The lack of communication and the absence of US-Russia relations since 2022 and the special military operation in Ukraine also affect the geopolitical context in the Arctic.
Geography is relentless and forces the US-Russia and other states to share the challenges of an ever-warming region.
US President Donald Trump’s continued interest in acquiring Greenland further injects potential geostrategic challenges into the frozen arena of the region.
When the idea was floated during his first term, the Russian leadership reacted with interest but not strongly. However, at this stage, Russia is facing the Trump plan for Greenland with a comprehensive strategy.
The discussions now seem to focus less on the “originality” of the Greenland acquisition and more on understanding the “goals”.
The three scenarios Russia is considering
- Scenario 1: Maintaining the status quo
Three possible scenarios for US-Greenland relations are being discussed in Moscow in terms of strategic implications for Russia.
The primary scenario is to maintain the status quo. Maintaining the status quo would undoubtedly work to Russia’s advantage, as it would allow Moscow to maintain its position as the main military player in the Arctic.
Moscow, however, is wary of Denmark’s ability to respond to Trump’s rhetoric and thus deepen its ties with China. The Russia-China relationship is complex, integrated, and fueled by the regional ambitions of both players.
Greenland has long provided a potential platform for an increased Chinese presence in the Arctic, which has prompted both Moscow and Beijing to deepen their cooperation. Denmark (and Greenland) have a successful track record of pushing back against Chinese economic expansion.
Attempts to invest in Greenland’s airports and key state infrastructure have been thwarted. However, Moscow seems concerned about the current state of confusion and uncertainty in European politics.
This may further provide fertile ground for China’s flexible foreign policy by encouraging Russia to establish itself as the dominant power in the Arctic Circle.
- Scenario 2: Expanding the US Presence in Greenland
A second scenario being discussed in Russia is the gradual expansion of the US presence in Greenland. This poses significant challenges for Russia. These challenges can be categorized into three main areas:
1. the strengthening of the US military presence in the Arctic,
2. control of strategic sea lines of communication in the High North
3. and control of rare earth deposits.
An expansion of Greenland’s Pittufik military base, formerly known as Tula, or the modernization of its infrastructure to accommodate missile defense systems or advanced radar technology would enhance the US ability to monitor the GIUK maritime space, i.e. between the United Kingdom, Iceland, Greenland.
This is a strategic entry point into the North Atlantic for Russia’s naval fleet, the National Interest notes.
Furthermore, the large-scale deployment of non-nuclear missile systems could likely be perceived as a direct threat to Russia’s interests in the Russian Arctic. A repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis, this time in the North.
An inevitable pursuit of parity in both defensive and offensive capabilities will lead to further militarization of the Arctic.
Moscow will likely strengthen its Arctic brigades and deploy hypersonic missiles on nearby Russian islands in the Arctic Ocean. There is already precedent for Moscow engaging in retaliation in the Arctic.
Immediately after the signing of the 2021 US-Norway Agreement to expand military cooperation in the Arctic, Russia conducted a large-scale (scientific) expedition called Umka-2021. This expedition was organized by the Russian Navy in cooperation with the Russian Geographical Society. However, it had a distinct military flavor.
- Scenario 3: Use of Military Force by the US
A third scenario being discussed is for the United States to “take” Greenland through military force. The prospect of Washington establishing military control over Greenland is largely ignored, but not entirely absent from Russian strategic discourse.
This would be a complete departure from recent US policy. The recent settlement of the long-standing territorial dispute between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island is an example of US policy to promote a cooperative Arctic climate.
Russia’s strategic goals in the Arctic remain consistent:
1. maintaining military dominance,
2. securing control of the Northern Sea Route (NSR),
3. and controlling the Arctic’s mineral resources.
Moscow sees Trump plans as a threat
All three possible scenarios considered in Moscow when it comes to Trump’s Greenland game pose at least some threat to Russia’s goals in the Arctic.
One common thread is that any future U.S. planning for Greenland would serve as an impetus for the remilitarization of the Arctic.
Trump’s plan is almost certain to lead to a strategic change of pace in the Arctic.
The idea of annexation by force may be unlikely, but the potential outcomes for Moscow pose serious, if not fundamental, challenges to Russia’s strategic planning in the Arctic.
Above all, Moscow is concerned that the United States is using Greenland to more effectively counter Russia’s claims to sovereignty over the NSR.
The NSR is a strategic game-changer for Asia-Europe shipping and is reorienting global transport with profound implications.
Moscow is likely to find itself in a controlling position on global trade routes. At least for the looming Asian century.
Russia – China – India Draw Even Closer
Perhaps more interesting for the long-term global strategic balance is how far US policy on Greenland will push Moscow and Beijing, and eventually New Delhi, to cooperate in the Arctic.
All three scenarios discussed in Russia lead to the expansion and deepening (to varying degrees) of Russian-Chinese Arctic relations.
US policy on Greenland will likely trigger a renewed round of cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. The deepening of Russian-Chinese relations is one result of the Arctic becoming another important stepping stone towards building a multipolar world. It seems that the Arctic will be the first real test of this new world embraced by both Moscow and Beijing.
And that is the long-term strategic problem facing the US in the Arctic.
