Spring 2018. Donald Trump barely starts his first mandate and, already, the rumor swells: will the United States resell Alaska to Russia, more than one hundred and fifty years after buying it for $ 7.2 million? In the entourage of the president, an advisor lets go: “We no longer really need Alaska. He is stuck at the top of Canada, miles from everything, and frankly, taking care of it has become more and more boring and expensive.” Other Republicans take out their calculator: Alaska could be sold to Russia for $ 10 billion. What finance the construction of the wall imagined by Donald Trump to separate the United States from Mexico. “The operation would not be unconstitutional,” even advances lawyer Alan Dershowitz, in a book published the following summer.
Spring 2025. Radical change of speech. Alaska is now one of the priorities for Donald Trump and his administration. To the point of being mentioned in the general policy speech of the president. “My government is working on a huge gas pipeline in Alaska, among the largest in the world, in which Japan, Korea and other nations can be our partners. Everything is ready,” says Donald Trump, as if a rain of dollars suddenly flood the American economy. The interest From the new president for this territory of 740,000 inhabitants, as three times France, however, greatly exceeds energy and financial issues.
“We feel a desire on the American side to really take possession of this territory which was considered for a very long time as a marginal space, underlines Florian Vidal, researcher in geopolitics at the University of Tromsø, Norway. And the expert to recall some geographic and historical truths. More than 4,000 kilometers separate Washington from Anchorage, the largest city of Alaska. Buyed, in 1867, it took approximately half a century for a president to go there! “Even during the Cold War, this area remained relatively calm, while, logically, it should have been a place of very strong tensions”, assures Florian Vidal.
“” “Think of the considerable savings that arctic roads allow.»
But it was long before the war in Ukraine and the demands of China and Russia on the Arctic. “Failing to be able to acquire Greenland or to transform Canada into 51ᵉ US state, it is the possession of Alaska which makes the United States an arctic ocean power. It gives it a maritime facade covering roughly the tenth of the coast of this ocean, against half for Russia. An essential asset for Donald Trump, who considers the” new border ” United States “, details Jean-Sylvestre Mongrenier, doctor of geopolitics, associate researcher at the Thomas-More Institute.
“Regularly joint military exercises between Russians and Chinese take place off Alaska. A major source of concern for Washington. To this threat is added the presence not far from North Korea. This region is therefore very important from a security point of view,” adds Florian Vidal. The geographical position of Alaska allows the United States to quickly deploy towards any destination located in the northern hemisphere and more easily intercept any attacks.
Climate change also pushes Washington to take a closer look at the northern sea route, which connects the Atlantic to the Pacific passing off Alaska. Since 2017, traffic has increased. He has gone from 3 to 37 million tonnes of goods. We stay far from the 80 million tonnes hoped for by Russia before the war in Ukraine. But this is only a matter of time before this path now navigable nine months a year thanks to nuclear galaes, no longer has importance. “Think of the considerable savings that Arctic roads allow. Thanks to them, we earn about ten days of navigation on the shipment of goods starting from Asia to Europe, a reduction of around 50 % compared to traditional roads. With the military strengthening of Russia in the Arctic and the Chinese project of the polar silk route ‘, the geopolitical importance of Alaska is increasing” From the Wahba Institute on Strategic Competition, in Washington, in an analysis published in 2022.
A large -scale gas exploitation
“The Central Arctic Ocean has international water status. There is therefore no constraint for navigating it. With climate change, it is not impossible for Chinese to deploy warships or submarines,” abounds Florian Vidal. This area would then become a space for deploying military forces which could then threaten the North Atlantic space and its reserves of raw materials, which abound in the case of Alaska.
In a recent decree, President Trump plans to release the enormous Alaskian potential in matters. A strategy that notably involves the exploitation of large -scale natural gas in the northern region. Indeed, it still has almost intact reserves. The idea is therefore to extract the precious gas, to transport it by pipe to anchorage, located 1,300 kilometers further south, before liquefying it to sell it in several Asian countries.
“” “The most likely scenario is that of an increase in the American military presence in Alaska»
Many times mentioned, but never really implemented because of its complexity and its cost ($ 44 billion), this old project dating from the 1970s had gained in traction during Trump’s first mandate before being put aside by Joe Biden because of its environmental impact. The stars now align again. At least politically.
“We must remain realistic and cautious. This is the third time that the idea has been launched. It has been abandoned the first two times due to uncertainties on funding and economic benefits. This will therefore be the market that will dictate if the project will advance,” said Magali Vullierme, Doctor of Political Science, and post-doctoral researcher within the North American and Arctic University Network of (Canada).
“The project is unlikely to be profitable,” confesses an energy expert. Operating costs in northern Alaska are higher than in the Gulf of Mexico due to low temperatures. The first deliveries will not take place before 2030. At that time, the global offer of LNG is likely to be surplus due to the many other projects under construction in the world. Finally, doubt persists on the level of future gas demand. “Two scenarios coexist, one in which the energy demand draws gas production and the other in which renewable energies develop so much that they weigh the prospects for fossil fuels”, confirms the economist Geoffroy Hureau, secretary general of Cedigaz.
“The construction of this gas pipeline will take more time than a presidential mandate. Any expenditure in this project will only create an unfinished infrastructure which will leave Alaska with an unused asset, deplores Andrea Feniger, director of the Sierra Club, whose mission consists in protecting the local environment. Studies of impact on populations, fauna and flora do not hold the road. On white: “If we do not do this project, others will do so.” Completely forgetting the commitments made by many countries to fight against climate change.
But what are environmental considerations worth in the face of economic and strategic arguments? Operating gas deposits in Alaska makes it possible to put Canada a little more in difficulty, a historic supplier for the United States in the field of energy. By becoming the world n ° 1 in LNG, America also wants to increase the dependence of other countries. Thus, some Asian countries are already faced with a serious dilemma.
“Japan, for example, is surrounded by fairly hostile neighbors. This country therefore has an interest in buying American gas. In exchange, it can hope to maintain a military presence,” explains Florian Vidal. But, on the other hand, today’s America seems less reliable from a commercial point of view. “Korea or Japan – clearly targeted by the project in Alaska – will not rush to buy the LNG from an aggressive country, which could overnight use energy supply as a means of pressure,” anticipates an expert who cuts short to another idea.
No, Washington will not take a contract with Moscow. Their rapprochement had increased the rumor of a possible agreement allowing Russia to take advantage of – for finance – of some of the Alaskian resources. “The United States would give up its full sovereignty over Alaska to take an agreement with Russia? Let’s go! The United States does not need Russian capital and technologies to exploit the resources of Alaska: it is Russia which had to turn to the West first, then towards popular China, to exploit its Arctic resources. As for Russian views on Alaska, Increases in a disinformation and psychological warfare company.
“From now on, the most likely scenario for Alaska is that of an increase in the American military presence on its territory. And also the multiplication in this area of exercises carried out jointly with allied countries of the United States such as Japan or the Philippines,” says Florian Vidal. And to say that a hundred and fifty years ago, the purchase of Alaska by Secretary of State William Seward was going for madness.
.