User:Hmylenberg/sandbox

= The Geopolitics of Arctic Shipping = The Geopolitics of Arctic Shipping explores the relationship between international relations, economic interests, and environmental concerns within the rapidly evolving Arctic region. As climate change transforms the Arctic landscape, melting ice opens new maritime routes and access to vast natural resources, intensifying global geopolitical dynamics. This field delves into the historical evolution, key actors, and academic literature surrounding the geopolitical implications of increased shipping activities in the Arctic. From the strategic significance of emerging sea routes to the interests of Arctic and non-Arctic states, this entry navigates the multifaceted terrain of Arctic shipping geopolitics, shedding light on both the known and yet-to-be-explored dimensions of this critical global issue

The evolution of navigating the arctic seas
Historically, the Arctic's harsh climate and ice-covered waters limited maritime activities, primarily confining shipping to the brief ice-free summer months. For hundreds of years explorers have navigated the Arctic waters in search of the Northwest Passage. However, it wasn't until the mid-20th century that icebreaking technology, along with the gradual retreat of Arctic ice caps due to climate change, began to open up new possibilities for shipping. This historical pursuit has laid the groundwork for contemporary geopolitical stakes in the region. The awareness of the Arctic has evolved, but the underlying economic motivations remain similar, however now entwined with environmental considerations and a complex web of international laws and treaties.

More recently, the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage have gained prominence as commercial shipping routes at these routes reduce transit times and costs between Europe and Asia. ​​Environmental changes in the Arctic are outpacing those in other regions, making the geopolitics of Arctic shipping a centre of attention for global climate policy discussions. The receding ice has opened the door to new maritime routes, but it has also raised concerns about the fragility of the Arctic ecosystem.

In the latter part of the 20th century, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War presented an opportunity to redefine Arctic geopolitics. The creation of the Arctic Council in 1996 was emblematic of this shift, aiming to promote cooperation among Arctic states and indigenous communities on common issues, particularly sustainable development and environmental protection. However, the Arctic Council explicitly excludes military security from its purview, leaving a void that has been filled by increasing military posturing by Arctic states. After the Cold War, international relations in the Arctic initially leaned towards cooperation and diplomacy, but environmental concerns now entails a new focus on geopolitical alliances and a focus on military and security aspects. Along with this the new shipping routes have a huge implication on the military and security alliances of the world's action in the arctic.

The U.S Geological Survey estimates the Arctic's wealth to $20 trillion, encompassing 40% of global hydrocarbon reserves and 30% of all global resources. Given these vast reserves of natural resources, it's no surprise that major global powers seek influence in this region.

Key actors and coalitions
As mentioned in the section on the evolution of navigating the arctic seas, some states, and coalitions, carry a bigger interest in the arctic than others do. With the reasoning spanning from military interest in the game of global power, to the arctic being a part of a country’s territory. Therefore defining which states take the greatest interest and action and why they are doing so offers important insight into the geopolitics of arctic shipping.

Russia
Russia has the longest Arctic coastline among all nations, leading many analysts to perceive Russia as having the most significant economic interests in the region. Nonetheless, commentators, including NATO officials, contend that Russia's powerful military capabilities, infrastructure, and operations in the Arctic suggest a drive for military supremacy and intimidation of neighbouring states. Russia's Arctic strategy for 2020-2035 encompasses various aspects such as the development of oil and gas resources, establishing the Northern Sea Route for commercial shipping, and bolstering military presence to safeguard its Arctic territory and maritime space.

Russia has ambitious plans within the Arctic. Russia wants to build mega ports along the Arctic, forming a prospective "Polar Silk Road”. This project has gained significant attention in recent years because this initiative is aimed at facilitating trade by creating a shorter and more cost-effective shipping route between Europe and Asia, mainly by utilising the Northern Sea Route. All of this is a part of Russia's extensive 2035 Arctic development plan, and it is a clear indicator of Russia's commitment to Arctic expansion.

Russia seeks to shape Arctic geopolitics, and their cooperative efforts with China are especially clear and necessary as China is financing the development of multiple ports along the Northern Sea Route on Russian soil. Lots of academic research delves into the cooperation between Russia and China in the Arctic, with many highlighting the strategic importance of these ports in facilitating global trade and their implications for Arctic geopolitics.

Russia and China
While the Arctic holds strategic importance for its bordering countries, the involvement of countries like China, which do not directly border the Arctic region, also warrants attention. China is often referred to as a "near-Arctic state,", and shows as China has significantly expanded its interests in the Arctic region. The concept of the "Polar Silk Road" has been an important point of China's Arctic strategy. Multiple Chinese-backed port projects along the Northern Sea Route on Russian soil signify the country's commitment to the development of Arctic infrastructure which underscores China's growing influence in the Arctic.

If Russia wants to achieve its extensive 2035 Arctic development plan, they need to strengthen cooperation with China due to their expenses of the current war in Ukraine and the cost of Western sanctions. Russia and China signalled implicit "strategic synergy" between China's Belt and Road Initiative and Russia's Arctic development strategy in 2022. After the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, China had to walk a tightrope, but still echoed Russia by criticising NATO expansion as the fundamental explanation for the invasion, showing that cooperation exists between the two countries. Since 2014, Russia has pursued a long-term strategy to export natural gas and oil to the Asian market via the Northern Sea Route, with China emerging as its primary export destination. The invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 led to increased bilateral trade between Russia and China due to severe western sanctions on russian exports. A Russian-Chinese alliance makes it more difficult for NATO allies and partners to target these two countries with sanctions. To understate the relationship further, in 2019 Russia and China signed an agreement "to develop an oilfield in Payakha on the Taymyr Peninsula, which houses one of the largest oil-storage facilities in the Arctic and includes a crude- oil port capable of handling 50 million tonnes per year" And another example illustrating the Russian-Chinese Arctic cooperation: "China is carrying out the first step of its plan to connect the Northern Sea Route to its Polar Silk Road”, announced in January 2018. This involves linking the Northern Sea Route to port and rail hubs in China. In 2014, the government of China’s Jilin province, the China Merchants Group and Russia’s largest port operator signed a framework deal to develop Zarubino, which is located southwest of Vladivostok and near the Chinese border, into the largest port in Northeast Asia, with capacity to handle 60m tonnes of goods per year.

The United States, Canada and Scandinavian allies
In opposition to the Russian-Chinese coalition stands the arctic countries within the NATO-alliance, with emphasis on the United states as the focal point.

The United States has expressed concerns about Russia and China's expanding roles in Arctic shipping and geopolitics. The competition for control and influence in the Arctic has raised alarm within the U.S. government. Furthermore, Arctic tensions is substantiated by Russias intend to deploy Arctic-based hypersonic missiles and nuclear-powered underwater drones, posing potential threats to the United States. Concurrently, the United States' anti-missile deployments are perceived as inherently offensive due to their potential impact on the country's nuclear strike capabilities. The U.S. views the Arctic as strategically important and is keen on protecting its interests in the region. These concerns have made the Arctic crucial in U.S. foreign policy, highlighting the significance of Arctic shipping and its impact on the geopolitical dynamics in the region.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 meant that something, until this point, very unlikely happened— it entailed that Finland and Sweden became (or will become) NATO members. This new membership marks a significant shift in European security dynamics, with implications extending into the Arctic. This alignment creates an antagonistic relationship between NATO and Russia/China, forming an "integrated strategic space for the Alliance in the north, encompassing the Nordic region, the entire Baltic Sea, and potentially, the High North and Arctic". Notably, Finland's and Sweden's inclusion in NATO will strengthen NATO in geopolitical questions as "the challenge of defending and strategically utilizing this space will be greatly simplified. The addition of Finland and Sweden will probably enable the Alliance to degrade Russia’s ability to conduct successful military operations in the Baltic Sea region, and present new threats to Russian nuclear assets in the Arctic region". The two new NATO members offer the alliance expanded land, sea and air capabilities. Furthermore, Sweden has a strong navy and the Finnish military is well-funded. As stated, the expansion also delivers important geographical advantages, which enhances NATO´s defences as Finnish and Swedish NATO-membership will strengthen security in the Baltic sea and for the Baltic states, which is “NATO´s main mission”.

It is difficult to understand the Arctic geopolitical consequences caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The invasion introduced, as already stated, additional complexities to the Arctic geopolitical situation as, the invasion instilled fear in Sweden and Finland, prompting them to align with NATO and secondly, Western nations severed their ties to Russian gas supplies making Russian and Chinese Arctic-cooperation more significant.

Canada
Canada's extensive Arctic coastline and sovereignty over the Northwest Passage make it a key player in Arctic shipping and geopolitics. The country has sought to assert its control over these waters, aiming to balance economic interests with environmental protection.

Denmark
Denmark is an arctic state through overseeing Greenland and being the home of some of the biggest shipping companies in the world.

Iceland
Iceland is through it’s placement one of the geopolitically and strategically most important arctic hubs.

Key Shipping Companies
Several major shipping companies, including Maersk, COSCO, and CMA CGM, have been actively involved in Arctic shipping, recognizing the economic potential of the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage. These companies are pivotal actors in shaping Arctic shipping routes and influencing global trade dynamics. Thus, it is not only states that shape the Arctic - big shipping companies also plays a central role.

