The Arctic, once a remote and largely untouched expanse of frozen wilderness, has increasingly become a focal point of international competition. The first part of this article highlights how the rapid melting of polar ice caps, driven by climate change, has opened up new opportunities for resource extraction, trade and strategic military positioning. This transformation has triggered a geopolitical contest among actors, such as Russia, NATO member states, China and others scrambling for influence in what is becoming a strategically more important region. However, this intensifying competition poses a direct threat to the Arctic’s fragile ecosystems, which are critical not only to the region’s biodiversity but also to the overall health of the planet.
The second part of this article critiques the dominant narrative within Arctic geopolitics, which often advocates for balanced solutions. While such an approach may appear pragmatic in short-sighted political terms, it is fundamentally flawed as it prioritises compromise over preservation. Accommodating actors who seek to exploit the Arctic’s resources or escalate military tensions effectively legitimises environmentally destructive and destabilising behaviours. This analysis argues that a genuinely sustainable approach to Arctic governance must reject such compromises in favour of prioritising the protection of the region’s ecosystems and ensuring its long-term stability. Ultimately, this is also where all long-term interests converge.
The Geopolitical Scramble for the Arctic
As the Arctic becomes increasingly accessible due to the accelerated melting of ice, nations are intensifying their efforts to stake claims in the region. This competition is driven by three primary factors: the Arctic’s vast reserves of untapped natural resources, the emergence of new shipping routes and its growing strategic importance in global military and geopolitical calculations. While the Arctic states, represented by Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and United States of America (hereinafter: the USA) remain the primary actors in this scramble, non-Arctic nations, such as China, are also asserting their influence in the region, further complicating the geopolitical situation. Among the Arctic’s most significant resources are its extensive reserves of hydrocarbons, according to the U.S. Geological Survey’s “Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal”, it is estimated to hold approximately 90 billion barrels of oil, which represents 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves. Furthermore, the region contains approximately 1669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas, alongside 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids. These figures highlight the Arctic’s critical role in the future global energy supply, particularly as nations seek to secure energy independence and meet rising demand. In addition to hydrocarbons, the Arctic is also endowed with an abundance of minerals, including Rare Earth Elements (hereinafter: REE), which are vital to high-technology industries such as renewable energy, electronics and defence. The Kvanefjeld project in southern Greenland is considered one of the most significant REE deposits globally, underscoring the Arctic’s strategic importance in global supply chains. The growing demand for REEs, driven by their applications in advanced technologies such as electric vehicles, wind turbines and military systems, has further elevated the Arctic’s importance in international resource competition. Beyond its REE deposits, the Arctic is home to a diverse array of other valuable minerals, including iron ore, nickel, copper, cobalt, gold, diamonds, zinc and platinum group metals. These resources are essential to industries ranging from construction to green technology. For instance, cobalt is a critical component in the production of electric vehicle batteries, while nickel plays a key role in the development of stainless steel and renewable energy storage systems. The strategic and economic significance of the Arctic’s resource wealth highlights the region’s centrality in global geopolitics. However, the rush to exploit these resources also raises critical questions about environmental sustainability, the rights of Indigenous communities and the broader implications of increased human activity in the fragile Arctic ecosystem.
Russia’s Arctic Militarisation and Resource Grab
Russia, with its extensive Arctic coastline spanning nearly 24,000 kilometres, has, naturally, emerged as the most assertive actor in the region. Over the past decade, the Russian government, has committed significant resources to rebuilding and modernising its Arctic infrastructure, including the construction and refurbishment of military airbases, advanced radar systems and a fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers. This militarisation is not merely defensive, it is part of Russia’s broader strategy to dominate the Northern Sea Route (hereinafter: NSR), a shipping lane along its Arctic coast that is becoming increasingly viable as ice melts. The route could reduce shipping times by up to 40% compared to traditional routes such as the Suez Canal, potentially saving billions of dollars annually for shipping companies. Recognising the economic potential of the NSR, Russia has declared it a national priority and seeks to establish itself as the primary gatekeeper of the route. Moscow has declared the Arctic a national priority and seeks to establish itself as the primary gatekeeper of the region’s increasingly accessible shipping routes. As President Vladimir Putin emphasised, the Arctic is “an inalienable part of Russia that has been crucial to its development” and a region where Russia plans to “strengthen its infrastructure and economic potential.” Through these actions, Russia is positioning itself as the dominant actor in controlling access to this critical strategic and economic passage. In addition to controlling shipping routes, Moscow is also exploiting the Arctic’s vast natural resources. Projects like the Yamal Liquefied Natural Gas (hereinafter: LNG) initiative have attracted billions of dollars in investment, often with the backing of Chinese companies. These initiatives are central to Russia’s goal of intensifying its energy exports and reducing its reliance on pipeline gas deliveries to Europe, which have become increasingly politicised. By expanding its LNG capacity in the Arctic, Russia aims to capture a larger share of the growing global LNG market, particularly in Asia, where demand for natural gas continues to rise. However, these ventures come at an immense environmental cost; oil spills, methane leaks and habitat destruction are already wreaking havoc on the Arctic’s delicate ecosystems, which are ill-equipped to recover from industrial disasters. Russia’s Arctic strategy exemplifies the dangers of non-devletist geopolitics. The prioritisation of short-term economic and strategic gains is inherently relative in nature and another facet of destructive competition among states. Such unilateral actions also trigger more extreme exploitation strategies of other nations to gain relative advantages. This extractive approach threatens the Arctic and, therefore, endangers the natural balance, posing future environmental risks that are also detrimental in economic terms.
