Route Magazine: In your comprehensive review of Arctic affairs in 2011 you mentioned that Western scholars Mackinder and Spykman had an ide'e fixe of maintaining military presence in the High North. Today some experts claim the conflict potential in the Arctic is rather low, but NATO, nevertheless, is actively striving to sneak into the region on the pretext of "civilian SAR and natural disaster response". In your opinion, what are the geopolitical goals of these maneuvers?
Route Magazine: NATO's "Cold Response-2012"- war games counted over 16300 troops from 15 nations. It was followed by an offensive show off in the north called Nordic Air Meet 2. The public would have never known about it unless a Norwegian C-130J plane crashed into Kebnekaise, a mountain in the northern Sweden, which is formally a neutral country. If the EU wants to trade, what is the driving force behind such irresponsible regional policy?
Alexandre Latsa: I think that the potential of tensions between the Western coalition and Russia never disappeared after the end of the World War II., I would say that in spite of "resets" and moments of mutual appreciation the contradictions remain and that these two entities are geostrategic competitors in some sense. This also happens because Europe is not an independent superpower as it should be. It could have balanced America's influence in the Western world. Europe is unfortunately still under total US political and military control, mainly via NATO structures. So in fact I think all these events just show that the Western coalition wants to demonstrate to Russia that it won't be able to do what it wants in the Arctic. We will probably see a subtle and extensive militarization of the Arctic in the short term.
Route Magazine: The Heritage Foundation in its report "NATO in the Arctic: Challenges and Opportunities" (2012) invited Canada and the United Kingdom to pursue NATO's Arctic policy more actively. We all remember that Canada famously vetoed the Alliance's first attempt in 2009 to enact an Arctic policy. Does it imply some differences of opinion among members of the Alliance concerning the Arctic?
Alexandre Latsa: I really do not think so. I think that these two countries that you've mentioned are very much concerned by what's happening in the Arctic now. Canada can be seen as one of the most important Arctic players as well as Russia's main competitor in the area. The United Kingdom is the key NATO member in the Western Europe. One has to remember that the UK is far from being considered Russia's ally in Europe nowadays. The fact that the Heritage foundation is pushing in this direction does not surprise me at all. I believe there is a silent, but united political orientation. Have no illusions: there are very few political divisions among the Alliance's members.
Route Magazine: Russia attracts Western investors to common energy projects in the Arctic. But the presence of a military factor always creates additional tension. What should we expect to see in the mid-term: realistic economic cooperation or continuing muscle-flexing by the West?
Alexandre Latsa: I am quite sure that Russian's policy will focus on realistic economic cooperation and that they will find Western partners. The more the economic situation is getting worse in the US and Europe, the more the Europeans and Americans will have to be pragmatic and focus on common projects. I really do not think that the growing militarization can be a problem for Western investors. But sometimes political decisions just can't be explained by purely economic reasons.
Route Magazine: Latest navigation season set a new record in the number of vessels via the Russia's Northern Sea Route. Considering the political instability in Egypt around the Suez, do you forecast further increase in cargo flows in the Arctic Ocean?
Read more: "Economic Opportunities (and uncertainties) in the Arctic" by Felix H. Tschudi (Tschudi Shipping Company).
Route Magazine: What are the ambitions of the non-arctic states in the Far North? What do you think about Denmark's decision to lobby Chinese interests in the Arctic Council?
Alexandre Latsa: Well, I think that all players noticed the growing geostrategic importance of this region, which contains 22% of planetary energy resources. If I'm not mistaken, China has already expressed its concern and interest about the Arctic. The non-arctic powers clearly understand that it is crucial to get a foothold in the Arctic if they want to play a key role in the future. China, for example, wishes to integrate in the Arctic Council with the help of its member states and rise to prominence in the region. By the way, it may become a big problem for the Alliance. The West fears to face a huge coalition of non-aligned countries in the future. This scenario has been evaluated by different analytic institutes, including, for example, the "North Institute". It predicts an alliance between Russia and China in the Arctic.
Route Magazine: France enjoys observer status in the Arctic council. Its Representative Michel Rocard has been very active in promoting French interests. What are long-term strategic interests of France in the Arctic? Does France have a vision of national Arctic policy beyond the interests of NATO?