Sea Control - Sea Control 573: The Great North Challenges the Mediterranean with Federico Petroni

Episode Date: May 15, 2025

Attention: This podcast is offered in both Italian and English skip to 26:21 for the English version.Links:1. Artics fevers, Limes, Feb 2019 https://www.limesonline.com/rivista/la-febbre-dell-artico-14632937/ 2. Artico: attacco al Mediterraneo? Da Taiwan a Gibilterra - Le Giornate del Mare 2024 a Roma, Limes, Nov 2024https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXRDmb2EsHA ItalianLa Battaglia per l’Artico: Il Grande Nord sfida il Mediterraneo – Nuova Guerra Fredda o Terra diNessuno?Federico Petroni si unisce al programma per discutere di geopolitica artica. Federico Petroni è un analista geopolitico di Limes, la rivista italiana di geopolitica, e coordinatore della Scuola di Limes. Questo episodio è stato montato e prodotto da Alexia Bouallagui. È il primo episodio di una serie pensata per approfondire la ricerca sulla sicurezza marittima italiana.Links:La febbre dell’Artico, Limes, febbraio 2019https://www.limesonline.com/rivista/la-febbre-dell-artico-14632937/Artico: attacco al Mediterraneo? Da Taiwan a Gibilterra - Le Giornate del Mare 2024 a Roma, Limes, Nov 2024https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXRDmb2EsHA 

You are listening to Sea Control, hosted by the Center for International Maritime Security. Aloha shipmates, benvenuti a un nuovo episodio del nostro podcast con il Center for International Maritime Security. Questo episodio è il primo di una serie in italiano pensata per approfondire le dinamiche geopolitiche con esperti di alto livello. Oggi ci dirigiamo verso il grande nord per esplorare uno dei fronti geopolitici più caldi del ventunesimo secolo, l'Artico Per decenni considerata una regione rimota e marginale, l'Artico è ora un centro di competizione strategica tra grandi potenze Unendo sfide climatiche, nuove rote commerciali e tensioni militari Per comprendere questa evoluzione possiamo riferirci a due momenti chiave di riflessione geopolitica, il numero speciale di l'IMES le febbre dell'artico del 6 febbraio 2019, che già cinque anni fa anticipava molte delle dinamiche attuali, e la recente quinta edizione delle giornate del mare che si è tenuta a Roma il 9 e 10 novembre 2024. Quest'ultimo evento organizato dall'IMES ha analizzato l'impatto della guerra grande sulle ruote marittime globali e sulla sicurezza dell'Italia, evidenziando come la penisola resti un perno strategico nel Mediterraneo, il collo di bottiglia essenziale tra Atlantico e Pacifico.

In particolare, durante le giornate del mare 2024, si è svolto un dibattito estremamente interessante, moderato dal nostro ospite di oggi, e intitolato Artico, attacco al Mediterraneo da Taiwan a Gibraltar. L'apertura di nuove ruote mettono a rischio il ruolo strategico del Mediterraneo? Stiamo assistendo a un riequilibrio globale che favorisce le potenze artiche a scapito delle ruote tradizionali? Domande a cui cercheremo di rispondere oggi. Come sempre, ricordiamo che tutte le opinioni espresse in questo podcast sono personali e non rappresentano necessariamente le istituzioni con cui possiamo essere associati. Federico Petroni is a geopolitical analyst at Limes, the Italian journal of geopolitics, and also coordinator of the Limes School, a postgraduate education program dedicated to geopolitical analysis with about 200 students a year. Over the years, he has provided in-depth analysis on the competition between great powers, l'evoluzione della Nato e l'importanza strategica delle rote marittime. Oggi è con noi per discutere

come lo scioglimento dell'Artico stia ridifinendo gli equilibri globali. Federico, benvenuto a bordo e per cominciare potresti raccontarci brevemente il tuo percorso professionale e parlarsi un po' dei tuoi principali ambiti di ricerca? Tanto grazie dell'invito, Alexia. È un piacere inaugurare questa serie di podcast ed è un piacere sentire che un'istituzione internazionale statunitense si interessa alla geopolitica marittima italiana

