The Dilemma of Sustainable Development of Russian Arctic Development Based on ANP-SWOT Model Theory Perspective

Abstract

This study mainly focuses on the development of the Arctic region and the difficulties it faces in the new situation. Finding a suitable development path for low-carbon environmental protection and sustainable development has gradually become the focus of attention in all countries. The secret contest of strength is also becoming increasingly fierce. The escalation of the arms race has virtually made the ambitious Russian Arctic plan more radical. This article will use the “ANP-SWOT” strategic analysis method to reveal the possible damage to the environment of the Arctic region and its unsustainable side behind Russia’s grand development plan in the Arctic region. At the same time, it will list the views and contradictions of the countries in the region for the proposals on the resolution of conflicts, broaden the perspective to the global scope, take the common interests of all mankind as the starting point, combine the views and contradictions of all parties, and put forward proposals that are truly beneficial to the development of the Arctic region, thereby promoting inter-regional cooperation and developing a new Arctic strategy that prioritizes global progress and prosperity.

1. Introduction

For the development and utilization of the Arctic region, Russia proposed a plan many years ago, and in 2020, it proposed a new “Foundations of the Russian Federation State Policy in the Arctic for the Period up to 2035”, which reaffirmed the importance of Arctic work in principle. The focus on development further demonstrates the reality that Russia regards the development of the Arctic as an important boost to national rejuvenation. Geographically, Russia is indeed the country with the largest territory and the widest actual control area among the countries in the Arctic Circle. The Arctic is extremely rich in mineral resources, and the Arctic waterway is also within its control. Compared with the traditional Suez Canal, the Arctic waterway can be greatly shortened. The voyage distance can reduce the voyage time and cost, and at the same time avoid the risk of piracy. With the trend of global warming, the commercial value of the Arctic waterway has become more and more significant. However, Russia’s use and development of the Arctic does not conform to the concept of sustainable development [1]. At the same time, it has an unshirkable responsibility for the deterioration of the Arctic environment. In recent years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization headed by the United States, has also developed a strong interest in the development of the Arctic. The United States advocated that the Arctic waterway should be opened as an international open water area, but Russia and Canada have successively identified the northeast and northwest sections of the Arctic route as both. Therefore, all passing vessels must obtain a passage permit from Russia or Canada before they pass. At the same time, NATO and Russia’s military presence and military installations in the Arctic are increasing, posing a certain degree of threat to the stable development of the regional situation.

The development of the Arctic requires a lot of funds, manpower, and the joint efforts of the international community. However, over the past few years, there has been a significant decline in the population of the Arctic region. At the same time, Russia’s investment in the Arctic region has shown that it has more than enough energy. In terms of the Arctic, other member states of the Arctic Council have decided not to participate in all remaining meetings of the Council, with Russia as the chairman of the Council. This move will greatly weaken the peace and stability of the development of the Arctic region and deal with a fatal blow to the sustainable development of the region.

Russia’s concept of resource exploitation and sustainable development in the Arctic constitutes an irreconcilable contradiction. Russia promises to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, but the damage to the environment before then will be irreversible. As Russia responds to the expanding sanctions imposed by various countries on the rapid development of the Arctic region, it is likely that the destruction of permafrost will aggravate greenhouse gas emissions, thereby greatly accelerating the melting of Arctic glaciers. If international cooperation and regulatory intervention are not strengthened, by 2060, humans will lose a lot of land, and many countries will even be below sea level. This kind of irresponsibility toward all mankind should be stopped and changed as soon as possible, and the promotion of international cooperation is the best solution to solve the development of the Arctic.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the current global economic recession, it is imperative for the international community to prioritize actions that benefit humanity’s fate. Rather than pursuing self-serving interests and disregarding the world at large, we must collectively work toward responsible and beneficial behavior. The joint construction of the Arctic region seems to be an excellent platform for building a community with a shared future for mankind and for opening up a new level of international cooperation. The manpower, material resources, and wisdom required for the construction of the Arctic have greatly exceeded that of a country or even the entire Arctic Council. The ability to build a new, stable, and sustainable Arctic is a major event that can benefit the entire international community. As Chinese President Xi Jinping said at the 22nd Shanghai Cooperation Organization member state meeting, “I hope that the international community will attach great importance to development issues, promote the establishment of global development partnerships, and achieve stronger, greener, and healthier global development [2]. ”A sustainable Arctic is the only way out. The peace, stability, and sustainable development of the Arctic region will be beneficial to the whole world and accelerate the pace of economic globalization. In this era of great change, we should abandon the confinement of the Cold War mentality and strengthen cooperation between the East and the West. We should not distinguish by ideology but work hard for the common interests of all mankind. If human society can reach beneficial cooperation on the Arctic issue, it will become a template for resolving other disputes, and it will be a new chapter in history to sell part of the interests in exchange for the common development of all mankind.

The research question of our study is: “The development of the Arctic region has made significant contributions to all mankind, but under the premise that the environmental problems in the Arctic region are becoming more and more obvious and regional instability factors are increasing, how to build a sustainable development Arctic?”

2. Literature Review

There is a lack of consensus among scholars from various countries regarding the current state of affairs in the Arctic region. For example, Russian scholars generally express their absolute control and hegemony over the Arctic region, and they usually support their views from the historical level. As Serikova mentioned in his article [3], Russia began to explore the Arctic region in the fifteenth century, and this exploration has continued to this day. The fact is that Russia was the country with the most Arctic territory and resources. Meanwhile, as early as that period, Russia realized that the strategic role of the Arctic region was full of diversity. As Jerusalem and Davydov mentioned, “resources, logistics, and military strategic levels” are all important development directions for the Arctic region [4]. The utilization and exploration of the Arctic started slowly as early as the fifteenth century. Since the end of the 19th century, the security situation in the Arctic attracted the attention of all parties. And has fully demonstrated military deployment in the Arctic region and the conflicts between the parties since the 19th century. Therefore, most Russian scholars have a strong sense of historical responsibility for Arctic affairs, and Russia should fully occupy the dominance of the Arctic region.

