With all eyes on the Middle East, can Russia now pursue its Arctic ambitions?

Much of the world continues to reel from the economic side effects of high tension and uncertainty in the Middle East. For Russia, this is a welcome distraction from the war in Ukraine and its long-term development plans for the Arctic.

Last week, hundreds of Arctic experts — including Indigenous leaders, policymakers, researchers and businesspeople — gathered once again in Anchorage, Alaska, for the annual Arctic Encounter Summit. Despite the fact that the event was held half a world away from the Middle East, the war was frequently on the agenda.

During a press briefing, Senator Lisa Murkowski said: “We want peace in that region to the extent that we possibly can, but… when you have the hostilities we have seen for these many weeks and the disruption, global disruption… I don’t think we can expect to see things settle out in a matter of days.” She later remarked in the same briefing that “it has raised the awareness [of energy supply vulnerabilities] in many places.”

The war in Iran has highlighted a global vulnerability: a reliance on energy and other products that can become caught behind maritime chokepoints. This has once again fueled discussion about finding alternative energy sources and maritime routes. The Arctic is a possible candidate, given its vast oil and natural gas reserves and favorable geography for shipping — particularly between certain ports in Asia and Europe. Russia has spent years planning and developing infrastructure for both in its Arctic territories.

Since the war in Iran began, Russian Arctic energy has benefited from an increase in energy prices and some temporary relief on sanctions (they were restored in mid-April). Europe remains heavily dependent on natural gas from Russia’s Yamal project in northern Siberia, though an upcoming ban will reduce that.

Russia may also be getting supplemental oxygen to revive strategic, longer-term Arctic plans that have been periodically embattled over several years due to economic problems and its military focus on Ukraine. Experts at the conference last week agreed that the conflict in the Middle East plays into Russia’s vision for further oil and gas development in the Arctic, transported via the Northern Sea Route and a network of pipelines to global markets.

Moscow could also take the opportunity to further spread disinformation that makes the Northern Sea Route — a trans-Arctic waterway that follows the Russian Arctic coast — appear safer and more reliable than it actually is.

However, the narrative that Russia has access to a ready supply of oil and gas in the High North doesn’t tell the whole story. The country has historically claimed the right to control the Northern Sea Route, and charges fees of up to $700,000 for the service of escorting vessels through these ice-prone waters. The U.S. and other nations have challenged the legal basis for Russia’s expansive sovereignty over the waterway.

Another controversial issue is the level of access to the Bering Strait which, like the Strait of Hormuz, is a maritime chokepoint. Geographically proximal military capabilities could theoretically be used to put access at risk, but the most immediate concerns have to do with safety of both people and wildlife transiting a geographically complex waterway that presents numerous physical hazards.

“It is a narrow passageway and the only passageway between the Pacific and the Arctic,” said Steven MacLean, Managing Director for the WWF-US Arctic Program. “It is also an extremely important place for migrating wildlife and for people meeting their subsistence and cultural needs.”

Russia’s Arctic infrastructure challenges and recent permissiveness toward non-Polar Code compliant vessels in Arctic waters also undermine the narrative that its Arctic ambitions as a less problematic alternative. The Polar Code, which came into force in 2017 under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization, outlines environmental and safety specifications for many types of vessels operating in Arctic and Antarctic waters. Vessels that don’t follow these specifications put the region at higher risk of fuel leaks and other dangers.

Reality gap

This gap between narrative and reality is the reason why discussions last week stopped short of suggesting a major and immediate shift toward more Russian (or any other) Arctic energy and waterway development. In many cases, doing business in the Arctic remains hazardous and technically challenging. There are also important considerations concerning the involvement of Indigenous groups in decision-making that impacts communities in the Far North.

Sara Olsvig, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, said during one panel session: “The control of the resources is something that we see as a collective responsibility and a collective right. And so it really is up to each of our governing bodies to ensure that we have processes that uphold every single step of the free, prior, and informed consent…”

The war in the Middle East has renewed some buzz about the Arctic. The region remains relevant, particularly for energy, and perhaps eventually for shipping as well. This relevance could lie primarily in helping to distribute global risk, as opposed to replacing our reliance on energy and waterways at lower latitudes.

As Mads Qvist Frederiksen, Executive Director of the Arctic Economic Council, put it: “I don’t think we will see [Northern Sea Route] shipping because of the Strait of Hormuz. I think we will see [it] in the longer term because of other reasons. Instead of ‘just in time’, it’s going to be ‘just in case’.”

Abbie Tingstad is a visiting professor of Arctic research at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.