The Circumpolar

What does space sustainability actually mean, and why does it matter for the Arctic? In this episode of The Circumpolar, Serafima sits down with Tom Gabriel Royer, PhD candidate in space law at the University of Lapland, co-lead of Working Group 5 on COST Action FOGOS, and Visiting Researcher at the Arctic Centre, to talk through what's happening in the space sector right now and where the real tensions lie.Tom walks through the new EU Space Act proposal, the global push to attract space operators, and what scholars call the space sustainability paradox: we need space to monitor climate change on Earth, but to get there we build infrastructure that disrupts ecosystems on the ground. Launch-related pollution, he argues, is the missing piece in regulation. Even reusable rockets pollute. Reusability solves hardware waste, but it does not eliminate the environmental impact of launch operations.The conversation also turns to Tom's own work on immaterial extractivism around Arctic spaceports like Esrange, where the soundscape, the peacefulness and the emptiness of the land are extracted in the name of science, defence and economic growth. From the 1972 Liability Convention to indigenous perspectives on going to the Moon, Tom asks who actually benefits when we say space is the province of all humanity, and what it would take to do this thoughtfully.

Is space governed well enough, and can we still prevent it from becoming a field of conflict or competition? Serafima sits down with Michael Byers, Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia, co-director of the Outer Space Institute and author of Who Owns Outer Space.Space is more governed than people think, Michael argues. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty was a remarkable document, and its negotiators were prescient. But space is developing very quickly. In just the last ten years we've gone from 2,000 operational satellites to 15,000, with plans for more than a million more. Add superpowers who are suspicious of each other, a heavy military reliance on satellites, and Donald Trump's so-called Golden Dome with over 1,000 space-based missile interceptors, and the security dilemma starts to look familiar.Drawing on his years working on Arctic governance, Michael walks through the parallels between two areas beyond national jurisdiction where countries almost necessarily have to cooperate. They also get into the renewed race to the moon and why it might really be about Donald Trump's ego, Elon Musk's Mars ambitions and the Starlink user agreement that already declares Mars "a free planet beyond the reach of nation states," the bubble economy of space startups, and what it would actually mean for humanity to find ancient life on another world.

France is not an Arctic state, but it has been present in the region longer than most. Dr. Florian Vidal, senior researcher at UiT's Center for Geopolitics, Peace and Security, joins us to map the shape of that presence and the direction it is now taking.Much of France's standing in the Arctic rests on science. French polar research goes back to the 19th century, and the station at Ny-Ålesund on Svalbard, operated jointly with the Alfred Wegener Institute, continues to anchor that footprint. Around it runs a tradition of climate diplomacy that successive governments have used to claim a leadership role on the environmental future of the region.The defence picture is newer, and moving faster. French naval deployments in Arctic waters are increasing, bilateral ties with Denmark, Finland and Norway are being reinforced, and NATO has emerged as one of the key structures through which France's contribution is organised. Vidal works through what it means that France holds the only nuclear deterrent inside the European Union, and how this has begun to signal that this protection could extend to European partners willing to engage.Greenland threads through the conversation. As transatlantic relations have wobbled, France has been unusually visible there: the first EU member state to open a consulate general, a small military unit sent to take part in Danish-led exercises, and a strategic agreement between the French National Geological Survey and the Greenlandic Department of Geology on critical minerals.Looking further out, Vidal weighs concerns over Russian force posture on the Kola Peninsula and possible spillover from the Baltic against longer-term issues like the Greenland ice sheet and its consequences for the AMOC. He closes with a frank point: if France wants a reliable position in the polar regions, it has to commit to invest.

Research professor Arild Moe from the Fridtjof Nansen Institute joins us to discuss Russia's Arctic ambitions and the Northern Sea Route. How realistic are Russia's development plans? And what role is China really playing?The Northern Sea Route is many things for Russia: the shortest distance between its eastern and western borders, a way to access the coast of Siberia and its vast natural resources, and a potential shortcut between the Atlantic and the Pacific. For the Kremlin, it has been high on the political agenda for decades and is considered a cornerstone of Russia's economic future.But the finances tell a more complicated story. The development model was built on a combination of federal budget revenues and contributions from the Arctic's hydrocarbon producers, whose projects were entirely dependent on the route. The war in Ukraine has put serious pressure on both sides of that equation. Arctic LNG projects have been delayed, sanctions have complicated investment, and the cargo base for the route is not looking as good as it did just a few years ago.Arild also addresses some of the misconceptions around Arctic shipping. Reports of record transit numbers require closer reading. Much of the recent increase reflects trade between Asia and Russian ports, or sanctioned Russian oil taking a longer route to Chinese markets. There has not been a surge in real international transits between the Pacific and the Atlantic.And then there is China. Russia has grown more willing to bring China in, particularly since the war shifted the balance of power between them. But Chinese investors are looking carefully at the commercial aspects, and being interested in the long term is not the same as being ready to invest at this stage.

