Shifts in Arctic Geopolitics and Security Implications:  A Focus on Major Arctic Security Issues 

Joonkoo YOO

jkyoo88@sejong.org

Senior Research Fellow

Sejong Institute

1. Introduction

The proposition of geopolitics' return is also unfolding in earnest in the Arctic with the end of "Arctic exceptionalism," which took shape in the later stages of the U.S.-Soviet Cold War, is beginning to materialize. Arctic geopolitics evolved through a period of geographic preemption, followed by military tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union during the postwar Cold War era, before arriving at a turning point with the advent of the post-Cold War period. The backdrop of Arctic exceptionalism lay in the intention to secure a minimal space for functional cooperation even amid great power security competition. The exceptional environment of Arctic cooperation as a "zone of peace" had been sustained, but significant changes to this arrangement have been underway in recent times. Specifically, Arctic geopolitics is being transformed by NATO enlargement, the war in Ukraine, China's advance into the Arctic, and the Trump administration's policy of prioritizing the Western Hemisphere, and a "Great Game" among the great powers of the United States, China, and Russia is being set in motion. The transformation of Arctic geopolitics is not confined to the Arctic alone but is interconnected with the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions in conjunction with global strategic competition among the great powers.

Arctic security is evolving along a complex security dimension in which Arctic sea routes, energy and resource supply chains, and the projection of military power are intricately overlapping and interlinked. The importance of Arctic sea routes is inevitably linked to energy security and supply chains, and has taken on the character of global strategic competition beyond the dimension of alternative energy supply chains. The militarization of the Arctic and military strategic competition, which had previously remained in the background of Arctic sea route and energy and resource development issues, have recently come to the fore and are being intensified by the United States' strategic emphasis on the Western Hemisphere.

It is evident that shifts in Arctic geopolitics and security competition will accelerate further going forward, and this is expected to expand into the reigniting of sovereignty and territorial claims disputes, the securitization of Arctic governance, and discussions on the connectivity of sea lanes lines of communication(SLOC). The Trump administration's aggressive attempts to acquire Greenland, Russia's strengthening of its Arctic military capabilities, and China's advance into the Arctic are all expected to continue. Future changes in Arctic geopolitics are likely to be determined by the strategic relationships among Arctic states and the United States, China, and Russia with respect to the connectivity of the SLOC spanning the Atlantic, the Arctic, and the Indo-Pacific, the development and supply chain strengthening of energy and resources, and the militarization of Arctic strategic positions. As shifts in Arctic geopolitics and security issues come to the forefront, Korea also faces an urgent need to respond to Arctic sea route and energy security challenges through the development of a new Arctic strategy and the construction of relevant domestic and international infrastructure.

2. The Historical Development and Characteristics of Arctic Geopolitics

The origins of Arctic geopolitical awareness began with route exploration in conjunction with the European Age of Discovery, before evolving into a region of competitive territorial expansion through preemption. The geographical discovery of the Arctic proceeded through the settlement of indigenous peoples and Nordics, and the exploration and development of areas surrounding the Arctic Ocean (Iceland, Greenland, Svalbard, and Alaska). From the sixteenth century onward, the Age of Sail expanded these activities for the purposes of securing goods, whaling, and new sea routes, and through the early nineteenth century, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States competed for geographic preemption and the securing of territorial claims. Iceland, Greenland, and Svalbard, which are of geopolitical significance in the Arctic region, underwent their respective historical trajectories through similar geopolitical backgrounds but developed into entirely distinct international legal statuses, with Iceland achieving independence, Greenland becoming a self-governing territory, and Svalbard acquiring the character of an international commons under Norwegian sovereignty.

During World War II, the Allied powers of the United States and the United Kingdom, perceiving a threat from Germany's occupation of Denmark and Norway, occupied Greenland and Iceland respectively for the purpose of blocking Germany's access to the GIUK Gap. Arctic geopolitics during World War II was not regarded as an "empty space," and Iceland, Greenland, and Svalbard became key strategic positions for sea control and military base construction as gateways to the North Atlantic. Iceland and Greenland were recognized as forward operating bases for the defense of North Atlantic supply lines, and in particular, U.S. military bases and nuclear strategic facilities were constructed in Greenland. Immediately following World War II, the onset of the U.S.-Soviet Cold War complicated the geopolitical choices facing the Nordic states, and the establishment of a Scandinavian Defence Union oriented toward strategic neutrality without NATO membership was conceived. As the United States proposed to suspend military assistance on the grounds of the limited self-defense capabilities of the Nordic states while offering postwar reconstruction support to Denmark and Norway, Iceland, Denmark (excluding Greenland), and Norway joined as founding members of NATO on August 24, 1949.

During the Cold War, the Arctic emerged as a major theater of geopolitical tension between the United States and the Soviet Union, with its geopolitical position emphasized by reason of its strategic importance. As a result of U.S.-Soviet competition in the Arctic, the shortest and most concealed routes for ICBM, strategic bombers, and nuclear submarines became concentrated in the Arctic, effectively elevating the region to the front line of missile defense and nuclear deterrence. The Arctic front during the Cold War was characterized by a series of high-risk operations including aerial reconnaissance missions, submarine patrols, and joint military exercises, and these operations served not merely to demonstrate military capabilities but also as a means of signaling resolve to the adversary. The Arctic was an essential element of U.S. defense strategy by virtue of its proximity to North America, while the Soviet Union regarded the region as indispensable for the projection of military power and influence, with the strategic importance of the Arctic encompassing not only military considerations but also economic and scientific dimensions. As the Cold War progressed, competition over control of the Arctic's natural resources intensified, with both superpowers recognizing the potential value of oil, gas, and mineral resources in the Arctic region and thereby triggering competition over territorial claims and resource access. The resource competition between the United States and the Soviet Union reflected not only economic interests but also the broader geopolitical ambitions of both sides to consolidate their respective strategic positions.

Signs of the post-Cold War transition manifested symbolically in the Arctic, giving rise to the concepts of the Arctic as a "peace zone" and "Arctic exceptionalism." In October 1987, the Soviet Union, through Gorbachev's Murmansk Declaration, advanced the notion that the Arctic should be separated from global geopolitical competition by emphasizing the denuclearization of the Arctic, peaceful cooperation in resource utilization, scientific research, and environmental protection, and by proposing the opening of the Arctic and the establishment of a zone of peace in the Arctic region. Building on this foundation, the United States and Russia cooperated to establish the Arctic Council in 1996, deliberately excluding military security agenda items and constructing a framework for cooperation centered on environmental, scientific, and indigenous peoples' issues with the goal of sustainable development in the Arctic region. During the period of Arctic exceptionalism, numerous international agreements were concluded under the auspices of the Arctic Council, reflecting a pronounced functionalist approach and a relative tendency to sustain cooperation through Arctic issues as a mediating mechanism.

The multilateral cooperative framework that had persisted since the end of the Cold War reverted to great power geopolitics as a result of the United States' policy of strengthening Arctic security, the war in Ukraine, and China's advance into the Arctic. U.S. Arctic policy and approach in the post-Cold War era evolved dramatically over several decades in response to shifting threat perceptions and environmental changes, with geopolitical factors progressively intensifying from the Clinton administration through the Trump administration. The latent geopolitical tensions in the Arctic came to be expressed in earnest as security conflict through the occasion of the war in Ukraine. Specifically, Russia, having achieved systemic stabilization, progressively consolidated its security vested interests in the Arctic region, a development attributable in part to its distrust of NATO and its response to U.S. hegemony. In addition, China, upon publishing a white paper titled "Arctic Policy" in 2018, began emphasizing its interests in the Arctic as a "near-Arctic State." Against this backdrop, President Trump's assertive policies in the Arctic region, encompassing Greenland, Canada, and Iceland, began to transform the existing framework of U.S.-NATO versus Russia confrontation into a complex great power geopolitical game among the United States, Russia, and China.

3. Current Issues and Challenges in Arctic Security

The prospect of Arctic sea route opening and its future potential has been a contentious issue over the past decade or more, as the melting of sea ice due to climate change is giving rise to new maritime lines of communication along both the Russian Arctic coast (Northern Sea Route) and the Canadian coastline (Northwest Passage). Maritime cargo volumes transiting Arctic sea routes have been increasing over a number of years as alternative routes to the Suez Canal, Strait of Malacca, and South China Sea lanes of communication, and the commercialization of Arctic sea routes is bringing about changes in the global logistics landscape. Assessing the economic viability of Arctic sea routes requires consideration not only of simple route distances but also of navigational days, icebreaker and other ancillary costs, safety, and security risks. Competition in icebreaker construction, which is essential for Arctic sea route utilization, is being actively pursued not only by Russia, which currently holds an overwhelming advantage, but also by the United States and China, both of which have recently demonstrated keen interest in Arctic sea routes.

Security competition in the Arctic is expanding beyond energy security to encompass broader economic security dimensions including critical minerals and supply chains, as Arctic sea ice melting and Arctic sea routes become increasingly tangible realities. Energy security issues linked to Arctic sea routes are unfolding in a complex manner in connection with the recent war in Ukraine and sanctions on Russian LNG. The Arctic sea route was originally developed during the Soviet era in the 1930s as an internal waterway for resource development in the Arctic region, subsequently utilized as a transportation route for major defense industrial materials and an export route for timber and mineral resources, and has been used since the 1970s as a principal supply line for oil and gas resource development along the Arctic coast. Furthermore, LNG transportation along the Russian Arctic route is affected by the sanctions environment, while simultaneously serving as a factor that broadens the space for cooperation with China (Yamal and Power of Siberia 2 pipelines) and non-Western partners, and is emerging as a strategic choke point analogous to the Strait of Hormuz.

As global military and security competition among the United States, China, and Russia spreads and intensifies, military security issues are also rising rapidly in the Arctic region. The deepening of tensions between Russia and the West is elevating the strategic importance of the Arctic, and the United States' growing military security and strategic interest in the Arctic is further accelerating this trend. For the United States, the Arctic serves as a critical early warning line in the event of great power military conflict with Russia or China, and the radar at Pituffik Space Base plays an essential role in detecting missiles directed at the U.S. homeland. Conversely, the majority of Russia's nuclear-armed submarines are deployed in the Arctic and constitute a core element of Russia's military strategy for deterring a U.S. attack. In particular, the intensifying great power security competition in the Arctic is entering a new phase, especially as the possible use of U.S. military force with respect to Greenland has been raised. China perceives the Arctic through a geopolitical lens at the global level and views it in connection with its strategic competition with the United States. While China does not maintain a significant military presence in the Arctic, it aims to develop an independent capability to operate surface vessels and submarines in Arctic waters within the next five to ten years. In military terms, China's long-term objective is to deploy missile submarines beneath the Arctic ice in order to secure a second-strike nuclear capability on par with that of Russia and the United States.

4. Future Outlook and Implications for Arctic Security

The Arctic region is evolving along a complex security dimension in which three axes overlap and interconnect: military security (early warning, space surveillance, and nuclear submarine operations), energy and critical minerals, and maritime transportation hub functions. The securitization of the Arctic is also related to changes in the global security environment, reflecting a broader trend of "securitization" in which the security domain is expanding across global issues including climate change, energy resources, and the oceans. Whereas individual global issues were previously understood in a compartmentalized manner across political and military security, economic, and scientific and technological dimensions, recent approaches have adopted an integrated and comprehensive perspective that fuses all three dimensions in a complex and comprehensive security framework. Another characteristic of Arctic securitization is the situation in which specific Arctic security issues are spreading to the global security level. For instance, the increased possibilities for resource development and route utilization resulting from sea ice melting are associated with the strengthening and collision of sovereignty claims among Arctic coastal states and great powers, contributing to the complex evolution of Arctic security issues.

