That contradiction has come into sharp relief during the presidency of Donald Trump, whose blunt interest in Greenland exposed what European diplomacy had long obscured. The controversy was framed as eccentricity or provocation, but the underlying grievance was familiar. For decades, the United States has underwritten European security while European governments reduced their defense investments in favor of generous welfare systems and subsidized industry, confident that the American half of the alliance would absorb the risk. The Greenland crisis has simply made that imbalance visible.

Greenland’s Strategic Reality

Greenland occupies a unique strategic position. It sits in the western hemisphere astride the Arctic approaches to the “GIUK Gap,” hosting critical space and missile-warning infrastructure essential to NATO’s early-warning architecture. The 2004 Defense Greenland Agreement between the United States and Denmark, Amending and Supplementing the Agreement of April 27, 1951, explicitly limits the US defense area in Greenland to Thule (Pituffik) Air (Space) Base only.

With Arctic sea lanes opening and undersea infrastructure becoming a focal point of competition, Greenland’s strategic importance is no longer peripheral but central. The question now confronting Europe is whether the small Kingdom of Denmark and, by extension, Europe, can demonstrate even minimal sovereignty over a territory it insists is non-negotiable but has left undefended for some 250 years.

Article 3 of the NATO Treaty states: “In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” Put plainly, Denmark is obligated to maintain—on its own and on a continuous basis—the capacity to defend all its territory. By that standard, Denmark has failed to meet its Article 3 responsibilities for a very long time, if it ever has.

Despite its strategic importance, Greenland remains vulnerable and economically neglected. This is not an accident or a bureaucratic oversight. It is the result of a long-standing assumption—that the United States would indefinitely guarantee European sovereignty and sustain its social-economic model. That assumption no longer holds. Strategic competition is shifting away from open confrontation toward constant pressure, probing actions, and fait accompli. In this world, sovereignty is not something you can merely declare. It is something you must demonstrate.

Trump, Europe, and the Sovereignty Question

Trump’s narrative about Greenland was widely dismissed as transactional or unserious. Stripped of tone, however, the message was structural: As the Arctic presents opportunity, Greenland is even more strategically vital to North American security than ever before, and someone must take responsibility for securing and developing it.

This tension among NATO allies reflects a broader post–Cold War pattern. Europe expanded its regulatory, economic, and political influence while allowing NATO military funding and capability to atrophy. The resulting system elevated process, norms, and legalism over hard power security, sovereignty, and deterrence.

The renewed United States demand for Greenland exposes the limits of that model. If Denmark cannot even mount a minimal defense of its own territory, the problem is not American overreach, but European credibility.

The UK Corollary

In a striking act of geopolitical idealism, the United Kingdom has agreed to cede sovereignty over Diego Garcia to Mauritius—an “own goal” that harms US interests. Long regarded as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier,” Diego Garcia has been a cornerstone of US and UK power projection across the Middle East, East Africa, South Asia, and beyond for decades.

After years of legal and diplomatic pressure—culminating in adverse rulings from international courts and the United Nations—the UK concluded that continued unilateral control of the Chagos Archipelago was politically unsustainable in this rules-based international order. In 2024, London agreed to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius, a state increasingly influenced by Beijing, while attempting to preserve military access through a long-term, UK-funded lease.

On paper, operations continue. Leverage shifts from occupant to owner. Sovereignty matters: once surrendered, access rests on political permission rather than power. A future Beijing-aligned Mauritius could abrogate agreements or revoke leases, leaving the US and UK strategically stranded, “out of runway” and out of business in the Indian Ocean.

Like Diego Garcia, Greenland’s strategic value lies in assured access. Trusting that allies will always act in America’s best interest is folly. Access without ownership is always conditional; sovereignty without power is fragile. Both cases reveal the same risk—vital territory left exposed at a moment when great-power competition demands clarity, presence, and resolve.

Sovereignty Requires Adequate Organic Defense

Defending Greenland does not require national militarization on Cold War terms. It does not require large permanent formations or aggressive posturing. But it does require capability, presence, and integration of real forces tied to real geography. The fantasy of the [European] Liberal [global] Rules-based order is no longer sufficient alone.

