Arms and Arguments February 2026 Review

Jonas Kjellén (2022) “The Russian Northern Fleet and the (Re)militarisation of the Arctic”

Review by Ashoka Bandi Phillips

Jonas Kjellén’s article “The Russian Northern Fleet and the (Re)militarisation of the Arctic” examines how Russia has rebuilt and reorganised its Arctic military presence, arguing that this is more than a simple return to Soviet‑era patterns. He shows how the creation of a Joint Strategic Command based on the Northern Fleet, alongside a new status as a major military‑administrative entity, has made the Fleet the central hub for Arctic operations, coordinating expanded bases, air‑defence systems, radar networks, and seasonal naval deployment from the Barents Sea into the central Arctic.

A key strength of the article is its focus on how this posture is now oriented around securing the Northern Sea Route as an east‑west strategic corridor, intertwining military aims with economic and climatic changes in the region. Kjellén underlines that only a limited portion of Northern Fleet assets is truly adapted to Arctic conditions and that Russia remains heavily reliant on dual‑use civilian infrastructure and icebreakers, complicating attempts to dismantle them.

While the piece is rich in strategic military detail, it pays less attention to the social and environmental consequences for Arctic communities and ecosystems, keeping the emphasis firmly on hard security and state strategy. Moreover, as the article was published in 2022, some of its analysis is now dated, so it should be complemented with more recent research.

Alexandra Middleton (2025) “Militarization of the Nordic Arctic: Demographic, Economic and Environmental Implications”

Review by Priyakshi Pujari 

The article “Militarization of the Nordic Arctic: Demographic, Economic and Environmental Implications” talks about growing military activity in the Arctic. It discusses how the Arctic region in the Nordic countries is becoming more militarized because of rising global tensions and NATO’s increased role. It explains that Finland, Norway, and Sweden are strengthening their military presence in the north to feel more secure. However, the author argues that this change affects more than just security; it also influences the lives of local people, the economy and the environment.

Many Arctic communities already struggle with problems like population decline and limited job opportunities. The arrival of military bases and soldiers may bring some economic benefits, such as new jobs and better infrastructure. Yet, the article warns that these benefits might be temporary and uneven. There are also concerns about how military activities could disturb the traditional lifestyle of Indigenous and local communities.

Another important issue is the environment. The Arctic ecosystem is very fragile, and military exercises can damage land, create pollution, and disturb wildlife. The article concludes that governments must balance security needs with the protection of people and nature in the region. While the article clearly explains the wider impacts of militarization in the Nordic Arctic, it could engage more deeply with alternative viewpoints or provide stronger evidence on long-term outcomes. 

Karsten Friis (2025) “Arctic Spillover? Military Signalling in the European Arctic Before and After the Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine”

Review By Mila King

Since the height of the Cold War, the Arctic has served as a base for many of Russia’s nuclear deterrent forces and can therefore be seen as a reflection of its broader international posture. Given the sharp increase in international tension following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Arctic might have been expected to emerge as another proxy arena for military escalation.

Drawing on open-source data and a comparative analysis of pre- and post-2022 activities, Karsten Friis argues instead that Russian behaviour in the region largely reflects a desire to maintain the long-standing status quo. Although Russia has continued to strengthen and modernise its Northern Fleet, this process has been gradual, with no clear acceleration following the invasion. While Russia still maintains the strongest military presence in the Arctic, regularly conducting missile tests and training exercises, Friis finds that overall activity has, if anything, declined since 2022, likely due to the diversion of resources to the war in Ukraine.

By contrast, NATO activity in the region has increased. Finland and Sweden’s accessions in 2023 and 2024 significantly expanded NATO’s Arctic footprint, while the UK and US naval presence has also grown. Nevertheless, Friis characterises this as a continuation of established military signalling rather than the kind of destabilising escalation seen elsewhere in Europe. Deterrence strengthening on both sides remains measured and cautious, reflecting an awareness of the risks associated with sudden shifts in Arctic military posture. While the article convincingly demonstrates continuity thus far, it also leaves open the possibility of future escalation, given the Arctic’s strategic importance and the unpredictability of Russian decision-making.

Orlando Recchi (2025) “The Militarization of the Arctic: A New Theatre for War?”

Review by Tabitha R Agaba 

Published in June 2025, “The Militarization of the Arctic: A New Theater for War” examines how great powers are gearing up to control the Arctic.

The paper urges that the race to take over the Arctic is on as Russia expands its military presence, while China expands its economic investments, and the USA repositions its forces. Beyond access, the Arctic is rich in resources like the liquefied Natural Gas, which Russia would like better access to. China’s interests in the region are viewed as a threat to NATO and the USA. Additionally, Russia has revamped its military presence in the Arctic, and the USA has responded by reinforcing its military presence as well.

The paper highlights the mistrust, global power competition,  governance gaps and the need for improved military-to-military communication. It also highlights how and why the Arctic region is critical to the global power competition and the measures different countries are employing for control. This paper is critical because of the insights it shares in the wake of Trump’s threats to take over Greenland and its strategic importance to the United States of America.

Michael B. Petersen and  Rebecca Pincus (2021) “Arctic Militarization and Russian Military Theory” 

Review by Palwasha Khan

The authors critically appraise growing competition in the Arctic region and prospective cooperation between the top contenders; US and Russia. Focus is on growing volatility and prospective maritime traffic in the Northern Sea Routes, which are a potential high-stakes maritime trading route and an area of immense importance for Russian nuclear deterrence. This quagmire, though not yet globally alarming, is a significant precursor to future crises involving strategic equilibrium between the world’s top nuclear-armed nations. It highlights key areas of conflict as well as off-ramps like ship-to-ship communication, even joint rescue missions between the US and Russia, but remains skeptical of Russian security concerns.