EN
On March 11, the head of the Ministry for the Development of the Russian Far East and Arctic, Alexei Chekunov, stated: "Russia continues its historic mission of careful and balanced development of these territories, which are strategically important to our country."
Indeed, Russia is developing the region. According to production statistics for 2023, the Arctic “provides” 85% of the natural gas extracted in Russia. And the enormous figures reported in government documents for the Northern Sea Route’s cargo throughput—80 million tons compared to the actual 37.9 million tons—indicate plans for large infrastructure projects in the region, as well as a desire to maximize the use of Arctic resources.
However, on a fundamental level, the growing industrial load contradicts the idea of balanced development and threatens plans to preserve the fragile Arctic environment.
The contradiction between “sustainable development” and a desire to extract resources is evident not only at the level of state policy towards the Arctic, but also in the perception of the region by Russians. This is demonstrated by a public opinion survey conducted by Arctida and Russian Field in February 2025. We discuss its results and unpack its key contradictions.
Russians are learning more about the Arctic, but namely by way of a militaristic agenda.
According to a survey, Russians have become more interested in the Arctic: 56% of respondents noticed media coverage about Arctic issues—12% more than in December 2023. At the same time, respondents with more militaristic views—who would not reverse the decision on the “special military operation” even if given the chance—reported seeing Arctic news more often (67%).
Almost a third of respondents associated media coverage of the Arctic with politics and military topics—a 21% increase compared to 2023. Back then, only 9% of respondents associated news about the Arctic with geopolitics, whereas 15% associated it with scientific research.
The number of people opposed to military presence in the region is growing, but the majority still supports militarization.
The proportion of Russians opposed to the deployment of troops and military facilities in the Arctic has increased by 4% compared to December 2023, reaching 39%. Meanwhile, the number of respondents approving militarization in the Arctic region has remained unchanged at 53%. Unsurprisingly, support for military presence is more common among those who would not have canceled the Special Military Operation (SMO) in the past.
Russians want to see the Arctic as a territory of cooperation.
More than half of Russians (55%) believe that the Arctic today is a zone of dialogue, stability, and constructive collaboration, while 79% of respondents support developing cooperation with other countries in the Arctic. Notably, the share of supporters has significantly increased (by 10%) compared to the previous survey.
The Arctic is most often seen as a territory of cooperation by respondents under 30 years old and those who would have canceled the Special Military Operation (SMO) in the past. This idea is less commonly supported by people without higher education and those with low incomes.
Most people view the Arctic as a strategic resource
At the 2024 St. Petersburg Economic Forum, President Putin stated that "Russia will continue to grow through the Arctic, because our main mineral resources are located there"—a sentiment shared by 58% of respondents. According to the survey, those most receptive to this rhetoric are people over the age of 60, those without higher education, and those who hold militaristic views.
Ecology Versus Extraction
Although the state rhetoric most often associates the Arctic with resource extraction, a growing number of Russians are concerned about the region's ecology.
According to a survey by Arctida and Russian Field, 86% of Russians support measures to minimize negative environmental impacts—9% more than in December 2023. Concern about global warming is also increasing (62% compared to 55% in 2023).
At the same time, a majority of respondents (68%) still support oil and gas extraction in the Arctic. However, amid environmental incidents such as oil spills, the number of opponents is gradually growing—from 21% to 25% over the past year and a half.
The “Agreement Bias” Phenomenon: How to explain contradictory survey results?
How is it that people simultaneously support active resource extraction and environmental protection—or international cooperation and militarization at once?
“Researchers explain this by observing that people have an unconscious tendency to agree with statements made by people who they perceive as figures of authority. Interviewers conducting surveys, for example, can be perceived as such authorities,” explains Ilya Dorkhanov, a sociologist at Russian Field.
This phenomenon is known as agreement bias, and according to Dorkhanov, it often arises when the statements being read are seen as obvious, aligned with social norms and common sense—for instance, that resource extraction is important for the economy, nature must be protected, troops provide security, and international cooperation is beneficial.
“The fact that these positions might contradict each other doesn’t seem to matter much,” Dorkhanov notes. “In the first place, agreement bias nudges people to agree with each statement individually because each sounds generally positive. Second, “might contradict” doesn’t necessarily mean they do contradict: for instance, oil extraction could in theory be carried out with full environmental safeguards, and cooperation with some countries doesn’t rule out military defense against others”
Russians know little about the Arctic
Sociologist Ilya Dorkhanov also notes that contradictions in responses may stem from a lack of knowledge about the region.
“Respondents lacking deep knowledge of Arctic issues tend to be somewhat idealistic and optimistic—supporting every idea that sounds good, hoping it can all somehow be implemented in harmony.,” the expert explains.
Indeed, simultaneous support for contradictory actions in the Arctic may indicate that public views lack the knowledge needed to connect economic development and militarization with their environmental consequences. Public opinion on the Arctic is not just contradictory—it seems not yet fully formed.
Despite the Arctic seeming to stir a growing public interest, general knowledge about it remains without nuance.
For example, when asked an open-ended question about what the Arctic is, over a third referenced stereotypical geographical images related to harsh natural conditions. These representations naturally align with a resource-driven rhetoric of development.
Against this backdrop, it may seem surprising that 63% of respondents believe that Indigenous peoples should play the leading role in determining the Arctic’s future. But this too likely reflects stereotypical views of the region, rather than an actual recognition of the need to shift governance paradigms.
What to read, in order to better understand the Arctic?
Arctida conducts research and investigations on the Russian Arctic, regularly publishing materials about the region. Here are a few key pieces:
- Article on how three years of military activity in Ukraine have impacted life in the Arctic.
- Investigation into how the Association of Indigenous Peoples has become a tool for profiteering and lobbying.
- Study on the main stakeholders in Russian Arctic policy.
- Report on the destructive impact of the coal industry on Chukotka’s natural environment.
Cover photo: Afanasy Makovnev / GeoPhoto