A credible defense posture requires permanent ground, air, and naval forces. Presence must be sufficient to assert territorial control, secure the Arctic approaches, and protect key infrastructure. Additionally, it requires fifth-generation airpower, supported by NATO enablers sufficient to project air sovereignty and assert control over the airspace of the GIUK, along with integrated maritime and subsurface awareness to control approaches, advanced air and missile defense for critical nodes, and the logistics infrastructure required to sustain operations in an Arctic environment.

This is not an escalation; it is the minimum viable defense posture for the territory Denmark claims sovereignty over, NATO depends upon, and the Western Hemisphere demands. Anything less than that is not restraint; it is abdication.

What Denmark Can Do

For Denmark to retain its kingdom, it must fervently acknowledge that China and Russia are expanding their Arctic ambitions and that continuing to ignore or neglect this threat risks losing Greenland to another great power’s orbit. Denmark does not need to defend Greenland alone, but it must lead and meet its Article 3 responsibilities. Sovereignty cannot be subcontracted. First, Denmark must accept that a visible, persistent presence is non-negotiable. A battalion-sized force and a fighter squadron on Greenlandic soil are not a burden; they are a declaration of responsibility.

Second, Denmark must align force posture with geography. Arctic defense is not a side mission; it is central to Denmark’s strategic responsibilities and credibility. That requires prioritizing basing, sustainment, and readiness over symbolic deployments there or elsewhere.

Third, Denmark must integrate defense with economic development. Resource extraction, energy production, and infrastructure are not separate from security; they are its foundation. Without an economic base, defense remains episodic and less affordable. For the collective West, energy and critical element security is national security. If Denmark cannot execute these steps—even with allied support—then sovereignty is no longer exercised; it is merely asserted.

How Europe Can Contribute Without Posturing

Greenland offers Europe an opportunity to demonstrate what regional shared deterrence looks like. Contributions need not be equal in scale, but they must be meaningful in effect. Rotational air defense units, maritime patrol aircraft, icebreaking capacity, logistics support, and infrastructure investment tied directly to defense requirements would materially strengthen deterrence without grandstanding.

This is where Europe’s economic power must finally align with its strategic claims. Shared deterrence is not about symbolism or declarations. It is about complementary capability and sustained commitment.

Can Europe Move Fast Enough?

The decisive variable is time. Ten-year roadmaps and aspirational targets are irrelevant. Greenland’s exposure is immediate. The longer Europe delays, the more it reinforces the perception that sovereignty exists only on paper. Delay only serves to validate President Trump’s strategic demand.

Credible deterrence must begin within weeks, not months or years. Initial deployments need not be perfect, but they cannot be symbolic political statements devoid of the credible military capacity required for the mission. They need to be visible, permanent, and expandable.

The Consequences of Failure

Failure in Greenland would reverberate far beyond the Arctic. If Denmark cannot defend Greenland with allied assistance, then European claims of strategic autonomy collapse and NATO’s credibility fractures geographically. The United States will either act unilaterally or disengage selectively. Resource development will proceed without European leverage. Most damaging of all, failure would confirm a lesson Europe can no longer afford: that idealism and process cannot substitute for balance-of-power realism, and that international norms cannot enforce themselves. Where previous US presidential administrations relied on alliances, basing agreements, and quiet influence, President Trump has framed the issue in transactional terms: if Greenland was strategically vital, someone had to take responsibility for securing and developing it.

Conclusion

Greenland is not a crisis invented in Washington. It is the result of allied neglect and free riding. Persistent underinvestment in defense, miscalculation of threats, and a readiness among many allies to subordinate their sovereignty to international norms have produced a growing crisis of confidence in the United States. This can only be reversed with real power projection and a NATO commitment to peace through strength.

Denmark does not need to match American power. It needs to demonstrate agency, urgency, and empathy. Denmark and greater NATO must listen to its most powerful ally and address its security concerns with great alacrity. Rather than escalating the rhetoric, Denmark should admit its negligence and mitigate the shortfall now. Europe does not need to replace the United States or drive it out of the alliance. It needs to stop pretending that sovereignty is cost-free or that it can be reliably substituted with treaties in perpetuity.

This President demands more of the alliance to defend America’s northern approaches. If Denmark and the rest of NATO cannot meet that demand, the United States will. What is being asked is reasonable. The Arctic is now NATO’s second front. If Europe cannot meet that demand here, it has become sovereignty insolvent and should stop speaking of autonomy elsewhere. Because in the end, reality does not respond to intention, only to real and persistent power.

