[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] W [/yt_dropcap]hat this work provides is a foundation for all aspiring iconoclasts in the field of Russian Studies. For a full generation and beyond, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the study of Russia has slowly disintegrated into a cynical morass of doubt, suspicion, and presumptive academic constraint. This has not only vexed those on the Russian side looking to establish relations with the United States that is not path-dependent and a mimic of history; it has drained an entire generation of young minds in America out of the field and left it still leaning heavily on those who were raised and baptized in the fire of the original and authentic Cold War.
This work hopefully gives reason for all those who want to believe that not only is the Cold War 2.0 not nearly as authentic or as menacing as they are being driven to believe, but that there is a place intellectually, diplomatically, and academically for those who do not wish to mindlessly follow an orthodox line of thinking that is hindering new ideas and new thinkers from gaining the stage.
This is of course not to say Russia is blameless for the state of affairs between the two countries. That accusation is also part and parcel of this damning orthodoxy: if you do not toe the line against Russia you are labeled a sycophant or shill for Russia. We must stop this rigid binary categorization because it completely shuts down the more accurate third line of analysis: one devoid of partisanship, nationalism, and patriotism, that seeks to effectively shed light on opportunities to overcome misunderstanding and misperception so that two major powers can finally engage one another without the result predetermined to the negative.
This work is a clarion call for that new generation of thinkers, whether it is the Millenial generation just now entering advanced graduate study or members of my own lost Generation X, wanting to return to this field of study but wanting to do so on their own terms and with their own ambitions and projects unhindered by the scholarly legacies and assumptions of the past.
Edited collection of over 60 individual analytical commentaries, more than 230 pages, covering issues as far-ranging as nuclear reinvestment, sanctions, immigration policy, Arctic politics, the Ukraine conflict, media issues, grand strategy, Russian Orthodoxy, FSB, cyberwarfare, monetary policy, NATO, Syria, and academic censorship, among many others. This volume provides one-stop analysis for the entire spectrum of Russian-American engagement.
Putin-Mongering: Poking the Bear for a new Cold War,Matthew Crosston
“Dr. Matthew Crosston’s book Putin Mongering: Poking the Bear for a New Cold War is one of the most relevant, timely, and thought-provoking texts recently published. Crosston’s analysis of Russia, Russian foreign policy, US-Russia relations, the conflict in Ukraine, American perspectives on Russia, and more are informative and systematic, building on the strengths of his previous works to provide detailed accounts of the complex relations between the two states, their actions, and consequences. This challenging and wide-ranging text introduces the reader to the multiplicity of nuanced narratives on the interactions, signals, and interpretations used by both states. The portrayal of actors and contexts is direct, honest, and revealing. Because of this approach, the book is not only able to offer insights into a wide variety of questions of interest to many scholars of different disciplines, but also invite new types of questions, fresh understandings and stimulating debates to the study of contemporary Russia unlike what is usually offered in the discipline of Russian Studies.”
Lada V. Kochtcheeva, PhD, Associate Professor of Political Science, School of Public and International Affairs, North Carolina State University
“Dr. Crosston’s work in Putin-mongering is second to none when it comes to the most important issues of global security and international affairs in the 21st century. Dr. Crosston’s overall scope of engagement here is well above most of the globally-recognized scholars within Russian and Eurasian Studies. In Crosston I see someone who is finally talented enough to surpass Mintz’s methodology panic and ambitious enough to embrace Singer’s call for real-world impact and relevance, putting the study of Russia back on a more ethically important and empirically genuine track where our research is not just a critical esoteric examination of current reality but is rigorously constructed, carefully oriented, and skillfully written so as to produce solutions and product that make our world truly a better place. This is an important new endeavor that should make people see Russian-American relations in an innovative new light.”
Maorong Jiang, PhD, Director, Asian World Center, Associate Professor of Political Science & International Relations
“In this time when Russian-American relations is stuck in one of the worst conditions since the Cold War, this attempt by Professor Matthew Crosston to bring new conclusions and perspectives to light earns a particularly important level of attention from scholars of Russian Studies. Because Crosston has a deft capability with the Russian language, a unique professional history across the Post-Soviet space, and maintains important and serious contacts within Russia, he was able to gain access to relevant information and process powerful arguments that stand as a counter-argument to many of the myths plaguing Russian-American relations today. His systemic and rigorous analysis allows Western readers to form an objective perspective on the so-called ‘Russian aggression.’ Especially important is his original conception of ‘the New Fake Cold War’ and how it powers so much between the countries today. In my opinion, this book is an important new contributor in the contemporary world’s war against ‘fake news.’”
