DOCSLIB.ORG

Hearing on an Emerging China-Russia Axis? Implications for the United States in an Era of Strategic Competition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hearing on an Emerging China-Russia Axis? Implications for the United States in an Era of Strategic Competition HEARING ON AN EMERGING CHINA-RUSSIA AXIS? IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES IN AN ERA OF STRATEGIC COMPETITION HEARING BEFORE THE U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2019 Printed for use of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission Available via the World Wide Web: www.uscc.gov UNITED STATES-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON: 2019 U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION CAROLYN BARTHOLOMEW, CHAIRMAN ROBIN CLEVELAND, VICE CHAIRMAN Commissioners: HON. CARTE P. GOODWIN MICHAEL A. MCDEVITT ROY D. KAMPHAUSEN HON. JAMES M. TALENT THEA MEI LEE MICHAEL R. WESSEL KENNETH LEWIS The Commission was created on October 30, 2000 by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 2001 § 1238, Public Law No. 106-398, 114 STAT. 1654A-334 (2000) (codified at 22 U.S.C. § 7002 (2001), as amended by the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for 2002 § 645 (regarding employment status of staff) & § 648 (regarding changing annual report due date from March to June), Public Law No. 107-67, 115 STAT. 514 (Nov. 12, 2001); as amended by Division P of the “Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003,” Pub L. No. 108-7 (Feb. 20, 2003) (regarding Commission name change, terms of Commissioners, and responsibilities of the Commission); as amended by Public Law No. 109- 108 (H.R. 2862) (Nov. 22, 2005) (regarding responsibilities of Commission and applicability of FACA); as amended by Division J of the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008,” Public Law Nol. 110-161 (December 26, 2007) (regarding responsibilities of the Commission, and changing the Annual Report due date from June to December); as amended by the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, P.L. 113-291 (December 19, 2014) (regarding responsibilities of the Commission). The Commission’s full charter is available at www.uscc.gov. ii April 11, 2019 The Honorable Chuck Grassley President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 Dear Senator Grassley and Speaker Pelosi: We are writing to notify you of the Commission’s March 21, 2019 public hearing on “An Emerging China- Russia Axis? Implications for the United States in an Era of Strategic Competition.” The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 2001 § 1238, Pub. L. No. 106-398 (as amended by the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 § 1259b, Pub. L. No. 113-291) provides the basis for this hearing. At the hearing, the Commissioners received testimony from the following witnesses: Robert Sutter, Ph.D., Professor of Practice of International Affairs, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University; Richard Weitz, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Director of Center for Political-Military Analysis, Hudson Institute; Richard Weitz, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Director of Center for Political-Military Analysis, Hudson Institute; Jeanne Wilson, Ph.D., Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of Russian Studies, Chair of Political Science Department, Wheaton College; Stephen Blank, Ph.D., Senior Fellow for Russia, American Foreign Policy Council; Pranay Vaddi, J.D., Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Marlene Laruelle, Ph.D., Director of Central Asia Program and Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, George Washington University; Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Director of Transatlantic Security Program, Center for a New American Security; and Rebecca Pincus, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Strategic and Operational Research Department, U.S. Naval War College. The following submitted statements for the record: Robert Sutter, Ph.D., Professor of Practice of International Affairs, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University; and Samuel Charap, Senior Political Scientist, the RAND Corporation. This hearing explored the China-Russia relationship and its implications for U.S. national security interests. The first panel examined areas of strategic, military, and economic cooperation between China and Russia, and the second panel assessed the potential limits and barriers to cooperation in these areas. The third panel examined current and future China-Russia interaction in Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Arctic. The full transcript of the hearing, prepared statements, and supporting documents are posted to the Commission’s website, www.uscc.gov. Members and the staff of the Commission are available to provide more detailed briefings. We hope these materials will be helpful to the Congress as it continues its assessment of U.S.-China relations and their impact on U.S. security. The Commission will examine in greater depth these issues and the others in our statutory mandate this year. Our 2019 Annual Report will be submitted to Congress in November 2019. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your staff contact one of us or our Congressional Liaison, Leslie Tisdale Reagan, at 202-624-1496 or [email protected]. Sincerely yours, Carolyn Bartholomew Robin Cleveland Chairman Vice Chairman cc: Members of Congress and Congressional Staff iii CONTENTS THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2019 AN EMERGING CHINA-RUSSIA AXIS? IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES IN AN ERA OF STRATEGIC COMPETITION Opening Statement of Commissioner Roy Kamphausen (Hearing Co-Chair) .........................................................................................................6 Prepared Statement ...........................................................................................................8 Opening Statement of Chairman Carolyn Bartholomew (Hearing Co-Chair) .......................................................................................................10 Prepared Statement .........................................................................................................12 Panel I: Ties that Bind: Current Areas of Sino-Russian Cooperation Panel I Introduction by Chairman Bartholomew (Hearing Co-Chair) .......................................................................................................14 Statement of Robert Sutter, Ph.D. Professor of Practice of International Affairs, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University .....................................................................................15 Prepared Statement .........................................................................................................17 Statement of Richard Weitz, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, Director of Center for Political-Military Analysis, Hudson Institute ...31 Prepared Statement .........................................................................................................33 Statement of Erica Downs, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist, CNA; Non-Resident Fellow, Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University ..........................................................................................42 Prepared Statement .........................................................................................................44 Panel I: Question and Answer............................................................................................56 Panel II: Friction and Barriers: Limits to Sino-Russian Cooperation Panel II Introduction by Commissioner Kamphausen (Hearing Co-Chair) .......................................................................................................71 Statement of Jeanne Wilson, Ph.D. Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of Russian Studies, Chair of Political Science Department, Wheaton College .......................................................................................72 Prepared Statement .........................................................................................................74 Statement of Stephen Blank, Ph.D. Senior Fellow for Russia, American Foreign Policy Council ........................................90 Prepared Statement .........................................................................................................92 Statement of Pranay Vaddi, J.D. Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace .......137 Prepared Statement .......................................................................................................140 Panel II: Question and Answer ........................................................................................151 iv Panel III: Challenging Futures: Risks and Opportunities in Central Asia and Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the Arctic Panel III Introduction by Chairman Bartholomew (Hearing Co-Chair) .....................................................................................................166 Statement of Marlene Laruelle, Ph.D. Director of Central Asia Program and Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, George Washington University ......................................................................167 Prepared Statement .......................................................................................................169 Statement of Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, Director of Transatlantic Security Program, Center for a New American Security .........................................................................................................................173
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report
    COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ANNUAL REPORT July 1,1996-June 30,1997 Main Office Washington Office The Harold Pratt House 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. (212) 434-9400; Fax (212) 861-1789 Tel. (202) 518-3400; Fax (202) 986-2984 Website www. foreignrela tions. org e-mail publicaffairs@email. cfr. org OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, 1997-98 Officers Directors Charlayne Hunter-Gault Peter G. Peterson Term Expiring 1998 Frank Savage* Chairman of the Board Peggy Dulany Laura D'Andrea Tyson Maurice R. Greenberg Robert F Erburu Leslie H. Gelb Vice Chairman Karen Elliott House ex officio Leslie H. Gelb Joshua Lederberg President Vincent A. Mai Honorary Officers Michael P Peters Garrick Utley and Directors Emeriti Senior Vice President Term Expiring 1999 Douglas Dillon and Chief Operating Officer Carla A. Hills Caryl R Haskins Alton Frye Robert D. Hormats Grayson Kirk Senior Vice President William J. McDonough Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. Paula J. Dobriansky Theodore C. Sorensen James A. Perkins Vice President, Washington Program George Soros David Rockefeller Gary C. Hufbauer Paul A. Volcker Honorary Chairman Vice President, Director of Studies Robert A. Scalapino Term Expiring 2000 David Kellogg Cyrus R. Vance Jessica R Einhorn Vice President, Communications Glenn E. Watts and Corporate Affairs Louis V Gerstner, Jr. Abraham F. Lowenthal Hanna Holborn Gray Vice President and Maurice R. Greenberg Deputy National Director George J. Mitchell Janice L. Murray Warren B. Rudman Vice President and Treasurer Term Expiring 2001 Karen M. Sughrue Lee Cullum Vice President, Programs Mario L. Baeza and Media Projects Thomas R.
