Andrey Zagorsky, a distinguished expert in international relations and Arctic policy, highlighted that the key factors influencing the evolving security landscape include the permanent deployment of military forces, seasonal deployments, the construction of coastal infrastructure, and the dynamics of military exercises.
According to Zagorsky, the Arctic can be divided into three main zones: the Euro-Arctic, Central, and Eastern regions. The highest level of activity is observed in the Euro-Arctic zone, which includes the northern territories of Russia, Finland, Sweden, and Norway. After Finland and Sweden joined NATO, the most significant changes have occurred in this area.
Specifically, the northern territories of Finland and Norway are close to the strategic base areas of the Russian fleet, raising Moscow's concerns. However, no permanent foreign NATO forces have been stationed in the region yet, apart from occasional temporary deployments.
When Norway and Denmark joined the Alliance in the 1950s and later, respectively, they negotiated specific provisions, including a ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons on their territory. This case caused concern to the Americans at the time. Secondly, there is a prohibition on the permanent deployment of combat forces on their territory, as well as certain restrictions on the temporary deployment of exercises. In Norway, the restriction is that exercises should not take place east of the 24th longitude, which is the easternmost point of the country. <...> Unlike Norway, both Sweden and Finland did not propose any conditions at the outset of their involvement in the Alliance. They are monitoring developments and assessing Russia's response to determine whether to introduce any restrictions. The Finns, for instance, did not initially intend to host a long-term multinational NATO presence on their territory, but this is now being discussed. These matters can evolve.
The expert emphasised that regular exercises, such as “Northern Response” and “Steadfast Defender,” demonstrate the ability to conduct temporary force deployments. For example, the 2024 exercises in Finnmark, a northern Norwegian province, practised defensive scenarios involving Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish troops. However, their scale has decreased compared to previous years, with participant numbers dropping from 30,000 to 20,000 personnel.
Despite NATO's activity, Zagorsky pointed out that most actions are focused on temporary deployments, infrastructure development, and allies’ coordination.
Zagorsky described Finland and Sweden's integration into NATO as being in its early stages. The operational compatibility of these countries’ armed forces with NATO has long been achieved due to their cooperation with the Alliance since 2014 (rapprochement started earlier, since 1992 - ed.).
One of the topics currently under discussion in Finland is the potential for Finland to participate in NATO programmes that involve European NATO countries in the Alliance's nuclear missions. There is an important aspect here: when non-nuclear-armed aircraft of NATO member states provide cover for those aircraft of the Alliance that can carry nuclear weapons. Finland, for instance, is considering participation in providing cover for NATO nuclear carriers.
Zagorsky also highlighted the risks associated with the lack of communication channels between Russia and most NATO countries, with the exception of Norway. In an increasingly tense environment, this could lead to misinterpretations of actions by either side and, consequently, to conflict escalation.
He cited the example of the 1983 NATO exercise "Able Archer," which the USSR perceived as potential preparation for a nuclear strike, almost resulting in catastrophic consequences. Similar risks, according to the expert, persist today.
It is believed that the military-political situation in the Arctic remains relatively stable despite NATO’s growing activity in the Euro-Arctic zone. For now, the focus is on temporary force deployments and coordination among allies.
However, the future trajectory of events will depend on NATO's decisions regarding permanent deployments in the region and Russia's response to these changes. New agreements between countries and maintaining communication channels will play a critical role in preventing unintentional escalation.
Thus, the Arctic continues to be a stage for strategic deterrence, where military activity intersects with the need to preserve stability and prevent conflicts.
Source: Russian Council
Also read the publication:
Monopoly in Norway's Fishing Industry Leads To Depopulation Of Finnmark
