Antarctic/Arctic Rush

Status
Not open for further replies.
www.telegraph.co.uk

Ukraine-Russia war: Putin launches massive nuclear-powered icebreaker in race to control the Arctic

Vladimir Putin on Tuesday oversaw the launch of a nuclear-powered icebreaker as he vowed to control the Arctic.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

1669133619890.png
ORIGINAL CAPTION: CREDIT: AP

Vladimir Putin on Tuesday oversaw the launch of a nuclear-powered icebreaker as he vowed to control the Arctic.

Addressing a Saint Petersburg ceremony for the launch of the Yakutia icebreaker by video link, Putin said such vessels were of "strategic" importance for Russia.

In addition to floating out the Yakutia, authorities also symbolically raised a flag on another nuclear-powered icebreaker, the Ural.

The ships are part of a fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers that are meant to ensure Moscow's dominance over the melting Arctic.
"Both icebreakers were laid down as part of a large serial project and are part of our large-scale, systematic work to re-equip and replenish the domestic icebreaker fleet, to strengthen Russia's status as a great Arctic power," he said.

The vessels are designed to resist extreme weather conditions, have a length of 568 feet and can smash through ice up to 2.8 metres thick.

The Arctic is taking on greater strategic significance as a shrinking ice cap opens up new sea lanes.

Vast oil and gas resources lie in Russia's Arctic regions, including a liquefied natural gas plant on the Yamal Peninsula.
Click to expand...
 
Time to create a new quad for the Arctic Pacific to counter China and Russia: The US and Canada should turn to Japan and South Korea, two pivotal treaty allies with strategic interests and unique capabilities that could bolster Arctic security, according to analysts Chan Mo Ku and Jinwan Park.
Click to expand...

Good idea but the authors have failed to acknowledge the small herd of policy elephants in the room. Their "new quad" suggests a coalition of nations in agreement on common interests. But differences in policy need to be examined as well.

It is accepted that Canada shares interests with Asian democracies like Japan and ROK (as well as Singapore). But none of those countries is bold (or foolish?) enough to challenge American assertions that the Northwest Passage should be considered as an international strait. So, in the Arctic, what exactly is Ottawa meant to see as common ground with Seoul or Tokyo?

Without falling into the ceaseless FONOPs debate, the US denies the existence of internal Canadian waters in the Arctic Archipelago. Canada is, thereby, violating US rights of innocent passage as well as "violating the law of the sea as set out in the Corfu Channel case." Which brings up another policy difference within the proposed "new quad".

The US Department of State must rely upon the 1947-49 Corfu Channel case because the US government has never ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. (The only other maritime nations which the US shares this position with are: Israel; Peru; Syria; Turkey; and Venezuela.) By contrast, the other three proposed Quad members have all long-since ratified UNCLOS.

In 2019, LCdr Valérie Allard commented the conundrum that Ottawa would find itself in should the PRC recognize Canada's claims of sovereignty over the waters of the NWP. Are the other potential members of this Quad willing to thwart that threat by agreeing to Canadian internal waterway claims? (If this really is a matter of principle, their answer should be 'No'. Then, assume that Ottawa will continue to bite the pillow and see what transpires in the future.)

Fortunately, both policy issues can be dealt with unilaterally by Washington. In advance of proposing a "new quad" for the Arctic, Washington could ratify UNCLOS and acknowledge Canadian soveriegnty over the NWP as a distinct exception to that other 'law of the sea'. Otherwise, the Arctic just represents a rapidly changing environment in all aspects other than out-dated policy.
 
I want Antarctic ice harvesting to be a thing. Forget Neom, Saudis.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: zen
gcaptain.com

Chinese-Russian Naval Patrol Skirts U.S. Territorial Waters Off Alaska Coast

By Malte Humpert (gCaptain) – China and Russia continue to step up their patrol activity in the Arctic. A week after the U.S. Coast Guard reported sighting Chinese and Russian...
gcaptain.com gcaptain.com

gcaptain.com

Chinese Vessels Race to Deliver Power Plant To Sanctioned Arctic LNG Project Before Winter

By Malte Humpert (gCaptain) – A small fleet of Chinese cargo has set out from shipyards near Shanghai attempting to deliver a critically-needed power plant to Russia’s Arctic before winter....
gcaptain.com gcaptain.com
 
These icebreakers would be great to tow Sea Dragon and break water into propellants
 
publiusr said:
These icebreakers would be great to tow Sea Dragon and break water into propellants
Click to expand...
What are in your mind the qualitative and/or quantitative advantages of the Sea Dragon design as outlined e.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket) over conventional launch from dry stable land? Please show your work with respect to comparative factors regarding required infrastructure, logistics, risks, safety, overall energy budget, technology readiness, cost, and environmental impact, especially on sea life.
 
Last edited:
The retreat of the ice is good economic news for Russia and Canada, which will have easy access to huge natural resources if they act smartly. It might also have been good news for Denmark if the mandarins in Brussels had not decided to cede the riches of Greenland to the Chinese for strange ideological reasons.

The United States has been defending this island for seventy years using enormous resources and is not going to allow any more ideological nonsense in this part of the world.
 
Justo Miranda said:
the mandarins in Brussels had not decided to cede the riches of Greenland to the Chinese for strange ideological reasons.
Click to expand...
They didn't. That would have been the Danish or local Greenland government, with the strange ideological reasons being free-market thinking: sell to the highest bidder.
 
martinbayer said:
What are in your mind the qualitative and/or quantitative advantages of the Sea Dragon design as outlined e.g. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket) over conventional launch from dry stable land? Please show your work with respect to comparative factors regarding required infrastructure, logistics, risks, safety, overall energy budget, technology readiness, cost, and environmental impact, especially on sea life.
Click to expand...
Safety is the biggest selling point--launch far out to sea---and you have no noise complaints.

Needs less sophistication than big smart boosters like Starship/SuperHeavy

More heavily built, etc.
 
Last edited:
Justo Miranda said:
The United States has been defending this island for seventy years using enormous resources and is not going to allow any more ideological nonsense in this part of the world.
Click to expand...
You guys think Denmark and other Europeans are regretting their decision to acquire F-35s in the light of this whole Greenland/Trump thing? I mean, this “just in time” F-35 supply chain issue is kind of a build in dependency, isn’t it?

Obviously, the stationing of some Danish F-35 in Greenland can’t be aimed against US-threats but I must admit, my first thought was in this direction and I was very much amused.
 
Justo Miranda said:
The retreat of the ice is good economic news for Russia and Canada, which will have easy access to huge natural resources if they act smartly. It might also have been good news for Denmark if the mandarins in Brussels had not decided to cede the riches of Greenland to the Chinese for strange ideological reasons.

The United States has been defending this island for seventy years using enormous resources and is not going to allow any more ideological nonsense in this part of the world.
Click to expand...
The US was defending itself. The idea that Greenland was going to be invaded is ludicrous.
 
An ally who threatens to grab your territory has ceased to be an ally.
Danish armed forces thwarting a forcible US annexation of Greenland is unrealistic. To point out the obvious, you know.
 
Attach files
Justo Miranda said:
Do you really think that a few foreign-made aircraft, located 2,920 km from the metropolis, can defend 2,166,086 km2 of white hell against two aggressive nuclear powers?
Click to expand...
Of course not. But my question was more general intended. I mean, you are buying aircraft from your ally to defend yourself, which probably can't work properly without the active cooperation of the ally. Down the line, that same country shows keen interests in parts of your territory...
Would other European allies starting to have reservations towards their acquisition? Probably, don't you think?
 
I wonder if we will start to see orchestrated calls for a referendum within Greenland and Iceland :/ (continuation of the US.'s 'coloured revolutions & springs' policies ?)
 
0cu0 said:
Attach files

Of course not. But my question was more general intended. I mean, you are buying aircraft from your ally to defend yourself, which probably can't work properly without the active cooperation of the ally. Down the line, that same country shows keen interests in parts of your territory...
Would other European allies starting to have reservations towards their acquisition? Probably, don't you think?
Click to expand...
Well, the Canadians have already tried that with the Avro CF-105, the Spaniards with the Messerschmitt HA-300 and the Argentines with the Focke-Wulf Pulqui II. But in the end, they all bought Sabres... Do you have an answer to that?
 

Attachments

  • Screen_210314_160115.jpg
    Screen_210314_160115.jpg
    885.9 KB · Views: 4
  • 904fc3-3.jpg
    904fc3-3.jpg
    730.7 KB · Views: 3
  • Screen_200504_235623.jpg
    Screen_200504_235623.jpg
    351.4 KB · Views: 2
Hmm, let me try. The answer to your implied question is - It’s hard and expensive to build your own aircraft and it is easier to buy “Made in USA”.
So in your opinion, Denmark and other European countries optioning for the F-35, had just the choice between that and building all their own?
I don’t see it that way. Quite different countries with geographic conditions and strategic needs optioned for the F-35 in Europe.
 
0cu0 said:
Hmm, let me try. The answer to your implied question is - It’s hard and expensive to build your own aircraft and it is easier to buy “Made in USA”.
So in your opinion, Denmark and other European countries optioning for the F-35, had just the choice between that and building all their own?
I don’t see it that way. Quite different countries with geographic conditions and strategic needs optioned for the F-35 in Europe.
Click to expand...
If the new US administration wants Europe to buy, Europe will buy, all they have to do is be scarier than the Russians. Europe does not exist for Trump, only countries and commercial interests. And many Europeans are starting to think the same.

