Beyond the Headlines: The Arctic on the Global Agenda
On February 2, 2026, the Pardee School of Global Studies welcomed Boston University scholars and faculty for a panel discussion as part of its Beyond the Headlines series, as they examined the global attention and role in national security of Greenland today. The panel consisted of Adriana Craciun, Professor at the College of Arts and Sciences; Tormod Heier, visiting researcher at the Center for the Study of Europe; Jonathan Martin, Ph.D student of Political Science at the College of Arts and Sciences; Quinn Slobodian, Professor of International History; and Ben Goossen, Assistant Professor of International History. The conversation was moderated by Kaija Schilde, Associate Dean of Studies and Associate Professor of International Relations, with opening remarks by Scott Taylor, Dean of the Pardee School.
The discussion aimed to unpack the misconceptions, layered history of national security and sovereignty, and current threats to Greenland and the Arctic region. In her introduction, Schilde referenced recent coverage of the Trump administration’s wish to acquire Greenland, which has been followed by shows of strength from European NATO countries, and the leading up to the meeting of Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in Paris to assert that Greenland’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are non-negotiable “red lines.”
Craciun provided insight from her field work in Greenland, sharing that there is a feeling of terror among its population. She highlighted that the rest of the globe has little to no understanding of the Arctic in the media, academics, and politics, resulting in world powers seeing the country only as a tool and not as autonomous people. She referred to the Energy Transition Minerals lawsuit, where the company sued the country after being prohibited from extracting minerals because the Greenlandic people changed their laws around mining agreements, the outcome of which narrowly avoided putting country’s small economy at risk of bankruptcy.
Heier shared his perspective as someone from the Arctic, describing how it’s strategic importance has long “fluctuated with international tension,” rising whenever US–Soviet or US–Russian rivalry intensifies. After a lull in the 1990s, Russia’s renewed assertiveness from 2007 onward once again elevated the Arctic’s significance, though, as Heier noted, in the past two decades “Russia has by and large been pushed out of the Arctic” by the revitalization of U.S. naval power.
Martin traced how the Arctic shifted from a post–Cold War zone of “environmental cooperation” to a renewed arena of great‑power rivalry. Although collaboration dominated after Gorbachev’s 1987 call for a “zone of peace,” Russia steadily expanded its military footprint, building dozens of bases and signaling its ambitions by planting a flag on the seabed of the North Pole in 2007. He elaborated that new institutions, such as the Arctic Ocean States and Arctic Circle Assembly, emerged as states jockeyed for influence, and China’s 2018 decision to label itself a “near‑Arctic state” marked another turning point. Martin argued that recent geopolitical shocks, from Trump’s interest in buying Greenland to the 2025 Alaska summit, underscore how “the great power competition was already there,” now intensified by China’s naval rise and Russia’s military setbacks, which make the Arctic strategically even more important.
Slobodian argued that the Greenland crisis reflects “late decolonization” dynamics and a deeper unraveling of NATO, noting that the Trump administration’s approach resembled 19th‑century great‑power behavior rather than modern diplomacy. He said the US “radically overplayed” its hand by ignoring Greenlandic legitimacy, and emphasized that Trump’s team views global politics through a civilizational lens; seeing Europe, not China or Russia, as the primary threat. In that worldview, he explained, ending NATO follows from the belief that “half of NATO is an alien‑occupied force undergoing a great replacement.”
Goossen provided insight from a military history perspective, elaborating on Greenland’s unique and central role after the Cold War; being a halfway point between the US and the Soviet Union where both powers aimed to use the location against one another. He added that along the way of this militarism, some of the most important climate research was allowed to take place, such as the discovery of fossilized air in ice cores pulled from the ground, furthering a global understanding of climate change. He touched on how other countries seeking power over Greenland tend to “arrive late but with an overwhelming force,” crediting the extreme climate that defines the region has led to a unique militaristic approach that cannot be compared to other regions.
As questions arose from the audience of faculty and students, concern over the outcome of this crisis and how it may change international relationships was clear. But in her closing remarks Cracium said, assuredly, “the environment is something to be reckoned with, and that’s a good thing.”
This event was co-sponsored by the Pardee School and the Global Security Initiative.