In 1820, the explorer Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen, who hailed from Saaremaa, discovered the continent of Antarctica. Two hundred years later, this icy giant at the South Pole has become a subject of significant interest.
Two main factors influencing the polar regions as a whole are climate change and geopolitical developments. In the context of climate change, these are the coldest and most isolated areas on Earth, making them unique "climate laboratories" -- environments where researchers can study past climate changes, monitor their current effects and model future scenarios.
Antarctica's isolation and rich natural resources have made it a strategically important point amid growing great-power competition. It has the potential to affect security on the continent directly (through resource protection) and indirectly (through climate and food security), thereby shaping international relations.
The geography of countries interested in the polar regions extends far beyond the polar circle, pointing to the increasing complexity of the region's dynamics. Russia has maintained an active presence in Antarctica, with a focus on the continent's resources. According to Russian studies, the Weddell Sea holds over 500 billion barrels of oil -- a volume that exceeds the North Sea's output over the last 50 years by a factor of ten and holds enormous economic potential for Russia under current sanctions.
Russia's interest in Antarctica is primarily strategic, obscured by the narrative of "peaceful" scientific cooperation. That Russia uses science as a political weapon is illustrated by the imprisonment of Ukrainian scientist Leonid Pshenichnov in occupied Crimea. He was accused of treason for supporting existing restrictions in Antarctica, including bans on krill fishing and mining.
At the Arctic Circle conference held in Iceland in October, scientific cooperation with Russia was one of the central topics. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, ties with Russian scientists were nearly completely severed. As a result, many Western scientists are deeply concerned about the gaps that have formed in long-term polar data series, undermining the reliability of climate and environmental forecasts.
This has led to renewed calls to restart scientific cooperation with Russian researchers, based on the view of some policymakers that the Arctic cannot function as a coherent geographic region without Russia. Opponents of such cooperation, however, stress the moral dilemma of engaging with an aggressor and pose a direct question: How independent is Russian science today? Given the extensive control exercised by Putin's regime, science -- though with exceptions -- has largely become a tool for Kremlin propaganda and intelligence services.
Russia, however, is not the only actor whose presence in Antarctica merits attention -- China is showing growing interest as well. Both countries have consistently opposed the creation of marine protected areas, which are critical for mitigating climate change and preventing overfishing.
At the 2025 meeting of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), China and Russia once again blocked the establishment of three major marine protected areas totaling four million square kilometers that would have safeguarded the world's largest krill population. At the same time, China has begun construction of its fifth and largest permanent station near the Ross Ice Shelf and is investing in icebreakers and enhanced logistical capabilities to carry out remote sensing, resource mapping and data collection.
How is Antarctica regulated?
Against the backdrop of growing geopolitical interest, it is worth examining how activities in Antarctica are regulated. The Antarctic Treaty, signed on December 1, 1959, still forms the basis for the continent's peaceful use, scientific research and environmental protection. Together with its related agreements, the treaty constitutes what is known as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) -- a legal framework for managing international relations in Antarctica. To date, 58 countries have ratified the treaty, including Estonia in 2001.
The Antarctic Treaty prohibits all military activity, nuclear testing and mineral extraction while emphasizing the importance of scientific cooperation and environmental preservation. From a security policy perspective, Article 7 of the treaty is particularly noteworthy, as it permits inspection mechanisms throughout Antarctica -- including in all research stations and facilities -- to prevent dual-use (civilian and military) operations.
Enforcement of the treaty relies primarily on the goodwill of its signatories, as the Antarctic Treaty System lacks effective enforcement mechanisms. This makes the system vulnerable to geopolitical pressure and potential violations that cannot be formally sanctioned.
The polar regions have been described as "the new global crossroads," where melting ice is opening up new sea routes and exposing untapped resources. Several analysts have also warned of potential conflicts should the Antarctic Treaty no longer be observed. That would create an entirely new situation in which countries would need to completely reassess their Antarctic strategies, potentially triggering a "resource race" and undermining global security. In other words, the security of Antarctica hinges on a fragile balance between science and geopolitics.
What are Estonia's possibilities to help maintain that balance?
Estonia has a long-standing tradition in polar science: over the decades, Estonian researchers have made a significant contribution to the study of the polar regions. Nearly fifty Estonians have worked in Antarctica, about half of whom have also overwintered there. Since Estonia does not have its own research station in Antarctica, participation today takes place primarily through international cooperation. Science diplomacy is a vital tool for us, as involvement by Estonian scientists in international expeditions and projects also enhances our global reputation.
Estonia is a non-consultative party to the Antarctic Treaty, which grants us the right to participate in consultative meetings as an observer, though without voting rights in decision-making. Even so, this position allows us to actively follow and influence discussions on security, environmental and science policy issues.
Estonia can coordinate its positions with NATO, the European Union and the Nordic countries -- particularly with Finland and Sweden, which are consultative parties to the Antarctic Treaty. We can also use polar science as a key argument for climate security and work to ensure stability in Antarctica without a military presence. For this reason, ensuring transparency in state activities in Antarctica and adhering to international legal norms and best practices is essential.
As a small state, Estonia holds moral authority and credibility as an advocate for peaceful engagement, unburdened by a hidden agenda. Estonia should re-evaluate its relationship with the Antarctic Treaty and seriously consider acceding to the 1991 Madrid Protocol, which, among other things, establishes a moratorium on mining in Antarctica until 2048. Such a step would amplify Estonia's message and bolster our credibility in Antarctic discussions.
Attention to the polar regions is growing by the day. The phrase "what happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic" applies equally to Antarctica. Originally meant to highlight the global impact of climate and environmental change, this phrase now extends to security policy and is beginning to influence developments in the Baltic Sea region.
As a non-polar nation -- but one with both the interest and expertise to engage on polar issues -- Estonia faces the challenge of aligning its positions with those of full members of the Arctic Council and long-standing consultative members of the Antarctic Treaty who aim to maintain these regions as zones of "peaceful, mutually beneficial and low-conflict potential." At present, the polar regions are more like frozen zones of tension. Our task is to prevent them from melting into polar battlegrounds and from exporting their problems to the Baltic. That is why it is in Estonia's direct interest to engage actively and consistently with these issues.