China’s Polar Silk Road: Economic Expansion Disguised as Cooperation
China, despite lacking territorial claims in the Arctic, has emerged as a very active player in the region, leveraging its growing economic, scientific, and diplomatic influence to position itself strategically. In 2018, Beijing declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” a self-designation that holds no legal basis under international law but serves as a rhetorical tool to justify its increasing involvement in Arctic affairs. This assertion reflects China’s intent to assert its presence in a region where it has no direct territorial stake but sees immense economic, scientific and geopolitical opportunities. Through its Polar Silk Road initiative (hereinafter: PSR), which forms part of the larger Belt and Road Initiative (hereinafter: BRI), China is seeking to establish itself as a key stakeholder in Arctic development by promoting Arctic shipping routes, securing access to critical resources and investing in infrastructure projects, often in partnership with Russia. While Chinese government officially frames its activities in the Arctic as peaceful and cooperative, focused on mutual development and environmental protection, its actions suggest a more strategic and multifaceted agenda. Many of China’s investments and projects in the Arctic exhibit dual-use potential, enabling both civilian and military applications. For example, infrastructure such as ports, railways and other facilities initially constructed under the pretence of promoting trade and connectivity have often been repurposed to support military logistics and surveillance activities. A notable example is Russia’s development of new and upgraded Arctic military bases, such as the Arctic Trefoil base on Franz Josef Land. Officially presented as part of efforts to ensure safety and promote economic activities in the Arctic, these bases are equipped with advanced radar systems, air defense capabilities and facilities to support military personnel year-round. These activities highlight China’s long-term ambitions to solidify its influence in the Arctic, not only as an economic partner but also as a strategic power capable of shaping the region’s future.
Furthermore, Beijing has partnered with Russia to develop the NSR, with Chinese shipping companies increasingly utilising the route for the transportation of goods. This collaboration serves mutual interests: Russia gains financial and technical support for its Arctic ambitions, while China secures a faster and more reliable trade route to Europe. However, China’s economic interests in the Arctic extend beyond shipping. China’s interest in the Arctic is also driven by its need to secure access to critical resources, particularly REE and other strategic minerals. These minerals are indispensable for the production of wind turbines, electric vehicle batteries, mobile phones and guided missile systems, making them a cornerstone of modern technological and military capabilities. Beijing has pursued mining and resource development projects in Greenland through state-owned enterprises and joint ventures, often offering financial assistance and infrastructure development as part of its proposals. However, these efforts have faced resistance from Greenland’s government and international stakeholders, who have raised concerns about environmental degradation, over-dependence on China, and the potential geopolitical implications of Chinese control over critical resources.
NATO and the USA: Defensive Measures or Escalation?
In response to the increased activities of Russia and China in the Arctic, NATO and the USA have also expanded their presence in the region. The accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO has extended the alliance’s strategic reach, fostering closer Nordic cooperation. This expansion has been accompanied by an increase in military exercises, such as Arctic Forge and Operation Nanook, aimed at enhancing preparedness and demonstrating deterrence capabilities. Additionally, the USA released an updated Arctic Strategy in 2024, which emphasises national security, collaboration with regional allies and addressing the evolving dynamics in the region, including Russia-China cooperation.
Greenland hosts the Thule Air Base in its northern territory, which is officially presented as a key component of the USA’s early warning radar system. Thule plays a significant role in detecting intercontinental ballistic missiles and other potential threats, forming an important part of North American aerospace defense. The base’s advanced radar capabilities contribute to maintaining a robust early warning network for the USA and its allies amidst rising geopolitical interest in the Arctic. Greenland’s strategic location also facilitates the monitoring and management of air and sea traffic in the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, key waterways for both commercial and security purposes. This is particularly relevant as the region sees increased activity, including Russia’s development of the NSR and China’s growing interest in Arctic shipping lanes.
