Vector of the Arctic friendship

The negative consequences of affiliation of Crimea with Russia and events in eastern Ukraine ceased to be a sealed book. Almost all the major expert community, including close to the towers of the Kremlin, talks about it quite unanimously (with different accents, of course!).

However, the drama lies in the fact that Russia can’t return Crimea to Ukraine now and fully disavow its presence in the Donbass. If this happens, a very difficult political crisis with unpredictable (or maybe very predictable!) consequences will originate in Russia very quickly.

I am ready to assume that no serious player or interesant wants it – not only Russia but also Europe, the United States, Japan and China do not want it too! Nevertheless, a complete (or even very serious) lifting of sanctions, I must admit, is very painful for our economic and social life is also impossible without a noticeable change in the Ukrainian situation.

According to a former US ambassador to Russia and a political science professor Michael McFaul, the settling of a severe crisis around the Crimea and eastern Ukraine may require quite a long time and huge efforts, including efforts of the Ukrainian society to modernize and reform the social and economic life of the country and to combat corruption.

Only such a movement will be able to identify relatively painless solution to disputes. Is there an easy way out of this vicious and very unfavorable for us circle? It seems that it is not. However, it is necessary to look for ways to mitigate the situation.

Recently, discussing with American colleagues from the political establishment possibility of resuming a large-scale cooperation between Russian and American companies in the Arctic, I heard a wonderful phrase. It was: “Future broad cooperation in the Arctic region is one story, and the events in Eastern Europe [Ukraine] – that's another story, and it would be wrong and shortsighted to link them directly!”.

But in fact, they can’t be unlinked completely! It is still hypothetically possible not to put them in direct dependence on each other. From the analysis of publications and saturated American communication of last two weeks, I made a conclusion that perhaps may seem controversial to many. It lies in the fact that the Arctic direction is not among the priorities of the US today. And tomorrow the situation will unlikely change dramatically.

However, the Arctic theme, including oil and climate forecasts and interests, marine and commercial perspective, is gaining popularity in the American political class, which, by the way, doesn’t deny special Russian interests in this strategically important region. Probably it (updating the Arctic theme) is somehow facilitated by the fact that chairmanship in this authoritative international organization moved to the United States a few days ago at a meeting of the Arctic Council in Canada.

May Arctic cooperation become one of the possible bridges of rapprochement between the US and Russia? I am sure that yes! Industrial, transport, bio resource, environmental and anthropological complex of problems associated with the development of the Arctic is extremely complex and diverse.

If we discard the unwanted emotions, we’ll have to admit that effective and gentle entry into the Arctic will require the widest possible cooperation between different countries (in my opinion, primarily between Russia, the USA, Norway and the United Kingdom), industry, expertise and research centers, environmental and national-cultural organizations.

During my recent lecture at the Institute of Law at the University of Oklahoma, I recalled that a few years ago the debate on student exchange between Russian and American universities in the Arctic theme began. Then there was a fair opinion, in particular, that the future experts of Russia and the United States who will work together on offshore platforms and Arctic infrastructure facilities should “speak the same language”.

Of course, this is not only on the mutual knowledge and on understanding of Russian and English, but also on the observance of some common standards in technology, industrial safety, environment, and legislation. In my opinion, successful participants in such exchanges with the Russian side can be Ukhta State Technical University, Mining Institute of St. Petersburg, Northern (Arctic) Federal University, Syktyvkar State University. Not coincidentally, it was named after the great Russian and American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin!

In the States, I think, possible partners of the Arctic cooperation in the field of education and industrial development are also rather obvious. Therefore, a bridge of the Arctic cooperation can become an important geopolitical factor in the not too distant future...

Original