2021-09-30-德国外交关系理事会-在北极与俄罗斯打交道（英）_20页_828kb

Summary of DGAP Analysis: Dealing with Russia in the Arctic

Core Content

The DGAP analysis explores the evolving security dynamics in the Arctic, emphasizing the tension between the region's traditional role as a zone of peaceful cooperation and the increasing militarization and geopolitical competition. The Arctic, particularly the "High North," is no longer isolated from global security trends, and the document argues that Western countries need a balanced strategy to address both security and development concerns.

Main Points

The Arctic's Dual Character

• The Arctic has historically been a space for peaceful cooperation, especially between Russia and Western countries.
• Despite its reputation as a "territory of dialogue," the region is increasingly influenced by great-power rivalry.
• The idea of "Arctic exceptionalism" — that the Arctic is separate from global geopolitical tensions — is becoming unsustainable due to climate change, resource competition, and military buildup.

The Need for a Double-sided Strategy

• Western countries should adopt a dual approach in the Arctic: credible deterrence and cooperative dialogue.
• NATO and the EU should maintain a presence and situational awareness while minimizing military activity to avoid escalation.
• The Arctic Council and Barents Cooperation remain crucial for managing shared interests, such as sustainable development and environmental protection.
• Institutional frameworks have shown resilience even amid rising tensions, but they face challenges from increased militarization and geopolitical shifts.

Key Information

Shared Interests

• Russia and Europe share common goals in the Arctic, including sustainable resource management, environmental protection, and climate change mitigation.
• The Arctic is rich in natural resources, especially oil, gas, and minerals, with Russia holding the largest resource potential.
• The region's development requires cooperation, and many Western countries, including Germany and the EU, have expressed a commitment to peaceful and cooperative Arctic development.

Institutional Frameworks

• The Arctic Council and Barents Cooperation are central to the region's governance and have largely maintained their effectiveness despite geopolitical tensions.
• The Ilulissat Declaration (2008) and the Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Agreement (2011) are key legal instruments that support peaceful cooperation.
• These frameworks are not only multilateral but also include bilateral agreements, such as the Treaty on Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean (2010), which Norway and Russia signed after years of negotiation.

Russia's Role and Trends

• Russia has been actively militarizing its Arctic territories, which contrasts with its official stance of promoting peace and cooperation during its chairmanship of the Arctic Council (2021–2023).
• Russia's chairmanship emphasizes climate change, sustainable development, and institutional strengthening, while also highlighting its strategic interests in the region.
• Despite its military posturing, Russia has not violated international law, and its focus remains on maintaining the Arctic as a zone of cooperation.

Challenges and Risks

• Increased military activity in the Arctic raises the risk of incidents and undermines dialogue and confidence-building efforts.
• Geopolitical tensions, such as those between Russia and the West, and the rise of China's influence, complicate the region's stability.
• The weaponization of migration is a potential threat, as seen in the Finnish-Russian migration crisis and the Belarus-Lithuania-Poland tensions.

Western Responses

• The West must avoid an alarmist view of the Arctic as the next battleground for great-power rivalry.
• A double-sided strategy is recommended, combining military deterrence (through NATO) with civilian development cooperation (through Arctic Council frameworks).
• The EU and Germany should play a more active role in Arctic cooperation, leveraging their institutional and economic ties.

Conclusions and Recommendations

• Continued Arctic exceptionalism is unrealistic due to the growing influence of global powers and the militarization of the region.
• A double-sided strategy is necessary to ensure security and stability in the Arctic.
• Russia's chairmanship of the Arctic Council offers an opportunity for renewed cooperation, provided the West remains committed to dialogue and shared interests.
• The existing institutional framework must be strengthened to address the region's challenges and maintain peace and cooperation.