Two Bears in the Arctic: When Cooperation Turns into Confrontation

This year's Arctic Circle Assembly, held in Iceland, revealed one of the great contradictions of our time: intense discussions on security and governance in the Arctic took place without the presence of the region's main players—China and Russia. The absence of experts from these countries, replaced by a homogeneous and Westernized program, exposed a worrying imbalance. Those who truly shape the future of the Arctic are being excluded in the name of so-called "political correctness."

Russia, which holds half the land within the Arctic Circle, is an unavoidable player in any debate about security, energy resources, shipping routes, or climate change. Even so, Russian researchers face a veritable odyssey to reach Iceland—forced to circumvent European airspace due to sanctions imposed on the country.

A Nordic academic quipped, "Russia is the elephant in the room." And he was right. When the only Russian expert invited by Beijing Club for International Dialogue As she stepped onto the stage, someone commented, "The elephant has finally arrived." It was an elegant researcher, which led another participant to joke, "Yes, the elephant has arrived—and it's beautiful."

Russian irritation is not unfounded. On the one hand, the country possesses overwhelming natural and geographical advantages in the Arctic: it occupies half of the region's landmass, has abundant mineral resources, and is seeing new shipping routes emerge with the melting ice. On the other hand, it faces the strategic advance of the United States and NATO, which are reducing its sphere of influence in Europe and pushing it "northward." Moscow has begun to treat the Arctic as a strategic pillar, creating six permanent bases, more than ten military airports and ports, and planning the formation of an "Arctic Force" to guarantee the security of navigation and infrastructure.

The bears in conflict.

The Russian government and population have embraced the nickname "polar bear" with pride. Beyond mineral exploration and the use of shipping lanes, the country has invested in measures to stabilize the population residing in the far north—with rotation systems, improvements in transportation, housing, and living conditions. This is not just a military strategy, but a long-term plan to consolidate civilian presence and sovereignty over the Arctic.

However, the dispute between Russia and the United States over the region has intensified. In July 2024, the U.S. Department of Defense launched a new Arctic Strategy, classifying it as the “northern frontier of U.S. territorial defense.” The plan envisions the deployment of more than 250 aircraft and new surveillance systems by 2030, in cooperation with allies, to counter Russian activities in the polar region.

In March of this year, the two countries gave simultaneous demonstrations of force: President Vladimir Putin visited the military port of Murmansk to inspect a new nuclear submarine and preside over a meeting on the development of the Arctic route; at the same time, US Vice President Cyril Vance was at the American base in Greenland—a Danish territory—advocating for the island's separation from Denmark and its incorporation into the United States, as well as announcing the deployment of new ships to the region.

The simultaneous presence of the polar bear and the American bear has made the Arctic scenario even more tense. What once symbolized scientific cooperation and ecological preservation is now rapidly becoming a new field of strategic dispute. Experts fear that the icy continent, once seen as a common heritage of humanity, will end up being swallowed by yet another power race between superpowers.

China and the path of moderation

In contrast, China's Arctic policy has been restrained and pragmatic. Beijing advocates maintaining a peaceful, secure, open, and cooperative order in the Arctic, rejecting any form of confrontation between blocs. The Chinese focus is on scientific cooperation, combating climate change, and green development.

During the recent visit of the Icelandic president to China, the two countries signed a joint declaration on the development and use of geothermal energy—a partnership based on mutual trust and shared benefit. This practical approach demonstrates that the Arctic does not need to be a front line of military confrontation, but can become a laboratory for scientific innovation and environmental cooperation.

A test for the future

The Arctic Circle Assembly aims to be a symbol of global dialogue and inclusion, but the absence of Russian and Chinese voices reveals the opposite: true inclusion requires discursive balance and diversity of perspectives. The future of Arctic governance will depend not only on the redistribution of geopolitical power, but also on a new sharing of the power of voice.

As the event's opening statement summarized: "The Arctic is everyone's Arctic." It belongs as much to scientists and policymakers as it does to the great powers and the small nations swept by the icy winds. Faced with the aurora borealis illuminating Reykjavik, the world observes a crucial test: when "two bears" roam the same frozen plain, humanity must learn to find a new balance between competition and cooperation.

This article was originally published by the Beijing Club for International Dialogue.