Arctic Region – Melting Ice, Rising Tensions-Author Cam fl (tr) dr. Constantin CIOROBEA[1]
The Arctic is no longer the frozen and remote region it once was. As the ice melts, the geopolitical, economic and strategic regional stakes are rising.
The Arctic region is generally defined as the area of land and water north of latitude 66.5°N, also known as the Arctic Circle. The Arctic includes the Arctic Ocean, one of the world’s five major oceans, and part of each of the eight countries, known as the Arctic States, that border it. Although often seen as a remote and frozen wilderness, the Arctic region has gained global attention in recent decades due to the significant impact of climate change.
https://www.aissonline.org/en/opinions/arctic-cir…/1262
Activities in the Arctic are governed by the Arctic Council[2], the intergovernmental forum that promotes cooperation, coordination and interaction among Arctic states on issues common to the Arctic, in particular issues of sustainable development and protection of the Arctic environment, with the involvement of Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants. The Council was established in 1996 with the signing of the Ottawa Declaration. Only states with territories in the Arctic can be members of the Arctic Council (the member states are: Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the USA. All Arctic Council decisions and declarations require the consensus of the eight Arctic states.
The Arctic Council also comprises six Permanent Participants, representatives of Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants, the International Aleut Association, the Arctic Athabaskan Council, the International Gwich’in Council, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North and the Saami Council.
Observer status in the Arctic Council is open to non-Arctic states, along with intergovernmental, inter-parliamentary, global, regional and non-governmental organizations that the Council determines may contribute to its work. Arctic Council Observers contribute primarily through their engagement in Working Groups.
The region is currently undergoing a significant transformation driven by environmental changes, strategic repositioning and geopolitical tensions between major powers such as the United States, China, Russia and NATO. The melting ice caps have highlighted the possibility of new maritime routes such as the North Sea Route (NSR), greatly reducing the shipping distance between Europe and Asia, and offering economic benefits to countries seeking faster trade routes and lower transportation costs. They have intensified competition for strategic dominance and access to untapped resources, leading to a complex power struggle.
https://www.aissonline.org/en/opinions/arctic-cir…/1262
https://arcticportal.org/shipping-portlet/shipping-routes
Melting ice allowed the use of two shipping routes[3].
The Northwest Passage provides continuous passage between the islands and the Canadian mainland, a route that can be an alternative to existing transportation routes. Currently, the Northwest Passage is the shortest and most direct route linking the eastern regions of the United States with Alaska. The Northwest Passage is seen as a revolutionary route for large-scale ship transportation from the North Pacific to the North Atlantic Ocean. Despite the dispute between the United States and Canada, the passage is seen as a global variant that will influence trans-Arctic shipping operations in many countries. It is expected to provide a boost for international commercial use in the near future.
The Northeast Passage encompasses the northern part of the North Sea, through the icy waters of the Arctic Ocean, north of Russia, east of the Ciukchi Sea and the Bering Strait, to the North Pacific. Several straits in this passage can be classified as international. This passage makes the distance between Europe and Asia up to three times shorter, which allows commercial shipping companies to navigate in a very efficient way, it is faster and cheaper. As with the North-West Passage, the North-East Passage is limited for use due to extreme natural conditions based on geographical location. However, if climate change continues to effectively bring warmer air to the area, wind, ice and current conditions could lead to a more favorable sea route.
Looking at these shipping routes, Kirkenes/Norway, Murmansk/Russian Federation, Halifax/Canada and the future shipping hub in eastern Iceland will play an increasingly important role in providing this new shipping route through the Arctic, promoting the Norwegian port as a major ice-free port that can take up some of the growing demand for operating in the Russian port, Murmansk. The port of Kirkenes is a transfer hub between the Northern Maritime Corridor and the North Sea, and its position close to the Russian border means it can serve as a main destination for freight on Russian railways. Among the ports located in the Barents Sea basin, only Kirkenes has the necessary infrastructure for maintenance activities specific to the oil industry, and the 30 m deep harbor has a sufficiently large area with potential for development. And the city itself has both well organized airport and road infrastructure. The port provides energy, fuel and water for ships.
Apart from trade routes, the region’s mineral resources can also be considered of particular importance. Given that a large part of the Arctic lies in northern Russia, the mineral resources located in Greenland are of particular importance in the context of the global dependence on this type of resource. Greenland has, for example, among the world’s largest reserves of neodymium and praseodymium, which are essential in the production of technological equipment. The country also has considerable resources of gold, uranium, diamonds, lead, zinc and other precious minerals.
Source: The Guardian
Greenland’s rich potential is generating interest in the international mining industry and has a significant impact on the global economy. It attracts foreign investment and spurs local infrastructure development, and access to these resources can turn Greenland into a key player in the global minerals market.
Against this backdrop, the Arctic is no longer the isolated region it has been known as, as the ice melts, the geopolitical, economic and strategic regional stakes are becoming increasingly evident[4]. Thus this region, rich in resources such as oil, gas, fish and rare metals, has become a point of interest for global powers, and competition is intensifying for resources and shipping routes.
