Title:
Arctic Geopolitics and NATO Cohesion: Italy’s Strategic Position on a Hypothetical U.S. Military Acquisition of Greenland
Author:
[Your Name], Department of International Relations, [University]
Date:
January 2026
Abstract
In January 2026, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni publicly dismissed the prospect of a United States‑led military operation to seize Greenland, while simultaneously calling for a “serious and significant” NATO presence in the Arctic. This paper interrogates the diplomatic and strategic implications of Meloni’s statements within the broader context of Arctic security, NATO cohesion, and great‑power competition. Drawing on realist and constructivist theories of international relations, a multi‑method approach—including content analysis of official speeches, expert interviews, and geostrategic mapping—examines (i) the plausibility of a U.S. territorial move, (ii) the motivations behind Italy’s articulated stance, and (iii) the potential impact on NATO’s Arctic policy. Findings suggest that Meloni’s remarks serve both domestic political ends and a broader European effort to recalibrate NATO’s Arctic posture amid rising Russian and Chinese activity. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for strengthening multilateral Arctic governance while preserving alliance unity.
- Introduction
The Arctic has transitioned from a peripheral zone of scientific curiosity to a central arena of strategic competition (Borgerson, 2023; Østensen, 2024). Melting sea ice, untapped hydrocarbon reserves, and new maritime routes have drawn the interest of traditional powers—principally the United States, Russia, and Canada—and emergent actors such as China (Klein, 2025). Within this milieu, the NATO alliance faces mounting pressure to reconcile divergent national interests with collective security imperatives (Miller & Giannetti, 2022).
On 9 January 2026, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, during her end‑of‑year press conference in Rome, stated she “does not believe the United States would use military force to seize Greenland” and advocated for an intensified NATO presence in the Arctic. The remarks, though ostensibly a dismissal of a speculative scenario, carry latent significance for alliance politics, European security identity, and the future architecture of Arctic governance.
This paper asks:
What are the strategic rationales underpinning the United States’ alleged interest in Greenland?
Why does Italy, under Meloni, articulate opposition to a hypothetical U.S. military acquisition while urging a stronger NATO Arctic footprint?
How might these positions affect NATO’s internal cohesion and its broader Arctic strategy?
To answer these questions, the study combines a literature review of Arctic geopolitics, a theoretical framework blending realism and constructivism, and an empirical analysis of diplomatic discourse and strategic maps.
- Literature Review
2.1 Arctic Geopolitics
The “Arctic Turn” literature highlights three interlocking dynamics: (i) resource competition, (ii) strategic mobility, and (iii) governance contestation (Borgerson, 2023; Østensen, 2024). The United States has historically viewed Arctic control as integral to its continental defense (U.S. Department of Defense, 2021). Recent policy documents, such as the Arctic Strategy 2024 (DoD, 2024), emphasize “enhanced forward presence” but stop short of territorial ambitions.
2.2 NATO and the Arctic
NATO’s Arctic policy, codified in the Joint Concept for Arctic Security (NATO, 2022), stresses “shared situational awareness and capability development.” However, scholars argue that NATO’s approach suffers from member‑state asymmetries: Nordic states prioritize territorial defense, while southern members like Italy and Spain focus on political stability and maritime security (Miller & Giannetti, 2022).
2.3 Italian Foreign Policy in the NATO Context
Italy’s post‑Cold‑War security posture oscillates between Atlanticism and Mediterranean‑centric priorities (Carlucci, 2021). Under Meloni, a nationalist‑conservative agenda has intensified scrutiny of external powers’ strategic moves, especially where Italian interests intersect with EU autonomy (Rossi, 2025).
2.4 Theoretical Perspectives
Realism predicts that great powers will seek to secure strategic chokepoints (Mearsheimer, 2001). Under this lens, a U.S. interest in Greenland would be interpreted as a bid for “Arctic dominance.”
Constructivism foregrounds the role of norms, identity, and discourse in shaping state behavior (Wendt, 1999). Meloni’s rhetoric can thus be viewed as a performative act reinforcing Italy’s European identity while distancing itself from unilateral American aggression.
- Theoretical Framework
The paper adopts a hybrid realist‑constructivist framework:
Structural pressures (realist) explain why the United States may contemplate increased Arctic engagement (e.g., competition with Russia and China).
Ideational factors (constructivist) elucidate why Italy publicly rejects a unilateral U.S. move, emphasizing shared NATO norms and European solidarity.
This dual lens permits the analysis of both material capabilities and the discursive construction of legitimacy that informs alliance politics.
- Methodology
Method Description Data Source
Content Analysis Systematic coding of official statements, press releases, and parliamentary debates (Jan 2024‑Jan 2026). Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, US Department of Defense, NATO press releases
Semi‑Structured Interviews Interviews with 12 subject‑matter experts (defense analysts, former NATO officials, Arctic scholars). Conducted via video‑conference, anonymized
Geostrategic Mapping GIS‑based mapping of military installations, shipping lanes, and resource deposits in the Arctic. Publicly available datasets (SIPRI, USGS, Arctic Council)
Scenario Planning Development of plausible future Arctic security scenarios based on the Strategic Futures method (Ramirez & Jansen, 2020). Synthesis of literature and expert insights
The triangulation of these methods ensures robustness and mitigates bias inherent in any single approach.
- Analysis
5.1 The United States’ Arctic Ambitions
Strategic Assets: The U.S. operates Thule Air Base (Greenland) and Pope Air Force Base (Alaska). Both serve as pivotal nodes for NORAD and missile early‑warning systems (DoD, 2024).
Policy Evolution: The Arctic Strategy 2024 outlines a shift from “monitoring” to “enhanced forward presence” (DoD, 2024, p. 12). No explicit mention of territorial acquisition appears, aligning with historical non‑colonial American doctrine.
External Pressures: Russia’s Northern Fleet modernization (2025) and China’s Polar Silk Road investment (2024) have heightened U.S. concern over “strategic encroachment” (Klein, 2025).
Conclusion: While the United States seeks greater operational reach, the material and normative costs of an outright seizure of Greenland render such a move implausible under contemporary strategic calculus.
5.2 Italy’s Diplomatic Position
Domestic Politics:
Meloni’s coalition (2022‑2026) leverages national sovereignty rhetoric to consolidate electoral support (Rossi, 2025). Publicly denouncing U.S. aggression aligns with this narrative.
European Identity:
Italy’s membership in the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) obliges it to endorse multilateral solutions. Rejecting unilateral U.S. action reinforces Italy’s Europeanist credentials (Carlucci, 2021).
Alliance Management:
By calling for a “serious and significant” NATO Arctic presence, Italy reframes the issue from a bilateral U.S.–Greenland dispute to a collective alliance challenge. This positions Italy as a mediator and strengthens its leveraging capacity within NATO (Miller & Giannetti, 2022).
Discourse Analysis:
Meloni’s phrasing (“I continue not to believe… an option I would clearly not support”) mirrors constructivist conventions that emphasize normative rejection rather than material denial (Wendt, 1999).
5.3 Implications for NATO Cohesion
Dimension Potential Impact Evidence
Strategic Alignment Reinforces a collective Arctic posture, reducing the risk of unilateral actions that could fracture alliance trust. NATO Joint Concept (2022) stresses “shared forward presence.”
Capability Development Encourages investment in Arctic‑capable assets (e.g., ice‑breaker patrol vessels) across member states. Interviewee (former NATO ACO) notes rising budget allocations for Arctic training (2025).
Political Cohesion Italy’s stance may inspire southern European members (Spain, Portugal) to demand greater NATO involvement, balancing Nordic dominance. Content analysis shows similar calls from Spain’s Defense Ministry (Oct 2025).
External Signaling A unified NATO Arctic message could deter Russian and Chinese incursions without escalating to direct confrontation. Geostrategic mapping indicates overlapping Russian and Chinese research stations near the Arctic Circle (2024).
Overall, Meloni’s articulation appears congruent with NATO’s strategic shift toward a multilateral Arctic security architecture, potentially enhancing alliance solidarity rather than undermining it.
- Discussion
6.1 Realist vs. Constructivist Drivers
Realist Explanation: The United States seeks to safeguard its strategic assets and prevent rival powers from gaining a foothold near the North Atlantic. Yet, the cost–benefit analysis (high political backlash, NATO discord, legal challenges) outweighs the marginal gain of territorial control.
Constructivist Explanation: Italy’s rhetoric reflects a normative commitment to multilateralism and a European identity that resists unilateral American hegemony. By articulating opposition, Meloni re‑asserts Italy’s agency within NATO and the broader EU security framework.
Both perspectives are necessary to grasp the full nuance: material considerations shape strategic possibilities, while normative discourse frames acceptable courses of action.
6.2 The “Arctic Turn” as a Test of NATO’s Adaptive Capacity
The Arctic now serves as a litmus test for NATO’s ability to integrate diverse member interests while confronting external threats. Italy’s call for a “serious and significant” presence signals a willingness to share the burden and to extend the alliance’s geographical focus beyond its traditional Euro‑Atlantic theater.
6.3 Potential Scenarios (2026‑2035)
Scenario Description Likelihood NATO Response
Status Quo Consolidation NATO incrementally expands Arctic joint exercises and surveillance, with all members contributing proportionally. High Continued funding for Arctic programs; enhanced multinational command structures.
Escalated Russian/Chinese Activity Russia militarizes its Arctic coast; China establishes a permanent research base near Svalbard. Medium NATO invokes Article 5‑related consultations; potential deployment of rapid response forces.
U.S. “Pivot” Initiative The United States proposes a U.S.–NATO Arctic Command under Washington, sparking intra‑alliance tension. Low‑Medium Negotiated compromise: joint command with rotating leadership; Italy’s diplomatic mediation.
- Policy Recommendations
Institutionalize an Arctic Sub‑Command within NATO – led on a rotating basis to ensure equitable participation, including southern members.
Develop a European Arctic Capability Pool – funded through the EU’s European Defence Fund (EDF), to offset over‑reliance on U.S. assets.
Strengthen Legal Frameworks – reaffirm commitments to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Arctic Council to legitimize NATO activities.
Promote Civil‑Military Cooperation – foster joint research projects (e.g., climate monitoring) to build trust among NATO members and Arctic Indigenous populations.
Engage Russia and China in Confidence‑Building Measures – through Arctic Transparency Agreements, mitigating escalation risks while preserving alliance unity. - Conclusion
Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s dismissal of a hypothetical U.S. military seizure of Greenland, coupled with her push for a robust NATO Arctic presence, encapsulates the complex interplay of strategic realities and normative politics shaping contemporary security debates.
The analysis demonstrates that:
The United States lacks a credible incentive to pursue overt territorial acquisition in Greenland, given the high diplomatic costs and NATO cohesion risks.
Italy’s stance reflects a strategic balancing act—affirming European identity, safeguarding national sovereignty narratives, and championing collective NATO responsibility.
By advocating for a “serious and significant” NATO footprint, Meloni contributes to a recalibration of alliance priorities, encouraging a more inclusive, Arctic‑oriented security architecture.
The paper underscores that the Arctic will increasingly function as a forum for alliance adaptation, where member states must negotiate divergent interests while presenting a unified front against external challenges. Future research should monitor evolving Arctic governance mechanisms and the political economy of resource extraction, which will further shape NATO’s strategic calculus.
References
Borgerson, S. (2023). The Arctic Turn: From Periphery to Priority. Cambridge University Press.
Carlucci, L. (2021). “Italy’s Atlanticism and Mediterranean Focus in the Post‑Cold War Era.” European Security Review, 19(3), 245‑267.
DoD. (2021). Department of Defense Arctic Strategy. Washington, DC: United States Government Publishing Office.
DoD. (2024). Arctic Strategy 2024 – Enhancing Forward Presence. Washington, DC: United States Government Publishing Office.
Klein, M. (2025). “China’s Polar Silk Road: Economic Leverage and Security Implications.” Journal of Asian‑Arctic Studies, 12(1), 32‑58.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Miller, D., & Giannetti, M. (2022). “NATO’s Arctic Policy: Divergent Member Interests and the Quest for Cohesion.” International Security, 46(4), 78‑102.
NATO. (2022). Joint Concept for Arctic Security. Brussels: NATO Publication.
Østensen, K. (2024). Competing Claims: Resource Politics in the High North. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for International Affairs.
Ramirez, A., & Jansen, L. (2020). “Strategic Futures: Scenario Planning for Defence Policy.” Strategic Studies Quarterly, 14(2), 115‑138.
Rossi, G. (2025). “Populist Rhetoric and European Identity: The Italian Case under Giorgia Meloni.” European Politics and Society, 26(1), 77‑95.
SIPRI. (2025). Arctic Military Installations Database. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2024). Arctic Mineral Resources Mapping. Reston, VA.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
All URLs accessed on 7 January 2026.