We will buy the damn planes, we will not use them at all and the governments will raise taxes as much as necessary to calm the Americans. We were cowards in the Middle East and in Crimea, we lack military credibility.
 
Apparently due to some sort of understanding established in 1917, the UK has first right to buy Greenland.
Though an argument could well be made thus was on behalf of Canada....

Still buying Svalbard was recently a thing. Bit of shame that one didn't go through.
 
Interesting, so if Musk annoys Starmer enough it could end in a bidding war for Greenland.
Unlikely but the thought is entertaining.
 
Grey Havoc said:
gcaptain.com

Chinese-Russian Naval Patrol Skirts U.S. Territorial Waters Off Alaska Coast

By Malte Humpert (gCaptain) – China and Russia continue to step up their patrol activity in the Arctic. A week after the U.S. Coast Guard reported sighting Chinese and Russian...
gcaptain.com gcaptain.com
Click to expand...
There's places where the deep water channel is mostly in US waters. There's also places where the US and Russia are only a couple miles apart.

So that's a sensationalist headline with little relation to reality.


Justo Miranda said:
If the new US administration wants Europe to buy, Europe will buy, all they have to do is be scarier than the Russians. Europe does not exist for Trump, only countries and commercial interests. And many Europeans are starting to think the same.

We will buy the damn planes, we will not use them at all and the governments will raise taxes as much as necessary to calm the Americans. We were cowards in the Middle East and in Crimea, we lack military credibility.
Click to expand...
Europe doesn't exist as a unified polity, and frankly the Brussels government is only slightly more effective than that of California. How many people living there identify as "Europeans" versus "Italians" etc?

In the US, the only mention of the state you live in comes after the discussion of "I am an American" (or if your being an American is assumed).

Example on this forum. @martinbayer lives in the US, in California, but IIRC self-identifies as German (sorry for throwing you under the bus, Martin). Not as "European"

It'd be like me living in Tokyo and saying I am an Idahoan, not an American. The sense that being a citizen of "the state you live in" in the US hasn't been stronger than being "American" since the 1860s.

Plus, it was Europeans who said that a nation doesn't have friends or allies, it has interests. (Thought that was Richelieu, a quick google says it was De Gaulle)
 
Scott Kenny said:
Europe doesn't exist as a unified polity, and frankly the Brussels government is only slightly more effective than that of California. How many people living there identify as "Europeans" versus "Italians" etc?

In the US, the only mention of the state you live in comes after the discussion of "I am an American" (or if your being an American is assumed).

Example on this forum. @martinbayer lives in the US, in California, but IIRC self-identifies as German (sorry for throwing you under the bus, Martin). Not as "European"
Click to expand...
That is an accurate breakdown of the current European identity perception but it could be just a snapshot in time. The EU is still quite young.
Historically speaking, it helps to have a common foe to foster a common identity (The British for the USA and the French for Bismarck-Germany)
Different religious interpretations are manageable but the language barrier is a tough nut to crack, let’s see.

The problem with Trump is, he is using this weak point for his advantage. That is understandable but also short-sighted in a multi polar world – in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
0cu0 said:
That is an accurate breakdown of the current European identity perception but it could be just a snapshot in time. The EU is still quite young.
Historically speaking, it helps to have a common foe to foster a common identity (The British for the USA and the French for Bismarck-Germany)
Different religious interpretations are manageable but the language barrier is a tough nut to crack, let’s see.
Click to expand...
I mean, it did take the US Civil War for that identity shift to happen, so it's certainly possible.

I just hope it doesn't take that nasty an event for Europe.



0cu0 said:
The problem with Trump is, he is using this weak point for his advantage. That is understandable but also short-sighted in a multi polar world – in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Again, nations have interests.

At this point in time, the US and EU interests are at odds, in terms of who owns the mineral rights in Greenland. However, both the US and EU do not want the rare earths etc in Greenland to be owned by China, either.
 
I’m not disagreeing with you. Nations have interests, but it matters how you push your interests through. The law of the jungle is certainly effective (again) – see Russia, China and other regional players.
But in my opinion, the might of the US is declining and it will need trusted allies (not vassals) for this changed landscape.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Example on this forum. @martinbayer lives in the US, in California, but IIRC self-identifies as German (sorry for throwing you under the bus, Martin). Not as "European"
Click to expand...
No offense taken :). I do it because it is more precise and hence allows to draw additional background information than just identifying as European, which is logically implied by my nationality. "All Germans are Europeans, but not all Europeans..."
 
I live in Spain, but I will not consider myself a European until the government in Brussels submits to classical democratic values, without tricks, or false elections, or cordon sanitaires to the political options that it does not like. I will pay the taxes, but I will be ashamed of what they are doing in Brussels.
 

Attachments

  • nariz-tapada.png
    nariz-tapada.png
    103 KB · Views: 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom