The Arctic End Game — Great Powers Clash as Europe Crumbles
America Joins the Race with China and Russia for Arctic Resources and Control of Sea Routes...
Through a commercial and strategic lens, the 47th US President’s 2019 proposal to seize Greenland — and his decision to make it a cornerstone of his second-term foreign policy — was not shooting from the hip. It was a calculated move for control of the Arctic.
Greenland — the world’s largest island, with a tiny population of 58,000, geologically part of the North American continent but geopolitically part of Europe — holds trillions of dollars in untapped resources, enabling, in one fell swoop, the US to re-collateralise its mountains of debt. Which is why Trump has threatened to target tariffs against Denmark and has refused to rule out taking the Arctic island by force. As night follows day, Greenland will fall under US control.
Opposition to American control by Greenlands indigenous Inuit population has been remarkably muted. The reason? Denmark, employed the standard European colonial playbook against them until relatively recently, including child abduction, forced sterilisation and displacement. There is no love lost between the Inuit and the Danes, that’s for sure.
This is one reason the EU has remained conspicuously silent on Greenland. Neither European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen nor European Council President António Costa has publicly addressed the US threats against Denmark.
Greenland’s vast oil and mineral wealth is a prize in itself. No shocker, then, that Kobold Metals — a US company backed by UK and Australian mining giants — is already carving up the island’s mineral-rich regions.
And who’s behind KoBold? The usual suspects — US oligarchs and institutional investors like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, unicorn hunter Andreessen Horowitz, and the rent-seeking trifecta — BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street. Of course they are.
Seizing the Arctic island would also give Washington a late but strategic foothold in the race against Beijing and Moscow to exploit the polar realm’s vast untapped resources. More importantly, it opens the door to developing the Northwest Passage — a rival Arctic sea route to Russia’s Northern Sea Route. Both routes slash transit times from Asia to Europe by up to 15 days compared to the Suez Canal, but only if the ice retreats — or is smashed out of the way.
The scramble for riches in the frozen north began in earnest on the 2nd August 2007, when Russia asserted its sovereignty over its Arctic seabed by planting its national flag 14,000 feet beneath the North Pole.
Since then, Moscow and Beijing have rapidly built Arctic infrastructure, including new energy and transport corridors, gas and oil fields, mines, smelting facilities, ports, cities, and military bases. A fleet of modern civilian and military icebreakers will ensure year-round navigation along the Northern Sea Route by 2027.
For a detailed analysis of how China and Russia are reshaping the Arctic, see here.
Unsurprisingly, Russia commands the world’s largest icebreaker fleet, with over 40 vessels — eight of which are nuclear-powered. Among these, its combat icebreakers are now armed with Kalibr supersonic cruise missiles, capable of striking ships and land targets. And both China and Russia are racing to build more supersized, nuclear icebreakers of various types.
For the US, matching this dual civilian-military capability could take decades — assuming its corrupt and broken procurement system is ever fixed.
Given China and Russia’s aggressive push to dominate Earth’s final frontier, the rationale for Sweden and Finland joining their Nordic neighbours — Denmark and Norway — in NATO, extends far beyond the Ukraine war.
Finland’s 830-mile Arctic border with Russia now becomes NATO’s new front line, sharpening the alliance’s Arctic expertise alongside other Nordic nations. Their air forces are rapidly integrating, and the US military has gained access to critical naval and air bases, as well as training and testing grounds in the Arctic — pushing right up against Russia’s border. And what’s more, Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite constellation now provides complete communications coverage over the entire frozen wilderness.
In short, Washington is positioning to counter Russia and China’s Arctic ambitions. Let’s set aside, for now, the fact that it has the leverage to do so — more on that in a moment.
That said, NATO and the EU’s survival after Ukraine’s inevitable defeat is far from guaranteed, let alone their ability to meet Washington’s demand for 5% GDP defence spending — undoubtedly on US arms. Worse, Washington and Moscow may eventually forge a new European security architecture, sidelining Europe and Ukraine entirely. Add the Trump administration’s apparent push for regime change in the UK and Germany, and Europe’s ability to pivot its strategic focus to the Arctic looks tenuous at best, amid mounting internal crises.
Straightforwardly, European elites and their bureaucracies have repeatedly demonstrated incompetence, a profound disconnect from their citizens, and an inability to grasp — let alone formulate — effective strategy. This failure is starkly evident in the ongoing slaughter in Ukraine, Europe's worst tragedy since World War II.
Even if Europe is circling the drain, Washington’s ultimate leverage over Russia and China in the Arctic lies in the Norwegian-controlled archipelago of Svalbard. Situated midway between Norway’s northern coast and the North Pole, Svalbard sits at the strategic crossroads of the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and the Northwest Passage. This makes it an ideal maritime chokepoint — one that could cripple Russia’s Arctic ambitions overnight, even without NATO involvement.
Simply put, Svalbard is the Achilles’ heel of both Russia’s and China’s Arctic power play. Under the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, the archipelago is fully demilitarised, explicitly prohibiting the establishment of military bases or infrastructure. At the same time, the treaty ensures freedom of navigation, allowing Russian and Chinese vessels to pass unhindered through its waters.
For Moscow and Beijing, this legal framework is vital — it guarantees the right to transit past Svalbard, even though the archipelago lies within Norway’s territorial waters. This access is key to unlocking the Northern Sea Route, which runs largely within Russia’s exclusive economic zone but depends critically on passage near Svalbard.
Little wonder, then, that the Svalbard Treaty is already under challenge. While it grants Norway sovereignty over the archipelago, it also ensures signatory states — including the US, China, and Russia — equal rights to exploit resources and access its waters. Norway, however, limits these provisions to Svalbard’s territorial waters (12 nautical miles), excluding its extended continental shelf and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) —a 200-nautical-mile area where coastal states control resource exploitation.
Russia and China reject this interpretation, viewing it as a threat to their Arctic ambitions. The dispute raises the stakes for control over Arctic shipping routes, untapped resources, and strategic influence in a rapidly transforming region.
But here’s the kicker for the civilisational states — the US could unilaterally withdraw from the Svalbard Treaty, undermining its protections and disrupting the status quo. The President has the authority to abrogate treaties without Congressional approval, as seen with the Paris Climate Agreement and the INF Treaty. While withdrawal wouldn’t nullify the treaty itself, it would remove US obligations and could destabilise the framework — especially if it aligns with Norway’s position.
By ripping up the Svalbard Treaty, Washington could impose restrictions on Russian and Chinese shipping, forcing their vessels to navigate farther north through heavily frozen waters. Even Russia’s formidable nuclear icebreakers would struggle to break through the thicker ice, not to mention the added burdens of increased fuel costs, longer transit times, and heightened risks of accidents.
The implications would be seismic. Overnight, Russia’s Arctic strategy would be crippled. Even if the US doesn’t pull the trigger, the mere threat of leveraging Svalbard could serve as a powerful bargaining chip in any “grand bargain” negotiations with Moscow and Beijing, reshaping the global order into spheres of influence.
The cold, harsh reality is this — Svalbard is more than a remote Arctic outpost — it’s a geopolitical fulcrum. By exploiting this maritime chokepoint, the US could leave Russia and China icebound. Whilst such a move would provoke diplomatic backlash and further erode trust in international agreements, the strategic win of undermining Russia’s and China’s Arctic ambitions may prove too tempting — especially after the AI Sputnik moment has left Washington reeling.
In the Arctic, as elsewhere, international law is only as strong as the willingness of the powerful to abide by it. And if there’s one thing Washington has shown, it’s that it plays the “great game” by its own rules.
Too bad asshole, you may NOT have ANY money from the American People. Americans pay for your social services system while our largesse protects you.
Waiting to hear about that first voyage from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Last I remember was in the 40s.