Russia Unveils Aggressive Arctic Plans

Maybe Canada is going to have to bring its troops home from Afghanistan, not to police the homeless in Vancouver during the Olympics, but to protect our Northern borders against those darn Ruskies.

In a new national directive, Russia has asserted claims on large sections of the Arctic Ocean. The tone of the document is openly aggressive, prompting fears of increasing international tension over who has the right to exploit the mineral-rich territory.

Cold temperatures and boredom are normally the order of the day at Russia's northernmost border post on the Arctic Ocean island of Alexandra Land. Icebergs as big as houses drift past, while old diesel drums stand silent in the dry air.

Everybody wants a bit of the Arctic these days. Here, the midnight sun in the Arctic Circle near the Norwegian town of Longyearbyen.

In September of last year, this ghost station of the Cold War was suddenly returned to the center of geopolitical events, when two dozen government representatives were flown there, including Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov. They quickly agreed that "the Arctic must become Russia's main strategic base for raw materials." Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Security Council of Russia, was quick to point out: "If we do not become active now, we will simply be forced out."

The group of powerful men decided to have a comprehensive strategy prepared for development of the Arctic by 2020. The document will be released this week.

Some of the content has already been leaked, revealing an uncompromising tone. "It cannot be ruled out that the battle for raw materials will be waged with military means," the explosive document reads.

The interest of nations bordering the Arctic is growing as polar ice recedes [2]. One week before leaving office, outgoing US President George W. Bush unveiled a strategic plan for the Arctic region. Canada, Denmark and Norway have launched their own initiatives. Even the European Union announced a new polar policy in November.

Meanwhile, the government-controlled newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta is preparing Russians for the notion that "the fight for the Arctic will be the initial spark for a new division of the world." Artur Chilingarov, a member of the Russia parliament and Moscow's chief ideologue when it comes to conquering the Arctic, puts it this way: "We are not prepared to give our Arctic to anyone."

Chilingarov -- who in August 2007 used a remote-controlled submarine arm to plant a Russian flag made of titanium on the ocean floor at the North Pole at a depth of 4,261 meters (13,976 feet) -- wants to "present evidence to the United Nations within one year" that the North Pole belongs to the Russians. His threat to those in the West who disagree is simple: "If these rights are not recognized, Russia will withdraw from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea."

Alexander Dugin, a political scientist and well-known intellectual backer of Moscow's neo-imperial claims to a Greater Russia, becomes so caught up in nationalist fervor that he loses his grasp on biological realities: "The purpose of our being lies in the expansion of our space. The shelf belongs to us. Polar bears live there, Russian polar bears. And penguins live there, Russian penguins."

The intended expansion of Russia's northern border by at least 150 miles (241 kilometers) and 1.2 million square kilometers (463,000 square miles), an area three times the size of Germany, promises to yield immense natural resource earnings.

Comments

Submitted by Frustrated Mess on February 1, 2009 - 11:43pm.

Submitted by genstrike on February 2, 2009 - 12:24am.

Hmmmm... maybe one day I'll be able to see Russia from my house.

Submitted by NorthReport on February 2, 2009 - 12:28am.

Do you live in the Charlottes?

Submitted by genstrike on February 2, 2009 - 12:44am.

NorthReport wrote:

Do you live in the Charlottes?

No, that was just my lame attempt at a Sarah Palin joke

Submitted by NorthReport on February 2, 2009 - 1:02am.

I had forgotten about Ms Palin - how time flies when you are having fun!

Submitted by Papal Bull on February 2, 2009 - 1:22am.

Eh, let's see how Russia does with deploying some troops in the Arctic and finding the funding necessary to build the ships that it will need.

Submitted by NorthReport on February 2, 2009 - 1:33am.

If they need money, the Ruskies can just jack up the price of oil and gas to Europe.

It's not as if Canada's military might is going to stop them.

Submitted by Sven on February 2, 2009 - 1:35am.

My suggestion? Place a quick call to the U.N. I'm sure that the U.N. will make sure that those naughty Russians will keep their hands off of Canadian territory.

Uh-huh. :rollyeyes:

Face it. If the Russians want to take it, nothing is going to stop them. And, if there are hundreds of billions of dollars of oil to be had, I think they will have a very keen interest in doing exactly that.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Submitted by NorthReport on February 2, 2009 - 1:40am.

Them is fighting words, aren't they!

Don't worry, Uncle Sam will come charging to the rescue.

Submitted by Sven on February 2, 2009 - 1:42am.

NorthReport wrote:

Don't worry, Uncle Sam will come charging to the rescue.

I don't think Uncle Sam has a dog in that fight.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Submitted by Papal Bull on February 2, 2009 - 1:47am.