However, in the eyes of Western scholars, there should be more choices for the development of the Arctic region, and they believe that Russia’s excessive development in the Arctic region has an unshrinkable responsibility for the environmental problems and unsustainability caused. As Hjort et al. mentioned in their article [5], Russia’s development in the Arctic has caused the melting of the permafrost, which has caused irreparable damage to the environment and has had a fatal impact on the sustainable development of the Arctic. At the same time, the continued escalation of the arms race in the Arctic region, and the confrontation between NATO and Russia will make the future of the Arctic region full of uncertainty. In Odgaard’s article [6], he also pointed out the current tense situation in the Arctic region and its possible negative influences.

Scholars such as Denisov and Chernogradskii have chosen the Sakha Yakutia Republic, a neighboring country of Russia, as a specific research subject. They analyzed the specific measures taken by countries similar to Russia in terms of natural and climatic conditions for Arctic governance, aiming to address the social issues faced by the local population while ensuring the sustainable development of natural resources [7]. Andrey Novoselov, Ivan Potravny, and others are also focusing on the issue of sustainable development in Arctic indigenous communities, with a particular emphasis on mining companies in the Republic of Yakutia. They use a comparative approach to tentatively propose optimal resource extraction plans, technological utilization, and the potential impacts of the projects [8]. Potravnaya and Hye-Jin Kim, among others, employed gender-sensitive research methods to explore the individual economic development behaviors of Arctic residents. They utilized quantitative methods to assess the ripple effects generated by these behaviors and proposed governance strategies that the government should adopt [9]. Potravnaya and Yashalova conducted a detailed study on the lifestyles of indigenous and migrant populations in the Russian Federation’s Arctic region. They primarily conducted a questionnaire survey among 859 local residents in the Arctic region to analyze the contemporary characteristics of Arctic inhabitants and to assess the environmental impacts of mineral exploration and extraction [10]. Compared to previous research, Potravnaya and Tishkov delved more into the positive aspects of mining companies in improving socio-economic development and promoting employment in the Russian Arctic region. By studying local population outflows and youth employment trends, they pointed out the real challenges faced by Arctic development [11].

The development of the Arctic region has not always been smooth sailing. The Arctic Council has always had some problems in promoting the development of the Arctic region. At the same time, after reading nearly one hundred Russian articles on the Arctic region, more than 70% of the authors firmly believe that Russia has absolute rights and advantages in the Arctic. These articles highlight Russia’s sovereignty over the northwestern section of the Arctic route in the international community and intensify the exploitation of its seabed resources. They emphasize that the affairs of the Arctic region are Russia’s internal affairs, and there is no need for countries outside the region to dictate. The ecological environment of the Arctic region has been greatly affected, and infrastructure construction has been slow. However, military confrontation continues to be tense, and it is generally difficult for the international community to truly participate in the construction of the Arctic. In the huge differences between Russian and Western scholars, we can see that the situation in the Arctic region is full of uncertainties and the reality that it is difficult to cooperate. With the sanctions imposed by the West on Russia, the secret contest in the Arctic region has also become a confrontation between the West and Russia. However, confrontation is difficult for promoting the sustainable development of the Arctic region. Conversely, it brings great uncertainty to the development of the Arctic region. At the same time, the confrontation may cause Russia to continue its development in the Arctic region without any supervision; its negative impact may be irreversible due to the destruction of permafrost in Russia over the years, as Hjort mentioned [5].

3. Materials and Methods

Definitions, Principles, and Foundations of ANP-SWOT

The SWOT analysis method (shown as Figure 1), also known as the situation analysis method, lists various main Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats that are closely related to the research object for comprehensive analysis, and the results include some of the decisions. The Analytic Network Process (ANP) is a decision-making method adapted to the non-independent hierarchical structure developed on the basis of the traditional Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). ANP considers more factors between adjacent levels and solves the relationship of interaction, dependence, and feedback among factors, making the description of the results more accurate and effective. Recently, the ANP-SWOT model has gradually been recognized as an effective strategy formulation and decision-making evaluation tool, and many scholars have applied it to field development policy formulation and the evaluation of development prospects.

In terms of specific method application steps, the ANP-SWOT analysis method follows four principles. First, carefully analyze the four factors of the research object’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats and list and state them. Second, in the research object based on the list of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats, combine them in pairs to form four strategic options: SO, ST, WO, and WT. Third, carefully analyze and screen the above four strategic options to determine the strategic decision that the research object should choose at present. Finally, on the basis of the above research steps, construct a SWOT analysis matrix to make a clear systematic summary of the research object, and then determine the strategic choice of the research object. It can be seen that when researching a research object using the SWOT matrix analysis method, it generally needs to go through four consecutive steps. The first and second steps are the causes, and the third and fourth steps are the results. They influence and restrict each other. Although intuitively the first and second steps of this analysis method are simply to list the research objects, they are the basis of the research method. On this basis, through the dynamic combination and connection analysis of the third and fourth steps, the research work of the entire research object is finally completed. Therefore, when using the SWOT matrix analysis method, the four steps are indispensable, so they formed together, as the research object is a comprehensive, systematic, and dynamic research process.

The article’s research uses the four dimensions of Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat in the SWOT analysis methodology. This analysis brings together an examination of the current state and features of Arctic governance, using both strengths–opportunities and weaknesses–threats perspectives. By combining these two approaches, it seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of the situation. On the basis of an overall grasp of the basic conditions and main characteristics of the surrounding, regional, and global environments, the main advantages, opportunities, and disadvantages of the above three environments are summarized and sorted out (shown as Figure 2).

4. SWOT Analysis

4.1. The Basic Layer of Russia’s SWOT Analysis

4.1.1. Strengths

Based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) [12], Russia previously signed pointed out its sovereignty over relevant sea areas, including internal waters, territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, continental shelves, and high seas, including most areas along the Arctic route, and quite rich product resources, such as oil, gas, and natural resources. After consulting a large number of Russian academic materials, it can be found that most Russian-language materials show hegemony over the Arctic region and absolute discourse power over Arctic affairs.

From a military view, Russia’s emphasis on the Arctic region is to prevent other countries from committing acts of aggression in this region, either individually or collectively. The fact that Russia has upgraded the status of the Northern Fleet to the level of a military district shows the importance of the Arctic region. The Northern Fleet is designed to ensure Russia’s overall security in the Arctic, with unified command of all forces, from Murmansk to Anadar. According to the Arctic Development Strategy of the Russian Federation, one of the priorities set by Russia is to guarantee the uninterrupted supply of strategic raw materials and the operation of the Arkhangelsk transport corridor [7].

At the same time, Russia also proposed the latest Arctic strategy in 2020 [13] and proposed the Arctic plan until 2035. In this plan, Russia divides the development plan of the Arctic into three five-year plans. The first part is from 2020 to 2024; during these five years, the regulatory framework for the operation and development of the Arctic region under the new situation will be mainly completed, and a social security system will be established for Arctic residents and gradually will be modernized. At the same time, the establishment of a network that can provide communications and sustainable services for the Arctic region will be completed. Satellite constellation for monitoring from 2025–2030 will promote urban integration, increase the economic competitiveness of the Arctic, expand talent reserves, and develop new equipment and fleets. From 2031–2035, most of the national plans, including shipping, the development and modernization of infrastructure, social services, energy supply, the use of alternative energy sources to replace diesel equipment in hard-to-reach areas, and the improvement of the ability to use subsoil (subsoil seabed resources) will be completed in the Arctic region. This fifteen-year plan will cost Russia EUR 216 billion, but at the same time environmental safety requirements must be considered, and Russia has also fully expressed its absolute dominance over the Arctic region [14]. This series of three-step plans will start from infrastructure construction to a large-scale improvement of the modernization level, which means achieving modernization and sustainable development goals by 2035.

In fact, Russia’s obsession with the Arctic is not only based on economic considerations but also on its own security. As a country whose land is mostly in the Arctic region, Russia’s military reserves in the Arctic region are also at the top level in the world. Most of Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons are also stored in the Arctic region so that they can pose a strategic threat to the United States, and its second nuclear strike capability has been greatly improved. Russia’s Northern Fleet is also mainly stationed in the Arctic region. The Northern Fleet is the head of Russia’s four major fleets today and has military strength and strong deterrence to neighboring countries.

More importantly, in terms of resource development and energy supply in the Arctic region, the Russian government is capable of formulating sound policies to contribute to domestic and international energy supply through responsible resource exploitation. They engage in oil and gas extraction activities in the Arctic region, while also developing clean energy projects to promote sustainable energy development.

At the same time, it should also be noted that in terms of infrastructure development, Russia is committed to building modern infrastructure in the Arctic region. This includes the construction of ports, waterways, airports, and communication networks to facilitate the development of logistics and transportation while supporting economic activities and social development.

4.1.2. Weaknesses

Russia has repeatedly proposed continental shelf proposals to the United Nations in an attempt to continue to expand its territory and exploit rights to seabed resources. The 2015 proposal had a territorial claim of 1.2 million square kilometers, but none of them were approved by the United Nations due to insufficient evidence. Russia has suffered unprecedented international sanctions, and the government budget has been substantially transferred to military operations against Ukraine, which has slowed down the development of the Arctic region. Other members of the Council reached a consensus to withdraw from participating in relevant meetings held by Russia as the chair country [15], which cast a shadow on the development of the Arctic. As the country with the largest population and cities in the Arctic region, Russia has 53% of the coastline and nearly half of the population in the Arctic region, but its cities are far less sustainable than other cities in the region [16]. Before 2022, its capability level was not as good as that of other countries in the region. It is evident that continuing operations after sanctions from Western countries would become even more challenging.

In the Arctic region, the construction of resource collection and development infrastructure and the pollution of the original environment have had an irreversible impact on the permafrost in the Arctic, and damage to the permafrost has already been reflected in some cities located in the Arctic Circle. Among buildings, the impact on the environment also has a corresponding reaction on human beings. The destruction of Russia’s North Siberia region has already received a very serious impact [17], and the development of the Arctic will have an impact on the environment, but Russia’s irrational or even excessive development will only have serious negative impacts on the Arctic environment, and eventually cause irreversible negative impacts. In the latest UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2022 released at the end of October this year, Russia is the only G20 country that, after reaching its carbon peak, continues to increase its carbon emissions without falling, and plans to increase to 2030 [18]. Russia, being a member country of the G20, lacks clear targets for achieving net-zero emissions and has not formulated a concrete plan for carbon removal or specific measures to achieve its net-zero goals. Additionally, there is a lack of clarity in their reporting of annual progress toward these targets. There is only a brief plan to achieve carbon neutrality in 2060 with a relatively loose domestic law. As a country with most of its land area in the Arctic region, it can be seen that its negative impact on the Arctic environment is irresistible and unsustainable. The overall Russian unsustainable fact showned as Figure 3.

4.1.3. Opportunities

Since the Crimean crisis in 2014, Russia has made some changes in its development and planning of the Arctic. Due to the sanctions imposed by the West on Russia, Russia has extended an olive branch to China, intending to use China’s “Silk Road on Ice”. However, this kind of cooperation has caused some doubts among Russian scholars and experts. They worried that Russia would become a “primary energy supplier”. Technical barriers have allowed Russia to receive support at the financial level, but this has not changed Russia’s basic idea of developing the Arctic alone [19]. From the start of the partnership to the present day, there has been a lack of progress in achieving industrial technological reform and transitioning toward sustainable development. Generally speaking, Russia is still full of distrust and wariness toward countries other than itself in the Arctic region.

