In late July, Russia launched “July Storm,” a major maritime naval exercise that took place across the Pacific, Arctic, Baltic, and Caspian Seas. Shortly afterwards, NATO deployed a maritime force group to the Arctic, focused on anti-submarine activities to protect undersea cables and ensure freedom of navigation in the region. These exercises came on the back of an increased focus on the Arctic as a region for geostrategic competition. US President Donald Trump’s attempts to “buy” Greenland, while clumsy, hint at the importance of the region for American national security. At the same time, the Arctic would have a critical role in the so-called “Golden Dome” missile defense project, should that come to fruition. But there is another factor driving this competition — rising global temperatures.
The United States is woefully unprepared to address the challenging and changing geostrategic environment in the Arctic. Russia, on the other hand, is positioned and primed to take advantage of the coming changes.
Melting Arctic ice is also making competition in the region more likely — as more energy resources and shipping lines become accessible — but it is also contributing to the overall rate of climate change. Arctic sea ice reflects solar heat back into the atmosphere, insulating the ocean below. As that ice melts, the polar cap reflects less light, further accelerating climate change. On top of that, as the sea warms, it disrupts ocean currents and weather patterns worldwide, deepening the effects of climate change in many locations.
As the effects of climate change intensify, increased competition over resources and access in the Arctic is almost inevitable — but it doesn’t have to result in conflict. Efforts to respond to the risk of conflict in the Arctic should be twofold: firstly, redoubling efforts to slow the overall rate of climate change, and secondly, ensuring the United States and its allies are adequately prepared for any potential future conflict in the region.
The Arctic has always been strategically important, but climate change will make it increasingly relevant. Since 1979, Arctic Sea ice has declined by an average of 27,000 square miles a year, and the Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the world. This melting ice is making access to hydrocarbon resources easier. The US Geological Survey estimates the Arctic covers around 22% of the world’s undiscovered reserves of oil and gas. Up to 412 billion barrels of oil and gas are thought to lie beneath the ice, making the potential for conflict over increased resources a very real risk.
The decline in sea ice also means seasonal shipping lanes are now open for longer each year, and in time, what is known as the Northern Sea Route (a 3,500-mile route between the Bering Strait and the Kara Gate) will become accessible year-round. Sovereignty of the waters that make up the Northern Sea Route (NSR) is disputed. Russia claims the shipping lane falls within its territorial waters, which the United States denies. If the NSR becomes operational year-round, it will significantly decrease shipping times from Asia to Europe, and Russia could stand to make up to $160 billion in taxes across the next decade. Combined with access to new oil and gas reserves, the NSR would provide Russia with a valuable economic resource. As the Russian economy potentially teeters towards recession, additional resources will be welcome in Moscow as the war in Ukraine shows no sign of stopping.
Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has been investing heavily in Arctic civilian and military infrastructure, and in the last decade, Moscow has reopened and modernized more than 50 bases in the Arctic. Such investment means Russia is poised to exploit and defend the new resources that will become available as the sea ice melts.
Still, rising temperatures also bring challenges for Russia. Russian Arctic infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to climate change as melting permafrost reduces the ability of the land to support buildings and industry. By 2050, up to 20% of Russian commercial and industrial infrastructure could be negatively damaged by permafrost degradation.
Russia’s increased cooperation with the “near-Arctic” nation, China, could also create a more volatile Arctic theater in the not-so-distant future. China’s footprint in the Arctic is already growing, and the development of civil-military capabilities in some of its established polar research stations could provide the foundation for future Arctic endeavors. China and Russia have meanwhile held multiple joint military exercises in the North Pacific and Bering Sea. The exercises have included naval coordination, antisubmarine warfare, missile defense, and air defense. The US and Canada have already dealt with a confrontation during one such joint air patrol when Chinese and Russian aircraft entered the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone.
“Increased competition in the Arctic is unlikely to take the form of conventional, kinetic warfare.”
The United States, on the other hand, has neglected the Arctic for decades. Despite the publication of an Arctic Strategy in 2024, there has been very little effort to increase American assets and infrastructure in the Arctic. The United States has one heavy icebreaker, whereas Russia reportedly has roughly 40. The US Coast Guard just added an additional icebreaker to its existing fleet of two, and the 2024 ICE Pact agreement provides a basis for the US, Canada, and Finland to jointly manufacture icebreakers, but scaling up production will take time. This past summer, when the Arctic was most accessible, the US didn’t conduct a single new mission in the High North. Meanwhile, Russia’s Northern Fleet conducts annual two-month-long operations in the Arctic.
Increased competition in the Arctic is unlikely to take the form of conventional, kinetic warfare. Instead, the region will likely see an escalation of gray-zone tactics and hybrid warfare; Russian patrols in EEZs, subsea infrastructure sabotage, and/or aggression underpinned by territorial disputes. Critical infrastructure sabotage makes up 21% of Russian gray zone warfare, and the number of these attacks in Europe tripled between 2023 and 2024. Notably, Moscow is suspected to have been involved in the explosions of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines. There have also been instances of cable damage in the Arctic.
Against this backdrop of increasingly severe risks, the United States needs to prepare for a potential escalation by investing more time and resources into building American Arctic strategic readiness and infrastructure. Specifically, the United States needs to continue to coordinate and work with Canadian and European partners on building Arctic seafaring and monitoring capabilities. NATO’s recent deployment of a maritime force group to the Arctic, the ICE Pact, and the US Navy’s long tradition of Arctic submarine excursions are a good foundation for building a physical presence in the region. Still, with the rapid proliferation of Russian gray zone activities, infrastructure in the High North remains at risk. Increased allied joint military exercises, patrols, and strategic cooperation agreements could provide a more dynamic strategy in deterring Russian aggression.
Worse yet, the Trump administration’s unbalanced cuts to Arctic research may have long-term, detrimental impacts on US Arctic interests. Scientific research is vital, not only by its own merit but for strategic purposes as well. For example, detecting submarines will become more challenging as sea temperatures warm, as the technology used to detect submarines is affected by factors like water temperature and salinity.
Preparing for increased competition isn’t enough on its own. The United States should be working closely with allies — both in the Arctic and globally — to reduce emissions and tackle the impact of climate change. Safeguarding the Arctic, given the role of melting ice in pushing global temperatures up overall, is essential to reduce the impact of climate change both on vulnerable nations and at home.
The clock is ticking, but there’s still time. Additional oil and gas will not be accessible quickly, and setting up new drilling stations in the Arctic is expensive and slow. Now is the moment to halt (or at least slow) the melting of the Arctic ice and build capabilities to combat and deter Russia in the High North.
Conflicts spurred by climate change are already happening globally, and climate change will become increasingly more influential on the battlefield. If action isn’t taken, the Arctic may become one of the next theaters for conflict.
