The Arctic is now at the epicentre of a potential geopolitical shift. With Donald Trump’s return to the White House, his administration’s renewed interest in Arctic dominance, and his growing rapport with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the global political order may be on the brink of a new strategic shift. What began as high-level discussions on Ukraine in Riyadh on Feb. 18 has unexpectedly revived talk of U.S.-Russia Arctic collaboration—signalling a possible rupture in multilateral Arctic governance and the rise of a new geopolitical engagement in the polar North.
Trump’s Arctic Turn and the Greenland Gambit
Trump’s obsession with the Arctic is not new, but in his second term, it has taken a more confrontational line. In a March 4 address to Congress, he declared: “One way or another, we’re going to get Greenland.” Citing national security concerns and economic potential, Trump framed Greenland as an essential asset in securing U.S. dominance in the Arctic. While he paid lip service to Greenlandic self-determination, his rhetoric sparked an outcry from Greenland’s leadership, who fiercely rejected any suggestion of annexation.
The controversy over Greenland shows a broader shift in Trump’s Arctic strategy: the move away from cooperative multilateralism toward unilateral strategic acquisition. This is to be seen in the context of Trump’s historical discomfort with NATO and his growing readiness to sidestep European allies in favour of direct bilateral deals. Greenland’s rejection of Trump’s comments has sparked debates about sovereignty, resource nationalism, and the role of smaller Arctic actors in shaping their destinies.
Arctic Cooperation on the Sidelines of War Diplomacy
What began as negotiations on Ukraine in Riyadh between Russian and U.S. delegations also quietly included discussion on Arctic energy and trade cooperation. Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), confirmed that joint Arctic projects were explicitly discussed, although details remain sparse. U.S. representatives, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, reportedly viewed this engagement as a chance to “drive a wedge” between Russia and China.
This strategic outreach, while shrouded under economic cooperation, indicates an evolving U.S. posture toward Arctic governance. Trump’s willingness to engage with Putin outside the traditional frameworks upsets European capitals, already concerned about being excluded from geopolitical decisions affecting the region. The Arctic, once a domain of scientific collaboration and environmental diplomacy, risks becoming a theatre of transactional deals and territorial bargaining.
Geopolitical Realignment
Trump’s Arctic strategy reflects his broader foreign policy posture—transactional, bilateral, and resource-driven. With Trump’s backing, the U.S. is pushing for Arctic Security Cutters to bridge the icebreaking capability gap and counterbalance Russian and Chinese expansion in the region. Yet, his growing closeness to Putin complicates this military buildup—hinting at a scenario where Washington and Moscow divide Arctic interests for mutual economic gain.
Meanwhile, Russia’s Arctic diplomacy has evolved to exploit this opening. Sanctioned and isolated by Western powers, Russia seeks limited cooperation with the U.S. to ease pressures on its Northern Sea Route ambitions while simultaneously resisting China’s growing Arctic influence.
The Russia-China engagement in the Arctic is particularly delicate. While Beijing has deepened its Arctic footprint—declaring itself a ‘near-Arctic state’ and investing in infrastructure along the Northern Sea Route—Moscow remains cautious. China’s increasing dominance in financing Arctic energy projects and ports has begun to tilt the balance of power in favour of Beijing. That Russia was reportedly hesitant to grant China a stronger role in Arctic governance highlights this unease.
Russia, in turn, is trying to reassert sovereignty and rebalance its foreign policy. Its move toward bilateral engagement with non-Arctic partners and plans to develop alternative Arctic governance forums reflect its intention to diminish Western influence in the region. Moscow’s expansion of its Arctic and Antarctic strategies suggests a long-term ambition to dominate polar geopolitics and reshape global governance norms.
End of Circumpolar Consensus?
The Arctic Council, established in 1996 to coordinate peaceful cooperation among Arctic states (A8), now stands at a critical juncture. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine already suspended much of its work. Now, with Trump’s possible withdrawal from international institutions, the very foundation of circumpolar cooperation is at risk.
This emerging U.S.-Russia rapprochement could render the Arctic Council obsolete, marginalize smaller Arctic nations, and destabilize existing legal frameworks like the Central Arctic Ocean fisheries agreement and the Spitsbergen Treaty. The result could be a new Arctic order, governed not by collective interests and environmental norms but by hard power politics and economic extraction.
Europe, especially Denmark and Norway, risks being sidelined. If Trump supports a revision of the Spitsbergen Treaty or pushes forward on Greenland, it would fragment existing Arctic legal architecture. Indigenous communities—often champions of environmental stewardship and cultural autonomy—may find their voices drowned in a race for resources.
