NATO: An Arctic alliance from day one
Arctic security has never been a peripheral issue for NATO
An Italian soldier poses for a photo during NATO’s Cold Response 2026 exercise in the Arctic. Credit: NATO Flickr
NATO will turn 77 years old next week. Today, the military alliance includes 32 member states, most recently expanded by the addition of Finland in 2023 and Sweden in 2024. While NATO is typically framed as a transatlantic or European security organization, its Arctic dimension is not new. The Alliance has been deeply interested in High North security from the first days of its inception.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in 1949 with the purpose of promoting security and cooperation in Europe after World War II and countering growing Soviet power. NATO had twelve original members, five of which are Arctic states – Canada, the United States, Iceland, Denmark, and Norway.
This fact, and the organization’s general focus on the North Atlantic, naturally brings the Arctic into the Treaty’s sphere of interests. The Alliance’s origins, its Cold War evolution, and its military planning all point to an obvious conclusion: NATO has always been an Arctic alliance.
Postwar origins
NATO emerged from a post-war Europe that was characterized by wartime trauma and Western concerns about Soviet aggression.1
While the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union fought as allies in the Second World War, ideological differences and Western worries that the USSR would not honor promises of cooperation and non-aggression caused a breakdown of relations by the end of the 1940s.
At the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, American leaders Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill made agreements with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin that the Soviets would not impose authoritarian rule in Eastern and Central Europe.2
Yet the Soviet-led destruction of civic and political liberties in what would become its satellite states made the situation untenable for the West.3 Historian Odd Arne Westad writes that the Cold War began in Poland after the imposition of Soviet control in the country: “Britain had gone to war with Germany over the fate of Poland in 1939, and it would be hard for any British government to accept Soviet occupation and dictatorship in that country.”4
Events in 1948 accelerated Western fears. The Soviet-backed coup in Czechoslovakia and the Berlin Blockade underscored what many in Western Europe and North America saw as an expansionist threat. These developments broke lingering European resistance to a formal military alliance with the United States.
The result was the North Atlantic Treaty, signed on April 4, 1949. Its core principle, enshrined in Article 5, declared that an attack on one member would be treated as an attack on all. This collective defense commitment became the cornerstone of Western security during the Cold War.
Scholars argue that the quick creation of NATO reflected Western European and American military weakness. Westad writes that senior American military officials were concerned that American troops would not be able to defend western Europe against the Red Army even if they used their nuclear arsenal. The American Joint Chiefs of Staff advised President Truman that the Soviets could establish control of Europe within two months. Westad argues that military planners considered the threat of war with the Soviet Union a significant threat from mid-1948 onwards.5
Yet even before the Treaty was signed, the “North Atlantic” in NATO was never limited to Europe. Policymakers recognized that much of the Alliance’s strategic geography extended into the Arctic. In fact, early discussions, documented in NATO archival documents, explicitly acknowledged that significant portions of NATO territory were Arctic, not merely Atlantic.
At a March 1949 United States Department of State meeting on NATO security concerns, several officials debated whether Italy should be allowed entry into NATO as it was not in the North Atlantic, noting that “much of the territory covered by the Pact is not North Atlantic but Arctic territory.”6
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed less than a month later, and continues to define diplomatic and geopolitical relations in Europe nearly 80 years later.
The Arctic as a Strategic Frontier
The Arctic became a key strategic space in the aftermath of World War II. The evolving Cold War situation, along with the advent of nuclear weapons and developments in military technology, changed the region from a “‘military vacuum prior to World War II, to a military flank in the 1950–1970 period, and a military front in the 1980s.’”7
As Western and Soviet military strategists found in the 1950s and 1960s, the quickest way to hit targets in enemy countries was to fly bombers and later intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) over the Arctic.8 Over subsequent decades, the north became one of the most militarized spaces of the Cold War.9
The north was also vital for scientific and meteorological observations. Meteorological data from the north was invaluable for weather predictions in the south, a fact that the Nazis knew when they occupied Svalbard in World War II to establish weather stations there.10
A 1951 United States Department of State policy statement reflects the importance of the Arctic for scientific data: “Weather information from a network of stations within the area is essential for purposes of commercial and military aviation and shipping, as well as for weather forecasting in the Temperate Zone.”11
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union heavily militarized its northern territories. The Kola Peninsula, in the northwestern Soviet Arctic, housed a massive Soviet nuclear arsenal, along with hundreds of warships, icebreakers, nuclear submarines, and ballistic weapons, which NATO and the West saw as a direct and pressing threat.12
This build-up of forces effectively in NATO’s backyard, practically on the border with Norway, which was considered the keeper of NATO’s northern flank, led the north to become a central feature of NATO’s security strategy throughout the Cold War.13
During the Cold War, NATO worried about the possibility of a surprise Soviet attack in the Arctic. The Alliance had learned from the World War II experience, when Nazi forces built secret bases in Greenland and Norway’s Svalbard, and wanted to keep the USSR from potentially doing the same.
NATO considered northern Norway to be especially at risk given its proximity to the Soviet Union. Alliance leadership worried both about secret Soviet bases, and about a potential annexation. This point was stressed repeatedly in military assessments, which argued that if the Soviets took Norway’s Finnmark region, the West wouldn’t be able to stop them.14
A 1950 NATO report named the Arctic Ocean around Norway, Iceland, Greenland, and the Northwest Territory of Canada as prime locations where hostile naval and submarine forces, and weather, radar, and supply stations could be concealed.15
A 1951 report by the NATO International Planning team to the Standing Group of the Military Committee, the highest military authority in NATO and the principal advisor to the North Atlantic Council, extends this argument, stating that northern areas around Norway must be patrolled frequently despite harsh Arctic weather.
The report states that NATO was most concerned about the possibility of “a convoy carrying assaulting forces to Norway, Spitzbergen [Svalbard] or Iceland,” and “large numbers of submarines westbound.”16
As such, NATO leadership stated, deterrence was the best course of action. In other words, it was key to convince the Soviets that any attack would trigger a broader conflict.
“The most effective method of avoiding a surprise attack on North Norway is to continue to convince the Soviets of the fact that any such initiative by them would bring about the implementation by the Alliance of timely counter-measures,” said a 1965 NATO report.17
To that end, Norway started hosting regular NATO exercises from the 1950s onwards. Inviting thousands of Alliance soldiers to Norway’s north served several purposes: teaching them to fight in harsh Arctic conditions, and training to cooperate together between different states and factions.
Since the 1950s, NATO’s exercises in northern Norway have grown from several thousand strong to over 30,000 people. In fact, in March 2026, NATO’s Cold Response exercise saw 32,000 troops from 14 states, over 30 warships, and over 100 aircraft training together in the Norwegian north.
The GIUK Gap and North Atlantic Control
While northern Norway was important, NATO’s Arctic strategy extended across the broader North Atlantic. A key focus was the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap, commonly known as the GIUK gap.
Initially defined as a concept during First and Second world wars, this stretch of ocean served as a critical chokepoint for naval movement between Europe and North America. Controlling it was essential for monitoring and potentially blocking Soviet submarines attempting to pass through the Atlantic Ocean, as NATO documents from the 1960s point out.
The goal was simple: “mind the gap” at sea, contain Soviet naval forces, and protect vital shipping and communication lines between North America and Europe.
Iceland and Greenland were key strategic anchors in this effort. Both of them were indispensable to NATO’s Cold War defense posture.
Iceland, which has no standing military, became a cornerstone of NATO strategy. Its location made it an obvious hub for monitoring air and sea routes across the North Atlantic.
A 1950 NATO report discussed Iceland’s importance plainly:
“Iceland’s geographic position is such as to draw her inescapably into the vortex of any struggle for the control of these vital lines of communication. She closely flanks the great circle route, and the guards the only approach from the Soviet arctic bases to the Atlantic…We have no reason to suppose, nor even to hope, that the Soviets have failed to appreciate either the extreme dependence of the North Atlantic Treaty Powers on their lines of communication, or the vital position of Iceland in the defense of those lines.”18
Throughout the Cold War, Western military specialists recommended that Iceland be stocked with several weeks’ worth of supplies, and that at least a thousand troops be stationed there to ward off attacks. A 1950 report additionally stressed that military leadership had to remain vigilant for “Communist saboteurs,” and that ocean approaches to Iceland had to be kept under constant surveillance.19
Greenland played a similarly vital role. Through a defense agreement between the United States and Denmark, American forces established bases on the island, including the strategically important Thule (now called Pittufik) Air Base. Radar systems and early warning networks in Greenland were designed to detect incoming Soviet bombers and missiles, forming a critical layer of North American defense.
“The reason why the island is so important to NATO is that the Russians, when carrying out air-attacks on America, will have to pass Greenland. Opposite the Americans could use their air bases in Greenland as starting points for air-attacks on Russian territory,” said a 1953 NATO report.20
Together, Iceland and Greenland anchored NATO’s northern strategy, ensuring that the alliance could monitor and respond to threats across the Arctic and North Atlantic.
And NATO’s Arctic dimension was not limited to Europe or Atlantic islands. In North America, the United States and Canada developed integrated defense systems to counter potential Soviet attacks across the polar region.
The establishment of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in 1958 marked a major step in this effort. NORAD coordinated air defense and early warning systems across the continent, including radar installations stretching deep into the Arctic.
These systems were designed to detect incoming Soviet bombers and missiles as early as possible, buying critical time for a response. In this sense, the Arctic was not a distant and frozen frontier. It was a shield.
Continuity and Change
The Arctic has always figured heavily into NATO security considerations, as evidenced by the Organization’s very own historical documents. The Arctic was a central part of the Cold War rivalry between the Soviet Union and the West, and NATO was a major participant in this standoff.
Today, NATO has no official Arctic strategy or regional Arctic command center, but it’s becoming increasingly involved in the north, especially as tensions with Russia evolve and new players become active in the region.
The Arctic status quo is changing quickly. Sweden and Finland have joined NATO, making seven of eight Arctic nations NATO members (save for Russia), and a traditional Western ally, the United States, has made threats against former friends like Canada and Denmark. All of these changes are unfolding against a backdrop of rampant warming and climate catastrophe, as the Arctic is heating up four times faster than the rest of the world. It’s safe to say the region is facing unprecedented times.
NATO works closely with Nordic militaries, including Norway, Finland and Sweden, and continues to carry out exercises in Arctic Norway and its neighbors nearly every year. NATO also helps protect Icelandic airspace by occasionally deploying fighter jets to the region.
Some photos from NATO’s Cold Response 2026 exercise, from NATO’s official Flickr page.
Credit: NATO
An extended version of this article was published in May 2024 with The Arctic Institute
Kaplan L (2019) Origins of NATO: 1948-1949. Emory International Law Review 34(11): 11-12.
Westad O. A. (2017) The Cold War: a world history. London: Penguin Press, 60.
Naimark N and Gibianskii L, eds. (1997) The Establishment of Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, 1944-1949. Boulder: Westview Press.
Westad, 65.
Westad, 119.
United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Western Europe, Volume IV. Document 74. March 1 1949. “Minutes of the fourteenth meeting of the Washington Exploratory Talks on Security, March 1 1949, 10 am.”
Østreng, Willy. 1992. “Political-Military Relations among the Ice States: The Conceptual Basis of State Behaviour” in Arctic Alternatives: Civility or Militarism in the Circumpolar North, ed. Franklyn Griffiths, 26–45. Toronto: Science for Peace/Samuel Stevens Canadian Papers in Peace Studies.
Townsend, Jim, and Andrea Kendall-Taylor. “Back to the Future: The Origins of Great-Power Competition in the Arctic.” Partners, Competitors, or a Little of Both?: Russia and China in the Arctic. Center for a New American Security, 2021. ; Mathieu Landriault & Adam MacDonald. “Debating Arctic Security through a Media Lens – The Case of NATO’s Trident Juncture Operation.”
Daniel Heidt and P. Whitney Lackenbauer, The Joint Arctic Weather Stations: Science and Sovereignty in the High Arctic, 1946-1972. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2022, 11.
Kington J and Selinger F (2006) Wekusta: Luftwaffe Meteorological Reconnaissance Units and Operations 1938-1945.Ottringham, UK: Flight Recorder Publications.; Lackenbauer P. W. and Dean R (2017) Conceiving and Executing Operation Gauntlet: The Allied Raid on Spitzbergen, 1941. Canadian Military History, January 1: 7.
United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, National Security Affairs; Foreign Economic Policy, Volume 1. Document 765. July 1 1951. “Department of State Policy Statement: Polar regions.”
Bruno A and Kalemeneva E (2023) Creating the Soviet Arctic, 1917–1991 in Adrian Howkins and Peder Roberts The Cambridge History of the Polar Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023.
Dyndal, G. L (2011) How the High North Became Central in NATO Strategy: Revelations from the NATO Archives. Journal of Strategic Studies 34(4): 561, 572.
NATO archives, October 10 1965, “Contingency Study, Northern Norway.”
NATO archives, November 6 1950, “Reconnaissance of uninhabited regions and maritime areas.”
NATO archives. October 26 1951, “The reconnaissance in peacetime of the Arctic approaches to Norway.”
NATO, “Contingency Study, Northern Norway.”
NATO archives, September 15 1950, “The position of Iceland within the NATO structure.”
NATO archives, December 29 1950, “Security provisions and defence measures for Iceland.”
NATO archives. July 31 1953, “Meeting of the chairman of the Standing Group with the Danish chief of defence.”
What is the environmental impact of the military industrial complex?
This was truly fantastic research. I have an MA in History, and I can tell that you put so much work into this piece. I was not fully aware of how vital the Arctic was to NATO and how heavily it featured in the Cold War. Thank you so much for sharing this!