Isolation and Sovereignization of the Russian Arctic: From Sustainable Development to a High-Risk Territory

For a long time, sustainable development of the Arctic, including its Russian part, relied on a global consensus regarding the exceptional status of these territories and waters.

Since the end of the Cold War, the region was perceived as free from open conflicts and competition, with all stakeholders coordinating their efforts to create a shared regime of the ecosystem preservation.

However, in 2022, the situation changed dramatically. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine led to gradual isolation of Russia on the international arena, suspension of international programs in the region, and sovereignization of the Russian Arctic.

These developments have reduced transparency of state and corporate actions in the region, transforming it into a territory of heightened ecological, social, and technological risks. In this article, we discuss the main consequences of sovereignization of the Russian Arctic.

Military Bases and Radioactive Legacy: the Risks Militarization of the Arctic Brings

One of the most notable changes the Russian Arctic has seen in the recent years is the increased military presence. Since 2005, Russia has restored dozens of military bases in the region; as of January 2023, there were 24 bases along the land borders of the Arctic zone, and by 2024, the number had risen to 31.

The authorities have no intention of stopping there either. In March 2025, speaking at the Murmansk Arctic Forum, Vladimir Putin announced that the number of military facilities will continue to grow, solidifying militarization of the region as his long-term strategy.

The military presence affects the Arctic ecosystem both directly and indirectly. For instance, aircraft taking off from the Murmansk region to take part in the Ukrainian war has already led to drone strikes in the area.

Additionally, military exercises, infrastructure, and operation of equipment increase industrial burden on the Arctic. Due to the lack of reliable data, accurate assessment of the environmental impact of military infrastructure is challenging but indirect consequences are already evident: increased emissions of pollutants and a heightened risk of ecological disasters. It is also worth noting that the Russian Arctic continues to bear the legacy of Soviet-era militarization, including accumulated nuclear and radioactive waste. The collapse of international ties and cooperation has postponed cleanup of these wastes to an indefinite future.

The Arctic Warms, Scientific Cooperation Freezes: Yet Another Consequence of Isolation

Authorities have acknowledged the issue, noting that in some Arctic settlements, up to 50% of buildings have already been deformed

Source:RIA

Moreover, the warming influences wildfires zone fires, a significant source of carbon emissions: a 2024 report confirms the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the lower atmosphere due to them.

The situation is further exacerbated by suspension of international scientific projects in the Russian Arctic after February, 2022. Many foreign scientists are no longer able to work in Russia, and many Russian researchers, as well as Russian and international scientific organizations, have been forced to leave the country.

Researchers are warning that the exclusion of 17 out of 60 Russian stations from the international INTERACT network distorts data on a scale comparable to the change expected by the end of the century itself. Thus, the lack of scientific exchange hinders prediction of the changes which will affect the entire planet.

Still a “Resource Treasury”: the Large-Scale Projects in the Arctic

Not only scientific cooperation but also the region’s economy has been hugely affected by the isolation. Sanctions and limited access to foreign technologies have halted the development of major deposits and slowed the progress of the Northern Sea Route (NSR), one of the most significant projects in recent years. However, this has not altered the Russian authorities’ view of the region as their ‘resource treasury.’

After the decline in 2022 and 2023, statistics show a recovery in natural gas and oil production in the Arctic zone. Cargo traffic along the NSR, while lagging behind planned growth rates, is nevertheless increasing thanks to the ability of big businesses and authorities to redirect raw material exports and adapt to sanctions, as well as to global climate changes that work in favour of development of the NSR.

Observational data indicate annual reduction in Arctic Ocean ice both in the months when the ice coverage of the Arctic Ocean reaches its minimum and maximum levels. While the ice reduction correlates with increased shipping, studies predict a further rise in the number of voyages and vessels on NSR routes.

According to Russian economists, given a 1°C temperature increase, from the development of the NSR Russia will gain a cumulative economic benefit of 492 billion rubles.

The “Shadow Fleet” and Emissions: Risks of Industrial Burden on the Region

Any increase in industrial activity threatens sustainable development of the Russian Arctic. With the growth of shipping through the NSR, environmental risks rise. More vessels, many of which use heavy fuel oil, mean higher atmospheric emissions. Burning heavy fuel oil releases black carbon (soot), which settles on ice, reducing its reflectivity and accelerating melting, thus exacerbating the climate crisis.

Additionally, increased shipping raises the risk of accidents and pollution, which are challenging to clean up in Arctic conditions.

A particularly serious risk stems from Russia’s use of a “shadow fleet” created in response to the restrictions on oil shipping and price caps. This fleet typically consists of old vessels acquired through nominees from countries outside of the G7 and the EU. To conceal their ties to Russia, these ships often engage in unsafe ship-to-ship oil transfers.

Environmental risks from the “shadow fleet” are significant, as oil spills during transport are a real threat. Experts warn that disasters involving such vessels are only a matter of time; several incidents with the “shadow fleet” have already been recorded.

Depopulation and De-Indigenization of the Arctic: Losses of Indigenous Peoples in the Ukraine War

Beyond environmental and economic threats, the Arctic faces severe demographic challenges. Already sparsely populated with about 2.4 million residents, the Russian Arctic is grappling with depopulation. In 2023, researchers noted an increase in deaths from external causes, likely linked to the war in Ukraine, which has disproportionately affected Arctic indigenous peoples.

Activists and researchers report disproportionately high losses among indigenous groups. For example, in the Nenets Autonomous Okrug where Nenets make up about 17% of the population, they account for a third of the fatalities. In the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, out of 134 deaths, 77 were Chukchi and 8 were Eskimos.

Particularly vulnerable are indigenous individuals from impoverished families, many of whom were mobilized or recruited from prisons. This highlights a connection between social disadvantage and vulnerability to mobilization.

When comparing deaths per thousand among indigenous peoples to the national average, most groups show losses either just slightly below, or higher than Russia’s overall rate.

Less Rights, More Repressions: the Plight of Indigenous Peoples

Amid the region's sovereigntization, indigenous peoples face a shrinking ability to defend their rights. Legal mechanisms, such as Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), are losing significance, while repressions have become systemic.

In 2024, 55 organizations, including decolonial movements representing Russia's indigenous peoples, were labeled extremist. Another 172 were designated as terrorist, at least 12 of them being from the Russian Arctic. Indigenous organizations like the Aborigen Forum, Indigenous Russia, the International Committee of Indigenous Peoples of Russia, and Free Yakutia also received “toxic” statuses. Many independent activists were forced to flee Russia after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. Among them are Andrei Danilov, the director of the Saami Heritage Fund; Komi activist Nikita Goldin from Arkhangelsk; Chukotka activist and researcher Mark Zdor; Yakut punk musician and activist Aikhal Ammosov.

Meanwhile, the Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs, and official structures like the Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far East (RAIPON) have become conduits for advancing state and business interests.

Additionally, the process of obtaining the status of a representative of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of the North has become less transparentsince the creation of the Unified KMSN Register in 2022. Many applications are rejected without explanation, and without this status, engaging in traditional economic activities is illegal and risks criminal prosecution for poaching.

All of this is happening against the backdrop of indigenous peoples facing the escalating impacts of the climate crisis and losing access to vital resources.

Despite the pressure from the Russian authorities, independent activists and human rights groups, such as the Antidiscrimination Center “Memorial” and the International Committee of Indigenous Peoples of Russia, submit reports and appeals to the UN to draw international attention to rights violations and environmental issues faced by the indigenous peoples. However, due to political isolation and repressions, these organizations too encounter significant challenges.

How Do We Return to the Path of Sustainable Development?

The Arctic is not just a territorial unit but a strategically vital part of the global ecosystem. The challenges facing the Russian Arctic today demand a comprehensive approach and solutions at the international level. Sovereigntization, militarization, environmental strain, climate change, and demographic crises create a unique and complex situation for the region.

The Arctic’s future is closely tied to global efforts to address climate challenges, as well as the restoration of international cooperation and transparency in decision-making on this unique region.

Given the transboundary nature of environmental and climate threats, coupled with the human risks posed by sovereignization, it is critical that the international community continues to work upon joint solutions to preserve and protect the Arctic.

Cover photo: AP Photo/Felipe Dana