Print
Rate this article
(votes: 5, rating: 5)
 (5 votes)
Share this article
Staffan Fjellander

MGIMO-University Master’s Degree Program Student, RIAC Intern

Considering the heated relations between Russia in the West following the Ukraine crisis, members of the Arctic Council keeps relations friendly. This report aims to continue this trend, and advises policy direction for United States which would alleviate the effects of different factors which could spark tension leading to conflict. As a great power and member of the Arctic council, United States should seek to strengthen the cooperation between Russia and the rest of the members. As the level of ice decreases, Russia’s northern shore becomes increasingly vulnerable, and combined with increased NATO presence in the Arctic region, the relationship between the Arctic states may take a turn for the worse.

The authors explain that Russia has enjoyed cooperation in the Arctic due to the clear advantages of economic development in the region by maintaining a peaceful environment. This in spite of the Ukraine crisis and other events which sparked tensions between Russia and the West. Apart from cooperation such as managing in such a harsh environment and dealing with oil spills, economic development in the Arctic is of key strategic interest for Russia. But Arctic relations can change, as Russia may find itself taking a new approach in the region depending on how the remaining Arctic council members act. Therefore, the authors hold, United States should take Russian national interest into account in the shaping of its own foreign policy in the region. This will be a challenge for the United States, as Russia is thought of as unpredictable, largely due to its actions during the Ukraine crisis, which are described as aggressive and surprising on Russia’s part. That being said, the authors argue that there are certain factors which can undoubtedly be taken into account by the United States when dealing with Russia, and if the peaceful environment is to maintain, United States has a key role to play. United States must implement a policy which prevents any kind of accidental escalation and mitigate the effects of upcoming incidents. Sharing intelligence and ensuring that NATO doesn’t establish presence in the region while monitoring the Arctic are some of the key recommendations the authors put forward to U.S. policy makers.

Overview of the RAND Corporation report “Maintaining Arctic Cooperation with Russia
(by Stephanie Pezard, Abbie Tingstad, Kristin Van Abel, Scott Stephenson)

Introduction

Considering the heated relations between Russia in the West following the Ukraine crisis, members of the Arctic Council keeps relations friendly. This report aims to continue this trend, and advises policy direction for United States which would alleviate the effects of different factors which could spark tension leading to conflict. As a great power and member of the Arctic council, United States should seek to strengthen the cooperation between Russia and the rest of the members. As the level of ice decreases, Russia’s northern shore becomes increasingly vulnerable, and combined with increased NATO presence in the Arctic region, the relationship between the Arctic states may take a turn for the worse.

The authors explain that Russia has enjoyed cooperation in the Arctic due to the clear advantages of economic development in the region by maintaining a peaceful environment. This in spite of the Ukraine crisis and other events which sparked tensions between Russia and the West. Apart from cooperation such as managing in such a harsh environment and dealing with oil spills, economic development in the Arctic is of key strategic interest for Russia. But Arctic relations can change, as Russia may find itself taking a new approach in the region depending on how the remaining Arctic council members act. Therefore, the authors hold, United States should take Russian national interest into account in the shaping of its own foreign policy in the region. This will be a challenge for the United States, as Russia is thought of as unpredictable, largely due to its actions during the Ukraine crisis, which are described as aggressive and surprising on Russia’s part. That being said, the authors argue that there are certain factors which can undoubtedly be taken into account by the United States when dealing with Russia, and if the peaceful environment is to maintain, United States has a key role to play. United States must implement a policy which prevents any kind of accidental escalation and mitigate the effects of upcoming incidents. Sharing intelligence and ensuring that NATO doesn’t establish presence in the region while monitoring the Arctic are some of the key recommendations the authors put forward to U.S. policy makers.

Different aspects

The military aspect is one of the key factors that should be taken into account. Due to the continued exposure of the northern shore, Russia will likely increase its military capability in the region, as it will be considered as a vulnerable area. But still, current Russian militarization is far from achieving anything which resembles the military capability that existed during the Cold War, and considering its economic interests, solely Russian military capability does not change the likelihood for conflict. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that Russia is sensitive when it comes to increased NATO presence close to its own borders. Russia has numerous times reiterated its discontent with Swedish and Finnish cooperation with NATO, which are two members of the Arctic Council, with the latter sharing a huge border with Russia. Considering what happened in Georgia and Ukraine, the United States should think twice before increasing NATO presence within the Arctic region, as Russia would doubtlessly feel threatened by such a move. Russia could doubtlessly use this to its advantage and claim that it is a display of aggression, which in turn would work in favour of increasing domestic support for a defensive foreign policy in the region. If Sweden and Finland would join NATO, it would cause serious damage to the relations between Russia and the West, and would increase the probability for conflict, even if it would spark out of accidental escalation. Therefore, the authors recommend that there should be a balance between NATO being able to support Arctic operations and avoid increased establishment in the region. If there is an opportunity for it, Russia is likely to domestically use NATO presence and its potential threat in order to garner domestic support to respond, even military ones.

Furthermore, the authors find that the cooperation with Russia cannot be taken for granted. Russia has clear intentions of benefiting from the Arctic, and if anything would limit their profit, it could lead Russia to decrease its cooperation with the rest, and instead spread negative rhetoric and begin to act in a inflammatory way. Russia is perceived as an unpredictable actor, and the authors speculate whether or not anything similar to the Russian involvement in the Ukraine crisis is possible. The intentions of Russia are hard to read and are, as aforementioned, unpredictable. At the same time, Russia, just like any other state, wants to preserve its sovereignty. If any of the current agreements which Russia is part of would go against Russian interest, Russia is likely to simply ignore the agreement and act independently. The consequences for this vary. If Russia ignores the UNCLOS recommendations for instance, the consequences are likely not severe, but at the same time, since United States seeks to promote international norms, it would be positive for the United States if it ratified the treaty itself. This way, United States would have the ability to solve maritime difficulties in accordance with the UNCLOS’ cooperative process, which would be within American interest to protect United States’ legitimate use of the sea within the Arctic region. On top of this, since Russia already ratified UNCLOS, it would be largely beneficiary for peaceful relations between the parties if United States would follow in the footsteps of the other Arctic countries so that everyone would act under the same rules and solve disputes in accordance with the UNCLOS convention.

Considering these factors, there is a comprehensible need for cooperation and dialogue to mitigate the effects of action which could spark conflict. Throughout the report, the fear of accidental escalation is reiterated. This kind of escalation is best avoided if cooperation consists, and preferably the ties between Russia and the rest of the Arctic countries should be even stronger than it is today.

Criticism

Following the events in Georgia 2008 and Ukraine 2014, it became increasingly clear amongst the international community what Russia is willing to do for its national interest. The Eastern Partnership and NATO expansion was done heedlessly, without taking into account the warnings from several Russian political figures, even from Putin himself, who made clear following the NATO Summit in Bucharest 2008 that committed NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia would not be accepted. Putin also made related remarks during his famous Munich speech, where he criticized United States’ dominance on the global stage. He also made it clear that nobody feels safe due to this kind of policy, since it disregards the national interest of other states. Through the course of this report, the authors repeatedly labeled Russia’s behavior internationally (especially reminding readers of the Ukraine crisis) as ‘unpredictable’ and “aggressive”. At the same time, there were visible statements made by Russian politicians, including the word of president Putin, which stated the contrary. The authors rightfully advice NATO to keep presence at a low. It would lower risk of tensions remarkably, and the opposite would make conflict more probable and may result in aggressive consequences, which is visible in Georgia and Ukraine. That Russia is the aggressor in these events is the conventional Western narrative and a simplification of the relations which eventually sparked the Ukraine crisis. Contrary, from the Russian perspective it is a defensive move to ensure its national interest. If the United States understands this and manages to find a balance of NATO engagement in the Arctic, future likelihood for peace increases remarkably. Even if NATO presence in Arctic wouldn’t serve a purpose which would be problematic for Russian foreign policy, there is little doubt that increased presence would be interpreted in any other way. And as far as international norms go, there is an understanding that United States promotes international norms that it does not follow itself, which is visible in Putin’s Munich speech for instance. Therefore, it may be unwise to pressure Russia into following international norms unless United States intends to follow the norms itself. If this would be the case, Russia is likely to use this to its advantage if it would suit their interest by increasing negative rhetoric domestically. But if United States itself ratifies UNCLOS and acts under its convention, the authors rightfully predict that it would be a step in the direction of cooperation which is necessary for the transformations to come.

All this being accounted for, all members of the Arctic Council should partake in improving Arctic relations. The authors provide sound policy recommendations which would lead the relationship onto a peaceful path instead of a hostile one, especially since they strongly hold that it is important to learn how Russia behaves from the recent events in Georgia and Ukraine. If all states in the Arctic create stronger ties through cooperation while giving serious consideration to each council member’s interests, the feeling of insecurity from each member will decrease and a peaceful environment ensue. The authors suggests that this for instance in practice mean safety and environmental exercises, including the act of sharing data and cooperating for scientific progress. They advise United States to create a forum for the Arctic countries which would focus on security issues. This is a very logical approach, considering all the given reasoning. Policies to create such a forum currently doesn’t exist in U.S. Arctic Strategy, but considering the undergoing transformation in the world, it is very much needed to resolve disputes and avoid accidental escalation. By allowing the countries of the Arctic Council to openly discuss their security concerns and interests in the region, there is a possibility for common understanding. If each country takes its time to respect the voice of others, the likelihood for accidental conflict escalation decreases significantly and cooperation may maintain through the global transformations to come.

Rate this article
(votes: 5, rating: 5)
 (5 votes)
Share this article
For business
For researchers
For students