The plan for the Northern Sea Route has received more supplements this year. The same plan was proposed by the Russian authorities until 2035. This plan contains a budget of USD29 billion. After cutting off the connection with European countries, the Russian authorities turned their main focus to the Asian region. If the plan is implemented smoothly, the Russian authorities expect that the Northern Sea Route will show infinite potential [20]. In fact, Russia had already developed in the Arctic region long before this plan. More than 1.3 trillion rubles [21] have been invested in these routes. Such a large-scale investment has no sunk costs at all. The Russian side can only continue to invest to obtain more benefits. However, Russia’s population in the Arctic region [22] has experienced a substantial increase since 2017, reaching its peak in 2019. There will be a certain degree of reduction in 2020, especially a reduction in urban population, which will inevitably affect the development and utilization of the Arctic. This also reflects the uncertainty of the Arctic environment and difficulties in the development process.

The Arctic Waterway is a transportation channel through the North Pole. Its northwest section connects water transportation channels between Europe and Asia. It is also the shortest waterway channel connecting Eurasia. Compared with the traditional Suez Canal waterway, it can save a lot of time and money; the distance from the port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands to the port of Yokohama in Japan (which is a southern channel via the Suez Canal) is 11,205 nautical miles, or 7345 nautical miles, when using IBCs. OLSA will route from Rotterdam to Shanghai Port 2449, and nautical miles were shortened, and the route to Vancouver was shortened by 1932 nautical miles. On average, it takes 25 days and 625 tons of fuel oil to enter China from Europe via the Seven Seas Route, while it takes 35 days and 875 tons of fuel oil to use the Suez Canal [23]. In the latest documentary about the Arctic waterway in RT Russian, they expounded on the strategic value of the Arctic waterway, especially Russia under sanctions, which has greatly increased the demand for the Arctic waterway. In the documentary [24], they mentioned the European embargo policy on Russian cargo ships has made the Arctic waterway the only lifeline for Russia. On this basis, the demand for the Arctic waterway has been fully demonstrated, but it is not easy to navigate the icy Arctic waterway unimpeded. Although they have the most nuclear-powered icebreakers in the world, sailing in the Arctic is also full of difficulties and dangers. If you are not careful, you may ruin the cargo of an entire freighter, just like the ship mentioned in the documentary but in the Arctic. The large number of nuclear-powered icebreakers has also virtually brought new crises to the environment in the Arctic region, and not all goods are suitable for transportation in the extremely cold environment of the Arctic, which brings about another sustainable development. The question is, after investing a huge amount of resources and funds, it is still unknown what level the application of the Arctic waterway can achieve and its impact on the ecological environment, but Russia is trying to seize the “dividend” of global warming and drastic climate change to develop the Northern Sea Route. Its investment budget for the Northern Sea Route reached $889 million [25] as of 2018. Behind its huge budget is almost obsessive control over the Arctic region. Its development and use in the Arctic region have caused a huge obstacle.

Arctic resource reserves are also rich, especially oil, gas resources [26], and mineral resources. It is estimated that oil reserves account for 13% of the world’s undiscovered resources and that natural gas can account for 30% of the world’s undiscovered resources. The Arctic’s underground mines contain a plethora of scarce ore resources, which have already brought substantial economic benefits to Russia. The potential for profit from these resources is significant. The Arctic plan also includes the laying of underground natural gas pipelines, the ecological environment, and the resources it targets. The impact cannot be underestimated, and it is full of challenges.

4.1.4. Threats

Many Russian scholars firmly believe that Russia should be responsible for Arctic affairs and that other countries will pose strategic threats to it. As a result, military facilities in the Arctic have increased in recent years, and both NATO and Russia have increased their military operations in the region. The trend [11] once caused tension in the region and also caused a certain degree of irreversible damage to the environment.

The Arctic has become a hotspot for a multitude of reasons, one of which is strategic security considerations. Navigation and climate conditions in the Arctic are very complicated. However, this complexity prompts Russia to hide a large number of strategic nuclear weapons in the Arctic. The endless borders also make relevant countries feel anxious, worrying that the Arctic will become the front line of aggression, so both the United States and Russia have deployed a large number of military bases and weapons in the Arctic to guard against threats to themselves from the other side but also invisibly increased regional instability, making the arms race in the Arctic more intense.

4.2. Others on the Arctic Council

The Arctic Council is the most representative cooperative organization in the Arctic region today. Its official members include Russia, Canada, the United States, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland. These eight countries have actual control territories in the Arctic region. Finland and Sweden are representatives of non-aligned countries. However, in early 2022, Sweden and Finland successively submitted applications to join NATO [27]. Other council countries have announced that they will not participate in the meeting organized by Russia, which will inevitably reduce the representativeness of the Arctic Council. In fact, the Arctic Council is not monolithic, and each country has its own Arctic strategy.

The Nordic countries have proposed their own newest Arctic strategies in 2020–2021. For example, Sweden proposed its own Arctic strategy in 2020. One of the main proposals put forward this time is to foster international cooperation and stress that there are no territorial ambitions. Secondly, it also expressed concern about the regional security situation, hoped to establish a sustainable Arctic through more cooperation under the framework agreements of the Arctic Council and the European Union [28], and demanded out-region participation in the construction of the Arctic, pointed out that the security concerns mainly come from Russia’s military expansion and territorial claims, which are considered to be an incentive to continuously provoke regional tensions, and are the main reasons for the arms race between Russia and the United States in the Arctic region. Iceland also released its latest Arctic plan in 2021 [29]; the statement also touched upon collaboration in matters concerning the Arctic, highlighting the essential need for international cooperation with key global players. However, at the same time, “the Nordic countries also plan to establish their own informal alliance” [30] in an attempt to defend their own security. The superposition of these factors has further affected the stability of the situation in the Arctic region and the development of the region. The Arctic strategies of the Nordic countries [31] are shown in

Table 1. The Established Time and Strategies of the Arctic of Five Nordic Countries.

