0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
472 $
AUGUST 2020

Arctic In Flames

Donate

Arctic In Flames

Click to see the full-size image

Written by J.Hawk exclusively for SouthFront

Of all the theaters of militarized international rivalry in the early 21st century, the Arctic promises to be the most complex and unpredictable. In terms of domain, military operations there would be conducted on land, in the air, on the sea surface, but also in the depths of the Arctic Ocean under ice cover. The geographic remoteness and climactic harshness of the climate and terrain mean any conflict there would be fought the gaze of international media or citizen reporters. Next to the Antarctic, the Arctic is one of the few areas of the global commons that has not yet been apportioned among the major and minor powers. And the stakes for all the players are quite high.

The Stakes

Military presence in the Arctic and extension of one’s national sovereignty over it promises to yield the interested states and alliances with several sets of benefits. The first and most obvious is the access to copious natural resources, starting with hydrocarbons, lurking under the still relatively unexplored continental shelf there. The second one is the surveillance and/or control over maritime shipping routes whose importance will only increase as polar ice cover retreats. Thirdly, the Arctic does include some militarily very valuable real estate, in the form of great many islands and archipelagoes that may be used for advanced military outposts and bases.

In all three cases, the United States is acting as the spoiler, unhappy with the current state of affairs. It aims to extend its control over natural resources in the region, establish permanent presence in other countries’ exclusive economic zones (EEZ) through the use of the so-called “freedom of navigation operations” (FONOPs), and continue to encircle Russia with ballistic missile defense (BMD) sites and platforms.

In view of the urgent and evident US preparations to be able to fight and prevail in a war against a nuclear adversary, by defeating the adversary’s nuclear arsenal through the combination of precision non-nuclear strikes (including by the broad range of hypersonic missiles currently under development) and BMD systems, it would appear that third benefit is of the greatest importance to the United States, though certainly not the only one. The recent sortie by a force of US Navy BMD-capable AEGIS destroyers into the Barents Sea, the first such mission since the end of the Cold War over two decades ago, shows the interest United States has in projecting BMD capabilities into regions north of Russia’s coastline, where they might be able to effect boost-phase interceptions of Russian ballistic missiles that would be launched in retaliatory strikes against the United States.

Island-Hopping with Nukes

US operational planning for the Arctic in all likelihood resembles that for South China Sea, with only a few corrections for climate. The key similarity of both potential theaters of war is that the decisive fighting would be in the air or at or under the sea, culminating in comparatively small amphibious operations and battles for relatively small and/or isolated islands. Once one side prevails in the air and at sea, the outcome of these land battles would be all but foreordained. As the experience of World War 2 “island-hopping” campaigns in the Pacific shows, no isolated island fortress can survive for very long once it is isolated from own air and naval support. Every Japanese outpost targeted by the US eventually fell, and did not require masses of troops to overcome their resistance thanks to overwhelming naval and aerial firepower US forces brought to bear. Campaigns in the Arctic would follow a similar course, with US naval task forces pushing into the teeth of Russia’s submarines, land-based missile batteries, and land-based fighter and bomber squadrons. The recently announced plans to revamp the US Marine Corps that include doing away with its tank battalions and much of field artillery, while adding land-based anti-ship missile capabilities for the first time ever, suggest USMC is being tailored for such small-scale island-hopping operations in the Arctic, South China Sea, and other such theaters of war, to the detriment of its ability to conduct counter-insurgency or large-scale high-intensity combat operations.

The small size of forces used by both sides also means a premium will be placed on the element of surprise, since a small garrison on a remote Arctic island garrison could be overcome relatively quickly, in the manner similar to which the original Argentinian invasion of the Falklands succeeded in routing the Royal Marine garrison so quickly that no real fighting took place.

Arctic In Flames

Click to see the full-size image

The remoteness of these islands, the small size of the military forces, and the practically non-existent potential for collateral damage due to absence of large civilian populations also mean that the use of low-yield nuclear weapons, against both land facilities and naval forces at sea, is far easier to contemplate than in any conflict in Europe or Asia. The remoteness of this theater of operations also means nuclear strikes would have a lower risk of strategic escalation, as long as all the nuclear adversaries refrained from targeting enemy mainland.