    [Show full text]
  • EXPEDITIONS Summary Calendar Month by Month
    EXPEDITIONS Summary calendar month by month WINTER 2018/2019 SEPTEMBER DECEMBER MARCH 2018 DAYS SHIP VOYAGE EMBARK/DISEMBARK 2018 DAYS SHIP VOYAGE EMBARK/DISEMBARK 2019 DAYS SHIP VOYAGE EMBARK/DISEMBARK AFRICA & THE INDIAN OCEAN GALÁPAGOS ISLANDS GALÁPAGOS ISLANDS 28th 14 9822 Colombo > Mahé 01st 7 8848 North Central Itinerary 02nd 7 8909 Western Itinerary 08th 7 8849 Western Itinerary 09th 7 8910 North Central Itinerary 16th 7 Western Itinerary OCTOBER 15th 7 8850 North Central Itinerary 8911 23rd 7 8912 North Central Itinerary 2018 DAYS SHIP VOYAGE EMBARK/DISEMBARK 22nd 7 8851 Western Itinerary 30th 7 8913 Western Itinerary GALÁPAGOS ISLANDS 29th 7 8852 North Central Itinerary ASIA 06th 7 8840 North Central Itinerary ANTARCTICA 05th 15 9905 Yangon > Benoa (Bali) 13th 7 Western Itinerary 8841 02nd 10 1827 Ushuaia Roundtrip 20th 16 9906 Benoa (Bali) > Darwin 20th 7 8842 North Central Itinerary 07th 10 7824 Ushuaia Roundtrip 27th 7 8843 Western Itinerary ANTARCTICA 12th 10 1828 Ushuaia Roundtrip 07th 21 1907 Ushuaia > Cape Town AFRICA & THE INDIAN OCEAN 17th 18 7825 Ushuaia Roundtrip CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA 12th 11 9823 Mahé Roundtrip 22nd 15 1829 Ushuaia Roundtrip 07th 9 7905 Valparaíso > Easter Island CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA AFRICA & THE INDIAN OCEAN SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS 03th 12 1822 Nassau > Colon 13th 6 9828A Durban > Maputo 16th 14 7906 Easter Island > Papeete (Tahiti) 15th 11 1823 Colon > Callao (Lima) 30th 13 Papeete (Tahiti) > Lautoka 19th 17 9829 Maputo > Mahé 7907 26th 16 1824 Callao (Lima) > Punta Arenas AFRICA & THE INDIAN
    [Show full text]
  • “Techno-Diplomacy” for the Twenty-First Century: Lessons of U.S.-Soviet Space Cooperation for U.S.-Russian Cooperation in the Arctic
    THE HURFORD FOUNDATION 2015-2016 HURFORD NEXT GENERATION FELLOWSHIP RESEARCH PAPERS No. 6 “TECHNO-DIPLOMACY” FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: LESSONS OF U.S.-SOVIET SPACE COOPERATION FOR U.S.-RUSSIAN COOPERATION IN THE ARCTIC Rachel S. Salzman EASI-Hurford Next Generation Fellow The Hurford Fellows Program is sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and is made possible by a generous grant from the Hurford Foundation THE HURFORD FOUNDATION The Hurford Fellowships, administered by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, support the Euro- Atlantic Security Initiative (EASI) Next Generation Network in identifying young academics conducting innovative research on international security in the Euro- Atlantic area. 2 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Cooperation and Techno-Diplomacy: Some Definitions ......................................................... 4 Learning the Wrong Lessons: Is the Cold War Really the Right Frame? ............................ 6 From “the Pearl Harbor of American Science” to the “Handshake in Space”: U.S.- Soviet Space Cooperation ................................................................................................................... 7 The Good .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 The Bad .............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • China's Military Posture
    RESEARCH PAPER 08/15 China’s Military 12 FEBRUARY 2008 Posture The strategic consequence of China’s rise to political and economic prominence has become a major pre- occupation for academics and policymakers, particularly in the United States. In light of that debate, this paper is intended to be an introduction to China’s current military posture. It examines China’s strategic priorities and obligations, its military capabilities and the aims of its military modernisation programme. It also discusses the dichotomy between what China characterises as its “peaceful development” and its military ambitions, and addresses the inevitable question of whether China’s military build up can be considered benign. CLAIRE TAYLOR AND TIM YOUNGS INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE SECTION HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY Recent Library Research Papers include: List of 15 most recent RPs 07/94 Pensions Bill [Bill 25 of 2007-08] 19.12.07 08/01 Economic Indicators, January 2008 07.01.08 08/02 Social Indicators 11.01.08 08/03 European Union (Amendment) Bill [Bill 48 of 2007-08] 15.01.08 08/04 Unemployment by Constituency, December 2007 16.01.08 08/05 Energy Bill [Bill 53 of 2007-08] 16.01.08 08/06 Planning and Energy Bill [Bill 17 of 2007-08] 21.01.08 08/07 National Insurance Contributions Bill: Committee Stage Report 24.01.08 08/08 Aviation and Climate Change 24.01.08 08/09 The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty on European 24.01.08 Union 08/10 Special Educational Needs (Information) Bill [Bill 26 of 2007-08] 28.01.08 08/11 Local Government Finance Settlement
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian Transition Challenges for German and American Foreign Policy
    THE RUSSIAN TRANSITION CHALLENGES FOR GERMAN AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY Washington, DC Conference Report Conference Report 9-10 June 1999 American Institute for Contemporary German Studies The Johns Hopkins University Conference Report THE RUSSIAN TRANSITION CHALLENGES FOR GERMAN AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY Washington, D.C. 9-10 June 1999 American Institute for Contemporary German Studies The Johns Hopkins University The American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS) is a center for advanced research, study, and discussion on the politics, culture, and society of the Federal Republic of Germany. Established in 1983 and affiliated with The Johns Hopkins University but governed by its own Board of Trustees, AICGS is a privately incorporated institute dedicated to independent, critical, and comprehensive analysis and assessment of current German issues. Its goals are to help develop a new generation of American scholars with a thorough understanding of contemporary Germany, deepen American knowledge and understanding of current German developments, contribute to American policy analysis of problems relating to Germany, and promote interdisciplinary and comparative research on Germany. Executive Director: Jackson Janes Research Director: Carl Lankowski Development Director: Laura Rheintgen Board of Trustees, Cochair: Steven Muller Board of Trustees, Cochair: Harry J. Gray The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. ©1999 by the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies ISBN 0-941441-45-8 This AICGS Conference Report paper is made possible through grants from the German Program for Transatlantic Relations. Additional copies are available at $5.00 each to cover postage and processing from the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, Suite 420, 1400 16th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • H-Diplo Review Essay 243 on Stent. Putin's World
    H-Diplo H-Diplo Review Essay 243 on Stent. Putin’s World: Russia against the West and with the Rest Discussion published by George Fujii on Tuesday, June 9, 2020 H-Diplo Review Essay 243 9 June 2020 Angela Stent. Putin’s World: Russia against the West and with the Rest. New York: Twelve Books, 2019. ISBN: 9781455533015 (paperback, $15.99). https://hdiplo.org/to/E243 Editor: Diane Labrosse | Production Editor: George Fujii Review by Ronald Grigor Suny, The University of Michigan Deeply immersed in both the scholarly and policy worlds, Angela Stent is one of those itinerant experts who crosses the chasm between government and the academy. Such passages have both advantages and disadvantages, and in her account she cautiously and persuasively navigates between dispassionate analysis and dedication to what is best for her own country, the United States. Throughout Putin’s World she displays what might be called a liberal common sense about which values and behaviors would best preserve the international order, promote peace and prosperity in the world, and keep the indispensable nation on top. Russia is a challenger, though not the major challenger (that honor now falls to China), to American global hegemony, and therefore warrants a careful analysis of its interests, motives, and capabilities. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Russia poses as a unique power astride Eurasia, ready to work with any state regardless of its political persuasion and anxious to promote a multipolar world to replace the unipolar world dominated by the United States. If the United States is indispensable, for the Putinites, Russia is irreplaceable.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Russia's Role in Cross-Taiwan Strait Relations
