The drama over how far U.S. President Donald Trump would go to amass Greenland appears to have come and gone. Nevertheless it’s nonetheless value discussing a longer-term difficulty: What’s the very best Arctic coverage for america, and the way severe is the problem posed by China and Russia?
On the newest episode of FP Dwell, I spoke with a number one Arctic knowledgeable, Heather Conley, who served as a deputy assistant secretary of state below President George W. Bush and led the German Marshall Fund for practically three years. Subscribers can watch the complete dialogue on the video field atop this web page or obtain the FP Dwell podcast. What follows here’s a calmly edited and condensed transcript.
Ravi Agrawal: So, why does Greenland matter a lot?
Heather Conley: Location, location, location. It’s strategically positioned within the North Atlantic and is a gateway to the Arctic. Because the Chilly Struggle started, that strategic location turned very important to detect Soviet missiles, now Russian missiles. It’s additionally a key location to detect Russian submarines, enjoying a important position within the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom hole to detect these submarines earlier than they obtained too near the jap coast.
RA: And, after all, the melting Arctic ice makes Greenland’s location much more salient. How a lot of a menace do Russia and China really pose to Greenland?
HC: Russia has begun to shift its navy posture within the Russian Arctic, constructing new navy installations of their far archipelago Franz Josef Land, modernizing their nuclear submarines, strike capabilities, and their new hypersonic missiles. So, Russia is trying to recreate that Soviet-like menace, with each missile and nuclear submarine capabilities. We’re additionally seeing an actual uptick in hybrid actions, although not in Greenland per se. They’ve been concentrated within the Norwegian Arctic archipelago on the Svalbard area. We’re seeing dual-use capabilities on their shadow tankers.
China’s position is completely different and must be watched very, very intently. We’re seeing China’s presence within the Arctic proper now in science and industrial issues. However just like the Russians, there’s a variety of dual-use work. China is utilizing manned submersibles because the analysis vessels within the Arctic. They’re doing a variety of scientific analysis on the seabed ground, which might be utilized in future seabed mining, acoustic use doubtlessly for a future submarine fleet that would come that far, and doubtlessly disrupting communication. It’s a longer-term play.
And proper now, Russia and China are working collectively in very new and other ways. However that exercise is just not within the North Atlantic Arctic. It’s really within the North Pacific Arctic close to Alaska.
RA: Speak concerning the 1951 pact between america and Denmark. What has that settlement really enabled the U.S. navy to do, and the way a lot of that capability has been utilized thus far?
HC: The historical past right here is tremendous essential. In 1946, the Truman administration did make a really quiet provide to buy Greenland, due to the important position that Greenland performed in the course of the Second World Struggle. So once more, there’s at all times a kernel of fact in saying previous presidents had expressed curiosity. The Greenlandic and Danish governments stated politely, quietly, “No, thanks.” After which, three years later, in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Group was based. So that you had this multilateral NATO-ization concentrating on defending the North Atlantic.
Then two years after the NATO founding was this bilateral instrument, which has been up to date over time. That bilateral instrument allowed the U.S. to have a extremely important posture on Greenland—upward of 16 navy installations, 10,000 U.S. forces performing quite a lot of duties akin to long-range bombers, refueling, after which being very vigilant about defending the North Atlantic. All due to that location. Over time, and definitely on the finish of the Chilly Struggle, it actually atrophied. And now as we speak now we have one base, the Pituffik House Base on the northwestern coast of Greenland, which is about 150 U.S. forces and a number of other extra hundred contractors. And that’s actually our early-warning radar for detection as a part of our missile protection structure. So we had a large presence. And now now we have a really small presence. However that settlement nonetheless permits us, by a bilateral negotiation, to extend our navy presence, if the U.S. needs.
RA: So, Heather, I’ve tried right here to keep away from the political drama round this, however from President Trump’s perspective, at the very least, does america must personal Greenland? Does it give america [more] needed leverage than this 1951 instrument permits it to have?
HC: President Trump’s views of overseas coverage and nationwide safety are very a lot by the lens of an actual property skilled. Treaties or leases or preparations, they are often damaged. He believes that possession is the one qualifier the place you may train management. And that’s very, essential in his framing of this as a result of—and that is to the frustration of the Danish and Greenlandic governments—in our present agreements, earlier than all of this intensification of possession discuss, the door was open. Each had been saying, “We’d welcome you, however now we have to begin in a negotiation.” That was by no means began.
