 The U.S. Naval War College is a Navy's home of thought. Established in 1884, NWC has become the center of naval seapower, both strategically and intellectually. The following issues in national security lecture is specifically designed to offer scholarly lectures to all participants. We hope you enjoy this upcoming discussion and future lectures. Good afternoon and welcome to our 11th INS lecture for this academic year. I'm John Jackson and I will serve as host for today's event. I'd like to thank Navy Band Northeast for getting us in a great mood this afternoon with their wonderful presentation. Admiral Chatfield is on travel and can't join us today, but I'm pleased to welcome you on her behalf. We've enjoyed bringing you this series as a way to share a portion of the Naval War College's academic experience with the spouses and significant others of our student body. It has been expanded to include participation by the entire Naval War College extended family, including members of the Naval War College Foundation, international sponsors, civilian employees, colleagues throughout Naval Station Newport, and participants from around the nation. Looking ahead, I invite you to join us on March 22nd when Professor Pauline Shanks-Kuren will speak about the theory of just war. Okay, on with the main event. During the presentation that follows, please feel free to ask questions using the chat feature of Zoom, and we'll get to as many of these as we can at the conclusion of the presentation. Russia's invasion of Ukraine may seem half a world away, but it has stark implications for stability and cooperation in the Arctic region. The U.S. strategy aims to strengthen Ukraine militarily and economically, bolster NATO, and generate Allied and international support for isolating Russia. It is not clear, however, if these actions will persuade Vladimir Putin to reconsider his war of choice or double down and escalate on widening the conflict to include the Arctic region. How this conflict will end is uncertain, but what is sure is that it will have profound implications for Arctic security and stability for relations with Russia and for America's renewed strategic focus and pivot to the Arctic region. Walter Burwick is an associate professor in the college's war gaming department, founding director of the Arctic Studies Group, and co-lead scholar of the Newport Arctic Scholars Initiative. He has authored many reports and publications on defense and foreign policy issues, and is co-author of the forthcoming book, Newport Manual on Arctic Security. He previously served as a senior Arctic policy advisor to the Secretary of the Navy, leading in the development of the Department of the Navy's Arctic strategy. He has also served as senior Arctic policy advisor to the special representative for the Arctic region at the U.S. State Department during the U.S. chairmanship of the Arctic Council. He is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, holds a doctorate from Northeastern University, and served 10 years in the U.S. Navy. I know of no scholar better positioned to discuss the Arctic. Walter, the podium is yours, sir. Thanks, John. Good afternoon, everyone, and I'm here in Afar, a distinguished guest, ladies and gentlemen. On this International Women's Day, I'm reflecting on the future we all want for our daughters, one where they can live out their aspirations without fear, prejudice, or war. And today, we celebrate some of the women who are building that future for us today. Like the millions of Ukrainian women in and out of uniform, we're fighting for their freedom and their sovereignty. And groundbreaking leaders like our very own Admiral Shoshana Chaffield, the first woman to lead this U.S. Civil War College. A college founded 138 years ago as a place of original research on all questions related to war, the statesmanship of war, and the prevention of war. Today, we are at war. Russian President Vladimir Putin has launched the largest ground war in Europe since the Second World War. The United States, together with our allies and partners in Europe and around the world, have responded by providing Ukraine with lethal aid, deploying thousands of NATO forces across the European theater, and sanctioning Russia, which according to Putin, is declaring war. Sadly, though, it's the Russian people who, and they're good people, who bear the brunt of Putin's war. And as President Biden said last week, you are not our enemy. But in the final hours, the Russian people who must decide their leadership and the fate of their country. And this is not just a question of fighting for Ukraine. We are fighting to save Europe and the world from tyranny and in defense of the liberties and rights most sacred to us all. And Klausowitz tells us that success and war can only be achieved by destroying your opponent's armed forces, occupying their territory, and breaking their will. And in Ukraine, Russia aims to achieve all three. But the longer this fight goes on, the harder it's going to be for