The following podcast was recorded in the fall of 2023. Thought leadership, titles, current events, legislation, and technology may have changed and evolved since it was originally recorded.

Wow. The the the competitive advantage, you know, is that is a tough one. It's almost like, you know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder because it it it really is such a good question. In a very real way, I would say no one really has a lock on it. Part of it goes back to the fact that the Arctic Council has done a good job up to date in terms of maintaining dialogue and diplomacy within the region.

But it is clear that the Russians have done an incredibly good job of asserting themselves within the region. They have developed the northern sea route. They have managed to develop the capabilities to to operate within the region, both, you know, out in the water and on the coast in a way that the United States has not. The United States, we we have done a excellent job of creating Arctic strategies. Got a new one coming out this upcoming year.

The army has an Arctic strategy. Homeland Security has an Arctic strategy. The navy has an Arctic strategy. The air force has an Arctic. We've got Arctic strategies to go with our Arctic strategies.

But yet when you take a look at the amount of infrastructure, the the the capabilities have been put in place within our Arctic, not a lot has really happened, which is somewhat disappointing, I think, again, for a region that is as important as it is for us in a future context.

The opinions and views expressed in the following podcast do not represent the views of NIU or any other US Government entity. They are solely the opinions and views of the speakers. Any mention of organizations, publications, or products not owned or operated by the US Government is not a statement of support and does not constitute US Government endorsement. Welcome back to the Intelligence Jumpstart podcast. I am your host, Jane Doe.

In this episode, I talk to doctor Cameron Carlson, the dean of the College of Business and Security Management at the University of Alaska Fairbanks about the Arctic region's dynamic and emerging trends focusing on environmental and geopolitical aspects. Doctor. Karls is the founding director of the UAF Homeland Security and Emergency Management Program, which focuses on those who either desire or are currently working within the homeland defense, homeland security, or emergency management enterprise. He is also the founding director of the Center For Arctic Security and Resilience, which bridged interdisciplinary academic and research scholarship for the growing diversity of security and resilience related concerns such as human, national, climate, and energy security. Doctor Carlson is the founding and now co principal investigator of the USNORTHCOM, ALCOM, Arctic Defense and Security Orientation, which is the primary educational program responsible for baselining DOD knowledge of the Arctic region through an operational focus.

Doctor Carlson holds a bachelor's in biology, a master's in international relations, and a PhD in interdisciplinary programs, security and disaster management. Welcome. Thank you, doctor Carlson, for coming on the intelligence jump start today.

Well, thank you for having me. I appreciate the time that I'm gonna spend with you.

So I wanna start out by talking a little bit about your background. Obviously, you live in Alaska. That is considered to be part of the Arctic, but I'm interested in you and how you developed expertise in Arctic security.

Sure. So my background, I I retired here in Alaska, as it was my last tour on active duty after 25 years in the army. And, from that, I did some government contract work here within Alaska supporting some of the, military organizations that were getting ready to deploy. And from that came to the university. And fast forwarding a little bit, about 10 plus years ago, I took over an academic program within the College of Business and Security Management as it is today.

And we really looked at what the security and emergency management dynamic was in terms of not only the educational prospects, but really trying to focus it on Alaska and the Arctic. And so that's where I kind of built out my bona fides. And from that, worked with the team to, deliver a, an academic contract, a regional overview, if you will, for what was then JTF Alaska, which is now Alaska Command and NORTHCOM on the Arctic itself. And it was an incredible opportunity to work with some fantastic individuals to build a 3 day overview about the Arctic, the environmental aspects of it, the geopolitical aspects, you know, how we define the Arctic and what it's about, you know, trends that were happening within the Arctic and and why we are at where we are today because of the fact that, you know, climate change is such a had such a significant impact from it. And then from there, I've just started to publish with others and focus a lot of my efforts on it.

Do you mind if I ask where you're from? Are are you originally from Alaska or

I am not from Alaska. I actually enlisted in the army at the age of 18 and went in and then got out to return to college where I received a commission as an infantry officer in the army and, went on from there. Had you told me at the age of 18 that I would have made the the army a career, I would have career, I would have laughed hysterically. But it it was a career that I I I tremendously enjoyed. And and from there, everything that I kind of wanted to achieve in in terms of getting out of the interior region of of California kinda took hold.

I I went to Berlin. I served time in Italy. I went all over Africa, lived in Europe, a lot of deployments to, of course, the Middle East, Haiti, and and alike, and really found myself very fortunate to have had the career that I had. Yeah.

