The End of Arctic Exceptionalism
Members of the Northern Fleet’s Arctic mechanized infantry brigade conduct military exercises and train in dog sledding. Photo: Lev Fedossev
Abstract
For decades, the Arctic was regarded as an exceptional zone of peaceful cooperation, largely insulated from global geopolitical tensions. However, this era of Arctic exceptionalism is coming to an end. As climate change accelerates ice melt, new shipping routes, resource extraction opportunities, and military considerations have drawn major powers into strategic competition. Russia’s militarization of the region, China’s growing Arctic ambitions, and NATO’s increasing presence are reshaping the High North’s geopolitical landscape.
Owing to its location on the periphery of world events, the Arctic region was long considered immune to geopolitical upheaval. After the end of the Cold War, the eight Arctic states – Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States – shifted their focus from military build-up in the region to cooperation. Traditional Arctic security issues took a back seat, giving way to environmental concerns with the adoption of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy in 1991. This multilateral agreement paved the way for the Ottawa Declaration of 1996, which established the Arctic Council with a mandate to promote cooperation, coordination, and interaction among Arctic states on common issues. The forum emphasized the Circumpolar region's environmental conservation and sustainable development while formally refraining from addressing military security issues. It created the idea ofan "Arctic exceptionalism," defining the region as relatively isolated from global power politics, characterized primarily by an apolitical space of regional governance, functional cooperation, and peaceful coexistence. The members of the Arctic Council looked forward with optimism to the future of their unique international coordination, envisioning at their 2021 ministerial meeting a future of peace, stability, and constructive cooperation for the region in the coming decade. Unfortunately, that ministerial meeting proved to be their last, abruptly ending their synergy and foreshadowing the end of Arctic exceptionalism. The Arctic Council was suspended by the seven Western Arctic states in a collective response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, signaling that geopolitics had finally caught up with the region.
Since then, pre-existing tensions have escalated, with ramifications extending beyond the Arctic region. While the war in Ukraine challenged the Arctic's status as a peaceful peripheral region detached from power politics, tensions had been simmering before the event. Indeed, rising temperatures are rapidly reshaping the High North landscape, opening up unique trade routes and immense untapped resource potential, representing 30% of the world's natural gas reserves, 13% of its oil, and significant deposits of critical minerals such as uranium, gold, graphite, and rare-earth element. The Arctic is expected to be ice-free in summer by 2024 if carbon emissions continue at their current rate, which has both unprecedented geopolitical and severe environmental consequences. As the polar ice caps rapidly disappear, unclaimed land and ocean territories are opening up, over which governments worldwide struggle to gain control.
In 2022, the United States elevated the Arctic to a priority region in its new National Security Strategy and updated its National Strategy for the Arctic Region, reflecting the shift in strategic focus toward the region. The new policy identifies China and Russia as two major competitors and potential challengers to the current Arctic order. It questions Beijing and Moscow's strategic intentions in the Polar North and the narratives underpinning their regional engagement. Consistent with the National Security Strategy, the Arctic Strategy warns that Russia's war in Ukraine has heightened geopolitical tensions in the Arctic and created new risks of unintended conflict. The United States thus calls for increased cooperation among Western allies to coordinate and achieve strategic and national security objectives for the region. The U.S. strategy was followed by similar publications from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, the Ministry of National Defence of Canada, and the Government of Finland, which have committed to increasing their military engagement in the circumpolar north. As a result, the return of war to Europe with Russia's invasion of Ukraine has caused a jolt among the Western Arctic states. These policy documents all express concerns about the ramifications of Russia's belligerent posture for Arctic stability and security, emphasizing the need to increase military resources and build global partnerships to advance mutual interests in the Circumpolar Region through direct deterrence and broader regional power projection. As a result, the Arctic is now being portrayed as a new theater of power politics that is set to shape geopolitical dynamics for years to come.
The 2023 Russian Foreign Policy Concept offers a unique insight into Russia's ambitions in the High North. The Arctic has acquired newfound significance in Russian foreign policy strategy, occupying third place in the regional priorities after the Commonwealth of Independent States in Russia's direct vicinity and the Euro-Atlantic region. The policy document focuses on developing and exploiting the Northern Sea Route and using the Arctic region as a strategic resource base for the greater Russian economy. Indeed, for Russia, energy resources represent the cornerstone of its economic and geopolitical future. The Russian economy, largely dependent on oil and gas, is deeply tied to extracting natural resources in the Arctic Circle, underscoring Moscow's need to assert its position in the region. To this end, Russia has invested heavily in its military capabilities in the Circumpolar Region in recent years, building and restoring several military and naval bases, expanding its large fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers and submarines, and strengthening its first-strike capabilities. Moreover, with jurisdiction over 53 percent of the Arctic coastline, Russia is a formidable force to be reckoned with in the region. This dominant position gives the Kremlin a sense of relative superiority in the region, meaning it seeks dividends from its perceived military advantage. This consideration has translated into an aggressive posture in the High North that reflects Moscow's willingness and readiness for military engagement to protect its interests.