Arctic territorial disputes are unfolding at the national, regional, and global strategic levels encompassing sovereignty issues, and are being elevated to a strategic matter in which alliance dynamics, regional security, and global geopolitics are combined. In particular, the United States' aggressive attempts to acquire Greenland are being pursued in furtherance of comprehensive U.S. strategic interests, and are bringing about changes in existing alliance relationships, regional security, and global geopolitics. The future trajectory of the Greenland issue will be resolved through negotiation, force, or a combination of both, but it is likely that U.S. military and resource access to Greenland will ultimately expand while the sovereignty of Denmark and Greenland will be constrained. The "framework for future deal" being pursued by President Trump lacks specific content at present, but is expected to include the complete and permanent stationing and use of U.S. military forces (installation of the Golden Dome defense system), as well as expanded U.S. access to Greenland's mineral resources.

The Arctic Council, as the preeminent consultative body for Arctic affairs, had intentionally excluded security agenda items in order to promote Arctic cooperation, but has recently been deliberating over whether to incorporate security agenda items into Arctic discussions. The background to the Arctic Council's exclusion of security agenda items is also attributable in part to the preference of the United States and Russia, as the core Arctic states, for resolving security and major economic issues at the bilateral level. Discussion of Arctic security issues has recently been concentrated in initiatives led by individual Arctic Council member states (Arctic Frontier and Arctic Circle forums), following the war in Ukraine and China's advance into the Arctic. The intensification of the NATO-Russia confrontation has inevitably accelerated the securitization of the Arctic, and the Arctic Council as a regional management regime is also being affected by this trend.

Should Arctic geopolitical changes and great power security competition in the Arctic intensify, this will connect the Arctic, the North Atlantic, and the Indo-Pacific, thereby facilitating the linkage of alliances, sanctions, energy, and supply chains. As the Arctic sea route achieves a degree of commercialization, the maritime network connecting the East Asian manufacturing and logistics system with European markets will be restructured, signifying the linkage of the existing Suez Canal, Strait of Hormuz, Strait of Malacca, and South China Sea maritime lines of communication with Arctic sea routes. At first glance, the connectivity of maritime lines of communication may serve as a factor that increases alternative routes and global cargo volumes; however, from a geopolitical perspective, factors that link and propagate new security threats remain present. The recent ramifications of military conflict between Iran and the United States and Israel are unfolding in a complex manner, interconnecting alliances, sanctions, and energy logistics, and are affecting Arctic security. In particular, Russia's energy supply chain is facilitating connectivity between the Arctic and the Indo-Pacific region and functioning as an alternative energy supply chain in the event of disruptions or delays in existing supply chains. In the current situation where existing Middle Eastern energy supply chains are not functioning as a consequence of the Iran war, India is procuring crude oil and LNG from the Arctic Yamal Peninsula, and the importation of East Siberian crude oil to Asian countries via Arctic sea routes will be possible going forward. Over the long term, in the context of diversifying Arctic energy resource supply chains, Russia is currently constructing LNG transshipment terminals and considering LNG supply to East Asian countries.

5. Conclusion

While the direction of Arctic geopolitical change will not be determined in the short term, preparations must be made for the situation following the conclusion of the war in Ukraine. Arctic geopolitics going forward will be subject to considerable volatility depending on complex factors including the wars in Ukraine and Iran and the handling of the Greenland dispute; however, in the short term, the policy positions of Russia and the United States following the conclusion of the war in Ukraine are of particular importance. In a situation where the Arctic sea route energy supply chain and related arrangements are likely to be substantially restructured depending on whether sanctions against Russia are continued, preparations with respect to Russia policy are necessary. At present, the ostensibly consistent European posture of sustaining and strengthening sanctions against Russia may also be characterized by a degree of ambivalence, and China, Japan, and other states are assessed to be preparing preemptive responses to the aforementioned issues. Ultimately, Arctic geopolitics will expand into a geopolitical space in which U.S.-China-Russia competition intensifies, and this must be pursued with due consideration of the medium to long term strategies of the states within the Northeast Asian region.