On January 2, the newest diesel-electric icebreaker of Project 21180, Ilya Muromets, arrived at its new duty station - the Northern Fleet. The event, frankly speaking, is not ordinary. Especially if you take into account that this icebreaker was the first in the last 45 years created specifically for the Russian Navy.
Our foreign neighbors, “partner countries,” could, at least for the sake of decency, rejoice at this fact. Well, or at least modestly remain silent. Alas. Literally the next day, in her article in The Wall Street Journal, former US Deputy Secretary of State Paula Dobryansky, completely “accidentally”, without any connection to our icebreaker, called on Western countries to strengthen their position in the Arctic to counter threats from Russia. The ex-politician focused on the Arctic region, which is extremely important not only for the future in terms of hydrocarbon production, but also from the point of view of protecting national security from the north. She especially lamented that if the trend towards global warming and melting Arctic ice continues, the Northern Sea Route will be open throughout the year. And this will not only significantly increase the importance of the region, changing the map of global maritime transport routes, but will also give Russia enormous economic leverage.
In his article, Dobryansky calls for “correcting” this situation. In her opinion, the Trump administration must arrange a decisive confrontation with Moscow. To do this, Washington needs to build up the military infrastructure in the Northern region, be sure to locate the headquarters of the new command on US territory and demonstrate who really is the “leader of NATO and the whole world” here.
This American of Ukrainian origin is so spontaneous that, calling to fan the flames of the Cold War in the Arctic, she openly makes it clear: the United States will stop at nothing for the sake of its own economic superiority. And yet, not fully, apparently realizing what she is doing, she admits to the weakness of her country’s position in the region. Well, they don’t have the technical capabilities here to extract oil and natural gas; nor the corresponding icebreaker fleet forces; no specialists ready to work in the Arctic... There are only exorbitant ambitions and a great desire to dictate their terms to everyone.
Let us not now recall the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, according to which maritime states have the right to establish an exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles wide from the coastline. If the shelf extends beyond this line, the country can expand its possessions up to 350 miles and gain control over resources, including oil and gas. It should be noted: Russia has not exceeded its powers prescribed by the convention by a meter. We will also not say how large the volume of these resources is in the Arctic region. According to relevant UN experts, up to a quarter of all the world's hydrocarbon reserves are concentrated here. There is almost 2.5 times more oil in the Arctic alone than all Russian resources combined.
But let’s better rejoice at the foresight of our country’s leadership in making decisions. How right was Supreme Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Putin when he ordered in April 2014 to strengthen the border in the Arctic and create a unified system for basing surface ships and submarines here. And also to form a military-administrative unit of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in this region called the United Strategic Command “North”. The term Arctic Troops is also used for its name. The area of responsibility of these troops extends from Murmansk to Anadyr.
Military units stationed on coastal and island territories have been consolidated into the Joint Tactical Group, which began performing its assigned functions in October 2014. All units are equipped with modern weapons and equipment, including Rubezh coastal systems with Termit-R cruise missiles and Pantsir-SA and Tor-M2DT short-range anti-aircraft missile systems.
… It’s no secret that within the Arctic borders of Eurasia and America there are a dozen and a half states, most of which are members of NATO and the EU. Each of these countries has its own access to the sea and each has the right to claim its own 200-mile economic zone. But, as far as I know... Not a single state, even remotely close, has parity with Russia in any position in the development of the Arctic. No one puffs up their cheeks or tries to prove anything to anyone. Only the Americans, who have not yet ratified the 1982 UN Convention, see a threat from Russia. And not only for their own interests, although they did not receive an international definition of the boundaries of their shelf, but also for sea routes and communications in general. And again, under this brand, they need to build up their military infrastructure - both their own and NATO's, in order to once again demonstrate to the world who is boss.