Col (Ret.) Kirk Fansher is a senior fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Col (Ret.) Curtis McGiffin is vice president of education at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies. Views expressed by the authors are their own.

Can Denmark Defend Greenland from Trump? was originally published on Global Security Review.

Bottom line: The center of gravity in deterrence is shifting to space-enabled, long-range, rapidly replaceable kill webs, and our adversaries are acting as if they know it. NATO voices now openly frame space as a war-fighting domain, while Europe moves from point defense to deep strike, Washington debates force-design trades (B-52J vs. more B-21s), and Iran/Russia press for coercive advantage amid sanctions friction. The strategic task is to turn language and spending into tested, resilient, allied operational architectures, and fast.

Unifying Trends

1. Space goes operational, not “supporting.”
   NATO leaders’ tone shift (Germany, France, Spain, Canada) treats space as a domain for defense and offense (“shield and sword”), demanding common doctrine, delegated authorities, and tactically responsive launch (<96 hours) to restore/augment constellations under attack.
2. From point defense to deep strike.
   Denmark’s decision to field long-range precision fires (Tomahawk/JASSM-ER class and European options) reflects a continental realization: you can’t intercept your way out of massed salvos—you must hold launchers, C2, and magazines at risk.
3. U.S. force-design inflection.
   Cost/schedule breaches on B-52J upgrades collide with contested-airspace realities, strengthening arguments to expand and accelerate B-21. This is a survivability vs. standoff trade with industrial-base and budget consequences.
4. Great-Power coercion is coordinated.
   ISW’s readout on Moscow’s aims, Iran’s missile signaling and suspected tests, and Beijing’s pressure campaigns (incl. Taiwan wargaming counters) form a convergent pressure track seeking to outlast Western cohesion and exploit cost-asymmetry (cheap counter-space/EW vs. exquisite satellites).
5. Homeland defense as a system-of-systems problem.
   “Golden Dome” can work only if rigorous end-to-end (E2E) testing—across space sensors, comms, C2, effectors, cyber—starts now and leverages commercial testbeds/digital twins. Otherwise, the architecture risks beautiful fragility.
6. Forward posture debates return.
   Talk of re-entering Bagram underscores a broader theme: geography for deterrence matters again, but must be weighed against access, legitimacy, and escalation dynamics with the Taliban and China.

What This Means Operationally

• Speed is deterrence. Time to detect-decide-deliver (and to replace space capacity) is now a primary measure of merit.
• Proliferation beats pedigree. Multi-orbit, proliferated constellations with rapid reconstitution are more survivable than few exquisite assets.
• Kill webs over platforms. Advantage will come from tested integration of sensors, AI-enabled C2, and multi-domain effectors, not any single “silver bullet.”
• Allies are moving—synchronize them. Europe’s deep-strike pivot and NATO’s space posture create a window to standardize doctrine, data, and munitions.

Risks to Watch

• Doctrine lag in space. Without common allied space ROE/authorities, response times will miss the fight.
• Testing shortfalls. If E2E campaigns are under-funded or staged too late, integration debt will surface in crisis.
• Budget whiplash. Raiding legacy accounts for survivable capacity is necessary—but undisciplined shifts can hollow critical standoff magazines and training.
• Cost asymmetry. Adversaries’ cheap EW/dazzling/cyber vs. our pricey satellites remains a structural vulnerability.

Priority Actions (next 6–12 months)

