The Next Cold War (Literally)

Chloe Bradley

Introduction

On May 7th, 2021, the United States faced a significant cyberattack carried out by a Russian nationalist group known as DarkSide. The Colonial Pipeline spans over 5,000 miles and serves as the largest oil pipeline in the US. The 2021 attack shut down the pipeline for 5 days, causing extreme gas shortages, especially along the U.S eastern coast, and a surge in gas prices. This incident may have occurred on U.S soil, but it demonstrates the present tension between the United States and Russia. With Russia and the United States already holding immense global control, the question arises: What’s next? Politically and economically, there is one region of the world that every world power would like to gain control of– the Arctic. As of 2025, Russia, the United States, and Canada all hold stock in the Arctic region and have increased competition for natural resources and political leverage in what is meant to be a peaceful land. It is an ever-approaching idea that the beloved Arctic Circle may become the next warzone. As political tensions from the mainland seep into the North Pole, what does the future hold for the Arctic Circle, and how can we prevent an international tug-of-war?

Economic Motivations

Oil and Natural Gas

The Arctic holds almost 13% of the world’s oil reserves and 30% of global natural gas. Currently, Russia holds claim to 53% of the Arctic coastline, which has become increasingly important for Russia following its surprise invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Approximately 60% of Russia's exports and 30% of its national GDP are derived from oil and natural gas. However, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, dissenting countries, especially participating NATO countries, have placed economic sanctions on Russian exports, severely hurting the Russian economy. Russia’s international reputation is in a state of unrest; therefore, the Arctic serves as a momentous resource for the Russian economy. Monopolizing the fossil fuels provided in the northern region can be used as leverage to boost Russia’s international trade position as well as increase its self-reliance capabilities. Almost 20% of Russia’s GDP is derived from Arctic activity; therefore, Russia will likely pursue further Arctic expansion to speed up its declining economic growth, as recent reports have suggested.  

Rare Earth Elements

Rare Earth Elements, also known as REEs, are an especially prominent factor in Arctic colonization, as the green renewable energy movement develops. Renewable energy systems like the batteries needed for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels require elements such as neodymium, dysprosium, and cerium. Other technologies, such as cell phones and magnets, also require said rare materials. The United States is heavily dependent on such resources and currently aims to uphold its position as a technological leader through an expansion of Arctic mining through domestic supply chains and a reduction of reliance on China.  The United States Assistant Secretary of Defense for Arctic and Global Resilience made statements urging the US to devote more resources to this region to prevent domination by Russia and China. China currently mines over 60% of global REES and processes 80% of rare earth materials to produce digital infrastructure and clean energy elements discussed previously. However, this monopoly over REEs can have negative international implications, as seen by export control placed in 2025, limiting the export of seven rare earth materials to all countries. The ability of China to restrict global access to REEs plays a significant role in the United States’ need for domestic mining mechanisms to prevent foreign disruption in the national economy, but it creates tension in the Arctic as many major world powers rush to find efficient ways to extract resources before the next country can. 

Geopolitical Motivations 

Cybersecurity 

Recent decades have seen the expansion of subsea cables, which are fiber optic lines, to improve connectivity and communication between isolated, remote areas. Subsea cables are highly important for international companies such as Amazon and Facebook, but can contribute to more sinister motives between conflicting countries. In the 1970s, during peak Cold War tensions, the United States orchestrated Operation Ivy Bells, which directed the surveillance and interception of Soviet communications through undersea cables. Presently, both Russia and China are pursuing worldwide subsea pathways labeled as the “Polar Express” and the “Digital Silk Road” respectively. The United States itself seeks to improve internet connections, but this process raises security concerns for all parties involved. As seen historically, the United States has previously utilized underwater technology for political maneuvers, and the same could be said against Russia and China, who notoriously resent Western influence.  An additional concern arises from the possible deliberate technological attacks that could occur. In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia has conducted cyber attacks to hurt the Ukrainian defense, which again sparks fears that subsea cables could be targeted to interfere with communication and connection for entire groups or countries. There are severe legal concerns regarding international laws for subsea cables, as there are no specific provisions on the conduct of states in reference to subsea cables in times of war. International law prevents countries from targeting objects used solely for civilian communication, but it does not discuss cables used for military communication, therefore, leaving a gap for intentional military blackouts. 

Military Positioning

The Arctic Circle holds significant importance for international militaries due to its central location on the globe. Alaska is a major asset for the United States in terms of national security. For this very reason, U.S Army General Billy Mitchell even referred to it as “the most strategic place on earth.”  Alaska provides an upper hand against projectile warfare due to its equidistant location and has previously been used to test U.S. nuclear weapons. Both the United States and the Russian Federation signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (1996), but have yet to ratify the treaty. Therefore, neither country is bound by this treaty, which leaves the door open for further nuclear proliferation, and both countries' access to the Arctic territory adds to said unease. Both the United States and Russia are seemingly preparing for the possibility of said nuclear strikes, as both are taking actions to mobilize armies in subarctic conditions. Just this year, the United States orchestrated military offenses, Arctic Edge (2025) and Adamant Serpent. The Arctic Edge training exercise aims to improve the cooperation of the U.S. and other allies in effectively identifying and combating missile threats in the region, including the Alaskan theatre. Operation Adamant Serpent focuses on coordinating a rapid NATO response to aggression in the Arctic under a “realistic backdrop.” It is no surprise that the United States is dedicating resources to defense mechanisms with the largest military budget allocation; however, the emphasized demand for conditional training and preparedness constructs the thought that maybe the government knows what is coming. This scenario poses the important question: would the United States and Russia put forth such efforts, including annual training with allies and extensive technological development, if the threat of a polar war were not looming? In August of 2022, Russia announced it was refocusing its military on the Arctic and Nordic region to officially declare the acceleration of Russian militarization in the polar region. With the ever-increasing presence of NATO members and a growing Russian-Chinese partnership, tensions in the Arctic are on the rise. Some may say, if these countries have yet to take such actions, why worry now? Contrary to common knowledge, such actions have been performed. During the first Cold War, the Soviet Union indeed used the Kola Peninsula to direct nuclear and naval aggressions toward the United States. The Russian administration under Putin has declared its desire to expand Russia back to its imperial state under Catherine the Great and the Russian Empire, which leads us to consider whether the present situation in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea may be replicated in the Arctic Circle to pursue such “expansion.”

Conclusion

All in all, the original goal of Arctic discovery was focused on a peaceful realm to foster scientific discovery, but continental tensions have trumped such ideas. Western and Eastern powers have taken over the region for political and economic purposes, generating an international sense of unease. While war may not have started yet, it is not a distant vision. The lack of a security framework and UN enforcement power in the Arctic region adds to the present risk. Not to mention the increased environmental detriment that mining and extraction bring to the polar region, which is already seriously affected by climate change. It is evident that the sight of the Arctic has fallen behind increased militarism and industrialization, but there is still time to turn the tide. It is up to all Arctic role players to prioritize peace over profit and return their attention to Arctic preservation.