Rome, the New Arctic Crossroads
For two days, on March 3 and 4, the headquarters of the National Research Council (CNR) in Rome became an unusual focal point for the future of the Arctic. Over 500 participants from approximately 40 countries gathered for the Arctic Circle’s Rome Forum—Polar Dialogue, bringing a debate to the heart of the Mediterranean that for decades remained confined to high latitudes. This was only an apparent contrast, as the forum’s core purpose was to demonstrate that the Arctic is no longer—if it ever truly was—a remote or “niche” issue.
The event, hosted and co-organized by the CNR in collaboration with the Ministry of University and Research and in coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, saw the participation of ministers, diplomats, scientists, and indigenous representatives from across the Northern hemisphere and beyond. The title chosen for the Roman edition, From Glaciers to Seas, alongside the forum’s central themes—Science, Diplomacy, Security, Education, and Research—defines the scope of a region whose complexity can no longer be reduced to a single dimension.
The proceedings were opened by Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, Chairman of the Arctic Circle and former President of Iceland, a key figure in the journey that brought the Polar Dialogue to Rome following editions in Berlin and Delhi. It is worth noting that this path was formally initiated in May 2025 with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the MUR and the Arctic Circle during Grímsson’s visit to Italy.
Against this backdrop, the Polar Dialogue gave Italy the chance to showcase its strategy for the Arctic, which was officially unveiled in January. It is a strategy built on several pillars: scientific research, with the CNR having been a steady presence in Svalbard and Greenland for decades; the economic dimension, with companies like Eni operating in the Barents Sea; and the military one, with the Italian Navy’s High North missions, which since 2017 have been gathering data and clocking up miles beyond the Arctic Circle.
Osservatorio Artico’s Panel
Among the panels, particular attention should be paid to the roundtable organized by the Osservatorio Artico on navigation and green shipbuilding. The panel brought together authoritative voices from academia, the maritime industry and Asian research, shining a spotlight on the contradictions running through the debate on the new polar routes.
The Northern Sea Route (NSR) has made a forceful return to the center of the global geopolitical and commercial agenda. The reasons are well-established: compared to the traditional passage through the Suez Canal, the NSR offers a distance reduction of up to 30% for trade between Europe and East Asia, resulting in significant savings in terms of transport time and costs.
Added to this is a geopolitical factor that has gained increasing weight in recent years: unlike other strategic routes, from the Suez Canal to the Strait of Hormuz and the Malacca Strait, the Arctic route is geographically distant from major regional hotspots. The Houthi attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea, which forced many shipowners to circumnavigate Africa, have made a fundamental question more concrete: does a structural alternative to the southern routes exist? For many, the NSR represents precisely such a potential alternative.
It is within this context that the debate over the NSR takes on particular relevance for Italy. The Mediterranean has for centuries been the core of Italian commercial projection: any structural redistribution of flows toward the north (though considered unlikely by many analysts) would divert traffic from the routes passing through the Suez Canal. This would, in turn, diminish the strategic importance of Italian ports and the entire Mediterranean basin. While this is not an imminent scenario, it is precisely this risk of marginalization that explains why Italy cannot afford to view the Arctic dossier with detachment.
The view of Italian shipowners was clearly expressed by Alberto Rossi, Secretary General of Assarmatori (the association bringing together the main shipping companies operating in the country). According to Rossi, the idea of a massive shift of commercial traffic along the Northern Route is, at present, unfounded. The Northern Sea Route, he explained, presents critical issues that are difficult to overcome: the lack of a coordinated Search & Rescue system along long stretches of the route and the extremely high environmental risk in the event of an accident in such fragile waters are concrete obstacles, destined to weigh more heavily than the promises of shortened travel times.
A note of caution about the future came from South Korea. Jihoon Jeong, Secretary General of the Korea Arctic Research Consortium, outlined his country’s research efforts in the development of low-impact maritime technologies. The Asian nation is investing in the design of hulls capable of operating in extreme conditions while limiting black carbon emissions and the use of paints harmful to the marine ecosystem. This commitment testifies to a long-term vision but does not imply a gamble on the imminent large-scale opening of the polar routes to commercial traffic.
Marco Volpe, Head of the China Desk at Osservatorio Artico and a researcher at the University of Lapland, broadened the perspective to the geopolitical dimension. The energy partnership between Moscow and Beijing represents the first piece of a more ambitious plan. However, as Volpe observed, international sanctions and the ongoing Ukraine crisis are slowing down the implementation of this project, introducing elements of uncertainty that will surely shape its future developments.
The proceedings were concluded by an analysis from Alessandro Panaro, head of the Maritime & Energy department at SRM, a study center connected to Intesa Sanpaolo bank. The figures Panaro presented painted a worrying picture for Italy. With a 15% share of the European port market, the country has a direct interest in ensuring that commercial flows continue to follow traditional routes. Between 10 and 15% of Italy’s foreign trade depends on the Strait of Hormuz, and the stability of the Suez Canal remains a strategic variable for the country. The risk, Panaro explained, is that the potential opening of alternative routes could expose the structural inefficiencies of the Italian port system.
Overall, the panel organized by the Osservatorio Artico had the merit of anchoring the debate on polar routes to concrete data and assessments, offering a disenchanted reading of opportunities too often described in enthusiastic terms. And it reminded policymakers and the audience present that for Italy, the most urgent challenge is not to chase the mirage of Arctic transit, but to defend and improve its position on the routes that already guarantee its commercial relevance today.
Voices from the Region
After all this talk of Italy, let’s bring the debate back to its natural center of gravity with Tuesday afternoon’s plenary session: the voices of those who actually live in (and govern) the Arctic.
Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen, speaking during the plenary, put the issue in stark terms: the Arctic, she said, is moving from “exceptionalism” to a genuine phase of global competition. For Finland, however, this is not some distant space, but home. And precisely for this reason, the priority remains security, understood both as defense and as combating the existential threat of climate change.
On the sidelines of the forum, the Finnish minister joined her Italian counterpart, Antonio Tajani, for a business roundtable that highlighted a convergence set to produce solid results. On the table were sectors strategic for both countries: maritime industries specializing in icebreakers and polar navigation, aerospace, defense, information technology, and digital infrastructure. This is an agenda built on recently renewed national strategies—Finland’s from November 2025, Italy’s from January 2026—and aims to build integrated supply chains capable of jointly tackling security, innovation, and sustainability in one of the planet’s most delicate regions.
If Valtonen’s address outlined the path toward enhanced cooperation between allied countries, the speech by Greenland’s Foreign Minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, represented the most politically charged moment of the entire two-day event. Motzfeldt brought the debate back to the human dimension with words that sounded like a warning to all external actors: “Surviving in extreme conditions means living the Arctic every day as a home, not as a laboratory or a strategic chessboard. The Arctic is about people, about young people, about issues related to mental health and local development.”
She then recalled the role of the Arctic Council as a virtuous example of a cooperative institution, where representatives of indigenous peoples sit alongside states. And she concluded by reiterating a position now well-known in public debate: “Greenland is not for sale. It never has been, and it never will be.” It is a message that resonates strongly at a time when the island is at the center of growing international attention. “Greenland is open to cooperation, business, and commercial and strategic partnerships,” she added, “but only with respect for its own values and its own autonomy.”
The Rome Polar Dialogue therefore brought different strategies into focus: the Italian one, based on research, the economy and defense; the Finnish one, centered on security; and the Greenlandic one, entirely focused on sovereignty. In between, Osservatorio Artico’s panel offered a concrete and lucid reading of the polar routes, highlighting real obstacles and opportunities that are yet to be proven.
In the end, the lasting image is of an increasingly contested Arctic, but of an Italy that has decided to be present in that space.
