Intelligence Squared

Is the Arctic the World’s Next War Zone? With Kenneth R. Rosen

January 30, 2026

Key Takeaways Copied to clipboard!

  • The Arctic's definition is fluid, depending on the actor (scientist, military, politician) and their operational interests, rather than strictly the Arctic Circle. 
  • Climate change in the Arctic is paradoxically driving great power competition for resources and strategic advantage rather than fostering global cooperation. 
  • Gray zone tactics, such as severed undersea cables and drone incursions, are the current form of conflict below the threshold of open war in the Arctic, benefiting actors like Russia by creating ambiguity. 

Segments

Arctic Definition and Book Impulse
Copied to clipboard!
(00:05:07)
  • Key Takeaway: The author’s book originated from an assignment to find potential US conflict hotspots outside of known regions like the Middle East and Pacific.
  • Summary: The author was sent to Svalbard to investigate potential next conflict zones for the US post-pandemic and post-Ukraine invasion. Subtle news regarding gray zone tactics, like severed undersea cables, drew the author to the Arctic. The author deliberately avoids capitalizing ‘Arctic’ to reflect the region’s fluid definition.
Defining the Arctic Region
Copied to clipboard!
(00:05:44)
  • Key Takeaway: The Arctic is not uniformly defined; its boundaries shift based on the actor’s interests, as evidenced by the Congressional Scientific Act including the Aleutian Islands.
  • Summary: The speaker initially believed the Arctic was strictly defined by the Arctic Circle but learned its definition varies by actor, such as scientists or the military. A Congressional Scientific Act defined the Arctic to include the Aleutian Islands, which are far south of the Arctic Circle. This fluidity led the author to intentionally lowercase the word ‘Arctic’ throughout the book.
Arctic Stakes and Great Power Rivalry
Copied to clipboard!
(00:08:09)
  • Key Takeaway: Post-Cold War cooperation in the Arctic has been replaced by nations viewing climate-driven changes as opportunities for competition rather than shared environmental stewardship.
  • Summary: The region shifted from a zone of peace and scientific cooperation, as envisioned by Gorbachev, to one of convoluted international relations due to rapid climate change. The Arctic is warming four to five times faster than the rest of the world, prompting nations to see it as a competitive sphere. This shift involves politics and military strategy, contrasting with narratives focused solely on environmental concerns like melting icebergs.
Major Actors’ Arctic Interests
Copied to clipboard!
(00:11:36)
  • Key Takeaway: Russia dominates the Arctic as the primary stakeholder, while China supports Russia’s commercial shipping route development, and US interest, particularly regarding Greenland, appears less strategically grounded.
  • Summary: Russia is the dominant force due to its extensive Arctic coastline and infrastructure, seeking to open its Northern Sea Route for commercial vessels. China assists this by funding port expansions, though Russia remains wary of excessive Chinese influence. The US focus on Greenland, spurred by recent rhetoric, does not align with its current operational capabilities or long-term strategic plans in the high north.
Resources, Climate, and US Policy
Copied to clipboard!
(00:14:47)
  • Key Takeaway: The US focus on Greenland for critical minerals is long-term (25-100 years) and currently unsupported by unified domestic policy or funding mechanisms like the Polar Security Cutter Program.
  • Summary: The Arctic presents a microcosm of global challenges, balancing power politics with terraforming environmental changes driven by climate change. The US interest in Greenland’s rare earth minerals is a long-term prospect, contrasting with the immediate commercial shipping focus of China and Russia. The US government struggles to rally unified Congressional support for necessary Arctic infrastructure, such as ice-capable vessels.
European Arctic Defense Response
Copied to clipboard!
(00:18:36)
  • Key Takeaway: Following Russian aggression, Nordic nations (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark) significantly increased defense spending based on their ’total defense’ principle, integrating fully into NATO’s Arctic military planning.
  • Summary: European Arctic nations increased defense budgets and troop presence following the invasion of Ukraine, viewing the region as NATO’s Achilles heel. The Nordic nations adhere to a ’total defense’ principle where all citizens are incumbent upon defending the homeland. Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO completed the northern puzzle pieces for NATO military planners, enabling coordinated troop movements.
Gray Zone and Below Threshold Tactics
Copied to clipboard!
(00:22:39)
  • Key Takeaway: Gray zone warfare involves persistent, asymmetric actions like GPS jamming and drone flights that fall below the threshold of war because they are difficult to attribute clearly to an adversary.
  • Summary: Unlike conventional conflict, hybrid warfare persists in daily life, exemplified by Russian drones testing Finnish communication networks. Severing an undersea cable connecting Svalbard to Norway, ostensibly by a fishing vessel, is an example of an action that benefits an antagonist but lacks clear attribution. These ‘black flag’ operations aim to goad an actor into initiating a more overt conflict.
Local Politics vs. Capital Decisions
Copied to clipboard!
(00:28:42)
  • Key Takeaway: There is a significant geographic and political dislocation between Arctic populations (like in Svalbard or Alaska) and their distant national capitals, creating vulnerabilities exploited by external influence operations.
  • Summary: The people of Svalbard, 1800 miles from Oslo, may not have their voices fully represented in policy decisions dictating their non-militarized zone. In the US, national policy against renewables contradicts the favorable math for geothermal and solar energy in Alaska. This disconnect allows adversarial actors to shape local political dynamics where national attention is inconsistent.
Military Infrastructure and Civilian Growth
Copied to clipboard!
(00:36:38)
  • Key Takeaway: In harsh climates like the Arctic, military capabilities often lead the way in building critical infrastructure (airports, roads) that subsequently facilitates commercial and civilian development.
  • Summary: Historically, the military often performs the groundwork before civilian society can flourish in remote areas; for instance, all current airports in Greenland were built by the US military. The US Army Corps of Engineers is currently building the port in Nome, Alaska, leveraging military capacity for harsh climate engineering. While military presence heightens security concerns, it is essential for facilitating growth and logistics in the North.
US History and Greenland Sovereignty
Copied to clipboard!
(00:38:39)
  • Key Takeaway: US historical attempts to acquire Greenland have been repeatedly blocked by treaties with Denmark affirming Greenland’s sovereignty, and current US focus on purchase distracts from Greenland’s decade-long pursuit of independence.
  • Summary: The US desire to purchase territory echoes Seward’s acquisition of Alaska, but agreements in 1916 and 1951 explicitly acknowledged Danish sovereignty over Greenland. The current debate over buying Greenland inadvertently stalls the Inuit people’s efforts toward independence from the Kingdom of Denmark. The hemispheric approach implied by the Greenland focus diminishes the necessary transatlantic partnership.
Policy Recommendations for the US
Copied to clipboard!
(00:45:44)
  • Key Takeaway: The US should establish a broader Arctic military code of conduct through the Arctic Council, as the current high-level rhetoric is likely to cause security issues to deteriorate before improving.
  • Summary: The author suggests introducing militarization discussions into the Arctic Council to create a broad military code of conduct among the Arctic eight stakeholders. A treaty similar to the Antarctic model is unlikely given the current level of escalated rhetoric. Cooperation is expected to deteriorate further under the current administration before any potential improvement.