I would not like to deal with the current opposition between our and the American military components in the Arctic, much less delve into the distant history of its conquest, which dates back to the 17th century. However, I have some ideas plus my own experience in conquering the Pole and sailing the seas of the Arctic Ocean. So, July 1962, when our first nuclear submarine “K-3”, on which Rear Admiral Alexander Ivanovich Petelin was the eldest, surfaced at the North Pole for the first time in the history of the country, can be considered the beginning of the era of sailing for our submariners under thick pack ice.
I don’t know the exact statistics as of the beginning of this year, when combat duty under the Arctic ice shell became a standard procedure for our submariners, but by the end of the 90s alone, Soviet and Russian submariners made over 60 trips under the Arctic ice. Including to the North Pole, the Northern Sea Route from the Kola Peninsula with an ascent in the Kamchatka region, and even a round-the-world trip by a detachment of submarines of the Northern Fleet without ascent. For some reason, I have not heard that submariners of any other naval power reported to their command about something similar.
For example, I am surprised why American submariners, who conquered the North Pole on their Nautilus four years earlier than ours, are somehow very noticeably behind in training boat crews for practical operations in the ice. I don’t want to make fun of an American multi-purpose nuclear submarine frozen in ice, which emergency surfaced in the Arctic region (this story recently “rolled” across all Internet networks), because no one is immune from emergencies at sea. But there is a fact that cannot be ignored. The presence of nuclear missile submarines and the training of personnel to carry out assigned tasks is a key argument in any area of operation and at any time, with which hardly anyone would dare to disagree...
There is nothing to add to the words of the Hero of the Russian Federation. Considering that the Arctic region is very promising, there is no doubt that the confrontation escalated by the United States of America will intensify. But since those overseas are well aware that they are unlikely to be able to win this confrontation in the foreseeable future, they will definitely resort to tried and tested means. This means that we should expect a very powerful portion of information attacks and some next sanctions package against Russia.
The Northern Sea Route, hydrocarbon reserves and other natural resources, as well as control over the potential warhead delivery zone make the northern latitudes a new front of geopolitical confrontation
In the Ilulissat Declaration of May 28, 2008, all five Arctic coastal states (Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway and Denmark on behalf of Greenland) committed to resolving territorial claims within the framework of international law, as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Declaration confirmed that the legal framework provided by the UN Convention is sufficient for the management of the Arctic Ocean, and there is no need to develop a new international legal regime.
Thus, Arctic waters are recognized as the same as other regions of the globe, with similar rights to the continental shelf, archipelagos, islands, inland seas and corresponding trade-offs associated with the passage of ships through sovereign sea waters.
However, a special regime is provided for navigation along the routes of the Northern Sea Route, since this route is considered as a historically established transport communication of Russia. Swimming is carried out in accordance with special rules established by Russia in accordance with Article 234 of the Convention. Consequently, Russia has all the advantages in operating this direction. Obviously, because of this, attempts to revise some provisions of the Convention by a number of states do not stop and, moreover, proposals are even made to privatize the seas! This idea comes from the world center of globalism - the Council on Foreign Relations, whose headquarters are in New York and Washington. He supports his conclusions with expert articles in the publication “Foreign Affairs” and its subsidiaries (by the way, in Russia such an “educational” hand of this Council is the publication “Russia in Global Affairs”).
In addition, despite the established norms, a number of countries continue to dispute their right to certain areas in the Arctic latitudes. The most famous, due to its vast territory, is the Lomonosov Ridge, discovered in 1948 by Soviet expeditions. Russia has repeatedly submitted applications to the UN Commission on the Outer Limits of the Shelf. Proposed to establish new boundaries of the continental shelf of the Russian Federation based on studies of the ridgesLomonosov And Mendeleev, but the Commission in 2002 only recommended further research, which spurred other countries to fight to expand their own economic zone.
Denmark was the first to join the Arctic struggle in 2004, starting research in the North Atlantic. Obviously, the goal of the Danish expeditions was to obtain evidence that the Lomonosov Ridge belongs to Greenland.
However, in 2007, Russia conducted new research that gave grounds to assert that the disputed ridge is a continuation of the Russian continental shelf.