Russia to succeed. Now, the real cause of today's crisis is Putin's quest to return Ukraine to the Russian orbit. At the height of its expansion, the Russian Empire stretched across the European continent in the northern portions of Europe and Asia, comprised one-sixth of the world's landmass. It occupied modern Russia, Ukraine, Finland, as well as many other countries. In 2005, Putin said that the Soviet collapse was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe for the 20th century. He expanded on this idea just last year, suggesting that what we had built up over a thousand years was just largely lost. Putin argues that even without Ukrainian NATO membership, closer cooperation between the alliance in Ukraine poses a direct threat. To Russia. And seizing Ukraine allows Russia to retain key warm water ports, and the Black Sea enabling Russia to control an important commercial transit corridor and project military power to the Mediterranean, Middle East, and mainland Europe, as well as to the Arctic. The question we have to ask ourselves now is whether we can contain the fighting or that it will expand and escalate beyond Ukraine. And if Putin succeeds at taking and holding Ukraine, we must ask ourselves not if, but when, where, and how Russia will act next or Putin will act next. And while the world focuses on the Russia-Ukraine border, we, the United States, as an Arctic nation and as a maritime nation, must look towards our northern borders, towards a blue Arctic, stretching from Maine and the North Atlantic, across the Arctic Ocean through the Bering Strait and North Pacific, to Alaska and the southern tip of the Aleutian island chain. Now a blue Arctic provides the general idea that the Arctic is gradually turning from white to blue. And by that, I mean warming temperatures and reduced ice coverage is making Arctic waters more accessible and navigable, which enables nations, industries, and their navies, to access new markets, new resources, and new shipping routes. In fact, just last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a body of scientists convened by the United Nations, published their report highlighting that the Arctic is warming three times the rate as everywhere else in the world, making clear that we will experience a much warmer and wetter Arctic in the decades to come. And it will come even much more quicker than previously anticipated. In the opening years of the 20th century, Alfred Thayer-Mohan, the most influential faculty member to walk the halls of our college, and Ann Halford-McKinder, laid the groundwork for the most enduring perspective on the century of conflict yet to come, land power versus sea power. Yet neither Mohan nor McKinder took into account a blue Arctic. And it's here along the maritime borders of Russia and the United States, where we find the shortest maritime trade route, linking Asia, Europe, and North America. Nearly one-third of the world's untapped hydrocarbons and increased abundance and distribution of fish and minerals, the rise of China's third ocean strategy, and increasing tensions between NATO and Russia. In the Arctic region, the United States and NATO face a harsh reality that this uncontested maritime maneuver space, which we've turned a blind eye to over the last 30 years, is now blanketed with dense Russian military capabilities and a very capable Chinese Navy operating farther and longer from its shores. In the last decade, Russia has improved dramatically its anti-access and aerial denial systems, its monitoring and surveillance capabilities, its increased strategic exercises and patrols of long-range bombers and ASW patrols, anti-submarine warfare operations, and its upgraded Soviet-era military infrastructure to support these operations. Now, why has Putin ordered his military to do these things? Well, the first thing you should know is that the Arctic is ingrained in Russia's national identity. It's part of their culture. It's a rich part of their history. And Russia is the largest country in the world with 70% of its territory above northern latitudes. The Arctic is also critical to Russia's economy. In fact, the Arctic region accounts for nearly a quarter of Russia's GDP, 20% of its exports, and 80% of Russia's gas and 17% of its oil. And the Arctic is key to Russia's goal to gain a 20% share of the global LNG market by 2035. And a blue Arctic makes it easier to transport these resources to Asia and Europe via the northern sea route along Russia's coast line, which shaves weeks of transit time and shaves billions of dollars compared to the traditional maritime routes of today. Now, I emphasize maritime trade because still, even today, 90% of trade by volume still travels across our world's oceans, with seaborne trade expected to double over the next 15 years. Russia also wants to protect its ability to project power from the Arctic to the North Atlantic and the European Arctic in the event of a conflict with NATO. And a big part is securing its second strike capability of its ballistic