When the Russian flag was placed on the ocean floor at the North Pole in summer of 2007, the Western press sought public attention with headlines such as “Arctic Meltdown” or “Arctic Land Grab”. Only recently, Kremlin’s announcement to strengthen its military foothold in the far north was answered by the Western media in similar fashion, stating that “Russia prepares for Arctic War” or “Start of a very cold war”. Even though Russia’s activities in the Arctic vary considerably compared to its entanglement in the Ukraine, the media coverage suggests the same sense of antagonism, competition and crisis. Western commentators first of all tend to overlook that planting a national flag at targets difficult to reach is common among explorers as in the case of the Mount Everest, the South Pole or the Moon. Second of all, Russia has ratified the law of the sea convention which prescribes and establishes rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources – a convention which was not ratified by the United States and several other countries. The point is not to criticize the Western media coverage or the absent ratification of the sea convention by the U.S., but to draw attention to a possible bias in order to impartially examine what kind of foreign policy Russia actually pursues in the High North.There is a broad consensus among the vast majority of academics and observers of Russia’s Arctic policy, namely that Russia is pursuing an Arctic policy that mainly focuses on compromise, collaboration, and stability; therefore, Russia relies on soft power policies such as diplomacy, multilateral engagement and economic development. For many, this comes rather surprisingly, since the political leadership of President Putin is associated with a realist and revisionist foreign policy strategy that does not like to follow international rules.
In this sense, this short paper aims to examine the question of what is motivating Russia to pursue soft power policy in the Arctic from different angles.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Russia’s Interest in the Arctic
3. Multilateral Engagement and Soft Power Policy
4. Russia’s Arctic Policy and Social Constructivism
5. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines Russia's strategic approach in the Arctic, specifically analyzing the motivations behind its preference for soft power and multilateral cooperation despite prevailing narratives of antagonism and revisionism. It explores how economic interests and geopolitical stability drive Russia to engage within established international frameworks.
- Russia’s national interests in the Arctic (military, economic, and transport).
- Multilateral engagement through organizations like the Arctic Council and the Arctic Economic Council.
- Case study: The Norwegian-Russian Barents Sea delimitation agreement as a model for peaceful dispute resolution.
- Application of social constructivism to explain Russian Arctic identity and foreign policy.
- The influence of media narratives vs. actual political policy in the High North.
Excerpt from the Book
Russia’s Interest in the Arctic
First of all, it is important to recall that the Arctic features a prominent role in Russian political discourse and policy, as it is closely tied with vital interests for Russia’s economy and security (Kefferpütz 2010: 2). Over decades, geo-strategists perceived Russia as a landlocked Eurasian heartland naturally opposed to Western maritime nations, which, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997: 197), was “enclosed and contained” by Europe in the west, former Soviet Republic in the southwest, and by India, China, and Japan in the south and east. Often, the northern enclosure of Russia was assumed but rarely directly addressed (Antrim 2010: 18).
However, since the Arctic ice is rapidly melting due to global warming, the frozen geopolitical and economic wall in the north is starting to crack, which leads to a reshuffling of the cards in the Far North. No other Arctic country is experiencing the consequences and dynamics of the Arctic melting as immediately as Russia. The causes are its long border, the two million Russians living in the region and the comparatively strong industry located there. Therefore, the following words of the former president, Dmitri Medvedev (2008), should come rather unsurprisingly: “We must ensure reliable protection in the long-term for Russia’s national interests in the Arctic”.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: Outlines the perception of Russia's Arctic presence in Western media versus its actual policy and establishes the research goal of analyzing Russia's soft power strategy.
2. Russia’s Interest in the Arctic: Details the three core pillars of Russian Arctic policy: military security, economic development, and transportation infrastructure.
3. Multilateral Engagement and Soft Power Policy: Analyzes how Russia utilizes international organizations like the Arctic Council and pragmatic bilateral agreements to secure its interests.
4. Russia’s Arctic Policy and Social Constructivism: Applies the social constructivist lens to demonstrate how identities, discourse, and international norms shape Russia's behavior in the region.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes that Russia acts as a pragmatic, collaborative actor in the Arctic and calls for this model to be an example for future East-West relations.
Keywords
Arctic, Russia, Soft Power, Multilateralism, Arctic Council, Geopolitics, Foreign Policy, Social Constructivism, Energy Security, Northern Sea Route, International Law, Barents Sea, Sovereignty, Climate Change, Regional Cooperation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this publication?
The work focuses on explaining the divergence between the often-cited "aggressive" Russian foreign policy and the reality of Russia's multilateral, soft-power approach in the Arctic region.
What are the central themes of the research?
The central themes include Russia's economic and security interests in the North, the role of international organizations, and the application of social constructivist theory to interpret state behavior.
What is the primary research goal?
The paper aims to examine what motivates Russia to pursue a soft power policy in the Arctic and how this strategy serves its national interests.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The paper employs a qualitative analysis approach, drawing upon the literature of social constructivism and reviewing state documents, territorial dispute histories, and foreign policy discourse.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers Russia's strategic interests (military, economic, and transit), its participation in the Arctic Council, the specific case of the Barents Sea border agreement, and the theoretical framing of Arctic policy.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Arctic, Russia, Soft Power, Multilateralism, Arctic Council, and Social Constructivism.
How does the Russian-Norwegian Barents Sea agreement support the author's argument?
The agreement serves as a critical case study demonstrating Russia's willingness to reach a peaceful, compromise-based solution to territorial disputes, countering the narrative of a conflict-prone superpower.
Why does the author argue that NATO is not the primary driver in the Arctic?
The author argues that Russia actively pursues a "quiet" policy precisely to demonstrate that NATO’s military intervention is unnecessary for regional security, thereby avoiding unwanted militarization.
- Quote paper
- Anonym (Author), 2018, The Arctic Soft Power. Explaining Russia’s Multilateral Engagement in the Arctic Region, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/450624