It was this sole concentrate on acquisition and possession, which is, after all, the pink line that each the Greenlandic and Danish governments drew. I believed when Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary [of State] Marco Rubio met with the overseas ministers of Denmark and Greenland, we discovered a manner ahead with a high-level working group. After which the subsequent day, after all, the White Home spokeswoman went straight to, “It is a technical group to get acquisition.” So now we have to get off acquisition and possession. We will have a variety of further U.S. presence, however I’m undecided precisely what we’re looking for proper now.
RA: If we broaden out from Greenland, what’s the present U.S. Arctic coverage? The Nationwide Safety Technique that was launched in December, as an example, didn’t actually point out the Arctic, although it does discuss at size concerning the Western Hemisphere.
HC: The Arctic is implicit in Western Hemispheric protection. And naturally, the Arctic is America’s northern entrance line of protection from missiles, from submarine assault. Nevertheless it’s not talked about extra broadly, besides very particularly in relation to Greenland. There’s not an overarching coverage.
It’s important to be a kind of coverage detective. In the beginning, the place the administration has been most profitable is in accelerating the constructing of icebreakers, which Trump started in his first time period. And now we’re seeing a really important improve of Polar Safety Cutter and Arctic Safety Cutter packages with our allies and mates akin to Canada and Finland. This icebreaker pact is the centerpiece, truthfully, of Arctic coverage writ giant. After which, sadly, the concentrate on Canada and Greenland, however about management. It’s incorporation and annexation reasonably than what we’re doing collectively.
RA: What ought to a smart Arctic coverage appear to be for america, protecting in thoughts all the opposite threats and issues the White Home must attend to globally?
HC: The problem with the Arctic is that it’s a long-term safety difficulty. You’ve gotten a window of alternative to start to arrange. However as a result of this can be a theater of operation that nobody desires to divert their valuable funds assets to assist, what has occurred over the past 20 years is that we write technique after technique, however don’t put ahead a transparent funds or strategy it as a multiyear safety package deal. There’s simply been kind of a long-standing reluctance. So we’re already behind.
We have now two vectors of strategy to the Arctic. We have now the North Pacific and the North Atlantic. In fact, we’ve completely targeting the significance of the North Atlantic, which I don’t wish to downplay, however now we have the opposite theater, which is the place we’re seeing Russia and China exercising collectively. We’re not ready for that within the protection of the third island chain. So we don’t have a deep-water port but in Alaska—we’re engaged on one in Nome. We don’t have the hangar house, the runways, the capabilities wanted for a persistent presence close to Alaska. So my advice to any administration: Dedicate a multiyear Arctic safety funds to this. It includes, clearly, the navy and the Coast Guard and Division of Homeland Safety. Constructing icebreakers is a vital half. Nevertheless it’s additionally satellites, sensors, uncrewed programs, workout routines, and that persistent presence. It’s additionally about working intently with allies as a result of that’s how we get there collectively and we amplify our energy. We want to consider new command-and-control points associated to this as a result of it’s the Arctic. You’ve gotten a European Arctic and a North American Arctic. They’re very completely different. And this does require a extra concerted effort. So I hope that this dialog brings us to a different degree of focus, prioritization, and most significantly, execution of an efficient Arctic safety package deal.
RA: Let me ask you a similar query, however with a European viewpoint. Clearly, the U.S. and Europe are related by NATO. However individually, how ought to Europe be enthusiastic about the Arctic? Does it have to be taking it extra critically than it at present is?
HC: One of many advantages, and I put that in quotes, of this Greenland difficulty is that you simply see a really purposeful improve in NATO presence close to and round Greenland. You see a extra sustainable Arctic coverage. Clearly, it’s now a part of NATO’s regional protection plans as a result of each Arctic nation, minus Russia, is a member of NATO. However this may put a way more persistent presence there. The European NATO members—Norway, Finland, Sweden—are exhibiting us the way in which on cold-weather warfare. It’s a talent that atrophied in america and that we have to improve. So in March, we’ll see a extremely important train, Chilly Response, in northern Norway and northern Finland. Twenty-five thousand NATO forces, together with 3,000 Marines, will take part in that. That’s precisely what we have to do. We have to follow along with our allies and improve our cold-weather combating capabilities.