But the alliance of Western countries was not going to give up. Canada entered the arena, spending approximately $200 million on related research until 2013. Since the Lomonosov Ridge stretches to the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Canada, contrary to the facts, made a statement that the ridge belongs to its territory. Naturally, both countries do not recognize each other’s claims and intend to continue to challenge their rights at the UN.
The reason for such passionate interest in the polar latitudes is the rich natural resources of the Arctic. The USGS estimated in 2008 that 13% of the world's undiscovered oil reserves and 30% of the world's undiscovered natural gas reserves are located above the Arctic Circle. Considering the growing energy hunger of industrialized countries, one can understand such great zeal in the development of hydrocarbon resources. In addition, industrial fishing of fish and other marine life is also an additional factor in the reshaping of marine spaces.
But to justify your right to territory (water area) you need powerful arguments. Russia will receive them in two ways. The first is scientific. As already mentioned, expeditions were sent to the region several times. And for the summer of 2014, voyages of Russian ships to the Earth region are plannedFranz Joseph, Severnaya Zemlya, to the New Siberian Islands and the islandWrangel. The second way is the most effective, but with likely criticism from other countries. This is military power. It is no coincidence that the Arctic Group of Armed Forces was created in Russia and maneuvers with landings in critically low temperature conditions have already been carried out.
Among other things, the most convenient route from Europe to Asia runs through the Arctic.
The distance traveled by ships from Murmansk to the Japanese port of Yokohama via the Suez Canal is 12,840 nautical miles, while along the Northern Sea Route it is half as long - 5,770 nautical miles! And this significantly reduces all transport costs.
In 2012, 46 ships passed along the Northern Sea Route, which runs along the northern coast of Russia. These ships transported a total of 1.3 million tons of cargo. In 2011, 34 ships transported approximately 820,000 tons. And in March 2013, Russia created the Northern Sea Route Administration. The most potential client of the new route is China. By the way, China has its own icebreaker, although this country does not have access to cold seas.
It is obvious that we cannot do without a special fleet. Baltic Plant, according to a recent competition, won the right to build two icebreakers. The ships must be completed by December 25, 2019 and December 25, 2020, respectively. The price of the government contract is about 84.4 billion rubles. One nuclear icebreaker LK-60 is already in the process of production and should be delivered in 2017. It will become the largest and most powerful in the world. The width of the hull will be 34 meters (the previous “Arctic” class had 30 meters), it alone (which is why it is called the head one) will be able to guide tankers with a displacement of up to 70 thousand tons along the Northern Sea Route.
With regard to the Arctic, many states have developed their own strategy. Some of them work in the alliance, such as NATO members Norway, Canada and the United States, they coordinate their activities in relation to the region in question. And these states have recently adopted a number of documents - from doctrines to an action plan, called in these countries a “road map”.
The developments of the military departments seem extremely interesting. Barack Obama On May 10, 2013, he approved the National Strategy in the Arctic Region, which articulates the connections between events in the Arctic and the sustainable national interests of the United States. Prior to this, the National Presidential Insurance Directive was issued (2009), the second name of which is the National Presidential Security Directive. US Secretary of DefenseChuck Heigelin the preface to the defense doctrine (published at the end of 2013) indicates that “The Arctic is at a critical juncture in its transformation from a relatively isolated area to one where receding ice allows increased human access... The Arctic is becoming increasingly important and, regardless of the level and scale of change, we must be prepared to facilitate national efforts in pursuit of strategic goals in this region" Thus, the US military strategy in the Arctic is to create a secure and stable area where American national interests are guaranteed and countries work together to resolve problems that arise.
Interests and problems are the key words of this doctrine. It is obvious that by ensuring its interests, the United States understands the violation of the interests of other countries, and the “problems” are directly related to the response to these violations, primarily from Russia.