At the outset, however, the dominant weapon systems would be intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles, launched from land-based launchers as well as aerial and naval platforms. The US withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty means the US Army will have a large number of ground-launched missiles with ranges exceeding 500km in service, such as the Precision Strike Missile. The US Marine Corps is planning to organize Littoral Regiments whose armament will include Naval Strike Missiles on unmanned truck-based launchers, and which are intended for such island campaigns in the South China Sea but also elsewhere. Moreover, US Navy and US Air Force plan to introduce hypersonic missiles into their arsenals by the end of the decade as well. The current US procurement plans mean that by 2030 the United States could expect to concentrate overwhelming intermediate-range missile firepower in any given single theater of operations, be it the Persian Gulf, the Pacific Rim, or the Arctic.

NATO vs. Russia or US vs the World?

At the same time the United States will have to solve the problem of disunity within its own camp. United States covetous eye has been cast not only on those areas of the Arctic within Russia’s continental shelf, but also Canada’s Northwest Passage and even Denmark’s Greenland. The US intent to procure a small fleet of icebreakers is intended to enable “Freedom of Navigation Operations” in what Canada views its territorial waters, and Donald Trump actually may have revealed a state secret when he spoke of the United States buying Greenland from Denmark and setting up a Trump Tower there. With the COVID-19 revealing America’s weakness for all the world to sea and the Europeans discovering an urgent need for unity and cooperation, United States might yet discover a unified European Union to be a formidable opponent when it comes to protecting its own interests.

The United State is slowly but steadily losing the geo-economic race in the Arctic with Russia and China. In the situation when there is no chance to push forward own successful projects, Washington has opted the strategy of undermining efforts of other states. The fast development of Russia’s Northern Sea Route is the source of the especial concern of the US strategists. Therefore, the US diplomatic activity and the so-called “freedom of navigation operations” are now mostly focused on undermining and limiting the freedom of navigation in the way that would allow to contain the Chinese-Russian cooperation in the region. If Washington cannot catch-up Moscow and Beijing in the field, it will do all what it can to at least slow down the progress of their joint projects.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Ivan Freely

    There’s no way Denmark can hold onto it’s claim.

    • Jens Holm

      Yes there are. USA has the Thule Airbase and prefare Denmark having from anyone else.

      • Wayne Nicholson

        This is why the Trump offered to buy Greenland last year. Push comes to shove they’ll just take down the Danish flag, pull up the stars and stripes and declare Greenland Puerto Rico north.

        This is by no means a slight against Denmark …. I have a friend who just retired from Canada’s foreign ministry …. she claims Canada’s biggest fear isn’t Russia or China but the USA invading Canada for our water. That’s what the big kerfuffal over the USA deploying troops to the border at the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis was really about. We don’t really give a shit where they put their troops except we KNOW they have plans for our water.

        • Raptar Driver

          Well you’re the 51st state so I don’t know what you’re crying about?

          • Wayne Nicholson

            51st state huh? ….. We in Canada think you’re better off being state 33 of Mexico but the Mexicans think you should be province 13 of Canada. Maybe if you’re nice to the queen England will have you back?

          • Raptar Driver

            Relax, I was just messing with you.I think Canadians are great people. Your government allows our government to do whatever they want and you need to stop this.

          • Wayne Nicholson

            When the Americans said they planned to deploy troops on the border I asked a friend of mine … a retired “russian scholar” who was employed at the foreign ministry in the “diplomatic service” ….. what she thought the USA was up to. I thought oil and minerals …… she said without hesitation “water”. Apparently we’ve been expecting conflict with the USA over water and it’s not if it’s going to happen but when.

        • Ivan Freely

          Canada has been in a bad position for a long time. IIRC, doesn’t Canada have some kind of security arrangement with the US where US LEOs can operate on Canadian soil? If so, you’re going to need foreign help should the US decide to go full Nazi on you.

          • IggyBundy

            US also stole some Canadian islands…

          • Jens Holm

            Thats a relative.

          • Wayne Nicholson

            We already experienced a bit of that during 9/11. I remember those white SUV with armed men in them streaming up the 401 from Detroit on 9/12.

