Arctic Master File (217 pages, updated 8-3-23) and Argument Outline

Access requires a paid subscription. Year-long (until June 2024) subscriptions are $69 for an individual student and $299 for a school. School subscriptions allow access for 100 users.


Pro Contentions


China Threat (General)
Belt and road bad
Russia Threat (General)

  • Finland

Strengthen NATO Cooperation

Hegemony good contention

Sea cable cuts bad

Increased oil access reduces oil dependence on the Middle East

Presence protects sea cables/the internet

Presence enables faster search & rescue

Presence enables faster response  to oil spills

Presence critical to military resupply in Europe/Russia deterrence

Presence key to access to rare earth metals – military security, economic security, hegemony, renewable energy good impacts

General arguments as to why more icebreakers are good (reasons covered above)

Greater oil access reduces dependence on the Middle East


Con Contentions


Pressure on Russia leads to a lash-out (including nuclear lashout, as Russia relies on a strong military presence in the Arctic for forward nuclear bases)

Crowding Russia out hurts their economy, instability and war impacts

China Politics/Encirclement

  • Belt and Road good

Military trade-off (East Asia)

Diplomatic Capital trade-off

Increasing presence undermines cooperative approaches to security

US unilateralism undermines NATO

Presence hurts environment

Presence hurts indigenous people

Presence leads to sexual assault

Presence undermines cooperative security approaches needed to solve conflict

Undermines science coop

Undermines climate coop
More energy from the Arctic lowers energy prices and increases use

More oil from the Arctic means less oil purchased from other countries and lower oil prices (Saudi Arabia economy impact, for example)

Securitization K

Capitalism K – Greater resource access enables capitalism