In a recent article, a professor at the Naval Academy argues that “Trump can leverage the Arctic to end the Ukraine war.”
It’s clear that Trump was excited by the possibilities the article raised in ending the war. Written by Lyle J. Goldstein, a research professor at the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the US Naval War College.
The author makes the case that the key to ending the war lies in the Arctic. Goldstein argues that Trump’s announced plan to end the war swiftly “seemed increasingly out of reach.” The author went on to say that “it’s hard to imagine that… more arms for Ukraine and…more sanctions on Russia will be successful at achieving peace.”
The author said that Trump still has a chance “to break from the status quo and entice Russia to end the war” by making the situation in the Arctic - where a struggle for dominance between world powers has been intensifying in recent years – part of the negotiations, he wrote.
As the analyst stated, the issue is “guaranteed to capture… Putin’s attention” because Moscow is interested in the effective functioning of the Northern Sea Route (NSR), which runs from the Barents Sea near Russia’s border with Norway to the Bering Strait between Chukotka and Alaska, and “holds the key to unlocking major development in the country’s vast, resource-rich interior and more broadly for Siberia.”
“The Arctic region may contain an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and 46 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, approximately 13 percent and 30 percent of undiscovered global reserves, respectively.”
To see Russia make concessions, “the US would need to lift sanctions that have been applied against NSR projects… [and] facilitate major European shipping companies like Hapag Lloyd and Maersk to green light the route.”
Another step to “sweeten the pot” for Moscow could be “the encouragement and even incentives for Western investment along the NSR” by Washington and Brussels, Goldstein stressed.
"By appending peace proposals with a carrot guaranteed to catch Putin’s attention, negotiations having a substantial Arctic component could gain Trump’s favor and find success,” he insisted.
Russia is by far the region’s largest geographical stakeholder, with its northern border encompassing some 53% of the Arctic Ocean coastline, and will likely continue to be a prime player in the High North.
And there is abundant evidence that Russia is militarizing the region, with many of the European northern tier countries and Canada following suit.
That Trump was captivated by the proposed plan was made clear by his sudden attempt to take over northern territories owned by his closest NATO allies, including annexing Canada, a prime member of England’s Commonwealth of Nations, and Greenland, governed by Denmark.
It’s also clear that Trump is following the Naval Officer’s plan to the letter. He is currently offering to drop sanctions on major Russian Arctic development projects in exchange for ending the Ukraine War.
That could be a bonanza for Russia to develop its Arctic and Siberian regions, said to hold some 25% of the world's primary industrial commodities, including giant gas and oil reserves, industrial and rare metals.
Dropping US/EU war sanctions on Russia would also enable the country to leverage Western finance and technology in its Arctic development projects.
Another important factor in the deal is that before the onset of war in Ukraine, the world’s largest energy companies, led by US oil giants Exxon, Chevron, and Conoco, were working on developing some of Russia’s largest Arctic energy reserves, but were forced to leave because of US war sanctions, leaving billions in investments on the table.
Most Western energy companies want to return, while Putin has made it abundantly clear that if the war ends, he would be glad to welcome them back.
The access of US corporations to Arctic development could also increase commercial trade shipping efficiency across the top of the world, offering the shortest commercial route to circumnavigate the globe, along with the prospects for enormous mineral wealth.
Ironically, Trump, a confirmed climate change denier, is eager to invest billions of federal funds in the obvious fact of glaciers melting and reduced ice that underlies the opening of the Arctic Sea to commercial traffic and exploration.
Although Goldstein’s plan is full of rich prospects for both the US and Russia, there are strong obstacles to this scenario.
One of the most important is that Europe feels itself far more threatened by the war on its doorstep than does its US ally, and because of that, continues to be Ukraine’s strongest supporter, while Putin has made it plain that although he’s ready to end the war, that will only occur on his terms.
Russia wants peace; the US desperately seeks a ceasefire. For Russia, peace means that the US dismantle its missile bases in Poland and Romania, no NATO membership or western weapons in Ukraine, a large reduction of Ukraine’s army and long-range weapons, acceptance of Russia’s territorial gains, including Crimea, ending of US/EU sanctions, and eventually negotiations between Russia and the US towards new treaties on strategic arms.
The US peace proposal also calls for ‘a long-term economic cooperation agreement aimed at mutual development in the fields of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data-processing centers, rare-earth mining projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.’
Trump badly needs a resolution of the war that he boastfully promised to end on his first day in office. Many ‘American Firsters’ supported him on that promise, while his MAGA base fiercely opposes US involvement in foreign wars.
With a bi-election only a few months off, Trump is fully aware that he is vulnerable to attacks from the Democrats and some of his own supporters on his failure to deliver on his promise to end the war.
So it comes as no surprise that the Trump Administration is currently placing enormous pressure on Ukraine, its government weakened by a corruption scandal, to accept a 28-point plan that closely follows the naval officers' plans.
The plan also clearly echoes most of the Russian core demands. Some Republican Senators claim that Secretary of State Rubio described the plan as ‘a Russian wish list,’ although Rubio now denies he said that.
In a word, the plan calls for Ukraine’s complete surrender.
The big question now is, can an obscure naval officer’s plan change the course of war or is this just another quick answer to what might be a very long problem?
By Robert Berke for Oilprice.com