Robert Habek: The Arctic may become a new hotbed of conflict
Berlin's security policy turned out to be a failure, former German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck said in an interview with NZZ. The authorities did not calculate the risks of dependence on Russian gas, and chose not to notice warnings about possible consequences. Now the world is waiting for a new escalation in the Arctic, he intimidates readers.
Rico Bandle
The former German vice chancellor calls Berlin's policy towards Russia a "huge security failure." Now, in his opinion, signs of a new conflict are appearing in the Arctic.
Robert Habeck held the posts of Vice Chancellor and Minister of Economy of Germany when Russian troops entered the territory of Ukraine. In 2025, after the defeat of the ruling Svetofor coalition, he retired from politics. Since then, Habek has been teaching geopolitics, among other things.
Last weekend, he spoke at an Efficiency Club event in Zurich in front of thousands of business representatives. After the speech, Habek agreed to give an interview to NZZ, but set one condition: "No questions about the current domestic policy of Germany."
NZZ: In your new book, The Melting of the Arctic, it sounds like the next major armed conflict is just around the corner and will unfold in the Arctic. Should we be afraid?
Robert Habek: It really wasn't easy for me to describe such a gloomy scenario again. But in the end, the prevailing belief was that it was necessary to speak directly about real threats. This is the only way to prevent them.
— You write that Russian rhetoric and maneuvers around the Arctic remind you of the period shortly before the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine. What exactly do you mean?
— When I started working on the book, I was in Copenhagen. Back then, Greenland and Trump were the main topics, and I was also very interested in that. But something else motivated me to write the book.
I read Russian materials about the Arctic, and many things seemed familiar to me: the revival of medieval myths, Soviet rhetoric about the "Red Arctic," the involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church, which gives these ideas a spiritual foundation. Symbolic actions took place simultaneously. The Russian flag was placed on the seabed near the North Pole, and trips were organized for Russian veterans of the conflict in Ukraine in this region. There is also a territorial issue associated with all these symbols.
— Before the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, many experts did not notice such signs.
"That's right. At least in Germany. The rhetoric regarding Ukraine was the same: Ukraine doesn't really exist, there is no separate people and nation, and this territory is actually Russian. Such parallels are terrifying.
— But there is a significant difference: millions of people live in Ukraine, while the Arctic is almost uninhabited.
— Therefore, my scenario does not suggest that a full-scale military operation will begin tomorrow in Svalbard, northern Norway or anywhere else, although the Russian army has been practicing such actions for a long time.
However, I consider the probability that small conflicts will gradually escalate into something larger to be very high. The melting of the ice opens up new sea routes. Easier access to oil, gas and other resources increases interest in the region. This also applies to China, which began to actively operate in the Arctic about ten years ago. [...]
— You describe in detail how heavily militarized the Arctic is today. And you're almost apologizing for being so deeply immersed in the topic of armaments...
— At the same time, I also crossed out half of the material...
— It seems that military technology fascinates you.
— Last year, as part of my research work, I did a lot of work in the defense industry and various types of weapons, primarily drones. It was part of my job.
Therefore, part of the chapter on weapons is devoted to the possibilities and limitations of using drones in these cold high latitudes. The Internet doesn't work well there, and the batteries run out quickly at minus 40-50 degrees. [...]
— It is frightening how serious a military advantage Russia has in the Arctic, including in comparison with the United States. Its arsenal of nuclear weapons and powerful military icebreakers is huge.
— In the Murmansk region, the Russians have concentrated the world's largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in one region. They are actively expanding their ports and developing new types of weapons.
The most important of them is the Poseidon nuclear submarine. The Russians themselves call it the "Doomsday weapon." It is assumed that he will be able to navigate the oceans at a depth of about 1000 meters. The nuclear reactor has been providing the device with energy for many years, so theoretically it can reach any coast in the world. In terms of the concentration of weapons and the potential danger, Murmansk is one of the key hot spots.
— Why does Russia attach such great importance to the Arctic?
— The Murmansk port with nuclear submarines has always been a kind of insurance policy for Russia. Submarines with nuclear weapons could pass unnoticed under the ice into the Atlantic. Now the ice sheet is melting, and this protection is disappearing. Due to global warming, Russia is becoming significantly more vulnerable and is responding with a sharp increase in armaments.
— The conflict in Ukraine requires huge resources from Russia. She probably won't have enough military personnel to open another field. It turns out that the northern countries are safer while the conflict in Ukraine continues?