It sounds like an amazing experience. So today, we're gonna talk about arctic security, and I'm wondering if you can help us define what the arctic is because to my understanding, it has changed over time. And I kind of want to I'd like to establish a baseline and, you know, why it's a zone for strategic competition today.

Sure. That is a great question. And it's something that we all a lot of times kind of start our presentations out on the Arctic because when people think of the Arctic, they think of a incredibly cold region, the northernmost part of the world, which it is. But at the same time, the fact is, is that there's very various ways in which you can define what the Arctic is. When you take a look at what it's known for, it it yes, it's chilly, it's ice covered.

It has some very unique ecosystems that are within it, but you also have the the Arctic circle, which is the 66 degrees 33 minutes north. And a lot of times, you know, individuals look at that and go, okay, that is the Arctic. That is a very constricted and restricted area within the Arctic. The Arctic Council has various different ways that they describe it as well as does the United States in terms of the amount of land mass that it covers from the Arctic Circle going south. If you look at what the definition is for the United States, we basically take a look at almost half of Alaska through the YK Delta region down out into the Bering Straits back up along the coast of Russia and then north.

So it it covers that part of the of Alaska, which doesn't seem Arctic, but at the same time, in a very realistic way, at least definition wise, it is. You also have the Arctic tree line, which kind of moves based upon what the temperatures are and the ability for trees to, to grow within different regions of the world as the Arctic has begun to warm up. Obviously, that tree line has continued to progress north.

That's pretty interesting. I didn't know that the tree line actually moved depending on yeah. So thank you for giving us that definition. I'm wondering if you can drill down a little bit into the history and how that's evolved and what it actually includes, like, what functional disciplines and maybe their national security implications.

Sure. Well, really, what kind of drives, you know, the the interest in some of the different disciplines is the fact that it is a region of strategic competition at this point. And when you take a step back and you look at it, the interest go back into things such as natural resources, oil exploration, oil development, natural gas exploration and development, which is of manifest value, to not only the United States for, you know, what we are able to develop here within Alaska, but it is the the very same thing for the Russians, for instance. There's natural resource capabilities in Alaska, the Russian Arctic as well. When you take a look at rare earths, you know, we haven't really done a great job of taking a look at what all the rare earth capabilities might be within Alaska.

But, you know, Russia most certainly is is taking a look at what is in their areas, of interest as well. Shipping routes. The fact is, is that the Arctic is opening up at this point. And, you know, with that comes the ability to provide for shipping routes. The northern sea route that runs astride Russia, the northwest passage that basically runs astride both the United States and Canada as well.

The geopolitical interests that are within the region, not only, you know, with the United States and Russia, but, you know, those interests that are Canada, Iceland, Greenland, or vis a vis Denmark, they all have a lot of interests within the region. Some of those, again, going back to natural resources are are fishing, which are, incredibly important. Environmental concerns, indigenous rights as well. Indigenous peoples exist within each of the major areas within the Arctic. And I say the the major areas of the Arctic because, you know, the Russian Arctic is somewhat different than the North American Arctic.

Yeah. It it is an incredibly large area of the North American Arctic. Yes. It has Canada, and it encompasses Alaska as well. You have the European Arctic, which is not as cold, does not have as much permafrost as the other two parts of the Arctic right there.

So again, development happens or has occurred at different rates within these different regions. Again, kind of going back to the fact that, you know, the availability and how open they are kind of drives what some of these different disciplines are. The history is a real fun place to go. I kind of break it down into kind of the contemporary history of the Arctic, if you were to look at it in a shorter term, kind of the Cold War era, you know, what took place, post Cold War, early 21st century, and maybe what might be best termed as kind of the current era that we're in right now. You know, the cold war, again, you know, the Soviet Union and the West were kind of at loggerheads with one another.

Ice was much more prevalent within the Arctic at that point. Colder temperatures were present, and it was really kind of a high stakes game of chess where in terms of strategic competition, you saw both superpowers within the Arctic, you know, taking a look at what the roots might be for intercontinental ballistic missiles. The launch of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957 sent shock waves, you know, throughout the Arctic because, again, it demonstrated the fact that the Soviets had a real capability rocket wise to reach out and touch others, not only to put something in space, but again, if you look at the closest route, if you wanted to do something in a nuclear way, utilizing either conventional aircraft at that time or through ICBMs. The fastest way was over the the polar ice cap, over, you know, the Arctic. So that was kind of a breakout in that area.

