Mass media are filled with messages about the Arctic forum.
Personally my look can be presented in the form of the following theses:
1. Priority tasks are preservation of the nature of the Arctic and development of cooperation between the Arctic (subarctic) countries..
2. Development and use of the Northern Sea Route - according to the needs for transportations at Russia and at other countries.
I try to systematize messages about the Arctic forum and to draw some conclusions.
Unfortunately, the coherent picture does not arise.
There are, for example, questions, bewilderments, the assumptions.
For example, dear Minister Lavrov says, it seems, that Russia - against militarization of the Arctic. Like many other issues, this is a very difficult question to discuss. It is easy to get into the number of hostile elements with all the ensuing consequences... Let's try to express the own opinion, nevertheless. In the statements of the distinguished Minister Lavrov is not always possible to understand... how to say it... For example, he opposed "war"... It was, apparently, after "incident" in the Kerch Strait... The most effective way to prevent war is to conduct negotiations and to reach agreements. But still at a number of the states - different views on the rights of use of the Kerch Strait... There is no arrangement? In the status of the Sea of Azov - the clarity is? I will not provoke against myself negative reaction - I will not touch upon other subjects which are (also) clear not to all.
Mass media report a number of meetings with heads (subarctic) states (perhaps - not only subarctic states). What negotiations were conducted on? What did agree about?
The idea about economic development in the Arctic a little not clear. In the Arctic the product cost always by definition will be higher. What is the point of insistent calls for "economic development"? Again "difficult", dangerous aspect. Everyone knows from the performance of all sorts of people, what a good business climate "we" have. But on the personel experience most of the population tested this climate. Who is called to the Arctic? A loyal gamers? Loyalty is a strange quality for business... Chinese business?... (China, by the way, is an Arctic country? Some kind of semantic paradox...).
The question of the development of various environmental activities is raised. Idea the correct. But how is it implemented in practice? I would like to hear the assessments of representatives of independent environmental organizations. But I did not notice any mention of expanding access (removing restrictions on access) to the Arctic for such organizations.
After the well-known "invasion of polar bears" on the New Earth (or, to speak out normally, the hungry bears trying to feed themselves) a variety of information leaked into the public space. But a clear picture on the base of this information does not add up - personally by me. Cleaning of garbage - bears were expelled from abandoned buildings (why?) that were used as dens - bears came en masse to the villages [settlements] (hunger) - the bears have massively disappeared from the villages [settlements] (food was more?) - what are the prospects for the development of practices at least minimal feeding of bears in conditions of melting ice? - - what with utilization (export) of garbage?...
Some (new?) attempts to implement some mega-projects on Novaya Zemlya for budget money...
The feeling is that someone believes the Arctic is a new, not yet mastered, portion of the raw material pie, and stakeholders are preparing for the most convenient location around this portion...
The traditional theme from the 30s of the 20th century is the Northern Sea Route (NSR)...
Some traditional Routes, change on others. For an example it is possible to remember the sea way around Africa opened and mastered by Portuguese for various reasons - including geopolitical. I read news from the Arctic forum, and again I personally have no clarity. SMP - the necessary Route. But there is a figure - how many has to be transported on this way of freights. Why in general this figure is necessary? And why this figure - such, but not other? Again, I assume, - enormous budgetary costs of "achievement" of this figure...
I find it difficult to formulate any conclusions on the results of reading the messages about the Arctic forum. Is this Forum a useful? Most likely, yes. Why he is necessary? For, probably, international cooperation. What international agreements are reached?.
Messages continue to arrive...
April 10, 2019 07:56
Translation from Russian into English: April 10, 2019 08:58.
Владимир Владимирович Залесский "Монолог об Арктическом форуме".