Tchakarova on geopolitics of Arctic, US-EU divides and new far-right

Geopolitical strategist Velina Tchakarova, with over 20 years of experience and a tenure as Chief Strategist, sat down with Türkiye Today to unravel the complex threads of global power dynamics. 

From the Arctic’s rising significance and the widening rift between the United States and the European Union to the ascent of far-right movements, Tchakarova argued that these developments are not isolated but deeply interconnected, shaping the contours of a volatile 21st century.

Polar Silk Road

The Arctic, with its untapped resources and emerging trade routes, has become a battleground for global powers vying for influence. Tchakarova pointed out the resurgence of Donald Trump’s 2019 proposal to purchase Greenland as a stark indicator of the region’s rising strategic importance.

“It’s no coincidence that Trump revisited the idea of buying Greenland,” Tchakarova explained “This is the second time such an offer has been made, but he’s not the first U.S. president to do so. The Arctic’s strategic relevance has always been evident to those who understand global geopolitics.”

The region’s significance lies not only in its abundant resources—critical minerals and rare earths vital for the fourth industrial revolution—but also in its geopolitical positioning. Tchakarova highlighted the growing military presence of Russia and the strategic partnerships between Russia and China as key developments. “Russia has the largest military presence in the Arctic, and its collaboration with China on the Northern Sea Route marks the beginning of a new corridor under China’s Belt and Road Initiative,” she said.

This “Polar Silk Road,” would dramatically reduce trade times between East Asia and Europe, challenging traditional maritime routes like the Suez Canal. “The Arctic is a prime example of how climate change is altering global competition,” Tchakarova noted. “As the ice melts, new opportunities emerge, but they are accompanied by heightened vulnerabilities, especially for the U.S., given the proximity to critical satellite systems and military infrastructure.”

The Arctic also underscored the evolving nature of U.S.-China competition. Tchakarova observes, “China is not an Arctic nation, but it is actively positioning itself through economic and technological means, leveraging partnerships with Russia to gain a foothold. This is a direct challenge to U.S. dominance in the region.”

US-EU frictions: A strategic, ideological divide

The Arctic’s geopolitical importance feeds into broader tensions between the United States and the European Union, which Tchakarova describes as increasingly strained due to differing priorities and approaches to global challenges. “Trump’s Greenland proposal is emblematic of the broader disconnect between U.S. unilateralism and Europe’s multilateral aspirations,” she argues. “It’s not just about Greenland—it reflects a deeper divide in how the two view strategic interests.”

Tchakarova highlighted the Biden administration’s efforts to maintain a collaborative relationship with the EU, contrasting this with Trump’s more transactional approach. “Under Biden, there was an illusion of stability,” she said. “But that stability masked underlying frictions. Trump’s return would likely exacerbate those tensions, particularly around defense spending, trade, and technology regulation.”

Another critical point of contention lies in the EU’s regulatory framework, which Tchakarova sees as both a strength and a liability. “The EU wants to be a global leader in regulation, whether it’s on environmental standards, data privacy, or content moderation,” she explained. “But this often puts it at odds with U.S. tech giants and broader American economic interests.”

Tensions are also evident in defense and security. “Europe has relied on the U.S. security umbrella without significantly investing in its capabilities,” Tchakarova observed. “Trump’s administration made it clear that this approach was unsustainable. The Arctic, with its strategic vulnerabilities, is a case in point.”

She also underscored the ideological undercurrents shaping these frictions. “There’s a growing divide between the EU’s liberal values and the nationalist, protectionist stance of figures like Trump,” she said. “This ideological clash extends to how each views the role of state power, global governance, and multilateralism.”

How “global” is the new far-right?

According to Tchakarova, the rise of far-right movements worldwide is both a symptom and a driver of these geopolitical shifts. She points to Europe as a key battleground, where far-right parties like Italy’s Fratelli d’Italia, Hungary’s Fidesz, and Germany’s AfD are posing a good instance for making sense of the far-right political landscape.

“Far-right movements in Europe are not monolithic,” she emphasized. “While they share common themes of nationalism, anti-globalism, and Euroscepticism, their approaches to foreign policy, migration, and economic strategy vary significantly.”

She contrasted the pro-NATO stance of Italy’s Giorgia Meloni with the pro-Russian orientation of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. “Meloni supports Ukraine and aligns with NATO, whereas Orbán actively seeks closer ties with Russia,” Tchakarova explained. “This divergence underscores the fragmented nature of the far-right.”

Beyond Europe, she highlighted the global dimensions of this trend, citing figures like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Javier Milei in Argentina. “In Latin America, far-right leaders combine social conservatism with aggressive market reforms, reflecting local adaptations of a broader ideological shift,” she noted.

Tchakarova also puts an emphasis on the interconnectedness of the rise of the far-right to geopolitical tensions, particularly in the transatlantic relations. “The far-right capitalizes on issues like migration and economic insecurity, which are amplified by global competition over resources and strategic positioning,” she said. “This creates a feedback loop where domestic political shifts influence international alignments and vice versa.”

Civilization-states time

A series of developing countries are striving to interpret material development through their cultural codes while continuing their struggle for independent decision-making and non-alignment.

Adding to the complexity of global dynamics is the rise of “civilization-states,” a concept Tchakarova sees as central to understanding 21st-century geopolitics.

“I foresee the 21st century increasingly defined by the ascendancy of civilization-states—nations whose identity, legitimacy, and influence are deeply rooted in their historical, cultural, and civilizational frameworks, as outlined in Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations,” she elaborated. “These states, such as India, China, the U.S., Russia, France and Türkiye, transcend the Westphalian nation-state model by drawing on socioeconomic, demographic, and historical ties to project influence beyond their territorial borders.”

Türkiye, in particular, is emerging as a transformative actor in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and beyond. “Anchored by its Ottoman legacy and its strategic position at the intersection of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, Türkiye is uniquely positioned to mediate conflicts and champion Islamic solidarity,” Tchakarova noted.

“Its assertive policies in the Eastern Mediterranean, Syria, Libya, and Central Asia reflect its ambition to shape regional dynamics and establish itself as a civilizational bridge,” the expert concluded.

Interconnections

Tchakarova argued that the Arctic, U.S.-EU tensions, and the rise of the far-right are not isolated phenomena but interconnected aspects of a broader realignment. “The Arctic represents the physical and strategic space where these dynamics converge,” she explains. “It’s a microcosm of the broader competition for resources, influence, and ideological dominance.”

She concludes with a warning: “We are entering a period of heightened geopolitical volatility, where old alliances are tested, new power structures emerge, and ideological battles intensify. Understanding these connections is critical to navigating the challenges ahead.”

Arctic’s icy expanse serves as both a literal and metaphorical frontier in the struggle for global power. Through her analysis, Tchakarova painted a complex picture of a world in flux.