The Arctic is opening, and the West is sleepwalking into another strategic defeat

Experts increasingly agree that Arctic summers could be largely ice-free by 2040. This transformation will not only create new maritime transit routes but also unlock vast reserves of natural resources that have, until now, remained largely inaccessible beneath the ice. Among these are critical minerals essential for clean energy technologies, advanced manufacturing, and modern defence systems.

As events in Iran and the Middle East demonstrate, securing energy production and distribution, along with protecting supply chains of the equipment that enables this is going to become increasingly vital. This is particularly the case for European and other ‘middle powers’ nations cautious of being caught in a struggle between big beast energy giants such as the US, China and Russia.

However, as the latest reportby the Henry Jackson Society shows, the West finds itself in a difficult position. The demand for critical minerals is rising rapidly, yet stable and diversified supply chains remain elusive. China dominates the global market, controlling 60% of the market and 90% of processing of these minerals. More troubling is Beijing’s demonstrated willingness to use this dominance as geopolitical leverage, including through export restrictions on essential minerals.

The range of alternatives is narrowing. Domestic mining projects across Western countries face regulatory, environmental, and political constraints. Meanwhile, China has steadily expanded its influence across mineral-rich regions worldwide through infrastructure investments and long-term resource agreements. As global demand for critical minerals continues to accelerate, the urgency of building resilient and sustainable supply chains is only becoming more pronounced.

In this context, the Arctic presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the West to reduce its dependence on China. While the development of Arctic mineral resources will inevitably take time, early and coordinated investment could yield significant strategic benefits in the decades ahead.

However, the West now risks missing this opportunity altogether. Russia currently holds a dominant position in the region, and China has sought to establish a foothold – even describing itself as a “near-Arctic state”, a claim that bears little resemblance to geographical or political realities. Notably, China’s progress has been constrained in part by the resilience of European Arctic states, which have become increasingly cautious about accepting foreign investment that may carry security risks.

Yet Western policy has not been without missteps. Aggressive rhetoric proposed by President Trump about territorial ambitions in Greenland risks undermining trust and cohesion among allies at a time of heightened geopolitical uncertainty.

Such unilateral approaches are not only counterproductive but also threaten to fracture the very unity required to respond effectively to strategic competition in the High North. Instead, what is needed is a coordinated, long-term Western strategy: one that combines responsible investment in Arctic mineral development with strengthened deterrence and security cooperation.

While the unhelpful Trump-created crisis in Greenland accidentally brought helpful attention to the importance of the High North to the front of policy makers minds, global events have shown how quickly the lighthouse beam of foreign policy moves. As the West seemingly jumps from one crisis to the next, we must not risk the High North once again left in the cold and dark, away from western strategy, while opponents continue their plans for the area unobserved.

That was highlighted recently when it was suggested the UK aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales mission to the High North might be shifted to the more immediate crisis in the Middle East. Had this decision been taken, not only could it have had little to no impact in either the Mediterranean or the Staits of Hormuz, but it would have signalled that the West was still seeing the High North through a tactical lens and not the decade plus long strategic one needed. The politicians resisted the temptation this time but must continue to do so.

Securing access to Arctic resources is not simply a question of whether it can be done, but also how it should be done. First, any approach must be collective rather than unilateral, rooted in consultation and partnership among Western allies. Second, sustained large-scale investment will be essential – both to support exploration and infrastructure development and to help European Arctic states maintain resilience against external pressure. Finally, mineral development must adhere to the core principles that underpin Western credibility: strong environmental protections, robust labour standards, and meaningful consent from local and Indigenous communities whose livelihoods will be directly affected. The alternative, a new economic imperialism and playing by the rules of our opponents would fundamentally undermine the West at the most base level. If we play by the rules of others, then we have already accepted defeat.

In an era defined by intensifying geopolitical rivalry, it may be tempting to prioritise short-term strategic gains over long-standing values. But this raises a fundamental question: at what cost? The strength of the West has long rested not only on its economic and military capabilities, but also on its commitment to a rules-based order.

That long-term plan is what is needed now for the High North. The building of new, constructive and mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships; increased and long-term security protection that can not be distracted by events elsewhere; and an acknowledgement that there is a competition underway that we cannot shirk away from or we will suffer devastating long-term consequences.

Dr Helena Ivanov, and Graeme Downie MP

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk