Introduction
Long regarded as a forum for global cooperation on environmental protection and sustainable development, the Arctic – which covers an area of over 16.5 million square kilometres – has now become a new flashpoint between major powers. This interest stems from the fact that the Far North is rich in natural resources such as oil, liquefied natural gas and rare earth elements, which are essential for the development of electronic materials.
The spirit of cooperation that once characterised the post-Cold War era now seems to be giving way to a logic of rivalry, driven in particular by the growing ambitions of Russia and the United States in the region. Beyond simply coveting the natural resources trapped beneath the ice, this rivalry reflects a form of strategic competition between the United States, Russia and China, as they seek to assert their operational capabilities in the Arctic Circle.
These countries now view the Arctic region as a strategic and economic space of vital importance for the future, an interest driven primarily by two factors: on the one hand, the melting of the ice, which is opening up access to significant natural resources previously inaccessible; and on the other hand, the gradual opening of the shipping routes of the Far North, which offers new commercial opportunities on a global scale. This territory, which for a long time remained on the fringes of the geopolitical rivalries between the major powers, is now at the heart of global tensions that could tip the world towards a new Cold War scenario.
Added to this are relations within the Arctic Council, already weakened by economic and territorial disputes, which now appear to be sliding towards a phase of profound rupture, particularly since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This deterioration in relations has significantly strained ties between the Arctic states and Russia, which the former accuses of violating international law.
The rise in tensions in the Far North is bringing about significant changes for the Arctic nations, forcing them to strengthen their defence capabilities in order to respond to the belligerent attitudes of certain countries. Furthermore, the military and economic expansion pursued by Vladimir Putin since he came to power in 2000 now appears to give him a considerable strategic advantage. This is a delicate situation that places Arctic nations such as Canada and Denmark in a position of weakness, especially as the United States, once the undisputed ally of these nations, now appears to favour an expansionist agenda, going so far as to openly declare its intention to annex allied territories, as evidenced by Donald Trump’s recent statements regarding Greenland.
It is against this backdrop that this analysis aims to demonstrate the impact of US and Russian policies on Arctic nations, and more specifically on Canada. The escalation of geopolitical tensions in the region, coupled with the bellicose attitude of certain major powers, is pushing the Arctic nations into a corner, revealing a previously unseen vulnerability. They are being forced to rethink their collective defences and partnerships with their allies in order to safeguard their long-term interests in the region.
Operational advantage: a winning strategy for Vladimir Putin’s Russia
Since Vladimir Putin came to power in the early 2000s, Moscow’s quest for dominance in the Arctic has intensified considerably. Whilst Russia’s economic and military ambitions for the region seemed difficult to realise at the time, they now appear to be a decisive strategic choice for the future, giving Russia a considerable lead over the other Arctic nations. So much so that the country now possesses numerous military capabilities, such as naval bases housing ballistic missile submarines, permanent military installations and long-range ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States. Added to this is the fact that Russian icebreakers are also considered the most effective vessels for ensuring the safe passage of merchant ships using Arctic shipping routes. A military arsenal built up over the years, which could have a major impact on global geopolitics, leaving Canada and the United States vulnerable to missile strikes or Russian military incursions into their Arctic territories.
The acceleration of global warming is also leading to an increase in commercial shipping traffic in the region, which could give Moscow a significant share of the global freight market. The use of waterways such as the Northeast Passage could save one to two weeks in the transport of goods between Asia and Europe. This time saving would represent a major economic advantage for shipowners, particularly as the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal, considered the most important for maritime transport, now appear prone to a slowdown in traffic due to the geopolitical situation in those regions. This opportunity would allow Russia to strengthen its commercial and strategic influence in the Far North.
Beyond maritime routes, the Arctic is regarded as a vast reservoir of natural resources, including rare earth elements, oil and various strategic minerals. Access to these natural resources represents a significant strategic challenge for countries such as the United States and Russia, which wish to strengthen their influence in the High North in order to secure their presence on global markets.
It is indeed with this strategic development in mind that Russia has for several years been relying on the area around the city of Murmansk, which is a key hub for maritime trade, but also for Russian military strategy in the region. The city boasts one of the few deep-water ports within the Arctic Circle, allowing merchant ships to load and unload cargo all year round. It is also home to the ‘Arktika’-class nuclear-powered icebreakers, the flagship of the Russian Arctic fleet. Moscow is relying on their presence in the region to ensure the continuity of maritime trade and the export of resources, in order to offset the effects of the economic sanctions imposed by Europe following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The country is also seeking to develop its trade agreements with Asia in order to mitigate the impact of the sanctions on its economy.
The Russian Arctic region is also home to numerous facilities of strategic importance to the country’s economy, such as the Yamal LNG plant, considered one of the most significant facilities for liquefied natural gas extraction in the Arctic and a pillar of the Russian energy economy. Partly funded by the French group TotalEnergies, this facility was previously heavily focused on the European market, with around 49% of Russia’s liquefied natural gas production destined for Europe. However, the economic sanctions imposed by the European Union, as well as the withdrawal of partners such as TotalEnergies, have forced Russia to review its export strategy in order to ensure the sustainability of its economy.
We are thus witnessing a veritable race for dominance of the polar region, notably illustrated by initiatives from Canada and the United States aimed at extending their continental shelves in order to expand their exclusive economic zones by more than a million square kilometres. This approach also aims to protect the resources buried in the seabed, whilst claiming an additional portion of Arctic territory.
From dialogue to confrontation: the Arctic, the dawn of a Cold War
The exploitation of the Arctic by the major powers was once considered a pipe dream, given the climatic conditions that prevented the development of extraction and transport activities. However, global warming and the melting of the ice have brought about a major shift in countries’ ability to expand their activities in the region. Furthermore, the increase in transit times for merchant ships using the Northwest and Northeast Passages is now prompting states such as China, Russia, and the United States to review and intensify their expansion strategies in the area.
The Arctic now appears to be at the heart of geopolitical tensions between allies and rivals, a paradox that was hard to imagine just a few years ago, yet the reality is stark. The United States, a long-standing ally of Canada and the Arctic nations, is now seeking to lay claim to part of this territory in order to establish its hegemony in the region. This stance by the 47th President of the United States has not gone unanswered by his allies, particularly NATO members, who view the US President’s claims regarding Greenland as a barely concealed attempt to undermine relations between members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
The US desire to purchase Greenland actually dates back to the 19th century, a time when there was already talk of acquiring the territory for its natural resources and geographical location. This expansionist ambition has been revived by Donald Trump, who last January declared his intention to annex the territory for its wealth of natural resources, despite strong opposition from the American public. This interest in the region’s scarce resources is also shared by the United States’ two rivals, who view the Far North as the future sphere of influence for global markets.
The US president justifies his position by citing Greenland’s strategic importance for the defence of US territory, pointing out that Russia is positioning its ballistic missiles within striking range of the United States and that acquiring the island would allow the Americans to establish a security corridor to ensure the protection of the population.
China, for its part, has a lesser military presence in the region, as its interests are primarily focused on scientific research, seabed mapping and investment in foreign projects in the Arctic. However, the Chinese government regularly refers to its desire to develop a Polar Silk Road that would link Asia to Europe via the maritime routes of the Far North. To achieve this, China needs powerful partners in the region. It has, in fact, drawn closer to Russia in order to develop maritime trade and the export of liquefied natural gas to Asia. This is a partnership of mutual interest, given that Russia enjoys strategic superiority and, above all, possesses nuclear-powered icebreakers capable of cutting through thick layers of ice.