Well. First off, Russia has to find the money to fund the massive expenditures necessary in militarizing the north. Secondly, America is very interested in northern issues right now. I mean, Sven, if the Russians are willing to run to war for some oil, whatchoo think the Americans are going to do?

It'll be like a really good family reunion!

Submitted by Sven on February 2, 2009 - 1:58am.

Papal Bull wrote:

Secondly, America is very interested in northern issues right now. I mean, Sven, if the Russians are willing to run to war for some oil, whatchoo think the Americans are going to do?

From what I've seen, the Americans only claim the tiniest of slivers of space on the shelf. The big piece of pie that is actually in dispute is between the Russians and the Canadians.

Prediction: (1) There isn't going to be a war over this and (2) the Russians will get whatever they want.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Submitted by Papal Bull on February 2, 2009 - 3:20am.

Yes, but you sort of forget about that giant NATO thinger, and the fact that America has been using Canadian waters all through the last half of the 20th century onwards for all sorts of military uses. Do you really think that all of a sudden it's claims, no matter how small, won't hold international weight? Particularly with the Russians.

There won't be a war. But there will be a moronic amount of money spent on exploiting the Arctic by all countries involved. And given what is going on in Russia right now, that is probably not a good thing for their populace. Nor for anyone else.

Submitted by Fidel on February 2, 2009 - 10:45am.

Ya those evil Russkies have been threatening world domination for a long time. They'd steal our oil and gas if we let them. :rollyeyes&headtoss:

Submitted by Papal Bull on February 2, 2009 - 1:11pm.

Really? I think you read too much counter-media, Fidel. Since I was a little kid, I don't think anyone has mentioned Russian world domination ;) Perhaps indulging in a bit of a nastyolgic fantasy?

Submitted by Fidel on February 2, 2009 - 1:26pm.

World domination by the Russians was cold war paranoia fed to people by Pentagon kapitalists and, according to Gore Vidal, a few US Generals who spread false rumors at highbrow cocktail parties around the world. And people like you, PB, perhaps may have read one too many Reader's Digest diddy's on the cold war.

The Lies and Crimes of 911: (cold war footnote)

Quote:

Indeed, almost every major media organization in the United States was involved in some way in CIA operations. The CIA had agents in ABC, NBC, Reuters, Newsweek, Reader's Digest, the Christian Science Monitor, Scripps-Howard, Saturday Evening Post, Miami Herald, the Mutual Broadcasting System, and Copley News, to name but some.

No doubt the outright subversion with public money of anything like a free press is even more pronounced in the era of the War on Terror than it was in the era of the Cold War.

Submitted by Papal Bull on February 2, 2009 - 1:31pm.

Yeah, but Pravda was a far more valid source that had no government intervention and there was no whipped up Cold War paranoia on the other side of the Curtain, eh buds?

Submitted by Michelle on February 2, 2009 - 1:52pm.

genstrike stole my thunder! I was just about to post that maybe Palin can save us. ;)

Submitted by Fidel on February 2, 2009 - 2:08pm.

Papal Bull wrote:

Yeah, but Pravda was a far more valid source that had no government intervention and there was no whipped up Cold War paranoia on the other side of the Curtain, eh buds?

They had the body counts to justify an iron curtain: 27 million dead soldiers and 19 million civilians - one "civil" war whereby Russia was laid siege to by 25 fascist international armies and mercenaries from the US and Canada to Britain, Germany, Poland and Japan. Western aggression against Russia is historical. Soviets didnt care to hash out who funded Hitler and his corporate-sponsored war machine. An iron curtain and pushing the line of defence westward by the same layer of countries they liberated from the Nazis was their solution. Red Army could have very well liberated all of Europe, and that's why a real second front was realized late on in the war.

Meanwhile, the only aggressors military and otherwise we've ever had to contend with in Canada were from south of the border

Submitted by Papal Bull on February 2, 2009 - 2:34pm.

Eh, the Soviets were instrumental in booting my family out of Ukraine. I suppose I should be happy. So, what if some fools deify a murderous regime that was only semantically different than the NAZIs?

Hell, I hear Nashi has a few openings for youth counsellors, Fidel. I bet they could use someone like you.

Submitted by Fidel on February 2, 2009 - 2:53pm.

Youre doing pretty well with spreading false information and murdering what is an historical record in the other thread you flip back and forth to from this one. Soviets didnt murder thousands of Jews in Ukraine, and march millions more Ukrainians to slave labour camps where they were worked to fuckinh death or simply exterminated

I think your steaming pile of constant bulshit would go over better at a site like freakdominion or another. Sorry kid.

Submitted by Papal Bull on February 2, 2009 - 6:16pm.