The Pentagon Strategy states that "national security interests include issues such as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic maritime lift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation. By preserving freedom of navigation in the Arctic, which includes all rights, freedoms, and use of the seas and adjacent airspace, including freedom of navigation and overflight, the national ability to exercise these rights, freedoms, and use of seas and airspace throughout the world, including strategic straits, is supported." A challenge to Russia is already visible here, because what is strategic deterrence in the Arctic region?
This is the deployment of interceptor missiles, as well as combined forces to deliver a quick strike against the Russian Federation. The containment strategy is well known from the Cold War, when the United States created an “Anaconda ring” around the USSR, placing its military bases along the perimeter of the Soviet borders. It is also clear that the Arctic direction is the shortest route for delivering warheads from Russia to the United States and vice versa. By the way, in the doctrine signed Obama talks about " an Arctic region that is stable and free of conflict, where countries act responsibly in a spirit of trust and cooperation, and where economic and energy resources are developed in a sustainable way that also respects the fragile environment and the interests and culture of local peoples».
The military-strategic concept of Canada is also extremely interesting, which acts as the de facto conductor of the interests of the United States and NATO in the region, but still enters into dispute on some points.
In January 2014, the Foreign and Defense Institute of Canada prepared a directive on the Arctic issue, which highlighted the main problems that will have to be faced. The first is the balance between ecology and oil production. According to the directive, Canada intends to counter the inevitable environmental protests that will be organized against any exploratory drilling in Canadian waters. On the other hand, the document reflects the need to maintain a balance regarding environmental protection.
It should be noted that Canada produces shale oil in its area of responsibility, which is dangerous for the environment, unlike the traditional production used by Russia. By the way, the report notes that the United States strongly opposed the creation of an Arctic environmental strategy that preceded the creation of the Arctic Council, while Canada, on the contrary, advocated the concept of creating and organizing a politically more powerful international legal entity that could work both on environmental protection issues environment, and other issues facing the circumpolar region.
In the analysis of potential conflicts between environmentalists and states, and was noted.At the same time, the authors of the Canadian document write that in connection with the claims against Russia, they lose sight of the fact that the Danish navy was obliged to use force to arrest Greenpeace protesters when they landed on an oil platform off the west coast of Greenland in 2011 .
« The protesters, using tactics that were identical to those used against the Russians, protested against oil exploration in the waters surrounding Greenland. Two Greenpeace members who landed on the oil rig were accused of trespassing and violating the restricted area around the rig. They were fined DKK 20,000 and expelled from Greenland, and were banned from re-entering the country for one year. In both cases (Russian and Greenlandic) armed special forces captured and arrested people", - stated in the directive.
Ultimately, Russia, Canada and the United States will use troops to protect their rights to resources in the Arctic region. It seems unlikely to Canadians that the Arctic Council will be able to solve the problem of oil development in the Arctic.
By the way, the Arctic Council is one of the supranational bodies that oversees the Arctic region. It was created in 1996 by countries with territories beyond the Arctic Circle - the USA, Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. The main purpose of this structure is to protect the environment and conduct relevant research by these countries. In May 2013, at a ministerial meeting in Sweden, the Arctic Council granted observer status to six new countries (China, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea and Singapore), indicating increased interest in the body and the region among many states. Which is understandable: the Arctic is a tasty morsel, rich in oil and gas.
On January 2, the newest diesel-electric icebreaker of Project 21180, Ilya Muromets, arrived at its new duty station - the Northern Fleet. The event, frankly speaking, is not ordinary. Especially if you take into account that this icebreaker was the first in the last 45 years created specifically for the Russian Navy.
Our foreign neighbors, “partner countries,” could, at least for the sake of decency, rejoice at this fact. Well, or at least modestly remain silent. Alas. Literally the next day, in her article in The Wall Street Journal, former US Deputy Secretary of State Paula Dobryansky, completely “accidentally”, without any connection to our icebreaker, called on Western countries to strengthen their position in the Arctic to counter threats from Russia. The ex-politician focused on the Arctic region, which is extremely important not only for the future in terms of hydrocarbon production, but also from the point of view of protecting national security from the north. She especially lamented that if the trend towards global warming and melting Arctic ice continues, the Northern Sea Route will be open throughout the year. And this will not only significantly increase the importance of the region, changing the map of global maritime transport routes, but will also give Russia enormous economic leverage.
