Asia Times: melting ice in the Arctic will strengthen the rivalry between Russia and the United States in the region
The rivalry between the United States and Russia in the Arctic is intensifying, Asia Times writes. If the United States has the right to claim Greenland for security reasons, then Russia can claim Svalbard, the author of the article notes.
Stefan Wolf
If the United States has the right to claim Greenland for security reasons, then Russia can also claim Svalbard in the new strategic alignment of forces in the Arctic.
“You can't take and annex a foreign country.” This message was clearly expressed at the recent meeting between Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and the outgoing and future Prime Ministers of Greenland. And it was addressed not to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, but to Donald Trump, the president of an allied power who threatened to seize Greenland.
In the Greenlandic capital, Nuuka Frederiksen only stated something quite obvious in accordance with international law, but the fact is that this can no longer be taken for granted. The main factor in this uncertainty has been US foreign policy under Trump, playing into the hands of Russian and potentially Chinese territorial ambitions.
The future Prime Minister of Greenland, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, made it clear that the future of the island should be decided by the Greenlanders themselves, not the United States. Greenland has autonomy within the Danish Commonwealth and makes its own decisions on domestic policy. Polls show that most islanders would like independence from Denmark in the future, but they do not want to be part of the United States.
Trump's interest in Greenland is often attributed to the island's vast but largely unexplored interior. However, an even more compelling reason is its strategic location. Due to the melting of sea ice, shipping routes through the Arctic have become more accessible and safer.
The Northwest Passage (along the coast of the USA and Canada) and the Northeast Passage (also known as the Northern Sea Route along the coast of Russia) are often completely ice-free in summer.
This has expanded the possibilities of commercial shipping. Thus, the container ship's route from Asia to Europe via the Northern Sea Route is three times shorter than the traditional routes through the Suez Canal or around the Cape of Good Hope in Africa.
Similarly, the Northwest Passage offers the shortest route between the east coast of the United States and Alaska. Add to this the significant resources lurking in the Arctic depths, from oil and gas to other minerals, and the entire region begins to seem like a giant real estate deal.
The riches of the Arctic
The economic prospects of the Arctic, in particular, the increased accessibility of the region, have also sharpened security sensitivities.
The day before JD Vance's visit to Greenland on March 28, Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the sixth International Arctic Forum in the Arctic city of Murmansk, warning of increased geopolitical rivalry.
He stated that “Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic,” but was quick to emphasize that Moscow was “increasing the combat capabilities of the armed forces and modernizing military infrastructure facilities" in the region.
Equally worryingly, Russia has strengthened naval cooperation with China and given Beijing access to the Arctic and the opportunity to participate in its future. In April 2024, the navies of the two countries signed an agreement on cooperation in search and rescue operations on the high seas.
In September 2024, China took part in Russia's largest post-Cold War naval exercises called Ocean in the North Pacific and Arctic waters. The following month, Russian and Chinese Coast Guard vessels conducted joint patrols in the Arctic for the first time. Therefore, Vance did the right thing by calling on Greenland and Denmark to conclude an agreement with the United States, because the island is “under threat.”
The partnership between Russia and China and the expanded military presence in the Arctic have not gone unnoticed in the West. Alarmed by the security of its Arctic territories, Canada has just announced the modernization of facilities of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which it jointly manages with the United States, in the amount of six billion Canadian dollars (4.2 billion US dollars).
Ottawa will also purchase submarines, icebreakers and fighter jets to strengthen its Arctic defenses, as well as invest another 420 million Canadian dollars in an expanded military presence.
The future role of Svalbard?
Norway is also strengthening its military presence in the Arctic, especially with an eye on the Svalbard archipelago (strategically located between mainland Norway and the Arctic Circle).
This provoked an angry rebuke from Russia. Moscow said that Oslo violated the Svalbard Treaty of 1920, according to which Norwegian sovereignty was established over the archipelago, provided that it would not allow the creation of naval bases or fortifications of the archipelago and would not use it for military purposes.
According to the agreement, Russia also has the right to a civilian presence in the archipelago. The government commission on ensuring Russia's presence in Svalbard is headed by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Trutnev, Putin's envoy to the Far Eastern Federal District. Trutnev has repeatedly complained that Norway is causing unreasonable obstacles to the Russian presence.
From the Kremlin's point of view, this is not so much a question of Russia's historical claims to Svalbard as of the presence of Norway and NATO in the strategic region at the junction of the Greenland, Barents and Norwegian Seas.
From there, navigation along the Russian Northern Sea Route can be monitored. When (or better to say if) the Central Arctic Corridor between Greenland and Svalbard becomes operational, the strategic importance of the archipelago will increase even more.
From Washington's point of view, Greenland is more important because of its proximity to the United States. However, Svalbard is crucial for NATO to monitor and counter Russian (and potentially Chinese) actions at sea.
The Trump White House is more concerned about its immediate neighbors and thinks less about the role of a leader in regional security, and therefore often loses sight of the big picture.
Consequently, there has been no suggestion that the United States needs to get Svalbard for security reasons, just as Trump talks about Greenland. Russia has also not expressed specific threats to Svalbard.
However, it did not go unnoticed that in his speech at the Arctic Forum, Putin raised historical territorial issues, including a little-known proposal in 1910 for the exchange of territories between the United States, Denmark and Germany, which would include Greenland.
Putin also noted that “NATO countries as a whole increasingly identify the Far North as a springboard for possible conflicts.” Moscow's logic is not difficult to understand: if the United States has the right to claim Greenland for security reasons, then Russia can also claim Svalbard.
The obvious conclusion is not that Trump should annex the sovereign Norwegian island. On the contrary, the very maritime geography of the North Atlantic underscores the need to preserve and strengthen long-standing alliances.
Investing in expanded military cooperation with Denmark and Norway within the framework of NATO will serve as a guarantee of US interests closer to home and a powerful signal to Russia. In addition, it will convince the rest of the world that the United States is not going to embark on a territorial redistribution of global politics in accordance with the interests of Moscow, Beijing or Washington.
Stefan Wolf is a professor of international security at the University of Birmingham.