In 2025, the President of the USA began discussing the potential acquisition of Greenland, a topic he had controversially raised during his first presidency in 2019. Trump reiterated his belief that the USA would eventually acquire Greenland, expressing confidence that such a development would align with the island’s residents’ desires. He framed the acquisition as an essential step for international security, claiming that Greenland’s control is a “necessity” for protecting what he calls the free world, basically referring to European and neo-European nations. Furthermore, Trump dismissed Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, questioning the legitimacy of its claim and suggesting that it would be “unfriendly” for Denmark to oppose USA’s interest in the territory. The Danish government, led by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, firmly rejected the idea of selling Greenland. Frederiksen reiterated that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders” and emphasised that the island’s future could only be decided by its population. Similarly, Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede reaffirmed Greenland’s autonomy in determining the use of its territory. Egede also expressed a willingness to collaborate with the USA on defence and mining projects, making it clear that Greenland seeks cooperation rather than ownership disputes. However, this approach raises concerns similar to those directed at Russia and China, as the expansion of defense infrastructure and resource exploitation could have dual-use implications. While framed as a cooperative effort, such projects risk contributing to militarisation in the Arctic and could exacerbate geopolitical tensions in the region.
In response to heightened geopolitical tensions in the Arctic, particularly the renewed interest of the USA in Greenland, Denmark has announced significant investments to enhance its military capabilities in the region. These measures reflect Denmark’s recognition of the Arctic’s growing strategic importance and its commitment to maintaining sovereignty over its autonomous territories of Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Copenhagen has committed to investing 14,6 billion Danish kroner (approximately 2,05$ billion or 1,95€ billion) to strengthen its military presence in the Arctic. This allocation is part of a broader 10-year defence investment plan totalling 190 billion Danish kroner (26$ billion), a significant portion of the investment will go toward acquiring advanced military assets. These resources are intended to bolster Denmark’s ability to monitor and defend its Arctic territories amid rising geopolitical competition. The government plans to purchase three new Arctic naval vessels, which will be equipped to carry helicopters and drones, enhancing Denmark’s ability to patrol its waters and conduct maritime surveillance in the region. In addition, Denmark will procure two long-range drones designed for extended surveillance missions, enabling the state to monitor vast areas of the Arctic more effectively. Denmark’s Arctic strategy does emphasise collaboration with Greenland and the Faroe Islands, ensuring that local perspectives are included in the formulation of defense policies. However, such partnerships do not negate the broader risks of military escalation in the Arctic. Given that Russia, with its 24.000 kilometres of Arctic coastline, has faced significant scrutiny for its military presence, Denmark’s actions should be evaluated with the same level of critical analysis to maintain consistency and fairness when assessing the actions of all Arctic states.
The Arctic as a Global Commons
The dominant narrative in Arctic geopolitics often calls for balanced solutions that accommodate the interests of all stakeholders. While this approach may seem equitable, it is fundamentally flawed, since it assumes that the national interests of states are inherently legitimate and that compromise will lead to a fair outcome, whereas in reality, many of these interests are fundamentally incompatible with the preservation of the Arctic. Moreover, this approach marginalises the voices of Indigenous communities and environmental advocates, who are rarely given equal weight in geopolitical negotiations. Indigenous peoples, such as the Inuit, have lived sustainably in the Arctic for thousands of years and possess valuable knowledge about its ecosystems. Yet their perspectives are often sidelined in favour of state-centric agendas. To address the Arctic crisis, the international community must fundamentally rethink its approach. The Arctic should not be treated as a resource-rich frontier for powerful states to dominate but as a global common, a shared responsibility that transcends national boundaries. This perspective prioritises the Arctic’s ecological stability and the long-term health of the planet over short-term economic and strategic gains.
1. Ban Resource Extraction
The extraction of oil, gas, and minerals from the Arctic directly contradicts global climate goals and threatens the region’s fragile ecosystems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereinafter: IPCC) has consistently warned that at least 60% of current fossil fuel reserves must remain untapped to limit global warming to 1,5°C. Arctic resource extraction not only contributes to new sources of carbon emissions but also undermines international efforts to transition to renewable energy. Moreover, the Arctic’s extreme conditions amplify the risks of catastrophic environmental disasters, such as oil spills, which would be devastating to its ecosystems. These ecosystems are uniquely fragile, with limited capacity for recovery compared to other regions. A binding international moratorium on Arctic resource extraction is essential to mitigate these risks. Modeled on the Antarctic Treaty System, which prohibits mineral resource activities to protect ecological integrity, such a moratorium would ensure the Arctic is preserved as a global commons. This ban would not only safeguard the region’s biodiversity but also reduce geopolitical tensions associated with resource competition. To facilitate the transition for Arctic states currently dependent on resource extraction, financial mechanisms and international cooperation should be established to support sustainable economic alternatives, such as renewable energy projects and ecotourism. By prioritising environmental preservation over short-term economic exploitation, this moratorium would reinforce global commitments to combating climate change and protecting one of the planet’s most vulnerable regions.