    “Russia and Cross Strait Relations” SHAOHUA HU Associate Professor and Chair Department of Government and Politics Wagner College [email protected] Scholars have scrutinized the role of the United States and even Japan in cross-Strait relations, but have downplayed, if not ignored, the role of Russia.1 Given the extensive studies that have been carried out on Russia’s China policy, the lack of attention given to this subject is woeful and even puzzling. Such deficiency may be attributed to Moscow’s seemingly unequivocal pro-Beijing policy, Russia’s loss of superpower status, and the lack of close ties between Russia and Taiwan. Whatever the reasons, the deficiency should be addressed, because Russia is both a global and a regional power, and because the policy differences between Russia and all other major powers demand explanation. This article attempts a systematic study of the Russian factor in cross-Strait relations. What form has Russia’s Taiwan policy taken in different eras? How important is Russia to Beijing’s Taiwan policy? What options might Russia have in the event of a cross-Strait conflict? These are the questions I seek to answer. The Evolution of Russia’s Taiwan Policy A review of Russian foreign policy helps us understand the present and anticipate the future. Russian leaders have not created their foreign policy out of the blue, but rather formulated it under given geographical and historical circumstances. No matter how changeable and complex history is, we may still be able to identify some key historical patterns. That scholars find much continuity in Russian foreign policy makes it even more important to familiarize ourselves with the past.
    [Show full text]
  • Franz Josef Land Russian High Arctic
    FRANZ JOSEF LAND RUSSIAN HIGH ARCTIC This extraordinary expedition to Franz Josef Land is as unique and authentic as the place itself. Starting in Longyearbyen in the Norwegian territory of Svalbard, we cross the icy, wildlife-rich Barents Sea to the Russian High Arctic. In Franz Josef Land we discover unparalleled landscapes, wildlife, and history in one of the wildest and most remote corners of the Arctic. DATE: 20 Jul - 02 Aug 2019 DURATION: 14 DAYS EMBARKATION: Longyearbyen DISEMBARKATION: Longyearbyen SHIP: M/V Sea Spirit FROM: $13,595 (Double) Day 1: Embarkation in Longyearbyen In the afternoon we welcome you aboard the expedition ship M/V Sea Spirit; transfers from the hotel are included. Explore the ship and get comfortable in your home-away-from-home for the extraordinary adventure to come. The long days of summer sunlight illuminate our surroundings as we slip our moorings and sail into a true wilderness where wildlife abounds. The scenery as we sail through Isfjorden on our first evening is spectacular and there is already the possibility of marine mammal encounters. Days 2-3: Across the Barents Sea Between obligatory initial and final calls at the From Isfjorden we proceed straight to Franz Russian polar station Nagurskoye in Cambridge Josef Land across the Barents Sea. Bay we are free to explore the many waterways and islands of this unique Arctic wilderness. The archipelago, part of the Russian Arctic National Park since 2012, is a nature sanctuary. Polar bears and other quintessential High Arctic wildlife—such as walruses and some rare whale species—can be spotted anytime, anywhere in and around Franz Josef Land.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Dimensional Chess Sino-Russian Relations in Central Asia
    Authors: Goos Hofstee Noor Broeders NOVEMBER 2020 Multi-dimensional chess Sino-Russian relations in Central Asia Key takeaways f Russia and China both see Central Asia as their rightful “backyard”, and both countries strive to maximise their sway over the region, albeit so far mostly in complementary rather than overlapping “spheres of influence”. f However, as the power asymmetry between China and Russia grows, China allows itself to be more assertive in the military sphere, which so far has been the prerogative of the Russians. f Based on this increasingly assertive behaviour on China’s part, and Moscow’s insistence on being the sole security provider in Central Asia, the military sphere is where we see the biggest risk of escalation in the region. f Another consequence of this growing power asymmetry is that Russia increasingly feels like the “junior partner” in the relationship. While Putin has so far accepted this position, changing geopolitical circumstances might induce him to once again look to the West (or elsewhere) to “hedge his bets”. f While China and Russia both consider Central Asia as one of the “chessboards” on which to play out their game of competition and cooperation, they are not the only players. Central Asian countries are increasingly asserting their strategic political agency. f In view of the above, the EU should look to become a part of the dynamic by investing strongly in the effective implementation of the 2019 Central Asia Strategy. Through closer relationships with individual Central Asian countries, the EU can become a “player” on the Central Asian chessboard.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 PCTR Draft Report