          • Jens Holm

            No wonder some looked like ants there. It was a great chock – and see what happend in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and libya by that.

            That was what was won by that attack. Congratualtions – 550.000 dead in Syria and its not over. Most people are killed by Assad himself….

            Hip hip, what a great succes.

          • Jens Holm

            Canada as well as USA are member of Nato. By that treaty operations at all Nato territories are allowed.

            The bases are paid by the local countries, so only the extra use sich as fuel is paid for. If a country ask for better facilities – fx like Incirlik inTurkey and an airbase in Italy, the users can rent and build paid by themselves.

            So its not “some kind of security or “can” “. Its in signed treaties.

            You seemes to be a good example how people build the deep deep state.
            you are not even able to read the Nato treaty even almost all is to read as well as the many 10.000s of commens by Our free press are.

            You systematicly insist in living in the dark and (here a usual) blame USA to make them look bad.

            Thats why someone like You look so bad seen from here.

          • Jens Holm

            There we go again. 2 stupidist knot even knowing Canada is a Nato member and we all has obligatiosn boths ways.

            Much like ou think we are Klondike and anerchy instead of Your unorganozed chaos with low GDP.

        • Concrete Mike

          I agree, USA is our biggest threat. Not the people, but the fascist corporate government!

          • Wayne Nicholson

            I used to go to las Vegas to work 2 months out of the year and collaborate with guys from all over the USA. The people are great …. friendly, kind, generous ….. I made a lot of genuine friends down there …. until you bring up politics or religion then you get this Pavlovian response from them. They seem to think the whole world is out to get them.

          • rightiswrong rightiswrong

            At this point in time, the US does indeed have the whole world against them.
            Remember what the Galicians did to Germany?

            Substitute the Galicians for the rest of NATO, against Uncle Shmuel.

          • Jens Holm

            The ususal non sense from the enemies of the western world doin better then hoped for.

        • Jens Holm

          iddiottic comment of the worst kind.

          You must have been invaded in Your methal health Yourself.

          The rest is far out too.

          • Wayne Nicholson

            Have you never heard of the Monroe Doctrine? You better read up on it. Do you want to bet on Trumps interpretation of it if someone explains it to him?

            Yea I know it’ll take puppets, crayons to explain it to him and he’ll have to name it Trumpland and be allowed to build casinos and a golf course but the Danes are a kind and understanding bunch and they’re far less trouble than Canadians.

            I know it sounds like I’m joking but mark my words Trump is serious about taking Greenland and the longer and deeper this economic crisis is the more attractive Greenland becomes.

          • Jens Holm

            I know the Monroe Doctrine better then You.

            Our Premiere minister has told Trumpet, that Greenland cant be bougt and used words not normal in USA.

            So You are not alone in this.

            And by the way we had a dispute with You about some very small dot named “Hans Island”. You were not better then them and even gave the Island Canadian flags. Canadians never comes there themselves but Our Inuits do now and then.

            https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_%C3%98

          • Wayne Nicholson

            Are you seriously comparing an argument over the ownership over an uninhabited square km sized piece of rock sticking out of the water and a small continent sized strategically vital piece of real estate that gives Denmark a share of untold $$$trillions in mineral wealth in the arctic.

            Do you think there is an American alive who has even heard of Hans Island let alone find it on a map? In Canada’s entire history you will find few instances of her invading other countries, deposing governments, plotting coups, unilaterally sanctioning “enemies”. The USA OTOH has been expanding their territory and influence all over the world since the early 19th century

            We don’t have the capacity to project power with our armed forces beyond our borders. We have no aircraft carriers or amphibious assault ships nor stealth aircraft designed to sneak across borders and strike enemies undetected.

            The USA alone in the world has those capabilities with China being the only country outside of US led NATO building amphibious assault capabilities and even then only in reaction to the US military operating off their shores and building bases in their near abroad.

            You can try to twist this any way you like but the USA is the only country with the capability and motive to seize Greenland as it’s own and as we’ve seen with Donald Trumps offer to purchase Greenland from the Danes they are looking at options on doing just that.

