Upcoming Russian Arctic Council Chairmanship: Priorities and Implications for the High North

This study aims to examine Russia's policy priorities for its chairmanship in the Arctic Council and the possible implications thereof for the region. The author argues that Russia's Arctic Council presidential agenda will likely include the following priorities: climate change action; sustainable development; social cohesiveness and connectivity in the region; indigenous peoples; conservation of biodiversity; science diplomacy; and partial institutional reform of the Council. Moscow will not, however, renew its earlier efforts to transform the Council from an intergovernmental forum into a full-fledged international organization and introduce military security issues to the Council's agenda. Russia's chairmanship will likely strengthen the Arctic Council's role in asserting regional stewardship by responding to the challenges of a rapidly changing Arctic

Societal security in the Baltic Sea Region: the Russian perspective

This study discusses whether the concept of societal security is embedded in the Russian formal and informal discourses as well as in the Russian strategic documents on national security and the Baltic Sea region. Particularly, the paper describes four paradigms of international relations (neorealism, neoliberalism, globalism and postpositivism) and theoretical approaches to the concept of societal security formulated in them. On a practical plane, Russia has managed to develop - together with other regional players - a common regional approach to understanding societal security threats and challenges in the Baltic Sea region. These challenges include uneven regional development, social and gender inequalities, unemployment, poverty, manifestations of intolerance, religious and political extremism, separatism, large-scale migration, climate change, natural and man-made catastrophes, transnational organized crime and cybercrime, international terrorism, so-called hybrid threats, disharmony between education systems, etc. In 2017, Russia and other Baltic countries agreed that the Council of the Baltic Sea States would be the regional institution to implement a common societal security strategy exemplified by the Baltic 2030 Agenda Action Plan

Russia and the European Union in the Baltic region: a treacherous path to partnership

This article examines policies of Moscow and Brussels in the Baltics since the launch of the European Union’s Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region in June 2009. An increase in the efficiency of Russia’s policy in the region requires not only the development of bilateral relations with the region’s countries but also a dialogue with the European Union, the key player in the Baltic. The author identifies Russian economic, military, political, and humanitarian interests in the region, and describes the structure, content, and main areas of the implementation of the EU Baltic strategy in 2009—2013. The article examines the evolution of the Strategy, which initially ignored Russian national interests in the region, yet eventually resulted in cooperative efforts in the areas of common interest such as energy, transport infrastructure, environment, research, education and culture. The results of the Russian presidency of the Council of the Baltic Sea States (2012—2013) are evaluated. It is noted that, despite an appealing presidency strategy and certain achievements in its implementation, Russia was unable to draw up a regional agenda and use the CBSS as an efficient platform for harmonizing its Baltic strategy with that of the EU. The causes of the current deadlock in EU — Russian relations regarding the Baltic are analyzed. The author formulates policy recommendations on fostering Russian-European cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. These recommendations range from the suggestion of joint revisions of mutual conceptual perceptions and strategic goals pursued by the EU and Russia in the Baltic Sea region to more practical measures in the institutional, administrative, and financial fields

Der russische Vorsitz im Arktischen Rat: Prioritäten und Implikationen für den Hohen Norden Russlands

Der Beitrag untersucht die politischen Prioritäten Russlands für dessen Vorsitz im Arktischen Rat und die potenziellen Implikationen für die Region. Der Autor argumentiert, dass die Agenda Russlands für seinen Vorsitz wohl folgende Prioritäten beinhalten wird: Maßnahmen zum Klimaschutz; nachhaltige Entwicklung; sozialer Zusammenhalt und Konnektivität in der Region; die indigenen Völker; Erhaltung der Biodiversität; Wissenschaftsdiplomatie und eine institutionelle Teilreform des Rates. Moskau dürfte allerdings kaum seine früheren Versuche wiederholen, den Rat aus einem zwischenstaatlichen Forum in eine vollwertige internationale Organisation zu verwandeln und militärische Sicherheitsfragen auf die Agenda des Arktischen Rats zu setzen. Russlands Vorsitz wird wahrscheinlich die Rolle des Arktischen Rates stärken, um die regionale Verantwortung geltend zu machen, indem auf die Herausforderungen für die Arktis reagiert wird, die in einem rapiden Wandel begriffen ist

Multipolarity, intersubjectivity, and models of international society: experiences of Russia - EU (mis)communication

This Working Paper seeks to analyze the multifaceted Russia – EU relations as seen from different models of multipolarity. The key question the authors address is how the various perspectives of multipolarity can shape the EU – Russia relations and bring different outcomes. Arguably, Moscow and Brussels have divergent ideas about the practical arrangements the idea of multipolarity implies; besides, inside Russia and the EU there are multiple competing views on multipolarity. This plurality of voices requests a scrutiny of different models of a multipolar international society in which Russia and EU are its constitutive poles. In a multipolar world, the Russian – European inter-subjective interaction may take different institutional forms which we flesh out in this paper, dwelling upon a well-known distinction between pluralist and solidarist types of international society. Methodologically, the paper is based on an inter-subjective approach to EU – Russia relations. Inter-subjectivity connotes not only a possibility of achieving some practical effects of altering policies of other actors, but also of constituting their roles and even identities in the process of communicative exchanges. (author's abstract