The Arctic holds vast untapped reserves, Greenland for rare metals, and Siberia is well-known for its energy. All this attracts the attention of nations with an interest in securing untapped resources and diversifying trade routes. For China, the potential of the Polar Silk Road, as part of the Belt and Road Initiative, holds both economic and strategic appeal. The Polar Silk Road, if operationalized, could dramatically reduce transport distances between China and Europe. A trip from Shanghai to Rotterdam on the Arctic route is about 6,400 kilometers shorter than traditional routes via the Strait of Malacca and the Suez Canal. This translates into substantial savings in time (around 14 sailing days) and costs.
The dependence of trade routes on mandatory crossing points/ straits (Suez, Malacca, Panama) or recent disruptions such as the Houthi attacks on merchant shipping vessels in the Red Sea highlights the potential value of Arctic shipping. Despite this, traffic along the Northern Sea Route remains negligible.
While the Arctic may appear as a short cut on the map, navigation in the region remains a real challenge. Despite melting ice, navigation conditions are becoming increasingly unpredictable due to large chunks of floating ice, extreme weather and prolonged darkness during the winter months. Ships venturing into the region must have improved hulls to withstand collisions with the ice, and the region lacks the robust infrastructure needed for commercial transportation. Currently the risks still outweigh the benefits.
Given the scale of the Arctic’s economic and commercial potential, it should come as no surprise that the world’s major powers are attempting to carve up the region, engaging in a veritable ‘gold rush’ that seems to be gathering pace.
The Arctic is not just an economic battleground, but a region where we see a growing strategic competition between major powers, and the recent accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO is tilting the balance of power even further towards NATO.
China, which geographically is not an Arctic state, has declared itself “close to the Arctic state.” Beijing’s ambitions are twofold: securing access to Arctic resources and exploiting emerging shipping lanes. Yet Russia remains wary of China’s encroachment on its Arctic dominance. While Moscow allows limited Chinese involvement in energy projects, it imposes strict controls, including transit fees and pilotage requirements for Chinese ships.
Despite their partnership against Western domination, Russia and China harbor conflicting Arctic ambitions. The Arctic accounts for a significant share of Russia’s GDP and exports and is a top priority for Moscow. Russia currently has the largest fleet of icebreakers. Apart from conventional icebreakers, Russia is the only country operating nuclear-powered icebreakers. Icebreakers are important for clearing the route, especially in winters when ice can block the transit of merchant ships. Russia views Chinese aspirations in the region with suspicion, evidenced by its reluctance to grant China preferential access to Arctic ports or to allow majority Chinese shares in strategic energy projects.
China, on the other hand, is taking a long-term approach. Investing heavily in Arctic research and developing technologies for polar shipping, icebreakers and resource extraction. By expanding its technological capabilities, China is positioning itself to harness the region’s potential in the coming decades. However, Beijing’s rhetoric around the Polar Silk Road has cooled significantly in recent years, reflecting the route’s logistical and geopolitical challenges. But Beijing has both the means and the motivation to become a major player in Arctic development and a credible participant in the race to gain access to its natural resources and trade routes.
China is at the forefront of research into permafrost and polar technology, as large swathes of it, particularly the western and southern Tibetan plateau, are covered in ice year-round. Beijing has therefore invested heavily in developing infrastructure to withstand freezing conditions and is building icebreakers to add to its growing fleet.
At the same time, given the Kremlin’s dependence on China as a key economic and trade partner and political ally, it would not be out of the question that Putin, if he has no other choice, could offer President Xi Jinping favorable arrangements for access to the region,
Influence in the region and access to the developing Arctic waterways are essential for Beijing, which is currently forced to conduct most of its trade through a number of key crossings outside its control. Like Russia, China has bought real estate in the Arctic countries and also has a number of satellite bases and antenna arrays. These are ost ostensibly for research purposes, but probably have a dual use. China is also arguing, along with other countries, that it should be involved in discussions at the highest level about the environmental impact of Arctic development, because of the potential damage rising sea levels could cause to major coastal cities like Shanghai.
The Arctic remains one of the few maritime regions where the US does not dominate. This has raised concerns among US defense strategists about Russia and China. US Admiral Daryl Caudle warns against allowing Russia to establish territorial claims over Arctic waters, similar to moves made by China in the South China Sea. While US icebreaker capabilities remain behind Russia, efforts are underway to bolster military readiness in the region. The United States has recognized the strategic importance of the Arctic region and has taken various steps to strengthen its presence in the region. With Alaska as part of its Arctic territory, the US maintains military bases, including in Greenland, and has established Arctic-specific strategies in various departments.
Russia, with its significant territory, population and resources in the Arctic, is a key player in the region. Despite imposed sanctions, Russia continues to invest in Arctic infrastructure and military presence in the region. However, the war in Ukraine has led to isolation within the Arctic Council, which, after the accession of Finland and Sweden, has become one with NATO, with the exception of Russia. While the West faces numerous challenges in asserting its interests in the Arctic, Russia, which has the longest Arctic coastline, has strategically positioned itself at the forefront of the race for regional dominance[5] One of the key areas where Russia has taken the lead is icebreaker technology. Icebreakers are indispensable tools for navigating the frozen waters of the Arctic, and Russia boasts the largest and most advanced fleet in the world.
