As the Arctic melts, it becomes a hot-spot for geopolitical competition and resource extraction, which in turns will accelerate it’s ecological destruction.
Martin Vrba is a Czech journalist, essayist, and researcher. Based in Prague, he writes about systemic emergencies such as the climate and ecological crises and their political, cultural, and socio-economic implications.
Cross-posted from Green European Journal

“Everyone wants to bite off somewhere or to bite off something from us. But they should know that we will knock out everyone’s teeth so that they cannot bite.” This was the response Vladimir Putin gave in 2021 to American criticism of Russian naval and military expansion in the Arctic. It made clear that for Russia, the Arctic is a region of strategic importance that Moscow is willing to fight for using any means necessary.
The Arctic, once a remote and largely untouched region, is increasingly becoming a focal point of international interest and geopolitical tensions. Of course, struggles for control of the Arctic are nothing new. Historically, the region often mirrored the strategic manoeuvring of superpowers and minor countries with territorial claims, thus making it a microcosm of global geopolitical dynamics. The bipolar structure of Arctic geopolitics dominated by US and Soviet interests during the Cold War became largely unipolar after the fall of the Soviet Union. Now it’s evolving further as Russia and China become more assertive in pursuing their interests. Given the extreme climate conditions, the region may seem unattractive at first sight, but a closer look unveils its vital importance for modern economies from the 18th century onwards.
Interest in the Arctic goes back at least to the 1730s, when expeditions by Dutch and English explorers around Spitzberg Island opened the door to commercial whaling. In the 20th century, attention shifted towards oil and natural gas extraction as the region proved rich in resources vital for fossil fuel economies. That is most striking in the case of Russia. The Arctic makes up some 28 per cent of the Russian landmass, and it’s also where the majority of Russian oil and gas production is located. In 2022 alone, “Russia’s production of Arctic oil and gas amounted to some 10.65 million barrels of oil equivalent per day,” according to Statista, making it “the largest producer across the globe,” followed by Norway and the US. But the future of the Arctic lies elsewhere.
What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay there
The Arctic warms approximately three times faster than the global average. This has led some to assume that the Arctic countries (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, and the US) may benefit from climate change to some degree, as it will make their largely frozen regions more habitable, if not suitable for agriculture. This idea is especially popular in Russia, where permafrost covers almost two-thirds of its territory and whose vast Siberian region faces extreme conditions. According to this line of thought, Russia could profit from rising global temperatures and become a “climate winner”. But while the economic potential of thawing may seem promising, much more than permafrost lies under the fertile soil, including methane, a greenhouse gas 84 times stronger than carbon dioxide, and the danger of unknown bacteria and viruses.
As climate change accelerates, its impacts on the Arctic ripple outwards, influencing global weather patterns. Less ice means less reflected heat to disrupt the polar jet stream that circles the Arctic region. This can result in heat waves or, conversely, harder winters. Melting sea ice also affects precipitation patterns around the northern hemisphere. Even worse, the melting of both sea ice and Greenland glaciers is changing patterns of ocean currents in the North Atlantic to such a degree that they may stop altogether. If that happens, it would cause significant regional cooling, of about 5 to 10 degrees Celsius, in Europe and North America.
At the same time, the melting of Arctic ice accelerates global climate change further, as detailed by the National Ocean Service: “When warming temperatures gradually melt sea ice over time, fewer bright surfaces are available to reflect sunlight into the atmosphere. More solar energy is absorbed at the surface, and ocean temperatures rise. This begins a cycle of warming and melting.” Thus, global climate change is heavily influencing the Arctic region and the Arctic is heavily influencing the global climate, creating a feedback loop.
The invasion of Ukraine spreads into the Arctic
The melting ice and warming temperatures have reshaped not only the physical landscape of the Arctic but also the political and economic interests that converge there. This evolving dynamic mirrors broader shifts in the international order and intensifying competition for resources and strategic advantages.
At the heart of Arctic governance lies the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum established in 1996 to promote cooperation among the Arctic states, Indigenous peoples, and other inhabitants on issues of sustainable development and environmental protection. Although its role in the Arctic is vital, its mandate does not extend to security issues (these were purportedly excluded from its mandate right at the very beginning). But their importance in the region is growing.
Unsurprisingly, given that Russia is a key player in the Arctic, its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has had significant implications for Arctic cooperation. The other seven Arctic states resorted to unprecedented sanctions that have restricted Russia’s ability to explore, produce, transport and sell oil and gas in the region. It also resulted in Russia’s closer cooperation with China and growing militarisation of the Arctic that goes hand in hand with the wider intensification of geopolitical rivalries — mainly between the US and Russia, and the US and China. Despite its ongoing war in Ukraine, Russia is expanding its Northern Fleet and deploying nuclear submarines, radar stations, airfields and missile facilities.
Furthermore, the old Russian dream of establishing an Arctic route and dominating international shipping got a significant boost with the disruption of the Red Sea route by Houthi rebels. However, the northern route may not be a safe one. Continuous melting of sea ice may well open up new trade routes in the High North, but it is not yet possible to use these routes without icebreakers. Even worse, rapid changes in the Arctic climate cause more extreme weather, and, therefore, more unstable and challenging conditions for marine transports. Russia’s dream may not be realised anytime soon.