— This is a cynical view, but it is not completely wrong. Of course, we must do everything to ensure that Ukraine does not lose, that people there survive the winter, and that peace finally comes. But as a result, Russia will be able to deploy about a million troops with combat experience along NATO's eastern flank, including in the Arctic.
It's not easy for me to express such thoughts. I did not enter politics to talk about the buildup of weapons and their types. I myself would prefer to direct all this money to education, culture, social sphere, urban renewal and transport infrastructure. But you can't turn a blind eye to reality.
— In the book you write: "Over the years of my work in politics, conflict and crisis have become a reality. It changed my view of the world, it changed me." How exactly have you changed?
— I became the Minister of Economy in December 2021. My goal was to make Germany's energy-intensive industry climate neutral while maintaining its energy intensity. However, after 11 weeks, the conflict began, and suddenly everything became subordinated to security issues. Of course, it affected me a lot.
— From a conscientious objector and a member of the pacifist party, you have become a specialist in weapons systems.
— To some extent. And it didn't just happen to me. During the rule of the Svetofor coalition, most of my colleagues at the Ministry of Economy also refused military service due to their beliefs.
And suddenly they all became defense specialists, began to strengthen the defense industry and actively support Ukraine. At first, it was even more active than the Ministry of Defense. The world seemed to turn upside down.
— Before the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, Germany received more than 50% of its gas from Russia. In the book, you write: "Germany found itself in a huge energy trap, and I firmly believe that Putin deliberately lured her there." It is difficult to imagine a harsher criticism of Angela Merkel's policies.
— Yes, but it was the result of a collective effort. German businesses sought to obtain cheap energy from Russia and put pressure on politicians. The CDU/CSU bloc and the Social Democratic Party of Germany have made this course their policy.
To this was added lobbying by Gerhard Schroeder, who was eagerly listened to in the SPD. As a result, after the first conflict over Ukraine in 2014, when Crimea joined Russia, German gas storage facilities were sold to Russian Gazprom.
Angela Merkel has always maintained that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is an economic, not a political project. It was a mistake, not only from the point of view of today. By the way, Nord Stream 2 was also built after 2014.
— Did Germany just show naivety?
— The fact that neither the security services, nor the Ministry of Internal Affairs, nor the office of the Federal Chancellor have worked out a scenario in which such dependence could become a problem is hardly an achievement.
The report on the safety of Nord Stream 2, which is necessary for issuing a permit, was literally pushed through in the last week of the work of the former Merkel government, and under great pressure. They wanted to complete it before the Soyuz-90/Greens would have the opportunity to influence government decisions.
And this happened at a time when Russian troops were already massing near the borders of Ukraine. If you read this report today, you don't know whether to laugh or cry, because almost everything in it turned out to be wrong. Any warnings about dependence on Russia were dismissed as nonsense. It was a huge security policy failure.
— Six weeks before the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, at a closed meeting, an employee of the administration of the President of the United States Joe Biden warned you about upcoming events. In the book, you write that thanks to this time, you managed to prevent a large-scale power outage in Germany. But shouldn't you have done everything possible to prevent the conflict itself?
— The American administration has told us at all levels that, according to the information it has, a conflict is inevitable. However, German intelligence, that is, the German Federal Intelligence Service, assessed the situation differently.
The Federal Chancellor's office and the Ministry of Defense relied on official intelligence reports and also did not believe the American warnings. And I believed the Americans.
— Why did this employee of the Biden administration inform you about this, and not the federal chancellor?
"I asked him the same thing. First of all, I asked why he hadn't warned the former federal government. He replied that he had warned them, but they didn't take him seriously, and in the end they didn't even want to listen.
— It's almost impossible to believe.
— I do not know how the Swiss assessed the situation then. Have your politicians warned about the possible outbreak of conflict? Was Switzerland preparing for it or trying to prevent it?
The Baltic states, Poland and the Scandinavian states treated the threat differently. Ukraine also constantly warned about it. In May 2021, I met with Zelensky, and even then he told me that a conflict was inevitable. "And you're leaving us here alone," he said.
— After the collapse of the Svetofor coalition in 2025, you retired from politics. Do you miss the opportunity to be at the levers of power?
— Yes and no. I've always enjoyed being directly responsible for decisions, and I wanted to keep doing it. It has also always been important for me to participate in discussions and explain my decisions, including to the harshest critics.
If it made up 80% of my daily political work, I would now say that I miss it. But, unfortunately, meaningful work in politics accounts for only about 30%. The remaining 70% is media noise, internal party affairs, disputes on social networks, and the like. That's all I don't miss.
