In today’s world, security policy transcends traditional notions of defense and alliances; it now encompasses control over value chains, critical raw materials, and economic influence. The ongoing geopolitical race for Greenland and the Arctic illustrates how geoeconomic factors are reshaping power dynamics and market perceptions. As European and Norwegian activities in the north wane, the stakes rise not only politically but also economically.
There is a common misconception in Norway: that security policy pertains solely to defense strategies, weaponry, and alliances, while value creation is relegated to the realms of the market, entrepreneurs, and conventional industrial policy. This dichotomy is increasingly archaic as we approach 2026. For investors, owners, and business leaders, the modern reality is that security policy now hinges on who controls value chains, logistical networks, and industrial capacities. In essence, it has become inextricably linked to the economy—and by extension, to entrepreneurship.
Power Struggles in the North
This intersection of economics and power is particularly evident in the Arctic. The developments unfolding in this region are not future hypotheticals; they represent a tangible shift in how power is wielded. As the race for critical raw materials, technology, and transport routes intensifies, areas once deemed peripheral are being recast as strategic hubs. This should serve as a warning for Norway, and simultaneously a signal of risk and opportunity for investors.
To understand this evolution, we can turn to the insights of economist and geopolitical thinker Albert O. Hirschman. In 1945, he posited that trade and economic integration generate not just mutual benefits but also power imbalances. Those with more alternatives wield greater political influence, while those who rely solely on one source become vulnerable. Hirschman’s argument isn’t that trade is detrimental; rather, it exposes how concentrated dependence can be leveraged as a tool of pressure.
We now refer to this concept as geoeconomics: the strategic application of economic instruments to achieve geopolitical ends. Sanctions, export controls, investments, subsidies, and restrictions on access to vital resources are no longer exceptional—they have become the norm. This reality directly impacts capital markets; risk encompasses more than just interest rates and consumer demand; it now includes political access, delivery security, and strategic oversight.
Critical Raw Materials
At the heart of this evolving power paradigm lies critical raw materials. Elements like rare earths, lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite have become essential for batteries, energy systems, digital infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, and defense technologies. As society advances toward electrification and digital transformation, the strategic value of these materials and the control over their supply chains grows.
This is not a mere theoretical concern. Value chains can be politicized without warning, access can be restricted, and prices can be swayed through regulatory measures or government industrial initiatives. Here, the presence of alternative suppliers or technologies becomes crucial. This aligns with Hirschman’s assertion: dependency is not merely an economic reality; it is fundamentally a power dynamic.
Geoeconomics in the Arctic
The Arctic serves as a natural theater for this unfolding drama. It is not only a geopolitically significant area; it is also rich in resources and logistical potential. The melting ice and technological advancements are making these resources more accessible and maritime routes increasingly vital. As transport corridors shift, economic power follows suit. When the landscape of resources changes, the dynamics of power inevitably shift as well, making both geopolitics and industrial geography essential considerations for investors.
This context sheds light on the United States’ keen interest in Greenland. The island is not merely a geographic entity; it serves as a strategic link between North America and Europe, a crucial piece in the North Atlantic security architecture, and a locus of valuable resources. For years, the U.S. has underscored Greenland’s strategic importance for both security and geoeconomic interests. While this does not necessarily herald imminent annexation, it does indicate that the U.S. might heighten efforts to establish influence as competition for core interests intensifies.
The Challenge of American Dominance
The uncomfortable reality is that American influence grows more pronounced as Europe appears strategically passive. A unified, proactive industrial and geoeconomic strategy for the Arctic—encompassing capital investment, value chain development, and a sustained presence—would fortify Europe’s negotiating stance and reduce dependency. In stark contrast, European politics have often been marred by fragmentation, regulatory overreach, and a disconnect between industrial needs and security priorities.
Norway exemplifies this paradox starkly. Situated in the Arctic with unique geostrategic responsibilities, we continue to send mixed signals about curtailing our northern activities. While often framed as exercising moral or environmental responsibility, this drawdown in engagement in reality weakens our assertions of sovereignty. As activity diminishes, so too does our structural ability to safeguard our interests. We must remember: declining value creation translates into a diminished security policy framework.
The Norwegian Downsizing
This trend is vividly illustrated in Svalbard. This archipelago is not merely symbolic; it is a strategic area that demands active governance to maintain control and legitimacy. Regardless of how we assess individual industries, it remains a geopolitical fact that population density, infrastructure, job creation, and economic activity are integral to real sovereignty. A weakening Norwegian presence diminishes our ability to shape local development on our terms. Once again, Hirschman’s wisdom echoes: those who withdraw compromise their own influence.
The same principle applies to mainland Northern Norway. This is not a peripheral region; it is a pivotal area linking Norway to North Atlantic security, European energy supplies, and critical transport and resource routes. If industrial activities, energy development, and logistical infrastructures are not aligned with emerging needs, we risk undermining both economic growth and strategic resilience. This dynamic presents a direct challenge for investors: regions lacking infrastructure and value chain development face heightened risk premiums and reduced access to capital, further exacerbating the cycle of decline.
The NATO Trap
Some may argue: but we have NATO. The United States has our back. We are “covered.” This represents a dangerous complacency. While alliances are essential, they are never guaranteed. They depend on domestic politics, the priorities of great powers, and evolving threat landscapes. To rely solely on external security guarantees is to tread on unstable ground. Hirschman would argue that such dependence on a single security provider, with no viable alternatives, is inherently risky.
Readers of Investornytt understand this intuitively, as it mirrors sound portfolio logic: diversification isn’t about distrust; it’s about recognizing the hazards of concentration. Security policy operates similarly. If Norway and Europe continue to dismantle their industrial capabilities in the north, the risk of geopolitical concentration increases: our options dwindle, flexibility diminishes, and our bargaining power weakens.
Entrepreneurship Equals Security
Consequently, entrepreneurship is far more than a niche concept; it embodies the essence of establishing alternatives. It empowers us to create new value chains when existing ones falter, develop technologies in times of scarcity, and build domestic capacities when imports become politically contentious. In our geoeconomic environment, entrepreneurship signifies our capacity in security policy. For investors, this perspective renders innovation ecosystems, industrial clusters, and national ownership not merely growth narratives, but essential components of risk mitigation.
This underscores why the discourse around critical raw materials cannot be reduced to a binary choice of “to extract or not.” The true value—and thus the real power—often lies in processing, refining, technological innovation, recycling, and setting standards. Nations that remain mere raw material suppliers often find themselves at the mercy of others’ industrial strategies. Those who master the processing and technological domains command greater shares of the value chain and attain enhanced political leverage. By Hirschman’s logic: they cultivate options and thereby wield power.
Active Architect or Passive Spectator?
The Arctic, therefore, represents not just a battleground for resource discussions, but a vital arena for value chain discourse. The pressing question for Norway and Europe is whether we will take the initiative as active architects of northern industrial development or remain passive observers while others seize this critical space. Should we choose the latter, we must be prepared for great powers—including the United States—to secure positions that safeguard their own strategic interests.
An often-overlooked domestic political dynamic bears considerable weight in matters of security: societal resilience. The northern territories represent more than just geography; they are composed of communities and local populations. Economic vitality fosters settlement, expertise, and local trust. In contrast, a declining economy leads to increased emigration, a loss of skilled labor, and heightened vulnerability—not merely in military terms, but institutionally as well. This represents a security vulnerability and an economic shortfall: smaller labor pools, diminished project prospects, and increased political friction.
Thus, investment in the northern regions must be viewed not merely as “regional policy,” but as integral to strategic national risk management. Infrastructure linking Norway with Sweden and Finland, energy systems, ports, logistical support, industrial capacities, and business clusters all represent elements of security that are also ripe for investment. Those who seize early insights into these structural trends will discern where risks are shifting and where opportunities bloom.
The Luxury of Strategy
So, what is the takeaway, articulated for the discerning readers of Investornytt? It’s straightforward: by 2026, geopolitics has become an integral principle governing financial logic. Control over critical raw materials, the Arctic, and value chains will influence both national autonomy and investment risks. Hirschman was onto something significant: economic frameworks shape political power, which in turn shapes markets.
As Norway and Europe curtail their roles in the northern territories—be it on Svalbard or beyond—we not only jeopardize local value generation but also erode our security policy safety net. Increased dependency leads to greater pressure; diminished alternatives correspond to weakened bargaining power. In a geopolitical landscape where major powers jockey for influence over Greenland, raw materials, and northern routes, such strategic complacency is a luxury we can ill afford.
Ultimately, we must foster a new narrative that resonates with investors: entrepreneurship is not merely a decorative layer atop our economy. It is our economy’s resilience against shocks, its capacity to forge alternatives. In this geo-economic era, it serves as a pillar of security. In the northern regions, it becomes the foundation for ensuring that sovereignty is more than a legal concept—it is a lived reality.