    PC 172 PCTR 17 E rev.1 fin Original: English NATO Parliamentary Assembly POLITICAL COMMITTEE NATO AND SECURITY IN THE ARCTIC REPORT Gerald E. CONNOLLY (United States) Rapporteur Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Relations www.nato-pa.int 7 October 2017 172 PCTR 17 E rev.1 fin TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 II. THE ARCTIC AND EURO-ATLANTIC SECURITY ............................................................... 1 III. THE SECURITY IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE ARCTIC – AN UPDATE .......... 3 IV. THE ARCTIC AND NATO-RUSSIA RELATIONS ................................................................. 5 V. THE INCREASING ENGAGEMENT OF CHINA IN THE ARCTIC ........................................ 8 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 9 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 11 172 PCTR 17 E rev.1 fin I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Arctic region, or High North, ranked top of the security agenda during the Cold War due to its strategic importance. Its significance was largely reduced with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Bloc countries. However, due to both the warming climate in the Arctic and the re-emergence of geopolitical competition in the region, the Arctic is once again of profound importance to NATO security. According
    [Show full text]
  • Circumpolar Military Facilities of the Arctic Five
    CIRCUMPOLAR MILITARY FACILITIES OF THE ARCTIC FIVE Ernie Regehr, O.C. Senior Fellow in Arctic Security and Defence The Simons Foundation and Michelle Jackett, M.A. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Circumpolar Military Facilities of the Arctic Five – last updated: September 2017 Ernie Regehr, O.C., and Michelle Jackett, M.A. Circumpolar Military Facilities of the Arctic Five Introduction This compilation of current military facilities in the circumpolar region1 continues to be offered as an aid to addressing a key question posed by the Canadian Senate more than five years ago: “Is the [Arctic] region again becoming militarized?”2 If anything, that question has become more interesting and relevant in the intervening years, with commentators divided on the meaning of the demonstrably accelerated military developments in the Arctic – some arguing that they are primarily a reflection of increasing military responsibilities in aiding civil authorities in surveillance and search and rescue, some noting that Russia’s increasing military presence is consistent with its need to respond to increased risks of things like illegal resource extraction, terrorism, and disasters along its frontier and the northern sea route, and others warning that the Arctic could indeed be headed once again for direct strategic confrontation.3 While a simple listing of military bases, facilities, and equipment, either
    [Show full text]
  • 45 Russia's Arctic Security Policy
    SIPRI Policy Paper RUSSIA’S ARCTIC 45 SECURITY POLICY February 2016 Still Quiet in the High North? ekaterina klimenko STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. GOVERNING BOARD Ambassador Sven-Olof Petersson, Chairman (Sweden) Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar (Indonesia) Dr Vladimir Baranovsky (Russia) Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria) Jayantha Dhanapala (Sri Lanka) Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger (Germany) Professor Mary Kaldor (United Kingdom) The Director DIRECTOR Dan Smith (United Kingdom) Signalistgatan 9 SE-169 70 Solna, Sweden Telephone: +46 8 655 97 00 Fax: +46 8 655 97 33 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.sipri.org Russia’s Arctic Security Policy Still quiet in the High North? SIPRI Policy Paper No. 45 EKATERINA KLIMENKO February 2016 © SIPRI 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of SIPRI or as expressly permitted by law. ISBN 978–91–85114–89–4 Contents Preface iv Summary v Abbreviations vii 1. Introduction 1 2. Russia’s Arctic aspirations 3 Russia’s Arctic policymaking 3 Russia’s Arctic energy resources: no development without foreign 6 technology The Northern Sea Route 9 The extension of limits of the continental shelf 11 3. Russia’s security policy in the Arctic 13 Arctic threat assessment 13 Russia’s military and civil emergency capacity in the Arctic 17 Russia’s growing military capabilities in, but not for, the Arctic 26 4.
    [Show full text]