.jpg)
Listen to this episode on: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Youtube
The last few months have seen major shifts in the balance of power in the far north, with the US making threats toward Greenland, Russia exerting pressure on Svalbard, and Arctic shipping routes, once seen as a counterweight to the Suez Canal, are now increasingly having their viability called into question. So as Greenland heads to the polls, the territory finds itself voting on far more than just a new legislature; instead deciding on the makeup of a future arctic flashpoint that could see NATO facing pressures from both the east and the west. This week, we sit down with our expert panel to analyse how we arrived at this position, the economic factors most people overlook when discussing the Arctic, and how likely these geopolitical tensions are to escalate into conflict.
LISTEN TO THE PROGRAM HERE
EPISODE SUMMARY:
PART I: Breaking the Ice - (02:56)
with Jennifer Spence
- Snr Fellow at the Harvard Belfer Center
- Director of the Arctic Initiative
- Co-chairs the Arctic Research Cooperation and Diplomacy Research Priority Team
Geopolitical and Economic Stakes in the Arctic: Russia's invasion of Ukraine has reshaped Arctic geopolitics, with Western-Arctic cooperation significantly curtailed. While the Arctic is often discussed in terms of vast resource potential—oil, gas, rare earths, and fisheries—economic viability remains highly uncertain. High extraction costs, extreme conditions, and insufficient infrastructure mean that, outside of Norwegian and Russian projects, large-scale Arctic resource exploitation is still speculative.
Challenges to Arctic Resource Extraction: Arctic oil extraction remains economically prohibitive, with estimated costs between $100–$250 per barrel, far exceeding current oil prices. The ExxonMobil-Rosneft Arctic oil venture highlighted Western technological superiority but collapsed under US sanctions after Crimea’s annexation. Despite some technological advancements, the hostile Arctic environment, coupled with geopolitical instability, remains a formidable barrier to viable energy exploitation.
Strategic Limitations of Arctic Shipping Routes: The perceived economic advantages of Arctic shipping—shorter transit times via the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and Northwest Passage—are outweighed by operational risks. These routes lack essential infrastructure, face unpredictable ice conditions, and suffer from extreme weather unpredictability. Insurance premiums alone render Arctic transit uncompetitive, with additional costs stemming from emergency response limitations and Russian geopolitical control over key routes.
Russia’s Arctic Militarisation and Strategic Posture: Russia continues significant dual-use infrastructure development in the Arctic, with military assets reinforcing economic claims. Given that Arctic resources form a core component of Russia's economy, its military build-up serves both defensive and economic imperatives. Despite cooperation rhetoric, Russia remains wary of overreliance on China for Arctic development, maintaining strategic autonomy wherever possible.
Geopolitical Disputes and Western Arctic Policy: The US, Canada, and Denmark are refining their Arctic strategies, balancing military, economic, and environmental considerations. While Greenland remains strategically significant for US missile defence and military basing, large-scale economic projects remain speculative. Meanwhile, US-Canadian disputes over the Northwest Passage persist, with Washington asserting international strait status while Ottawa claims sovereign internal waters, an issue likely to intensify as Arctic accessibility increases.
PART II: The Greener Grass - (28:45)
with Nicolas Jouan
- Senior Analyst at RAND Europe
- Fmr Market Analyst at GlobalData
- Fmr Defence Analyst with the French Min. of Armed Forces
Arctic Shipping and Infrastructure Limitations: Despite theoretical viability, Arctic shipping routes remain commercially marginal due to extreme environmental challenges, lack of GPS coverage, insufficient infrastructure, and prohibitive insurance costs. These factors prevent Arctic trade from significantly impacting global shipping patterns, keeping reliance on traditional southern maritime routes intact.
Resource Extraction and Economic Viability: While Arctic energy and mineral reserves hold potential, their extraction remains constrained by logistical difficulties, high costs, and a lack of supporting infrastructure. Western nations remain minimally dependent on Arctic resources, with Chinese investments largely limited to fishing rather than large-scale mining or energy exploitation.
US Strategic Interests in Greenland: Greenland remains integral to US homeland security, forming a critical node within NORAD’s early warning system. However, its increasing push for independence raises uncertainty over continued US basing rights, complicating Denmark’s ability to guarantee long-term US military access without Greenlandic consent.
Geopolitical Risks of Greenland’s Independence: While Greenland’s independence movement is gaining traction, economic reliance on Denmark remains a key obstacle. Polling indicates strong nationalist sentiment, yet concerns over potential economic downturns and the risk of foreign influence—particularly from the US, Russia, or China—create strategic uncertainty for NATO and Western allies.
Denmark’s Limited Defence Capabilities: Denmark faces substantial challenges in securing its extensive Arctic maritime territory due to limited naval assets and force projection capability. If confronted with a geopolitical crisis over Greenland, Copenhagen’s options would be constrained by its small military force, reliance on allied deterrence, and the lack of clear NATO or EU security guarantees for Greenland.
PART III: Fish and Wedges - (49:05)
with Sigbjørn Halsne
- Head of Section, Land Power War Studies
- Staff Officer for the Norwegian Armed Forces
- Fmr Senior Fellow at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studie
Strategic Impact of Finland and Sweden Joining NATO: The integration of Finland and Sweden into NATO significantly alters the regional security dynamic, providing the alliance with additional military infrastructure and deterrence capabilities. This expansion complicates Russia’s operational planning, increasing the number of high-value NATO targets and constraining Moscow’s military freedom of action in the Nordic and Baltic regions.
Norway’s Defence Posture and Russian Threats in the High North: Norway’s strategic focus remains on the Arctic, particularly monitoring the Kola Peninsula and Russian Northern Fleet activities. While Russia has reinforced Arctic infrastructure, its offensive land capabilities in the region remain limited, primarily serving a defensive role to protect strategic assets rather than posing an immediate threat to Norwegian territory.
Svalbard’s Geopolitical Significance and Russian Interests: Despite its unique governance under the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, Russia has leveraged legal ambiguities to maintain a presence on the archipelago, particularly through its coal mining operations. While Moscow has protested Norwegian restrictions and has engaged in hybrid threats—such as undersea cable sabotage—Svalbard holds limited strategic military value beyond potential political leverage.
Challenges of Arctic Warfare and Military Operations: Arctic conditions pose severe logistical, operational, and technological challenges for any military campaign, with extreme cold, limited daylight, and electromagnetic interference affecting forces unaccustomed to the environment. Both Norway and NATO have recognised deficiencies in air-to-air refuelling, naval logistics, and Arctic-adapted forces, highlighting the difficulties of sustaining a prolonged military presence in the High North.
Strategic Risks and Limited Gains of a Russian Seizure of Svalbard: While Svalbard could serve as a hybrid warfare testbed to probe NATO cohesion, its occupation offers Russia minimal strategic benefit relative to the political and logistical costs. Any attempt to seize the archipelago would risk severe economic and geopolitical repercussions, with NATO or a Nordic coalition likely responding with countermeasures that could escalate tensions without yielding substantial gains for Moscow.
Frozen Flashpoints: Greenland, Svalbard, and the Next Arctic Standoff (Released Mar 11th, 2025)
I: Red Arctic: Russian Strategy Under Putin
- By Elizabeth Buchanan
II: The Arctic and World Order
- By Kristina Spohr
III: Mountain Warfare and Cold Weather Operations
- By the Asymmetric Warfare Group
This episode is dedicated to our Patreon members: Butterman02, Jens Nordberg, Laura Kean-Morris, Almutairi, William Mcguire, Chookie, Logan and Matthew Duncan.