In his article, Dobryansky calls for “correcting” this situation. In her opinion, the Trump administration must arrange a decisive confrontation with Moscow. To do this, Washington needs to build up the military infrastructure in the Northern region, be sure to locate the headquarters of the new command on US territory and demonstrate who really is the “leader of NATO and the whole world” here.
This American of Ukrainian origin is so spontaneous that, calling to fan the flames of the Cold War in the Arctic, she openly makes it clear: the United States will stop at nothing for the sake of its own economic superiority. And yet, not fully, apparently realizing what she is doing, she admits to the weakness of her country’s position in the region. Well, they don’t have the technical capabilities here to extract oil and natural gas; nor the corresponding icebreaker fleet forces; no specialists ready to work in the Arctic... There are only exorbitant ambitions and a great desire to dictate their terms to everyone.
Let us not now recall the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, according to which maritime states have the right to establish an exclusive economic zone 200 nautical miles wide from the coastline. If the shelf extends beyond this line, the country can expand its possessions up to 350 miles and gain control over resources, including oil and gas. It should be noted: Russia has not exceeded its powers prescribed by the convention by a meter. We will also not say how large the volume of these resources is in the Arctic region. According to relevant UN experts, up to a quarter of all the world's hydrocarbon reserves are concentrated here. There is almost 2.5 times more oil in the Arctic alone than all Russian resources combined.
But let’s better rejoice at the foresight of our country’s leadership in making decisions. How right was Supreme Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Putin when he ordered in April 2014 to strengthen the border in the Arctic and create a unified system for basing surface ships and submarines here. And also to form a military-administrative unit of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in this region called the United Strategic Command “North”. The term Arctic Troops is also used for its name. The area of responsibility of these troops extends from Murmansk to Anadyr.
Military units stationed on coastal and island territories have been consolidated into the Joint Tactical Group, which began performing its assigned functions in October 2014. All units are equipped with modern weapons and equipment, including Rubezh coastal systems with Termit-R cruise missiles and Pantsir-SA and Tor-M2DT short-range anti-aircraft missile systems.
… It’s no secret that within the Arctic borders of Eurasia and America there are a dozen and a half states, most of which are members of NATO and the EU. Each of these countries has its own access to the sea and each has the right to claim its own 200-mile economic zone. But, as far as I know... Not a single state, even remotely close, has parity with Russia in any position in the development of the Arctic. No one puffs up their cheeks or tries to prove anything to anyone. Only the Americans, who have not yet ratified the 1982 UN Convention, see a threat from Russia. And not only for their own interests, although they did not receive an international definition of the boundaries of their shelf, but also for sea routes and communications in general. And again, under this brand, they need to build up their military infrastructure - both their own and NATO's, in order to once again demonstrate to the world who is boss.
I would not like to deal with the current opposition between our and the American military components in the Arctic, much less delve into the distant history of its conquest, which dates back to the 17th century. However, I have some ideas plus my own experience in conquering the Pole and sailing the seas of the Arctic Ocean. So, July 1962, when our first nuclear submarine “K-3”, on which Rear Admiral Alexander Ivanovich Petelin was the eldest, surfaced at the North Pole for the first time in the history of the country, can be considered the beginning of the era of sailing for our submariners under thick pack ice.
I don’t know the exact statistics as of the beginning of this year, when combat duty under the Arctic ice shell became a standard procedure for our submariners, but by the end of the 90s alone, Soviet and Russian submariners made over 60 trips under the Arctic ice. Including to the North Pole, the Northern Sea Route from the Kola Peninsula with an ascent in the Kamchatka region, and even a round-the-world trip by a detachment of submarines of the Northern Fleet without ascent. For some reason, I have not heard that submariners of any other naval power reported to their command about something similar.