And then things changed in the post cold war era, kind of cashed in the peace dividend. Things were warmed up to a certain extent. Early 21st century, you know, things start to change. Climate change becomes a little bit more or better understood. We started to take a look at what was happening within the Arctic.

And and really, the reason that we get down to it at the end of the day, we talk about the Arctic. It is because of climate change. And the fact is, is that its opening has driven, and the melting of ice since its opening, has driven a lot of what individuals are now starting to, lean forward towards in terms of, you know, not only taking a look at staking increased claims within the Arctic, but in terms of having access to natural resources, utilizing the sea routes in which to, cut down on the cost of the shipping and distribution capabilities, you know, which are are good for China. They're good for the United States. Globally, they're they're good for everybody if they can be done, you know, safe.

But now we're we're kind of in an era where we we have the war in Ukraine. Russia has been increasingly more provocative in terms of its outreach from there. They have had numerous occasions where they've basically brought, you know, aircraft and like right up and through the exclusive economic zones, not only of the United States to the, to Alaska, but they've done the same, you know, with the NATO countries and new NATO countries, including Norway, Sweden, and, and Finland and the like. And again, that's kind of caused a big change in the Arctic security landscape. You know, big enough now that, again, you and I are talking about it.

Right. And if you're not familiar, you don't actually realize how expansive it actually is. What you just mentioned, the Arctic Council, I'd like for you to tell us a little bit more about what it is and how it could be maybe more effective in promoting cooperation in, you know, these activities that you just mentioned, particularly among Russia, United States, and, you know, maybe China. And

Sure. Well, the no. I was just gonna say that that is a very good question. You know, the because, again, the Arctic Council isn't, that well understood. The the Arctic Council is composed of the Arctic Nations, those that have either coastline within the Arctic or physically located in the Arctic.

So you have basically 8 countries that fit that description, Russia, Canada, the United States, Denmark, vis a vis, you know, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. And they all have, they use the Arctic Council as a forum in which they can conduct dialogue and diplomacy. And they take a look at a broad range of different, interests that they all have within the the region. And those go to, you know, from the welfare of indigenous people and their rights. They take a look at a constructive dialogue when it comes to, you know, how we responsibly extract resources from within the region.

They take a look at, you know, what and how communications take place within various, you know, countries because they'd like to see this region obviously develop in a way in which it is gonna be a, a zone of, of peaceful cooperation. And the increased militarization of the Arctic in the ark again, going back to the Arctic security concept has only, made tensions, you know, somewhat escalate, especially again with the, the war in Ukraine at this point. It's a you'd mentioned, you know, how they might better, handle the, you know, dialogue or how they might better improve, you know, some of the relations in there. You know, that that is really a hard one because I have a tremendous respect for how the Arctic Council has really approached the very difficult role of trying to develop the region or or work amongst the nations within the region in a way that is responsible that can actually help not only keep the region peaceful, but ensure that the way that the resources are developed is responsible so that we don't have environmental disasters and the like. If there's one thing that I would kind of, I can't say fault them on, but I think it's something that they should probably start to do is they, upon the founding of the Arctic Council, they do not discuss military, development within the Arctic itself.

And if there's one area where I feel that it might be helpful is if they take a look at doing that because, again, with the the Russians recently having stepped down as the Arctic chair, we basically had, because the war in Ukraine when they took it over, 2 years were very, very little was actually able to take place. And and so, you know, that kind of hurt the Arctic Council. I think having them work or continue to work to provide for transparency, having them continue to work to provide for some aspect where cooperation regionally is able to continue, I think, will will be even more important in the years to come. And not communicating or not having a way in which to communicate with Russia directly in a more direct role, I think is problematic. That they have, in a diplomatic sense, reengaged with them.

But most certainly, we are not doing much when it comes to the military aspects of that. And that even influences the Coast Guard, for instance. The Coast Guard had a forum with our coast guard and and other coast guards within the region at one point that was incredibly well developed. The coast guard, by the way, is part of their FSB or intelligence services as well, I should note. And with the war in Ukraine, a lot of that was suspended.

And again, that is unfortunate because it is an area, a domain of the world, which is very far from everything else. Search and rescue aspects, you know, cooperation from when it comes to environmental disasters and the like, which our coast guard basically does a tremendous job with, are gonna be of manifest importance going into the future. So having engagement and continuing that engagement, I believe is gonna be incredibly important.

