The Arctic Accord, born out of a period of relative stability, emerged as a direct response to the perceived vacuum of governance left by the decline of the Soviet Union and the subsequent surge in commercial interest in the region’s vast reserves of oil, gas, and minerals. The agreement, signed by fifteen Arctic states – including Canada, the United States, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Greenland, and the three remaining Arctic territories – established principles for cooperative research, environmental monitoring, and dispute resolution. Initial enthusiasm, driven by a shared commitment to mitigating the environmental impacts of increased activity, was underscored by the establishment of the Arctic Council, a forum for scientific collaboration and policy coordination. “The Arctic Council represented a genuine attempt to move beyond zero-sum thinking and build a framework for sustainable development,” noted Dr. Evelyn Hayes, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, during a recent briefing. “However, the rapid intensification of geopolitical rivalries has fundamentally altered the dynamics.”
A key catalyst for the current instability is Russia’s increasingly assertive approach. Following the 2014 annexation of Crimea and subsequent interventions in Ukraine, Moscow significantly increased its military presence in the Arctic, establishing a permanent naval base in Franz Josef Land and conducting extensive military exercises. This expansion has directly challenged the sovereignty claims of bordering nations, particularly Finland and the Baltic states, and has intensified tensions with NATO, which views Russia’s actions as a deliberate attempt to destabilize the alliance. Simultaneously, China’s “Polar Silk Road” initiative – aimed at establishing maritime trade routes through the Arctic – has raised concerns among several Arctic nations, who fear that Beijing’s long-term strategic goals extend beyond mere economic investment. According to data released by the U.S. Department of Defense, Chinese naval vessels conducted over 150 operational deployments within the Arctic Circle during the past six months, primarily focused on the Bering Strait and the waters off the Russian coast.
Recent events have further exacerbated the situation. In September 2025, a dispute erupted between Canada and Russia over the delineation of maritime boundaries in the Lomonosov Ridge, a submerged mountain range extending beneath the Arctic Ocean. Canada asserted its claim to a significant portion of the ridge, based on seismic data, while Russia countered with its own interpretations, backed by geological surveys. The dispute escalated after a Canadian icebreaker, the Harry Pearson, reportedly intercepted a Russian research vessel conducting geological surveys within Canada’s claimed territory. A similar, though less confrontational, incident occurred near the North Pole involving a Chinese research vessel, leading to diplomatic exchanges between Ottawa and Beijing. “These incidents, while seemingly localized, represent a worrying trend – a gradual erosion of the rules-based order in the Arctic,” stated Professor Alistair Blackwood, a specialist in Arctic geopolitics at the University of Cambridge. “The lack of a robust dispute resolution mechanism within the Arctic Council has left the region vulnerable to escalating tensions.”
Furthermore, the Arctic Council itself has been hampered by internal divisions. Russia, under President Vladimir Putin, has repeatedly blocked key resolutions, citing concerns about sovereignty and security. This obstruction, combined with a lack of consensus on issues such as resource management and environmental protection, has effectively paralyzed the Council’s decision-making process. The Council’s annual meetings have devolved into protracted debates, with member states failing to reach any meaningful agreements. Adding to the complexity, Greenland, seeking greater autonomy from Denmark, has begun to advocate for a more assertive stance on resource rights, further complicating the situation.
Looking ahead, the next six months will likely see continued tensions and increased military activity in the Arctic. The ongoing dispute over maritime boundaries is expected to dominate the agenda, and there is a significant risk of further confrontations between national forces. The long-term (5-10 years) outlook is even more uncertain. Without significant reforms to the Arctic Accord, including the establishment of a neutral and binding dispute resolution mechanism, the region could become a flashpoint for international conflict. The potential for a major maritime incident, possibly involving a collision between military vessels or an oil spill, remains a serious concern. “The Arctic is no longer a region defined by cooperation,” concluded Dr. Hayes. “It is a theater of strategic competition, and the stakes are incredibly high.” The challenge now is whether the international community can muster the political will to prevent the Arctic from descending into chaos, or if the new geopolitical reality will define the region for decades to come.