Meanwhile, climate science and biodiversity preservation—hallmarks of previous Arctic cooperation—are likely to be casualties of a transactional geopolitics that privileges fossil fuel extraction over environmental integrity. As Arctic ice melts and new shipping lanes open, the region will become a new axis of rivalry and contestation.
China and NATO Arctic States
A potential U.S.-Russia Arctic collaboration will also cast a long shadow over China’s ambitions in the region. While China has aggressively branded itself a ‘near-Arctic state’ since 2018, much of its influence has hinged on investments in Russian energy and logistics infrastructure—particularly in the Northern Sea Route (NSR). Beijing’s strategy has been to use economic partnerships to expand its strategic footprint without provoking direct geopolitical confrontation. However, a Trump-Putin rapprochement could dramatically alter these calculations.
With Russia potentially rekindling energy and logistical cooperation with the United States, China could find its economic leverage in the Arctic significantly diminished. The mutual suspicion between Moscow and Beijing is already evident in Russia’s reluctance to grant China greater influence in Arctic governance mechanisms. Trump’s strategy to “drive a wedge” between Moscow and Beijing might inadvertently succeed if Moscow perceives greater strategic and technological gains in partnering with Washington instead of relying exclusively on Beijing’s capital.
Such a shift would put China on the defensive, forcing it to rethink its Arctic investments and potentially seek new bilateral alliances with smaller Arctic states or increase engagement with Arctic Council observers like South Korea and Japan. More broadly, it may reduce China’s capacity to shape Arctic norms and infrastructure development to its advantage. China’s Arctic presence has so far been largely economic and scientific, avoiding military entanglements—but a weakening of its strategic positioning may compel Beijing to rethink its posture.
At the same time, NATO-aligned Arctic states—Canada, Norway, Denmark (through Greenland), and Iceland—face the dual challenge of geopolitical marginalization and strategic uncertainty. Trump’s previous disregard for NATO, coupled with his preference for bilateralism over institutional frameworks, leaves these countries in a precarious position. If the U.S. pursues a transactional partnership with Russia, NATO’s role in Arctic security could be significantly undermined.
For instance, Canada and Norway—two pillars of Arctic defence architecture—may find themselves sidelined in major decisions about Arctic resource governance, shipping regulations, and military posturing. Denmark, already rattled by Trump’s Greenland remarks, could face a new reality where its geopolitical relevance is diminished not just by U.S. unilateralism but also by a Russian move toward alternative Arctic alliances. The existing framework of Arctic cooperation through the Arctic Council and various NATO exercises in the High North could suffer serious erosion.
Moreover, such a U.S.-Russia collaboration might embolden Russia to press for revisions of historical agreements, such as the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty, thereby challenging Norway’s sovereignty over Svalbard. If Trump tacitly supports such moves in exchange for strategic gains elsewhere, it could destabilize the northern European security environment.
As NATO Arctic states reevaluate their positions, they may seek to deepen internal EU-Arctic security cooperation or strengthen trilateral frameworks with like-minded partners such as the UK or Japan. However, without clear support from Washington, their ability to shape Arctic policy and resist Russian strategic advances will be considerably weakened.
Conceivably, a Trump-Putin axis in the Arctic could create a three-tiered polar order: U.S.-Russia as primary actors, China in a recalibrating secondary role, and NATO Arctic states grappling with diminished strategic influence. The resulting fragmentation of Arctic governance would mark a historic rupture in how the region has been managed for decades—replacing cooperative multilateralism with flexible power alignments and hard-edged competition.
Conclusion
The Arctic is witnessing a new realignment of geopolitical forces. Donald Trump’s return to the White House, coupled with growing U.S.-Russia engagement, is reshaping the region’s geopolitical setting. What began as diplomatic overtures in Riyadh could now catalyse the decline of multilateral Arctic governance.
A new bilateral axis between Washington and Moscow may sideline existing frameworks like the Arctic Council, while elevating resource-driven partnerships. China, once gaining ground through Arctic investments, could find its influence constrained. NATO-aligned Arctic states such as Canada, Norway, and Denmark face growing marginalization, especially as Trump’s approach weakens collective Western leverage.
The result may be a fragmented Arctic order—driven more by great power bargaining than consensus-building. Whether this represents a lasting shift or a temporary realignment, its impact will stretch beyond the polar circle—reshaping global power equations and testing the depth of cooperative governance norms.
[Photo by US Department of Defense, Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
K.M. Seethi, Director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension, is the Academic Advisor of the International Centre for Polar Studies at Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. He also served as ICSSR Senior Fellow, Senior Professor and Dean of International Relations at MGU.
Read the full article here