Vladimir Kolotov, PhD, Head of the Far East Department, Faculty of Asian and African Studies, St. Petersburg State University, Member, Russian National Committee of the Council of Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific
In the Aftermath of Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Victory without Peace or Peace without Victory?
Little did Putin from last year would have anticipated that victory would virtually be absent on Victory Day 2022 – domestically, no triumph from the battlefield to boast; internationally, no political echoes from prominent world leaders (not even from China).
Putin seemed to attempt to belie the faltering, if not foundering, so-called “special military operation” with a speech twice as long as the one from last year, relentlessly decrying the aggression from NATO and the US which ultimately led to Russia’s “forced intervention” in Ukraine. However, in the absence of claim of victory, he made no call for threat of a nuclear strike or escalation of the existential war. It is not difficult to tell, therefore, all his self-styled hardball amidst the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict is being supplanted by hesitancy and second-guessing, contra his unwavering determination from three months ago.
The subdued tone exuded from Putin’s speech can be logically attributed to a slew of Russian military failures prior to Victory Day: not only did Russia fail its “Plan A” – to take down Kyiv in 24 hours and its “Plan B” – to besiege Eastern Ukraine, but Ukrainian troops succeeded in securing further gains of Kharkiv and sinking the Russian flagship Moskva with its Neptune missiles. With unambiguous support from the US and its European allies, it appears that Ukraine is to see the light at the end of the war-torn tunnel, especially after the release of a short yet powerful video message given by President Zelensky, featuring an inspiring and adamant vow of “We won then. We will win now.”
Nonetheless, it is still far too early to conclude that the peace between these two nations is right around the corner, Putin’s intransigency cannot be negligible, nor can Ukrainian citizens’ rising nationalism big with vengeance when they have witnessed the approachable upper-hand on the battlefield. As early as March, Zelensky was starting to seek peaceful solutions to the conflict with Russia. However, when Ukraine is gaining an advantageous position, the flexibility that Zelensky can bring to the negotiation table may otherwise diminish as a result of the pressure from the public opinion.
Blind and inordinate retaliation can oftentimes backfire if not handled carefully. In the early stages of the Paris Peace Conference, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George proposed a peace treaty that would punish Germany instead of crippling it. He was fairly concerned that excessive punishment may push Germany towards radical ideas such as Communism, which in turn would cause chaos and misery. The proposal was concurred with by the US President Woodrow Wilson, who was renowned for his “Fourteen Points” as a basis for peace and also believed that it was those in power that should be punished rather than the people. However, Lloyd George eventually gave in to the anti-German sentiment and Wilson’s blueprint of the US joining the League of Nations was shattered by isolationists in Congress. Consequently, the Treaty of Versailles played a resonate victory symphony while producing a short-lived peace before the emergence Nazi Germany.
Compared to the leaders involved in the first World War, political elites in the early 19th century seemed to have a deeper understanding of the trade-off between victory and peace. Despite the chaos that came with the drawn-out Napoleonic Wars, European leaders such as Metternich still made long-term peacekeeping for Europe the cornerstone of the Congress of Vienna instead of dismantling France. Leaders then were not blinded by or complacent about the short-sighted victory. It was their comprehensive and insightful planning that generated the balance of power, which sustained the peace in the continent for the next 100 years till the Sarajevo Assassination that triggered the World War I.
Does the West want to see an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict? For most of ordinary people, it is a resounding yes. But for some leaders, the answer might become tricky. Take the Biden administration for example, what better way to compensate for the scores lost to the chaotic withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan last year than a proxy war to cripple the already weakened Russia? As Ukraine’s resistance is gathering momentum, Zelensky needs to keep a cool head as he has done since the start of the war rather than being pushed around by either geopolitical calculations of great powers or irrational domestic thirst for vengeance. Pushing Putin too hard (e.g. suggesting Putin’s assassination) is likely to prod him to resort to drastic actions – a nuclear strike, which is something the West may not have completely prepared for. What Zelensky should prioritize is the peace in the region and the safety of Ukrainian citizens. After all, a lasting peace is more approachable and practical to prevent history from repeating itself than an abstract victory.
