Shrouded in darkness for six months of the year and sparsely populated, the Arctic’s vast expanse may appear too remote to rank high on the EU’s agenda.
Yet, Brussels’s focus on the High North has sharpened in recent years for security and economic reasons.
The melting Arctic ice caps have opened up tempting yet controversial opportunities for drilling and mining.
This year, the EU is set to revise its Arctic strategy and decide what it actually wants from the region.
The Arctic collaboration is “fracturing”
The Arctic had long been seen as a model of international collaboration despite wider geopolitical tensions.
The Arctic nations – Russia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Canada and the US – have worked together on issues ranging from climate change and shipping to fisheries and security.
But “that cooperative order began to fracture over the past decade,” according to Dr Andreas Raspotnik, director of the Arctic Institute, who presented his latest study on the region to EU policymakers in Brussels this week.
Russia has long dominated the Arctic. It controls around 60% of the region’s coastline and has far-reaching ambitions to use it for economic and geopolitical gain.
A view of the Arctic Circle port city of Murmansk on the Kola Peninsula, where Russia maintain’s one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals.
Security concerns have further heightened tensions. This year, NATO expanded its military presence and launched a mission called Arctic Sentry.
The Kremlin described the move as a “direct threat to Russia”.
But Western allies see the Arctic as a critical security frontier. Russia maintains one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals on the Kola Peninsula, right next to NATO’s territory in Finland and Norway.
US President Donald Trump’s unabashed claims on Greenland this year have also added to urgency to the debate over the Arctic’s future.
What is the Arctic’s economic value?
Arctic ice has been melting at four times the global rate.
While a grave warning for humanity – it has also suggested new opportunities to extract valuable resources.
According to the US Geological Survey “about 30% of the world’s undiscovered gas and about 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil may be present in the Arctic,” although precise estimates aren’t impossible.
For environmental reasons, the European Union has imposed a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic.
Yet concerns about energy security are putting pressure on that position.
The issue of energy independence has become crucial to the EU following the energy shocks of the Russian war in Ukraine and the disruption from the US-Iran war.
This week, Norway’s energy minister said the country would continue drilling in the Arctic regardless of Europe’s stance on the issue.
Norway is not an EU member but is a key economic partner and Europe’s biggest gas supplier – including to Ireland via the UK.
A LNG ship at the island Melkoya where Norwegian energy giant Equinor has built a facility for receiving and processing natural gas from the Barents Sea.
The International Energy Agency’s head, Fatih Birol, supported the petroleum-producing state.
“The world needs every drop of oil from Norway,” he said, describing the country as a trusted supplier that “will not use energy as a weapon”.
European environmental groups have long opposed expanding drilling in the Arctic, citing the danger of oil spills and black carbon.
Norway’s role in Europe’s energy landscape is a peculiar one.
Oslo-based Arctic researcher Dr Svein Vigeland Rottem told RTÉ News it is a “difficult balancing act”, being one of the world’s biggest importers of petroleum, while also positioning itself as an “environmental champion” (Norway is Europe’s leader in adopting EVs).
Breaking free from Chinese rare earth?
It’s not just fossil fuel that makes the Arctic attractive for states and businesses.
Geological surveys suggest that it might hold significant reserves of critical raw minerals – some vital for Europe’s transition to a greener economy.
They are essential components in renewable energy technology, like wind turbines, solar panels, or electric vehicles. Lithium, for example, is crucial for battery production.
Mining is the largest private sector employer in Canada’s Arctic. Pictured: mine site in Amaruq, Nunavut, Canada.
Europe remains heavily dependent on China for rare earth minerals, with Beijing supplying around 90% of global demand.
Dr Raspotnik believes Brussels should reduce that dependency and look for solutions in “its back garden.”
“The question is whether companies and customers are willing to pay ‘an Arctic premium’. Exploration and mining are more expensive in the north because of lack of labour and the distances to market,” he told RTÉ news.
Whether energy autonomy can be achieved without harming the northern environment and indigenous communities, remains the subject of intense debate.
Member states are still “failing to find a way forward for European Arctic extraction without social tensions,” according to Dr Raspotnik.
Some experts do not believe it’s worth it. Dr Rottem thinks that the idea of a “Klondike is in the Arctic” is a myth.
“It’s still cold, it’s still a tough environment,” he said.
“This idea of petroleum and critical mineral bonanza in the Arctic is not true.”
Shipping via the Arctic
Global warming has also made the Arctic a somewhat more appealing option for trade.
At least for some nations.
Rising temperatures and melting sea ice have extended the shipping season in the region, in late summer and early autumn.
Conditions remain harsh and unpredictable, but in recent years, the number of vessels passing through the Arctic increased by 40% to over 1,800 unique vessels in 2025. Most of them transited in September.
Russia has been actively pushing for further use of the Northern Sea Route (NSR), which connects Europe and Asia along much of Russia’s northern coastline.
The NSR is seen as a shortcut compared to traditional routes via the Suez Canal or the Cape of Good Hope.
In theory, a cargo ship travelling from Japan to Europe could complete the journey in around 10 days via the NSR, compared with 22 days via the Suez Canal, according to the Arctic Council.
Russia and China have been particularly invested in developing the route.
For the first time this year, China said it has set up a regular scheduled container shipment service via the NSR.
Russian icebreakers used for navigation in the Northern Sea Route, Murmansk, Russia
Other Asian countries like Japan and South Korea also expressed interest in testing it. Though the risks and costs of that option might be outweighing the benefits: dealing with sanctioned Russia could create problems for EU allies in Seoul or Tokyo.
Most commercial vessels won’t be able to transit to the NSR without using the help of icebreakers.
In that part of the Arctic most of them are operated by Russia, which is also the only nation owning nuclear icebreakers.
But boosting Kremlin revenue by supporting its fleet is unlikely to be appreciated in Brussels.
Experts remain skeptical that the NRS can become a viable alternative to existing shipping routes – both from the cost perspective, and due to risks associated with dealing with Russia.
“I don’t see the Northern Sea Route at any level competing with the Suez Canal in our lifetime,” said Dr Rottem.