The Established Time and Strategies of the Arctic of Five Nordic Countries
Country	Established Time		Main-Points of the Strategies
	Previous	Most Recently	Previous	Most Recently
Sweden	12 May 2011	6 November 2020	Connection with Arctic, Regional Organization, Climate Environment, Financial Development, Residential Live Expectancy	International Cooperation, Security and Stability, Climate Environment, Science Research, Financial Development, Residential Live Expectancy
Iceland	28 March 2011	20 January 2021	Regional Organization, Arctic Country Identity, Residential Live Expectancy, International Cooperation, Financial Development with Peace and Security	Climate Resources, Powerful Country and Arctic, Residential Live Expectancy, Infrastructure, Financial Development, International Cooperation
Norway	March 2009	26 January 2021	Energy, Regional Organization, Interest Conflicts and Cooperation with Russia, Armed Forces	International Law Structure, Security Policy, Climate Environment, Society Development, Value Creation, Infrastructure, Residents’ Protection
Finland	23 August 2013	18 June 2021	Population, Education, Financial, Environment and Security, International Cooperation	Security Situation, Climate Changes, Residential Live Expectancy, Knowledge and Skills, Infrastructure
Denmark	22 August 2011	/	Peace and Security, Financial Development, Climate and Environment, International Cooperation	/

.

Overall, it can be seen that maintaining regional security, stability and sustainable development is the common goal of the Nordic countries, and seeking external cooperation is also one of their demands. However, since Sweden and Finland have given up their neutral status and intend to join NATO, the security situation in the Arctic region is not optimistic, and NATO is bound to have greater differences with Russia on the Arctic issue than cooperation.

Canada has the second largest number of Arctic territories [32]. It is also a member of the Arctic Council and NATO, which means that its status in the Arctic region cannot be underestimated. Canada has territorial sovereignty requirements in the Northwest section of the Northeast Passage as Canada’s range of territorial waters, which is a similar claim to Russia’s Northeast section. Canada also regards this as its own internal waters; the passing ships and scientific research activities need to be approved by the Canadian government. At the beginning of the Russian–Ukrainian conflict in 2022, Canada and the United States launched military exercises against Russia in the Arctic region to prevent possible crises [33]. As this news said, “Two years ago, a pair of long-range Russian bombers buzzed Canadian airspace before turning back.” Given the Arctic region’s limited defense infrastructure, both Canada and the United States have focused on bolstering their air defense capabilities and refining their ability to intercept cruise missiles in order to maintain regional stability. It can be seen that the cooperation between Canada and the United States in the Arctic region is still very close. Although there are certain disputes on the issue of territory and territorial waters, they can still stand together in the face of security challenges. However, in terms of non-traditional security, Canada has made some achievements. While developing and utilizing the Arctic, the Canadian government is strengthening the construction of infrastructure, such as more complete rescue equipment, positioning devices, and communication equipment, in an attempt to build an open and inclusive Arctic region that safeguards the interests of all parties. However, subject to the obstruction of its ally, the United States, it is still difficult for Canada to carry out wider international cooperation, thus limiting the development of Canada’s Arctic region.

The U.S. Arctic strategy has undergone major changes in the past few years. From the Bush Junior era to the Obama era and then to the Trump era, the U.S. strategy has undergone major changes, policies have gradually tightened, and participation in Arctic affairs has gradually increased. The United States is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [12]. Therefore, on the issue of territorial sovereignty, the United States has always opposed Russia and Canada’s claim that most of the Arctic routes are designated as internal waters. Instead, it advocates freedom of navigation. However, the United States does not have the basic guarantee for sailing in the Arctic; there are only two icebreakers in operation today [34]. Compared with Russia’s more than 40 icebreakers, a dozen of which are nuclear-powered, the United States is still far behind. In order to reflect more of its capabilities as a polar country, the report pointed out that the Coast Guard will successively acquire three heavy icebreakers and three medium-sized icebreakers, and $167.2 million was added to the 2023 budget to continue the Polar Security Cutter Program. Such a large amount of investment proves that the United States has changed its attitude toward Arctic affairs, especially in terms of balancing Russia. In recent years, the United States has greatly increased its military investment in the Arctic region and has continued to conduct military exercises with other NATO allies. The most recent is the joint military exercise with Canada just after the conflict between Russia and Ukraine began [33]. Security issues have mainly targeted Russia in the Arctic and have revisited in “National Strategy for the Arctic Region” [35], which was the latest Arctic Strategy for the United States of America public in October 2022. While the government report repeatedly mentions the Russian issue, it does not entirely preclude the possibility of cooperation with Russia. Over the coming decade, the United States recognizes that it may be possible for some cooperation to resume under certain conditions. However, it is clear that such cooperation does not entail military collaboration, and the report stresses that the United States will maintain its leadership role in the Arctic and develop and build the Arctic region with its allies while maintaining regional peace, stability, and sustainable development. Throughout the report, the issue of security is still given top priority, pointing out many times that it must work with its allies to strengthen the modernization and systematization of military facilities in the Arctic region, and planning to continuously enhance the strength of the military in training and exercises so as to take Russia as an imaginary enemy, which leads to better protecting the security of the Arctic. Certainly, this decision is bound to heighten the instability in the region and escalate the arms race between Russia and the United States, which is ultimately detrimental to regional stability. Meanwhile, the report also pointed out that with the trend of global warming, the Arctic region not only contains huge potential opportunities but also comes with risks. Nearly 60% of the native tribes in Alaska are threatened by climate change. “More than 60 percent of Alaska Native communities are considered environmentally threatened due to climate change” [35], which also prompts the United States to invest more financial resources and energy in the construction of infrastructure in the Arctic region. On the other hand, the United States also pointed out that under the framework of actively maintaining the existing Arctic region, it also holds an open attitude to build new bilateral and multilateral partnerships to meet “advance scientific cooperation and other U.S. interests” [35]; this kind of open attitude is in stark contrast to Russia. In the US strategy for the Arctic region in the next decade, the four main pillars are the regional security situation, climate change and environmental protection, sustainable economic development, and international cooperation and governance. Through embodying these pillars are five important principles: “Consult, Coordinate, and Co-Manage with Alaska Native Tribes and Communities”, “Deepen Relationships with Allies and Partners”, “Plan for Long-Lead Time Investments”, “Cultivate Cross-Sectoral Coalitions and Innovative Ideas”, and “Commit to a Whole of Government, Evidence-Based Approach [35].”

5. ANP-SWOT Analysis

5.1. Build Hierarchy Layers

Combined with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the SWOT matrix is converted into a hierarchical structure for measurement and analysis in the following research (shown as Figure 4). “Sustainable development of the Russian Arctic” is the overall goal, with “SWOT factors” as the criterion layer and “choose the best strategy” as the target layer. The eight combination results formed on this basis are the last layer.

5.2. Importance Evaluation of Influencing Factors

According to the hierarchical structure diagram of the development strategy and the overall goal of the network hierarchical structure constructed in Figure 5, the 1–9 scaling method and the Delphi method in the AHP were adopted. The project team worked in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, Jilin University, The Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow State University, People’s Friendship University of Russia, and the London School of Economics and Political Science invited nine experts in the fields of environmental strategic decision-making, polar strategic development, and disaster science to conduct a “two-two comparison” of the importance of each indicator in the hierarchical analysis structure diagram. Through three rounds of information feedback, the relative importance of the SWOT group, “Strength group”, “Weakness group”, “Opportunity group”, and “Threat group” is obtained, and the SWOT group as the criterion layer and the “Strength group”, “Weakness group”, “Opportunity group”, and “Threat group” as the index layer are constructed. The judgment matrix of that is calculated by calculating the weight and Consistency Ratio (CR), and the judgment matrix can only be analyzed in the next step if it passes the consistency test. Through calculation, it is found that the CR of the judgment matrix of the SWOT group, “Strength group”, “Weakness group”, “Opportunity group”, and “Threat group” is less than 0.1, which means that they have passed the consistency test and have a relatively satisfactory consistency. The results are shown in

Table 2. Factors Judgment Matrix and Ranking.

SWOT	S	W	O	T	Weights	Order	Consistency
S	1	4	0.5	3	0.340010	2	Passed
W	0.25	1	0.5	2	0.159900	3
O	2	2	1	3	0.396680	1
T	0.333	0.5	0.333	1	0.103410	4
CR = 0.084

.

Using the SWOT-ANP analysis method to conduct qualitative and quantitative analysis on the internal strengths and weaknesses, external opportunities, and threats of the sustainable development of Russia’s Arctic development, discuss the current situation of Russia’s Arctic development, and conclude that the importance of the index of the criterion level to the target level is:

Opportunity > Strength > Weakness > Threat

(1)

Moreover, the weights of each influencing factor in the judgment matrix are different. According to the ranking of the weight values of the index layer, it can be seen that the Ice Silk Road is the biggest opportunity for Russia’s Arctic development, and a good geographical location is Russia’s biggest advantage. However, environmental problems and the limited development of resources are the biggest disadvantages restricting the development of Russia’s Arctic, and the arms race between Russia and the United States is the main threat to Russia’s development of the Arctic.

5.3. Hierarchy Ranking

According to the weight ranking of the SWOT groups in the criterion layer in Table 2, Russia’s current development status can be concluded. At the same time, according to

Table 3. Factors Judgment Matrix and Ranking with Sub-factors.

	Factor	Matrix					Peer Weight	Global- Weight	Ranking	CR	Consistency
Strength	S1	S	1	3	3	1/3	0.2605	0.0651	8	0.085	Passed
	S2		1/3	1	2	0.2	0.1265	0.0316	13
	S3		1/3	1/2	1	1/3	0.1034	0.0259	14
	S4		3	5	3	1	0.5096	0.1274	2
Weakness	W1	W	1	1/2	1	1/2	0.1646	0.0411	11	0.023	Passed
	W2		2	1	2	1/2	0.2792	0.0698	6
	W3		1	1/2	1	1/2	0.1646	0.0411	11
	W4		2	2	2	1	0.3917	0.0979	4
Opportunity	O1	O	1	2	2		0.4905	0.1226	3	0.052	Passed
	O2		0.5	1	2		0.3119	0.0780	5
	O3		0.5	0.5	1		0.1976	0.0494	10
Threat	T1	T	1	2/3	1/2		0.2151	0.0537	9	0.042	Passed
	T2		1.5	1	0.4		0.2613	0.0653	7
	T3		2	2.5	1		0.5236	0.1309	1

, according to the global analysis, which has weight rankings of group S, group W, group O, and group T of the index layer, the ranking of the degree of influence of each influencing factor on the development of the Russian Arctic is as follows:

Environmental Problem (T3) > Number of Icebreakers (S4)> The Silk Road on Ice (O1) > Do Not Seek Cooperation (W4) > Arctic Route to Asia (O2) > Russia-Ukraine Conflict (W2) > U.S.-Canada Military Exercise (T2) > Geographical Advantage (S1) > U.S.–Russia Arms Race (T1)> The Arctic Council Seek to Cooperated with Countries Outside the Region (O3) > Carbon emission growth (W3) = Environmental Issues (W1) > Transportation Advantages (S2) > Rich Oil and Gas Resources (S3).

5.4. Possible Strategy for Russia Arctic Development (Shown as Table 4)

Strength and Opportunity (SO): Take advantage of Russia’s first-mover and territorial advantages in the Arctic region, and actively work with the Arctic Council to introduce foreign powers to participate in the construction of the Arctic region. Actively formulate more efficient plans and rules, and under the framework of cooperative organizations, encourage all parties to actively participate and jointly make more contributions to Arctic affairs and global development.

Weakness and Opportunity (WO): Facing the increasingly severe environmental problems in the Arctic, and the attitudes of Arctic countries and Russia’s monopolistic attitude toward Arctic issues, this system is unsustainable. Moreover, it is not beneficial to the development of the Arctic region, and it is also contrary to the strategies of other countries in the Arctic Council. This is also the crux of the development of the Arctic region. Given that Arctic governance is a crucial aspect of global governance, the establishment of effective governance in the Arctic region could provide an opportunity for non-Arctic countries to participate on an equal footing alongside the international community. This is not only the necessity for regional international organizations, such as the Arctic Council, to carry out conceptual innovation and reform of the deliberative mechanism, but also an inevitable requirement for the international community to explore and build an authoritative Arctic governance international system based on the concept of being more inclusive, open, and fair.

Strength and Threat (ST): The biggest dispute in the Arctic region is military competition between the United States and Russia. As a non-UNCLOS country, the United States continues to exert pressure on Russia’s territorial issues and constantly raises expectations for freedom of navigation. However, in reality, the United States and other countries’ lack of sufficient icebreakers and related resources poses significant challenges to navigating the vast North Pole. The development of the Arctic cannot be accomplished by a single family alone. In fact, the only way out is to put aside disputes, make use of previous advantages and experience, work together, and coordinate the relationship between countries.

Table 4. Analysis of Russian Arctic Development Matrix.

	Strength	Weakness
	Geographical Advantage, Obvious first mover advantage, North Sea Route, Rich Oil and Gas Resources, Ice Breakers	Environment Problem, Relationship with the Arctic Council, Carbon Emission raising, Not seeking cooperation
Opportunities	Using strength with opportunity (SO)	With opportunity to get over weakness (WO)
The Silk Road on ice, Turning to the East, The Arctic Council Seeking Coopration	Introduce foreign powers to participate in the construction of the Arctic region Formulate more efficient international development rules	Promote non-Arctic countries to join Russia will fight for the rights and interests of the outer limit of the continental shelf
Threat	Using strength to reduced threat (ST)	Reduced weakness and stay away from weakness (WT)
U.S.-Russia Arms Race, U.S.-Canada Military Exercise, Enviromental	Russia will advocate maintaining comprehensive security in the Arctic region Take advantage of icebreakers and first-mover advantages to jointly tackle environmental issues	Set aside disputes and reconcile contradictions Intervention in Arctic affairs in a non-confrontational manner

Table 4. Analysis of Russian Arctic Development Matrix.

	Strength	Weakness
	Geographical Advantage, Obvious first mover advantage, North Sea Route, Rich Oil and Gas Resources, Ice Breakers	Environment Problem, Relationship with the Arctic Council, Carbon Emission raising, Not seeking cooperation
Opportunities	Using strength with opportunity (SO)	With opportunity to get over weakness (WO)
The Silk Road on ice, Turning to the East, The Arctic Council Seeking Coopration	Introduce foreign powers to participate in the construction of the Arctic region Formulate more efficient international development rules	Promote non-Arctic countries to join Russia will fight for the rights and interests of the outer limit of the continental shelf
Threat	Using strength to reduced threat (ST)	Reduced weakness and stay away from weakness (WT)
U.S.-Russia Arms Race, U.S.-Canada Military Exercise, Enviromental	Russia will advocate maintaining comprehensive security in the Arctic region Take advantage of icebreakers and first-mover advantages to jointly tackle environmental issues	Set aside disputes and reconcile contradictions Intervention in Arctic affairs in a non-confrontational manner

Weakness and Threat (WT): Environmental issues and the unsustainability of Arctic development are top priorities. If the irresponsible behavior of all parties in the Arctic continues to be allowed, the possible consequences will be unimaginable, and disputes are widespread. How to shelve disputes and reconcile conflicts is an urgent problem for the international community to solve. Using confrontation to intervene in Arctic affairs will inevitably lead to more unacceptable results.

To sum up, the superimposition of these levels of influence will eventually lead to Russia’s development in the Arctic region without any sustainability and will have a great impact on the environment, which will eventually lead to extreme deterioration of the Arctic environment, and even lead to a rise in the sea level. The sharp rise has brought unacceptable negative effects to countries all over the world. It can be seen that Russia should adopt a more rational solution to the Arctic issue. It should not only care about its own interests, which was breaking the concept of sustainable development around the world.

After further collation and analysis of the previous data, combined with the 14 influencing factors as the criterion, 8 strategic alternatives were evaluated, and finally a new matrix was obtained to facilitate the selection of Russia’s Arctic strategy. Finally, it is concluded that the biggest obstacle to the development of the Arctic region at the current stage is that international cooperation is not going well, and relevant countries outside the region have no chance to intervene in their affairs (shown as

Table 5. The Weight of Strategies.

SO1	0.0904
SO2	0.1654
ST1	0.1015
ST2	0.1498
WO1	0.0904
WO2	0.0759
WT1	0.1498
WT2	0.1769

and Figure 6). The most important thing to solve the Arctic issue is to use “WT2 to let relevant countries intervene in Arctic affairs in a non-confrontational manner”, and then “SO2 formulates more efficient international development rules”, and then uses “ST2 to use icebreakers and first-mover advantages to jointly deal with environmental issues”, and at the same time, some Russian resources should also be appropriately discarded. The idea of hegemony in the Arctic is more about peace, cooperation, shelving disputes, and introducing foreign powers as the main strategic direction and development deployment.

6. Discussion

In the previous article, it was evident that every entity operating in the Arctic region had their respective plans and ideas, primarily driven by their national interests and the well-being of their citizens. However, the prosperity and stability of the Arctic region cannot be achieved by a country, a single government, or even an international organization. The complexity of the interests of all parties and ideological struggles have revealed the uncertainty of Arctic affairs and the instability of the development and use of the Arctic. Such uncertainty will prompt more confrontation and an arms race between the United States and Russia in the Arctic region, which will inevitably consume more resources and cause damage to the natural environment of the Arctic, and then promote extreme changes in climate, which will have an irreversible impact on the global ecological environment. As pointed out by an article in “Science”, the extreme deterioration of the natural environment has led to frequent wildfires in the Russian Siberian Plain in recent years [36]. Global temperatures have risen over the past decade. Researchers have used satellite imagery to quantify the relationship between the frequency of wildfires and rising temperatures, which are accompanied by higher temperatures, drier weather conditions, and longer summers. More and more vegetation was ignited in frequent thunderstorms, which caused more wildfires. At the same time, the researchers pointed out that the local temperature environment has reached a critical point, and continued climate change will only increase the intensity of local fires. Area and greenhouse gas emissions caused an exponential increase. It can be seen that with drastic changes in the global climate, the Arctic has undergone tremendous changes. If people continue to endlessly develop the resources of the Arctic according to the previous method, it will inevitably have an irreversible impact on the ecological environment of the Arctic and even the world. The affairs of the Arctic have become common global affairs, not the Arctic of members of the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council has decided to abandon Russia. However, Russia has the most Arctic territory and security facilities. Russia’s greatest demand for the Arctic region has been reflected in its latest Arctic strategy, and even in the development of the Arctic over the years, it is still difficult to develop the Arctic with only Russia alone. Even if it has signed documents on the development of the Arctic with many countries, that trying to develop Arctic affairs with the help of many countries, Arctic affairs are still difficult to complete through a few countries. Russia’s territorial claims in the Arctic region are reasonable, but they cannot be determined entirely by the existing framework system. Since Russia cannot take full responsibility for Arctic affairs through its own strength, it should work with countries outside the region and work hand-in-hand to create a new framework system that meets the interests of all parties but does not violate sovereignty. The opening of the Northeast Passage is necessary and beneficial to all mankind. In March 2021, the cargo ship “Ever Given” passing through the Suez Canal was hit by strong winds, causing the hull to deviate from the waterway and hit the bottom, causing the Suez Canal to run aground [37]. The accident of a two-way blockage is still vivid in mind. One blockage caused more than 450 ships, large and small, to be blocked at both ends of the canal, causing huge losses to the global trade and supply chain. It can be seen that the diversity of shipping routes has great significance. In addition, in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, international ferry transportation faced a huge risk, and the China-Europe Railway Express took on some transportation tasks that were originally undertaken by ferry transportation [38]. One more route means more choices. The development of the Arctic route is bound to make the international shipping market develop in a more stable direction, so the significance of establishing the Arctic route becomes more and more obvious. However, Russia is relying on its own geographical advantages to limit its development. With the deepening of the Russia–Ukraine conflict, Russia’s international reputation is declining, and the prospect of opening the Arctic route is not optimistic. Meanwhile, during the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia, the United States, and its NATO allies also launched military exercises and new strategic plans in the Arctic region. These actions have greatly affected the peace and stability of the Arctic region and are not conducive to building a sustainable Arctic. This kind of conflict will finally result in the outcome that the international community expects to obtain.

To sum up, under the current organizational framework of the Arctic Council, it is almost impossible to establish a peaceful and stable Arctic. Conflicts and struggles among countries in the region are difficult to resolve internally. However, Arctic affairs are related to the common values of all mankind, and the risks involved should not only be borne by countries in the region. A more efficient, open, and transparent system should be established through the organization and coordination of the United Nations, which contains the multilateral cooperative through the joint efforts of countries outside the region and within the region, and introduces global resources and technologies with jointly discusses, builds, and shares a more sustainable Arctic region. As mentioned in this paper [39], countries in the Arctic region should focus more on cooperation instead of going their own way and engaging in geopolitical crises. They should have a deeper understanding of Arctic affairs and cooperation intentions. Of course, all of these have to be based on the foundation of world peace, and gradually introduce more cooperation mechanisms and the participation of countries outside the region. When China, Japan, India, and other non-regional countries enter the Arctic affairs, they will be able to provide more solutions for Arctic affairs, and at the same time carry out multilateral cooperation in all possible aspects in exchange for maximum benefits and more efficient and stable development, while promoting the sustainable development of the Arctic region, such as the current positioning and navigation issues that Arctic countries are worried about, can introduce China’s Beidou system, Russia’s GLONASS system, Europe’s Galileo system [40] and GPS system into the development. Russia’s GLONASS system proposed the latest construction plan in 2017, which will be gradually applied to the high-latitude regions of the Arctic [41]. The four orbits will be used together to obtain more accurate positioning. There are differences in technical principles, which is why they can back up each other. China has also assumed an increasingly important role in Arctic scientific research and maritime affairs, and scientific research icebreakers have also withstood the test of the harsh environment of the Arctic [42].

In Arctic affairs, countries outside the region should be brought in as much as possible. After recognizing the contributions made by Russia and other countries in the Arctic, a system of co-management and co-governance should be established to deepen exchanges and cooperation in the Arctic region and promote the cooperation of relevant countries. After establishing a set of common goals, we should give full play to the advantages of all member states to jointly discuss, share, and jointly build an Arctic region and Arctic route for the benefit of all mankind, deepen mutual trust in all aspects, and contribute to the protection of the Arctic environment, which are contributions to conservation and sustainable development. Blindly increasing sanctions and excluding Russia from cooperation are not ways to build prosperity and stability in the Arctic region. It may even lead to a devastating blow to the ecological environment of the Arctic region, thereby affecting world peace and stability. Continuously deepening international cooperation is conducive to eliminating ideological struggles and, meanwhile, to the construction of a community with a shared future for mankind.

7. Conclusions

Russia’s current comprehensive national strength is difficult to integrate with its large-scale development plan in the Arctic region. In this paper, the SWOT-ANP analysis method is fully used to conduct scientific analysis and discussion on various problems and uncertainties encountered in the development of the Arctic, and thus draw a conclusion that the superposition of these factors is constantly restricting the construction and development of the Arctic region, and there is even a risk of local conflicts breaking out. However, the Arctic region is indeed a direction that can bring common benefits to all mankind. To ensure the responsible and sustainable use of the Arctic region, it is crucial to acknowledge Russia’s early efforts in the region and invite participation from countries beyond the region. A new framework system must also be established to address the unique challenges that come with Arctic development. Only in this way will mankind truly use the Arctic efficiently and promote regional peace and stability, which will inject new vitality into the regional economy, and it will also have a positive impact on the environmental protection of the Arctic. It also makes the development and construction of the Arctic region more sustainable, which benefits people all over the world. Building a community of shared futures for mankind also establishes a follow-up strategy for the subsequent development and cooperation of other resources.