What is the future for SOF in the Arctic?

Nick Daugherty (USA)

Jesper Vesterby (DNK)

Patrick van Rooij (NLD)

2

Agenda

• International perspectives• Research method• Findings• Conclusions• Recommendations

• The statements and findings contained in this study are those of the authors and do not represent the country from which they come.

• All of the information in this brief is UNCLASSIFIED

3

International Perspectives

Denmark (DE)• Member of the Arctic 5 (Greenland), EU, NATO, UN (UNCLOS)• Military size: +/- 25,000. Bases in Denmark, Greenland• Extensive maritime and aviation experience in the Arctic• Author: Aviation background

Netherlands (NE)• Observer status in the Arctic Council, EU, NATO,UN (UNCLOS)• Military size: +/- 47,000• Extensive experience in maritime and cold weather operations• Author: Marine/SOF background

United States (US)• Member of the A5, NATO ,UN (not ratified UNCLOS)• Military size: +/- 1,300,000. Bases in Europe, Alaska, US• Limited select units with experience in Arctic operations• Author: Special Forces background

Research Method

• Geophysical (studies, future weather)• Geopolitical (strategies, governing challenges,

stakeholders, current/potential conflict)• DOTMLPF-I Analysis• Vignettes based on geophysical/geopolitical• Conclusions and Recommendations

Geophysical Landscape of the Arctic

• The climate in the Arctic is changing at a rapid rate annually and seasonally

• “Ice free” - < 1 M sq. km• Arctic weather:

– Unique and challenging– Atmospheric conditions are becoming increasingly

difficult to operate under– Special training, equipment, and procedures

Geopolitical Landscape of the Arctic

• Arctic governance– Arctic Council– Illulisat Declaration– United Nations (UN): UNCLOS, UNCLCS, IMO– International Seabed Authority (ISA)

• Arctic Strategies• Disputes and claims

What is ‘the problem’ in the Arctic?

Strategic Ramifications

• National interests may collide• Spill-over effects of other regions of the world have

significantly affected cooperation in the Arctic • Arctic-specific alliances are beginning to emerge• Increase in Arctic stakeholders, in general

Mechanisms for handling geopolitical issues are not evolving as fast as the geophysical landscape

DOTMLPF-I Analysis

Arctic SOF capabilities have declined while the requirement for such continue to increase.

Time

Requi

rem

ent

Capability

Vignettes

• Vignette #1: Counter-proliferation• Vignette #2: Hostage Rescue Operation• Vignette #3: Maritime Counter-terrorism• Vignette #4: Search and Rescue• Vignette #5: Strategic Recon & Surveillance• Vignette #6: Arctic Security Force Assistance

11

Vignette Analysis

Spectrum of Conflict: The Arctic

Likelihood of

happening

Unlikely

LikelyS

AR

OG

A IN

TE

RO

PE

RA

TIO

NS

HU

MA

NIT

AR

IAN

AS

SIS

TAN

CE

CO

UN

TE

R-

PR

OLI

FE

RA

TIO

N

HO

STA

GE

RE

SC

UE

OP

ER

AT

ION

S

(POLITICAL SENSITIVITY)

Peace Crisis War

DIR

EC

TA

CT

ION

MIL

ITA

RY

AS

SIS

TAN

CE

SR

Universal Conclusions

• The Arctic is a region• The Arctic environment demands specially trained military

personnel and units• Over time, the requirement for states to able to operate in

the Arctic is increasing while the capability is decreasing• Future operations in the Arctic will depend on Joint,

Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational (JIIM) relationships

• The operational environment of the Arctic currently lacks infrastructure, satellite and communication coverage, and strategic mobility

Key Recommendations

• Current and/or future exercises should reflect the potential Arctic-specific challenges

• Networks, such as the Global SOF Network, should be empowered for solving Arctic challenges

• National SOF should participate regularly in Joint and International Arctic training exercises

• Unit commands and mission planners should transpose current problems of other littoral regions of the world onto the Arctic and prepare accordingly

Questions