355
Arctic Yearbook 2015
While not focusing on military security seems to have actually served the Arctic well in forming a
collective identity in the past, the disregarding of military security issues threatens to put a hold to this
development in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. While multilateral approaches in the economic,
environmental and human dimension seem to be able to overcome most of the negative spillovereffects, NORDEFCO and NATO move closer together in face of a perceived threat by the Russian
Federation:
The Russian military is acting in a challenging way along our borders, and there
have been several infringes on the borders of the Baltic nations. […] The Nordic
countries meet this situation with solidarity and a deepened cooperation
(Bentzrød 2015).
The never fully closed gap between Russia and the other Arctic states – not only, but especially in the
military security dimension – seems wider than ever.
The Arctic: proving ground or sub-plot of a tensed European security
environment? Concluding remarks
Indicator
While this article was not able
to carry out a fully in-depth
analysis, it still highlighted some
Security Dimension
of the most visible spillover
Arctic
effects from the Ukrainian crisis
in the Arctic. While further
Security Community
research on the formation of an
Economic,
Politico-Military
Environmental,
Arctic security community is
Human
required, this article seems to
indicate that the crisis did not
Many-sided and
Not formalized
Yes
direct relations
put an end to an already existing
security community in the High
Norms in dispute
Strictly limited
Yes
settlement
North, but rather slowed down,
or probably even stopped, the
Norms for
Strictly limited
Yes
long and slow process of its
collective action
formation after the end of the
No
Yes
Collective identity
Cold War. Many-sided and
direct relations, norms in
dispute settlement and for Table 4. The Arctic Security Community before the outbreak of the Ukrainian
collective
action
were crisis (by the author).
established and a collective
Arctic identity seemed to have emerged. While the focus on non-traditional challenges to human,
cultural, energy, economic and environmental security dominated the governmental discourse on
Arctic security (Bailes & Heininen 2012: 99 ff.; Welch 2013: 5), the politico-military dimension has
always been actively kept out (see Table 3). After a period of military confrontation, this approach
seemed quite reasonable. Due to climate change, the melting of the Arctic ice sheet accelerated and
The Arctic Security Community