e a un pubblico italiano. Quindi è un particolare piacere cominciare questa serie. As far as I am concerned, I am, as I have already said, an analyst at Limes, for which I have been working for 13 years. I mainly deal with the United States, I am an American coordinator for the magazine. My job is to study the internal and external geopolitical factors of the United States in a period of crisis, Come quello che stanno vivendo gli Stati Uniti. Questa rivoluzione americana che sta avvenendo sotto i nostri occhi, questo è il mio ambito di studio. Quindi mi interesso anche ovviamente di Nato, mi interesso di Stati Uniti in Europa, mi interesso di competizione tra grandi potenze e ovviamente anche di Artico che è la frontiera aperta per gli Stati Uniti, un nuovo punto di vulnerabilità che si è aperto a causa dello scioglimento dei ghiacci. Grazie mille. E su questo nuovo punto di vulnerabilità, per i nostri ascoltatori che non hanno familiarità con la regione, come potremmo definire le principali sfide geopolitiche che l'Artico deve affrontare oggi?

L'Artico è il centro del mondo. Se noi osserviamo una carta geografica mettendo come centro il polo nord, ci rendiamo conto che il mare glaciale artico è il diaframma più stretto tra l'Eurasia e il Nord America, dunque i due continenti in cui sorgono le principali potenze del mondo. It is therefore inevitable that when the competition between these powers is overheated, the Arctic returns to play. In this sense, from a geopolitical point of view, the Arctic has been seen for decades as a foreign region to world competitions, as a zone of peace. It's not like that. He simply enjoyed the privilege of being distant, of being in a phase of tranquility between the great powers. While in the past, every time the United States were challenged by a great rival, they always put the Arctic in the spotlight, fearing that a front from the north could also be opened. For the United States we must consider a fundamental fact, that their mental security, first of all, is based on the cushion of the oceans, that is, they have two gigantic masses of water that divide them from the problems of the world and that make them feel safe. these two masses being the pacific and the atlantic the arctic in a certain sense enters

into competition only when you arrive in a phase of war or pre-war for the united states consider the competition in the eighteenth century with england the united states acquire alaska per allontanare i britannici dal continente americano. Quando la Germania comincia a diventare un competitore, a inizio novecento, fine ottocento, mettono in discussione di nuovo lo status della Groenlandia. Si interessano a un eventuale acquisto della Groenlandia. During the First World War they come to ask with force the largest island in the world, Denmark.

Then during the Second World War, as a response to the Nazi invasion of Denmark, they occupy Greenland and from there they do not go anymore. Because after the Second World War, the Soviet Union replaces the Nazis as a great competitor. And so they keep the Greenland under control, while leaving the formal but fictitious sovereignty to the Danimarca. Then the development of atomic weapons and intercontinental agitated missiles relativizes the importance of the Arctic, without canceling it, but does not make it so fundamental anymore. The Cold War then obviously ends and cancels any possible competitor, therefore also in the Arctic, and today that China begins to gain a presence in the Arctic, in consequence of the war of Ukraine that made Russia end up under China and therefore forced Moscow to welcome Pekin in the Arctic

all this scares the United States a lot and they come back to say that they must preside over the Arctic and want control of Greenland. So to summarize, the main challenge of the Arctic at the geopolitical level today is the fact that the great world tensions are unleashed on the Arctic Ocean, which resents not so much of intrinsic factors of weakness, but resents the fact of being simply the narrowest point,

the narrowest that separates the two decisive continental masses for the planet. Thank you very much, Federico, these are key points to understand the dynamics. And then you wrote a lot about the Arctic, Geographically, this area arouses mystery. Do you see the Arctic as a real geopolitical center, or is it even more of a concept shaped by the great external powers? L'Artico suscita fascino, perché è una frontiera inesplorata del mondo. Noi conosciamo meglio lo spazio, il cosmo, rispetto ai fondali marittimi, e in particolare ai fondali artici, che non sono stati mappati, che non sono stati esplorati. Alcune parti della Groenlandia non sono semplicemente mai state esplorate.

