In a sweeping 90-minute speech to the U.S. Congress on March 4, President Donald Trump reignited one of his most controversial geopolitical ambitions: acquiring Greenland. Reiterating his administration’s interest in the massive Arctic island, Trump declared that the United States needed Greenland “for national security” and suggested that the territory’s mineral wealth was of strategic importance. While he maintained that he “strongly supports” Greenlanders’ right to determine their own future, his statement carried a clear invitation: “If you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.”

This renewed push to bring Greenland under American control is just one aspect of a broader strategy in the Arctic and beyond. In the six weeks since his second term began, Trump’s actions have thrown European geopolitics into disarray. From pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to grant U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth to exploring an economic “deal” with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump is signaling a fundamental shift in global power dynamics.

At the heart of these maneuvers lies a radical proposition: a U.S.-Russia realignment that could reshape the Arctic’s geopolitical landscape. Such a deal would not only mean territorial losses for Ukraine but could also pave the way for a resource-sharing agreement between Washington and Moscow. With both leaders keen on exploiting Arctic mineral reserves, their transactional approach to geopolitics threatens to upend decades of international cooperation in the region.

The Arctic has long been governed by the principle of “circumpolar cooperation,” a framework that prioritizes multilateral decision-making among the eight Arctic states (A8): Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. Since the establishment of the Arctic Council in 1996, these nations have collaborated on issues like environmental protection, sustainable development, and scientific research—efforts that have grown even more crucial as climate change accelerates Arctic ice melt.

Despite geopolitical tensions following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the Arctic Council managed to remain a neutral forum for cooperation. However, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 pushed tensions to the breaking point. Western Arctic states, including the U.S., Canada, and European members, effectively froze diplomatic engagement with Moscow. Sanctions targeting Russian Arctic energy projects soon followed, further isolating the Kremlin.

In response, Russia pivoted towards new alliances. Countries like China, India, Brazil, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have since become increasingly involved in Arctic commercial and scientific projects. This shift raised concerns among NATO allies that the Arctic might become another theater of great-power rivalry. But with Trump back in the White House, the dynamics are changing yet again—this time with the potential for an unprecedented U.S.-Russia Arctic partnership.

Trump and Putin: A Strategic Carve-Up?

Both Trump and Putin view the Arctic primarily as a treasure trove of natural resources. The region holds an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and nearly 47 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, as well as vast deposits of rare earth minerals—critical for high-tech industries, including defense and renewable energy.

In recent weeks, there have been reports that Trump’s administration has initiated backchannel discussions with Moscow on potential Arctic cooperation. Such an agreement could effectively divide the Arctic into U.S. and Russian spheres of influence, sidelining the multilateral governance structures that have long defined Arctic diplomacy.

Arrangement:

The Arctic Council could be abandoned in favor of a U.S.-Russia resource-sharing framework.

Denmark and Greenland could be forced out of Arctic decision-making if Trump succeeds in bringing Greenland under U.S. control.

The 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty—which grants Norway sovereignty over the Arctic Svalbard archipelago—could be reexamined to allow greater Russian and U.S. exploitation of its resources.

Indigenous Arctic communities, environmental safeguards, and scientific cooperation could be ignored in favor of resource extraction.

With Trump’s executive order on February 4 initiating a review of U.S. participation in international institutions, Washington may soon withdraw from the Arctic Council entirely, dealing a fatal blow to circumpolar cooperation.

For European Arctic nations, the prospect of a U.S.-Russia economic alliance raises troubling questions. Would Trump oppose Russian dominance in the European Arctic if it meant securing American business interests? Would he challenge Moscow’s expanding military presence in the region, or would he accept a power-sharing arrangement in exchange for lucrative resource deals?

One key area of concern is the potential impact on Arctic Indigenous communities. For decades, the Arctic Council has played a vital role in elevating the voices of Indigenous peoples, ensuring they have a say in policies that affect their lands. If the U.S. and Russia unilaterally carve up the region, it is unclear whether Indigenous groups will have any meaningful role in decision-making.

Furthermore, the climate crisis looms large. The Arctic is warming nearly four times faster than the rest of the planet. The melting of Arctic ice is not just a regional issue—it has global ramifications, from rising sea levels to shifting weather patterns. Yet, Trump’s administration has shown little interest in climate action, having already withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and dismantled domestic climate research programs. A U.S.-Russia Arctic partnership, focused solely on extraction, could accelerate environmental degradation in one of the world’s most fragile ecosystems.

Europe’s Diminishing Influence

For the European Union and NATO, Trump’s Arctic maneuvering underscores a broader challenge: the diminishing ability of Western European nations to shape global geopolitics. In recent weeks, European leaders have struggled to respond effectively to Trump’s push for a U.S.-Russia détente. If Washington and Moscow proceed with negotiations over the Arctic, Europe may be forced to accept the end of the Arctic Council and the collapse of multilateral governance in the region.

The implications extend beyond the Arctic itself. A new U.S.-Russia alignment could weaken NATO’s unity, especially if Trump continues to pressure European allies to increase their defense spending while simultaneously engaging in economic diplomacy with Putin. Meanwhile, China—already expanding its Arctic presence—could seek to leverage the situation to further its own strategic interests.

For the United Kingdom, Canada, and Nordic states like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the question is whether any counter-strategy can be devised to preserve Arctic cooperation. One possibility is a renewed European Arctic alliance—a coalition of Western Arctic states that could attempt to maintain environmental protections and uphold international treaties. However, without U.S. support, such efforts would face an uphill battle.

Trump’s return to power has set the stage for a fundamental realignment in Arctic politics—one that could sideline Europe, marginalize Indigenous voices, and dismantle decades of cooperative governance. His speech to Congress on March 4 made it clear that Greenland is still a key target. But beyond that, his broader strategy hints at a far more consequential shift: a transactional, bilateral approach to global affairs that prioritizes resource extraction over diplomacy.

If Trump and Putin move forward with Arctic negotiations, the Arctic Council may become a relic of the past, replaced by a system where U.S.-Russia power dynamics dictate the region’s fate. Whether Europe can mount a meaningful response—or whether it will simply have to accept the new Arctic order—remains an open question.

One thing is certain: the Arctic, long a model of international cooperation, is now on the front lines of a geopolitical power struggle with far-reaching consequences.