Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Russia’s Arctic Military Posture: Considerations for Congress
U.S. Naval Institute ^ | October 14, 2026 | Congressional Research Service

Posted on 10/22/2026 3:36:50 PM PDT by Retain Mike

The Arctic is a key strategic region for Russia with significant military and economicimplications. Russia is the largest of the Arctic states in terms of territory, stretching over 24,000kilometers of coastline. The Arctic is central to Russian strategic and military concerns and is home to Russia’s Northern Fleet, which operates about two-thirds of Russia’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent, according to the U.S. intelligence community’s 2026 Annual Threat Assessment. The Arctic also plays an important role in Russia’s energy and economic development plans. Regrettably, the geopolitical competition and fighting for positions in this region are also escalating. Russia has increased its military capabilities in the Arctic, including reestablishing old Soviet-era military bases, building new bases and infrastructure, announcing the creation of new units and increasing the size of existing forces, reorganizing command and control structures, and undertaking new efforts to modernize the Northern Fleet—including its submarine forces. The Russian military posture in the Arctic has become increasingly precarious with the accession of Finland and Sweden into NATO (in 2023 and 2024,respectively). Kremlin is increasingly concerned by the growth of NATO forces in the region and the perceived threat they pose to Russia’s economic interests. In response, Moscow is modernizing its military forces in the region to counter NATO, defend these economic interests, and ensure its dominance over the Northern Sea Route. Depending on Russia’s military modernization efforts in the Arctic, Congress may assess U.S. national security priorities in the region. Congress also may consider how increased Russian military capabilities could threaten U.S. and allied interests; evaluate allied and NATO plans and military posture; and deploy various legislative and oversight tools to support, reject, or otherwise modify the Administration’s approach to the region.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.usni.org ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Chit/Chat; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: arctic; congress; nato; russia
Message from Jim Robinson:

Dear FRiends,

We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.

If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:

Click here: to donate by Credit Card

Or here: to donate by PayPal

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794

Thank you very much and God bless you,

Jim

Page four of the report includes a picture that helps understand why the Administration is concerned about Greenland.
1 posted on 10/22/2026 3:36:50 PM PDT by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Retain Mike

LOL, but some FReepers keep telling us Russia is not our enemy...


2 posted on 10/22/2026 4:14:04 PM PDT by tlozo (“Russia war-Either money today or blood tomorrow," Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Retain Mike
Trump is finding out that a lot of America's military strength is just inherited reputation and no longer exists in fact.

We can barely build carriers and submarines and other ships have multi-year backlogs. We have to buy icebreakers from Finland. we have 1 tank production plant, and two for producing tank and artillery barrels. In 1980 could produce over 100 million pounds of RDX and other high explosive: now we are down to around 7 million. The Army spent $500 million to buy an automated 155mm shell production plant that doesn't work: no one got fired or disciplined. Active duty Army is down to 1940 size.

We have military commitments all over, but there's no there there.

4 posted on 10/22/2026 5:02:06 PM PDT by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens" )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justa

What does that have to do with anything?

England was the primary settler of the colonies as they pushed non-Anglicans out. But they’d already gotten rid of most of their Catholics in the 1500s and finished up in the 1600s. So of course the large majority of those coming over were other Protestant groups.


5 posted on 10/22/2026 9:45:17 PM PDT by Svartalfiar (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Justa

What does that have to do with anything?

England was the primary settler of the colonies as they pushed non-Anglicans out. But they’d already gotten rid of most of their Catholics in the 1500s and finished up in the 1600s. So of course the large majority of those coming over were other Protestant groups.


6 posted on 10/22/2026 9:45:21 PM PDT by Svartalfiar (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar

“What does that have to do with anything?”

A lot.

If they have a weak tradition of expressing individual liberties and freedoms they will not vigorously support them. Unfortunately, their apathy affects those who do respect liberty and freedom.

In the 18th and 19th century Papists used to be chased out of American towns for this and other reasons.


7 posted on 10/23/2026 3:53:54 AM PDT by Justa (Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson