Introduction
By 2045, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer. While this signals a failure in climate policy, it has also opened the region as a potential new route for international trade. Additionally, previously inaccessible resources may soon become available for extraction, including 13% of global oil reserves and over 30% of the world’s natural gas. This could explain Donald Trump’s renewed interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark. However, the Arctic is not solely a U.S. concern—Canada, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia are all key players in the region. Russia, in particular, sees the Arctic as a critical component of its maritime strategy, prompting responses from Western leaders. This article examines the positions of major stakeholders in the Arctic, analyzing recent developments in a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape. The question remains: who will emerge dominant in the race for Arctic influence?
U.S. and Greenland: New Tensions?
The United States, under President Donald Trump, has introduced new tensions in the Arctic, particularly concerning Denmark and Greenland. Both Denmark and Greenland are NATO allies and cooperating states within the Arctic Council, making this a significant geopolitical development. While American interest in Greenland is longstanding, Trump’s renewed focus has added a new dimension to the discussion.
Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory with a population of approximately 57,000, has been the subject of U.S. interest for over a century. In 1946, President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million (equivalent to $1.2 billion today) for the island, though the bid was unsuccessful. A 1951 defense treaty allowed the U.S. to establish an air base, which remains its primary presence in Greenland, aside from a consulate.
Trump’s rationale for acquiring Greenland extends beyond strategic security to economic concerns. China, the U.S.’s primary geopolitical rival, controls 70% of global rare earth production and 90% of processing capacity. Greenland offers an alternative resource base, but challenges persist, including low concentrations of rare earth metals (1–6%) and logistical difficulties posed by Arctic conditions.
Resistance to Trump’s proposal has been strong. France expressed support for Denmark, even offering to send troops to Greenland, an offer Denmark declined. Public sentiment in Greenland is overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. annexation, with 85% against, 6% in favor, and 9% undecided.
Trump’s push for Greenland has unsettled Arctic geopolitics and raised concerns among NATO allies. Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen has invoked NATO’s Article 5 as a safeguard for Greenland but views Trump’s rhetoric as a broader signal of U.S. commitment to Arctic security rather than an outright attempt at annexation. Whether this assumption holds true remains to be seen.
Canada
Canada’s Arctic policy emphasizes cooperation and stability, prioritizing investment in Indigenous communities and climate change mitigation. As an active member of the Arctic Council, Canada has historically promoted a low-tension approach. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted Canada and its Arctic allies to reassess strategic priorities.
The Arctic and Northern Policy Framework outlines Canada’s long-term approach to the region, with key initiatives including:
- £4 billion for Indigenous housing (2024–2031)
- £10.9 million for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor)
- £6.9 million for early warning systems for extreme weather events
However, defense concerns have increasingly taken center stage. In April 2024, Canada announced £8.1 billion in Arctic defense spending over five years and £74 billion over twenty years. Key defense investments include:
- £218 million for Arctic operations hubs
- £222 million for a new satellite ground station
While there is bipartisan support for Arctic military investment, it competes with broader policy priorities.
Iceland
Iceland’s Arctic policy is centered on environmental responsibility and international cooperation. The country aligns its policies with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and promotes renewable energy initiatives. As a NATO member, Iceland plays a strategic role in Arctic security, operating NATO air defense and surveillance systems and contributing to NORTHLINK, a multinational Arctic satellite project.
The Nordic Region
Norway, Sweden, and Finland share common objectives in the Arctic, including:
- Promoting international law and governance
- Countering Russian military activity
- Strengthening Arctic military capabilities
Norway has invested heavily in military assets, including F-35 fighter jets, P-8 patrol aircraft, and submarines. Sweden and Finland, now full NATO members, are expanding military capacities in response to regional security challenges.
Despite their security alignment, economic interests vary. As EU members, Sweden and Finland oppose unsustainable Arctic resource extraction. Norway, however, relies heavily on Arctic oil and gas, making environmental restrictions less viable. In 2020, Norway issued eight new petroleum licenses in the Barents Sea, an area containing an estimated 15.1 billion barrels of oil and 1,120 billion cubic meters of gas. Given its energy dependence, Norway is unlikely to halt drilling activities.
Russia
Russia’s assertive Arctic strategy has prompted Western responses. Since 2005, Russia has:
- Reopened over 50 Soviet-era Arctic military bases
- Established a 3-to-1 advantage in Arctic military bases compared to NATO
- Built the world’s largest icebreaker fleet (40 vessels compared to NATO’s 32)
- Deployed the largest Arctic military force
Beyond military expansion, Russia is developing Arctic fossil fuel production, including a $110 billion mega port on the Taymyr Peninsula. By 2030, it aims to export 100 million tonnes of oil annually. The United Nations has also recognized Russia’s claim to an oil- and gas-rich seabed beneath the North Pole.
Additionally, Russia is working to expand cargo traffic along the Northern Sea Route, with a target of 72 million tonnes by 2035. China, viewing the route as a potential alternative to the Suez Canal, supports this effort, as it could reduce shipping times from China to Rotterdam by up to 29 days. Western leaders view this growing Russia-China partnership with concern.
Conclusion
Russia has taken decisive steps to secure its Arctic dominance, while Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland highlights U.S. concerns over Russian expansion. However, Trump’s approach has also created tensions within NATO, potentially benefiting Russia. With China’s support, Russia appears well-positioned to reshape Arctic geopolitics, solidifying the region as a critical geopolitical battleground in 2025 and beyond.