Russia’s Security Perceptions and Arctic Governance

Abstract

Russia’s war in Ukraine further strained Russia’s relations with the West and negatively influenced Arctic regional governance, especially after seven members of the Arctic Council paused cooperation with Russia. The rationale of the suspension was to express disapproval by seven Arctic states of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. However, the suspension of cooperation with Russia within the Arctic Council format prompted some observers to question the relevance and utility of the institution. Russia never expressed its wish to leave the Council and continues to express its desire for multilateral cooperation in the region. This raises the question: Can Russia’s assertive stance in Ukraine coexist with peaceful cooperation in the Arctic? In order to answer this question, this article addresses the following questions: How does the geopolitical tension shape Russia’s approach to Arctic governance? And what is the role of military and economic security in Russia’s Arctic policy? The article uses a comparative method combined with discourse analysis to establish a change in Russia’s view on Arctic governance before and after the war in Ukraine.

Arctic environmental governance: challenges of sustainable development

“…Contributions to this TC look into the AC at the edge of geopolitical shifts in 2022 (Filimonova et al 2023;Mavisakalyan et al 2023;Stepanov et al 2023). However, the main focus of existing studies has traditionally been on the AC's member-states (Borozna 2024;Kochtcheeva 2022;Stepanov and Makarov 2022). This TC takes a step forward in re-considering other actors connected to the AC, such as observers like China and NGOs (Filimonova et al 2023;Wang 2023).…”

“…Mentioning indigenous people signals some acknowledgment of their existence and importance. The discourse of indigenous people and its importance in the Arctic was one of the key goals of the AC, which has been somewhat successful in promoting the values and norms of governance and an inclusive approach to governance (that is, taking into account the interests and priorities of all actors involved including the indigenous people (Lavelle 2022;Borozna 2024;Vladimirova 2024). Unfortunately, this perspective seems to have been fading away.…”

“…Emerging post-2022 studies on the AEG are still catching up on these radical changes and their consequences for climate change in the region and globally. Scholars point to historical experience in international scientific climate collaboration over the Cold War period (Doose et al 2023;Beuerle 2023;Viktor et al 1998;Vladimirova 2024;Obydenkova 2024;Borozna 2024). Doose, Poberezhskaya, and Beuerle, for example, state that, even during the 20th century Cold War, "amidst high political tensions and economic restrictions when climatologists had to adapt, they were still able to contribute to climate knowledge and international dialogue" (2023, p.47).…”

“…Doose, Poberezhskaya, and Beuerle point out that "it is important to continue engaging with Russia for the success of global efforts in climate mitigation and adaptation" (2023, p. 47). In line with these stud-11 For example, Oldfield (2018) ies, there is growing attention being paid to international environmental scientific collaboration in a newly divided world in the 21st century (e.g., Vladimirova 2023;Borozna 2024;Wang and Ma 2024;Doose 2022).…”