A

mid growing attention to statements about Greenland’s future, the Arctic has become a staple of geopolitical analysis. But the popular narrative—that melting sea ice alone is driving rivalry—is far too simplistic. It overlooks the complex web of political, legal, and strategic dynamics unfolding across a region that spans 4 percent of the Earth’s surface. 

It’s not the Greenland that should have geopolitical pundits scrambling. A different set of islands—the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard—is in a more precarious position. Yet here too, myths and misconceptions circulate widely, both in popular media and even in some academic circles. These range from misunderstandings about sovereignty disputes to confusion over the archipelago’s legal and military status. Many of these myths are entangled with real geopolitical tensions, often rooted in competing interpretations of the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, which granted Norway sovereignty over the islands but under unique legal conditions. 

Where is Svalbard? 

Roughly 650 kilometers north of mainland Norway and just 1,000 kilometers from the North Pole, Svalbard is Norway’s northernmost territory—and a focal point for examining the intersection of geography and power politics. The presence of Russian nationals living in separate Russian-administered communities on Norwegian soil, combined with Svalbard’s proximity to military installations—especially Russia’s Northern Fleet on the Kola Peninsula—makes the archipelago a sensitive flashpoint in both Norway–Russia relations and the broader NATO–Russia dynamic. 

W

hile Norway holds sovereignty over Svalbard under Article 1 of the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, several states continue to assert interests linked to the archipelago—whether through the operation of research stations or appeals to historical activities such as fishing, exploration, and coal mining. These claims trace back to the Treaty’s special provisions, which served two main purposes: to resolve the sovereignty question by granting Svalbard to Norway, and to guarantee that nationals of other signatory states could continue to enjoy specific economic rights on the islands. 

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Svalbard drew renewed attention from both Norwegian and international media, emerging as a focal point in growing concerns over Arctic security. 

Some researchers, including Western scholars, have inaccurately described Norwegian sovereignty over Svalbard as disputed. This is incorrect. Svalbard is Norwegian territory, and its sovereignty is not contested—not even by an increasingly assertive and militarized Russia. Norwegian laws and regulations apply across the archipelago, and NATO’s security guarantees extend to it as well. Nor is Svalbard “demilitarized” in the strict sense. The Svalbard Treaty prohibits the use of the territory for warlike purposes and forbids the establishment of military bases, but it does not ban all military presence. Norwegian coast guard vessels and naval frigates routinely visit Longyearbyen for operational and logistical reasons. 

 

 

 

 

Undermining Norwegian sovereignty  

Despite all this, Svalbard continues to present a set of geopolitical challenges that have grown more significant within Norway’s evolving security landscape. The first challenge stems from concern that Russia—still the only country besides Norway with its own settlements on Svalbard—may seek to provoke tensions. Since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russia has become more assertive and nationalistic, and this posture has extended to Svalbard. Examples include the unauthorized use of a helicopter during a symbolic parade in Barentsburg, the erection of a cross in a protected conservation area near Pyramiden, and ambitious plans for a new  research center in Pyramiden, developed in cooperation with partners including China. 

In addition, Moscow has maintained a steady stream of statements about Svalbard, seemingly designed to project strategic ambiguity and apply pressure on Norway. These often take the form of claims that Russia’s rights on the archipelago must be respected or that Norway is violating the Svalbard Treaty. While large-scale conflict over Svalbard is unlikely—given Russia’s economic constraints, strategic priorities, and limited capacity—it is clear that the archipelago has become a pawn in broader political and informational campaigns. 

First, Russian central authorities see Svalbard as a useful stage for signaling strength to the “West.” The unique provisions of the Svalbard Treaty allow Russian citizens to live and conduct business on Norwegian territory, offering Moscow an unusual opportunity to assert influence on foreign soil. Second, the head of Trust Arktikugol—the state-owned company overseeing Russia’s operations in Svalbard—wants attention and support domestically. Symbolic, nationalistic gestures are an effective way to attract attention and secure political support at home. 

 

 

 

 

While these actions and complaints do not directly contest Norway’s sovereignty over Svalbard, their cumulative effect could pose a broader challenge to how Norway interprets and enforces the Svalbard Treaty. This concern has grown since 2022, with some observers warning that Norwegian authorities may be losing control over certain forms of foreign activity on the islands. The fear is that, should Russia seek to escalate tensions while maintaining plausible deniability, it could use these longstanding grievances as a pretext to undermine Norwegian sovereignty through indirect or hybrid means. 