1. Adopt an Allied Space Operations Doctrine 1.0
   Codify protect/defend, attribution thresholds, delegated authorities, and tactically responsive launch across NATO.
2. Stand up a Joint Tactically Responsive Space (TacRS) pipeline
   Contract now for rideshare, hot-spare payloads, and 96-hour launch/checkout drills; exercise quarterly.
3. Golden Dome: lock an Integrated Master Test Plan
   Fund E2E test events that include on-orbit sensing + ground C2 + live/interoperable interceptors + cyber red-teaming. Mandate industry-in-the-loop from day one.
4. Rebalance the bomber portfolio toward survivability
   Protect B-21 ramp; scrutinize B-52J scope/schedule to preserve standoff munitions buys and mission-planning AI.
5. European deep-strike integration
   Fast-track common mission planning, targeting data standards, and logistics for JASSM-ER/Tomahawk/European LR strike across F-35 and surface fleets.
6. Harden the space kill web
   Deploy optical crosslinks, jam-resilient waveforms, PNT alternatives, and autonomous battle management aids to ride through EW/cyber.
7. Tighten economic levers against Russia/Iran
   Enforce oil price caps/leakage, expand sanctions on dual-use microelectronics, and close maritime re-flag loopholes that fund attritional strategies.
8. Wargame access/logistics for any Afghanistan posture
   If Bagram re-entry is pursued, pre-plan overflight, basing, sustainment, and escalation controls; build non-permissive extraction branches.

Concrete Measures of Effectiveness

• Time-to-Replace-On-Orbit (TTRO): target ≤ 96 hours from loss to restored coverage.
• Find-Fix-Finish latency: median time from first detection to effect in minutes, not hours.
• E2E test cadence: quarterly cross-domain integrated events; zero critical interoperability defects carried forward.
• Allied deep-strike coverage: % of NATO targets held at risk at >500 km with validated comms/targeting.
• Resilience index: % of space services with disaggregated backups (multi-orbit/multi-vendor).

Longer Perspective

Deterrence now hinges on resilient connections more than singular platforms: space that can fight and recover, kill webs that integrate fast, and alliances that can reach deep. If we test as we will fight, standardize with allies, and bias for speed and survivability, we deny adversaries the slow-motion coercion they seek—and keep escalation ladders short, clear, and in our control.

This Week in Deterrence (September 15-19, 2025) was originally published on Global Security Review.

It is important to separate this terrorist organization from the innocent Palestinian population that is dying as sacrificial lambs to Hamas’ ideological goals. Hamas is arguably using the self-made shield of dead and starving Palestinian civilians to gain appeal with Western observers. Civilian casualties, whether child or adult, male or female, devout or secular, are collateral damage in the terrorist organization’s quest to remain hidden and effective in their fight for narrative supremacy.

Yet upon further examination of Hamas’ covenant, “The Day of Judgment will not come about until [Muslims] fight Jews and kill them.” History has demonstrated that the groups and individuals who choose violent and radical means to achieve ideological goals often disregard the unintended consequences of their ambitions.

It seems that Hamas rejects any long-term peace talks. According to the Hamas covenant, “So-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement…Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam.” To take it a step further, Hamas believes, “There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”

Hamas does not care about the thousands of dead Palestinians, or the families displaced and starving. One must ask, is Hamas an organization supporting Palestinian liberation or a cancer on long-term peace and security in the Palestinian-Israeli question?

From a strategic perspective, Iran is the actor behind the scenes supporting Hamas, which many experts suggest is a subordinate organization in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” against Israel. A further examination suggests Hamas’ ideological blindness brought the current hell on Gazans. In November 2023, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reportedly told Hamas leader, Ismail Haniya, “You gave us no warning of your October 7 attack on Israel and we will not enter the war on your behalf.”

Analysts can choose to believe this or not. But Tehran struggles to keep up with heavy inflation, faces angry and restless youth and minority groups, a possible invasion by Azerbaijan into Armenia, which would cut trade and electricity imports. This is all while Iran undertakes a multifaceted campaign to remove the US from the middle east.

Hezbollah has largely remained out of the Gaza conflict, limiting engagement with Israel to small skirmishes on the Lebanon-Israel border. Hezbollah’s ideological and militaristic zealots do not appear willing to sacrifice their manpower and treasure for a group that is not comprised of co-religionists. Bashar al-Assad’s Syria was not going to join Hamas either because of its never-ending civil war and depleted resources. The Houthis are a different story, but as one al- Jazeera columnist wrote, the group’s real goal is permanent deterrence against the Saudis.

Hamas failed to understand that Israel would “rally around the flag” in an effort to exterminate the organization once and for all. Although Hamas sought to invoke a severe reaction from Israel to generate Gazan casualties, which then generates international support and aid, the Hamas leadership did not expect Israel to pursue a fight to the death.

Globally, Hamas is experiencing significant support in the information war, which can prove equally important to battles on the ground. While fighting rages in Gaza, the terror group’s strategic ambitions remain unchanged. The confounding reality is that the war is producing distorted Western perceptions of Hamas which are winning sympathy for Hamas (a designated terror group since 1997). Uninformed views of Hamas in the West confuse some younger generations, leaving them thinking the extremist group is fighting for freedoms similar to those found in the West.

Sadly, social media algorithms seem to ignore the hostage situation. Hamas took roughly 240 Israeli hostages during the attacks that killed over 1,200 people. The hostages were taken to underground “tunnels of the resistance”. Recent efforts to negotiate the trade of Hamas prisoners for Israeli hostages has failed. Though many Gazans celebrated in the streets after the October 7 attacks, Gazans recently criticized the harm caused by Israel’s response and are calling for an end to Hamas’ reign of terror. Tragically, the Israeli response and the refusal of Egypt or any other neighboring nations to accept Palestinian refugees has created a humanitarian crisis that is often viewed from very skewed sources that create echo chambers of disinformation.

This content amplification may arguably be convincing actors to commit more acts of terror. National law enforcement agencies report seven arrests made in connection with planned terror attacks related to efforts to support Hamas. Three of them were planning an attack on behalf of Hamas in Denmark and four in Germany and the Netherlands were members of the organization. They were detained due to suspicion of planning attacks against Jewish institutions in Europe.

European countries are notorious for knife attacks related to terror groups. Americans are susceptible to the same danger due to the Biden administration’s open-border policy. A US Customs and Border Protection internal intelligence notice warned that “individuals inspired by, or reacting to, the current Israel-Hamas conflict may attempt to travel to or from the Middle East via circuitous transit across the Southwest border.” Hamas’ ideology is indeed a cancer that will spread to the West if left uncontested. Amplified media content indirectly can support Hamas, as the justification and expansion of terrorism is copycatted.

Hamas is far from an Enlightenment-minded organization advocating for personal freedom and the preservation of human life. Americans can help end this war, but only with the defeat of Hamas.

Lora Karch Dulgarian is an independent analyst focusing on national security, social, political, and economic issues in the Middle East and Europe. Views expressed in this article are the author’s own. 

The Israel-Hamas Conflict Has Spread the Fog of War Across the Western World was originally published on Global Security Review.

Over the years, global climate change severely and observably impacted the environment, resulting in rapidly melting glaciers, ice covers on rivers and lakes breaking up much earlier than anticipated, and unprecedented levels of animal migration, as increasing numbers are displaced from their natural habitats. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global temperature could increase from 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

The effects of climate change are more visible than ever before in the Arctic. The Arctic sea ice extent for October 2018 averaged 6.06 million square kilometers (approximately 2.34 million square miles), the third-lowest level recorded in October from 1979 to 2018. To put this in perspective, the sea ice extent was 2.29 million square kilometers (1.42 million square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average, and 170,000 square kilometers (105,633 square miles) greater than the record low observed for October 2012. As global temperatures rise, the natural resources within the Arctic region are increasingly easier to access, prompting greater frustration from environmentalists.

The melting of the Arctic sea ice has coincided with the discovery of energy deposits as well as the development of the technology needed to access those resources. These developments have caused the members of the Arctic Council—states with territorial claims in the Arctic—to pay increased levels of attention to the region.

The Arctic Council is made up of Canada, Finland, Denmark (Greenland), Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States (Alaska). Of these, Canada and Russia hold the most territory (Russia controls the most Arctic territory of any Arctic state). Being a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which states that a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 nautical miles offshore, Russian claims cover approximately 40 percent of the Arctic.

The Arctic plays host to substantial natural resources. A 2008 report released by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that the Arctic holds around 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 44 billion barrels of liquid natural gas, and 90 billion barrels of oil—the vast majority of these being offshore. As more territory becomes accessible, excess reserves of gold, zinc, nickel, and iron already found in part of the Arctic may be discovered. From the connectivity perspective, the two major sea routes that permit ships to pass through the Arctic run along the Russian and Canadian coasts, i.e., the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage.

