Russia in the Arctic

Abstract

There are a number of elements of Russian Arctic foreign policy that have raised concerns among many experts: a highly publicized scientific expedition planted the Russian flag in Arctic waters near the north pole as if it were meant to establish rights to sovereignty in this area; the Russian muitary has resumed regular flights that sometimes pass overly close to the borders of neighbouring circumpolar countries; and Russian fishermen often clash with their Norwegian peers in the so-caUed grey zones in the Barents Sea and near Greenland. All these actions have taken place in the context of a growing rivalry over increasingly accessible resources in the Arctic, as weU as over important sea routes in the area. It should also be noted that the Arctic is a border region, which makes security a touchy issue for aU concerned. Moreover, the existing legal framework dealing with the partition of the seabed in this area is not only highly complex and sophisticated but also leaves many questions unanswered.These considerations at times generate nightmare scenarios for all interested actors as weU as for the entire world. Thus, it becomes relevant to assess Russia's actual interests and goals in the Arctic - beyond its frequently projected scary and assertive image - and to consider what avauable means it has to reach them.THE PATTERN OF RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICYFirst of all, it is important to mention that Russian Arctic policy is a coherent part of the overall pattern of Russian foreign policy. After a period of economic weakness and difficult decisions, Russia is using its newly acquired wealth to regain great power status, at least at a regional level. Moscow is very concerned about an excessive western, and especially American, presence near Russia's borders, which it most often considers a threat. I argue that Russia's reaction to these threats should be understood as a soft-balancing strategy. In contrast to the classical concept of balance of power, which is meant to depict the state of the international system, or the traditional strategy of hard balancing, which includes the open buildup of military capacities and formal alliances, soft balancing - as introduced to international relations and foreign policy analysis by TV. Paul and his coauthors - is a limited military buildup and security understanding among actors, combined with preventive strategies as well as nonmilitary tools, to discourage, delay, or dismantle unilateral aggressive polides by another great power.1 The ultimate goal of this type of foreign policy strategy is to build the vital economic and military capacities necessary to protect and reinforce national sovereignty. The economy is crucially important for the strategy of soft balancing as it is considered a warranty of the state's security. This is the reason that elements of soft balancing are to be found in vital domains of the national economy.In Russia's case, one of these this vital domains is the energy sector. Indeed, Russia owes a great part of its assertiveness and renewed material capacities to oil and gas revenues. Thus, it is not suprising that it is seen as crucial to protect this source of wealth from any threat, and especially from the US. Vladimir Putin has explicitly called the economy a synonym of security.2 This vision is reflected in the doctrine of national security of the Russian Federation, which states:[The] national interest of the State is to preserve the fundamental stability of the constitutional institutions, national sovereignty, territorial integrity and political, economic and social stability... to develop equitable and mutuaUy beneficial international cooperation. The implementation of Russia's national interest is only possible on the basis of sustainable economic development. That's why our interests in this domain are crucial.3It is very important to add that soft-balancing strategies are guided by zero-sum game logic. As such, they exclude the option of absolute gains and of long-term cooperation in a vital domain. …