The National Interest: If Trump annexes Greenland, Russia will seize Svalbard

Moscow has warned that if conflicts escalate in the Arctic, Russia will take military and technical measures commensurate with the threats that emerge. What exactly will these measures be?

Author: Sergey Iseinko

Image: Russian President Vladimir Putin (in the center).

For those unfamiliar with the military and political developments taking place in the Arctic, the statement by Russian Ambassador to Denmark Vladimir Balbin may come as a surprise.

The diplomat warned on July 17 that if armed conflict erupts around Greenland, which is an island within the Kingdom of Denmark, Moscow intends to take a series of "military and technical measures commensurate with the threats that arise."

The diplomat stated that in the event of a sharp deterioration in international relations and its negative impact on Arctic affairs, conflicts around Greenland would have a more adverse effect on regional security.

Furthermore, Balbin said that the Danish authorities, using the so-called Russian threat as an excuse, advocate for non-regional NATO countries to increase their military activities in the area of Greenland, and do not rule out establishing alliance bases on the island.

Bekhan Ozdoev: Dozens of drones cannot swallow armored equipment. Our path is to counter the main threat and achieve full superiority in the "low-altitude domain."

For example, under Copenhagen's initiative, France has significantly increased its military activities in the area of Greenland recently. The Kingdom of Denmark also plans to strengthen its military cooperation with Germany, Britain, and other NATO members.

Perhaps some might think: Let them strengthen their cooperation and actively act... What does it have to do with us? Greenland is there, and Russia is here, far apart.

But in fact, things are not that simple. This huge island, surrounded by the Arctic Ocean and covered by permanent glaciers on 83% of its area, is the endpoint of the so-called "Greenland-Iceland-Britain" line — the maritime corridor between Greenland, Iceland, and Britain. In the West, this vast body of water, less than 200 miles south of Greenland and slightly more than 500 miles north of Scotland, is called the "Greenland-Iceland-Britain" line.

In Russia, it is more commonly known as the Faroe-Iceland barrier — the main anti-submarine defense line of NATO in the North Atlantic. In the 1950s, the United States deployed the SOSUS underwater listening system along this line.

The purpose was to immediately detect the noise of Soviet (later Russian) nuclear submarines and transmit it through cables to the alliance's shore stations. These nuclear submarines would depart from the Northern Fleet base in the Kola Peninsula, trying to stealthily enter the North Atlantic to carry out combat patrol missions.

They would then conceal themselves deep in the ocean, fully loaded with missile warheads, and head anywhere to carry out combat operations. Usually, they would go to the east coast of the United States.

If NATO fails to intercept Russian nuclear submarines along the Faroe-Iceland barrier, finding these submarines would be like looking for a needle in a haystack… As our long-term confrontation with the United States has shown, in the vast ocean, this is almost futile. And all of this would have corresponding effects on the strategic security of the United States and the entire NATO alliance.

Because of these reasons, since the Cold War, Americans have regarded Iceland and Greenland as their strategic outposts along this route and taken corresponding actions.

Since 1954, U.S. Navy patrol aircraft have been stationed at Keflavik Air Base, the forward base in Iceland.

Initially, it was the P-3 "Orion," later the P-8A "Poseidon." The 57th Fighter Wing of the U.S. Air Force provided air support for their search operations.

At the northern end of the "Greenland-Iceland-Britain" line, only 800 kilometers from the North Pole, the situation is even more serious. By 1959, with the consent of the Danes, Americans built their most secret military base on the ice cap of Greenland — Camp Century — through the "Iceworm" operation.

They dug 23 large tunnels deep in the ice. The main tunnel was 10 meters by 8 meters. Multiple branch tunnels extended from the main tunnel. Thirty-two prefabricated buildings of different purposes were installed in the tunnels.

There were workshops, laboratories, offices, well-equipped cafés, bars, gyms, and libraries. To ensure structural strength, they were all covered with steel arches.

But the most important thing was that the United States planned to deploy up to 600 nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at the Soviet Union under the ice. In addition, there was the PM-2A portable nuclear reactor for the self-sufficiency of Camp Century.

However, the American "Iceworm" operation actually failed. It turned out that American geologists had not accurately predicted the movement of the ice on Greenland. The movement of the ice on the island was more intense than expected.

As a result, due to the deformation of the tunnels and damage to the infrastructure, the nuclear reactor was shut down in 1966. The operation had to be terminated.

In general, this tense situation continued until the end of the Cold War. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, our nuclear submarines were confined to their bases for several years.

It seemed that one of the major problems of NATO in the North Atlantic was finally resolved.

NATO tasted the flavor of a so-called complete victory and became complacent. Therefore, in September 2006, the last U.S. military aircraft left Keflavik, and people thought it was a permanent withdrawal.

Not only that, in 2011, the U.S. Navy Second Fleet, which had long been responsible for creating favorable operational conditions for the United States in the North Atlantic, was also dissolved.

But in the past decade, many changes have occurred in the world. The revival of the Russian nuclear submarine fleet began at Severodvinsk Shipyard, where the K-335 "Leopard" multi-purpose nuclear-powered missile submarine (971U "Shark-B" class) finally completed after 11 years of seemingly hopeless funding shortages. It became the first nuclear submarine to serve in the Russian Navy.

