I'm glad you've given me this opportunity because the issue when we raise maritime security in the Arctic—first of all, Dr. Charron and others are completely right when they say at the surface level there is co-operation. I agree with them. There's not going to be an issue of someone using military force to challenge over the extended continental shelf or resource grab. Absolutely there's co-operation.
The point where we differ very strongly is in my contention that we see a renewal of Arctic capabilities at the strategic level. This is the part we don't see. This is the part that's subsurface. It's aerospace threats. We see an increasing usage by the Russians, and I expect that we're going to see the Chinese starting to become involved, the so-called great games, where nuclear deterrence starts playing a more critical role.
It's not a question of fighting over Arctic resources, but the fact that the Russians are an Arctic power, that the Americans have Alaska. It's those strategic assets and the issues that then surface in the context of when relations go downhill, say over Syria, Georgia, Ukraine, that we start seeing this push and pull.
In other words, absolutely, we can pat ourselves on the back and say that things are going well at a co-operative level because they are at a superficial level, but in true naval power, the type of stuff that we traditionally use navies for, since 2008 we've seen an increase in use of maritime passages in the region by the Russians.
We also see the Americans doing it very quietly with their submarines, particularly their Virginia class, but they are doing it and this is the part that's under the surface. We as Canadians can say we're not seeing this, so that's not happening. The fact that we don't see it doesn't mean the issues aren't there, and when they do surface, they become so serious that they escalate quite quickly in that context.