Is Putin a war-criminal for invading Ukraine?
I almost always agree with the courageous whistleblowing former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, but not including this from him on April 25th:
“I condemn the invasion of Ukraine and I have no hesitation in calling Putin a war criminal. However for precisely the same reasons so are Bush and Blair [for their invasion of Iraq]. It astonishes me how very few people in the media are prepared, in the current emergency, to acknowledge this.”
Here’s why I don’t “acknowledge this”:
When Bush/Blair invaded Iraq on 20 March 2003, it was entirely on the basis of lies by themselves and their respective Administrations, and by their mainstream ‘news’-media, which stenographically conveyed those politicians’ lies to the public despite knowing, even at the time, that at least some of those lies WERE lies and yet they failed to point this crucial fact out to their audiences at the time or even afterward. (Instead, the falsehoods had been mere ‘intelligence failures’ — which was/is another lie, retrospectively piled on top of the main one.)
U.S. President George W. Bush seems to have been informed, in advance, about a New York Times article (which was the lead-story in the newspaper on Sunday, 8 September 2002), titled “U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS”, in which the sources were anonymous “Administration officials.” The story concerned “aluminum tubes” that were “intended as casing for rotors in centrifuges, which are one means of producing highly enriched uranium … to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.”
We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need [in order for Congress to authorize an invasion of Iraq].
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Absolutely right.
Then, as soon as the weekend was over, on Monday 9 September 2002, was issued by the IAEA the following:
Related Coverage: Director General’s statement on Iraq to the IAEA Board of Governors on 9 September 2002 [this being a republication of their notice three days earlier, on 6 Sep.].
Vienna, 06 September, 2002 – With reference to an article published today in the New York Times [which, as usual, stenographically reported the Administration’s false allegations, which the IAEA was trying to correct in a way that would minimally offend the NYT and the U.S. President], the International Atomic Energy Agency would like to state that it has no new information on Iraq’s nuclear programme since December 1998 when its inspectors left Iraq [and verified that no WMD remained there at that time]. Only through a resumption of inspections in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687 and other relevant resolutions can the Agency draw any conclusion with regard to Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under the above resolutions relating to its nuclear activities.
Contact: Mark Gwozdecky, Tel: (+43 1) 2600-21270, e-mail: M.Gwozdecky@iaea.org.
It even linked to the following statement from the IAEA Director General amplifying it:
Since December 1998 when our inspectors left Iraq, we have no additional information that can be directly linked without inspection to Iraq’s nuclear activities. I should emphasize that it is only through resumption of inspections that the Agency can draw any conclusion or provide any assurance regarding Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under these resolutions.
So, this was proof of the falsehood of Bush’s and Blair’s reference, on September 7th, to the IAEA, in which Bush-Blair were saying that, upon the authority of the IAEA itself, there was “the new report … a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”
Because of the news-media’s ignoring the IAEA’s denial of the President’s statement, the author of the IAEA’s denial, Mark Gwozdecky, spoke again nearly three weeks later, by phone, with the only journalist who was interested, Joseph Curl of the Washington Times, who headlined on 27 September 2002, “Agency Disavows Report on Iraq Arms” — perhaps that should instead have been “President Lied About ‘Saddam’s WMD’” — and Curl quoted Gwozdecky: “There’s never been a report like that [which Bush alleged] issued from this agency. … When we left in December ’98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment.” Other news-media failed to pick up Curl’s article. And, even in that article, there was no clear statement that the President had, in fact, lied — cooked up an IAEA ‘report’ that never actually existed. Actually, the IAEA hadn’t even so much as been mentioned in that New York Times article.
Bush had simply lied, and Blair seconded it, and the ‘news’-media stenographically accepted it, and broadcasted their lies to the public, and continued to do so, despite the IAEA’s having denied, as early as September 6th, that they had issued any such “new report” at all. (The IAEA had, apparently, somehow known in advance that someone would soon be saying that the IAEA had issued a report alleging that Iraq was resuming its nuclear program.) Virtually all of the alleged news-media (and not only the NYT) entirely ignored the IAEA’s denial (though it was not merely one bullet, but rapidly fired on four separate occasions, into the wilderness of America’s ‘news’-media) that it had issued any such “report.” All of them were actually only propaganda-media: they hid the fact that George W. Bush was simply lying. Both the U.S. Government and its ‘news’-media were frauds.