Fidel wrote:

They didn't kill the Jews, but that's probably because Stalin was done in before the rest of his schemes could be finished up. But, I don't know. They didn't march them slave labour camps. They packed 'em onto trains and sent them to Siberia all the same - millions of them. You going to dispute that historical record?

How about the purges? That just disinformation?

Submitted by Fidel on February 2, 2009 - 6:35pm.

Wiki says many Ukrainian collaborators had a change of heart after the Nazis force marched hundreds of thousands out of Ukraine to slave labour camps.

Quote:

By the time the Red Army returned to Ukraine, most of the population welcomed the soldiers as liberators.[1] At the same time, more than 4.5 million Ukrainians fought Germany in the Red Army and more than 250,000 as part of the paramilitary units of Soviet partisans [27].[2] Ukraine also produced noted commanders such as Marshal Rodion Malinovsky [28], Semyon Timoshenko [29] and partisan leader Sydir Kovpak [30].

Imagine that the Nazis won the war of annihilation against communism in Russia.

Submitted by NorthReport on February 28, 2009 - 1:38pm.

Another wonderful Peter MacKay moment

Russia slams as farce Canada's statement on Tu-160 flight

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090227/120351925.html

Submitted by remind on February 28, 2009 - 2:24pm.

Ya, I knew something was up the minute I herd Mackay say "they need to back off". It was obvious posturing, in as much as his dog moment was.

The lying liars have something up their sleeves.

Submitted by Fidel on February 28, 2009 - 2:47pm.

ReformaTories would rather discuss anything other than their bad economy. MacKay's an embarrassment.

Submitted by Noah_Scape on February 28, 2009 - 3:12pm.

It is said that the Arctic has 22% of the world's oil... how sad it would be to have to engage Russia in a real war, over oil, at a time when the world desperately needs to reduce the amount of oil we use.

I would support a 40 year world-wide moratorium, enforced by a world body such as the U.N., on all oil extraction north of the arctic circle, other than what is currently being extracted.

That might cool off the hot war rhetoric. Putin is being his regular dinosaur self, taunting Canada about our "pathetic response" to their nuclear-bomb carrying flights over the Arctic.

We should also consider the possibility that this is another in a long line of "false-flag events" [the photo sure looked perfectly framed and posed-for]. After all, American needs a new enemy now that the Iraq war is ending, and Russia would fit the bill just fine as the next big threat to keep the military busy.

Submitted by Squawker on February 28, 2009 - 3:16pm.

Noah_Scape wrote:

I would support a 40 year world-wide moratorium, enforced by a world body such as the U.N., on all oil extraction north of the arctic circle, other than what is currently being extracted.

You mean the same U.N. that ran the criminal oil-for-food program in Iraq? Ha! The U.N. is a farce.

Submitted by NorthReport on February 28, 2009 - 3:22pm.

So do you think the council of democracies or whatever they're called would do a better job and if you do, please explain why.

Submitted by Fidel on February 28, 2009 - 3:39pm.

Noah_Scape wrote:

Cold war hawks never lost interest in Russia as an enemy. The USA and NATO have continued encircling Russia and China militarily ever since the start of the 1990s. Reagan supposedly promised Gorbachev that NATO aggression against Russia would cease if the Berlin Wall came down. Chalmers Johnson said that western leaders were surprised by the end of the cold war, and that they have lacked imagination as to the possibilities for world peace and prosperity ever since. Hundreds of millions of people were lied to as to which cold warriors were seeking world domination. The west has been aggressive with wars of conquest in the Middle East and Central Asia, and now planning to install "defensive" missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic, and fomenting war between Georgia and its breakaway autonomous regions.

Submitted by Stockholm on February 28, 2009 - 3:41pm.

Its hard to feel any sympathy for Russia that the country fallen under the control of Putin and his oligarchy of rightwing nationalist authoritarians.

Submitted by Fidel on February 28, 2009 - 8:21pm.

Stockholm wrote:

Its hard to feel any sympathy for Russia that the country fallen under the control of Putin and his oligarchy of rightwing nationalist authoritarians.

Putin is still more popular in Russia than Steve "I'm just a toady to corporate America" Harper is here at 22% of registered voter support. Same goes for that other 22 percenter in Toronto.

Submitted by LeighT on February 28, 2009 - 9:12pm.

Fidel, you're really inconsistent with your position on Putin et al, and your positions on Russian policies. You realize there are leftists in Russia, some represented by voices like Kagarlitsky say, who are quite critical of Putin.

What are you trying to do, exactly?

Submitted by Fidel on February 28, 2009 - 9:37pm.

LeighT wrote:

What are you trying to do, exactly?

I'm commenting on Russia. Russians werent impressed with catastroika and desire a strong central government today as a result.

Submitted by Papal Bull on February 28, 2009 - 10:10pm.

