US President Donald Trump’s recent statements about the need to acquire Greenland caused considerable division within the transatlantic community. Fortunately, these tensions appear to have been resolved for now. One positive consequence of the Greenland debate, however, has been to elevate the strategic importance of the Arctic region on the international agenda.
The Arctic region is home to some of the harshest terrain and environmental conditions on Earth. There are eight countries that can call themselves Arctic states: the US, Canada, Denmark via Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. Many more countries are now seeking to expand their influence in the region.
The region is important for scientific, environmental, trade, transit, and energy reasons. Tourism has also been growing, boosting local economic activity. The region is widely believed to contain vast amounts of untapped oil and gas reserves, along with significant quantities of rare earth minerals. The challenge lies in finding ways to access and extract these resources that are both economically viable and environmentally responsible. This is made even more difficult by the lack of infrastructure and limited logistical connectivity.
The Arctic Council, an intergovernmental body led by the eight Arctic states, was established to promote cooperation on issues such as search and rescue coordination, environmental protection, and scientific research. However, the council has all but stopped functioning since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, severely limiting one of the few institutional mechanisms for Arctic-wide cooperation.
For the US, it is clear that the Trump administration views the Arctic primarily through the lens of great power competition. The US became an Arctic state in the 1860s with the purchase of Alaska from Russia. What was widely seen at the time as a mistake has since proven to be one of the most strategic decisions made in the post-Civil War era. Despite the rhetoric from multiple Washington administrations, however, relatively little emphasis has been placed on improving American capabilities or presence in the Arctic. For example, the US Coast Guard currently operates only one heavy icebreaker there.
So far in his first year in office, Trump has placed renewed focus on the region, including moving forward with a significant purchase of new icebreakers in cooperation with Finland. Even during the first Trump administration, the US role in the Arctic was framed largely in the context of great-power competition, particularly in relation to China. There is little reason to assume the second Trump administration will approach the region any differently.
Russia is the world’s largest Arctic state, with roughly half the world’s Arctic coastline located within the Russian Federation. For Moscow, the Arctic has long been a source of national pride and identity, dating back to the era of Peter the Great. After many Arctic bases and military facilities were shuttered at the end of the Cold War, President Vladimir Putin has invested heavily in reopening, modernizing, and expanding these installations. In recent years, Russia has also fielded specialized military units designed to operate in extreme Arctic conditions.
Trump has placed renewed focus on the region.
Luke Coffey
Moscow also views the Northern Sea Route, the shipping corridor between Europe and Asia that runs along its Arctic coastline, as both geopolitically and economically significant. Russia has invested substantially in infrastructure along this route in an effort to attract more commercial shipping between European and Asian markets. However, many of Russia’s ambitious cargo-volume targets have not been met, and it remains unclear whether the route will become as commercially viable as Russian officials hope.
For China, the Arctic represents yet another region where Beijing seeks to expand its global influence. Although China is not an Arctic country, it has declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” despite being roughly 1,200 km from the Arctic Circle at its closest point. Beijing has leveraged international institutions such as the Arctic Council to expand its presence in the region and has taken advantage of Russia’s growing isolation from the West to deepen Arctic cooperation with Moscow, often in ways that disproportionately benefit China.
China has tried to pursue investments in key Arctic infrastructure projects, including some located in NATO members, and maintains a small, but strategically significant, scientific outpost in Norway’s Svalbard archipelago. While China has not conducted overt military activity above the Arctic Circle, it has sent numerous scientific missions, research vessels, and icebreakers to the region — assets that could serve dual civilian and military purposes. In the years ahead, China can be expected to seek an even greater role in the Arctic.
Meanwhile, it has not always been clear to Europeans, beyond those countries that are Arctic states, what role the rest of the Continent should play in the region. While the EU as an institution holds policy competencies over many issues that directly affect the Arctic, member states that are Arctic countries have largely kept decision-making at the national level. In fact, the EU has attempted multiple times to join the Arctic Council as an observer, only to be blocked.
In the wake of Trump’s rhetoric over Greenland, however, Europe has begun to step up its engagement in the Arctic, a development that will be welcomed in Washington. From a security perspective, the accession of Finland and Sweden into NATO means that seven of the eight Arctic states now fall under the same security umbrella. For the first time, NATO itself has adopted a more direct and active role in the region.
Still, the future of Arctic cooperation hinges on the growing competition and divisions among the great powers. With relations between the West and China increasingly uncertain, and with the Arctic Council sharply reducing its activities due to the breakdown in relations between Russia and the other Arctic states, it is clear that the region will remain a zone of sustained competition. What must be avoided at all costs is allowing the Arctic to become the next theater of global conflict.
BY: Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect The Times Union‘ point of view