The Politics of Russian Arctic shipping: evolving security and geopolitical factors

This study examines how soft security, including economic and environmental issues, inform the broader security and geopolitical factors of Moscow’s policy on the Northern Sea Route (NSR). The authors begin by discussing how Russia’s hard and soft security perceptions of Arctic shipping evolved in the post-Cold War era, including perceptional changes in the context of the Ukrainian crisis and ongoing tensions between Russia and the West. The article tries to structure Russia’s security/geopolitical discourse on the NSR by identifying its key elements, including the role of the NSR in ensuring the country’s economic security and its cohesiveness and connectivity of its different and distant from each other territories; NATO military activities in the NSR’s adjacent regions; the US and some other states’ vision of the Arctic sea lanes as ‘global commons’ where the freedom of navigation principle should be applicable; the need to control vast maritime spaces and coastline to prevent potential illegal activities ranging from poaching and smuggling to illegal migration and attacks against critical industrial and military objects; and the need to develop search and rescue (SAR) capabilities and be prepared to prevent and/or fight oil spills. The paper also discusses to what extent security and geopolitical concerns affect Russia’s present-day debate and decision-making on the NSR, including its economic/commercial, diplomatic and legal aspects. The authors lastly examine what kind of practical measures are taken by the Russian authorities to ensure hard and soft security of Arctic shipping: reopening of old Soviet and constructing new Russian military bases along the NSR most of which have dual-use (SAR) capabilities; development of a border guard station network in the region; modernisation of the Coast Guard fleet; creation of SAR and emergency operations centres along the Arctic Ocean coastline; and the improvement of communication and navigation systems to increase maritime safety

Twin cities: a new form of cross-border cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region?

The paper demonstrates the first attempt in Russian political studies to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the "twin city" movement as a form of cross-border cooperation in the Baltic region. This phenomenon emerged as a result of a global tendency towards more active involvement of municipal units in international cooperation, on the one hand, and aspirations of frontier cities and towns in the Baltic region to solve common problems together, on the other hand. This work is based on a comparative analysis method and a case study methodology. The authors consider four examples (city pairs): Tornio - Haparanda, Valga - Valka, Narva - Ivangorod and Imatra - Svetogorsk. The article specifies the terminological framework used in this field of research. The authors analyse achievements and failures of this type of international inter-municipal cooperation and emphasise that for twin cities it served not only as a means of survival in the difficult situation of the 1990s, but also as an experimental ground for new forms of crossborder cooperation. The authors arrive at the conclusion that this model proves to be promising for further development of integration processes in the Baltic region. This practice can be applied by Russian municipal, regional and federal authorities in promotion of cross-border cooperation not only in the Baltic region, but also in other regions of the country. Thus, influenced by the successful experience of Baltic frontier cities and towns, the Russian city of Nikel and the Norwegian city of Kirkenes decided to adopt this model for further development of their cooperation

International Relations Theory and the BRICS Phenomenon

This article examines the BRICS phenomenon through the prism of several International Relations theories. Particularly, power transition theory, soft power and peaceful coexistence concepts, the theory of “global regionalism” and status theories are reviewed. Each of them suggests its own theoretical interpretation of the BRICS phenomenon, as well as its own vision of this group’s role in world politics and economy. It is safe to assume that despite limitations of these theories each of them has some explanatory power. Being used together they can be helpful for studying - in an interdisciplinary way - a complex phenomenon, such as the BRICS. A number of modern theories hold that, along with the pursuit of purely material and pragmatic interests, the BRICS countries actively use this integration association to strengthen their positions in the world arena and elevate their international status. It should be noted that the BRICS was rather successful in presenting itself as a new model of world order which is a serious alternative to the existing one dominated by the West. It is based on the principles of cooperation, mutual respect and balance of interests, rather than dictate, discrimination, hierarchy and balance of power. It is too early to ascertain that a principally new type of an international institution was born within the BRICS format. However, there is no doubt that some positive experience has already been accumulated by this forum, and that this grouping has some good prospects for the future. For this reason, it will remain of considerable interest for International Relations theory. Keywords: BRICS, International Relations Theory, alternative world orde

Cold War Legacy of Science Cooperation Offers Hope Today

Although current political tensions hinder international studies in the Arctic, science partnerships helped tunnel through barriers during the Cold War. One of the most successful models of U.S.-Russian collaboration was the "Environmental Bilateral" agreement of 1972. During an era of political tension, it brought together a multidisciplinary group of top professionals and early carrier scientists in both countries. Acting through science diplomacy, this group communicated sound scientific messages about global climate change to top level policymakers well before the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came into existence. Similar models today can help the U.S. and Russia remove obstacles for scientific collaboration and implement the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation signed by both countries