I'm Manolis Praniotakis, NIU's vice president for research and engagement. And this is this episode's Manolis Minute. Our next episode will feature doctor Michael Grieves from the Digital Twin Institute. The topic of the discussion will be, not surprisingly, digital twinning. While the episode will focus on the digital aspects of this concept, couple years ago, the National Security Agency highlighted on its website a situation that involved real twins and identical ones at that, both working for the agency.

The website post told the story of staff sergeant Abigail Fisher and staff sergeant Hannah Fisher, both Air Force Reservists serving at Fort Meade in July 2022. They were both working in Enterprise Discovery Operations Office of Financial Intelligence and Cargo as fusion analysts. They were also both in the midst of getting their degrees in international studies with a focus on Latin America. Having spent many years in the IC, it may be uncommon to encounter identical twins or really any kind of twins for that matter. But it is not unusual to run into siblings, parents and children, and most frequently, spouses working in the same agency in the halls of an intelligence service or working in different services.

Although, anecdotally, that's less common. I've never actually seen any hard data on familiar connections across the IC, and I frankly doubt any really exists. But it is true that intelligence can become a family business. Thanks again for listening to Intelligence Jumpstart. For more information on NIU, please visit our website, www.NI-U.edu.

Right. So to accomplish this engagement and all of these other activities, what levers might we use to strengthen our ability to shape policies to move toward that direction? For, you know, for example, sanctions or what else?

Some of the levers that we have, first, dialogue and diplomacy would be a primary one right there. That, again, continuing to have open channels with them despite the war in Ukraine is gonna be of significant importance at that point. It's better to have that door open than than have it closed just out of the fact that, well, we now are, we see them as an aggressor within a country that, you know, we are supporting it at this point. The Arctic still remains. And, you know, that engagement is gonna be important.

So maintaining that dialogue, if for no other reason to continue the relationships that have been built to to ensure transparency is going to be incredibly important. Another one, legal frameworks and just following legal frameworks. You know, Russia has a way as do some other nations. And perhaps even at times, we've been at fault with this. We accept or don't accept a legal framework to basically justify what it is that that we are doing.

But having defined legal frameworks by which we are going into the Arctic and and continuing to have and create a air of cooperation is gonna be important. I think economic sanctions, you talk about a lever that basically can be punitive. That's one right there. You know, basically restricting movement within the Arctic or trade is is a way to basically incentivize or disentivizing, you know, different players within the Arctic and to, you know, perhaps bring them to the table on certain issues that we feel are going to be of importance going forward, especially when it comes to having those shipping lanes developed in the future to the point where we are going to use them and they will become routine as the amount of ice diminishes within the arctic.

So shipping lanes, you you mentioned before are and have been affected by climate change, and these lanes are opening. How have the international discussions changed? And do you believe the IC's interest in the region has changed as well? Because climate change has had a huge impact on that region.

Sure. On the IC side of things, it's it's obvious, for instance, that the northern sea route as a route that runs astride to the the northern coast of Russia, it it has become a preeminent importance to to the Russians. Keeping in mind that their northern fleet is is located there. Their Arctic forces, had been built up in the last few years. They have rehabilitated numerous outposts from the Cold War era, and they've refurbished them, and they now man them.

They've conducted exercises with the Chinese, within the Arctic region. And they have likewise updated the air defense systems within that region. And a lot of it kind of goes back to they they now want to assert primacy and control over the northern sea route that they see as a sea route that that they would maintain, which runs against the UN Convention of the Laws of the Seas because that is an open body of water. They don't see it as an open body of water. They basically, going back to the legal frameworks, maintain that it is an area or sphere of influence that basically belongs to them.

So having freedom of navigation floats through that area would and should continue to take place. Again, that is of importance to the IC. And even beyond that, I think, individuals that know the challenges that have been within the Arctic in the past, that there's infrastructure that needs to go within the Arctic, the Canadian Arctic, the Alaskan Arctic, especially, that gives us the ability to have domain awareness, to communicate what is seen up there, whether it is sea buoys, whether it is, a lighter than air capability aircraft that basically can look over the horizon and the skies to tell us what is actually happening within that that area.

Right. Wow. That's interesting. And and opening those lanes, I can imagine there's going to be a huge environmental impact. So how can we measure this prospective environmental damage that we're going to be inflicting on the region?

And when we're talking about extracting other resources, what are the implications for the Arctic and the global landscape?

