Unilateral actions and hegemonic logic: The global risks of U.S. Arctic strategy

Editor's note: Li Pinbao is an assistant research professor at the Institute of Public Policy, South China University of Technology. His research interests include Arctic science diplomacy, U.S.–China Arctic policy, and Arctic governance. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

The Arctic, once a beacon of scientific collaboration and environmental stewardship, is now becoming a flashpoint of geopolitical confrontation. The United States' recent escalation in its Arctic strategy – evidenced by its relentless pursuit of Greenland and militarization of the region – reveals a dangerous shift from multilateral cooperation to unilateral dominance. This approach, rooted in one-sided actions and hegemonic logic, threatens not only Arctic stability but the very foundations of the global order.

In terms of strategic positioning, the U.S. now views the Arctic as a critical geopolitical arena for great-power competition. Its National Strategy for the Arctic Region (2022) and the 2024 Department of Defense Arctic Strategy prioritize "security" and "strategic competition," explicitly labeling Russia and China as competitors. This clearly demonstrates that the U.S. perceives the Arctic primarily through the lens of maintaining global hegemony rather than as an area requiring multilateral cooperation to address shared challenges.

The U.S. government's actions have moved beyond rhetoric. In 2025, U.S. Vice President JD Vance's uninvited visit to Greenland's U.S. military base, coupled with President Donald Trump's threat to "use military force" to seize the territory, signaled a deliberate strategy to bypass Danish sovereignty.

At the same time, the U.S. leveraged the Red, White, and Blueland Act to bypass diplomatic channels and invested in Greenland's critical mineral projects. It also deployed F-35 fighters to the region, framing all of this as a "national security imperative." This multifaceted pressure campaign epitomizes a strategic shift: the Arctic appears less as a zone for shared governance and more as a prize to be claimed. These actions reflect a power-politics logic driven by an "America First" mindset, which contradicts the cooperative spirit expected by the international community.

The harm of this approach manifests in four critical dimensions:

Firstly, it fractures multilateral governance. The Arctic Council, the region's primary platform for climate, ecology and indigenous affairs, is collapsing under U.S. pressure. By pressuring NATO allies to align with its agenda and emphasizing "security" to exclude non-NATO actors, the U.S. has accelerated the Council's paralysis. The subsequent withdrawals of Russia and Finland from the Barents Euro-Arctic Council exemplify how geopolitical rivalry is crippling crucial regional cooperation frameworks. Without these platforms, coordinated efforts on issues like Arctic warming – which accelerates global sea-level rise – and support for vulnerable communities stall.

Secondly, it fuels a dangerous security dilemma and arms race. The U.S. is rapidly transforming Greenland's Pituffik Space Base into a permanent offensive hub. This pursuit of unilateral security has dramatically intensified military confrontation in the region, compelling all parties to reassess their security boundaries and triggering a spiral of tension. The result is that the Arctic now risks becoming a nuclear flashpoint. A single miscalculation in this high-stakes environment could trigger a crisis far beyond the polar circle.

Thirdly, it undermines international law and the rule-based order. The U.S. challenges the integrity of Danish sovereignty over Greenland through political and military pressure, while simultaneously justifying its own expanded military activities in the Arctic under the banner of "freedom of navigation" and overarching "national security." This selective application of principles creates a double standard, evident in its efforts to block Chinese investments in Greenland's mineral sector by labeling them "security threats," despite their commercial nature. Such instrumental "securitization" of lawful economic activity erodes trust in global governance, turning the Arctic into a battleground for arbitrary rules rather than a space governed by consistent and shared norms.

Fourthly, it destabilizes the global order. The U.S. is testing the limits of its alliance system by pressuring Denmark – a NATO partner – over sovereignty. This exposes the fragility of transatlantic trust. The ripple effects are already visible, prompting various reactions from Arctic stakeholders: European NATO members like Germany and France have initiated reconnaissance missions to Greenland, framing them as necessary responses to regional threats, while other Arctic and near-Arctic nations are compelled to reassess their security and cooperation frameworks in the face of escalating great-power competition. As the U.S. prioritizes "America First" over shared security, it risks turning the world back to a Cold War-era zero-sum mentality.

Critically, the U.S. strategy fails on its own terms. By treating the Arctic as a prize to be won, the U.S. sometimes overlooks the reality that Arctic warming is a major driver of broader climate change trends, which consequently poses a direct threat to global food security, weather patterns and coastal cities worldwide. The U.S. claims to champion "stability," yet its actions are generating the very instability it purports to prevent.

China, as a near-Arctic state and responsible global actor, has consistently advocated for a rules-based Arctic. China's engagement – through the Ice Silk Road, joint scientific expeditions and support for the Arctic Council – demonstrates that cooperation, not confrontation, is the path to sustainable development. The U.S. strategy, by contrast, is a self-defeating relic of an outdated worldview.

The Arctic is not a chessboard for great-power competition. It is a shared heritage, home to indigenous communities, a climate regulator for the planet, and a corridor for global trade. The U.S. choice to militarize it and exclude others is not strength – it is a strategic miscalculation that will leave the world more divided, less secure and less capable of addressing the climate crisis that binds us all.

Therefore, the global community must reject the U.S. single-edged approach. The principles of sovereignty, multilateralism and international law should be upheld, as they have underpinned Arctic governance for decades. Only through inclusive dialogue – not unilateral coercion – can we secure the Arctic's future as a zone of peace, not a theater of war. China's position – rooted in international law, scientific cooperation and respect for sovereignty – offers a blueprint for engagement. As the Arctic warms, the world cannot afford to let great-power competition override the imperative of collective action. The path forward requires restraint, transparency and a return to the principles that have governed the Arctic for decades: cooperation, not confrontation; rules, not force.