The Arctic green economy
Evidence that the post-Cold War unipolar world order is ending is starkly evident in the Arctic. The region is now divided into the NATO Arctic and the Russian Arctic, reflecting the broader splitting of powerful countries into two alliances or blocs: NATO, and BRICS, the latter led by China and Russia. This division may have serious implications for security, environmental policies, and especially, future resource extraction. Despite the possibility that oil and gas extraction in the Arctic will eventually become a thing of the past, this does not mean that the Arctic will become unattractive for economic interests. Paradoxically, it may soon become a hotspot for mining materials needed to build the green economy. A region that has been exploited primarily for its vast fossil fuel reserves may not find peace after all.
The Arctic is believed to contain substantial quantities of valuable minerals and metals. These include rare earth elements (essential for manufacturing wind turbines or electric vehicle batteries), copper (critical for electric wiring and renewable energy infrastructure), nickel and cobalt (key components of batteries for electric vehicles), and platinum-group metals (vital for catalytic converters and hydrogen fuel cells). So far, European countries have been able to mine these resources outside of the EU – for example, rare earth elements from Brazil, India, Australia, China, or Russia. Worsening global security and geopolitical tensions mean however that the EU may need to secure its own supply of these key resources. Mining is, however, a very socially and environmentally disruptive economic activity that is often met with local resistance.
Deep sea mining is (not) the future
In early December, for example, Norway had to postpone its plans to mine part of its Arctic seabed in the Norwegian continental shelf and adjacent areas – a process known as deep-sea mining. Along with the slow phase-out of its oil drilling in the Northern, Norwegian and Barents Seas (which has served as an important factor in its economic success over the last 50 years), Norway is seeking alternative extractive options for the near future. Deep-sea mining would also help the country break China and Russia’s mining dominance in the field of rare earth minerals. As Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre declared: “Deep-sea mining is the solution to the Chinese world monopoly.” However, the move was blocked by internal political opposition.
Deep-sea mining is a highly controversial resource-extraction method. The deep-sea environment is one of the least understood ecosystems on the planet. Disturbance from mining activities could have unknown and potentially irreversible impacts on marine biodiversity as well as ecological balance. These ecosystems, particularly those involving cold-water corals and sponge fields, play a role in carbon sequestration. Any disruption could negatively affect this natural carbon sink.
The list of environmental concerns continues. Apart from the potential destruction of unique and fragile deep-sea ecosystems, the process of mining the seabed generates large sediment plumes, which can smother marine life, clog the gills of fish, and block sunlight from reaching photosynthetic organisms. These plumes can spread over vast areas, affecting ecosystems far beyond the mining site. At the same time, deep-sea mining can release toxic substances, including heavy metals and hydrocarbons, which are trapped in seabed sediments. These pollutants can enter the food chain, posing risks to marine organisms and, ultimately, to human health. Mining can disrupt the natural biogeochemical cycles of the deep sea, including carbon and nutrient cycles, with unknown consequences for global ocean health and climate regulation.
So far, the Norwegian government has issued licenses for exploratory missions to assess the feasibility and impact of deep-sea mining. These missions aim to gather data on resource availability and environmental impact. At the same time, Norway’s actions are supposed to be limited by international laws and agreements, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The future of Arctic Indigenous communities
Geopolitical tensions in the Arctic and the potential for economic expansion there are not good news for the region’s inhabitants. The Arctic is home to about half a million Indigenous people who are significantly affected by both the direct impacts of climate change and economic developments. These communities face significant challenges as their traditional lifestyles depend on ecosystems that are literally melting away.
Indigenous communities’ distinct cultural and territorial claims are often overlooked or undermined by national and international agendas, particularly as Arctic states, including Russia, the US, Canada, Norway, and Denmark, more boldly assert their sovereignty over Arctic territories. The remilitarisation of the Arctic, driven by these rivalries, can disrupt Indigenous lands and waters and lead to restricted access to traditional hunting and fishing grounds, as well as further degradation of the environment.
Balancing mining activities, shipping, and economic development with the legitimate interests of Indigenous communities is part of the purpose of the Arctic Council, where six permanent participants represent Indigenous groups. But with the Russian incursion in Ukraine having quickly deteriorated Russian relationships with the remaining Arctic countries, the future of this relatively inclusive diplomacy is in peril.
The rule of “green capital”
The struggle for the Arctic is real. Despite its severe climate conditions, it has been a destination for both economic and military interests for centuries – and that doesn’t seem likely to change.
The region thus lies at a critical juncture. With Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO, and other Arctic countries increasing their military presence in the region, geopolitical tensions are on the rise even in the High North. It is not yet clear what Donald Trump’s second term will mean for NATO, but it’s obvious that the alliance’s centre of gravity is shifting northward. In the near future, both Finland and Sweden may play an increasingly important role in the geopolitical struggle for the Arctic and its resources.
And that is the bleak prospect for the Arctic: despite its vital role within the global climate system, its future may be rather determined by the rich deposits of natural resources it hides underneath its surface and at the bottom of its seas – only this time, it may be the green economy (or, more accurately, “green capitalism”) that causes the most damage. This shows that there is no easy technofix for our destructive relationship with nature. The Arctic stands as a stark reminder that true sustainability cannot be achieved through resource extraction and technological invention alone, but requires a fundamental rethinking of our economic systems and their alignment with climate and social justice.

Be the first to comment