Well, there's some ways in which we can already assess the risks within the region that are the the norms that, you know, take place where you have, you know, the reinsurance firms that take a look at the risks that are associated not only with utilizing the shipping routes, but the environmental impacts that could take place within the region. What is somewhat alarming at this point is that, you know, for the first time, the Russians used a non ice class, categorized vessel to transport oil from the, the northern port of Russia in through and along the northern sea route, and it is gonna go to China. And an unfortunate byproduct of that is is that, you know, the polar code, which was developed and we abide by as well as many other nations do abide by, they they want ice hardened vehicle, or vessels that are going to the region that have a double hole, that have the capability, should they get penetrated by ice, are not going to basically leak or sink at a moment's notice. I should highlight, you know, the fact that we talk about that there's a reduction of ice within the Arctic.

That there's a reduction doesn't mean that the ice is gone. You know, again, mariners would would say at every turn, the fact is is that ice still is there. We may not see the ice, but it is still there. And we know that that ice, even if it's floating below, you know, what we can visually see, it can have a tremendous impact on not only one of these vessels that's transiting the the Arctic, but it likewise can have a significant impact even on ice hardened, significant impact even on ice hardened, vessels. So, again, moving stuff to that area, it increases the likelihood that, you know, we are gonna have an environmental incident within the Arctic, probably along the Russian coast, but the water circulates within that region.

So what happens there basically, you know, happens through, to the entirety of the Arctic. And we don't have, well, understood impacts as to what the long term consequences could be, you know, for, you know, one of these vessels going down or or multiple vessels going down over a period of time.

So as you were talking, I was kind of thinking about the Titanic. And I don't mean to be glib about it, but it's just like, did we not learn anything from that tragedy? Exactly. So you mentioned they're going in there without reinforced ships, and and that's scary. What are the greatest risks to national security in the Arctic region?

The greatest risk is a miscalculation, you know, in in air, you know, from a pilot that is going through when, you know, it's either a Russian aircraft or a response aircraft from NATO or another nation, maybe even the United States, you know, basically either being too daring or something happening that, you know, basically sparks an incident unnecessarily. Another would be, environmental. And the fact is is that the Department of Defense, again, is gonna be looked to, if we have an environmental, incident within the Arctic. If for no other reason, they do provide defense support to civil authorities. And the military is very uniquely capable of providing assistance for large scale disasters.

And something like this within the Arctic, especially if it's going to affect, fisheries resources or our ability to extract resources, ourselves, those could be important events. And what we don't wanna have happen is, not to be glib, is that, you know, a disaster that happened somewhere else, you know, okay. That's good. It it happened to Russia. Well, it it's not good for Russia, and it's not good for the United States or the Arctic region itself.

So an impact there, again, is gonna have a wider spread impact throughout the entirety of the region. And so those are probably the 2 biggest that I see at this point. Although, I think, again, those risks are only heightened if we're not taking steps to make sure that we have diplomatic channels that are open, that we have a way to communicate where on not only the military front, but on the diplomatic front, that we can pick up the phone, we can continue to have a continuing dialogue despite events happening elsewhere in the world that, you know, might otherwise cause us not to wanna communicate with them.

So diplomatic channels are key to reducing these risks.

Exactly.

I feel like I should ask who, what agency serves on the council? Is it, is it the state department?

The, the, the state department does, but you also have numerous indigenous actors that are part of the, the Arctic Council as well.

Right. Gotcha.

So they have representation, a seat at the table. And then you have, you know, beyond that observer nations that are there. China being one of the observer nations that, you know, was selected to become an observer several years ago, about 10 years ago at this point.

Gotcha. So can we talk about some of the activities that we've seen recently that are changing the landscape from, you know, a cooperative environment to a more adversarial zone for competition?

Sure. Well, one of the things we've seen is an increase an increase in activity from, the Russian submarine fleet along the GI UK gap that so along, you know, Greenland, Iceland, and UK, you basically have, you know, a a geographical line geographical line that is between them. And if you kind of go back to the hunt for the red October, you know, books, you know, those are the main transit corridors for Russian submarines coming from their, their bases within the Arctic out into the Atlantic Ocean. And that is as their activity increases, you know, again, that area has kind of grown in prominence. Chinese spy buoys, which were found along the the shoreline within, Canada, another kind of thing that has not really gone to add to the confidence building measures within the area.