submarine force located in Nicola Peninsula, which is home to two thirds of Russia's submarine force and Russia's most powerful fleet, its northern fleet. Last March, we witnessed three Russian SSBN simultaneously surface through the North Pole, capable of deploying 48 ballistic warheads that can reach U.S. cities. This has never happened in the Soviet area, and it's the first time it happened under Putin's watch in Russia. Just last week, one of these nuclear ballistic submarines launched a missile as part of a larger nuclear weapons exercise. And today, right now in the Arctic, Putin has ordered these forces, including its land-based ballistic missiles, as well as long-range strategic bombers. He's put these forces on high alert. Sending more subs on patrol and having the crew ready up port to sail is, under short notice, is certainly possible. And at President Putin's orders, more missiles could be armed with warheads and stored and transferred over from the naval base. In fact, just last week, we also saw three large assault landing ships from Russia's northern fleet transport Russian soldiers and amphibious vessels into the fight in Ukraine. Now, while still less than at the height of the Cold War, we've also seen a dramatic increase in British, French, Canadian, American, and many other NATO and non-NATO units who have increased their capabilities and increased their presence in the Arctic region. In fact, in 2018, 50,000 troops, 275 aircraft and 65 ships participated in the largest NATO exercise in the Arctic since the end of the Cold War. NATO exercise try to juncture included 29 NATO allied nations at the time, as well as Finland and Sweden. And now, and right now in the Arctic, hundreds of National Guard, active duty, Canadian military forces are responding to a simulated large scale exercise, disaster. At the same time right now, the U.S. Navy is also testing and evaluating its capabilities, including two of its fast attack submarines as part of its ice exercise, which is three weeks in the Arctic Ocean. And in just a few weeks time, 30,000 troops from 25 NATO countries and partners will train together on land, in the air and at sea during exercise Cold Response in Norway. And while these exercise are not directly linked to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they do provide Putin an opportunity to test and confront U.S. NATO forces. This heightened military activity comes at a time when regional dialogue and cooperation on security and defense matters in the Arctic is at an all time low. And this is primarily because of the West's response to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014. And as a result of Russia's invasion in Ukraine today, the Arctic Council just last week, which Russia chairs currently indefinitely suspended their work and their meetings in Moscow, setting back progress, perhaps years, even decades of potential progress. And an ambitious agenda Russia had as well. So taking together the likelihood of accidents or miscalculation with Russian forces in the Arctic has never been higher. Russia's invasion in Ukraine should also later rest debates about whether or not Russia's militarization and their expansion across the Arctic is solely for defensive purposes. Just when you thought Russia would never invade Ukraine or use banned cluster bombs or attack innocent civilians that happened. So as an Arctic nation and as NATO Alliance, we have to prepare for what could happen for any challenge or any contingency. And the first great challenge that I want to draw your attention to involves Finland, Sweden. There is a real, very real fear in Finland and across Europe right now that Ukraine might be Putin's first step in using military force to reconstitute the Soviet Union Empire. And if you believe Putin when he said Ukraine was a direct threat to Russia, despite not being a NATO member, then Sweden and Finland also is a threat. Putin's war has made the Alliance stronger and it could even be stronger with Sweden and Finland as NATO members. And as NATO Secretary General said earlier this year, the two countries could join the Alliance very quickly if they decide to choose membership. In fact, according to national polls last week, public support for NATO in both Sweden and Finland is at an all time high. And for both Finland and Sweden, it comes down to the same realities Ukraine faces today. Realities best said by the Finnish Premier. If Russia crosses the red line, do we face them alone or together with others? Finland and Sweden are also two of six enhanced opportunity partners for NATO, a group that also includes Ukraine. And it's the closest form of partnership with the Alliance. And as of last Friday, Sweden and Finland are now taking part of full NATO consultations as part of the war. As NATO member Sweden and Finland could block attempts by Russia to use their territory to stop the Alliance from entering the Baltic Sea in support of their allies in the Baltic Antarctic. In the Arctic, Russia would be the only