For example, I am surprised why American submariners, who conquered the North Pole on their Nautilus four years earlier than ours, are somehow very noticeably behind in training boat crews for practical operations in the ice. I don’t want to make fun of an American multi-purpose nuclear submarine frozen in ice, which emergency surfaced in the Arctic region (this story recently “rolled” across all Internet networks), because no one is immune from emergencies at sea. But there is a fact that cannot be ignored. The presence of nuclear missile submarines and the training of personnel to carry out assigned tasks is a key argument in any area of operation and at any time, with which hardly anyone would dare to disagree...
There is nothing to add to the words of the Hero of the Russian Federation. Considering that the Arctic region is very promising, there is no doubt that the confrontation escalated by the United States of America will intensify. But since those overseas are well aware that they are unlikely to be able to win this confrontation in the foreseeable future, they will definitely resort to tried and tested means. This means that we should expect a very powerful portion of information attacks and some next sanctions package against Russia.
Who will get the Arctic?
Global warming threatens to strain relations between countries in the polar region
The hunt for Russian trawlers, organized by the Norwegian authorities, is an echo of the struggle that is going on for the Arctic spaces. This struggle is not yet very loud, but the prospects that the development of the Arctic brings are forcing the countries of the region to prepare for a decisive battle now.
According to Canadian scientists, between 1969 and 2004, the volume of ice in the eastern Canadian Arctic archipelago decreased by 15 percent. In some places in the west of the country it has dropped by a third. Many experts do not rule out that in the summer of the 21st century the Arctic will be completely ice-free. The Arctic Ocean is already being called the Mediterranean Sea of the future, given the opportunities that will open up after the ice melts. If now, to transport goods by sea from Europe to Asia, you have to go through the Cape of Good Hope, that is, go around Africa, then in the future it will be possible to go straight through the North Pole, and without any icebreakers. And this will shorten the journey by about 4 thousand miles.
Last year, Russian Ambassador to Canada Georgy Mamedov said it was time to start building an Arctic transport bridge between North America and Europe. As Mamedov noted, the Russian side is already in full swing developing its end of this bridge in Murmansk. Our overseas partners are not asleep either. In 1997, at auction, American businessman Pat Brough bought the port of Churchill in northern Canada for seven (7) dollars, expecting at least $100 million a year in the future from busy Arctic shipping.
According to many, the Arctic can be compared not only with the Mediterranean Sea, but also with the Persian Gulf. According to American geologists, almost a quarter of all the Earth's energy resources may lie in the Arctic. God himself ordered to search for oil and gas in the Arctic now - in conditions of sky-high fuel prices and the same sky-high profits of energy companies. Indeed, all this money needs to be invested somewhere!
The inevitability of the onset of an energy rush in the Arctic Circle is evidenced by the recent failed attempt in the US Senate to block a decision on the development of oil and gas fields in the National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. And the senators can be understood. Through the sale of rights to develop deposits in Alaska, the budget hopes to gain about 2 and a half billion dollars. With the current budget deficit and growing military spending, this is money for the United States.
In light of all of the above, it is not surprising that the countries of the Arctic region, in anticipation of future profits, are ready to resolutely defend their interests. And the incident with Russian trawlers in the Barents Sea is just an example of how Norway is trying to gradually squeeze Russia out of this sector of the Arctic.
Russia does not agree with the actions of Norway, which in the late 70s declared the 200-mile zone around Spitsbergen its exclusive economic zone, or, as the Norwegians themselves call it, a “fishery protection zone.” Thus, the 1920 agreements under which the USSR, and now Russia, could mine natural resources and fish in the area were called into question. It is sad that Russia is now voluntarily withdrawing from Spitsbergen itself. Of the two Russian mines on the islands, only one remains, and even that one is on the verge of closure.
