Greenland Today, Svalbard Tomorrow?

The world’s northernmost Lenin statue looks over the abandoned Russian city of Pyramiden on Svalbard, summer 2018. Photo: Alina Bykova

If Trump takes Greenland, would Putin take Svalbard? What is the role of international law?

International law is under mounting pressure in a world where major powers increasingly realize political ambitions through military force. This undoubtedly shakes global stability.

Denmark has been engaged in a rhetorical war with Trump and other U.S. officials over Greenland’s sovereignty for a long time. A question that may not be the most urgent, but still arises alongside the debate on Greenland, is the issue of Svalbard. It almost goes without saying that if Trump were to take Greenland, it would set a precedent for other major powers wishing to seize foreign territories. Svalbard stands out as an obvious territory for Russian ambitions. The Svalbard Treaty has safeguarded Norway’s sovereignty for over a century, but uncertainties about the robustness of international law and Svalbard’s strategic location near the Kola Peninsula mean Norwegian authorities must recognize that major powers may seek influence there.

Could Trump’s Greenland scenario become reality? Recent events show that his rhetoric does not have to be just empty words. But does that mean Putin will then automatically look toward Svalbard? Not necessarily. Svalbard is clearly a strategically important archipelago in the Arctic. It is therefore not unthinkable that U.S. control over Greenland could set a precedent for major powers taking control of other states’ territories, creating a domino effect. This possible development would be catastrophic for international law but should now be considered a potentially real scenario. Power politics often push legal rules aside, but legal systems survive when they generally reflect the realities on the ground. In today’s international order, however, neither sheer power, states’ interests, nor international law dominates alone—they coexist.

Although the legal order is under pressure, it has not entirely disappeared. If the United States were to take control of Greenland, there are many alternative strategies for other great powers besides blindly following in America’s footsteps. It is possible that Russia and China—the other major players in the Arctic—would be more interested in “rehabilitation” than in territorial expansion. They may cynically seek to present themselves as champions of international law while pointing to U.S. double standards and hypocrisy. In short, Russia and China may have more to gain by distancing themselves from methods they can describe as imperialistic than by seizing new territory. If the U.S. takes Greenland, it could paradoxically pave the way for Russia’s “revival” as a “reputable” international actor—not as an incentive to claim more land.

We are used to seeing the U.S. as the world’s “police,” while the list of so-called “rogue states” typically includes Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China—and not the United States. When we think of violations of international law, we have good reason to think of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s disregard of UNCLOS in the South China Sea, rather than any Western state. At the same time, Russia and China have for years criticized what they call the false veneer of a “rules-based order.” The two countries have even issued joint declarations to uphold international law—first in 2016 (on promoting international law) and again in 2025 (on “upholding the authority of international law”). In this context, a good illustration of that point is Nebenzia’s speech at a UN Security Council meeting following Maduro’s arrest: “Today we reap the fruits of your recklessness and selectivity on issues related to respect for international law, which you equated with a so-called ‘rules-based world order.’ Here you have your rules-based order in all its glory—and it frightens even the most steadfast Atlanticists!”

In a truly multipolar world, support and legitimacy can be seen as key assets for influence, and courting the Global South is central to this effort.

What, then, is Svalbard’s future? Balance of power represents the key element. Legal agreements tend to mirror prevailing power structures, and as long as maintaining the status quo serves states’ interests, treaties may endure. What makes Svalbard special in this context is the Svalbard Treaty, which the U.S., Russia, and China, alongside with other 45 parties, have ratified. Paradoxically, the existence of this legal instrument may be what ensures that Norway’s sovereignty over Svalbard will not be threatened in the near future. Despite the weakening of international law in general, the Svalbard Treaty and current power relations may be the stable pieces that preserves Norway’s sovereignty.

The Svalbard Treaty explicitly gives Norway “full and absolute sovereignty” over the archipelago, yet this sovereignty is qualified by the treaty itself. One of Norway’s biggest challenges going forward will be to apply the treaty in a pragmatic way that upholds the stability and respects other parties’ rights and interests. This could be Norway’s key move to preserve sovereignty over the archipelago, maintain stability in the Arctic, and disarm the threatening rhetoric about Svalbard. If major powers feel they enjoy real rights under the treaty, an attack on one of them could be seen as an attack on all. It is therefore in both Norway’s and the international community’s interest to actively preserve the integrity of the Svalbard Treaty. Paradoxically, what might seem as a weakness, the treaty’s limits on sovereignty and demilitarization provisions, actually serve as Norway’s best insurance in uncertain times.

This article is based on an article Fra Grønland til Svalbard? published in Nordnorsk debatt on 9 January 2026.

Jan Jakub Solski and Ingrid Solstad Andreassen are Associate Professors at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea, Faculty of Law, UiT the Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø.