Abstract:
In the evolving multipolar order of the 21st century, the Arctic Circle has emerged as a strategic epicenter of geoeconomics rivalry, environmental transformation, and strategic power projection. This study examines the complex interplay of geopolitical forces in the Arctic region, focusing on how the European Union (EU) can strategically respond to rising threats through the structured application of international risk management frameworks. Central to this analysis is the case of Greenland, a region whose geostrategic value has significantly increased due to its vast natural resources, shifting political status, and pivotal location between Europe and North America.
Accelerating climate change has transformed the Arctic from a peripheral frontier into a central theatre of global contestation. Melting ice has unlocked new maritime routes and facilitated access to hydrocarbon reserves and rare earth elements. In turn, this has intensified competition among major state actors, including Russia, China, the United States, and the EU. Recent efforts of the U.S. administration to challenge Greenland’s sovereignty underscore the urgency of a cohesive EU strategy to safeguard its long-term interests and maintain influence in the region.
The core objective of this research is to develop a comprehensive risk management plan tailored to the EU’s strategic posture in the Arctic. To achieve this, the study applied the PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, Environmental) framework, offering a multidimensional lens through which to assess the volatility, complexity, and interdependence of emerging threats. Political risks include increased militarization, sovereignty disputes, and weakened multilateral governance. Economically, competition over resources and transit routes poses escalating challenges. Technologically, the EU’s dependency on non-EU capabilities for Arctic navigation and exploration represents a strategic vulnerability. Legal uncertainty persists due to overlapping territorial claims and the absence of an enforceable Arctic legal regime. Socially, indigenous populations face displacement and cultural erosion. Environmental risks include biodiversity loss, pollution, and long-term ecological degradation.
Based on this analysis, the study introduced a weighted prioritization model to rank threats according to frequency, impact, and EU responsiveness. It then advances a set of three plausible future scenarios designed to stress-test the EU’s strategic assumptions:
- Baseline Scenario – Low-level geopolitical tension and managed competition
- Adverse Scenario – Heightened activity from rival actors and increasing disruption
- Extreme Adverse Scenario – Military escalation and potential confrontation among global powers
For each scenario, the study recommends a tailored suite of policy responses, including preventive diplomacy, strategic deterrence, investment in autonomous Arctic-capable technologies, and the drafting of legally binding EU Arctic protocols. These measures aim not only to mitigate risks but also to assert the EU’s strategic autonomy and presence in a rapidly changing region.
A major conclusion is that the EU’s current approach is reactive, fragmented, and insufficient to meet the challenges of an assertive and unstable Arctic geopolitical environment. To avoid marginalization, the EU must urgently adopt a proactive and coherent Arctic strategy that aligns with its broader goals under the European Green Deal, strengthens technological sovereignty, and supports a rules-based international order. Deeper coordination with allies such as the United States and Canada, combined with a strengthened role in Arctic Council mechanisms, will enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of EU action.
By presenting Greenland as a microcosm of broader Arctic tensions, the work contributes a robust, scenario-based methodology to EU policy discourse. It provides a roadmap for enhancing resilience, sovereignty, and influence in one of the world’s most critical frontiers.
JEL classification codes:
D81 – Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
F51 – International Conflicts; Negotiations; Sanctions
O13 – Agriculture; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Other Primary Products
Q34 – Natural Resources and Domestic and International Conflicts
Q54 – Climate; Natural Disasters and Their Management; Global Warming