These buoys were and they were found right before the Chinese spy balloon started to make its transit into the Arctic and across the United States. Again, didn't really make, you know, the big headlines. But within the Arctic, it did because these buoys are believed to have the capability to conduct bathymetry analysis to kind of map the bottom of the areas where they were located, possibly monitor, you know, submarines within, the area, air temperature and the like. So, you know, again, not a really great thing to have happen in another, you know, nation's, you know, spy capability showing up on on the shoreline. And, you know, another alarming thing is, you know, the Russians and the Chinese even conducted, exercises within the region.

And that's in addition to all the buildup that has and continues to take place within, within the Arctic. As I'd said earlier, they rehabilitated a lot of, for lack of a better term, mothballed facilities that they had from the Cold War era. They brought them up to date, put new communication systems in there, and they have not only a land forces stationed at many of these areas, they now have the capability to monitor and reach out and touch through air defense capabilities and even from, shore to ocean, missile capabilities, the ability to reach out and touch individuals that could transit, through the northern Sea Route, be it the air or, the water.

Who do you think has the competitive advantage right now?

Wow. The competitive advantage, you know, is that is a tough one. It's almost like, you know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder because it it really is such a good question. In a very real way, I would say no one really has a lock on it. Part of it goes back to the fact that the Arctic Council has done a good job up to date in terms of maintaining dialogue and diplomacy within the region.

But it is clear that the Russians have done an incredibly good job of asserting themselves within the region. They have developed the Northern Sea Route. They have managed to develop the capabilities to to operate within the region, both, you know, out in the water and on the coast in a way that the United States has not. The United States, we we have done a excellent job of creating Arctic strategies. Got a new one coming out this upcoming year.

The army has an Arctic strategy. Homeland Security has an Arctic strategy. The navy has an Arctic strategy. The air force has an Arctic. We've got Arctic strategies to go with our Arctic strategies.

But yet, when you take a look at the amount of infrastructure, the capabilities have been put in place within our Arctic, not a lot has really happened, which is somewhat disappointing, I think, again, for a region that is as important as it is for us in a future context.

So, yeah, we're we're really good at making strategies. We're not so good at the implementation or the innovation point. And, you know, I've had other guests from last season talk about, like, space and, you know, exploration and what that means as far as what we need to do. And and we do have these strategies, but we don't have anything that really governs the infrastructure, you know, to really manage what that means for national security. So so I wanna thank you for your time today.

I really appreciate it in learning more about this very important region. Very eye opening, reading some of the articles that you've written and other stuff that I found online. To close out, I have one more question. You you talked a lot about how diplomatic channels are really going to be key. But when we're talking about the effectively competing with Russia and China, will it require us to alter our military posture, or can we maintain our competition or develop our competition and and focus more on the economic and political dynamics?

So undoubtedly, on a military context, we need to put in place more infrastructure and capabilities in which to safeguard our economic resources within the region. Because without the ability to have something that's astride that can, you know, provide for that protection to develop the domain awareness that we need, you really have a hollow capability in which to take a look at just how problematic it might be if economic resources that, you know, we are counting on in the future to be within the Arctic are exploited out and away from us, fisheries being one of them at this point. The fact is is that, you know, the the fish populations around the world and within the Arctic are starting to change. And, you know, part of that goes back to, illegal and unreported unrestricted fishing that's taken place that the Chinese have been manifestly involved in, especially within parts of this region itself. But at the same time, not directly within the Arctic Ocean, but near to it.

But at the same time, without that infrastructure, we can't provide for the economic, you know, capabilities that, you know, we have that are gonna be here, which again is why I go back. We do need to do something more and have a well coordinated approach in which to do that, which obviously is gonna include diplomacy or that we're just not gonna realize the economic capabilities in the region over the long term.

Well, thank you again for your time today. If folks wanna reach out to you, you know, to get your thought leadership or maybe collaborate in the future, what is the best way to connect with you?

They can connect with me through my email address, which is cdcarlson@alaska.edu or contact the College of Business and Security Management at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Perfect. Well, thank you again. I really enjoyed this conversation today.

Well, thank you again for having me, Jane. And, again, I'm looking forward to listening to more of your podcast because like I said, I really enjoyed your series.

Thank you so much. That's great. Thank you for listening to the Intelligence Jumpstart podcast. We'd love to hear from you about what you like and what you'd like to hear more of. If you would like to learn more about a specific topic or issue, send us a note atni press@niudotodni.gov.

To learn more about NIU, visit our website NI-U.edu