Against this backdrop, the other Arctic nations – such as Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland – are seeking to protect their territories and interests in the region. The idea of mutual support among Arctic nations now appears to be a priority in the face of the expansionist stance of certain leaders. NATO has, moreover, reacted to the US announcements regarding Greenland, stating that the organisation would oppose any military action by the United States. A stance that could have serious repercussions on relations between the organisation’s member states, particularly at a time of high tension.
This is a geopolitical situation that is not without risks, given the US’s stance since the start of the year. Notable examples include the military operation last January and the president’s numerous aggressive stances on the international stage. His actions suggest a certain departure from his obligations towards the United Nations and respect for international law, casting doubt on the possibility that he might order military action against Greenland. Furthermore, many countries have taken offence at his attitude towards Denmark, an ally, criticizing him for failing to respect the principle of state sovereignty established by international law.
Arctic nations such as Greenland and Denmark were quick to react. Indeed, they were the first to respond to the US president’s ambitions, affirming their determination to defend their territory and pointing out that Greenland remains a NATO territory. Other allies have also responded to the US stance, indicating their readiness to support the country both militarily and diplomatically, whilst strengthening their presence in the circumpolar region. Some states have even gone so far as to open consulates on the territory to demonstrate their support and commitment to the island’s security.
Canada, for example, inaugurated a consulate in Nuuk in a symbolic gesture, clearly demonstrating Ottawa’s determination to strengthen the protection of the Arctic and to stand alongside its allies. This gesture is all the more significant given that the island has historical ties with the country and that Donald Trump’s expansionist ambitions could also threaten Canada’s Arctic territories.
France, along with several other members of the European Union, has also taken a stand in support of Greenland by deploying military assets to the region and participating in Operation Arctic Endurance. A multinational mission launched by NATO, aimed at demonstrating the organisation’s and the participating countries’ ability to defend their interests in the region, whilst ensuring the security of Arctic territories and acting as a deterrent against pressure from Russia and the United States in the region.
Beyond the geopolitical tensions specific to the Arctic region, it is the entire international architecture that could be affected by a breakdown in relations between NATO’s allied nations. This is all the more so as President Donald Trump appears ready to call into question his commitments to international organisations and his European partners in order to achieve his ends. A prospect that seems absurd given the fundamental role these institutions play in global stability, but which is increasingly making headlines, creating a climate of insecurity that could lead to serious diplomatic tensions across the world.
Conclusion
The situation in the Arctic is a cause for considerable concern. Many articles on the subject suggest that the region could be at the heart of a future conflict between major powers and that a climate of tension comparable to that of the Cold War prevails there. The Arctic nations appear less inclined to defend themselves alone against the expansionist ambitions of the United States or Russia.
To respond to these displays of force and the escalating tensions in the region, Arctic nations such as Greenland, Canada, Denmark, Sweden and Norway must coordinate their military operations to strengthen their position on the international stage, whilst demonstrating their ability to defend their interests in the region. They must also forge closer ties with NATO to ensure the region’s security and expand the presence of military forces in international and national waters in order to counter US demands regarding Greenland.
Canada, for its part, must particularly seek to consolidate its partnerships with Arctic nations in order to protect itself against the expansionist ambitions of the major powers. Ottawa must also promote structured trade cooperation to respond to the rise in trade flows in the Far North. However, it must not be forgotten that Canada maintains close ties with the United States regarding the defence of its airspace. Ottawa must therefore play a balancing act: on the one hand, maintaining its partnership with the United States to ensure the protection of its national territory through defence mechanisms such as NORAD or the maritime and air patrols already significantly reinforced in the region; and on the other, forging closer ties with countries in the region to protect itself from its ally, which now appears to be coveting its territory.
It would also be beneficial for both Canada and Denmark to deepen their cooperation on territorial protection to ensure mutual assistance in the event of a violation of their territorial sovereignty. Added to this is the fact that both partners should strengthen their national defence agreements with France, which appears to be steering its Arctic policy towards a strategy of cohesion regarding the defence of territories within the Arctic Circle.
Comments are closed.