What can an artist actually do in the face of climate change? Ruth Maclennan is an artist, filmmaker, and researcher affiliated with the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge. She has spen many years trying to answer that question through her own practice, from the Russian taiga to the glaciers of Svalbard.In this episode, recorded during the fifth Arctic Art Forum symposium in Norway, Ruth talks about making work in places where climate change is most acutely felt and least visible from the outside. She discusses her collaborative film A Forest Tale, shot in the Russian Arctic just weeks before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and her more recent film All the Tears in the Sea, made during a residency in Svalbard. The film weaves together encounters with glaciologists, conservationists, reindeer, mining towns, and the strange hum of wind through Longyearbyen's lampposts.The conversation moves between the personal and the geopolitical: how art can hold complexity without simplifying it, why Arctic decision-makers need to listen to the people and species who actually live there, and how showing agency rather than helplessness might be the most important thing a film can do. As Ruth puts it: geopolitics is not a game of chess, it's a symphony.Find more of Ruth's work at ruthmaclennan.com and on Instagram @maclennanruth.

In this episode, Serafima speaks with Ekaterina Sharova, art historian, curator, and doctoral researcher at the University of Lapland. As the co-founder of the Arctic Art Forum, she has spent a decade building platforms for artists and cultural workers across the circumpolar North.We discuss the origins of the forum, which started in 2016 with a focus on "embodied knowledge" and rediscovering forgotten local histories. Ekaterina shares how growing up in Arkhangelsk and later studying in Oslo shaped her interest in whose stories get told in art history, and whose get left out. The conversation moves through topics like the historical Pomor trade between northern Norway and Russia, the little-known connection between Arkhangelsk and Alaska through New Arkhangelsk (now Sitka), and the legacy of three decades of Barents cooperation since the 1993 Kirkenes Declaration.We also talk about this year's forum theme, "climate microchanges," and why focusing on small villages and individual stories can reveal the scope of what the Arctic is facing. Research shows the region is warming nearly four times faster than the global average, and Ekaterina explains how artists are responding to this reality through work that raises awareness while also creating space for contemplation and grief.The conversation touches on the challenges of people-to-people collaboration in the current geopolitical climate, the role of ecofeminism in Arctic art, and what it means to sustain platforms for critical voices when so much cultural infrastructure has disappeared. Ekaterina reflects on the importance of creating possibilities for young artists in regions where support systems barely exist.

What is the Arctic for the European Union?In this episode of What’s New, host Serafima Andreeva speaks with Andreas Raspotnik, Director of the High North Center for Business and Governance and senior researcher affiliated with the Fridtjof Nansen Institute and The Arctic Institute, about the evolution of EU Arctic policy and what Brussels can realistically achieve in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.The conversation traces the EU’s Arctic engagement from the 2008 Joint Communication to the 2021 strategy for a “peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Arctic,” and the ongoing update expected later this year. Raspotnik explains how EU Arctic policy operates as an umbrella over fragmented competences, with fisheries at the supranational level, foreign and security policy largely in member state hands, and growing tensions between climate ambition and geopolitical urgency.Greenland and critical minerals sit at the heart of the debate. As Europe seeks strategic autonomy and reduced dependency on China and Russia, the Arctic is increasingly viewed as a source of rare earths and other resources central to the green transition. Yet the EU cannot compel companies to invest, nor can it act as a traditional hard power.The episode also examines the controversies that have shaped EU-Arctic relations, from the seal products ban to proposals for oil and gas moratoria, and asks whether Brussels risks overextension. With security now expected to feature more prominently in the upcoming policy revision, including references to Arctic security debates raised at Arctic Frontiers in Tromsø, the EU faces a structural question: how far can it move into hard security when defence remains a member state competence?Raspotnik argues for a practical shift. The European Arctic could be treated as a European neighbourhood alongside the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe. That would require more institutional capacity in Brussels and a deeper understanding of Arctic societies and economies before regulatory decisions are made.

