Connect with us

Russia

Putin and the “Xi Jinping” Model in Russia

Published

on

The first month of this new decade would be remembered in future for one of the very significant events which could mark a drastic shift in the world order. Putin has tried to outplay the very constitutional values of the country and it could prove very dangerous to Russia and its citizens.

Putin tries to get the “Power” For-ever

Russian President Vladimir Putin, on 15th January 2020, announced few drastic changes which he was planning in the country. He announced his plans to hold a referendum to make major constitutional changes which would change picture of Russian politics and internal governmental system completely. Firstly, as per the Russian Constitution the limit to Presidential term for a candidate is two-consecutive terms which clearly means that Putin, who had acquired power by swapping his office with the then President in 2012, has a constitutional mandate to leave his office in 2024 without being any chance to be re-appointed. Also given the fact that 2012 swapping was also followed by the massive protests in the country, he could not plan the same strategy for yet another time as there are chances that if he does so then even more protests are bound to take place. Furthermore, he has tried to reduce the Presidential powers and has decided to resist the political powers of one his closest political ally – the Prime Minister who quit – Mr Dmitri Medvedev and has succeeded in making Mr Mikhail Mishustin the next PM of the country. This move is very clever one as Mishustin was more of a bureaucrat without any strong political image. This further means that there would be no one in the government who could politically compete with Putin in near future. The constitutional changes also include vesting more powers with regards to judiciary in the parliament which indicates that it would serve as a resistance, to some extent, for a free and fair judicial system of the country which might be a good sign for politicians but is surely worrisome for the common citizens. Putin thus has tried to make a way for himself as a politician and has seek his self-interest keeping Russia’s political system at stake. The already “not so democratic” Russia will further find itself in a worsened situation.

All may not go well within Kremlin

The attempt by Vladimir Putin to get a permanent solution for his political career by outplaying the constitutional norms may not be welcomed by the Russians. Firstly, the move might be facing a great backlash in form of the protests which were also used to greet Putin in 2012 after he swap his constitutional position with the then President in order to get his term as President. Those protests were shut down anyhow but these might not. These may further create an additional chaos in the upcoming years, given the fact that Putin’s Presidential term still has 4 more years left. Furthermore, vesting more constitutional powers for him clearly means that further suppression of the rights of Russians which have taken place in recent years.

The recent laws and legislations which are effective taken up to censor the media from reporting against state, to curb internet rights by not allowing “Foreign” media, to not respect the voices of people that are against the regime, suggests that if Putin gets an eternal political power in Russia then further depletion of democratic norms are probably inevitable in the country. Moreover, another impact of this step would be a complete rupture of the “opposition” in the country. Leaders and political opponents would no longer be able to counter Putin or even prominently challenge any of his decisions in the future as judiciary itself would be under eyes of the parliament.

This further means that “One-man rule” is a future scenario in Russia, if these steps which Putin has planned and is planning gets implemented successfully. The proposal of setting upper limit for total number of terms of President as two in number and not allowing any candidate to hold the post who either hasn’t been a resident in the country for past 25 years or else has held any foreign passport or residential permit in past is also to curb the opposition. This proposal is clearly targeting the candidates who might have a liberal western influence in their ideology and work, thereby depleting the citizens from even having proper opposition leaders.

Although he has still sought the referendum on the proposals, given the present circumstances and past records, the decision by Putin is expected to face protests throughout the country. Earlier, in 2012, Putin had ruptured down the protestors and thereby Putin has cleverly tried to make this decision seem a Public opinion through referendum but it would be interesting to watch how transparent the referendum is actually going to be.

A future trajectory for Policies getting Influenced

Putin having a “life-long” political power being in the governmental system might set up few new trajectories in the Russian policies and for the long term in the global order as well. Putin remaining permanently means further improvement in Russia’s bonding with Beijing and thereby broadening of the scope for Chinese influence in Central Asia affecting many countries which were part of the former Soviet Union. Furthermore, these countries would see themselves sandwiched between two major communist countries having “One-man Rule”. This would further mean diminishing the chances of Russian pull-off from Syria which further implies a non-stable Middle East indulged in a tug of war between various non-regional powers. Moreover, if Putin gets extraordinary power without any scrutiny from any organ of the government inside the country, he would further continue giving its support to the oppressive Asaad regime in Syria clearly stopping any further attempts of de-escalation in the region.

It should come as no surprise if US finds itself more uncomfortable in various regions and policies as China – which has a “Permanent Xi-Jinping” term and Russia – which is expected to have a “Permanent Putin” term will always keep Washington annoying in various aspects of foreign policy. Thus, it would be notable to see how Americans vote in 2020 for their presidential elections and if Republicans are able to retain power or not.

However, main concern for Kremlin is going to be its economy in the future. After disintegration of former USSR, Russia has always found difficulty in competing in the global markets and has relied mainly on the weapons for gaining a boost in their economy, however Putin has shifted from this trend and has started exploring African subcontinent for Russian advantage. Thus, Putin gaining a permanent power means a reinforce of this strategy and a more prominent use of regional partnership including BRICS and SCO.

Thus, Putin getting a permanent leadership role of Moscow has its own implications for country’s internal politics as well as its various foreign policy aspects. If the referendum is held just for the name’s sake then Russians would the most vulnerable among all the players involved in this constitutional change as the change certainly makes their future most uncertain. It is a high time that Russians understand their basic rights and Putin understands the past of the Revolutions.

Jaimin Parikh is a diplomatic researcher currently engaged with European Institute of Policy Research and Human Rights. He is also serving as an Expert Reviewer with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Continue Reading
Comments

Russia

In the Aftermath of Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Victory without Peace or Peace without Victory?

Published

on

Image source: kremlin.ru

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.

Continue Reading

Russia

Is Putin a war-criminal for invading Ukraine?

Published

on

Image source: kremlin.ru

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.)

For example:

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.”

So, on Saturday, September 7th, of 2002, U.S. President Bush said, while standing beside British Prime Minister Tony Blair,

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.

BY CONTRAST:

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.

Continue Reading

Russia

On Pause: Dialogue with Russia in the Arctic

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending