Arctic region – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its report on Russian domination of the Arctic.

According to Pavel Devyatkin, writing for The Arctic Institute “Russia has increased Arctic military drills, opened or reopened military bases, constructed icebreakers, and established advanced radar stations to enhance its control of the region…US Secretary of Defense James Mattis declared that Russia is taking ‘aggressive steps’ to increase its presence in the Arctic…the Basics of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic Region declared that all activities in the Arctic should be tied to the interests of ‘defense and security to the maximum degree.’ “In February 2013, Russia’s official Arctic strategy was expanded when President Putin approved the Development Strategy of the Russian Arctic and the Provision of National Security for the Period Until 2020… [it notes that] National security in the Arctic requires an advanced naval, air force and army presence in the Arctic. Further aims include developing the Russian icebreaker fleet, modernizing the air service and airport network, and establishing modern information and telecommunication infrastructure. In August 2007, Russia resumed strategic bomber and Northern Fleet patrols in its Arctic waters for the first time since the end of the Cold War. Russia has also invested significantly in its naval capacity in the Arctic. The Northern Fleet is…the most powerful of the four Russian fleets with the greatest number of icebreakers and submarines. The Northern Fleet’s sea-based nuclear deterrence capability makes it a fundamental part of Russia’s military. Russia has expanded naval patrols near Norwegian and Danish territories, increased the operational radius of the Fleet’s submarines, and commenced below-ice training for submarines.

“The Ministry of Defense has announced that they aim to put more than 100 military facilities into operation in 2017. Since 2015, Russia has constructed six new bases that have included new airfields, ports and army bases.¹⁶⁾ These actions show that Russian security policy in the Arctic is more than simply upgrading existing military infrastructure…In addition, traditional armed forces are becoming involved in the Arctic to learn military tactics for Arctic warfare. Although Russia’s military activities in the Arctic are mostly aerial and naval, there are garrisons of Russian ground troops and security services throughout the Russian Arctic.”

Beyond icebreakers and bases, 2018 has been an active year for Russia’s militarization of the Arctic. A Telegraph report filed by Alec Luhn in Moscow noted that the nation’s annual Victory Day Parade featured a new “fighting snowmobile” equipped with a machine gun. “With a speed of 40 miles per hour and a range of 300 miles, the snowmobile keeps its two-man crew warm in an enclosed cabin and… [has] a 7.62mm PKP machine gun mounted on the back.

Apart from the normal health issues a man also levitra 10 mg on sale at drugshop tends to have some other unfavorable susceptibilities. The training is given by a certified and experienced driver instructor so that you learn in a faster viagra effects women and simpler way. Differentiate between a sham and real product: Some companies offer fake sildenafil 50mg tablets enhancement products to derive money from you. The jungle conditions add to the excavation difficulties. cheap viagra price Far more worrisome, reports Newsweek’s Damien Sharkov, for the first time since the USSR’s collapse, Russia sent military jets over the North Pole towards North America.

Deemer notes that “At present, NATO and the United States lack a well-developed strategy to address and counter Russian aggression in the Arctic. … NATO and the United States should instead pursue a renewed strategy of containment, constructing military installations in two specific regions: northern Norway and northwestern Alaska. Expanding on a January 2017 reshuffling of troops that led to 300 U.S. Marines being stationed at Vaernes Air Base, NATO should construct bases in the Norwegian states of Nordland, Troms, and Finnmark. At the same time, military installations in the Northwest Arctic, North Slope, and Kotzebue Sound would provide a NATO presence at the mouth of the Northern Sea Route. An already-established Canadian and Danish military presence on the opposite side of the Arctic and in Greenland would complete this strategy of containment. Russia would find itself with NATO forces to the west in Norway, the east in Alaska, and to the north across the Arctic. Any Russian territorial claims could be legitimately disputed and Russia would largely be limited to resources found on the Russian mainland, maintaining the global power equilibrium and advancing U.S. interests abroad…[However] any diversion of NATO troops to pursue such a strategy would inevitably leave NATO less formidable elsewhere, namely in Western Europe.”

