U.S. Army soldiers are undergoing rigorous training to prepare for potential combat operations in the Arctic, a region increasingly viewed as a strategic military front amid rising geopolitical competition. The exercises, held at the Yukon Training Center in Alaska, illustrate the profound challenges posed by extreme cold-weather conditions on both personnel and equipment.
In February, as thousands of troops deployed to the Middle East in anticipation of conflict, approximately 4,000 soldiers from the Army’s 11th Airborne Division took part in a large-scale Arctic training mission near the Arctic Circle. Among them, Able Company—a 107-soldier unit—engaged in a simulated battle that tested their endurance, mobility, and tactical capabilities in temperatures dropping to 40 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (minus 40 Celsius).
The Yukon Training Center spans roughly 400 miles of snow-covered terrain, where conventional military gear and tactics are often insufficient. At these frigid temperatures, weapons can malfunction, batteries lose power rapidly, and fuel thickens. Soldiers accustomed to warmer climates faced heightened risks such as frostbite and hypothermia during the 10-day exercise, which combined elements of patrolling, maneuvering through knee-deep snow, and responding to cold-weather injuries.
Captain Trung Duon Vo, commander of Able Company, emphasized the lethal hazards posed by the environment, noting that improper precautions could quickly become fatal. The troops carried heavily laden sleds with supplies needed for survival, including tents designed to shelter up to ten soldiers, portable stoves, and tools for securing their camps in fierce winds. The exercise underscored the physical and psychological strain of Arctic warfare as soldiers pushed through snow, ice, and occasional blizzards.
While the simulated combat involved blank rounds and laser targeting, the cold was a constant and unforgiving adversary. Movement was often slowed by deep snow and frozen muskeg—boggy ground typical of the region. Soldiers guarded against frostbite by regularly checking extremities, staying hydrated despite the temptation to remain in their heated tents, and adapting to new techniques like skijoring, where troops are pulled on skis behind snowmobiles to increase mobility.
The training also revealed the limitations of current U.S. Arctic gear. Canvas tents, which emit significant heat detectable by enemy drones equipped with thermal sensors, presented vulnerabilities. During the exercise, Captain Vo successfully identified and neutralized an enemy platoon using surveillance and attack drones, illustrating both new technological capabilities and ongoing tactical challenges.
Comparisons with Canadian forces participating in the exercise highlighted differences in Arctic warfare approaches. Canadians focused on meticulous preparation and pacing, planning movements carefully to conserve energy, whereas the American method often involved pushing troops to their limits until exhaustion. U.S. commanders recognized the value of adopting more deliberate strategies and increasing reliance on specialized Arctic vehicles, such as Swedish-made tracked carriers capable of traversing deep snow.
Colonel Christopher Brawley, overseeing more than 2,700 troops in the operation, framed the campaign around cutting enemy supply lines—a tactic designed to break opposing forces by denying them fuel and food. By the ninth day, U.S. and Canadian forces had effectively isolated enemy positions, though cold-weather injuries—including frostbite, twisted knees, and broken ribs—removed some soldiers from active participation.
As Arctic ice melts and new sea routes open, the strategic importance of the region continues to grow, with the Pentagon prioritizing closer cooperation with Arctic allies and expanded military infrastructure. Yet, the Alaska training exercise highlights that winning a conflict in such a hostile environment requires specialized skills, equipment, and a deep understanding of the extreme conditions soldiers must endure.