德国外交关系理事会-在北极与俄罗斯打交道（英）-2021.10-20页_828kb

Summary of DGAP Analysis: Dealing with Russia in the Arctic

Core Content

The DGAP analysis explores the evolving dynamics in the Arctic, focusing on the tension between the region's traditional image as a zone of peaceful cooperation and the growing influence of great-power rivalry, particularly between Russia and the West. It highlights the dual character of the Arctic as both a region of shared interests and a potential flashpoint for military competition.

Main Points

The Arctic's Dual Character

• The Arctic has historically been a space of peaceful cooperation, especially between Western nations and Russia.
• Despite its peaceful past, the region is now increasingly influenced by global security issues, including climate change and great-power competition.
• The idea of "Arctic exceptionalism"—that the region is immune to broader geopolitical tensions—is no longer viable due to climate change, Russia's military buildup, and the intensifying rivalry between the US and China.
• The Arctic is not isolated from international security developments, and conflicts in other regions may spill over into the area.

The Need for a Double-sided Strategy

• Western countries should adopt a dual strategy that combines credible deterrence against Russian militarization with dialogue and cooperation to maintain regional stability.
• This strategy should be based on international law and existing regional frameworks, such as the Arctic Council and Barents Cooperation.
• Increased military presence in the Arctic risks undermining the existing cooperative structures, potentially pushing the West to rely more on NATO for security.

Shared Interests

• Russia and Western countries share common interests in sustainable Arctic development, resource management, and environmental protection.
• These interests are supported by international legal frameworks, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
• The Russian government emphasizes peaceful cooperation and inclusive development in the Arctic, which aligns with Western goals in some areas.

Institutional Framework

• The Arctic Council and Barents Cooperation are central to the region's governance and have remained functional despite geopolitical tensions.
• The Ilulissat Declaration (2008) and Ottawa Declaration (1996) have helped maintain cooperation by addressing territorial and economic claims in a diplomatic manner.
• Bilateral agreements, such as the Treaty on Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean (2010), demonstrate the potential for peaceful resolution of disputes.

Russia's Role and Challenges

• Russia's chairmanship of the Arctic Council (2021–2023) underscores its commitment to cooperative development and non-militarization of the region.
• Despite this, Russia's military modernization and great-power ambitions are raising concerns in the West.
• Russia's focus on resource exploitation and transport accessibility requires close collaboration with neighboring states and non-Arctic actors like the EU and China.

China's Involvement

• China is increasingly interested in the Arctic for resource access and shipping routes.
• While China has expressed a desire for peaceful cooperation, its growing engagement with Russia raises concerns about Sino-Russian alignment and its impact on Arctic security.

Key Information

• Russia's Arctic Council chairmanship (2021–2023) highlights its dual approach of promoting cooperation and military buildup.
• The Arctic's institutional framework, including the Arctic Council and Barents Cooperation, remains functional and resilient, even amid rising tensions.
• Climate change is a critical factor in shaping the Arctic's future, creating both opportunities and risks.
• Great-power competition between Russia, the US, and China is increasingly affecting the Arctic, making the region a potential arena for conflict.
• Western countries, including Norway and Germany, are key regional stakeholders and have a vested interest in maintaining stability through dialogue and cooperation.

Recommendations

• Avoid alarmism in Western Arctic policies; instead, focus on predictability and transparency.
• Renew cooperation under Russia's chairmanship by emphasizing shared interests and legal frameworks.
• Strengthen existing regional and bilateral agreements to ensure sustainable development and conflict resolution.
• Balance military deterrence with civilian development to prevent the Arctic from becoming a militarized zone.
• Encourage dialogue and confidence-building measures to maintain the Arctic's role as a zone of peace and cooperation.

Conclusion

The Arctic is no longer an isolated region but a critical component of the global security landscape. While it still holds the potential for peaceful cooperation, the growing militarization and great-power rivalry necessitate a double-sided strategy that combines security and cooperation. Maintaining the Arctic Council and other institutional frameworks is essential to preserving regional stability and managing the challenges posed by climate change and geopolitical tensions.