 

Access to resources at sea 

The second major geopolitical challenge involving Svalbard concerns access to the resource-rich waters and seabed surrounding the archipelago. While Norwegian sovereignty over Svalbard itself is not in question, there is ongoing disagreement over whether the provisions of the Svalbard Treaty extend beyond 12 nautical miles from the islands’ coast, as reflected in the infamous snow crab and cod quota cases. Here, it is the EU (or, at least, some EU countries) that often poses problems for Norway. The Svalbard Treaty itself refers only to ‘territorial waters’, initially 4 and today 12 nautical miles from the baseline. The question in dispute is whether this 200-nautical-mile zone and the continental shelf around the islands are covered by the provisions in the 1920 Treaty.  

Although this disagreement with Norway’s relatively close NATO allies is unlikely to escalate into open conflict, Russia also plays a role in the dispute. When Norway established a Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard in 1977, the Soviet Union objected, claiming—and Russia continues to claim—that Norway has no right to implement a fisheries management regime in the area without prior consultation with Moscow. In practice, Russia has largely complied with Norwegian inspections and fines levied on Russian trawlers operating in the zone. However, several cases over the past decades have shown how tensions involving Russian vessels can quickly escalate, underscoring the fragile balance in these contested waters. 

Two aspects of this geopolitical dispute could escalate. The first is the issue of access to resources, and possible attempts by vessels from various states to claim their rights, as seen with the EU in the snow-crab case. The fact that snow crabs are defined by all relevant parties as sedentary species also means that how they are managed sets a precedence for other shelf resources such as hydrocarbons and seabed minerals. Interest in oil and gas development on the continental shelf around Svalbard has waned since the peak of Norwegian Arctic energy ambitions between 2007 and 2010—though that could shift again in the future. In contrast, seabed minerals have gained prominence in recent years. In 2020, the Norwegian government began the process of opening parts of the Norwegian continental shelf to mining operations. When the opening was approved in 2024, roughly one-third of the designated area overlapped with both the continental shelf and the Fisheries Protection Zone around Svalbard, raising the potential for renewed disputes. 

The second area of concern involves the activities of Russian fishing and research vessels in Norwegian waters. Incidents such as the disruption of a  fiber optic cable shortly before Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the sabotage of gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea, have highlighted the vulnerability of offshore infrastructure. For Norway, the issue is especially complex. Both Russian fishing and research vessels retain access rights to Norwegian waters—rights that are difficult to restrict due to provisions in the Law of the Sea and the joint management regime for fish stocks in the Barents Sea. This creates a strategic dilemma: how to safeguard national infrastructure while upholding binding international agreements. 

 

 

 

 

Norwegian Svalbard diplomacy  

Researchers, politicians, and journalists well beyond Norway are increasingly focused on Svalbard. In the past month alone, reporters, commentators, and filmmakers from Australia, France, India, and Sweden have traveled north to cover the archipelago’s geopolitical and security relevance. The same trend holds true in academia, where the body of scholarly work on Svalbard and Arctic security continues to grow steadily. 

What’s more, others are paying attention. Fear of China may be one reason for the Norwegian government to buy the last private property on Svalbard for 350 million EUR: China is obviously interested in developments on the archipelago.| 

N

orway’s approach to Svalbard in matters of foreign and security policy has long been one of quiet restraint—avoiding unnecessary attention or provocation. The underlying concern is that increased international discussion could lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of Norway’s position and rights in the archipelago. 

Unfortunately, recent developments suggest that the opposite dynamic is taking hold: international interest in Svalbard is already growing. The less open and transparent Norway is about the issues at stake, the more space is created for misunderstandings and even conspiracy theories—sometimes among close allies. Meanwhile, other actors, notably Russia, have a clear interest in fostering the perception that Svalbard’s legal and political status remains unresolved or ambiguous. 

 

Arctic Geopolitics in 2025 

Analyses of Arctic geopolitics too often rely on broad generalizations and sweeping conclusions that overlook the region’s complexity and the wide variation in security challenges across the Arctic. Svalbard, in particular, stands out as a sui generis case—shaped by the unique legal framework of the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, which affirmed Norwegian sovereignty under special conditions. Several of the geopolitical tensions discussed here stem directly from that exceptional status. 

Other issues, however—such as the strategic military significance of parts of the Arctic and the intensifying great power competition—are not unique to Svalbard and apply more broadly across the region. By focusing on one specific Arctic location, we can explore its political dynamics in greater depth and begin to understand how future scenarios might unfold in the North. At the same time, such a case study underscores the broader complexity of Arctic security and geopolitics—an area of growing importance in the years ahead.