        • Tommy Jensen

          What water? Our drinking and fresh water comes from the sea via evaporation.

          How can people be so stupid they only can find drinking water 25m down in a hole which then is contaminated with plastic, roundrup and pesticides, where after we have “lack of clean water resources”??

          How can you guys possible be so stupid?

          • Wayne Nicholson

            “Our drinking and fresh water comes from the sea via evaporation and rain”.

            I might have at one time but not any more. When you pump out feet of water out of the ground every year in areas where you get on average 1″ of rain a year you run out of water. pumping crap into it in order to get oil and gas through hydraulic fracturing doesn’t help either

            “Our Creator made it easy for us, until a group of liberals arrived and focked everything up.”

            Perhaps your creator isn’t as happy with you as you once thought. Maybe that why he’s sending floods, plagues, hurricanes, tornados, fags, feminists and false prophets? Perhaps it’s time to try sacrificing virgins again?

            https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-103-03/

          • Tommy Jensen

            Its not our Creators problem that idiots like you cant find water.
            Water is the most common material on earth.

            You can put up a 20′ container in any desert, everywhere, with a water plant inside which can produce 700m3/year fresh water from the air around you, enough for 7 families. The hotter the air is, the more water it contains.

            If you can put gas/oil pipes everywhere, you can also put a pipe from the Sea to anywhere inside any country and make the same evaporation trick as nature does, thus produce any amount of water you want to anywhere.

            Whats wrong with the brain of you guys? You are so narrow minded you can only focus on your own immediate local geographical problem and need.
            Probably because you dont know our Creators overall design and neither his purpose.

          • Wayne Nicholson

            “The hotter the air is, the more water it contains.”

            Nope. The hotter the air the more CAPACITY it has to contain water however if there is no water to evaporate all you have is hot dry air.

            “You can put up a 20′ container in any desert, everywhere, with a water plant inside which can produce 700m3/year fresh water from the air around you, enough for 7 families.’

            700 m^3 / 365 = 1.9 M^3/day.
            1.9 M^3 converted to US gallons = 220 gal/day

            So you’re tellin me you have a plant that you can grow in the desert and it will produce 220 gallons of water a day out of dry desert air?

            Have you told anyone else about this because you’ve just solved the clean drinking water for humanity and turned the deserts into lush jungle by simply growing a plant?

            Two questions.

            1. Why do for instance the Saudi’s and Israeli’s have to desalinate seawater to survive when this miraculous plant could turn the desert into a beachfront water park?

            2. Care to provide evidence that this miraculous plant exists?

          • Tommy Jensen

            1. Because desalination is cheaper than the by the air extracting plant.
            2. Off course. A little search on duck duck there is plenty. Here example from Israel.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a4d6ee4becfe945fe22d3728fdbd5e60c7b819b1190babe60c2a36da52316985.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d75d4233e8f708b910071c6ecdad747a607660f78977e71ba8ba0e13e601561a.jpg

            The reason why you see the “scarce water resources” in MSM and UN is mass manipulation and monetarization of our free water by Wall Street.
            After 100 years of pulling the sheeples ass with “limited fossil oil”, Rockefeller made a bet with his pals that he could also fool the sheeple and earn money on the material the earth has most of.

          • Tommy Jensen
          • Wayne Nicholson

            1. So you think you can produce enough water to supply cities like LA and Los Vegas as well as irrigate the farmlands in the midwest, south west and California using solar dehumidifiers?

            Yes you could survive in the desert using dehumidifiers ….. they’ve been doing just that in the Andes for thousands of years ….. but it’s another thing to use this method for industrial agriculture, industrial processes and drinking water for 100 million or more souls.

            While I’m all for subsistance living with zero carbon footprint don’t you think the USA would miss things like oil and gas, big fat avocados and almond milk?

            2. Where’s the miracle plant that can produce 200 gal/day in a 20′ container?

          • Tommy Jensen

            1. You are still angled wrong in your head. It will take you long time mentally to get in line.
            We talk about unlimited water to everybody everywhere in principle! When you got this right, you can conclude the rest must be an engineering problem.
            When you still have “scarce polluted water resources” in your mind, you just continue creating problems in your head.