Photo: U.S. Navy

The submarine USS Connecticut and fast-attack submarine USS Hartford breakthrough the ice in support of Ice Exercise 2018 near Ice Camp Skate in the Arctic Circle

A major power has taken extraordinary military steps to dominate a strategic region, but there has been barely any significant discussion of the fact in the media.

Russia has moved unprecedented amounts of armed forces into the Arctic region. It has near total military supremacy on the top of the planet, and it is continuing to add to its domination. Russian sources quoted the Kremlin’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu boasting that during the spring, Russia’s Northern Fleet accepted the Ilya Muromets icebreaker, the Elbrus supply ship, the Admiral Gorshkov frigate and the Ivan Gren landing ship. State tests of the Academician Pashin fuel tanker are currently under way, all of which add to Moscow’s growing supremacy of the Arctic.

Shoigu stated that in addition “…before the end of the year the North Fleet would receive five combat ships, five supply ships, 15 aircraft and 62 radar stations and missile-radar complexes. As a result, 56.7 percent of all of the North Fleet’s weapons and equipment will be the most modern models.” RT added that “Russia has continued construction of military bases in Arctic regions and conducted exercises in extreme conditions to boost the combat readiness of military personnel.”

Jonathon Deemer, in a Lint Center analysis notes that “Since Vladimir Putin’s return to the Russian Presidency, the Russian Federation has pursued an aggressive policy of militarization of the Arctic. Not only is Russia revamping Soviet-era bases near the Finnish border and in northern Siberia, it is also constructing new bases off the Russian mainland extending to Aleksandra Island (the northernmost island of the Franz Josef Land Archipelago) and Sredny Ostrov.”

In May, NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller noted that “NATO must be more active in the area… there are real military challenges developing to which the NATO alliance has not paid sufficient attention for many, many years and we need to up our game…” The U.S. has only two icebreakers committed to the Arctic, while Russia has forty. The U.S. Naval Institute quotes Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Paul Zuknft’s statement in support of new icebreakers:“If you do not have presence to exert sovereignty, you’re a paper lion.”

As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has noted, Russia is engaging in new and extremely worrisome activities in the Arctic. According to The NATO Association’s Aleksi Korpela “…the erection of military bases and deployment of forces rings ominous to contiguous states and those with Arctic possessions or interests. This issue has become especially controversial in the last few years, as Russia has expanded its military infrastructure following the creation of a new strategic district: The Arctic Joint Strategic Command (OSK) …”
My rule? If your generic cialis from canada physical address changes, you need to call me before you put the car in various places. A complete history and a thorough examination can rule in or out a wide range of possible problems. cheap cialis Hypnotherapy slovak-republic.org levitra samples is truly the most natural way to nourish your body and soul. Additionally you will find that there are no side effects associated with this tablet shop viagra online and the good thing is that they are as effective as their branded counterparts are.
Mark Galeotti has written in the Moscow Times that “Russia is using extortion in the Arctic… Russia’s icebreaker fleet is a particular ‘ice-power’ asset: It is the world’s largest and includes the massive nuclear-powered vessel 50 Years of Victory… This is all very impressive, but it begs the question of just what these forces are meant to do. Bombers cannot dig for oil, infantry cannot collect taxes from passing Chinese container ships. But they can board and occupy oil rigs, seize cargo ships and threaten any forces that seek to challenge Moscow’s right to do this. After all, it may be impossible to ‘occupy’ the Arctic, but Russia is developing assets that could deny it to anyone else.”

In 2015, the military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported that a new Russian Arctic command was under development, including four new Arctic brigades, 50 airfields by 2020, increased long-range air patrols by Russian bombers and a total of 40 conventional and nuclear icebreakers, with 11 more planned. That same year, the BBC reported that Russia was developing a new naval infrastructure in the region. In addition to a new air defense base on Sredniy Island, five island bases were being built by 1,500 workers – at Alexandra Land, Rogachevo, Cape Schmidt, Wrangel and Kotelny. During that year’s summer months, according to Defense News, Russia launched military exercises in the region that included over 1,000 soldiers, 14 aircraft and 34 special military units.