Dunque questo ha contribuito a creare un vero e proprio mito dell'Artico, una febbre dell'Artico, come l'abbiamo chiamata all'IMES, che ritorna. C'è una particolare dimensione di conquista legata all'Artico, alla volontà di piantare la propria bandiera su territori ancora inesplorati. dunque lo vedo come l'artico come sì un centro geopolitico ma non in sé non perché esistano delle grandi potenze basate nell'artico o che fanno dell'artico la loro identità principale lo vedo semmai un centro geopolitico perché in un'era di competizione in cui il territorio torna a contare, in cui il controllo delle risorse naturali torna a contare, ecco una frontiera inesplorata che non è ancora completamente presidiata da degli stati e da delle potenze fa gola, a maggior ragione se, come mi piace ripetere, è di nuovo il punto più stretto

fra queste potenze. Allora il rapido scioglimento dei ghiacci sta aprendo, come abbiamo detto, nuove ruote marittime come la rota del mare del nord o il passaggio a nord ovest. Mi domando quanto è realistica una navigazione commerciale stabile attraverso queste rotte e se questo potrebbe essere una minaccia per il ruolo strategico del Mediterraneo e del canale di Suez. Se l'Artico diventa il nuovo Mediterraneo, il Mediterraneo è morto. Se si apre questa rotta stabile, fissa, usata di continuo dai paesi, inevitabilmente il Mediterraneo ne risentirà e tornerà a essere un lago chiuso, come lo è stato dal punto di vista strategico per molti secoli in passato.

Fortunately for the Mediterranean, this perspective is not for tomorrow, it will not happen tomorrow. This does not take away from the fact that the Arctic already today has its strategic importance, which is not so much linked to the development of naval routes in the Arctic. Why will it not happen tomorrow? Why? There are too few infrastructures, too few ports, the insurance companies do not recognize, do not insure ships, so the navigation up there is simply too risky, so it will take decades to develop a stable route. This, however, does not remove that already today there is a route used, the one that connects the Russian natural gas terminals to the great markets of Asia, E questo ha fatto balenare la preoccupazione negli Stati Uniti che russi e cinesi possano sfruttare questa navigazione a nord per stanziare e per schierare sottomarini nucleari a corta distanza dalle coste nordamericane. Quindi è questo il vero pericolo che temono gli Stati Uniti, che oggi ci siano le forze nucleari nemiche vicino al Nord America, non che domani si sviluppi una rotta marittima.

Grazie, è vero che è anche importante ricordare la storia e le dinamiche attuali per capire cosa sta accadendo oggi. To return to Russia, Russia is rapidly militarizing the Arctic, therefore increasing the presence of bases, missiles and nuclear ice breakers. And also China, despite not being an Arctic country, has declared that it wants to play a key role through the road of the polar set, and therefore investing in strategic infrastructures. Secondo lei, quando è concreta la minaccia di un confronto militare nell'Artico? È possibile una guerra nell'Artico, ma è difficile che avvenga una guerra per l'Artico.

Mi spiego, se ci sarà una guerra tra le tre massime potenze del pianeta, ci sarà credo inevitabilmente anche un fronte al Polo Nord. However, I do not believe that a war will necessarily break out for the control of the pole. This does not take away, however, that the military dimension is what most concerns the United States today. The Russians have a great operational advantage, they have more means, but above all they have been used for decades to train, to frequent the Arctic militarily, they have a much higher knowledge. And then, of course, they have a huge quantitative advantage in terms of icebreakers. The United States have two or three half-broken, the Russians have icebreakers with nuclear propulsion. We are talking about completely different levels. The Chinese are aiming to exploit the route of Russia to settle in the Arctic. This did not go well with the Russians until a short time ago. They put limits on the Chinese presence in the Arctic. However, the state of absolute necessity derived from the bellicose effort in Ukraine forced them to grant the Chinese a presence in the Arctic, especially at the naval and submarine level.