2. Demilitarise the Arctic
The militarisation of the Arctic represents a dangerous and unnecessary escalation in a region already facing immense environmental and geopolitical stresses. While nations may have legitimate security concerns tied to Arctic sovereignty and economic interests, these can and should be addressed through diplomacy and multilateral cooperation rather than militarisation. The Arctic, home to ecosystems of immense global importance, must not become a theatre for military competition. A key to reducing military tensions in the Arctic is addressing their root causes., many of which stem from competition over access to resources. By implementing a binding moratorium on resource extraction, the primary driver of geopolitical disputes would be removed, reducing the need for military posturing and enabling a shift toward peaceful cooperation. Additionally, a new Arctic security framework should be established to promote transparency and trust among Arctic nations. This could include agreements to limit military activities, such as restricting the establishment of new bases or the deployment of offensive weapon systems. Confidence-building measures, such as joint environmental monitoring, disaster response exercises, and search-and-rescue operations, could further enhance regional cooperation and stability. By shifting focus from militarisation to collaborative security and ecological preservation, the Arctic can be protected as a zone of peace and sustainability.
3. Strengthen Environmental Protections
Existing international frameworks, such as the UNCLOS, provide a legal basis for maritime governance but fail to adequately address the Arctic’s unique environmental challenges. The region’s ecosystems are highly vulnerable to the impacts of industrial development, climate change, and increased human activity. As the Arctic becomes more accessible due to melting sea ice, the absence of a robust regulatory framework leaves it susceptible to exploitation and degradation. A tailored Arctic Treaty is necessary to close this governance gap, including strict environmental protections to safeguard the region’s biodiversity and ecological balance. Key provisions should prohibit industrial activities like deep-sea mining and large-scale fishing in ecologically sensitive areas. Additionally, the treaty should mandate the establishment of a network of marine protected areas to conserve critical habitats and enhance ecosystem resilience. To ensure compliance, any proposed activities in the Arctic should be subject to rigorous environmental impact assessments. These assessments must be overseen by an independent international body to ensure that decisions are impartial and guided by science. Strengthening environmental protections in this way will help mitigate the risks posed by increased human activity while preserving the Arctic for future generations.
4. Elevate Indigenous Leadership
Indigenous peoples must play a central role in Arctic governance, as their traditional knowledge, cultural heritage, and sustainable practices are invaluable for preserving the region’s fragile environment. Indigenous communities have lived in the Arctic for millennia, developing a deep understanding of its ecosystems, weather patterns, and wildlife through generations of lived experience. This knowledge is holistic, encompassing ecological, cultural, and spiritual dimensions, and complements modern scientific approaches. Elevating Indigenous leadership is essential to create more equitable and effective governance structures. For instance, their representation in governance bodies such as the Arctic Council should be strengthened to provide them with decision-making power rather than an advisory capacity. Mechanisms must also be established to guarantee that Indigenous communities can veto projects that threaten their lands, waters, or cultural heritage. Moreover, Arctic governance must promote and protect Indigenous sovereignty by supporting self-governance initiatives. This includes providing funding and capacity-building programs to empower Indigenous communities to manage their resources and advocate for their interests. Efforts should also be made to protect Indigenous lands from industrial exploitation and to support cultural preservation through language revitalization and the safeguarding of sacred sites. Crucially, Indigenous knowledge should be integrated into governance frameworks. For example, traditional knowledge about wildlife migration patterns, sea ice behavior, and seasonal changes can provide critical insights into sustainable resource management and climate adaptation. By respecting and incorporating this knowledge, Arctic policies can become more inclusive and effective. Elevating Indigenous leadership is not only a matter of justice but also a practical necessity for addressing the complex challenges facing the Arctic.
Conclusion
The Arctic is no longer a distant frontier but a focal point where the urgent realities of a warming planet collide with competing visions for its future. As nations and corporations eye the region for its untapped wealth and strategic advantages, the fragile Arctic ecosystem faces unprecedented threats that could have devastating consequences not only for the region but for the entire planet. The current non-devletist trajectory, marked by militarisation, resource extraction and state-centric approaches, fails to address the need for long-term ecological preservation and equitable governance. To safeguard the Arctic’s future, the international community must adopt a fundamentally different approach, one that prioritises the region’s ecological integrity, respects the rights and leadership of Indigenous peoples and ensures that the Arctic is treated as a global commons rather than a battleground for competing interests. The Arctic’s global importance as a climate regulator, biodiversity hotspot and cultural heritage site is crucial. By rejecting exploitative agendas and embracing cooperative, sustainable solutions the international community has the opportunity to turn the Arctic into a model for responsible global stewardship, proving that ecological preservation and respect for human rights can triumph over short-term economic and strategic gains. The future of the Arctic, and by extension, the planet, depends on our willingness to make bold, transformative decisions today.
