Russia's Ambivalent Status-Quo/Revisionist Policies in the Arctic

• Author: Pavel Baev
• Position: Research Professor
• Pages: 275-291

Arctic Review on Law and Politics

Vol. 9, 2018, pp. 408–424

408

Peer-reviewed article

© 2018 Pavel K. Baev. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), allowing third

parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit,

that the work is not used for commercial purposes, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this license

are made clear.

Citation: Pavel K. Baev. “Russia’s Ambivalent Status-Quo/Revisionist Policies in the Arctic.” Arctic Review on Law and

Politics, Vol. 9, 2018, pp. 408–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v9.1336

*Correspondence to: Pavel K. Baev, email: pavel@prio.org

Russia’s Ambivalent Status-Quo/

Revisionist Policies in the Arctic

Pavel K. Baev

Research Professor, Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)

Abstract

Russia has been following an Arctic policy that is highly heterogeneous, combining efforts at pre-

serving cooperation with Western neighbors with commitment to building up its own strength.

Three distinct policy modes can be identied: realist/militaristic, institutional/cooperative, and

diplomatic management. Each mode is based on a particular interpretation of Russia’s various

interests in the High North/Arctic: nuclear/strategic, geopolitical, economic/energy-related, and

symbolic. Examination of policy modes and interests shows that each combination contains some

elements that focus on preserving the status quo in the Arctic, while other elements push for

changes in Russia’s favor. This article nds that revisionist elements have been gaining in strength,

but that current policy still attaches high value to sustaining traditional patterns, even if they

demand more resources and provide fewer advantages and revenues.

Keywords: Russia; Arctic; security; militarization; revisionism; geopolitics; energy

cooperation; Norther n Sea Route; status quo policies

Responsible Editor: Helge Blakkisrud, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs

(NUPI).

Received: August 2018; Accepted: November 2018; Published: December 2018

1. Introduction

The Arctic constitutes a unique—and uniquely controversial—political and geo-

graphic component in Russia’s foreign policy. The essence of the controversy lies

in the combination of two dubiously compatible guidelines: the commitment to

developing international cooperation, and the heavy investment in militarization of

the Russian High North. Artur Chilingarov’s ag-planting expedition to the North

Pole in summer 2007 spurred disproportionally heavy global reactions alerting the

Russian leadership to the growing attention in the West to the Arctic region. That

Russia’s Ambivalent Status-Quo/Revisionist Policies in the Arctic

409

awareness translated into perceptions of escalating geopolitical competition, in turn

motivating the Kremlin to strengthen Russia’s military reach in the High North in

order to secure its own interests. This reliance on military instruments of policy

has been further strengthened with the emergence of a new confrontation between

Russia and the West, caused by the explosion of the Ukraine crisis in spring 2014.1

That being said, declarations of readiness to sustain international cooperation are not

mere camouage for military activities: they reect a real preference in the Russian

leadership for cultivating institutional and political ties with the Arctic neighbors.

This dualism was clearly illustrated in President Vladimir Putin’s March 2018

address to the Federal Assembly, a speech which consisted of two logically and sty-

listically unconnected parts: economic acceleration, and missile deployment. The

Arctic was peripheral to Putin’s economic narrative, mentioned only in a brief pas-

sage concerning the development of infrastructure and maritime transport.2 In the

second part of the address, the Arctic was not mentioned directly, except to note that

a new nuclear-propelled cruise missile had been tested in late 2017 at the Central

Test Site on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago.3 One striking aspect of this address

was that the two parts worked at cross-purposes: an acceleration of the arms race

is detrimental to economic development—but cannot take place without it. That is

exactly the problem with the two avenues of Russia’s Arctic policy. Their divergence

was recognized in Moscow already at the start of the current decade, and political

work on establishing a middle ground has continued ever since.

Efforts at bridging the gap between cooperative initiatives and militarization pro-

grams should not be dismissed as merely bureaucratic maneuvering. It could be ana-

lytically productive to distinguish three patterns (or policy modes) in the Kremlin’s

Arctic policy.4 The rst one is based on the premise that military power is the main

means of advancing Russia’s interests in the Arctic, and can be dened as “real-

ist/militaristic.” The second policy mode aims at developing Russia’s ties with its

Arctic neighbors, and is aptly described as “cooperative/institutional.” The third pol-

icy mode is the most uid, combining building power capabilities with attempts at

preserving cooperative ties, which amount to making the Arctic an exception in the

evolving confrontation between Russia and the West; this can be described as “dip-

lomatic management mode.” All three policy modes are evolving in a rapidly shifting

international environment, with Russia sometimes seeking to preserve its positions

and sometimes to advance them, demonstrating behavior typical of status-quo and

revisionist powers simultaneously. This intersection of policy modes and dynamic

shifts can be presented as a matrix, as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1. Policy modes and political behavior

Status-quo Revisionist

Realist/militaristic

Institutional/cooperative

Diplomatic management