In this episode of What’s New, Serafima Andreeva speaks with Guðbjörg Ríkey Th. Hauksdóttir about Iceland’s evolving role in Arctic geopolitics. The conversation explores how Iceland has shifted from viewing the Arctic primarily as an economic opportunity to treating it as a core security concern shaped by great-power competition.The episode examines Iceland’s unique position as a founding member of NATO without a standing military, and its long-standing reliance on the United States for defence under the 1951 bilateral agreement. Ríkey explains how military infrastructure and allied presence have expanded in recent years, while public trust has been tested by growing geopolitical uncertainty and shifting US rhetoric.The discussion also covers Iceland’s limited but sensitive relationship with Russia, the domestic debate over sanctions following the 2014 and 2022 crises, and the strong public consensus in support of Ukraine. A central focus is Iceland’s relationship with China, including cooperation on geothermal energy, Arctic research, and the controversial Aurora Borealis Research Station in northeast Iceland. The episode unpacks concerns around dual-use research, intelligence risks, and the challenges Iceland faces in assessing such threats with limited domestic expertise.Finally, the episode reflects on Iceland’s late embrace of an Arctic identity following the 2006 closure of the US base and the 2008 financial crisis. Ríkey argues that strengthening national expertise on Arctic security and resilience is now essential as political, economic, and security domains in the Arctic become increasingly intertwined.

In this episode of What’s New?, Serafima Andreeva speaks with Iselin Nemeth Winther from the Fridtjof Nansen Institute about how Norway understands and navigates the Arctic today.The conversation begins by clarifying that the Arctic is not a remote periphery for Norway, but an integrated part of the country. Nearly nine per cent of the population lives in the Norwegian Arctic, which includes cities such as Tromsø, Bodø, and Kirkenes, as well as universities, hospitals, and transport infrastructure. Compared to many other Arctic countries, Norway’s north closely resembles the rest of the country in terms of governance and everyday life.The episode then explores how the Arctic has become a centrepiece of Norwegian foreign policy. Large maritime zones in the north give Norway international weight and make the region economically and strategically important. As a result, the Arctic functions both as a domestic region and as a key arena for international politics.Security is a central theme throughout the discussion. Norway’s border with Russia and its proximity to Russian nuclear forces on the Kola Peninsula make the region strategically significant for both Norway and NATO. While Finland and Sweden’s NATO accession has strengthened the Alliance, Norway’s role remains distinct, with a long-standing focus on the maritime domain in the Barents Sea and the North Atlantic. Norwegian policymakers often describe the country as NATO’s eyes and ears in the High North.The episode also examines Norway’s new High North strategy, which places greater emphasis on security than earlier policies. This includes both military concerns and a broader understanding of security that encompasses infrastructure, transport, total preparedness, and population. The strategy marks a shift by explicitly identifying China as a factor of concern in the Arctic.A key part of the discussion focuses on Norwegian-Russian fisheries cooperation, one of the few areas of continued cooperation after 2022. The episode explains why the joint management of the world’s largest cod stock remains vital, how EU sanctions on Russian fishing companies have affected the agreement, and why Norway cannot easily step away without long-term consequences for sustainability.The conversation concludes by addressing Norway’s broader dilemma in the Arctic. Norway depends on the United States for security, must manage relations with Russia, and at the same time seeks closer cooperation with Nordic partners, the EU, and other like-minded countries. The episode ends with a reminder that while political dynamics change, the Arctic, its ecosystems, and its long-term challenges will remain.

In this episode of What’s New?, Serafima Andreeva speaks with Iver Neumann, Professor and Director at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, about what the return of great power politics means for the Arctic and for the international system more broadly.Neumann challenges the idea that geopolitics is a simple contest between self-contained states. Power, he argues, rests on social and institutional foundations, not just territory or military capability. When those foundations erode, the consequences are systemic. Wars do not break out because they are inevitable, but because the political and legal restraints that once held them back begin to weaken.The conversation focuses on the growing strain on international law and multilateral institutions. Neumann explains why international organisations matter precisely because they work quietly, absorbing friction before it escalates. When they are undermined, small disputes are more likely to harden into great power crises, and crises into conflict. The retreat from multilateralism, he warns, shifts the system toward great power concert politics, where deals are struck between the strongest actors with little anchoring in law, legitimacy, or social reality.Against this backdrop, the Arctic becomes less exceptional than often assumed. The same forces reshaping global politics are at work in the High North, from shifting US behaviour and China’s systemic rise to Russia’s selective restraint and escalation. The result is a more volatile international environment in which small and middle powers face shrinking room for manoeuvre.Neumann’s message is sober rather than alarmist. International law and institutions remain fragile but vital. The task for Arctic states is not to dramatise the moment, but to reinforce the structures that still prevent rivalry from turning into open conflict. His advice is simple and deliberate: stay prepared, trust institutions, and keep calm.

