Open AccessState Arctic Policy of Russia
Author(s) -
V. P. Leksin,
Б. Н. Порфирьев
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
federalizm
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2073-1051
DOI - 10.21686/2073-1051-2021-1-15-43
Subject(s) - arctic , russian federation , state (computer science) , politics , restructuring , territorial integrity , foreign policy , government (linguistics) , political science , sovereignty , economy , economic policy , business , economic system , economics , law , ecology , linguistics , philosophy , algorithm , computer science , biology
The state Arctic policy of Russia has no analogues in terms of the variety of tasks and the scale of risks of their implementation – from natural and climatic to foreign policy. Its most important subject was the consistent combination of new state and corporate solutions with the re-development of the «Soviet heritage». Today, this “heritage” accounts for more than 80% of the currently used national wealth of the Arctic. It was created in fundamentally different socio-political and socio-economic conditions, and now to maintain it at least in the same state and restructure it requires financial, material, technical and human resources that are not comparable with those necessary for similar purposes in the territories located to the south. The implementation of a unified state policy in the Arctic zone is complicated by the fact that it consists of a unique conglomeration of territories of four constituent entities of the Russian Federation and 28 municipalities of different types, located on the territory of other regions of the Russian Federation. All of them are relatively independent, have their own regulations, strategies for their development, etc. In 2008–2019, the state Arctic policy of Russia was documented in successive Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation and government decisions on the Arctic development program. However, in 2020 they were radically revised, including in the direction of taking into account the growing foreign policy threats. The conclusion is justified that only the strengthening of political and economic sovereignty on the basis of stable economic growth of the entire country can ensure the stability and minimize the risks of the functioning of this most important part of our state.