Arctic Geopolitics: The Worldwide Battle for Polar Dominance - Part II

Introduction

The Arctic is changing faster than almost anywhere on Earth.

The region is warming two to four times quicker than the rest of the world. This rapid warming is opening up shipping routes and making oil and gas easier to extract. When this happens, powerful nations race to control these new opportunities.

The Arctic matters because it holds enormous amounts of oil, natural gas, and valuable minerals. It also offers new shipping paths between Asia and Europe that could cut travel time by two to three weeks.

Russia has the most military power in the Arctic and controls most of the oil and gas production there. The United States, Canada, and European nations are now building up their military presence to compete. China and India, though not Arctic nations, are also pushing to play bigger roles in Arctic affairs.

All of this competition is happening under international law that says countries cannot simply grab territory. Instead, nations must follow rules and prove their claims scientifically.

The Arctic's Transformation Through History

For centuries, the Arctic was considered impossible to reach and therefore not worth much attention. Explorers and scientists studied it, but nations did not compete heavily for control.

In 1996, countries created the Arctic Council to manage the region cooperatively. For many years, this council worked well, keeping the Arctic peaceful and focused on science and environmental protection.

Everything changed when climate science showed that the Arctic was warming dramatically. The ice that had locked the region for thousands of years started melting. This opened possibilities that seemed impossible before.

Ships could now travel through Arctic waters during summer months. Oil and gas companies could reach reserves that were previously locked under thick ice. Suddenly, the Arctic became valuable in ways no one had anticipated.

The most dramatic shift came when two Nordic countries—Finland and Sweden—joined NATO in 2023 and 2024.

NATO is a military alliance that includes the United States and most of Europe. When these countries joined, NATO's military territory suddenly expanded all the way to the Arctic.

Russia saw this as a threat surrounding its northern borders. This event transformed the Arctic from a peaceful scientific zone into a region of serious military competition.

Understanding the Arctic's Riches

The Arctic contains roughly 10% of the world's undiscovered oil and 25% of the world's natural gas. These numbers mean the Arctic holds enormous energy reserves. A 2008 scientific study suggested the Arctic has about $90 billion barrels of oil waiting to be discovered.

The natural gas reserves are even larger. Most of these reserves are concentrated in three areas: the Beaufort Sea, the northwestern Russian Arctic, and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

Beyond oil and gas, the Arctic ecosystem provides services worth hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The region's ice and snow reflect sunlight away from Earth, helping to cool the planet. The ocean absorbs carbon dioxide, reducing carbon in the atmosphere.

Fish populations support traditional hunting and fishing. These ecosystem services—the free benefits that nature provides—are becoming increasingly valuable as climate change intensifies globally.

The opening of Arctic shipping routes adds enormous economic potential. Ships travelling from Asia to Europe through Arctic waters could save 14-20 days compared to traditional routes through the Suez Canal or around Africa.

This time savings translates to substantial fuel savings and reduced shipping costs. Some experts believe Arctic shipping routes could eventually handle thousands of ships annually.

However, Arctic navigation remains dangerous and expensive because of harsh weather, inadequate infrastructure, and the lack of rescue capabilities.

The Military Competition Intensifies

Russia's Northern Fleet operates submarines carrying nuclear weapons. These submarines patrol the Arctic waters around Russia, ensuring that Russia can always respond if attacked.

Russia possesses more than forty icebreaker ships—vessels that can break through ice to maintain navigation routes.

The United States, by comparison, has only two icebreakers. This imbalance reflects how much more Russia has invested in Arctic capabilities.

Russia has also revitalised more than fifty military bases throughout the Arctic. These bases are equipped with advanced missiles, radar systems, and air defence equipment. Russia positions submarines carrying advanced missiles in Arctic waters. Russia sees the Arctic as absolutely critical to its national security.

The Russian government has made explicit statements that it intends to dramatically increase military capabilities in the Arctic over the coming years.

NATO has responded by increasing military exercises in Arctic regions. Finland and Sweden, now NATO members, have integrated their militaries into the alliance's command structures.

NATO has established new military command centres in Nordic countries and is planning to build additional capabilities. The alliance conducted the largest military exercise in Arctic waters in 2024, signalling serious commitment to Arctic presence. However, NATO's icebreaker fleet remains far smaller than Russia's, creating a disadvantage in Arctic operations.

This military buildup creates danger. Russian and NATO aircraft fly near each other over Arctic waters. Naval ships operate in close proximity. When militaries operate so closely with limited communication mechanisms, accidents become more likely.

A collision between aircraft or naval vessels could escalate into a more serious conflict. The Arctic's extreme environment—darkness, ice, unpredictable weather—makes these operations even more dangerous.

The Rules: International Law and Territorial Claims

International law establishes clear principles about territorial expansion. The United Nations Charter, signed after the Second World War, declared that countries cannot use military force to seize territory.

This principle is absolute—if a country conquers land through force, the international community considers the conquest invalid and illegal.

Territorial integrity, meaning the right of nations to keep their existing borders, is considered fundamental.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea creates a specific system for Arctic territorial claims. Countries can claim ocean floor resources extending beyond their normal territorial waters, but only if they can prove scientifically that underwater mountains or ridges are extensions of their continental landmass.

The United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf examines these scientific claims. If multiple countries make overlapping claims, they must negotiate with each other to resolve the dispute. No country can simply declare it owns the Arctic; instead, countries must follow procedures and reach agreements.

Russia, Denmark (through Greenland), and Canada all claim the same underwater mountain range called the Lomonosov Ridge.

Russia says the ridge is an extension of Siberia. Denmark says it is an extension of Greenland. Canada makes a similar claim. These overlapping claims have not been resolved. Instead, the countries have agreed to continue negotiations.

Russia has also claimed additional underwater areas, and the United Nations Commission is evaluating these claims. The process moves slowly because it relies on scientific evidence and careful evaluation.

The United States has not signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which limits its ability to make official Arctic territorial claims. However, the United States released geographic coordinates defining its continental shelf in December 2023.

Experts disagree about whether this action establishes valid American claims without formal UN process.

Emerging Threats and Uncertainties

Multiple complications threaten Arctic stability.

First, the existing legal frameworks were created before Arctic climate change became severe. As ice melts and geography transforms, the relevance of historical claims changes. The legal system assumes geography remains stable, but the Arctic's geography is changing fundamentally.

Second, the military competition has created situations where accidents could escalate into conflicts. Russia and NATO militaries operate in close proximity without adequate communication channels. If an aircraft collides or a ship encounters another by accident, miscommunication could cause escalation.

Third, countries outside the Arctic—particularly China and India—want greater roles in Arctic governance. Yet the institutional frameworks, especially the Arctic Council, were designed for Arctic nations only. This creates friction between Arctic and non-Arctic powers. As competition intensifies, these governance gaps could become more problematic.

Fourth, the Arctic Council has become paralysed. This institution was designed to manage Arctic affairs cooperatively. Russia typically participated actively. However, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, other Arctic nations suspended cooperation with Russia through the council.

The council now struggles to function because it requires unanimous agreement from all member states, and that agreement is no longer possible.

Conclusion

Possible Futures: How the Arctic Might Develop

Multiple possible futures exist for the Arctic. In an optimistic scenario, countries resolve their differences diplomatically. They negotiate final settlements to territorial disputes, establish military rules of engagement to prevent accidents, and revive the Arctic Council to address shared challenges. This scenario would require improved relations between Russia and the West, probably following a resolution to the Ukraine conflict.

In a more pessimistic scenario, militarisation continues escalating. Russia increases military capabilities, and NATO responds in kind. An accident or miscalculation leads to a military incident. Poor communication allows the incident to escalate into armed conflict. This scenario reflects the dangers of military buildups without adequate control mechanisms.

A third possibility involves the Arctic dividing into separate spheres of influence. Russia and China dominate the Siberian Arctic and the Northern Sea Route. NATO dominates the Canadian Arctic and Northwest Passage.

Territorial claims remain unresolved but are managed through implicit agreements rather than formal legal processes. This outcome would represent a return to great power spheres of influence that dominated international relations before the Second World War.

A fourth possibility is that climate change becomes so severe that it forces cooperation. Catastrophic ice loss and ecosystem collapse create global consequences. These disasters compel nations to cooperate on Arctic governance as part of international climate action.

This scenario depends on environmental change moving faster than current models predict.