As Francis Fukuyama wrote, “major crises have major consequences, usually unforeseen.” Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Arctic Ocean/Sea of the 21st century. Commonly viewed as a “territory of dialogue,” the Arctic has, over the past three decades, won a reputation as a “zone of peace”.
However, few places have been the source of as much speculation, hype, and broad statements as the Arctic region at the start of the twenty-first century: “Great Game of 21st Century.” Ever since 2006/2007, a continuous narrative has portrayed the High North as the next arena for geopolitical conflict, where Russia, the United States, NATO, and China are bound to clash.
The Arctic Ocean or Sea is the smallest, shallowest, and coldest of the World’s five oceans. The “Arctic Five – Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the USA” are the primary littoral nations that possess direct coastlines bordering the Arctic Ocean. These five countries hold exclusive economic rights over the EEZ up to 200 nautical miles off their shores.
Next the Arctic Council established after 35 years after Gorbachev’s initiatives via the Ottawa Declaration in 1996 consists of the eight Arctic states: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and the United States.
There is no territorial dispute of significance in the region; only the miniscule Hans Island remains disputed as both Canada and Denmark (Greenland) claim it. Canada and Denmark (Greenland) have a tentative final agreement on a boundary in the Lincoln Sea. The only unresolved maritime boundary dispute concerns Canada and the United States in the Beaufort Sea. Negotiations over how to delineate the extended continental shelves around the North Pole look likely to become a diplomatic row.
Should Moscow maintain dominance over this passage for decades, it will command the future of Asia-Europe trade, energy supply, and maritime logistics worth trillions of dollars. The Arctic, not just the Donbas, is the central arena of 21st-century power dynamics.
Great Game of the 21st Century – Geostrategic Significance
The Arctic Sea Route—specifically the Northern Sea Route (NSR)— runs along Russia’s Arctic coastline, connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans via the Bering Strait: within Russia’s exclusive economic zone. Navigating it means relying entirely on Moscow for access, permits, and transit fees through its state agency, Rosatom. This has sparked a different kind of geopolitical tension, prompting NATO to step up its northern military presence under operations like Operation Arctic Sentry.
The NSR offers distinct advantages in travel distance, speed, and safety from regional conflicts: it drastically reduces transit times between East Asia and Western Europe by up to 40%; cuts the standard voyage from roughly 21,000 kilometres down to 12,800 km; and reduces the journey from 35 days to 18-20 days. Due to conflict, many vessels bypass West Asian lanes entirely and sail around the Cape of Good Hope (Africa), adding roughly 5,000 nautical miles and extending schedules to 45–60 days.
More importantly, the Arctic route’s “security” relates to freedom from regional warfare, piracy, and active conflict zones that plague West Asian lanes. The NSR is completely isolated from Middle Eastern conflicts. There is a non-existent threat from non-state actors or pirates due to extreme isolation.
In sum, the fallout of the “Great Game of the 21st century”, that is, opening the NSR, will have far-reaching fallout. The current geo strategic significance of IOR and the Gulf region, particularly the economies of littoral nations, will dramatically reduce.
In retrospect, the Arctic route introduces entirely different security and logistical risks: harsh environmental and regulatory complexities. Unlike the year-round lanes in West Asia, the Arctic is primarily a seasonal supplement. Even with melting ice, safe passage is largely restricted to the summer months. Unpredictable, rapidly shifting ice conditions require specialized, ice-classed vessels and frequent escorts by Russian nuclear icebreakers. The region also lacks robust emergency response, search-and-rescue infrastructure, and deep-water ports.
Climate Change
The ongoing climate change will likely be seen and discussed through the prisms of national security and strategic competition, rather than as a transnational threat to ward off. The Arctic Council may struggle to survive as funding dries up for its more apolitical scientific and environmental work. Going forward, the question of Arctic governance could also become a highly contested issue, especially when it comes to overlapping continental shelf claims, the regulation of Arctic waterways and the right to passage, and particularly the increasing role of non-Arctic actors in the management of regional affairs.
However, climate change makes more accessible some of the world’s largest fish stocks, undiscovered oil and gas resources and an abundance of rare minerals found in only a few places on Earth, with the increasingly ice-free waters serving as a maritime transportation shortcut connecting Europe and Asia. However, the idea of ‘resource wars’ in the North has been debunked. Arctic resources, such as hydrocarbons, minerals, and fisheries, are located in the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) or territories of the Arctic littoral states. (to be concluded)