Donald Trump’s fixation on Greenland has been top of the agenda for the previous weeks, but what is it really about? In this episode of What’s New?, host Serafima Andreeva speaks with Professor Andreas Østhagen (Fridtjof Nansen Institute) and Erdem Lamazhapov (Fridtjof Nansen Institute) about what the US push to acquire Greenland reveals about a shifting Arctic order.They argue that the story is less about rare earths or “Chinese and Russian ships” than about power: spheres of influence, political symbolism, and the erosion of constraints that have long shaped Western strategy. The discussion breaks down what Washington can already do in Greenland, what it cannot legally or politically do, and why talk of coercion carries wider consequences — for NATO’s credibility, for norms around sovereignty, and for how other powers read the rules of the international system.

In this episode of What’s New? Arctic Geopolitics, host Serafima Andreeva explores Canada’s Arctic from a local and Indigenous perspective. Recorded in Ottawa together with Samuel Huyer (Trent University, North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network) and Justin Barnes (Harvard Arctic Initiative, NAADSN).They unpack what Arctic governance looks like on the ground in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and Yukon—regions that make up 40% of Canada’s territory but are home to less than 0.3% of its population. The discussion challenges common misconceptions by emphasizing that Indigenous peoples in the Arctic are not merely stakeholders, but rights holders under domestic and international law, with formal roles through land claims agreements and institutions such as the Inuit Circumpolar Council and the Arctic Council.The episode highlights the most pressing practical concerns facing northern communities today: housing shortages, food insecurity, mental health, access to infrastructure and services, climate impacts on livelihoods, and emergency preparedness in remote regions. Rather than framing Arctic security purely in military terms, the conversation reframes security as human security—rooted in community wellness, food sovereignty, housing, and the ability of Arctic peoples to exercise real agency in decision-making.The episode concludes with concrete policy recommendations, calling for Indigenous-centred policymaking, stronger mechanisms for co-development and co-management, and sustained efforts toward reconciliation. Together, the guests argue that a sustainable Canadian Arctic policy must start at home—by listening to, empowering, and investing in the people who live there.

In this episode of What’s New?, Host Serafima Andreeva is joined in Ottawa by Nicholas Glesby, Network Administrator at the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network and PhD candidate at Trent University, to unpack how Canada views the Arctic from an international and security perspective.The conversation explores Canada’s new Arctic foreign policy and its four pillars, the growing emphasis on sovereignty and Arctic diplomacy, and why Ottawa increasingly sees the Arctic as shaped by global geopolitical developments rather than as a conflict zone in its own right. Glesby explains how Canada understands emerging threats from Russia and China, how climate change intersects with security planning, and why the Arctic has become central to Canada’s defence priorities.A major focus of the episode is the role of NORAD, including the history of continental defence, early warning systems across the Canadian Arctic, and the current push to modernize North American defence in response to advanced missile technologies. The episode also addresses Canada–US defence cooperation under the Trump administration, why military cooperation has remained remarkably stable, and how Canada is deepening Arctic cooperation with Nordic partners.This episode focuses on Canada in the global Arctic — its foreign policy, defence posture, and role in North American and circumpolar security. A follow-up episode will explore local and Indigenous perspectives in Canada’s Arctic, focusing on governance, lived security, and the priorities of Northern communities.

In this episode, our guest Prof. Andreas Østhagen covers the ebbs and flows of Arctic Geopolitics, and how they intertwine with international relations elsewhere. This discussion covers the rapid changes in Arctic geopolitics, potential conflicts, hybrid threats, and the influence of non-Arctic states like China and India. We also explore the concept of Arctic exceptionalism, hybrid threats, and the importance of cooperation amidst rising tensions.

In this episode, Erdem Lamazhapov (Researcher, FNI) is a guest, and we explore China's interests in the Arctic, focusing on scientific research, commercial ambitions (shipping), and geopolitical strategies. We talk about the Polar Silk Road initiative, China's "identity" as a near-Arctic state, and common misconceptions about its role in the region. Additionally, the conversation addresses concerns about dual-use technologies in scientific research and speculates on future trends in China's Arctic engagement amid rising great-power competition.

In this conversation with Dr. Gabriella Gricius, we explore the role of the United States in the Arctic, focusing on military, economic, and environmental interests. We discuss shifts in Arctic policy in the second Trump administration, the significance of the Arctic Council, and the complexities surrounding U.S. ambitions in Greenland. We also cover misconceptions about U.S. power in the Arctic and the relationship with Canada, culminating in recommendations for a more nuanced U.S. approach to Arctic affairs.

In the second episode of "What's New?", we will be covering Russia in the Arctic. Our guest, Pavel Devyatkin, has been researching Russia for some years and is currently working from Moscow. We cover issues related to why the Arctic is important for Russia, whether it is a threat in the region, as well as the cooperation between China and Russia.