Se la Russia dovesse migliorare le relazioni con gli Stati Uniti di Trump, sicuramente Washington chiederebbe ai russi una riduzione, una marginalizzazione del ruolo cinese nell'Artico, fra le varie condizioni. They would certainly not be able to completely separate the Russians from the Chinese, who serve each other. We are not in the 70s, when the two countries, the Soviet Union and China, were also at war with each other, and therefore it was easier for the Americans with Nixon and Kissinger to distance them. However, it is certainly possible, imagine Trump, to offer Putin an alternative to end up as a junior partner of China. And even in the Arctic you will see the effects of all this. In the face of these new geopolitical competitions, NATO has recently intensified its activities in the Arctic with the entry of Finland and Sweden. e anche una maggiore attenzione da parte degli Stati Uniti e del Regno Unito. Secondo lei, l'Artico diventerà un nuovo fronte della NATO e per l'Europa, quale ruolo può giocare l'Europa

e qual è lo stato di dibattito in Italia? L'Artico è già un fronte della NATO, nel senso che gli Stati Uniti ridanno attenzione all'Artico also to try to replicate what they did in the 80s with Reagan, in which they used the Arctic to pressure the navy, with the submarines also, on the European Arctic, therefore on the Arctic of the Kola Peninsula, that is, that north-western point of Russia,

which is an important military bastion, especially nuclear, on which the fleet of the North, which is the most powerful of Russia, is facing. It was used by Reagan's navy to put pressure and to tighten the containment in the closest and most sensitive points of the Russian strategy. Now we imagine doing something very similar, to put pressure on Russia in a moment when they are at war and there is a need to put pressure. The United States wants a new base in Greenland, a naval base, also to improve their navigation in the North Atlantic and put pressure on Moscow. In Italy the debate on the Arctic exists, it is not central, however our Navy provides an important contribution to the study, with military involvement of the Arctic, because we participate in the mapping missions of the bottom of the glacial sea, che serve sicuramente non solo per scopi scientifici ma anche per un domani eventualmente svolgere operazioni militari là. Poi abbiamo anche una importante stazione di ricerca alle Svalbard che ci serve anche per rivendicare un ruolo nella diplomazia artica,

Quindi non direi che è centrale l'Artico nel dibattito italiano, però le istituzioni italiane ne sono consapevoli, sono al tavolo e partecipano, anche se non in modo centrale, alle dinamiche dell'Alleanza nell'Artico. Thank you. So, to go deeper, let's go back to the Council of the Arctic. Historically, this was a forum of peaceful cooperation and now it is paralyzed by tensions between Russia and the West. Can you briefly remind us what is the role of the Council of the Arctic and if we can still hope for an Arctic governed by dialogue? Il Consiglio Artico è un'istituzione che nasce sul finire della Guerra Fredda e riunisce gli stati rivieraschi, quindi quelli che si affacciano sul mar glaciale artico, più i tre paesi che hanno territorio a nord del circolo polare artico. Dunque nel primo gruppo cinque paesi, Russia, Stati Uniti, Norvegia, Danimarca e Canada, e poi nell'altro gruppo Islanda, Svezia e Finlandia. Poi partecipano anche altri paesi come osservatori, tra cui l'Italia, ma soprattutto la Cina, che ha rivendicato un ruolo di paese quasi-artico, vicino all'Artico. It is a forum for international cooperation, so civil activities are carried out, scientific, economic, infrastructural, research and rescue, not military, or in any case military activities are very marginal. e non è un caso che quando l'Artico è tornato a essere una frontiera militare anche, il ruolo del Consiglio Artico è stato emarginato. Tuttavia non escludo che una normalizzazione della Russia, sdoganata da Trump, non riporti Mosca ad avere un ruolo nel Consiglio Artico.

