Karen Everett & Katharina Koch
Before February 2022, there was a healthy academic debate about Arctic exceptionalism - whether the region was insulated from geopolitical tension, vulnerable to spillover effects, or situated somewhere in between. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, demonstrated that political spillover is not only possible but also has tangible regional and global consequences. This was evident in the temporary suspension of Arctic Council activities and its working groups, as well as Finland’s and Sweden’s historic decision to join NATO. Moreover, security concerns are further confounded with the consequences of climate change, thus increasing the strategic relevance of the Arctic. National Arctic strategies and policies provide insights into how states perceive and position themselves in the region. Similarly, military strategies shape and reflect a country’s broader security priorities. In Canada’s case, key policy documents such as the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework (2019) (ANPF) and Strong, Secure, and Engaged (2017) (SSE) were formulated before the invasion of Ukraine, while the Arctic Foreign Policy (2024) and Our North, Strong and Free (2024) were developed and published afterwards. This temporal distinction raises important questions about how security discourses have evolved in response to the shifting geopolitical dynamics affecting relations within the Arctic and with near-Arctic states (e.g., China). To explore these changes, we examine the four policy documents through six key themes: 1) shifting perceptions of adversaries; 2) emerging new threats to the Arctic region; 3) the role of climate change; 4) energy security considerations; 5) investments in procurement and infrastructure; and 6) evolving relationships between Canada and its allies. In addition to analyzing the shifts revolving around these key themes, we also acknowledge a broader challenge inherent in policy-making - the above-cited strategic documents are designed to guide decision-making over multiple years. As a result, they do not account for rapidly changing geopolitical realities, thus raising critical questions about adaptability and effectiveness during times of uncertainty.