Academic Research
The Arctic region has experienced profound transformations due to climate change, resulting in the melting of ice caps and the opening of new shipping routes. This shift has given rise to the emergence of Arctic shipping as a pivotal element in the geopolitics of the region. The existing literature on the geopolitics of Arctic shipping, offers valuable insights into the dynamics and complexities surrounding this critical area of study.

As the Arctic's ice recedes, previously impassable routes like the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage have gained prominence. These routes offer significant advantages, including shorter transit times and cost-effective transportation between Europe and Asia. Research on the "Geopolitics and the Northern Sea Route" by Margaret Blunden underscores the geopolitical implications of these routes, emphasising their potential to reshape global trade dynamics, thus highlighting the economic and strategic importance of these emerging routes, while also indicating their role in shaping Arctic geopolitics.

The literature further acknowledges the concerns expressed by the United States regarding Russia and China's expanding roles in Arctic shipping and geopolitics. The competition for control and influence in the Arctic highlights the strategic importance of the region and the implications of Arctic shipping activities on U.S. interests. This reflects the evolving geopolitical landscape and the need for a comprehensive understanding of the Arctic shipping's impact on global politics.

The literature on Arctic shipping also underscores the significance of environmental and safety considerations. Resource exploration, particularly in the context of oil and gas, has also been a point of focus in Arctic shipping literature. The geopolitical implications of resource extraction in the Arctic, as explored in "Worth the Energy? The Geopolitics of Arctic Oil and Gas," demonstrate the intersection of economic interests and environmental challenges in the region. The Arctic's vast resources pose both opportunities and risks, making it a significant driver in shaping Arctic geopolitics.

Finally, the literature recognizes the importance of geopolitical tensions and cooperation in the Arctic. The region is not only a stage for competition but also a platform for dialogue and collaborative efforts, as indicated in various sources, through, for example, the Arctic Council.

Future research and gaps in the literature
While the existing literature on Arctic shipping geopolitics provides valuable insights, it also reveals several significant gaps and areas where the academic field lacks clarity, or maybe more precisely put, width. While the literature examines the field quite thoroughly, there is a gap in this literature in terms of how narrow the field are and therefore also the people working within it is. There isn’t much literature to be found, and therefore the needed room for academic debate and disagreement is nowhere to be found. For example:

While there is acknowledgment of the environmental challenges associated with Arctic shipping, such as the risk of oil spills and the impact on fragile ecosystems, there is a need for more comprehensive environmental impact assessments.

The geopolitical competition over Arctic resources, especially oil and gas, is also a recurring theme in the literature. However, there is a lack of  more comprehensive studies and in such a contested area, need for debate. This includes examining the role of international agreements and regulations in how shipping in the arctic can be sustainable. The literature often focuses on current shipping practices, but there is limited discussion of the potential impact of emerging technologies, such as autonomous vessels and advanced icebreaker capabilities which all could change how the industry acts and the opportunities of arctic shipping.

As for the above the literature touches on the geopolitical tensions in the Arctic, but there is room for deeper exploration of security issues and governance mechanisms. Especially the development of an overarching Arctic security framework is an area that warrants further investigation.

Furthermore, the Indigenous populations in the Arctic hold a critical stake in the region's development. However, the existing literature often provides limited to no insight into their perspectives and rights in the context of Arctic shipping.

While the economic opportunities that come with new shipping routes are emphasised in the literature, there is limited exploration of the broader economic and social impacts of Arctic shipping. Future research could assess the broader economic consequences of increased shipping activities, and the overall impact on local and regional economies.

A lot of literature examines Arctic geopolitics before 2014 and much literature is therefore outdated - especially in context of the Russian invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 and the impact that these invasions have had on Arctic geopolitics. Nevertheless, it is too early to draw conclusions on the effects that the 2022-invasion has had, as these tensions between NATO/EU and Russia/China changes by the minute. Further research should therefore focus on how the Finnish and Swedish NATO-membership evolves as both states are part of the Arctic council. Furthermore, it is interesting to see whether the NATO-expansion will provoke Russia – as other NATO expansions allegedly have done. To examine the development of Russian-Chinese cooperation in the Arctic will also be of interest to explore. Cooperation between Russia and China might rise as the relationship between Russia and NATO is characterised in “zero sum terms”.

In summary, the existing literature on Arctic shipping geopolitics provides a strong foundation but reveals several gaps that require further exploration. Future research should aim to address these gaps to enhance our understanding of the multifaceted challenges and opportunities presented by the evolving Arctic shipping industry. By filling these knowledge gaps, we can contribute to a more comprehensive and informed discourse on this critical aspect of global ocean politics.