Bridging Arctic Command Structure Seams to Support Allied Multi-Theater Defense

Download the full report here

Executive Summary 

In an evolving threat environment defined by great power competition, the Arctic has reemerged as a strategic theater central to the defense of North America and Europe. Growing civil-military cooperation between Russia and China, including in the Pacific Arctic, and strategic connections among the Arctic, North Atlantic, Baltic, and North Pacific reinforce the need to avoid compartmentalizing Arctic challenges into subregional problem sets, a tendency that adversaries can exploit. The potential for parallel or connected multi-vector crises with direct homeland defense implications increases the need for closer cooperation between the United States and its allies.

Allied posture in the High North directly affects North American warning, reinforcement, and escalation management, just as shifts in US global priorities shape the credibility of deterrence in Europe’s north. This interdependence elevates the importance of interfaces among US combatant commands, NORAD, NATO, and key allied national structures. As these arrangements evolve, the central challenge lies in aligning authorities, information, and response options quickly enough to enable coherent action across domains and theaters.

This is particularly important as adversaries use hybrid, conventional, and nuclear toolkits to undermine the Western security architecture and unity of purpose by targeting vulnerabilities, and exploiting gaps and seams among institutions, agencies, commands, and systems that can delay decision-making, fragment situational awareness, or complicate coordination.

Regional seams are most acute where operational challenges span more than one area of responsibility (AOR) or jurisdiction but planning and decision authorities remain partitioned. In Arctic-relevant scenarios, these seams typically appear in three areas: across national AOR boundaries, where warning and response pathways must be synchronized; at interfaces between national and allied or binational structures, where information-sharing and command relationships must be pre-aligned; and within alliance command arrangements, where collective defense requirements may not fully align with operational boundaries.

Functional seams further compound these challenges. They emerge across interagency, civil-military, and public–private boundaries, and at the intersection of data and decision-making systems, where effectiveness depends on the timely fusion, processing, and dissemination of information. They also arise when cross-domain effects are required, but authorities, processes, and data remain organized in stovepipes.

Seams are an enduring feature of complex command arrangements. The critical issue is whether they are anticipated and managed in ways that reflect coherent plans, authorities, and decision timelines. While consolidation may shorten formal chains of command, it does not eliminate seams—it redistributes them. If accompanied by reduced regional presence, smaller staffs, or weaker liaison networks, such changes can create new vulnerabilities that adversaries can exploit. In the Arctic, where distance, environmental conditions, and sparse infrastructure amplify delays and limit situational awareness and operational posture, these risks are particularly acute. They are exacerbated when reforms outpace the planning, exercising, and transition management needed to make them operationally credible, potentially weakening cohesion across allied structures.

The objective is not to eliminate seams but ensure that they do not become strategic liabilities. A command architecture capable of absorbing friction and maintaining political and military coherence, provides the best path to denying adversaries opportunities to exploit physical, procedural, or cognitive gaps.

This report identifies several priorities for minimizing seams across US and allied structures:

• improving clarity and coordination across the alliance, including clear communication of US commitments, expectations, and more predictable coordination mechanisms to enable realistic planning and unity of effort 
• strengthening intelligence-sharing through more consistent releasability standards, preapproved disclosure pathways, and trusted channels that reduce delays in shared situational awareness 
• enhancing cross-command integration through reinforced liaison networks and institutionalized coordination across key US-NATO command interfaces 
• expanding exercises to operationalize coordination, testing cross-AOR integration, command transitions, and the prioritization of global enablers under realistic conditions 
• investing in resilient, multi-domain situational awareness and decision-making capabilities, including shared sensing and communications infrastructure and the careful integration of AI enabled tools, while preserving the central role of human judgment 

Arctic defense spans regional theaters, operational domains, and institutional arrangements. For defense planners, the decisive factor is the ability to anticipate, understand, and manage seams effectively under conditions of simultaneity and uncertainty. In this context, resilience, coordination, and operational coherence are essential to maintaining credible deterrence and defense in the Arctic.