Optimistic Arctic future we envisioned in 2005 is gone, says Norwegian foreign minister

Two decades ago, Arctic policymakers envisioned a future of cooperation, stability and scientific collaboration. Speaking at the Arctic Frontiers Conference, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide reflected on how drastically that vision has melted away.

“In 2005, we thought we had a clear roadmap for Arctic cooperation,” he said. “We expected the region to remain an exceptional space—one where geopolitical tensions could be set aside. That reality no longer exists, the future we envisaged did not materialize.”

The idea was that the Arctic Council would continue functioning as a neutral forum, Russia would remain a cooperative partner, and environmental challenges would take precedence over military concerns. Today, none of that holds true.

A radically different reality

The biggest shift is Russia’s increasing militarization and its growing isolation since the invasion of Ukraine. In 2005, there was an expectation that Russia would integrate further into Western-led Arctic governance. Instead, tensions have deepened, disrupting cooperation and turning security into a dominant issue.

“There was an assumption that Arctic politics could be kept separate from other geopolitical conflicts,” Barth Eide said. “That assumption was wrong.”

Climate change, another factor policymakers underestimated, is unfolding much faster than anticipated. The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet, causing permafrost to collapse and forcing communities to adapt to an increasingly unstable environment.

“In Norway, we are seeing houses built on permafrost starting to sink,” he said. “It’s not a distant problem—it’s happening now.”

Meanwhile, the security landscape of the High North has been transformed. Sweden and Finland joining NATO has redrawn Arctic defense strategy, strengthening Europe’s position, but also heightening tensions with Moscow.

“This fundamentally changes Arctic security,” Barth Eide said. “With Finland and Sweden in NATO, we now have an entirely different strategic map in the north.”

At the same time, China’s growing interest in the region—through scientific research, infrastructure investments, and Arctic shipping routes—has introduced a new layer of complexity that wasn’t even a consideration in 2005.

Greenland and the rising tensions with the U.S.

During the discussion, Greenland was brought up in the context of changing Arctic dynamics, particularly in relation to U.S. foreign policy. Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who was on the panel with Barth Eide, criticized U.S. President Donald Trump’s rhetoric and aggressive posturing toward Greenland, calling it damaging to U.S. relations in the Arctic.

While Barth Eide did not focus on Greenland directly, his broader comments on Arctic governance implied concerns over the growing strategic interest in the island. The U.S. has long viewed Greenland as a key geopolitical asset due to its location, and recent American efforts to increase economic and military cooperation with Greenland have raised new questions about Arctic sovereignty.

Barth Eide stressed that respecting clearly defined borders has historically been key to stability in the region, a point that could be seen as relevant to recent tensions over Trump’s past ambitions to purchase Greenland and Washington’s ongoing push for closer ties with Nuuk.

What comes next?

The Arctic is no longer an isolated space for research and collaboration—it is a strategic battleground where security, climate, and economic interests collide. The Arctic Council, once the backbone of governance in the region, is struggling to function under these new geopolitical realities.

“This is not what we planned for,” Barth Eide said. “But this is the reality we must now navigate.”

Denmark and Greenland are now facing more external interest than ever, and the role of U.S. policy in the Arctic—especially regarding Greenland’s autonomy and future—is becoming a growing point of debate among Arctic leaders. The question is no longer just how Arctic nations work together, but how outside powers like the United States and China reshape the region’s future.