Russian Arctic Policy 2023-2024

Influence networks and key trends analyses

What This Study Is About

Amid Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, growing international isolation, and increased pressure on independent initiatives, Arctic policy has shifted decisively toward securitization, centralized governance, and the replacement of civil society with state-controlled organizations.

These are the central questions addressed in the study Key Stakeholders in Russian Arctic Policy, in which the Arctida team maps out the individuals, institutions, and mechanisms that guide the development of Russia’s Arctic. The analysis goes beyond formal institutions to examine the informal ties linking ministries, corporations, regional elites, and quasi-nongovernmental organizations (GONGOs).

“Through our research and investigations, we try to make life in the Russian Arctic better—and in doing so, we contribute to the fight against the climate crisis and systemic injustice. Our goal is to improve life for the people who live there—and above all, to amplify their voices. When we started this work, the first question we asked was: How do we map power? Who really makes the decisions? How is Arctic policy even structured?”

This is the second iteration of the study. Arctida published its first version in 2023, based on a dataset of 828 individuals. Since then, the database has grown dramatically. It now includes 12,767 individuals and 2,368 organizations—encompassing government agencies, corporate entities, and GONGOs—as well as stakeholder affiliations outside the Arctic region. This expanded scope makes it possible to track changes in the configuration of influence networks and identify hidden clusters of power.

Who This Is For—and Why

The findings from Arctida’s study are intended for journalists, researchers, analysts, international organizations, and civil society groups, including activists and NGOs involved in Arctic development or monitoring regional changes.

The report is based on the updated Arctida database and graph—a tool that visualizes the personal and institutional connections shaping Arctic policy. It describes the current landscape of power, tracks how roles are shifting, identifies where ties are strengthening, and maps zones of institutional imbalance or potential conflict of interest.

Monitoring this kind of dynamic is especially crucial at a time when formal procedures are losing relevance and governance is increasingly exercised through informal channels. The Arctida report provides the means to interpret emerging developments, assess and anticipate risks, and better understand how influence and power actually operate in today’s Russian Arctic.

What We Analyzed—And How

Unlike the 2023 edition, the current study includes a deep dive into informal networks between government structures, corporations, regional administrations, security agencies, and GONGO-type organizations—as well as internal relationships within these groups.

We analyzed various channels of influence: participation in advisory and public councils, patterns of financial support, overlapping personnel, and joint initiatives. This approach sheds light on the real balance of power, which is often invisible in the formal architecture of governance.

In doing so, we move beyond an institutional lens and instead focus on the actual relationships between Arctic stakeholders and the points where power is concentrated. This allows us to trace the true decision-making logic in Russian Arctic governance.

“This research is an attempt to describe the indescribable. We’ve identified more than 12,000 individuals and over 2,400 organizations—each of which, directly or indirectly, plays a role in governing the Arctic.”

Source:NO.Media from Russia

Key Findings

• Securitization and Militarization of the Arctic
  
  Between 2023 and 2024, the influence of security agencies in Arctic governance expanded significantly, while tools of civil oversight were sidelined. After a reorganization, the Maritime Board came under the leadership of former Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, and the proportion of members with security backgrounds grew 3.5 times. The Arctic is now framed as a zone of national and geopolitical interest—requiring heightened focus on security and defense.

• Replacing Civil Society With GONGOs
  
  Independent environmental and human rights organizations are being supplanted by GONGOs—groups that simulate civic engagement but operate in the interests of the state and major corporations. These entities help restrict public oversight of environmental issues, launder the reputations of extractive companies operating in the Arctic, and suppress independent expertise. This raises the risk that violations will go unreported and unsafe practices will be legitimized.

• Instrumentalizing Indigenous Communities
  
  Organizations claiming to represent Indigenous peoples of the Russian North—chiefly RAIPON—are closely aligned with government bodies and extraction firms operating on traditional lands. These groups receive international mandates to speak for Indigenous communities, but increasingly use that platform to advance state interests—including positions on the war in Ukraine. As a result, statements made “on behalf of” Indigenous groups increasingly reflect government talking points rather than grassroots concerns.

• Personal and Institutional Ties as Tools of Control
  
  The study finds that key decisions in Arctic policy are driven not only by official procedures, but by long-standing ties among specific actors—both individuals and institutions. Shared board memberships, recurring appearances across different agencies, and financial connections create tight-knit clusters of influence that determine how governance is actually carried out. These dynamics are clearly visualized in the Arctida network graph.

How IT Can Be Used

Arctic policy is not solely a matter of government administration—it is also the focus of public, academic, and applied interest. To engage with it meaningfully, stakeholders need tools that reveal the real configuration of relationships, actors, and influence mechanisms.

That’s where the Arctida database and graph come in. Compiled and structured by our team, these tools are the foundation of the analytical report—and can also serve as a valuable resource for independent research, investigations, monitoring efforts, and educational initiatives.

“This is an impressive piece of work and a great OSINT tool for any investigators working on the Arctic.”

Our materials can support the development of analytical, investigative, monitoring, and educational projects related to Arctic development, environmental policy, Indigenous rights, and governance systems.

We’re always open to professional collaboration—ready to comment, share data, and discuss opportunities for joint reporting and analysis.

Contact us at: [email protected].

Cover photo by Anders Jildén

Authors:

Nail Farkhatdinov

Coordinator of the Analytical Department at Arctida, sociologist, PhD (University of Aberdeen)

Anastasia Martynova

Arctida Analyst