Warming Frontiers, Rising Tensions: Why the Arctic Matters for International Diplomacy

Aminah Hussain is a first-year BSc PIR student. She currently writes for The Rendezvous (EISPS Society Journal), as a Europe Columnist alongside contributing to The Diplomacy Review.

Introduction:

The Arctic is warming at a rate far exceeding the global average, transforming it from a remote, icy periphery into a central arena of 21st century geopolitics. Geographically, the Arctic refers to the region north of the Arctic Circle, encompassing the Arctic Ocean and the northernmost territories of countries such as Canada, Russia, the United States (Alaska), Norway, Denmark (via Greenland), Sweden, Finland and Iceland. Scientists estimate that the region is heating approximately four times faster than the rest of the planet [1], accelerating sea-ice loss and exposing new shipping routes, mineral deposits and fossil-fuel reserves. This rapid environmental change has created a profound diplomatic paradox: nations must cooperate to protect one of the world’s most fragile ecosystems, yet the same melting ice is intensifying for strategic advantage.

As Arctic states and emerging non-Arctic actors position themselves for influence, the region has become a major site for examining whether climate diplomacy can withstand geopolitical rivalry. The question is no longer simply how to manage environmental change, but whether the Arctic risks sliding into a “New Cold War” driven by resource competition, militarisation and contested sovereignty.

Historical Background:

During the original Cold War, the Arctic served as a strategic frontier between the United States and the Soviet Union. Both powers deployed submarines, long-range bombers and early-warning radar systems across the region, recognising its value as the shortest route for intercontinental missiles [2]. Yet despite this militarisation, the region’s harsh climate has limited large-scale commercial activity and kept territorial disputes relatively contained.

The end of the Cold War opened the door to unprecedented cooperation. In 1996, the Arctic Council was established as a high-level intergovernmental forum dedicated to environmental protection, sustainable development and scientific collaboration [3]. Importantly, the Council’s deliberation excluded military security from its mandate, reflecting a shared desire to keep the region shielded from geopolitical tensions.

For nearly two decades, the Arctic Council was widely regarded as the model of peaceful governance. Member states signed binding agreements on search and rescue coordination, oil-spill preparedness and scientific cooperation. Indigenous peoples’ organisations were granted permanent participant status, giving them a formal voice in regional decision-making.

However, the stability of this cooperative framework began to erode in the 2010s and 2020s. Melting sea ice opened the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s coastline, dramatically increasing its commercial and strategic value. China declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and incorporated the region into its Belt and Road Initiative. Meanwhile, Russia expanded its military presence, reopening Soviet-era bases and deploying new air-defence systems [4]. The Arctic Council’s consensus-based model struggled to adapt to these shifting power dynamics.

Climate Diplomacy Meets Geopolitics:

1. Resource Competition

The Arctic is estimated to contain around 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its undiscovered natural gas [5]. As ice retreats, these resources become more accessible, prompting states to assert territorial claims and expand exploration. Russia has invested heavily in Arctic LNG projects, while the United States continues to debate drilling in Alaska’s North Slope. Greenland’s mineral deposits- including rare earth elements crucial for renewable energy technologies- have attracted global interest.

This creates a structural contradiction at the heart of climate diplomacy, in which states publicly commit to environmental protection while simultaneously pursuing resource extraction that contributes to further warming. As accessibility increases, this tension is likely to intensify.

2. Strategic Shipping Routes

The melting of sea ice is reshaping global maritime geography. In recent summers, parts of the Northern Sea Route (NSR) have become sufficiently ice-free to allow regular commercial transit. In 2025, the first direct container ship from China to the UK completed the journey via the NSR in roughly half the time of traditional southern routes [6].

Russia asserts regulatory control over the NSR, requiring foreign vessels to seek permission or accept Russian icebreaker escorts. Other states argue that sections of the route constitute international waters. This legal ambiguity has become a focal point of diplomatic friction.

Moreover, China’s growing involvement adds another layer of complexity. Beijing is actively promoting a “Polar Silk Road”, with Chinese carriers testing regular Arctic voyages between Asia and Europe [7]. These developments demonstrate how Arctic governance is no longer the exclusive domain of Arctic states.

As warming continues, the potential emergence of a Trans-Polar Route- cutting directly across the central Arctic Ocean- could further complicate maritime governance, raising new questions regarding environmental protection and the role of non-Arctic actors.

3. Militarisation and Security Tensions

The Arctic has become one of the most militarised regions in the world. Russia has reopened bases, expanded airfields and modernised its Northern Fleet, contributing to what analysts describe as the most crowded and militarised Arctic since the Cold War [8], raising concerns about surveillance and escalation risks.

NATO has responded with increased exercises in Norway, Iceland and the North Atlantic. The accession of Finland and Sweden has further shifted the regional balance, creating a nearly continuous arc of NATO territory around the Arctic Ocean.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Arctic Council cooperation with Russia was partially suspended, undermining one of the region’s most important diplomatic channels. The result is a widening gap between the cooperative ethos of Arctic governance and the realities of military activity on the ground.

Can Diplomacy Prevent a New Cold War?

Whether the Arctic becomes a zone of confrontation or cooperation, will depend on the resilience of diplomatic institutions and the willingness of states to prioritise long-term environmental stability over short-term strategic gains.

There are reasons for cautious optimism. Environmental challenges, from permafrost thaw to coastal erosion, are so severe that no state can address them alone. Scientific collaboration remains one of the few areas where cooperation has endured despite geopolitical tensions. Practical coordination, such as search and rescue operations, remains essential for safety in a harsh environment,

Some analysts argue that the Arctic requires a renewed diplomatic architecture capable of integrating environmental protection, indigenous rights and security dialogue. Without such a framework, the region risks becoming a reflection of global geopolitical rivalry, with climate change acting as both catalyst and casualty.

Conclusion:

The Arctic stands at a pivotal moment. Rapid warming has opened new economic opportunities while exposing deep geopolitical fault lines. The region’s future will depend on whether states can reconcile competing interests and recognise that climate change is not merely an environmental issue but a geopolitical one.

If diplomacy fails, the Arctic could become a new arena of strategic confrontation. If cooperation prevails, it could serve as a model for managing global challenges in an era of accelerating climate change. The outcome will have lasting consequences for both the Arctic and global governance.

Works Cited:

[1] Rantanen, M et al. (2022). ‘The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979’, Nature communications. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00498-3.

[2] Huebert R. (2019). ‘A new Cold War in the Arctic?! The old one never ended!, Arctic Yearbook. Available at: https://arcticyearbook.com/images/yearbook/2019/Briefing-Notes/2_AY2019_COM_Huebert.pdf.

[3] Arctic Council. (1996). Ottawa Declaration. Available at: https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/items/fb29e6d2-d60c-43ca-8e46-fa7a505033e0 .

[4] BBC News. (2021). ‘Russia flexes muscles in challenge for Arctic control’. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-57156839 .

[5] Bird, Kenneth J et al. (2008). ‘Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil and Gas North of the Arctic Circle.’ United States Geological Survey. Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3049/ .

[6] World Nuclear News. (2025). ‘First container ship arrives in UK from China using Northern Sea Route’. Available at: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/first-container-ship-arrives-in-uk-from-china-using-northern-sea-route .

[7] Maritime Executive. (2025). ‘China Plots Expansion of Shipping on “Polar Silk Road”. Available at : https://maritime-executive.com/article/china-plots-expansion-of-shipping-on-polar-silk-road-aka-russia-s-nsr.

[8] CBC News. (2025). ‘China, Russia pulling ahead of NATO in Arctic drone capabilities’. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/drones-arctic-russia-china-nato-9.7020149 .