Moscow’s military aircraft have flown provocatively close to Arctic-area territories belonging to NATO members. The Kremlin’s Arctic military buildup occurred even as the United States reduced its military spending under the Obama Administration.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Photo: U.S. Coast Guard

Russia has 42 icebreakers, the U.S., only 1 in the region.

Quick Analysis

Part 3: AMERICA’S STRATEGIC POSTURE

We conclude our summary of the urgent recommendation of the Congressional Committee on the nation’s Strategic Posture NON-NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES The Commission recommends: The United States urgently deploy a more resilient space architecture and adopt a strategy that includes both offensive and defensive elements to ensure U.S. access to and operations in space. The United States and its Allies take steps to ensure they are at the cutting edge of emerging technologies – such as big data analytics, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence (AI) – to avoid strategic surprise and potentially enhance the U.S. strategic posture. The United States prioritize funding and accelerate long-range non-nuclear precision strike programs to meet the operational need and in greater quantities than currently planned. x America’s Strategic Posture The United States develop and field homeland IAMD that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and China, and determine the capabilities needed to stay ahead of the North Korean threat.4 The Secretary of Defense direct research, development, test and evaluation into advanced IAMD capabilities leveraging all domains, including land, sea, air, and space. These activities should focus on sensor architectures, integrated command and control, interceptors, cruise and hypersonic missile defenses, and area or point defenses. The DOD should urgently pursue deployment of any capabilities that prove feasible. The Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments transfer operations and sustainment responsibility for missile defense to the appropriate Military Departments by 1 October 2024. This will allow the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to focus on research, development, prototyping and testing. ALLIES AND PARTNERS The Commission believes it is in the U.S. national interest to maintain, strengthen, and when appropriate, expand its network of alliances and partnerships. These relationships strengthen American security by deterring aggression regionally, before it can reach the U.S. homeland, while also enabling U.S. economic prosperity through access to international markets. Withdrawing from U.S. alliances and partnerships would directly benefit adversaries, invite aggression that the United States might later have to reverse, and ultimately decrease American, allied, and partner security and economic prosperity. Further, the Commission believes that our defense and the defense of the current international order is strengthened when Allies can directly contribute to the broader strategic posture, and the United States should seek to incorporate those contributions as much as possible. The Executive branch should recognize that any major change to U.S. strategic posture, policies, or capabilities will have great effect on Allies’ perceptions and their deterrence and assurance requirements. As a result, any changes should be predicated on meaningful consultations. RISK REDUCTION The Commission believes it is of paramount importance for the United States to work to reduce strategic risks. This involves activities and programs across the U.S. government, including in nonproliferation and arms control, as well as maintaining strong, viable, and resilient military forces. The Commission recommends that a strategy to address the two-nuclear-peer threat environment be a prerequisite for developing U.S. nuclear arms control limits for the 2027-2035 timeframe. The Commission recommends that once a strategy and its related force requirements are established, the U.S. government determine whether and how nuclear arms control limits continue to enhance U.S. security. The Commission recommends that the United States continue to explore nuclear arms control opportunities and conduct research into potential verification technologies in order to support or enable future negotiations in the U.S. national interest that seek to limit all nuclear weapon types, should the geopolitical environment change. Where formal nuclear arms control agreements are not possible, the Commission recommends pursuing nuclear risk reduction measures to increase predictability and reduce uncertainty and the chances for misperception and miscalculation. The 2009 Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States reported that the United States was at “a moment of opportunity, . . .but also a moment of urgency” – because the security environment had improved and the threat of nuclear proliferation was the principal concern. Since 2009, the security environment has dramatically worsened and new existential threats have emerged. This Commission concludes that the United States now faces a highstakes challenge that requires urgent action. Nevertheless, the Commission has not seen the U.S. government demonstrate the urgency and creativity required to meet the challenge. Nothing other than synchronized steps taken by the Executive and Legislative Branches will craft the strategy and build the posture the nation requires. The challenges are unmistakable; the problems are urgent; the steps are needed now. Photo: An Air Force Global Strike Command unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during a test at Vandenberg Space Force Base (DoD)