Thanks to low crude oil prices, Russia continues to be overwhelmed with economic troubles. That’s because it relies on revenue from crude oil and natural gas exports to fund more than 50 percent of its budget. Crude oil exports have dropped. So have production and revenue, forcing Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov to propose a 10 percent reduction in every government budget.
Where will Russia find the rubles to fund its budgetary needs? Will it consider cutting more from its budget — perhaps, say, in military spending?
Russian President Vladimir Putin has refused to entertain such an option. Instead, his military budget is up 33 percent despite Russia’s recession and consumers seeing substantial increases in food and inflation costs. Other money games are underway to help Russia reinforce its military strength around the world.
But while Russia’s military presence in areas like the Ukraine and Crimea is well documented, its increasing influence in the Arctic is not. In fact, it often seems as if this important region of the world is an afterthought to President Obama and his administration.
Newer, efficient shipping routes have made it easier to produce yet-to-be-tapped oil, gas and mineral deposits. As such, the Arctic has emerged as a geopolitical hotbed. But unlike America, which continues to implement policies that hinder energy production and political dominance in the Arctic, Russia has worked quickly to make its mark.
As Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan stated during an Armed Forces Committee hearing recently, “My concern is that we’re well behind the Russians in…a growing area of military competition.” Russia continues to engage in Arctic territorial disputes with Canada, and it recently launched a large-scale militarization that comprises a 6,000-soldier deployment in the northwest Murmansk region, new radar and guidance systems and new nuclear-powered submarines and icebreaking ships — the byproduct of a country that has mortgaged its economic future for present-day military power.
With Russia on the ropes thanks to low oil prices, now is the time for the U.S. to deliver a knockout punch by boosting production and engagement in the Arctic, which in turn would apply more monetary pressure on Russia. Even though the U.S. now leads the Arctic Council, the preeminent intergovernmental forum for addressing issues related to the Arctic Region, the administration continues to pull back by closing off regions of Alaska and its surrounding Arctic territory to energy production. These regions include the resources-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and millions of miles of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Opening these regions could help counter Russia’s military advancement in the Arctic while creating thousands of jobs for Americans and further improving U.S. national and energy security. It would also force Russia to spend even more hard-to-find rubles on its military, a scarce commodity in an economic recession.
The administration’s order to prohibit energy production in millions of acres in and around Alaska impedes our ability to learn valuable maritime information, grow our navigation and border security capabilities and expand our energy infrastructure, the latter of which keeps us somewhat reliant on rival nations for oil.
The Arctic Circle, according to a U.S. Geological Survey, has 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil reserves. One can only imagine what being a leader in this sector of the globe would do for America in terms of energy, economic, military and geopolitical leadership.
Now is the time for the administration to dump its overly prescriptive regulations — the same ones that restrict energy development, damage our geopolitical interests, reduce our infrastructure capabilities and help keep Russia’s fragile economy above water — by opening up more areas in the Arctic, onshore and offshore, to energy development.
David Hunt is a retired U.S. Army colonel and a former security adviser to the FBI. He served as counterterrorism coordinator for the 1988 Summer Olympic Games in Seoul. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