            Sao Paulo 22mio you see swimmingpools/100m, 12 floor Towers with 3 bathrooms in each 70m2 apartments, waterhose to cool off the asphalt.
            Its an engineering problem, not a water problem.

            I have now resolved the water problem for you. Dont invent new problems ok.

            2. Plant=Equipment, like the box I show under here. Search for yourself.

          • Jens Holm

            Unfortunatly he is right. The thracking lower the terrains as well as pollute ot very much.

            ll Danish water comes from below. We have tracks of fertilizers and poison but we try to keeo it that way.

            We mix water like drinks, so the poison and taste is fine and clean our used water, so it dont pollute rivers, lakes and the water deep down.

            Here You can drink water from the toilet.

            I am aware many countries dont have that, but we are many millions, which has water like that and it mainly taste well, so we dont buy as much water as many others and use sparkles or lemon as camouflage.

            Its very expensive to make water. Normally it does not taste well.

          • rightiswrong rightiswrong

            Don’t they drink pure fluoride in the States? lol

          • Tommy Jensen

            They also mix it with lead at least in Flint.
            More to Big Pharma and more to suck from the public tax tank for social welfare for Democrats.

    • Martin Benitez

      pulling a south china sea

      • Ivan Freely

        They’re trying to but will fail as they don’t have the military might to enforce their claims.

  • Ilya

    https://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-politics-and-cartography-mapping-claims-to-the-arctic-seabed-46043

    The map on this site is better imo – shows EEZs as well as claims outside of it.. Denmark is pushing way out there, away from its EEZ, so is questionable. Everyone else seem to have fairly reasonable claims.

    • Jens Holm

      Yes, its more like several parts are contested.

      Maybee it should be a polar bear vacation spot.

  • Jens Holm

    Its almost funny reading anyone should fight WW2 with tanks and small military units in arctis.

    USA and we are not worried for better transportation for Russia as well as others up there but all can see we all has to adapt the new possibilities as well as other older ones get less important.

    You can make many scenaries fx for Russia. I see big parts of the Russian food belt dry out because of the climate warming up. So the typical Russian in next or next generation is a person doing fishing with flashlight. Its not unrealustic. The warming up makes more fish,

    You might get more rain in Norther Russia, so You might find places, where You can grow things well.

    • Ilya

      https://i2.wp.com/russian-realestate.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Soil-quality-in-Russia-Map.jpg

      Russian soil types. Bear in mind that the farmed areas are still just the southern strip close to all the other nations, other than in Europe, where it stretches north. Russia has 41 million hectares lying fallow, and is self sufficient in food. Unless it does something stupid, it will have enough land to grow for itself. Global warming will only open up more land.

      • Jens Holm

        We will see. I agree Russia gets compensated but I see the lack of rain.

        Hopefully more rain can come much more south if there are no ice.

        You will get much letters from Your southern mountains to Lena, Ob and Jenisej.

        • Ilya

          Without rain, it will just come down to the Israel solution – desalination plants on the north coast and pipelines to agricultural regions.

          If Ghadaffi could do it for his small desert nations, the stubborn Russian mind could achieve it for its landmass!

          • Tommy Jensen

            The water cycle was first known in Europe in France start 1700 and has not reached Denmark yet.

            In Denmark they still fool around with umbrellas and wellies installing low flush toilets, low use air water taps and ultrasound meters on water taps to measure and save sustainable water drops while it rains 700 m3/year down in their heads in their own gardens……………….LOL.

          • Ilya

            I dunno, in my middle age I am turning into a freak for cleanliness and efficiency! :D we should aim to have as little waste as possible, the Earth would be better off without it, and, I like peeing in the shower anyways!

          • Tommy Jensen

            Reminds me of Georg Carlin and his comments on liberals.
            “They dont give a shit about the nature. You know what they want?
            A clean place to live! Worried that someone somewhat might expose them to personal inconvenience”.

          • Jens Holm

            There is no just in that. You seemes not to know what less rain and evaporation by heat can do.

            Look at Caspian sea. Ural river and the rivers to Aral lake, which already today has minimized.

            I do recall several projekt taking water running north. They are all given up. Only the Petsjoare river projekt has some realisme.

            Thats what I see.

        • IggyBundy

          remember if its not covered in ice it will be covered in water…

          • Jens Holm

            Yes, we can make growing lines. There will come much more rain from the northm but is has to reach the growing zone. The growing zone often is defines as 4 month with enough sun.

            Then You should find agrable land. Very much is only sand having no neutricians. Others parts east of OB manly is mountains, so here You has to find places with sun from south.

            The plus plus is the many “marshes”, where You fin thick layers of peat, but none knows if they will remain like that because they can be transformed to something else and much land will lower and therefore will be too wet.

            But I do have hopes. Its like statistics, which as minimum says, that here and thre, there will be good spots – AND – northern part of Russia/Sibiria is a very big spots.

            There are other hopes. The big rivers will be reduced a lot, but they now can be active tranporters frm north in more months a year. That also should make it easier to take up minerals.

            Many places might be more wet, but its better then very much frost.

            So there are good hopes, but if we grow plants and for that matter animals as we do now, meny miilion Russoans has to go at least some kilometers north.

            I have justs seen pictures of big closed towers, where the hight gives more hours of sunshine and they collect warm sunshine and give it back in cold night. There is no waste of fertilzer and water. Whats no used will be catched in the bottom and can be a help.

            They are able to harvest fx corn used as pigfood and popcorn:) But they of course has to get everything from the putside, but there is hardly any waste.

    • cechas vodobenikov

      for an idiot that lives in a nation that only grows potatoes and bad cheese—u merely display your illiterate jealousy once again—where Russia is entirely food self sufficient, u r not

  • rightiswrong rightiswrong

    Canada needs to kiss Russian ass, if they want to be sovereign. The EU also, to save Denmarks holdings in the Arctic.
    Russia just needs to stay afloat long enough, for the rest of NATO to discover who the wolf in sheep cloths really is. lol

    • Ivan Freely

      They definitely need foreign help should the US goes full Nazi on their asses.

      • rightiswrong rightiswrong

        Seeing as that it was the USA who sponsored Hitler and the Nazis, and forgave their debts after WW2, the chances of another fascist attack on Canada are not that remote.

        • Concrete Mike

          Its ok, any attack will stop by november, its called winter, pretty damn effective. Ask paulus.

          • rightiswrong rightiswrong

            Zhukov would beg to differ, as Russians can fight in all weather. lol

          • Jens Holm

            You should go back in time. It was luck Yougoslaves and Greeks supported hard by all Britts had delayed Barbarossa 14 day.

            By that You should count Barrbarossa reaching Moscaw 14 days before that with hardly no defence and certaily no “Sibirian” troops.

            What would have happend if Stalin has retreated as Goverment from Moscow.

            I am sure Hitler having corners of Moscow would make a big difference.

            Paulus is kind of same thing. The normal procedure was to make a breakout because being besieged almost always makes a 100% loss. Paulus did have 2-3 reserve divisons intact for that but was ordered to stay.

            Paulus could have taken those troops to defend where the Russians cut his lifelines. The standard order “burn everything” was fllowed too, so the 300.000 not even had that small reserve of food and even fuel.

            By that You are right. Paulus became familiar with winter, but it was decided by Hitler.

            I allow me to add things was even worse as we can see in the newest investigations about it. Germans actually had winterclothe but because of bad logistics they did not get it.

            Peoplehas to understand the real winner in wars often are logistics and supply. To much is forcused on tanks and airplanes.

            USA did a lot of trading with The Nazis. The reasons was simple. The products were very good and often very cheep – Herr Schact.

            They also respected Germans very fast made jobs by giving the hard working rights as well as reponsabilities after the “Weimar chaos”.

        • Jens Holm

          Thats right. I any sponsored Hitler it was Sta
          ling making taking of Poland, France, Belgium a.s.o possible.

          USA having good trade relations with Mexico too and USA being in Nato with Canada is not like descriebed

        • Tommy Jensen

          We want to be as big in area as Russia so everybody can see we are the biggest and greatest nation. Trump will make America great again.
          Canada and Greenland, piece of cake……………………LOL.