America and Russia have too many common interests right now to be fighting each other militarily. They're becoming entwined in a game of give and take and America is going to become more dependant on Russia through Afghanistan.

Submitted by Fidel on February 28, 2009 - 10:44pm.

The US and Europe could trade freely for Russia's resources now the economies are integrated. It could be a peaceful and prosperous world without colder war.

Submitted by NorthReport on March 5, 2009 - 12:29pm.

Here's an even bigger threat to our so-called Canadian sovereignty.

Where the hell is the kiss Harper's ass Liberal leader Ignatieff on this issue? Asleep at the switch as usual.

Arctic sovereignty: Another threat runs silent and deep

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090305.wcoarctic05nation/BNStory/National/home

Quote:

The key criterion for an international strait is usage by international shipping without the consent of the coastal state. Ottawa's failure to protest against the submarine transits could constitute evidence that - in the corridors of international diplomacy, where it really matters - Canada has already surrendered its claim.

Taking physical action against the submarines is neither necessary nor practical. In international law, protests are sufficient to prevent the protested action from creating a new right.

For the moment, the issue of submarine voyages remains off the table, legally speaking, as long as both governments continue to treat these activities as officially secret. But keeping secrets is becoming ever more difficult in a rapidly warming, increasingly busy Arctic.

The issue of the Northwest Passage cannot be avoided. It's time for both Canada and the United States to stop the shenanigans - and negotiate a comprehensive agreement on shipping in the North.

Submitted by It's Me D on March 6, 2009 - 9:48am.

I don't know how I missed this thread for so long!

I also can't believe the article in the OP quotes Dugin; I'm glad they make him look stupid though (which is very easy!). He's still a dangerous man.

LeighT wrote:

Its sometimes hard to be consistently critical of Putin, even the domestic opposition in Russia finds it hard; very few Russian leftists have been consistant in their position on Putin (though by now some are developing a consistently oppositionist position, they were not quick in arriving at it).

As for Kagarlitsky he represents no one outside of academia, taking pot-shots at active leftists while theorizing about some great confluence of labour which is NOT occuring. Putting any faith in the Communist Party is also misguided, since they support Putin more consistently than not. I'd have a little respect for Kagarlitsky if he'd rethink his position on the "extreme left" which in Russia is the ONLY consistant left opposition to Putin!

/thread drift (sorry)

Submitted by Fidel on March 6, 2009 - 9:13pm.

The Obama-Medvedev turbo shuffle

Quote:

The President Barack Obama administration urgently needs to do a couple of things: learn to play chess; and watch the DVD of the Godfather saga, especially larger-than-life parts I and II.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev didn't even have to be a good chess player to figure out he was not exactly being presented by Obama with a famous "offer he can't refuse".

In a secret Obama letter, hand-delivered to Medvedev three weeks ago, as the New York Times revealed and the administration confirmed, the US "non-proposal proposal" essentially broke down to this: if you help us get rid of non-existent Iranian nuclear weapons, we'll get rid of our missile shield which we don't know if it's any good anyway.

Kremlin spokesperson Natalya Timakova reacted as dry as a good martini: the letter had "no concrete proposals and no mutually binding initiatives". In fact, Obama took no less than three months to simply reply to a letter Medvedev sent him shortly after his election on November 4, 2008.

Are things really deteriorating into "liquid war" and globalizing gangster capitalism?

Submitted by NorthReport on March 8, 2009 - 12:09pm.

Interestingly it was the USA who said Russia's flying behaviour was totally appropriate. Canada needs to get it act together.

Quote:

There are belligerent minor players on both sides, but the Obama administration seems to have sent out orders to squelch them. Last week, for example, a couple of Russian bombers flew to within a couple of hundred kilometres of Canada's Arctic coast, a mere 5,000 kilometres from the Canadian capital.

Canada scrambled fighters to "send a strong signal that they should back off and stay out of our airspace", according to Defence Minister Peter McKay, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper sternly declared that Canada would not be intimidated.

"This government has responded every time the Russians have done that," he said. "We will defend our airspace."

But the Russians were not in Canada's airspace.

"The Russians have conducted themselves professionally," responded General Gene Renuart, the American officer who commands NORAD, the Canada-U.S. air defence alliance, in an implicit rebuke to the sabre-rattling Canadians. "They have maintained compliance with the international rules of airspace compliance and have not entered the internal airspace of either country."

That is probably just what the Obama administration wants from Russia: a professional relationship between two grownup countries that know and respect the rules. For a start, Hillary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov committed the two countries to negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) by the end of the year, but more will follow. The tide has turned.

http://www.straight.com/article-205042/gwynne-dyer-us-and-russia-are-pressing-reset-button