In terms of trade and resource extraction, Russia claims ownership and control over a large part of the Arctic shipping route, the most accessible Arctic waterway, which could become a new artery for international trade.
The route stretches along Russia’s Arctic coastline and is therefore part of Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), allowing it to take control of Russia’s shipping, navigation and resource exploitation activities. Ships from other countries must therefore apply for permission to navigate these waters and may have to pay fees to be helped on the way by Russian icebreakers.
As the Arctic region changes and attracts more attention, Greenland is of growing geostrategic importance. Greenland is ruled by the monarch of Denmark and has its own prime minister and parliament. Thanks to this special status, Denmark is trying to reaffirm its commitment to Greenland’s independence, while at the same time working to temper demands from Washington and trying to avoid antagonizing China and Russia in the hope of preventing escalation in the region. The United States, in trying to counter Russia’s growing military power in the region and China’s declining influence in the Arctic, must also be careful not to exaggerate its own ambitions in Greenland and the region.
While Greenland’s unique situation provides an opportunity for America to influence and shape the demands of the island’s government, this does not mean that good relations are assured for the future. Greenland has already shown a willingness to work with non-Western states to secure its economic interests. Therefore, if US-Greenland-Denmark relations were to suddenly change, Russia and China would immediately seize the opportunity to use Greenland’s strategic position. For the time being, relations are stable and the current Prime Minister of Greenland intends to define the US as the most important strategic partner.
The Arctic is now at the epicenter of a potential geopolitical shift. With the return of Donald Trump to the White House, his administration has renewed interest in Arctic dominance, and the new approach to the relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, lead to the conclusion that we are on the brink of a new strategic shift. The controversy over Greenland points to a broader shift in the president’s Arctic strategy: a shift from the multilateral approach at the Alliance level to bilateral, US direct agreements to achieve a unilateral strategic posture.
https://www.aissonline.org/en/opinions/arctic-cir…/1262
The future of the Arctic as a trade route remains uncertain. While melting ice theoretically opens up new possibilities, challenges posed by harsh environmental conditions and geopolitical tensions limit its viability. The development of resource exploitation in the region depends on technological advances, changes in the global balance of power and cooperative programs for sustainable resource extraction.
Conclusions
Despite current obstacles, the Arctic remains a region of immense potential. For Russia, it is a lifeline to maintain its geopolitical relevance. For China, it is a strategic frontier for securing resources and diversifying trade routes. For the US and NATO, it is a region where they can counter the growing influence of Russia and China. The Arctic cannot yet rival the Suez Canal or the Strait of Malacca as a global trade artery, but regional competition is reshaping international relations.
The Arctic is undergoing rapid and unprecedented change, with melting sea ice and snow opening up new routes for shipping and tourism, as well as the possibility of resource extraction. This increased accessibility brings both opportunities and risks for the region. There is potential for economic benefits from oil, mineral exploitation as well as increased shipping and tourism.
The geopolitical situation in the Arctic presents opportunities for major powers to assert their influence and exert greater power. As a result, Greenland maintains its crucial importance in the US plan to pursue its own Arctic ambitions. Having played a strategic role during World War II and the Cold War, Greenland’s importance to US strategy is being revived. As Russia asserts its claims to shipping routes and resources in the region, along with the rapid remilitarization of its northern facilities, Greenland remains vital to US continental security. In addition, the island provides easier coordination between the US and its NATO allies in the Arctic region.
Moreover, China’s strategy to assert itself as an Arctic power includes access to Greenland. By targeting the rare earths and participating in infrastructure projects, China aims to gain influence and uncontested access to the Arctic. The U.S. will continue to use its diplomatic and military presence in Greenland to block China and coordinate with Denmark to ensure that potential economic and military security threats are managed. However, as long as climate change continues to alter the region, access to resources will become increasingly in demand and political disputes will escalate.
The development of the Arctic could change the balance of economic power by adding to the traditional maritime nations and Arctic states.
Bibliography
2. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0413_RO.html
5. https://adevarul.ro/blogurile-adevarul/oceanul-arctic-locul-viitoarei-confruntari-nato-2382443.html
6. https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctica
7. https://www.arcticcircle.org/journal/predicting-the-future-arctic-views-from-an-arctic-expert-survey
8. https://2021-2025.state.gov/national-strategy-for-the-arctic-region-nsar/
9. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2024/11/23/the-arctic-geopolitics-melting-ice-and-rising-tensions/
10. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2024/11/23/the-arctic-geopolitics-melting-ice-and-rising-tensions/
11. https://2021-2025.state.gov/national-strategy-for-the-arctic-region-nsar/
13. https://gandurileunuigeneral.ro/artica/
MARITIME SECURITY FORUM
[1] Maritime Security Forum
[2] https://arctic-council.org/about/
[3] https://arcticportal.org/shipping-portlet/shipping-routes
[4] https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2024/11/23/the-arctic-geopolitics-melting-ice-and-rising-tensions/
[5] https://adevarul.ro/stiri-externe/in-lume/batalia-globala-pentru-controlul-regiunii-arctice-2414217.html