Below is our translation from news.rambler.ru on Washington’s desperate measures to keep the Russians from enjoying Arctic resources, and Russia's success in exploiting them, with commentary by Vince Dhimos. You will recall that yesterday’s contribution showed how US sanctions and tariffs were aimed not so much at protecting US interests from any tangible enemy but rather at keeping other states from enjoying their own resources. We hope that by now you will have understood that this attitude “if we can’t have it you can’t either” is an immutable feature of US foreign policy and is one of the peculiarities that are dragging America down – even to the extent of threatening its very sovereignty and existence as a state.
Today’s example is right along these same lines.
“[The US]…at the end of the presidency of President Barack Obama, began to make efforts to step up their activities in the Arctic. However, none of these plans produced practical results.
Suffice it to say that the US Navy is not designed for operations in the Arctic region - the Pentagon does not have the necessary ships to operate in these latitudes, nor even the icebreaker fleet. For example, there are only two ships of this type at the disposal of Washington, and one of them is built to operate in Antarctica; therefore, they cannot be compared with Russian icebreakers.”
Clearly, when it comes to Russia, the US government is psychologically incapable of minding its own business.
But there seems to be another immutable feature of US foreign and military policy, and that is something we focus on regularly at NSS, ie, Washington’s intense fear of actual military confrontation of other world powers, such as Russia and China, and even Iran. The wanton – actually habitual – use of sanctions and tariffs instead of military action against powerful adversaries. This now seems to be a hard-and-fast policy and Russia, for example, apparently no longer fears a possible military confrontation with the US.
There is a hitch, though. Israel seems to be the latest US proxy. They just now fired missiles at the Damascus International Airport again.
The last time Russia decided the Israelis had crossed a line, they sent the S-300 system to the Syrian Arab Army. It slowed down Israel’s hostility to Syria but failed to stop it. Russia can be expected to ratchet up its countermeasures to the Israeli attacks, but it will not jeopardize its tattered relations with Tel Aviv either. The main reason Russia tolerates the attacks on Syria is that Putin wants to consolidate Russia’s reputation as a peace maker and does not want to be seen as taking sides in Middle East conflicts. It is a brilliant strategy, particularly as contrasted with the US policy of siding with dictators and war mongers in the region for short term gain.
Hydrocarbon wealth of the Arctic pushes the United States to a losing confrontation with the Russian Federation
Source: FBA Ekonomika Segodnya
The Arctic region today is one of the most important areas of the Russian state strategy, which can be seen both in the military component and in the civilian component – one need only recall the project of the Northern Sea Route.
The Arctic is essential for Russia
This circumstance immediately provoked a reaction from the United States, which, at the end of the presidency of President Barack Obama, began to make efforts to step up their activities in the Arctic. However, none of these plans produced practical results.
Suffice it to say that the US Navy is not designed for operations in the Arctic region - the Pentagon does not have the necessary ships to operate in these latitudes, nor even the icebreaker fleet. For example, there are only two ships of this type at the disposal of Washington, and one of them is built to operate in Antarctica; therefore, they cannot be compared with Russian icebreakers.
It's no secret that a large-scale icebreaking program is being implemented in Russia, which is superimposed on the extensive experience of Soviet shipbuilding in this area, with the result that Moscow will soon be able to control the entire Arctic region.
This is important both in terms of cargo handling - the Northern Sea Route is actually shorter than traditional routes through the Pacific and Indian Ocean, as well as in a military-strategic sense, because you can travel from Russia to American territory through the Arctic.
Americans stepping up activity in the Arctic area
Accordingly, Russia's activity in the Arctic can give our country a significant strategic advantage, which is well understood in the Pentagon, and as a result, there various campaigns are regularly conducted to simulate the activity of the United States and NATO in this region.
Let us recall how the aircraft carrier "Harry Truman" became, in October 2018, the first American aircraft carrier in 27 years to enter the Arctic Circle in the context of NATO exercises called Trident Juncture.
These exercises were implemented as part of the training of the alliance forces in the event Article 5 of the NATO Charter, that is, the rules on joint actions in the event of aggression against one of the member countries, should be enforced. It is clear that in the case of the Arctic this could only be a simulation of actions against Russia, which once again confirms the importance that the alliance attaches to this confrontation with Moscow.
As a result, it is not surprising that the US Navy Minister Richard Spencer said that next summer, American warships would go to the Arctic, which is necessary for the Pentagon to test the prospects for operational hostilities in the Arctic.
In US strategy, the Arctic competes with the South China Sea
Konstantin Blokhin, leading researcher at the Centre for Security Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences in a conversation with the FBA Economy Today, noted that the importance of the Arctic for the American military strategy is constantly increasing due to the strengthening of our country in this region.
“There is a comprehensive US strategy to increase its military presence in the Arctic. In fact, Washington has a catastrophic situation with the Arctic fleet, and this causes acute irritation to the Pentagon,” states Blokhin.
According to Konstantin Vladimirovich, this represents a stalemate for the United States, since, despite all the rhetoric and actions of NATO along with the US Navy, in the short term, the Pentagon cannot change the situation here in any way.
“In this matter, it is necessary to understand that the Arctic, though an important region for the United States, is still not paramount. For example, now we can say that in the near future the main focus of the Pentagon will be on the South China Sea,” concludes Blokhin.
The Americans don’t want to yield to Russia in the Arctic
According to the expert, in this aspect we are talking about the growing power of China, about the Spratly Islands and other geopolitical issues, where Washington intends to contain Beijing, and which are already included in the grand design of US foreign policy.
“The Arctic, of course, is also of great importance for the United States, if only because there is a huge amount of useful resources - for example, hydrocarbons there. Here you can even say that the future of the world will be determined by the struggle for these resources, as a result of which this strategic interest arose from the Pentagon and the political leadership of the United States,” summarizes Blokhin.
In addition, weather conditions are changing in the Arctic now - glaciers are melting, making it possible to intensify the global economy. And here the American side also does not want to give in, especially in view of the serious strategic efforts on the part of Russia.
“The United States even came up with the idea that the Arctic should be controlled not by Russia, but by the international community, and this, of course, is a substitution of concepts. Just in this way, Americans usually promote their interests,” states Blokhin.
However, as experts believe, it is unlikely that Americans will find opportunities to realize their large-scale tasks in the Arctic and the South China Sea, and the saying “too many irons in the fire” is perfectly applicable.
Accordingly, it is not yet possible to say that these efforts of the United States can lead to any practical result, just that the Americans want to show they will not leave Russia alone with the riches of the Arctic.
 Translator’s note: The expression used in the original Russian text here is a Russian saying that could be rendered literally as “he chased two rabbits but caught none.”