The war in Ukraine has led to a significant rupture in Russia's relations with its Arctic neighbors. Sweden and Finland have revised their traditional neutrality and non-alignment and have applied for NATO membership. Their recent accession to NATO has doubled the length of the NATO-Russia border and brought all seven Western Arctic states under the Alliance umbrella. With NATO and Russia on each other's doorstep, the Arctic has become a flashpoint of strategic confrontation, where military build-up has been evident. Moscow sees the High North as one of the most critical fronts in its rivalry with NATO, prompting it to strengthen its regional military posture. Moscow has a considerable head start over most other Arctic states in the military build-up, and its Arctic bases outnumber NATO bases by about a third. In response, NATO countries are increasing their defense capabilities and regularly undertaking military exercises in the High North on a scale unprecedented since the Cold War. Therefore, tensions in the North Polar Region will likely rise more rapidly due to the region's militarization than competition for resources. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has notably asserted that the Arctic is not NATO territory and that Russia is fully prepared for conflict with the alliance in the region. This increasingly harsh rhetoric towards military activities in the Arctic could make it the next theatre of confrontation between NATO and Russia.
Non-Arctic powers interested in Arctic riches have also increased their regional involvement, putting further pressure on an already volatile environment. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea governs offshore operations in the Arctic Ocean. It defines exclusive economic zones (EEZs) up to 200 miles offshore and creates guidelines for extending continental shelf rights up to 350 miles from an Arctic nation's coastline. However, most Arctic resources lie outside these legal limits. This leaves 1.1 million square miles of the Arctic Ocean beyond states' EEZs and national jurisdiction. As a result, many non-Arctic governments, including India, Japan, and China, have expressed a desire to assert their presence in the region. Beijing has made clear its ambition to become an Arctic player. The People's Republic of China identified itself as a "near-Arctic state" in its 2018 Arctic policy – a controversial statement that has sparked controversy among Arctic nations – and unveiled a "Polar Silk Road" as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. China's activity in the Arctic Council is seen as a "foot in the door" move aimed at enabling more direct influence in the region in the future. To increase its access and claims in the High North, China is simultaneously challenging the traditional geographical concept of the Arctic, increasing its economic stake in the region, combining civilian and military technological advances, and preparing for a military presence in the Arctic. This has transformed the Arctic into a new strategic arena. The dynamics emerging in the region are beginning to mirror those in the South China Sea, where competition for resources, strategic positions, and trade routes has morphed into more hostile conflict. Therefore, as polar ice caps rapidly melt and tensions between Arctic actors rise, the Arctic Ocean risks becoming a new South China Sea, rife with militarization and competing territorial claims.
Finally, the rush for Arctic resources has far-reaching environmental impacts beyond geopolitics. The Arctic Circle has become a symbol of the disastrous effects of climate change. The Arctic region and its populations are disproportionately affected by global warming, which threatens the survival of diverse species as well as the traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples. As governments ramp up offshore drilling in the Arctic, fragile ecosystems could suffer irreversible damage from oil spills, pollution, and habitat loss. In addition, the suspension of the Arctic Council's activities following Russia's war in Ukraine, amid a global climate and environmental crisis, is putting the already vulnerable Arctic region at further risk. To some extent, the Arctic Council has been considered a success in maintaining cooperative relations on environmental protection. However, the deterioration of relations between the Western Arctic states and Russia is jeopardizing several legally binding agreements related to environmental management in the Arctic, which cannot function without the participation of all Arctic states. Therefore, the modern gold rush for the region's natural resources and a breakdown in regional ties risk aggravating the threat to sensitive Arctic ecosystems and populations.
While the Arctic was once considered a region far removed from major events in world affairs, changes in its geography have now propelled the region from the periphery to the center of geopolitics. As the Arctic undergoes profound changes due to climate change, this vast territory is now a focal point on the geopolitical chessboard due to its economic potential and strategic importance. This trend is expected to intensify in the coming decades.
To address the growing instability in the region, key Arctic actors should refocus their engagement around the issue that initially united them: environmental protection. As President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexander Sergeev stated, "geopolitical and environmental processes are seemingly far apart, but they exist shoulder to shoulder in the Arctic region." Arctic politics cannot be separated from environmental processes. Indeed, the environmental agenda has contributed to the formation of Arctic identity and has pushed Arctic states to institutionalize their status in the region. Arctic countries express their identity and belonging in terms of their commitment to sustainable development and environmental protection of the Arctic region. All eight Arctic states have recognized the global importance of the changing Arctic region. This has given rise to environmental geopolitics in the Arctic that goes beyond traditional hard power considerations and focuses on climate-related threats. If environmental geopolitics provides an instrument for pursuing political imperatives, it is also a tool to overcome the traditional logic of conflict and zero-sum competition. Therefore, shifting traditional power politics to environmental geopolitics by integrating environmental considerations into traditional security paradigms can bring Arctic states together rather than causing discord and conflict in their relationships.