science
Russia Still Benefits From Stability in the North, Says Researcher
As long as Russia benefits from cooperation in the Arctic, it will remain stable, says FNI Researcher Serafima Andreeva.
Published
Modified
The US' warfare in the Middle East has ripple effects reaching across the world. Increased oil and energy prices, closed transport routes, increased tension between great powers, and increased risk of new conflicts.
But what consequences does the conflict have in the Arctic and how are the US' actions in the Middle East interpreted by the Middle East? Could a weakening of international norms make military conflicts in the Arctic more likely?
Serafima Andreeva is a Researcher at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute and believes that Russia's relationship with the Arctic remains stable, but that the US' warfare strengthens an existing narrative about the West, in addition to being used as an argument for its own military operations.
"The US' actions signal to Russia that they can continue to act as they like in their spheres of interest, but Russia's interests in the North are still very predictable," says the researcher and continues:
"They benefit from stability in the Arctic, whether it concerns Svalbard, research cooperation, or similar. Russia is not particularly benefited by challenging the West in the Arctic, no matter how 'distracted' the West is in the Middle East."
"The question is whether Russia does what benefits them. That is not always the case, but as it stands now, there is at least a strong desire for stability."
Strengthens an existing narrative
However, Andreeva believes that the US' actions help Russia in furthering existing criticism of the West and its rule-based world order. The Middle East conflict helps Russia in undermining the US' legitimacy.
"Russia benefits from the US breaking international law, as they do the same. At the same time, they benefit in their criticism of the West's rule-based world order," says the researcher, and continues:
"They say that it does not prevent the US from breaking it and that it is partly constructed for the US to do as they please. Thus, the conflict in the Middle East won't weaken Russia's argument any time soon."
Russia does not benefit from challenging the West in the Arctic
But Russia is not willing to risk a major war over Iran, says the researcher, drawing parallels to the USA, which is not willing to risk a major war over Ukraine.
Increased hybrid threats
Can a weakening of international norms make it more likely that conflicts in the Arctic are handled militarily rather than diplomatically?
"I believe the risks and conflicts that are more likely to arise are the hybrid ones. Those are the chances that Russia is willing to take," replies Andreeva.
She believes that it is more useful to consider the already existing threats in the Arctic rather than to try to predict what may or may not happen in the future.
"They have certainly increased hybrid threats, even though not everything can be attributed to Russia," she replies and explains that although GPS jamming can be attributed to Russia, not all cable cutting and drone activity can be.
"But I think Russia sees a greater leeway for hybrid actions."
Russia still benefits from Arctic cooperation
What happens then to cooperation in the Arctic if the US now sets a precedent for using military force without a clear basis in international law?
Andreeva states that Russia still benefits from the Arctic Council and bilateral cooperation in the Arctic, which are the concrete cooperation mechanisms that still remain with the country.
"If you look at previous interviews with Russia's ambassador to Norway, Nikolai Korchunov, he has stated both this year and previously that as long as Russia benefits from cooperation and as long as cooperation supports their strategy for the development of the Arctic Russia, it is valuable for them to be part of the Arctic Council," she says.
Russia sees greater leeway for hybrid action.
"They have repeatedly said that they are not looking for any alternatives. I don't know if it's a desire, but there is at least an acceptance for cooperation between all states."
She adds that this could naturally change quickly, as the premise for cooperation is the climate.
"Russia uses climate to gain foreign policy legitimacy, but the US under the Trump Administration is now withdrawing from various climate agreements. That could be a challenge for cooperation, but I don't think it will break over Iran," the researcher states.
Normal reactions to Cold Response
This year's edition of Cold Response started on Monday. The Norwegian-led NATO exercise involves extensive military activity in the North, which usually leads to reactions from Russia, and this year is no exception.
"Russia has mirrored some activity. They warned of missile launches in the Barents Sea from 11th to 13th March. Also, just before the exercise, Norwegian F-35s had to go up to identify Russian fighter jets flying near the border, testing NATO," says the FNI researcher and adds:
"But this is nothing new from Russia. Of course, Russia will see all military exercises coming from NATO near its border as a provocation. But at the same time, it is quite stable."
The researcher states that the reaction pattern resembles what has been seen from Russia previously and that there has been no major escalation from either side, even though there have been clear signals.
No direct effects on Arctic oil and gas
The war in Iran has caused oil prices to skyrocket. The war has given Russia a massive income boost through higher oil prices and eased sanctions (such as toward India).
This naturally strengthens Russia's war chest, says Andreeva. But the Arctic infrastructure itself is unlikely to see the biggest changes in the short term. For that to happen, the oil issues must persist, the researcher concludes.
