The Arctic is heating up—both literally and geopolitically. As climate change accelerates and states and corporations scramble for resources in the so-called Arctic “race,” Indigenous peoples find themselves caught in a shifting landscape of borders and ambitions.

For the Sámi, Europe’s only recognized Indigenous nation, whose ancestral lands span Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia’s Kola Peninsula, this is a moment of reckoning. They challenge the state-centric lens through which Arctic geopolitics is traditionally viewed, offering instead a vision of governance rooted in cultural survival, sustainability, and equity.

The Sámi’s perspective on Arctic geopolitics reveals a profound clash between two worldviews. Countries frame the Arctic as a “frontier”—a realm defined by resources and strategic potential. This narrative, steeped in colonial ambition, aligns with Enrique Dussel’s concept of “exteriority,” where marginalized groups are excluded from dominant power structures, their agency often dismissed or co-opted.

By contrast, the Sámi view the region as a shared homeland that needs to be preserved. Their advocacy for a governance model that respects Indigenous sovereignty and the interconnectedness of Arctic life directly counters the colonial framing of the region.

This contrast became apparent when President-elect Donald Trump reignited the idea that the United States should buy Greenland. Though dismissed as bluster by many, Trump’s remarks underscore a broader geopolitical reality: the Arctic is increasingly viewed as a prize in global competition. Greenland’s swift rejection of the notion highlighted its determination to assert sovereignty, yet the episode also revealed the glaring absence of Indigenous perspectives in such debates. Much like Greenland’s Inuit, the Sámi have long argued that Arctic policies crafted in distant capitals frequently ignore the lived realities of those most affected.

For the Sámi, these debates are anything but abstract. Climate change has already begun to disrupt their traditional livelihoods, especially reindeer herding, which depends on predictable seasonal patterns. As melting ice and thawing permafrost reshape the Arctic landscape, industries encroach on Indigenous lands with mining projects, wind farms, and new sea routes.

These threats are compounded by growing geopolitical pressures from regional powers like Russia and non-Arctic actors like China. Such incursions, often justified in the name of development or sustainability, routinely overlook the cultural and ecological costs, mirroring what Julian Reid describes as the neoliberal commodification of resilience. This framework celebrates Indigenous communities for their ability to “adapt” to crises while perpetuating the systems that create those crises in the first place.

The Sámi’s response to these challenges is both a rejection of colonial paradigms and a reimagining of sovereignty. Unlike state-centric models prioritizing territorial control and resource extraction, the Sámi’s approach is grounded in what Dussel calls the “ethics of liberation.” Through institutions like the Sámi Parliaments, they assert a transnational identity that transcends imposed borders. These bodies safeguard Sámi cultural autonomy while providing platforms for collaboration with Scandinavian governments. The Sámi Parliaments also engage with global forums such as the Arctic Council and the United Nations, where Sámi leaders advocate for policies that integrate Indigenous perspectives into broader discussions on sustainability and governance.

The Sámi’s advocacy aligns with broader theoretical debates on decolonization and self-determination. As Walter Mignolo argues, decolonization extends beyond reclaiming land to reimagining governance and knowledge systems. For the Sámi, bridging the knowledge gap between Arctic stakeholders is essential, as this gap often dismisses Indigenous knowledge in favor of maintaining the status quo. The Sámi Arctic Strategy emphasizes co-producing knowledge by integrating lived experiences, cultural practices, and scientific research. This approach underscores the value of Indigenous practices of land stewardship, developed over centuries, in managing the Arctic’s fragile ecosystems—a perspective often overshadowed by short-term economic interests.

However, the romanticization of Indigenous resilience risks diluting the transformative potential of decolonization. As Reid critiques, frameworks like the Arctic Resilience Report often frame Indigenous peoples as inherently resilient, oversimplifying their experiences and perpetuating structural inequalities. By reducing Sámi agency to mere adaptability, such narratives fail to address systemic challenges. Aslak-Antti Oksanen has called for incorporating Indigenous perspectives that not only adapt to dominant systems but challenge and reshape them. The Sámi’s vision exemplifies this transformative approach, advocating for fundamentally rethinking Arctic governance that centers Indigenous values and knowledge.

The Arctic is often portrayed as the “last frontier,” but the Sámi challenge this narrative. They remind us that such depictions erase the deep histories and cultures of its Indigenous peoples, reducing a vibrant living environment to a blank slate for external ambitions. Instead, the Sámi envision the Arctic as a shared space where cooperation trumps competition, preservation outweighs extraction, and people matter more than power. Their transnational vision is vital for the Arctic’s survival and offers humanity a model for equitable and sustainable governance in an increasingly fraught world.