The day after that 7 September 2002 unquestioned lie by Bush, saying Iraq was only six months from having a nuclear weapon, and citing the IAEA as his source for that, the New York Times ran their article. It included such hair-raisers as “‘The jewel in the crown is nuclear,’ a senior administration official said. ‘The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical or biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are his hole card.’” The fake ‘news’ — stenography from the lying Government and its chosen lying sources (in this case anonymous Administration-officials) — came in an incessant stream, from the U.S. Government and its ‘news’ media (such as happened also later, regarding Honduras 2009, Libya 2011, Yemen 2011-, Syria 2011-, Ukraine 2014, and Yemen 2015-). Do the American people never learn — ever — that their Presidents and ‘news’-media) now lie routinely?
Also on Sunday, September 8th, of 2002, the Bush Administration’s big guns were firing off against Iraq from the Sunday ‘news’ shows; and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice delivered her famous “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” statement, which was clearly building upon the lying Bush allegation of the day before, that the International Atomic Energy Agency had just come up with this ominous “Atomic” “new report.”
Then, President Bush himself, on 12 September 2002, addressed the U.N. General Assembly, seeking authorization to invade:
We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced — the just demands of peace and security will be met — or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable — the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
Bush (and Blair) failed to win any authorization to invade, but did it anyway. They should be hung for it. They were atop a bi-national and entirely bipartisan (in each of the two countries) public-deception operation, like had occurred in Germany during Hitler’s time. (Hitler was a boon for his nation’s armaments-makers then, just as America’s Presidents now are for America’s armaments-firms.)
And both of America’s political Parties are controlled by their billionaires, who fund the political careers of the politicians whom those mega-donors want to become s‘elected’ by the public to win public offices. For example, whereas George W. Bush lied America into invading and destroying Iraq, Barack Obama and Joe Biden lied America into believing that their coup overthrowing and replacing Ukraine’s democratically elected Government in February 2014 was instead a ‘democratic revolution’ there. It’s so bad that even the progressive Democratic Party site, David Sirota’s “The Daily Poster,” has NEVER exposed anything about that Obama coup and about those Obama-Clinton-Biden lies about Ukraine, and about the U.S. Government’s planned conquest of both Russia and China — the things that might actually produce WW III (in other words: are even more important than what they do report about). In fact, Sirota had the nerve, on 15 February 2022, to post to Vimeo an anti-Republican-Party propaganda video, “The Pundits Who Lied America Into A War”, against the Republican Party’s liars who deceived the American people into invading and destroying Iraq in 2003 — though almost all leading Democrats, including Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton, had voted in the U.S. Senate for (not against) that lie-based invasion, and though all Democratic-Party ‘news’-media (and not ONLY the Republican-Party ones) unquestioningly transmitted the Bush-Administration’s lies to the American people, against Iraq, in order to fool Americans into supporting the then-upcoming U.S. invasion. That Sirota video entirely ignores the Democratic-Party “Pundits” — such as the Party’s think tank, the Brookings Institution, whose Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, propagandized on TV and elsewhere to invade Iraq (such as in Pollack’s Council on Foreign Relations article, “Invasion the Only Realistic Option to Head Off the Threat from Iraq, Argues Kenneth Pollack in The Threatening Storm” did). Whereas Democrats blame Republicans, and Republicans blame Democrats, it’s the billionaires of BOTH Parties who actually fund all of these lies and liars — and who continue to fund those liars’ careers, and to present them on their ’news’-media as ‘experts’, to fool the public to okay the trillions of dollars that the U.S. Government pays to those billionaires’ corporations such as Lockheed Martin, to profit from those wars. It’s hypocrisy on top of lying, so as to convey an impression that neoconservatism — U.S. imperialism — is a ‘Republican’ (or else a ‘Democratic’) evil, when it’s ACTUALLY an evil by the billionaires who fund BOTH Parties AND who fund the ’news’-media, both liberal and conservative, and who profit from those invasions. It’s not just the lies of America’s Presidents; it is the lies that are funded by America’s billionaires, who placed such people as that into Congress and the White House. This regime is an aristocracy, and imperialism is second nature to aristocrats. But an aristocracy is a dictatorship by the very rich — NOT any sort of democracy. This is the type of dictatorship that America now has — NOT a Republican dictatorship, or a Democratic dictatorship, but a dictatorship by the aristocracy, of BOTH Parties. They have made a mockery of their ‘democracy’. Practically everything they do is fake, except the vast harms that they produce.
Putin, regarding Ukraine, was responding (stupidly, in my opinion, but that’s another matter) to the U.S. regime’s very real “provocations” (as he typically understates such things) against Russia’s most vital national-security interests. Russia has (and for years has publicly stated) a vital national-security interest in preventing nuclear weapons against Russia being installed on or near Russia’s border. It’s true in 2022, just as America had a vital national-security interest in preventing nuclear weapons against America being placed 100 miles from America’s border during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. It wasn’t a made-up, lying, pretext for an invasion, like America’s “Saddam’s WMD” lies were in 2002 and 2003. That makes all the difference.
Russia is America’s victim in this. And America chose and trained and is arming Ukraine to serve as the first battleground of its World War III to conquer Russia. Biden and his team should be tried as international war-criminals, but Putin and his team aren’t anywhere even nearly as bad as all U.S. Presidents during this Century are and have been. Putin made a strategic error by invading Ukraine prematurely, as he did. But that does’t automatically make him a “war criminal.” He is trying to defend Russia’s most crucial national-security interests. That’s no lie — and that makes all the difference.
On Pause: Dialogue with Russia in the Arctic
Given the deterioration of Russia’s relations with the West in almost all respects since 2014, there were fears that these negative trends would extend to cooperation in the Arctic. However, during that time frame, until recently, the Arctic remained the region least affected by the crisis in relations between Russia and the West, where interaction continued despite many difficulties. At the same time, the Arctic Council (AC) played the role of the most authoritative intergovernmental forum for the development of cooperation in the Arctic and was considered one of the few remaining non-politicised platforms for interaction. The Arctic was often called a territory of peace and dialogue; many Russian and Western analysts have included the Arctic among the areas where interaction between Russia and Western countries is possible and promising, despite the general crisis in relations.
The year 2022 has served as a turning point for the activities of the Arctic Council and international Arctic cooperation. Shortly after the start of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine, seven member countries of the Arctic Council (Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Norway, USA, Finland, Sweden) announced the suspension of their participation in all official events of the Arctic Council and its subsidiary bodies, in connection with the situation around Ukraine, as well as their refusal to send representatives to Council meetings held in Russia.
The countries participating in the Barents Euro-Arctic Council have also announced their suspension of cooperation with Russia.
The European Union, Iceland and Norway have suspended all projects under the “Northern Dimension” policy, in which Russia and Belarus participate. The Arctic Economic Council did not suspend its activities involving Russia; however, it scrapped plans to hold the upcoming annual meeting in a mixed format in St. Petersburg, opting instead to hold the event online.
The turning point came during the Russian chairmanship of the Arctic Council, which will last until 2023. Nikolai Korchunov, Ambassador-at-Large of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the AC, noted that the decision of the AC members will lead to an increase in the risks and challenges associated with maintaining security in the region. In connection with the current situation, the mechanisms of Russia’s chairmanship in the AC will be reoriented towards solving the national problems of the development of northern territories.
General political disagreements at the global level have previously influenced interaction within the Arctic Council. Thus, in April 2014, Canada, at that time the chair of the Arctic Council, stressed its disagreement with the Russian policy towards Crimea and Ukraine, refusing to send its representatives to the meeting of the AC Task Force on Methane and Soot Emissions, which was held in Moscow. At the time, it was about the refusal to participate in only one of the working groups of the Council, and not about the ministerial meeting, so the significance of this episode following its results should not be exaggerated, it is incomparable with the current situation.
In 2019, at the meeting of ministers of foreign affairs of the Arctic Council countries, for the first time in the history of the forum, the participants failed to sign the final declaration, because, contrary to the position of other members, the United States refused to recognise the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. In addition, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticised Russia’s policy, allegedly aimed at fighting for influence in the Arctic, as well as China’s Belt and Road project. This is another example where political confrontation on issues outside the scope of the Arctic agenda had a negative impact on the activities of the AC and cooperation in the Arctic region, but did not lead to a pause in its functioning. The current suspension of the activities of the Arctic Council is the first event of its kind since the council’s establishment in 1996. At the same time, this turn of events cannot be called a complete surprise. For example, the authors of the RIAC report “The Arctic Council: Status and Activities”, published on the eve of the start of Russia’s chairmanship in the AC, noted that, from the point of view of international law, the Arctic Council as a forum does not have any “monopoly” on coordinating interstate positions regarding the management of the Arctic region. And in the event of political and legal discord between the member states of the Arctic Council, alternative international mechanisms will come to the fore, contrary to the national long-term interests of Russia and other Arctic states.
