The Arctic is rapidly transforming from a remote and underdeveloped region into a key battleground in international politics. Global warming is opening new trade routes, facilitating access to vast natural resources, and making the region increasingly attractive to major powers with strong economic and military capabilities. However, alongside these opportunities, the Arctic is also becoming a stage for geopolitical rivalry, where traditional governance mechanisms are losing effectiveness, and international cooperation is giving way to political discord.
Until recently, the Arctic Council, established to coordinate environmental and sustainable development efforts, served as the primary platform for dialogue. However, since 2022, its work has been effectively paralyzed, as seven Western countries suspended cooperation with Russia—the nation that controls nearly half of the Arctic territory. As a result, the region has been left without a functioning governance mechanism, fueling new strategic initiatives by various global players.
The U.S. Expands Its Arctic Presence
The United States has been strengthening its military and economic presence in the Arctic, viewing it as a zone of strategic interest. In American political discourse, the idea of increased control over Greenland—an island rich in natural resources—has resurfaced. In January 2025, newly elected U.S. President Donald Trump declared his intention to incorporate Greenland into the United States, citing the need to ensure international security. Despite Denmark’s repeated refusals, Trump expressed confidence that this move would eventually happen.
At the same time, Trump has called on Canada to become the 51st U.S. state, arguing that such a move would provide economic stability and protection from external threats. However, Canadian officials have categorically rejected the idea, stating that the country “will never become part of the United States.” These statements have sparked backlash not only in Canada and Denmark but also among European leaders, who voiced serious concerns over Trump’s remarks.
Russia’s Arctic Strategy: Adapting to the New Reality
In response to these geopolitical shifts, Moscow is recalibrating its Arctic strategy, prioritizing self-sufficient regional development and alternative formats for international cooperation. Russia sees the Arctic as a strategically vital region with enormous economic potential. In recent years, Moscow has actively invested in infrastructure projects aimed at expanding the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and developing its natural resources.
However, amid rising geopolitical tensions and the weakening of international cooperation mechanisms, Russia is seeking new avenues for engagement in the Arctic. One key initiative is the upcoming International Arctic Forum, “Arctic – Territory of Dialogue 2025,” set to take place on March 26–27, 2025, in Murmansk. The event is expected to host over 2,500 participants from 50 countries, including delegations from China and India—a clear signal of Russia’s intent to strengthen ties with Asian partners.
The forum will serve as a platform to discuss critical Arctic issues, such as the development of the Northern Sea Route, investment opportunities, environmental security, and the protection of Indigenous communities. The Kremlin aims to use this event to demonstrate Russia’s willingness to engage in dialogue and explore new governance models that reflect the evolving geopolitical landscape.
A Shifting Global Order in the Arctic
The situation in the Arctic underscores broader shifts in international relations. Trump’s bold statements about annexing Greenland and making Canada the 51st U.S. state have heightened tensions in the region and drawn sharp criticism from European allies and global diplomatic circles. Meanwhile, Russia is doubling down on its independent Arctic development strategy and working to establish new governance structures, particularly by fostering closer cooperation with Asian nations.
Moscow’s success in the Arctic will hinge on its ability to balance economic ambitions, diplomatic maneuvering, and military-strategic positioning amid increasing competition and geopolitical uncertainty.
For Western Arctic nations—such as Norway, Denmark, and Iceland—it will be crucial to monitor developments closely and ensure they remain actively engaged in shaping the region’s future governance. With traditional Arctic governance mechanisms, such as the Arctic Council, facing a crisis of relevance, Western countries must seize emerging opportunities for diplomatic and economic engagement through new platforms and alliances.
Looking ahead, European Arctic nations may need to rethink their approach, prioritizing participation in new cooperation formats and maintaining a strategic dialogue with other global players, including China and India, which are becoming increasingly influential in the region. Should Western countries fail to act with sufficient flexibility and initiative, their interests risk being sidelined by more ambitious players who are actively expanding their Arctic influence.
Ultimately, for the West, adapting to these changing geopolitical realities and actively shaping new governance mechanisms will be essential to securing their position and interests in the emerging Arctic order.
Comments