Original Broadcast 4/19/25
Presented by Iron Mountain & Carahsoft
As the pace of environmental, geopolitical, and economic change accelerates in the Arctic, the United States is reexamining how it defines presence in this strategically vital region. Dr. Abbie Tingstad, Research Professor at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, offers a broad and nuanced view of how the U.S. must evolve its thinking—from icebreakers to cyber capabilities—to match the complex demands of the polar domain.
The United States has long recognized the symbolic and operational importance of icebreakers, especially the heavier-class vessels like the polar security cutters. These ships, according to Tingstad, are crucial but represent only one component of a broader toolkit.
“There’s a difference between being able to physically access a region and having a presence,” Tingstad says. “Presence is more enduring, more geographically distributed. It means being able to be where you need to be—and do what you need to do—when you need to.”
The U.S. currently maintains access to both the Arctic and Antarctic, but lacks the full capacity to respond quickly and comprehensively across such vast geographies. Tingstad explains that acquisition strategies for polar security cutters, while initially designed to support missions in Antarctica, also carry significant relevance for the Arctic’s growing demands.
To secure meaningful presence, Tingstad emphasizes the importance of situational awareness—across land, sea, air, and beyond. “It starts with just having awareness of what's going on in the region and being able to communicate about it,” she explains. This includes not just ships, but aircraft, helicopters, trained personnel for search and rescue, and other tools that can enable action across operational domains.
She also highlights newer domains like the cyber and electromagnetic spectrum, which are just as critical for Arctic presence as physical platforms. “It’s about having the ability to know what’s going on—and then execute whatever effect is needed to shape the region in a way that benefits U.S. national and homeland security.”
She cautions against a false sense of ease when it comes to Arctic operations. “There’s a tendency to assume less ice equals easier operations. But that’s not the case. Hazards remain, and the infrastructure is still limited.”
Environmental changes also impact infrastructure like ice roads and land access, while growing human activity—from shipping to resource extraction—raises new operational and strategic considerations.
Russia and China are both asserting influence in the Arctic, but Tingstad urges policymakers not to conflate their roles. “Russia is an Arctic nation with deep history and economic interests in the region,” she explains. “China is not an Arctic state—though it declared itself a ‘near-Arctic’ one—and has mostly targeted economic investments in Siberian gas.”
While their recent cooperation, including joint naval patrols, has drawn concern, their interests and histories are not perfectly aligned. “It may be convenient for them to engage together right now,” Tingstad notes, “but whether that will last is uncertain. U.S. Arctic allies could have a strong influence on how that relationship evolves.”
This complexity also points to an opportunity for the U.S. to reinforce or recalibrate partnerships in the Arctic. Canada is a clear and indispensable partner, but Tingstad also notes the importance of the Nordic countries, such as Norway, whose collaboration extends to areas like space launches. Even historical collaboration with Russia, particularly in the Bering Strait, adds to the nuanced picture of Arctic diplomacy and deconfliction.
Despite the challenges, Tingstad takes an optimistic view of the Arctic’s trajectory. “This is a nice opportunity to build on the work Arctic nations and stakeholders—including Indigenous communities—have done,” she says. While no single shared vision exists for the Arctic, there are overlapping priorities that can support long-term collaboration.
Still, she warns of potential stumbling blocks—from environmental to economic to military—that must be navigated with foresight and flexibility.
In Tingstad’s view, a successful future Arctic strategy will depend on understanding the region’s multi-domain complexity, acknowledging its rapid evolution, and investing in the full portfolio of capabilities—not just the ships we can see, but the systems, people, and partnerships that underpin enduring presence.