The European Union (EU) has recently made a substantial strategic move aimed at reinforcing its presence and influence in the Arctic. Last week, the European Commission proposed to nearly double financial aid to Greenland, suggesting an investment of over €530 million as part of its forthcoming budget for 2028–2034. This initiative signals the EU’s serious ambitions and recognition of the region’s crucial role in global commerce and geopolitical dynamics, spurred in large part by the rapid melting of Arctic ice due to climate change.
The transformation caused by climate change has opened up significant opportunities in the Arctic, particularly through the Northern Sea Route. This newly navigable maritime pathway allows goods to be transported with unprecedented ease, eliminating the need for icebreakers and drastically reducing travel time between Europe and Asia. In 2023, this route conveyed a record volume of 35 million tonnes of goods. Experts, such as Yan Cavalluzzi from NCT Consultants, suggest that this route substantially shortens shipping distances, making it a competitive alternative to traditional routes via the Strait of Malacca and the Suez Canal. Despite the route’s burgeoning potential, analysts note that it still pales in comparison to the Suez Canal, which managed to handle an astonishing 1.6 billion tonnes.
However, the strategic implications of the Northern Sea Route are complicated by geopolitical realities. A significant portion—53%—of this maritime passage runs alongside Russia, which has been increasingly assertive in extending its exclusive economic zone and complicating international maritime laws. Furthermore, the looming influence of China in Arctic affairs cannot be ignored; since launching its “Polar Silk Road” strategy in 2018, Beijing has positioned itself as a key player in the region, raising concerns for the EU, especially given its reliance on Chinese imports.
The militarization of the Arctic has escalated since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, intensifying the geostrategic competition in the region. NATO’s recent expansion with Finland and Sweden joining the alliance is viewed as a strategic maneuver to bolster defenses against Russian ambitions in the Arctic. Analysts, such as Cavalluzzi, indicate that the U.S. has vested interests in Arctic capabilities, especially following its reduction in military presence there post-Cold War. The EU recognizes that, to safeguard its interests, it cannot solely depend on the military capabilities of member states in the vicinity, highlighting the need for a coordinated defensive strategy.
As the EU positions itself more actively in the Arctic geopolitics, it thinks about leveraging various territories, including Greenland, as potential platforms for strategic facilities, such as early-warning systems and naval deployments. Ivan Zaccagnini from the Centre for Security, Diplomacy, and Strategy notes that the EU’s Arctic strategy is evolving—from a passive observer stance to a more engaged and proactive role. Such a shift is necessary, especially given growing external influences and threats in the region.
Moreover, the Arctic’s rich hydrocarbon reserves have increasingly attracted the attention of the world’s major powers, with estimates suggesting that it holds 13% of undiscovered oil reserves and 30% of natural gas supplies. Access to these resources could help the EU diversify its energy supplies and assert greater strategic autonomy. However, entangled in geopolitical rivalries and persistent Russian and Chinese influence, the EU faces substantial hurdles. The reliance on U.S. military support further complicates matters, especially in light of past presidential ambitions, such as Donald Trump’s expressed desire to annex Greenland. Going forward, experts suggest that the EU must enhance its capabilities and invest in a comprehensive approach to ensure security and maintain a presence in the Arctic. Thus, while diplomacy and negotiation may serve as tools for asserting interests in this changing landscape, a proactive and coordinated strategy will be essential for the EU’s future roles in Arctic affairs.