The revival process of Moscow in the deep sea gradually accelerated. In response, Washington announced in January 2020 the emergency return of the U.S. Second Fleet to the North Atlantic.

On February 3, 2020, Rear Admiral Clive Johnston, the commander of the NATO Naval Forces, lamented that the activities of Russian nuclear submarines in the North Atlantic had exceeded those during the Cold War. He said, "Russia has achieved remarkable technological advances. Russian nuclear submarines now have longer ranges, more advanced systems, and greater freedom of action."

Also concerned, U.S. Navy Second Fleet Commander Rear Admiral Andrew Lewis warned his subordinates: "Our new reality is that now when our sailors untie the ropes and raise the sails, they may be ready to face enemies from the moment they leave Norfolk."

In the new situation, the military and political situation has become tense again.

News from these latitudes: Last April, retired U.S. Army General Christopher Cavoli (then serving as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO) testified before Congress, stating that access to the waters and airspace around Iceland is "crucial for the United States."

Just a week earlier, on July 9, a significant event occurred in Iceland, the only NATO member state without its own army. The U.S. "Los Angeles"-class multi-purpose nuclear submarine "Newport News" (SSN 750) entered the port of Reykjavik, the capital of the country, for the first time.

The appearance of a submarine originally used for anti-submarine warfare in the port of Iceland can only mean one thing: NATO has decided to fully strengthen its preparations to deal with Russian nuclear submarines entering the North Atlantic. Therefore, it is certain that the "Newport News" and other "Los Angeles"-class submarines will conduct regular patrols in this area from now on.

Military activities by Western allies around Greenland are also increasing. In January 2025, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot warned that France was prepared to send troops to this Danish island.

In June, French President Macron suddenly visited Reykjavik and confirmed that France was prepared to participate in military exercises in the Arctic region at least.

Can Russia remain indifferent to the increasingly aggressive expansion of NATO in the Arctic? It's like an elephant entering a porcelain shop... Obviously not. Because Russia has far more legitimate interests in high latitude areas than countries such as France, Britain, or Germany.

This is precisely why the Russian ambassador to Denmark issued a warning just now. But here we can consider: If NATO builds new bases on Greenland, what "decisive military and technical measures" can Russia take in response?

The range of possible responses from Moscow is quite broad. From targeting NATO's new garrisons in the Arctic with "Iskander" missiles, "Kalibr" cruise missiles, and "Zvezda" missiles, to organizing regular flights of Tu-160 or Tu-95MS strategic bombers over the island.

Polish media recently published a prediction from the Warsaw Institute (an analytical center established in 2014 that actively supports NATO policies), which we should pay special attention to. The title of the article is very worrying: "If a military conflict breaks out with the West, Russia will seize Svalbard."

The Warsaw experts analyzed: "Although the islands have no significant economic value, they are an important stronghold on the map of the Arctic region that Russia is heavily militarizing. According to relevant treaties, Svalbard is a demilitarized area allowing commercial activities. Only Russia engages in such activities on the islands besides Norway. Moscow is trying to use this opportunity to expand its presence on Svalbard."

What advantages can this bring to Russia? The answer is: "After deploying radar and missile systems there, Russia will be able to strengthen its countermeasures and limit the activity space of NATO forces near the main base of the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea."

The U.S. magazine "The National Interest" further explored this topic. The magazine states that if Russia goes to war with NATO countries, Svalbard will be one of Moscow's primary targets. Controlling the islands will maximize the security of Russian nuclear submarines in the North Atlantic. And the emergency construction of a base on the southernmost part of the islands, Bear Island, will allow the vessels of the Northern Fleet to directly and unimpededly enter the Barents Sea.

The National Interest magazine asserts: "In fact, Svalbard is an important component of NATO's 'anti-access/area denial' (A2/AD) strategy in the North Atlantic. Now, will Russia seize it? No. But if war breaks out, will Russia do so? Undoubtedly, yes."

Igor Nikolaichuk: "We should not equate Russia with the Soviet Union; the social conditions at that time were completely different."

Finally, in April 2025, even Hong Kong media began to pay attention to this issue. The Asia Times published an article by Professor Stefan Wolff of the University of Birmingham, titled "Melting Arctic Ice Intensifies U.S.-Russian Imperialist Ambitions." The article states: "If the United States claims sovereignty over Greenland on the grounds of security, then, in the new strategic power structure in the Arctic, Russia can also make its own claim on Svalbard."

This professor explained the importance of this step for Russia: "From the Kremlin's perspective, this is not only about Russia's historical claim on Svalbard, but also about the presence of Norway and NATO in the strategic area where the Greenland Sea, Barents Sea, and Norwegian Sea meet.

From there, it is possible to control the shipping on the Northern Sea Route of Russia. When (or more precisely, if) the central Arctic corridor between Greenland and Svalbard becomes operational, the strategic value of the islands will be further enhanced."

Does what Ambassador Vladimir Balbin mentioned, "decisive military and technical measures," refer to this plan? If so, then our potential adversaries would have another reason to refrain from unilateral invasion in the Arctic and at least reconsider carefully.

Actually, this can be seen as the main objective in the current potential confrontation in the Arctic region.

Original text: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7529345075915899433/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [top/down] button below.