non-Arctic state now surrounded in every way, including from the north. And as the Kremlin warned last week, this would lead to serious political and military consequences. The next great challenge we must be prepared for in a blue Arctic, centers on the Bering Strait along the Russia-U.S. border. While the U.S. Senate ratified the U.S. Maritime Boundary Agreement in 1990, the Russia Duma did not, which could likely or which could raise potential for Russia to dispute or somehow challenge our sovereignty in that agreement. In the coming decades, the Bering Strait could very well merge as a global maritime crossroads, a strategic choke point that links the maritime, the dynamic Pacific ocean economies with the economies of North Atlantic. For Russia, the Bering Strait also provides an avenue of approach to swing its forces from the Arctic to the Pacific and vice versa. So we have to look at integrated naval and joint operations in the Bering Strait, the capabilities and infrastructure that goes with it and plans to interdict or defend the Strait against any adversary or nation who attempts to close it or control it. The North Pole is also a challenge that we got to be prepared to face. The North Pole has long been a source of dispute and tension among Arctic states, both symbolically and because of its potential yet unproven strategic and economic significance. The provisions of states to claim an extended continental shelf under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has reignited the question of who owns the Arctic? Well, today, no one does. Today, the North Pole is subject to extended continental shelf claims by Russia, Canada and Denmark. The question, therefore, that we have to consider, especially here at our institution, is how might Russia develop and employ military capabilities to acquire what it believes to be an extension of its continental shelf? The next great challenge deals with the Northern Sea route along Russia's coastline. Russia considers the passage internal historical waters. The United States disagrees, citing that these waters are international. So disagreements and different interpretations of un-claws might lead to future tensions as shipping increases through these passages, especially during the ice-free months. And this could affect future navigational rates given different practices among Arctic countries. In addition, Russia has proposed new legislation requiring advanced notice, a tug escort at premium cost, and the use of Russian pilots. This legislation also challenges the immunities of warships and innocent passage and provides stricter regulation or on navigation and it's easy. We also have to be prepared for or have our sights set on the Norwegian island of Svalbard. Russia sure does. We recently celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Spisbergen Treaty, which granted Norway sovereignty over Svalbard and the special responsibility for its territory, its people, and its resources, and its archipelago, which while also providing equal access and nondiscriminatory rights to all the signatories, all the states who are signatories of the treaty. Now Russia wants to tap into the large quantities of mineral and energy deposits surrounding the island. And from a military perspective, Svalbard matters is important because of its strategic location between the Barents, the Greenland, and Norwegian seas. And so whoever holds Svalbard controls that important gateway from the shallow Barents Sea to the deeper North Atlantic. And for Russia's Northern Fleet, the bear gap between mainland Norway and archipelago to the southernmost island is key to conducting sea denial operations in and over maritime areas further south, which potentially could threaten NATO's transatlantic sea lines of communication. Our Putin's Arctic 2035 strategy shows that Russia is not giving up on its attempts to gain access to Svalbard's resources and its continental shelf. And in the long run, we cannot rule out the idea of Russia potentially annexing the islands for military economic purposes. Finally, this brings us to our last challenge and the greatest challenge I believe of them all. And that's China's rise in growing relationship with Russia, both in the Arctic and beyond. By the end of this decade, China population is set to peak at 1.5 billion, which will likely solidify its place as the top consumer of energy and seafood across the world. And Russia's Arctic is a significant source for both. Now, Western sanctions have, as a result of Western sanctions in 2014, Beijing and Moscow have become closer politically, military, militarily, and economically by making Russia increasingly depend on Chinese investments. In fact, just last month, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Beijing where the two leaders declared their friendship between the two countries where they said they had no limits and there was no forbidden areas where they would cooperate. The meeting resulted in a variety of trade deals and a 30-year contract signed between Russia and China, where Russia would send and supply China with gas via a new pipeline from the Arctic, which also can help Russia divert and redirect gas from Europe to Asia. And right now, one by one, as we're seeing play out, global companies are cutting their ties to Russia. And the dramatic exit of BP and Shell from Russia's Arctic oil and gas sector is a big one. And the results are evident. Russia's ruble and stock market is in free fall. Despite these efforts, though, if you look back on history, economic sanctions rarely cause the country to change course. In few cases, the few cases they did South Africa or more recently, North Korea, I mean, Iran with their nuclear weapons programs, these sanctions were widely enforced and they were comprehensive. But there is one path, I believe, to changing Putin's calculus, whether it's escalatory or de-escalatory, but it certainly, I think, will change his calculus. And that's sanctioning Russia's oil and gas industry, which the Biden administration announced today. And I think this is really the source of the state's wealth, as I mentioned before. And one reason why I think Putin thinks he can outweigh the storm. Now, defending freedoms has its cost, but for Americans here at the pump, I don't believe it's going to be as bad as some project. I think it'll go up a little more. But, and that's mainly because we only 7% of America's energy comes from Russia. While on the other hand, you look at Europe, they rely on 40% of their gas, their energy comes from Russia. So today, the US is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. And that's why I believe the US should expedite production and exports in American petroleum to replace Russian energy, especially some of the LNG and push that quicker to Europe. Now, I think that'll open up debates about whether or not there's drilling in the Arctic, in the US Arctic. And that remains to be seen. I think we should also convince countries like Japan and South Korea, which are also Arctic Council observers, encourage them to ramp up production as well. And this will take some time, but I think some markets, the markets will react and prices will fall. And on the military front, we've seen Russia and China conduct joint military exercises and share technology in the areas of aviation, undersea and hypersonic weapons. Like innovating Ukraine, though, I think closer relations with Beijing is just yet another strategic miscalculation by Putin and Moscow. Because like the old Chinese proverb says, two tigers cannot live on one mountain. In the coming years, the United States faces what Henry Kissinger called the necessity of choice. We don't have enough military power to address all the threats to our interests. And so we have to prioritize. And I think the United States needs integrated deterrence in the Arctic and NATO can be that cornerstone. So NATO should act now to strengthen its Arctic posture and I think neglecting it further risks war and potentially defeat in the Arctic. In practical military terms, this means making sure that we have enough of the right forces in theater, surface forces, jet or fighter jets, submarines, munitions, ISR and the like. Making sure that they're ready and available to defend our NATO allies in the north or provide Finland and Sweden with the weapons and training that they need to defend themselves from Russian attacks and on a very relatively short notice. But this shouldn't be a substitute for a credible American conventional response. So we must have a credible combat force that's postured in theater so that they can immediately engage and push back some Russian forces. Forces coming from the United States or other theaters, I think, won't have the time, won't have the openings and won't have the advantage to prevent a fate of complete. The United States, of course, has had a long history of having a forced posture in the theater. But if you look at I think America's sea services especially, that's insufficient in light of Russia's growing military capability and in light, I think, of their actions over the last few weeks. So a free and open Arctic cannot be achieved without deterrence and reassurance. So as we project power, as we bolster our presence, we have to keep those lines of communication open. And today, unfortunately, those lines are most of which are closed. Today, believe it or not, the United States and NATO, NATO specifically does not have an Arctic defense strategy. And so nor are we organized, trained, equipped to deal with those big challenges that I've laid out before you today. And 35 years ago, Nikolai Gorbachev, former president of the Soviet Union, made an impassioned plea in Murmansk that the North should be a pole of peace. Unfortunately, Putin's war in Ukraine, erodes Gorbachev's extraordinary vision for the Arctic. And frankly, his own vision for transforming the Arctic into a sustainable and stable global maritime crossroads. And with that, I look forward to our discussion. Thank you very much.