WWI geopolitical situation,” BRICS, Apr. 5 (2021). https://infobrics.org/post/33101/. Cited November 28, 2021.