The Arctic debate appears to present a conflict between long-term necessities and short-run priorities. In the long run, mitigating the climate crisis will necessitate multilateral cooperation, with Russia and China as integral parts. However, deterrence is the only policy that can credibly commit the U.S. to defend its Arctic interests. Abandoning the Arctic could invite aggression, even forcing the U.S. to commit more resources than it otherwise would have pursuing deterrence in the first place.
In my view, a balancing posture may be managed if the administration can successfully link issues to respond symmetrically to long- and short-term challenges. With a clear interest in environmental cooperation in the Arctic, it seems unwise to suggest the U.S. should fully commit its resources to the region. However, this appears likely to hamstring the U.S. response to potential aggression.
The U.S. may be able to respond to Arctic aggression in other areas. For example, Russian actions in the Arctic could be answered with greater engagement towards the Baltic states, or Chinese behavior could be counteracted with new arms sales to Taiwan. If American diplomats can successfully link these policies to Sino-Russian actions, then they may be able to deter aggression while preserving the possibility for environmental cooperation.
– Ty Rossow, Baylor University, Political Science
