Previously, The Arctic Century described how the climate agenda has become a cornerstone of political games in the Arctic. It can serve as a convenient tool for non-governmental organisations connected to dubious geoengineering projects to engage in speculative activities, or for countries to create a negative image of Russia.
Here, we analyse how environmental NGOs create a counter-discourse to target Russia.
Our previous commentary related to the topic:
One might expect that an environmental non-profit organisation directly financed by the state would aim to expand its presence in the media sphere. Activists should climb the barricades, protect the diminishing sea ice in the Arctic, or pursue other noble causes. However, the case of the Norwegian organisation Bellona (an undesirable organisation in the Russian Federation) and its branches in Russia is rather peculiar. A thorough search reveals few environmental reports addressing the health of Arctic ecosystems or nuclear waste issues (Bellona's speciality, as the organisation was created after the Chernobyl disaster). Instead, one finds scandals, such as the Russian branch of the organisation attempting to bully an environmental newspaper in 2012, generous donations, dubious financial reports, and the low-profile activity of the Murmansk branch in 2012, as well as educating (likely recruiting) environmental journalists in 2020.
The aforementioned sources also point to financing by the National Endowment for Democracy, led by the United States.
There is also an issue with information about the Norwegian organisation itself. Other than the website of this environmental organisation, one would struggle to find much media presence. Some publications have mysteriously disappeared or are hidden behind paywalls. For example, a 2001 article in Aftenposten connected to Bellona and the Sande Paper Mill case is no longer accessible. A. Smirnov, writing in the Russian newspaper Novye Izvestiya, summarised the Norwegian publication. The article Bellona Plays Dirty describes how personal consulting firms mechanism allowed the organisation to play on both sides, the environmental and business:
And so, when the factory [Sande Paper Mill] director Rune Thoralfsson, having calculated the losses, was ready to tear out the last hair that had not yet fallen out from industrial emissions, a saviour angel from the already familiar consulting firm Haaland, Bergfald appeared in his office. This turned out to be one of the co-owners, Bård Bergfald. In his hands was all the dirt on the factory collected by his native Bellona and unorganised activists. The cost of the offered consulting services for a quick transition from enemies of nature to its friends turned out to be significantly lower than the amount of the threatened fines.
What does the organisation do now? It continues to provide publications in Russian, but its website is inaccessible from Russia. The organisation's report at Arctic Frontiers 2025 in Tromsø, Norway, suggests that NSR shipping is 'a bad idea'. However, there are no representatives at the venue with even the slightest connection to the development of the Route, as there virtually couldn't be any other business and official representatives.
So, who is this work done for? Who is the organisation trying to influence, and why would someone pay for this? The answers seem obvious.
The digests are structured in a dubious way, too. One might expect an independent environmental organisation to prioritise the problems of the Arctic climate, but these issues are consistently listed last, after the political section. The publications seemingly target the same companies repeatedly: Rosatom, Nornickel, Novatek… The traditional structure is as follows: problems surrounding the NSR, LNG issues, natural resource mining, and only then, the environment. Geopolitics are accompanied by editorial commentary, while environmental issues are not. Curious, isn’t it?
It is worth noting the strange logic behind describing Russian projects. It seems that Bellona aims to highlight the perceived failures of companies in the Arctic, providing an 'environmental' commentary as an afterthought. For example, one of the recent digests argues that the NSR is a pointless project, stating, "The increase in fees for icebreaker assistance indicates that organising the passage of ships along the Northern Sea Route is unlikely to pay for itself at the moment, especially given the effect of international economic sanctions."
But why would Russia invest in such a project if it were not profitable? If icebreaker fees make it unviable, why would countries specifically target Russia's Arctic projects with sanctions? Why would an organisation like Greenpeace (an undesirable organisation in the Russian Federation) call Gazprom an oil giant? By this logic, Russia should already be suffering from extensive expenses, and the NSR should be a failed project…
"And if sanctions against Russian LNG are tightened, it is unclear to whom these new gas carriers will ship it—perhaps buyers will not be found," the digest continues. However, recent news suggests that buyers remain largely the same, primarily European countries. In the next piece of news, Bellona answers its own question, "European companies are not ready to unilaterally terminate long-term LNG supply contracts concluded until 2035-2038, apparently fearing penalties in court for breach of contract, and European politicians are too afraid of fluctuations in energy prices to add Yamal LNG to the sanctions list."
A strange fear of court penalties, considering global news trends.
Lines of thought like these seem speculative, at best: the NSR itself is not beneficial, but sanctions are needed to stop its development; LNG sanctions are tightened, and "buyers will not be found," yet European countries fear court penalties and continue to buy gas, etc.
In general, this activity seems like someone is actively trying to poke Russia. There’s little effect because the organisation doesn’t even try to find its target audience; it attempts to raise environmental issues but ends up discussing geopolitical ones. Everything considered, it seems the project is aimed at a Western audience solely to build a negative image of Russia wrapped in a green agenda.
The Editorial Board of the Arctic Century
Also read the publication:
Cost-effective Development of Arctic Resources: Expectations & Reality
