Leave it to humanity to commodify the end of the world. The historically peaceful, collaborative Arctic Council is fracturing into militarized disarray. The aggressive militaristic pursuits of Russia and the United States have triggered historically strictly neutral council members to make history by joining NATO, rework their policies, and funnel resources into defense. At the expense of this mobilization is collaborative environmental action and research in the Arctic. What might seem like a necessary tradeoff in the name of security, however, isn’t as inadvertent as it’s made to seem when we consider the economic opportunities born from warming Arctic temperature.
The Arctic Council is composed of eight nations: Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia/The Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States. The Council, formed in 1996 under the Ottawa Declaration, exists primarily for peaceful, international cooperation on Arctic-specific issues, most notably environmental protection, preceded by the 1991 non-binding Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy between the same eight nations. Each nation has its own Arctic “Strategy,” a set of policies defining the state’s approach to governance of such a collaborative and environmentally fragile territory.
The cooperative nature of the council began to unravel when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, threatening the sovereignty of neighboring European nations. Trump’s threats against Greenland have only escalated tensions internal to the council. In 2023 and 2024, Finland and Sweden joined NATO, breaking their historically neutral policies through the geopolitical military alliance. In the physical Arctic, 400 new military facilities have been built in arctic territory through Russia’s Bastion initiative, and the Norwegian-led “Cold Response” involves assembly in the North of more than 25,000 personnel from several nations and organizations to preventatively prepare for Arctic challenges. Possibly most significant, all eight nations have released, or are in the process of drafting, new Arctic Strategies and budgets focused on defense.
The militarization, especially of smaller council members including Finland, Sweden, and Denmark, should not be overlooked. The militarization of Sweden is especially pertinent because it points to a deeper shift in national rhetoric — the fracture of state tradition — in the adoption of militarized policies. Since the Napoleonic Wars which took place between 1812 and 1815, Sweden has steadfastly adopted a policy of neutrality in foreign frameworks held strong through both World Wars and the Cold War despite Swedish proximity to these conflicts. After 210 years of neutrality in the face of tyrants, destruction, and conflict, only now does Sweden deviate from its position. The militarization at play operates on a gravitous, fundamental level — but at what expense?
The Arctic Council was formed primarily in the interest of climate cooperation. But since 2022, environmental action has taken a backseat. From the Arctic Institute Center for Circumpolar Security Studies, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the other seven council members agreed collectively “to boycott future [council] meetings … indefinitely [pausing] council proceedings on issues from climate change to Arctic oil drilling.” Conservation research projects including permafrost, sea-biodiversity, emissions, and sea-ice research were halted, transnational research databases have become inaccessible, and pan-Arctic monitoring is incomplete. Since 2022, the Arctic temperature’s rate of change has worsened, warming at a rate 3 to 4 times faster than the rest of the globe. As the nations of the Arctic council allocate funds and policy shifts toward defense and militarization, as borders are secured, and as the council fragments in the face of war, climate intervention and collaboration pays the price.
The policy shifts of the smaller nations are not unprompted, but founded in the necessity of defense and instigated by threats of invasion and escalation. The principal aggressors, Russia and the United States, actively threaten the sovereignty of their fellows. The escalation inevitably ensuing forces each nation to prioritize security, and environmentalism is sidelined, understandably so. But maybe this forgoing of environmental cooperation isn’t simply a casualty. Considering the economic benefit, especially to dominant economic actors like Russia and the U.S., it very well may be a motivating target.
Climate change is economically opportunistic and profitable for dominant economic actors such as the United States and Russia. The volume of ice in the Arctic has fallen 70 percent since 1980, and every percentage increase makes the extraction of minerals and virgin resources accessible, including “green” minerals, required for electric technology of increasing demand. Greenland alone contains 120 times more rare earth metals than were mined in all of 2023, increasingly exposed as ice recedes. Additionally, mineral rich waters as melting sediment mixes with the sea create abundance in certain fish specimens, profitable in the time being for the maritime fishing industry. The most poignant opportunity however, particularly for the economic dictators of the arctic council, are the trade routes cleared by the disappearing ice.
Melting polar ice is predicted to open three major trade routes, known as the Northern Sea Route (NSR), the North-West Passage (NWP), and the Transpolar Sea Route (TSR). These routes promise vast reductions in shipping time, cost, and fuel. They also offer alternative routes to the tense waters and high fees of passages such as the Suez and Panama canals. Economically and militarily dominant nations of the council gain proximity to the opportunity with every increment of climate change progression, and are positioned to be the primary reapers of these benefits.
As the council deteriorates and the advocates of environmental action are pushed to militarization and defense, the ice melts and our most vulnerable ecosystems perish. Endeavors of sovereignty and war simultaneously enable economic prosperity and expansion, but at what cost, and to what end? Don’t be fooled by the sacrifice of the environment in the name of security, by this newfound escalation and mobilization in our most fragile planetary environment where there happens to be profit for the reaping. Our firepower is trained on the ice caps just as much as on each other.
Featured Image Source: Danny Green Photography