Most likely, a return to the usual nature of interaction within the framework of the Arctic Council should not be expected in the near future. There have been no further official announcements about the format of the AC’s work. In the short term, at the expert level, the seven Western countries of the AC are considering options for cooperation without Russia. Cooperation in the Arctic is proposed to be based on the common values and principles shared by the seven Arctic states that signed the statement, rather than any connection with the geography of the Arctic region. This entails building a new scheme for interaction, both under the auspices of the Arctic Council and within other existing platforms and options for creating new ones. Thus, Stefan Kirchner, professor at the University of Lapland, has proposed the creation of a Nordic Plus, a platform for interaction between Europe and North America in the Arctic, which will be based on the common values shared by the participating countries. In fact, we are talking about an extended version of the Nordic Council (Nordic cooperation). Alice Rogoff, a member of the advisory board of Arctic Circe, is considering reformatting the Arctic Council into an Arctic Council 2.0, although the parameters for such a version of the forum remain unclear. How would the members in this case deal with the consensus rule, the key for the Arctic Council, as to whether changes should be made to the Ottawa Declaration, the founding document of the AC? How would they address whether the range of issues the new version of the AC should be expanded, in particular, whether security issues are to be included in the agenda of the new version of the Council, and what will be the rules for AC observers?
These are all questions for which there are no answers yet. Some Western analysts point out that any approach to regional cooperation in the Arctic that excludes Russian involvement in the long term will be difficult. Russia has the highest population inside the Arctic Circle; the Russian economy is the most connected with the resources of the North; Russia’s Arctic coast is the longest of any nation. However, according to some Western analysts, if the nature of Russian policy does not change, the continuation of cooperation with Russia within the framework of the Arctic Council over the long term will be problematic.
At the moment, the future of the council remains uncertain. At the same time, it is obvious that solutions to many of the problems of the Arctic regarding ecology, the economics of culture, health care, the prevention of emergency situations, and the protection of the interests of the indigenous peoples of the North, are impossible without the participation of Russia.
From our partner RIAC
Minimal risk of monkeypox transmission in UK following confirmed case
Risk of monkeypox transmission in the United Kingdom is minimal following a confirmed case of the rare and sometimes fatal...
Zero Waste Europe endorses ENVI Commitee decisions in RED III and ETS
Today, the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) committee voted on the Renewable Energy Directive (RED III)...
Q&A: ‘People have to be at the centre of the energy transformation’
In June 2021, the EU’s Group of chief Scientific Advisors (GCSA) published the Scientific Opinion entitled “A systemic approach to...
‘We cannot rest’ until child labour is eliminated
Countries taking part in the 5th Global Conference on the Elimination of Child Labour this week in South Africa, are...
Musings of a journalist – Part 1
The entire idea of writing this is that as journalists we find ourselves finding and scratching other people’s truths. However,...
New ISIS Strategy and the Resurgence of Islamic State Khorasan
Unlike Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, the second late leader of ISIS, who was derided as a “secluded paper caliph” and...
When Will They Learn: Dealing with North Korea
On May 11, 2022, the United States called out China and Russia for opposing further action against North Korea in...
Middle East4 days ago
Shireen Abu Akleh and the eternal dilemma
Middle East3 days ago
Significance of Sergey Lavrov’s Trip to North Africa and the Middle East
Economy4 days ago
Putting systems thinking at the heart of a global green and just transition
Green Planet2 days ago
Marine life is on the brink of extinction: Climate reality is a real issue
Intelligence4 days ago
Video games: The alt-right’s radicalisation toolkit in the West
Environment3 days ago
World Migratory Bird Day illuminates the dark side of light pollution
South Asia4 days ago
The new Foreign Minister of Pakistan renewed its political and diplomatic support for Kashmir
Finance3 days ago
Ukraine war squeezes food supplies, drives up prices, threatens vulnerable nations