Abbiamo già parlato un po' di questo tema, ma possiamo fare un focus un po' più profondito. L'Italia ha già una forte presenza nella ricerca, come ha detto, scientifica e artica, attraverso il Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche e la stazione dirigibile Italia Svalbard. Sul piano della difesa e della diplomacia, pensi che in Roma dovrebbe svilupparsi una strategia di difesa a lungo termine per l'Atico o questo rimane fuori dai principali interessi dell'Italia? L'interesse principale dell'Italia è il Mediterraneo, questo senza dubbio. Non abbiamo risorse abbondantissime, anche se abbiamo una marina di livello ottimo, che ci è invidiata da molti paesi alleati nella NATO

e che è vista come utile dagli Stati Uniti. Tuttavia credo che mantenere anche un occhio nell'Artico sia molto utile perché serve a partecipare a discussioni tra alleati che riguardano una frontiera comunque importante e che interessa anche molto agli americani Peraltro abbiamo un interesse condiviso tra Stati Uniti e italiani We are interested in the fact that the Arctic does not become a stable route between Eurasia and Europe, for different reasons, but we have this interest. And so this allows us to have an interlocution with the United States from this point of view.

Thank you very much, Federico. So, to conclude the last question, do you think that the Arctic can remain a peace zone? So, despite the growing militarization, many international actors still talk about the Arctic as a zone of cooperation. Do you think this scenario is realistic or has it now been overcome by the winds? Unfortunately, I believe that the world is no longer a peace zone and, as a consequence, the Arctic as well. Siamo entrati o rientrati nell'età degli imperi, nell'età in cui il controllo dei territori, in cui il controllo delle risorse, in cui anche francamente il colonialismo e l'espansione sono stati sdoganati. Quindi non vedo come l'Artico possa rimanere avulso da queste dinamiche. Certo, resta una zona in cui è possibile anche un dialogo con i russi, senza dubbio.

Tra l'altro la Norvegia ha una storia, una tradizione di uso dell'Artico per mantenere un dialogo aperto con i russi. Tutto questo può sicuramente sopravvivere, però è inevitabile che quando il mondo entra in logica di guerra ci entra anche l'Artico, proprio perché, come ho detto all'inizio, è il centro del mondo. Purtroppo il tempo a nostra disposizione per oggi è terminato. Vorrei ringraziare di cuore il nostro ospite Federico Petroni per questa conversazione illuminante. Federico, dove possiamo trovarti online e su cosa stai lavorando attualmente? Beh, mi trovate su Limes, limesonline.com è il nostro sito. Io in particolare sono su Twitter, su Instagram, su LinkedIn. Mi trovate facilmente. Io adesso sto lavorando a un progetto molto difficile, cioè cercare un grande disegno di Trump, la grande strategia di Trump. Complicatissimo, ma estremamente affascinante. Sì, complicatissimo. Quindi grazie ancora e un grande grazie anche ai nostri ascoltatori per averci seguito. Ci ritroviamo alla prossima puntata. A presto. Grazie a voi, a presto. Aloha shipmates, welcome back to a new episode of our podcast with the Center for International Maritime Security. This podcast is the first in a series in Italian designed to deepen our understanding of geopolitical dynamics with high-level experts.

Today we are heading north to explore one of the hottest geopolitical fronts of the 21st century, the Arctic. For decades considered a remote and marginal region, the Arctic is now the center of a strategic competition between great powers, combining climate challenges, new trade routes, and military tensions. To understand this evolution, we can refer to two key moments of geopolitical reflection made at LIMES, the Italian Review for Geopolitics. So the special issue of LIMES, Arctic Fevers, released in February 2019, which already anticipated many of today's dynamics five years ago, and the recent fifth edition of the Sea Days in Rome this year, early November. The latter event, organized by LIMES, analyzed the impact of the Great War on global maritime routes and Italy's security challenges, highlighting how the peninsula remains a strategic pivot in the Mediterranean, the essential bottleneck between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Notably, during the 2024 C-Days, an extremely interesting debate took place, moderated by our very guest today, titled Arctic Attack on the Mediterranean from Taiwan to Gibraltar. A provocative title that reflects the central theme of our discussion.