          • rightiswrong rightiswrong

            That’s what Westmoreland and LBJ said about Vietnam!

            And Vietnam had no ties to European rulers. Canada and Greenland are home to many trillions of natural assets, a magnet for arming any patriots willing to carry on the fight against a larger military force, such as the US.
            And we all know how the average US citizen hates to fight committed patriots. lol

          • cechas vodobenikov

            u r so weak and impotent u lose all wars—vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Syria—u feminized little girls cannot produce competent weapons, nor can you engage in battle…your insecurity amuses

      • Jens Holm

        USA wont. Its not about territory but the use of it.

        Oilcompanies are cosmopolites and even partly own each other, so its not some Mrs Trumpdrilling there but the winners of the Oursourcing.

        Un fortunatly its also typical those companies try to pay tax, where its low and try to avoid taxpaying.

        So the + + is limited for any of the states, but of course it is there.

        I see the same about Syrien minioil and the Iraqi as well as Iranian oil. You attack USA, but the facts are they are only one of several partners such as China, India and Korea.

        And who did that???? Your Leders did. Assads fx has 50% of the Omar and Gonaco fields and as respinsible owner have a lot from there to be in the old days as well as gicing nothing to rest being not corrupt Baathist.

    • Jens Holm

      Thats barking madness of the worst kind.

      • Jens Holm

        There we go again 2 X minus. You write what You hope for is true because You invented it Yoursel and now even believe it.

  • AM Hants

    Stopped reading.

    Arctic – international law is provided by ‘Law of the Sea Convention’, which the US has not ratified. So has no say.

    Secondly, they have ignored the fact Russia is the only nation to send ground samples of the Arctic Shelf to the UN. Providing the DNA analysis, which links it into Russian territory.

    I guess there is a demand for Arctic arti led and writers are not necessarily upto speed. Just submitting the required number of words for their paycheck.

    Russia has hyperactive weapons, in active service, unlike the US.

    Russia is a nuclear triad nation, like the US, but, with more nuclear war heads, than the US.

    Russia, the Northern Sea Route is in her waters.

    Russia not only has numerous icebreakers, but, also portable, nuclear energy providers, via ships. Something the US does not have and how many ice breakers does the US have in working order? Is it zero, just an old relic, that needs fixing?

    • Jens Holm

      You are incorrect. USA has signed the Customary international law, which is – so to speak – the step before that convension.

      The rest partly is irrelevant and rubbish too.

      • AM Hants

        Has not ratified it.

        Could post the text of the last hearing they held, attended by Kerry and Council of Foreign Relations, but, you can find it yourself. The hearing relating to why they had not ratified it. Also affects Straits of Hormuz.

        • Jens Holm

          I take it again. There are 2 concentions about it. USA signed the old one but has denied to sign the old one.

          I do know very well its about waterways too.

          Econimic zones also is transportation almost never can be blocked. Hormuz here is an important strait.

          • AM Hants

            They signed the old one, which was replaced by the new one which they have not ratified.

            The hearing, which Kerry presented, in the Law of the Sea Convention, explains the case well including in the Senators own words and not just his, how they have acknowledged the Arctic is nought to do with them.

          • AM Hants

            ‘in’ should be ‘with regards’.

      • cechas vodobenikov

        now u r merely stupid—your self humiliation continues

  • Assad must stay

    russia must not let anyone stop her expansion in the arctic

    • Black Waters

      Well that’s wrong, Russia isnt expanding in the Arctic, they are using their TERRITORY, that’s a huge difference.

      • Assad must stay

        I know that, I meant that Russia must not let anyone stop them from using their territory, and if they want to expand they should

        • Black Waters

          Oh i see, thanks for the clarification.

  • Kamīrusan

    What in the holy hell is that Denmark claim ???

    • Jens Holm

      Haha. Negosiations is about how deep the water is seen from each country.

      Its also economic zones and by that the part is not Greeland or Denmark. We can decide who can explore it and who should produce, if something of importance is found.

      We even can decide “our part” should remain as nature
      .
      I hope You understand that strange map a little better.

      • Jens Holm

        Another stupid minus. How can any make minus, when I try to explain the map, which is very strange for beginners.

        In the other hand I am not surpriced when I see fx h`Ants telling this convension is about military forces and the biggest icebreakers.

    • cechas vodobenikov

      Jenny commonly displays her insecurity—Greenland only cedes Denmark authority over foreign affairs….and they r so impotent that the US now is creating a consulate in Greenland—despite objections by their colony, DK

  • Lazy Gamer

    The Alaskan deal looks worse as time goes by. 😂

  • IggyBundy

    greenland is doing a china without realizing the vikings were destroyed long ago.

    • Jens Holm

      Thats not how it was and are. Greenland was a colony for many centuries and now are and autonome by Inuits.

      “Southern danes” every year pay 300 mio dollar to them, bacause there hardly are any income,which can give them Our livig standards.

      So if they can be helped to have an income, we would love that. Inuots also decide themselves mpre then You think.

      We are not like You assume. We divided Our for centuries owned possitions with Norway by a commision and peacfull negosiations even there also was shouting.

      Thats how we are in that. We have had any into Greenland to find incomes but there is none. There are only Uranium, but its just outside a bigger town of theirs. There are minerals such as gold but they are in mountains, where You hardly can get in and out even in the summertime.

      Vikings was not destroyed long time ago. They were outdated by new culturee and christianity, so we are just as much vikings as we were in genetics as well as acting.

      You can see it in GDP. Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark are in the top. The lowest ranked is Denmark being number 16 in GDP pr person of 193 units(countries).

      So we still plunder You or/and work productive hard based on education and normal human motivations.

      Danes produce in 20 hours what Russians do in 40 hours. Much of Russian GDP is made cheep just sending oil and gas.

      Iran is even lower. How slow can anyone be. We do the same income as them pr capita at 15 hours. They certainly are no Vikings.

      • IggyBundy

        That was a great reply until you got into the propaganda parts.. die thor die!!!! dead as a door nail..splat! hit by his own hammer.. ITS HAMMER TIME!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Jens Holm

          Our GDP is made by successors to the vikings by DNA.

          And hard facts are not propaganda for we are doing relative well because we adapt. And because we adapt we also invent important things.

          I now see windturbines all over the world and 1000s of them. We did that by a good school with good teachers and ordinary children making a project.

          Its not alternative anymore an no propganda, when we cover 42% of own electricity every year and its rising. Its rising because we have space for more windturbines and also will try to have electric cars.

          So we as well as Islandics, Noweigians and Swedes do more then noise with our hammers.

          • cechas vodobenikov

            more lies—the Swedes produce vehicles and appliances—denmark does not

      • Tommy Jensen

        Its due to machines and salaries. All these figures are illusions and tell nothing.
        What counts is ability to house and sustain family.

      • cechas vodobenikov

        more insecure racism—danes produce nothing—-Russians produce our own superior vehicles, appliances, factories, machines, hypersonics, nuclear energy….u feminizes Danes have nothing except offshore oil and wind farms

  • Anthony Papagallo

    The economic facts are startling. As noted by the US Energy Information Administration; the area north of the Arctic Circle contains over 100 billion barrels of oil, representing some 15 percent of the world’s unexploited oil reserves, and more than 42 billion cubic meters of natural gas — about 30 percent of the world’s untapped gas resources.

    Unfortunately for the United States 80 percent of these assets lie deep inside Russia’s Arctic territory.

    • Tommy Jensen

      Wtf? Liberals told us fossil oil would end year 2000.

      However, Russia doesnt have the money to exploit these resources but America is willing to help with its strength and force, and experience on the free International market.

      • rightiswrong rightiswrong

        The Liberals said that so as to excuse the US military takeover of the worlds resources, you don’t think the Rockefeller’s and Bush families are prepared to buy the stuff from Russia at normal prices!
        Russia has won the recent oil wars, given the amount of production sites in the US which have, and still are shutting down. So much for Trumps self sufficiency in oil production, lol

        btw, I love Trump, for beating Obomber and the Clinton gang. He’s a muppet, but the others are pure evil.

      • cechas vodobenikov

        the CIA girl amuses us again