The Northern Sea Route runs from the Barents Sea, near Russia’s border with Norway to the Bering Strait between Siberia and Alaska. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) would dramatically reduce the transit time for ships traveling from East Asia to Western Europe. On the other hand, the Northwest Passage connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

Shipping lanes connecting Europe with East Asia currently run from the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal to the Red Sea, transiting the Malacca before reaching East Asia. The distance is roughly 21,000 kilometers (13,049 miles) and the typical transit time is around 48 days. The Northern Sea Route would cut the distance to 12,800 kilometers, reducing transit time by 10 to 15 days. According to a paper published by the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis:

“The direct impact of the opening of the NSR is that international shipping (volume by distance) is reduced by 0.43%, but global trade volumes increase by 0.21%. The total percentage of world trade that will be rerouted through the Northern Sea Route will be around 5.5%.”

The paper further estimates that 15% of all Chinese trade will be through the Northern Sea Route. The optimization of the NSR will result in a significant rerouting of the world shipping lines and would have a drastic impact on the usage of the Suez Canal and the Malacca Straits to reach the Southeastern and East Asian Markets. According to CPB research, roughly 8% of global trade currently transits the Suez Canal, and it is estimated that level would be reduced by two-thirds once the Northern Sea Route becomes fully operational. To illustrate, from 2008 to 2012 the average number of commercial ships transiting the Suez Canal each year was approximately 15,000—the re-routing of vessels through the NSR, according to CPB research, would reduce that number by 10,000.

The rapidly melting sea ice has prompted some analysts to predict that the shorter shipping route could largely replace the Suez Canal Route that connects the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Such a conclusion overlooks the fact that ships using the Suez Canal Route make stops at ports in Southeast Asia and the Middle East when transiting between Europe and East Asia. In other words, to be commercially viable, large container ships using the Suez Canal route need to make deliveries to several customers along the way.

In contrast to the Suez Canal Route, the territory that lies along the Northern Sea Route is sparsely populated, meaning low demand for imported goods. Moreover, replacing one trade route with another could have a drastic impact on the economies of the countries that rely on the transit fees of the southern maritime trade route. Lastly, the Northern Sea Route is only safe to navigate during the summer when the straits are relatively ice-free. Even then, escort icebreaker vessels are often necessary to navigate the waters as there is always a risk of unpredictable ice conditions. Additional variables, such as a lack of search and rescue teams and support infrastructure, along with high insurance premiums for shipping vessels, need to be taken into account when evaluating the viability of the Northern Sea Route.

This is not to say, however, that the NSR is not a serious competitor to the southern sea route. Many scholars have argued that global shipping companies may become more interested in the NSR as it becomes more accessible and viable when compared with the longer and piracy-prone traditional Suez Canal Route. Specifically, the NSR makes more economic sense for shipments of oil and liquid natural gas (LNG). Increased energy trade through the NSR would largely benefit Russia, which has heavily invested in maritime transport ventures and energy projects in the Arctic.

The Russian government’s planned Murmansk Transport Hub will construct new roads, railway infrastructure, ports, and other facilities on the western side of the Kola Bay. It is described as one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Russia and by far the largest in the Arctic. There are also plans to upgrade the M18 highway between Murmansk and the Norwegian border. The new road will significantly improve the route between the border towns of Nikel, Russia and Kirkenes, Norway. The Sabetta Port project is a joint project undertaken by Novatek and the Russian Federal government to service the Yamal LNG project and a nearby gas field operated by Novatek. The port will facilitate gas shipments of both eastwards and westwards along the Northern Sea Route. Furthermore, the Russian government also plans to produce the LK-60 icebreaker and the LK-60 II icebreaker, which are required for cargo ships to access the NSR.

The economic benefits of the Northern Sea Route, combined with large-scale Arctic infrastructure development projects and the existence of substantial energy resources of energy resources to be tapped, make the Arctic a lucrative prospect for Russia and the other Arctic states. However, the strategic desirability of the Arctic trade route will depend on many factors, including the continuous melting of ice, development of modern vessels to sustain harsh weather conditions, an upward trend in global trade, increased demand in Asian markets, persistent piracy around the Horn of Africa, growing instability in the countries around the Suez Canal region, and heightened congestion in the Strait of Malacca. All these factors will further contribute to the geostrategic importance of the Arctic as a natural resource and transportation hub. At the same time, however, the growing importance of the region may also lead to increased competition.

Melting Arctic Sea Ice Opens New Maritime Shipping Route was originally published on Global Security Review.