This is how the Arctic ice cover changed from 1979 to 2002. (according to NASA)(photo see link)
Unlike Russia, Norway is strengthening its presence on its neighbor’s territory. The Norwegian bank DnB NOR recently bought Murmansk Monchebank. As representatives of DnB NOR stated, the purchase of a Russian bank will allow them to strengthen their positions in such areas as fishing, maritime cargo transportation, as well as oil and gas production in the Barents Sea. By the way, this is already the third Scandinavian bank that began its activities in Russia.
Like Norway, other countries in the region also do not recognize the borders of Russia’s polar possessions, established by the Soviet government back in the 20s of the last century. Then the Bolsheviks simply drew two lines on the map: from Murmansk and Chukotka to the North Pole. Everything that fell inside these borders was declared the possession of the USSR. After signing the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Moscow decided to actually consolidate the cartographic gains of the Bolsheviks, taking advantage of the legal hole in the text of the Convention. According to its text, a country can lay claim to an exclusive economic zone extending beyond the 200 miles stipulated by the same Convention if it is proven that the shelf from its shores extends beyond this distance. Now Russia is proving to everyone that its shelf does not want to end with a cliff into the ocean depths and continues almost to the North Pole. However, here Russia has to argue not so much with Norway, but with Denmark, which claims that the underwater Lomonosov Ridge, passing just under the pole, is a geological continuation not of Siberia, but of Greenland, which has belonged to the Danish crown since the 30s.
By the way, Denmark is a participant in another, perhaps the most anecdotal confrontation of all that exists in the Arctic. Denmark is arguing with Canada over the tiny island of Hans, located in the strait between Canadian territory and Greenland. Periodically, the island is visited by Canadian and Danish expeditions, which leave behind the national flags of their countries. Three years ago, another Danish expedition discovered that the flag installed on Hans in 1988 had disappeared, and the one installed in 1995 had been torn to shreds. But then the blame for this was laid on the harsh wind in those places. However, this year, apparently by the same wind, Canadian Defense Minister Bill Graham was blown onto the island, after which a flag with a maple leaf began to flutter over Hans. The public of the two countries also joined the dispute between the governments. Especially the part of her that has a sufficient sense of humor. The Hans Island Liberation Front had already emerged, fighting the rule of both Canada and Denmark. There is also Radio Free Hans. And two Swedish DJs this summer got through to the foreign ministers of Denmark and Canada, telling the head of the Danish Foreign Ministry that Sweden was entering the fight for Hans Island, and the Canadian minister, introducing himself as his Danish colleague, was offered, without further ado, to divide the island in half.
In addition to the dispute with Denmark, Canada itself also has claims against the United States. In 1977, Canada declared the straits between its northern islands to be territorial waters. This was not agreed by the United States, which firmly believes that these straits are international waters, which means anyone can navigate them at any time. In the mid-80s, there was even a diplomatic scandal between the two neighboring countries when a US Coast Guard boat tried to pass through one of these straits. As a result, an agreement was concluded between Washington and Ottawa in 1988 under which the US Coast Guard could use this northern route after notifying Canadian authorities. But American border guards are one thing, but foreign tankers and bulk carriers are a completely different matter. And as an argument in favor of its point of view on the problem of the straits, Canada last year held the most large-scale military exercises in the Arctic in the country’s history. In addition to disputes over the so-called Northwest Passage, Canada and the United States have not resolved disagreements over the border between American Alaska and the Canadian province of Yukon. Considering the fact that oil-bearing strata lie in that area, the dispute can hardly be classified as light.
So is it really possible that as the climate in the Arctic gets warmer, relations between the countries in the region will become cooler? It may very well be that they will have to unite to combat the negative consequences of global warming. After all, skeptics claim that it will lead to the formation of huge ice floes that will ram oil and gas platforms. And talking about the construction of any infrastructure on “permafrost” in warming conditions, when the soil literally begins to disappear from under our feet, is completely problematic.
And the main thing is that in the quarrels over the skin of a bear that has not yet been killed, the countries do not forget about the threat to the local fauna and radical changes in the life of local indigenous peoples. These are the problems that definitely need to be solved by the whole world.