Does Arctic warming and the opening of new routes threaten the strategic role of the Mediterranean? Or are we witnessing a global rebalancing that favours Arctic powers at the expense of traditional routes? These will be the questions we are going to talk about. And as always, we remind our listeners that all opinions expressed are our own and do not represent the institution with which we may be otherwise associated. Today, we are welcoming Federico Petroni. Federico is a geopolitical analyst at LIMES, the Italian Review of Geopolitics. Over the years, he has provided an in-depth analysis of great power competition,

NATO's evolution, and also the strategic importance of maritime routes. Today, he joins us to discuss how Arctic melting is redefining global power balances. Federico, welcome aboard. To start, could you briefly tell us about your professional journey and share us some of your main research interests? Hi, Alexia, and I'm really glad to be here. I am a geopolitical analyst, as you said, at LIMES, the most important review of geopolitics in Italy. I am the coordinator of the American Studies at LIMES. And my main thrust of research is the domestic discord in the U.S. and its reflections on its global strategy.

Therefore, I, of course, cover a lot of great power competition, NATO, and, of course, the new Arctic vulnerability in U.S. strategic landscape. Thank you very much. And I forgot to highlight it, but you also coordinate the School of Limes, which I didn't know about and I think is a very interesting program since you have at least 200 students per year, I think. Yeah, of course. It's our education program. It's a postgraduate program, and it's dedicated to transmitting to our participants the method of analysis of geopolitics. Its added value is that we analyze current conflicts, giving the strategic depth to them instead of describing and studying old models and theories that do not find application in practice. Thanks a lot for these insights on the school. So for our listeners who are not familiar with the region, how would you define the main geopolitical challenges facing the Arctic today? The Arctic is the center of the world. By that, I mean that if you look at the Arctic on a map, with the North Pole at the center of the map,

you recognize the Arctic as the narrowest strait between North America and Eurasia. These are the two masses, continental masses, in which are located the most important powers of the world. So if these powers are at war, as they now are, of course the Arctic comes into play. The Arctic has been outside of geopolitics for many decades because we were in a unipolar moment. Or, at the end, in the last decades of the Cold War, nuclear weapons were so developed that rendered the Arctic less of importance. Of course, the Arctic has always been the narrowest and the closest trajectory for international, intercontinental ballistic missiles between the USSR or Russia and the US. But the Arctic lost its strategic importance in the 60s. Before that, it experienced almost a century of interest in the U.S.

Between the 1860s and the 1960s, every time the U.S. faced a peer competitor or an enemy, the Arctic came into play. It happened with the British. Alaska was bought and the U.S. tried to acquire Greenland in the 1860s because they were trying to push the British out of the North American continent. When Germany became an enemy, a peer rival, Greenland was back into play And there was a new effort to acquire the island. Of course, during the Second World War, when Nazi Germany invaded Denmark, the U.S. had to occupy Greenland. And they remained over there after the end of the Second World War because the USSR substituted Germany as the main competitor. So every time the U.S. faced an enemy, the Arctic came into play.

And it is what is happening right now with both China and Russia. As a consequence of the Ukraine war, Russia was forced to exchange Chinese support for the war in Ukraine for Chinese presence in the Arctic. And this is a development that is very worrisome for the U.S. because the U.S. is not able to fight a war in the Arctic and has a great disadvantage in terms of both doctrine and military means at the top of the world. Thanks a lot Federico for this tour d'horizon putting in context the main challenges of the Arctic so you have yourself written extensively about the Arctic geographically this region has long been shrouded in mystery do you see the Arctic as a true geopolitical center

or can we talk more about a concept that has been shaped and is shaped by external powers? The Arctic exerts a power of fascination to mankind. It is an unconquered frontier, an unexplored frontier, and for this reason there is also a symbolic attachment to it. The important thing about the Arctic is that things that happen outside the Arctic have an influence inside the Arctic, not the way around. So to say, the inherent importance of the Arctic in strategic terms does not belong to the fact that over there there are some prized resources.

