Thawing Arctic Heats Up US-Russia Imperialist Instincts

Similarly, the northwest passage offers the shortest route between the east coast of the United States and Alaska. Add to that the likely substantial resources that the Arctic has, from oil and gas to minerals , and the entire region is beginning to look like a giant real estate deal in the making.

The economic promise of the Arctic, and particularly the region's greater accessibility, have also heightened military and security sensitivities.

The day before JD Vance's visit to Greenland on March 28 , Vladimir Putin, gave a speech at the sixth international Arctic forum in Murmansk in Russia's high north, warning of increased geopolitical rivalry.

While he claimed that“Russia has never threatened anyone in the Arctic”, he was also quick to emphasise that Moscow was“enhancing the combat capabilities of the Armed Forces, and modernising military infrastructure facilities” in the Arctic.

Equally worrying, Russia has increased its naval cooperation with China and given Beijing access, and a stake, in the Arctic. In April 2024, the two countries' navies signed a cooperation agreement on search and rescue missions on the high seas.

In September 2024, China participated in Russia's largest naval maneuvers in the post-Cold War era, Ocean-2024, which were conducted in the northern Pacific and Arctic waters. The following month, Russian and Chinese coast guard vessels conducted their first joint patrol in the Arctic. Vance, therefore, has a point when he urges Greenland and Denmark to cut a deal with the US because the“island isn't safe.”

That the Russia-China partnership has resulted in an increasingly military presence in the Arctic has not gone unnoticed in the west. Worried about the security of its Arctic territories, Canada has just announced a C$6 billion (US$4.2 billion) upgrade to facilities in the North American Aerospace Defense Command it operates jointly with the United States.

It will also acquire more submarines, icebreakers and fighter jets to bolster its Arctic defences and invest a further C$420 million into a greater presence of its armed forces.

Norway has similarly boosted its defence presence in the Arctic, especially in relation to the Svalbard archipelago (strategically located between the Norwegian mainland and the Arctic Circle).

This has prompted an angry response from Russia, wrongly claiming that Oslo was in violation of the 1920 Svalbard Treaty which awarded the archipelago to Norway with the proviso that it must not become host to Norwegian military bases.

Under the treaty, Russia has a right to a civilian presence there. The“commission on ensuring Russia's presence on the archipelago Spitzbergen”, the name Moscow uses for Svalbard, is chaired by Russian deputy prime minister Yury Trutnev, who is also Putin's envoy to the far eastern federal district. Trutnev has repeatedly complained about undue Norwegian restrictions on Russia's presence in Svalbard.

From the Kremlin's perspective, this is less about Russia's historical rights on Svalbard and more about Norway's – and NATO's – presence in a strategic location at the nexus of the Greenland, Barents, and Norwegian seas.

From there, maritime traffic along Russia's northeast passage can be monitored. If, and when, a central Arctic shipping route becomes viable, which would pass between Greenland and Svalbard, the strategic importance of the archipelago would increase further.

From Washington's perspective, Greenland is more important because of its closer proximity to the US. But Svalbard is critical to NATO for monitoring and countering Russian, and potentially Chinese, naval activities.

This bigger picture tends to get lost in Trump's White House, which is more concerned with its own immediate neighborhood and cares less about regional security leadership.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

Consequently, there has been no suggestion – so far – that the US needs to have Svalbard in the same way that Trump claims he needs Greenland to ensure US security. Nor has Russia issued any specific threats to Svalbard.

But it was noticeable that Putin, in his speech at the Arctic forum, discussed historical territorial issues, including an obscure 1910 proposal for a land swap between the US, Denmark, and Germany involving Greenland.

Putin also noted“that NATO countries are increasingly often designating the Far North as a springboard for possible conflicts.” It is not difficult to see Moscow's logic: if the US can claim Greenland for security reasons, Russia should do the same with Svalbard.

The conclusion to draw from this is not that Trump should aim to annex a sovereign Norwegian island next. Maritime geography in the North Atlantic underscores the importance of maintaining and strengthening long-established alliances.

Investing in expanded security cooperation with Denmark and Norway as part of NATO would secure US interests closer to home and send a strong message to Russia. It would also signal to the wider world that the US is not about to initiate a territorial reordering of global politics to suit exclusively the interests of Moscow, Beijing and Washington.

Stefan Wolff is professor of international security, University of Birmingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)