Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin presented confrontation in the Arctic as one of five possible scenarios for future wars focusing particularly on the attacks on Russian oil and gas plants and on NATO naval threats to the SevMorPut. He was speaking at the conference organized by Rossiiskaya gazeta with the aim of elaborating on Putin’s article ‘Being strong‘ published in this newspaper 16 months prior.

A great interview with an entrepreneur from Arkhangelsk oblast showing the depressed economy and unique resilience. I particularly like the point: “What have you learned after six years of work in the Russian North? – First of all, never count on your own efforts, because everything goes as God wills…’.

A very odd reflection in Nezavisimaya gazeta on the meeting of chiefs of staff of the Arctic Council, as if the top brass were arguing about competitive military build-up. The conclusion that Russia is lagging behind in the arms race in the Arctic is plain preposterous.

A very sharp article in Bellona on Medvedev’s great reluctance to show support for NGO activity in the Arctic Council.
The photo by Truide Pettersen shows a demonstration of ecologists in Murmansk.

Following Medvedev’s sour comments in Kirkenes on NATO expansion, here is an excellent article by the sharpest-of-the-sharp Edward Lucas

Cold War in the north
By Edward Lucas – 06.06.2013 / 03:40 CET
The Nordic and Baltic states are increasingly worried about Russia

Discussing NATO membership in Sweden is a bit like discussing sex at a church youth club. Everyone agrees the subject is important, but you have to tiptoe round some taboos.

I have just been in Stockholm courtesy of the terrific Free World Forum, run by the tough-talking wing of the Moderate (ie, conservative) Party. The theme was ‘Security around the Baltic’ – a good title, because eight of the countries around the Baltic Sea are increasingly worried about the ninth: Russia.

It was topical, too, as the events of 30 March exemplify: Russian warplanes carried out a mock attack on Sweden, and were intercepted by Danish jets scrambled from a Lithuanian airfield. This is not the first such incident – but it is the first to be leaked to the media. A debate is beginning: should Sweden return to real (costly) territorial defence? Or pool its efforts with the other Nordic countries? Or join NATO? Or all of the above?

Finland’s prime minister has called for a proper debate on the defence issue (his country retains territorial defence and is even more shy, historically, about NATO). Worries already abound. In the latest in a series of rhetorical assaults, Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, recently justified Stalin’s unprovoked assault in 1940, on the grounds that the pre-war Finnish border was a “mistake”. The United States is selling Finland the JASSM – a conventional missile that provides a drastic last-ditch deterrent against a putative aggressor (ie, Russia).

A miniature Cold War is looming in the region. The Russians claim NATO expansion to the Baltic states was a grievous provocation to which they must respond with a military build-up. But that scares the neighbours – and thus brings a bigger NATO presence. The Russians then cite that as grounds for even nastier behaviour. With painful reluctance, NATO is staging a small exercise, Steadfast Jazz, in Poland and the Baltic states this autumn. Russia criticises this: the exercise dares to rehearse how the alliance could respond to a military clash and partial occupation, restoring the victim’s territorial integrity. “This cannot but arouse our concern,” said Russia’s envoy to NATO, Alexander Grushko. The Kremlin’s aim is not conquest, but demilitarisation and demoralisation: instilling a sense of indefensibility makes victory easy.

The conference was buzzing with rumours – that another Russian plane had jammed Sweden’s air-defence radar on Gotland, for example, and that the targets were Sweden’s two main military installations. (Actually, the ‘attack’ was part of a big Russian exercise simulating strategic deterrence, with flights in all directions.)

Yet the Swedish government has been remarkably laid-back (puzzlingly so in some eyes) in its response. Wimpishness? Instructions from the US not to fuss? Or a master-stroke: with public opinion alarmed, and the left-wing opposition in full cry demanding a tougher line on Russia, it will be easy to implement it.

The real point is that Sweden and Finland are in this game whether they like it or not. The Nestor of Nordic-Baltic security, Karlis Nerietniks (a retired Swedish general of Latvian extraction), argued at the conference that ambiguity about Swedish defence capability and orientation is now a cause of instability. In a crisis, the Swedish island of Gotland would be a vital prize, determining whether NATO could effectively defend or reinforce the Baltic states. So who would grab it first?

While Russia stays in its current venomous mood, Swedish and Finnish membership of NATO is now a question of when, not whether. But a much-awaited Swedish defence review last week shied away from proposing any real change of policy. Like the church youth group, everyone knows sex is inescapable. The safety of marriage is looking increasingly attractive.

Very little attention in the Russian media to the Barents Region summit in Kirkenes, where Prime Minister Medvedev tried to assert that Russia suffered no damage from signing the maritime border treaty with Norway on his watch. Moskovsky Komsomolets (rather suprisingly for this tabloid) focused on the issue of NATO enlargement, while Rossiiskaya Gazeta complained about high prices on fish in Murmansk. Symbolically, Medvedev helped Jens Stoltenberg to cross the Russian border without a visa, but Carl Bildt wasn’t allowed in – he forgot his passport.

Here is a link to my article ‘Oil-and-gas problems in Russia’s foreign policy’ in the journal ECO published in Novosibirsk by the Russian Academy of Sciences. The issue is aptly entitled ‘We cannot and will not have any other Arctic’.

Ambassador Anton Vasilyev addressing the first session of the International Arctic Council in Moscow on May 23. Moskovsky Komsomolets noted the event. My presentation was quoted in Arctic.info.

I have been looking for reflection on the Arctic Council meeting in the Russian media – and have found surprisingly little. One opinionated comment about the EU coveting Arctic resources appeared in Regnum. Another more balanced analysis about ‘peace and love’ in the Kiruna meeting appeared in Expert, but the opening line is ‘The Arctic is dying’.

Russia had to agree to granting the status of permanent observers at the Arctic Council to six countries (but not to the EU), but according to Kommersant, convinced the member-state to approve a document that limits their role to silent observation. This sharp discussion looks rather different from the pretty picture of the works of the Arctic Council painted by Carl Bildt.