The Arctic is melting. This is bad for many reasons, but one consequence is that suddenly everyone cares about the Arctic.
Russia is planting flags on the seabed. China is calling itself a "near-Arctic state" (it isn't). The United States has been neglecting its Arctic territories for decades. Canada talks a good game but underfunds northern defense.
Meanwhile, the people who actually live in the Arctic — including Yukoners and Alaskans — are watching superpowers argue about who owns their backyard.
The Current Situation:
United States Arctic Policy:
- Alaska is the only US Arctic territory
- Chronically underfunded infrastructure
- Limited icebreaker fleet (2 operational heavy icebreakers vs. Russia's 40+)
- Arctic treated as afterthought by Washington
- Indigenous communities often ignored in policy decisions
Canadian Arctic Policy:
- "Use it or lose it" rhetoric, limited follow-through
- Northern territories underfunded relative to southern provinces
- NORAD partnership provides some coverage
- Canadian Rangers (largely Indigenous) patrol vast territories
- More icebreakers than US, fewer than Russia
The Shared Reality:
- Both Yukon and Alaska face the same challenges
- Both are treated as distant concerns by their respective capitals
- Both have Indigenous communities with cross-border connections
- Both are on the front lines of climate change
- Both matter more to Washington/Ottawa as strategic assets than as communities
What Unification Would Mean:
A unified Yukon-Alaska under Canadian sovereignty would:
- Consolidate Arctic presence — One jurisdiction, one policy, one voice
- Strengthen continental defense — NORAD already operates across the border; this formalizes it
- Increase leverage — Combined population and resources demand more attention from Ottawa than Yukon alone
- Indigenous voice — Unified Indigenous governance across traditional territories that predate the border
The Sovereignty Question:
Who has sovereignty over the Arctic?
The traditional answer: Whoever can enforce it.
Russia is enforcing it. They have bases, icebreakers, military presence.
Canada and the US talk about it. They issue statements. They conduct occasional exercises.
A unified Canadian Arctic — including Alaska — would have:
- Significantly more coastline
- More population
- More resources
- More legitimacy
The Arctic should be governed by Arctic people. Not Moscow. Not Washington. Not Ottawa.
Us.
Discussion Questions:
- Does Canadian sovereignty serve Arctic communities better than American sovereignty?
- How should Indigenous nations be included in Arctic governance?
- What infrastructure investments are needed for genuine Arctic presence?
- Should the Arctic be demilitarized, or is military presence necessary for sovereignty?
- How do we balance resource development with environmental protection in the Arctic?