The European Union additionally performs a task. Once more, it wants to maneuver previous insurance policies and techniques, that are essential, and actually concentrate on that hybrid query. In fact, Norway and Iceland will not be members of the EU, so NATO is the bridging establishment for that. However I’d like to see way more focus and a focus on hybrid actions by Russia and China, extra transparency within the science, and extra resilience.
RA: In fact, Finland and Sweden becoming a member of NATO permits NATO to be extra lively within the Arctic. What concerning the Arctic Council? What position does it play in governing and making guidelines about the way to interact within the Arctic? And is the council nonetheless match for goal?
HC: In some methods, we deal with the Arctic Council very unfairly. We dump a variety of actions on it and make it do issues it was not designed to do in 1996. It focuses on sustainable developments, sustainable actions, and dealing teams. And whereas the geopolitical circumstances have actually modified within the Arctic, the Arctic Council is just not allowed to take care of any safety points. Over time, completely different our bodies have sprung up exterior of the Arctic Council: Arctic Financial Council, the Arctic Coast Guard Discussion board, and many others. And so there’s an ecosystem, however there isn’t coordination. After which following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Arctic Council principally shut down. It doesn’t actually embody Russia in formal points. It’s actually struggling. Like all establishments, you both reform and modernize, or change into a sufferer of not being helpful on this atmosphere. However there needs to be political will amongst the states.
What makes the Arctic Council actually distinctive and essential is that the Indigenous communities, the everlasting individuals, are on the middle of it, as they need to be. 4 million folks dwell within the Arctic, and they should have a voice there. That makes the Arctic Council essential and helpful. However we’d like a manner of coping with the geoeconomics, the geopolitics, the safety of it. And we simply don’t have a discussion board but that’s really match for this goal of great-power competitors.
RA: As Russia and China take a look at the previous week of tensions between Europe and america, how does that change a few of their calculations concerning the Arctic writ giant?
HC: The language round spheres of affect definitely sounds acquainted to voices within the Kremlin and in Beijing about their house—“that is ours, we’ll take it”—and works towards territorial integrity and sovereignty. It’s music to their ears.
People don’t have a full appreciation of the comparative benefit that america has with this international alliance system. The nation that may detect the Russian submarines can be Norway. They’re our entrance line of safety, and our partnership with them is important to the protection of america. Something that we try this causes that alliance to rupture, there’s smiles abounding in Moscow and in Beijing as a result of we’re eroding our personal unfair benefit.
RA: All of that is about protection and safety, however additionally it is about economics. With the ice melting in that area, transport routes are opening up, and mining is turning into loads simpler. And mining has change into so central to geopolitics in 2026, particularly with the rise of AI and the necessity for power, important minerals, and uncommon earths. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that about 13 % of the world’s undiscovered standard oil and 30 % of undiscovered standard fuel assets are within the Arctic. Greenland alone has 1.5 million tons of reserves of uncommon earth. Heather, how a lot of an element are these assets?
HC: Essential minerals and key assets exist throughout the Arctic, together with Canada and Alaska. The numbers from the Geological Survey are spectacular, however attending to these assets after which getting these assets to market is a special story. On Greenland, for instance, the Canadians, the British, and others have mining licenses, however as a result of there’s such restricted infrastructure in Greenland, it’s extraordinarily costly. So commodity costs should be excessive. You want to go into partnerships to convey these important minerals to market. That’s going to take a decade or so. In order that funding sample needs to be secure. And from an American perspective, I’d reasonably see us double down on investments in Alaska as a result of they’ve related findings, and we are able to try this as we speak.
On power, liquefied pure fuel within the Russian Arctic, the Yamal Peninsula, is starting to take maintain. However Western sanctions towards which have shifted that dialog in order that the Chinese language are investing extra. And the maritime visitors going by the Northern Sea Route is generally Chinese language, to scale back transport occasions and get that destinational visitors as much as the Russian Arctic on the one hand and getting power and mineral assets again to Asia on the opposite. So there’s a play there, but it surely’s a long-term play.
An allied important minerals initiative throughout the Arctic would take advantage of sense, however everybody must maintain their time horizons in examine. That is going to take, significantly for Greenland, a decade or so. And now I fear that the U.S. investments are checked out with such suspicion. So I believe we’ve difficult what might have been a simple and mutually helpful financial alternative.