Its importance is derived from the fact that it is the narrowest point between North America and Eurasia. thanks a lot for this uh this uh analysis of how the arctic is shaped and it's important indeed to understand and as we will follow it will gain importance in the analysis so the rapid melting of the arctic ice is opening new maritime routes such as the north sea routes and the northwest passage so how realistic is a stable commercial navigation through these routes and regarding the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal, how can it affect the traffic that usually passes by these traditional routes? I think that the development of trade routes in the Arctic is overstated. Let me explain. Of course, if the Arctic becomes a regular trade route between

the Far East and Europe, the Mediterranean is basically dead. And it will go back to the status of a closed sea that it had for many centuries in the past. It would be the end of the strategic importance of Italy, for example. But it is overstated, in my opinion, because there are no ports in the Arctic, very few infrastructures. Insurance companies do not insure shipping over there because it is too expensive and too dangerous. I do not foresee the creation of a link of a chain of ports that will render Arctic navigation doable for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, the importance of the Arctic is a military one. The thing that the U.S. fears the most is having peer competitors freely maneuvering very close to the North American shores,

like having Chinese submarines very close to the Canadian and Alaskan coast or to Greenland, or even facing the prospect of having the Chinese planting their flag in Greenland. It's not that far-fetched. This is why the Arctic is getting importance. Not the commercial factor, but the military one. So the Arctic will become and is becoming important, even though naval routes are not overdeveloped as a stable alternative to the Suez Canal and to the southern route. This gives me a perfect transition because now we are going to talk about the militarization of the Arctic.

So Russia is indeed rapidly militarizing the Arctic, increasing its presence of bases, missiles and nuclear icebreakers. At the same time, China, despite not being an Arctic state, has declared its intents to play a key role through the Polar Silk Road and its investments also in strategic infrastructures. So how real is the threat of military confrontation in the Arctic, in your opinion? Military confrontation is, of course, possible, but I do not foresee a war for the Arctic. I just foresee a war in the Arctic. Let me explain. Of course, if there's a war between the big powers of the world, the Arctic is going to become a theater of war.

But I do not foresee a war for the control of the Arctic, limited to the Arctic Ocean to control this body of water. This is because the Arctic doesn't give a prize per se. It's just a front of the confrontation between the big powers. The main thing that preoccupies the U.S. is the development of a network of military bases, of dual-use bases by China in the islands of the Arctic Oceans. They already have two research stations in Iceland and the Svalbard Archipelago, and the Americans look at those installations as possible basis of a forward missile shield of China in order to increase their power vis-a-vis the U.S. So, they want the Chinese out in order to preserve the military balance with China. So, in this battleground, NATO has recently intensified its activities in the Arctic,

with Finland and Sweden joining the alliance and also increasing involvement of the US and the UK. So how will this affect the Arctic as a major front for NATO? And how can Europe play? And in particular, what is the state of the debates in Italy regarding this subject of the Arctic for our auditors around the world? the Arctic is already a front of NATO's activities and it is back to a status, I think that the Arctic enjoyed in the late 80s when the US under Ronald Reagan used the Arctic to exert pressure with naval power

and submarine power on the Kola Peninsula, way north of the so-called GI-UK gap, dividing Greenland and the UK. They started applying pressure much north to that, close to the Svalbard and to the Kola Peninsula, which is the main military and nuclear bastion of the Russian military. So I think the US is trying to rebuild a similar network of bases in order to apply pressure from the north to Russia,

also in order to offset some Russian military developments like the new hypersonic missiles and its objectively greater naval power, especially in terms of ice-breaking capacities. So there's a pretty much active debate inside NATO about that front. Italy is concerned about the Arctic. It is not our main concern. But we have a military and scientific presence there that gives us a seat to the table and an interest in participating to allied activities over there. Thanks a lot. So I'm now turning to the Arctic Council.

So historically, it was a forum for cooperation, peaceful cooperation, and it is now paralyzed by tensions between Russia and the West. Could you briefly remind us the role of the Arctic Council? and can we still hope for an Arctic governed by dialogue? The Arctic Council is a product of the end of the Cold War, in which there was peace, there was no military threat coming from the Arctic and, frankly, in the entire world to the US. So there the Arctic powers and Arctic countries could develop a narrative

of the Arctic being a zone of peace and cooperation for science, for economy, for infrastructure, for search and rescue. And these were the main focus of the Arctic Council. Of course, when tensions come back between the great powers, the Arctic Council is the first suffering in this respect. It ceased its activities, but I do not think the Arctic Circle is dead. If Trump normalizes Russia, Moscow can decrease its cooperation with China in the Arctic, and it can also use the Arctic Circle as an institutional body where to play, again, a useful role for everyone. But, of course, it will depend on a ceasefire in Ukraine and on its stability. If it's not stable, if war is going to come back, the Arctic Circle as a positive institution for cooperation may be dead.

So to focus on Italy, and you already touched upon it, Italy has a strong presence in Arctic scientific research with the National Research Council and the dirigible Italian station in Svalbard. But in terms of defense and diplomacy, as NATO's focus on the high north is increasing, what do you think are the perspectives for Italian strategy? Should Rome develop a long-term defense strategy, or does this remain still outside of Italy's core interests? Italy's core interest is the Mediterranean period we do not have abundant resources even though we do have a very good navy which is the envy of some allies and which is interesting for the US to develop novel partnerships in the Mediterranean with Italy

But I think that we should devote some resources on the Arctic. Our Navy participates to an annual mission to map the seabed of the Arctic, which is important for both scientific reasons and also for military reasons. So we should continue that. We should also continue having a presence in terms of scientific research at the top of the world, because it gives us scientific knowledge about climate change, about meteorology, about space activities, which are important information to exchange with allies and partners nowadays. so even though it will not become a an important part of our strategy we should continue to devote what we're already giving to them thank you so as my last question to conclude can the arctic remain a zone of peace so despite the growing militarization as we have seen many international

actors still talk about the arctic as a zone of cooperation in this scenario do you think it's realistic to still talk about peaceful arctic regarding the the events that we are facing no and it is said to conclude with with such a negative tone but the world is no longer a zone of peace. Therefore, neither the Arctic can be such thing. Unfortunately, as I already said, what happens outside the Arctic inevitably is reflected inside the Arctic. For this reason, I do not foresee a reduction of tensions in the Arctic. Of course, as I already said, Russia can sacrifice some Chinese cooperation in exchange for something from the US.

But we must be realistic. We are again in an age of empires, an era in which controlling territory is important. Controlling natural resources is important. Therefore, as an unconquered frontier, as an unexplored frontier, the Arctic is doomed to pay the price of the Age of Empires. Thank you, Federico. Unfortunately, that's all the time we have for today. I'd like to sincerely thank you, Federico, for this enlightening discussion. Where can we find you online and what are you working on next? You can find me on LimusOnline.com, the website of our review. I'm also on Twitter, on LinkedIn, on Instagram, and I cover basically U.S. geopolitics.

And right now I'm working on a very hard topic, finding a great design in Trump's moves. Very hard assignment. so good luck for that and thanks again we are really pleased to have you as our first Italian guest and we hope to have more thank you also to our listeners

for tuning in and I hope to see you next time ciao for now © BF-WATCH TV 2021 Put it in the alley, help me, mama, put it in the alley, put it on the gym, mama.