Allies’ doubts over US reliability take center stage at Arctic Frontiers

When asked whether the United States could still be considered a reliable ally in the Arctic, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide shifted uncomfortably, appearing unsure whether Norway could fully rely on its superpower ally.

The moment came during a panel discussion on the main stage on the second day of Arctic Frontiers in Tromsø. Pressed for a yes-or-no answer, Eide paused and avoided a direct response, instead describing the United States as “a very important ally” and pointing to continued military cooperation in the High North. The moderator eventually interjected, answering for the minister in the affirmative before moving on.

That hesitation captured a question that has threaded through discussions at Arctic Frontiers this week and in European capitals more broadly: whether long-standing assumptions about U.S. reliability still hold as geopolitical tensions sharpen and multilateral norms weaken.

Nowhere has that unease been more visible than in debates over Greenland, which have loomed over the conference following repeated statements by U.S. President Donald Trump about annexing the country. This threat to a NATO member’s borders has unsettled European allies and formented concerns about Washington’s commitment to sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Eide said European and NATO allies had responded by drawing unusually explicit red lines.

“Practically every single NATO member that is not the U.S. has said: we stand by the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland for Greenlanders,” he said. “You simply don’t take other people’s land by force.”

At the same time, he stressed that Europe was not seeking confrontation with Washington, but rather clarity.

“Europe’s message to Washington has to be very explicit,” Eide said. “And I’m talking about the very best friends of the United States.”

No longer a quiet corner on the map

The panel discussion was followed later the same day by a joint press conference with EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, where the focus shifted from the immediacy of alliance politics to the broader strategic consequences now facing the Arctic.

Kallas argued that the Arctic has crossed a threshold, moving from a region defined by managed cooperation to one increasingly shaped by power politics.

“The Arctic is no longer a quiet corner on the map,” she said. “It is the frontline of global power competition.”

She warned that this shift is being driven not only by military posturing, but by a steady rise in hybrid threats designed to probe cohesion and exploit ambiguity.

“Hybrid threats are growing steadily in intensity and frequency,” Kallas said. “We are seeing GPS jamming, sabotage and interference with critical infrastructure in the High North.”

In that environment, she argued, security can no longer be reduced to military presence alone.

“Security is not about soldiers and ships,” Kallas said. “It’s about resilient societies, trusted institutions and sustainable livelihoods.”

Only after laying out the immediate geopolitical pressures did Eide turn to what he described as the Arctic’s defining long-term challenge — climate change — and the weakening scientific cooperation needed to manage it.

“The long-term security issue of the Arctic is climate change, environmental degradation and pollution,” he said. “And to understand that, we need science.”

Yet even this traditionally depoliticised pillar of Arctic cooperation is under strain, he warned.

“It’s a paradox at this time when science is so important that science is being under increasing threats of being diminished,” Eide said.

Reflecting on Norway’s recent chairship of the Arctic Council, Eide described the task less as advancing cooperation than preventing institutional collapse following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“Status quo is not tenable,” he said. “This is a holding operation to keep the apparatus alive while we’re waiting for better times.”

The panel discussion and the press conference echoed conversations throughout the corridors of Arctic Frontiers, where Trump’s aggressive, transactional approach to politics is widely viewed as having stripped away assumptions that once kept Arctic politics predictable and restrained. What is now at stake, the conversations seem to suggest, is whether the rules-based order can still act as meaningful constraints in a region that is no longer insulated from great-power pressure. The discussions at Arctic Frontiers revealed a region where old certainties are fading and sovereignty itself is now in question.

“If that principle of sovereignty is violated,” Eide said, “we are in serious trouble, all of us.”