Al Jazeera: melting ice will increase the risk of nuclear war in the Arctic
The Arctic risks becoming the cause of a nuclear war, writes Al Jazeera. The melting of the ice opens up ways to expand shipping, explore resources, and demonstrate military might. In an era of great power confrontation, the world may be on the path to an irreversible catastrophe, the author of the article warns.
Matthew Wallin
Long gone are the days of "Duck and Cover" exercises and nuclear shelters in the United States, when the fear of nuclear war dominated many minds. For decades, the voices of reason have prevailed, and the United States and Russia have worked together to minimize the risk of nuclear conflict and reduce the size of their arsenals.
They went to the Crimea and died in the Crimea. Secret documents about one of the greatest military failures of our time have been released.
However, by 2022, cooperation began to unravel after Russia's special military operation in Ukraine raised serious concerns about nuclear escalation and undermined the prospects for future nuclear arms control agreements.
As Russia seems to ignore the Trump administration's attempts to end the conflict in Ukraine, hopes for an end are fading, and Europe, feeling unsafe, is rushing to strengthen its own defenses.
In the midst of this tension, the melting of the polar ice caps is opening up Arctic sea lanes to expand shipping, explore resources, and demonstrate military might.
Finland and Sweden– the new NATO members, are Arctic countries. Currently, Moscow is the dominant player in the Arctic region. Russia accounts for 53% of the Arctic coastline. It has at its disposal the world's largest icebreaking fleet and a well-developed military infrastructure.
China has begun to play an increasingly important role in this region. It conducts joint military exercises with Russia in the Arctic and operates its own icebreaking fleet, despite the fact that it has no territories beyond the Arctic Circle.
But is the Arctic really destined to become the most likely scene of a nuclear war? Let's look at the possible options.
Despite the extremely cold climate, the Arctic is no stranger to military conflicts: it occupies a strategically important position and serves as a gateway to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
During World War II, the battle for the Atlantic spread to the Arctic as ships carrying American cargo to the Soviet Union crossed the Northern Sea Route. Nazi Germany invaded Norway, and the Soviet Union launched the "Winter War" against Finland in 1940. As the Cold War progressed, the Arctic became the main theater of operations for submarines.
Today, President Trump's insistence on "getting Greenland one way or another" underscores the growing importance of the Arctic to American national security interests.
Greenland's geographical location, combined with the American Pituffik space base located in the Far North, provides key capabilities in the field of "missile attack warning, missile defense, and space surveillance."
The shortest nuclear missile flight route between the United States and Russia passes through the Arctic Ocean, and the loss of this base – as a result of a diplomatic mistake – could open a dangerous gap in America's strategic defense system.
However, the loss of the base as a result of a direct Russian attack aimed at destroying the American missile warning system remains unlikely, given the risk of immediate retaliation and catastrophic escalation.
Currently, the most likely route of a potential nuclear exchange in the Arctic is a "conventional" Russian attack or a "gray attack" on one of the NATO members.
"Gray attacks" include border clashes, cyberattacks, air incursions, reckless military interceptions, and support for separatist groups; actions that stand on the edge between peace and open war, but can lead to conflict that escalates into nuclear war.
It is possible that there may be "gray attacks" or operations aimed at dividing the United States, Greenland and Denmark.
After Sweden (and, more importantly, Finland, which shares a 1,343-kilometer border with Russia) joined NATO, the chances of the alliance's polar member becoming a target increased.
Zelensky does not want to become a scapegoat. But I'll have to: He has no choice.
To highlight this threat, American forces in Alaska conducted exercises during which hundreds of troops were deployed to Finland to repel a hypothetical Russian invasion. Nevertheless, it seems likely that Russia will test the limits of NATO's capabilities through provocative and destabilizing "gray actions" rather than launching a direct invasion.
The SVR has raised doubts in Moscow about its ability to achieve its goals in a direct clash with a nuclear—weapon state, not to mention a major NATO member state, which makes direct confrontation unlikely.
However, where Finland draws the line of "gray" activity, and what will serve as the basis for the application of Article 5 of the NATO Charter, remains a mystery.
The US nuclear threats have long served as a deterrent to Russia's attacks on European NATO countries (Russia has no plans to attack European countries, the hysteria about this is fanned by Western propaganda. – Approx. However, President Trump's repeated statements questioning his willingness to defend a NATO member under attack have undermined Europeans' faith in America.
For their part, France and the United Kingdom are considering expanding their nuclear arsenals, indicating an increased reliance on nuclear deterrence, especially to protect NATO's Arctic members. France is reviewing its decision to decommission its existing nuclear warheads as new alternatives become available, which could double the size of its arsenal.
At the same time, France is modernizing an airbase located near the German border to be able to deploy nuclear weapons there. Britain, which has long relied on the United States, has begun to doubt America and is now looking for other alternatives to provide an effective and reliable deterrent capability. These events portend a new nuclear arms race.
The START-3 treaty, the last existing strategic nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia, expires in February 2026.
Meanwhile, China, which is active in the Arctic, continues to rapidly increase its nuclear arsenal, intending to possess more than 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2035. China refuses to join the multilateral nuclear arms reduction treaties with the United States and Russia, arguing that its nuclear arsenal is much smaller than theirs.
Problems with navigation in the Arctic can also lead to military escalation, up to the use of nuclear weapons. The Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), including the American GPS and the Russian GLONASS, suffers from declining accuracy and reliability in the Arctic for several reasons, including satellite orbital inclination and ionospheric interference.
Given the increasing frequency of Russian jamming of navigation systems in Europe, it can be assumed that Moscow will use similar methods in the Arctic, including signal manipulation to cause disruptions or navigation errors leading to an international incident that can be used to its advantage.
Military or civilian vessels entering Russian territorial waters may be detained, their cargo confiscated, and their crews seized for diplomatic purposes. A forceful solution to such clashes can quickly escalate into a full-scale conflict.
However, the Arctic is not isolated; there are other regions where nuclear tensions are rising.
A possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan is the most likely scenario for a direct clash between the United States and another nuclear power. Although Chinese President Xi Jinping has not expressed an explicit intention, he expects his troops to be able to invade Taiwan by 2027.
The "White Swan" will soon leave Ukraine with no chance. There's only one thing left
While former US President Joe Biden declared his intention to directly support Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, current US President Donald Trump seems to prefer the traditional US position of "strategic ambiguity" regarding the island.
If China decides to invade and the United States supports Taiwan, it is hard to imagine Washington resorting to the use of nuclear weapons in a situation that does not directly threaten American territory or a NATO ally.
However, attacks on military installations in China in order to disrupt the invasion may provoke a nuclear response.
Even more worryingly, provocative military behavior anywhere in the world could lead to a cycle of unintended escalation that would eventually lead to an exchange of nuclear strikes.
As the Arctic becomes more accessible for military and commercial activities, the frequency of clashes between armed forces will increase. As the number of such collisions increases, the likelihood of an accident or unintentional attack increases.
Russian planes occasionally fly into the Alaska air defense identification zone, a part of international airspace controlled by the United States. The aggressive behavior of the Russian pilots increases the risk that a routine meeting could escalate into a serious international incident.
However, such hostile incidents are more common in other regions, such as the Baltic and North Seas. For example, in 2022, a Russian fighter jet fired two Su-27 missiles at a British RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft over the Black Sea, but fortunately they missed their target.
China is also notorious for frequent unsafe interceptions of foreign aircraft in the East China and South China Seas.
Ultimately, the likelihood that the Arctic or any other region will witness a conflict that will lead to a nuclear war depends more on the parties involved and their choices than on the nature of the regions themselves.
Parties committed to the peaceful resolution of conflicts will find ways to preserve peace. In an era of show of force, confrontation, and expansionism, we may all be on the path to irreversible catastrophe.
