A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
The U.S. could learn a lot from its Nordic allies about projecting military power in the Arctic, where the cold wreaks havoc on the high-tech tools American forces rely on elsewhere.
The U.S. is working out the details with Denmark and Greenland on a security deal aimed at countering Russian and Chinese influence above the Arctic Circle.
“I think it’s pretty well agreed to. They want us to do it,” President Trump told reporters Saturday night aboard Air Force One. “From a national security point of view, a very, very important deal.”
Once an agreement is reached, the U.S. will take a more prominent role in defending the icy island, where extreme conditions can limit or render useless some key tools in the American arsenal, including drones.
“Technical equipment simply freezes,” said Minna Alander, a military analyst and fellow with the Center for European Policy Analysis and the Stockholm Free World Forum.
In a recent briefing on the military buildup in the north, Ms. Alander said extreme cold poses unique challenges. Even uncrewed systems are stressed to the breaking point.
“Battery life is way shorter,” she said. “Engines can freeze if you don’t have specific equipment to stop that from happening. Fuel can even freeze.”
Extended periods of darkness further increase power demand. Although batteries have become critical in all manner of military technology, they have become a weakness in the Arctic.
“This is one of the critical technical questions that developers need to answer and address when it comes to using and developing Arctic-capable drones,” said Federico Borsari, also a fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis.
“Battery capacity dropped from 100% to as low as 20% in a matter of a few minutes, given the very harsh, very cold temperatures. And this was a training exercise in Germany, for instance, not even in the Arctic. So you can imagine how fast the battery goes down in these regions.”
Although proven drone systems have revolutionized warfare, even on the frigid winter landscapes of Ukraine, their usefulness is limited by the harsher conditions in Greenland. The Arctic will require new technological developments for equipment to work.
Drones with exposed motors, propellers and sensors are susceptible to icing.
NATO and other allies aim to use uncrewed systems to detect threats in the Arctic, but a fundamental physics problem at work at subfreezing temperatures is difficult to overcome, experts say.
Leaders in Washington and European capitals are pouring resources into finding the answers.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen delivered a blunt message Jan. 28 to European leaders in Paris: “The world order as we know it, that we have been fighting for — 80 years since the end of the Second World War — is over. I don’t think it will return.”
During a visit to Sciences Po university, Ms. Frederiksen repeated calls for a large NATO military presence in Greenland “for a long time.” She highlighted ongoing tensions with Mr. Trump, who has backed away from talk of a U.S. seizure of control of Greenland.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that negotiations are progressing.
“I think we’re going to get something positive done,” Mr. Rubio said.
Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, speaking alongside Ms. Frederiksen in Paris, said the world now views Greenland differently because of global security pressures.
“There has been a change in the way of looking at it in Greenland over the last couple of years,” he said. “We have been through a lot … but we do agree on one thing: We need more surveillance and security in our region.”
Mr. Nielsen acknowledged the threat from Russia.
In a Hudson Institute report last month, Liselotte Odgaard, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said inadequate tracking of Russian nuclear submarines could allow them to come within striking distance of the U.S.
“Submarine detection and tracking capabilities along the coast of eastern Greenland and in the Barents Sea remain insufficient,” she wrote.
“A Russian Borei-class [ballistic missile submarine] can carry the RSM-56 Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile under Arctic ice cover,” Ms. Odgaard wrote. “The vessel can then move to a launch position, such as in the Queen Victoria Sea, allowing missiles to follow a polar trajectory, which would minimize flight time to North America and avoid dense radar coverage.”
NATO allies are accelerating the acquisition of uncrewed systems to address the problem, The Washington Times reported last month at the Surface Navy Symposium in Washington.
Col. Anders Akermark, Sweden’s naval attache to the U.S., Canada and Mexico, said his country’s military is developing an uncrewed underwater vehicle, essentially a submarine drone, “intended for long endurance missions” such as monitoring under the Arctic sea ice for adversaries, specifically submarines.
The urgency of negotiations over Greenland reflects a stark operational reality that Mr. Trump has hammered home: The U.S. and NATO have neglected Arctic defense, leading to large gaps that offer adversaries a path into the North Atlantic.
Experts on NATO and Arctic warfare say defense technologies proven on the battlefields of Ukraine aren’t ready for Greenland.
Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland have experience with tools, tactics and techniques that have proved to work in extreme cold.
The nations signed an agreement in Helsinki last year to “launch Nordic procurement of micro-sized drones” and increase cooperation with Ukraine. Ms. Odgaard said they are the main footholds for “NATO’s Arctic defense force.”
Still, NATO and outside defense suppliers face challenges in incorporating technology for the high north. Although designs and equipment that meet NATO standards exist, most are suitable for high-altitude surveillance rather than for ground or sea warfare.
“NATO provides a framework for data and network integration through standard nation agreements. But even there, it’s upon the nations themselves to actually comply with the agreements that they sign up to,” said Gordon “Skip” Davis Jr., a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis.
Mr. Davis, a retired U.S. Army general who worked directly for NATO, acknowledged that signatories to the agreements don’t always participate. “We need both implementation and also probably certification to ensure that those standards are, in fact, respected and implemented,” he said.
The center published a report in December saying most NATO allies “treat Arctic-specific requirements as secondary modifications rather than purpose-built.” Instead of designing systems for Arctic conditions, they add heating elements or insulation to products designed for more temperate climates.
Mr. Borsari and Mr. Davis said Norway recently closed a $9.4 million deal with drone manufacturer Skydio for its X10D quadcopters, which the U.S. military has also purchased. Those drones, marketed as “cold weather certified,” can operate in temperatures as low as minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the manufacturer.
Yet the average winter temperatures in the Arctic dip well below minus 20 degrees.
The Nordic agreement to develop drones, signed in October, shows that some allies understand this urgency, but as Ms. Frederiksen and Mr. Nielsen shuttled among European capitals seeking support, the timeline gap remained stark: Allies are debating while Russia is developing combat-tested drone technology, grounded in its established Arctic doctrine.
“Rearming ourselves now is the most important thing. The U.S. depends on us,” Ms. Frederiksen said. “I know that if we did everything we should do, then we would be in a very different place in just a few years from now. But it will take a lot of us.”
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.