Monograph highlights contemporary issues of exploring and developing the Arctic zone – as part of the world and as an important part of Russia, its economy and society. Authors pay special attention to Russian policy in the Arctic, an awareness its unique environment, as well as the knowledge of indigenous peoples of the North possess.
The book is of interest to those working over problems of social and economic development of Arctic and to those who are interested in the Arctic phenomena in general.
This study aims to examine Moscow’s Arctic policies in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis. Particularly, it tries to explain why the Kremlin – in contrast with its strategies in the post-Soviet space – opted for a cooperative model of its behaviour in the High North. Furthermore, this paper discusses the question whether Moscow has radically changed its Arctic strategies in the context of the Ukrainian crisis or its course basically remained the same? Based on the analysis of Russia’s principal doctrinal documents, this article explores Moscow’s threat perceptions and its strategic priorities in the Arctic. The authors emphasise the inward-, rather than outward-looking nature of Russia’s Arctic strategy which focuses on numerous economic, societal, environmental and socio-cultural problems of the Russian North. In fact, Moscow’s international strategy in the region is subordinated to its domestic needs. On the other hand, Russia’s preoccupation with its internal problems does not preclude the Kremlin from a rather assertive international course when it comes to the protection of Russia’s national interests in the Arctic. In this context, the authors analyse Moscow’s renewed claim on the expansion of the Russian continental shelf and military modernisation programmes. In sum, the authors believe that Russia is serious about being a responsible and predictable actor who is interested in fostering regional cooperation and strengthening multilateral regimes and institutions in the Arctic.
in contrast with the widespread stereotype of Russia as a revisionist power in the Arctic, there are grounds to believe that, for the foreseeable future, Moscow will pursue fairly pragmatic and responsible policies in the region. On the one hand, such an approach will aim to protect Russia’s legitimate economic and political interests in the High North. On the other hand, Moscow insists that it is open to mutually beneficial cooperation with foreign partners in exploiting the Arctic’s natural resources, developing its sea routes and advancing environmental research and protection in the region.
The paper examines the evolution of the U.S. national interests in the Arctic, its economic and military strategies in the High North, as well as assesses the U.S.-Russia relations in the region. The Trump administration did not produce any official Arctic doctrine or fresh ideas regarding its High North strategies. In terms of economic strategies, the Trump administration lifted Obama’s ban on the development of oil and gas deposits in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as offshore fields in the Chukchee and Beaufort seas. Trump also decided to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. This decision undermined one of the most important pillars of Obama’s Arctic strategies. The U.S. military strategy in the Far North aims, on the one hand, to contain Russia with the help of strategic and conventional arms and, on the other hand, to protect American economic interests and implement freedom of navigation principle in the region. Similar to other Arctic powers, the United States modernizes its nuclear and conventional forces trying to make them more compact, better equipped and trained. As far as the international aspects of the U.S. Arctic strategy are concerned, the Trump administration simply continued policies launched by Barak Obama, although there was some decrease in Washington’s interest for multilateral diplomacy in this region, including international institutions. As for the U.S.-Russia relations in the Arctic, they still remain very controversial and include both elements of competition and cooperation. There is a lack of trust between Moscow and Washington in the regional security sphere. The Trump administration continues Obama’s sanction policies with regard to Russia, including the oil and gas industry sector. However, the USA may be interested in the Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) shipments from the Russian Arctic (especially in winter time). Moreover, both countries favor coast guard cooperation to prevent poaching and increase the safety of navigation in the Bering Sea and Strait. The U.S. and Russia are willing to enhance Arctic research and education cooperation. Some arms control/ confidence- and security-building measures can be suggested in bilateral and multilateral formats.
In recent years, a new market trading in cryptocurrencies and instruments based on them has been fo rmed. The market of This paper The goal of the study is to analyze the degree of differentiation of the Arctic regions of Russia by the key indicators of socioe conomic development, dependence of their economic development on the raw materials industries, which should be accounted to shape an efficient regional policy by the state and achieve the strategic goals for the reclamation and development of the Russian Arctic zone. The methodology of the study is based on a systematic approach to assessing the socioeconomic and sectoral differentiation of the Arctic regions of Russia. A set of general scientific and special research methods was used. The conducted analysis indicates that all the Arctic regions under study have a narrow raw materials nature of the economy, the sectoral structure is poorly differentiated. The policy of equalizing the per capita income and the cost of living in the Arctic regions with other regions of Russia largely determined the outflo w of population from the northern regions. The state regional policy in relation to the Arctic regions should take into account their heterogeneity in order to achieve the results outlined in the strategic documents
The Arctic has often been seen as a natural area, or even a “wilderness”, where mainly indigenous and subsistence activities have been prominent. Contrary to this, the present volume highlights the very long historical development of resource use systems in northern Europe, across multiple actors and multiple levels, and including varying population groups.
The book takes a past-present-future perspective that illustrates the paths to institutional emergence, change or persistence over time. It also illustrates how institutions may themselves drive changes, through a focus on resource use cases in northern Europe. This volume demonstrates that understanding “northern” issues is less about understanding sets of geophysical, climatological or environmental conditions than about understanding social and institutional structures. Understanding these trajectories into the future is seen as a key way of understanding what responses to future change may be likely and what the institutions are that will shape, limit or enable our responses to climate change.
This book will be of great use to scholars and graduates in the fields of Arctic and northern-region politics, and to researchers of resource use and climate change with a focus on vulnerability, social vulnerability, adaptation and mitigation.
The chapter examines the Arctic region, which suffers from a lot of potential conflicts because of its abundant natural resources that are the subject of competition between the Arctic and non-Arctic powers. The authors argue that after the Cold War various regimes regulating the Arctic spread to the vast and complex network to form a new regional legal order, unlike the period when military force was the main instrument of coercion in global politico-ideological confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United states. According to the authors, the only effective way to the prevention of a potentially new type of global conflict in the Arctic is the enhancement of international legal instruments in the following areas: “delimitation of maritime spaces and definition of the limits of the continental shelf in the Arctic, the legal status of the Arctic maritime routes, improvement and proper implementation of various regulations varying from the maritime safety rules (the Polar Code) to the international environmental law in the Far North