The Arctic, a realm of frozen seas and unique challenges, often demands powerful icebreakers to forge paths forward, yet in a delicate and slow way. As the Kingdom of Denmark, with Greenland in the key leadership position, takes the helm of the Arctic Council from Norway, it faces a geopolitical landscape so frozen that its primary task will be to act as a potent diplomatic icebreaker.
While Denmark is planning new Arctic-capable vessels and exploring shared icebreaking capacities, the immediate imperative is to navigate the profound chill in relations with Russia – a nation with whom Copenhagen may have fewer established Arctic-specific communication lines than its Norwegian predecessor – and to manage the complex strategic interests of the United States, particularly concerning Greenland.
This challenging stewardship was underscored as Greenland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vivian Motzfeldt, took a central role in the handover of the chairmanship of the Arctic Council. She clearly articulated the chairmanship’s core ambition: to “work to keep the North a region of stability and constructive cooperation.” The Kingdom of Denmark has outlined five key priorities: a strong focus on indigenous peoples and their communities, advancing sustainable economic development alongside an energy transition, safeguarding the ocean, tackling climate change, and preserving biodiversity. A significant emphasis will be placed on “integrating indigenous knowledge with Western science in all aspects of the Arctic Council’s work,” as stated during the transition. The chairmanship also coincides with the upcoming 30th anniversary of the Arctic Council in 2026, an occasion highlighted as an opportunity to “reflect on and reinforce its role.”
However, the diplomatic waters are perilous. The primary disruption stems from Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, which led Western Arctic nations to largely suspend cooperation with Moscow. This resulted in a significant pause in many joint Council activities and Russia subsequently withdrew its financial contributions to the Council’s budget. While some expert-level working groups cautiously resumed activities in 2024, allowing for continued scientific collaboration, broader political cooperation remains significantly constrained. Analysts note that while Norway managed to maintain certain minimal channels of communication with Russia on Arctic matters, this approach may prove more challenging for Denmark given a different history of bilateral Arctic engagement.
Adding another layer of complexity are the strategic interests of the United States in the Arctic. The current U.S. administration has openly discussed Greenland’s geopolitical significance, issued threats and massive criticism towards Denmark and its handling of the topic. Minister Motzfeldt has addressed this, stating that regarding security, “both Nuuk and Washington are aligned,” and further clarified Greenland’s position by emphasizing that while Greenlanders “don’t want to be Danes, they also don’t want to be Americans,”. Yet, she also underscored a commitment to cooperation with the current U.S. administration on shared security responsibilities. Nevertheless, the potential for shifts in U.S. Arctic policy, particularly concerning climate change and indigenous affairs – key priorities for the Danish-Greenlandic chair – remains a dynamic factor.
Despite these formidable challenges, the Arctic Council continues to be viewed by its members as an indispensable, albeit tested, platform for dialogue. As Denmark and Greenland guide the Council, their leadership will be crucial in fostering resilience and maintaining channels for communication. Their stated focus on “dialogue, cooperation, and respect” as “essential for long-term peace, security, and stability in the Arctic” will be paramount as they endeavor to break through the geopolitical ice confronting the High North.