The Arctic: a safety zone that melts away

Security affairs have traditionally been excluded from the arctic fora, for a good reason; with the scale tipping in NATO’s favor, they would quickly become wishful thinking institutions. Heavy ice provided a “no-go” zone of little interest and therefore, concern; this edge now dwindles. Nevertheless, it is rather lucid for all actors involved that an upright confrontation would only do harm.Can Europe afford higher tension in its North? Integration has been teetering; increased West-Russia tension, refugee flows and the looming terrorism threat are challenging the acquis communautaire.In addition, climate change has been identified by EU states as a national security threat (repercussions involve disputes due to sea level rise and territory loss, pressure from climate migration, economic implications etc.).There are also economic ties, namely the Arctic has fisheries, tourism, new trade routes and energy resources to offer while the EU is a major market.The latterhas great geostrategic interest in the Arctic, whereas individual states also demonstrate their wish to be involved with their (applications for) observer status. The EU and the Arctic Council do represent two distinct cooperation models, stability however is vital for both and given the increasing geopolitical uncertainty, rapprochement could be beneficial.