An important part of shaping the informational image of a country lies in the hands of non-profit and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In general, the idea of NGOs allows them to appear independent from governments, making them a convenient discourse procedure, in the words of Michel Foucault. They are capable of promoting and sustaining a negative image without seeming as biased as other actors in international relations.
Greenpeace has long had contentious relations with Russia and its oil companies. One notable example occurred in the Arctic prior to the geopolitical shifts in the world, demonstrating the already strained relations. In the spring of 2013, Greenpeace launched a protest against Rosneft-led oil operations in the Arctic by attempting to enter the Kara Sea without Russia's permission to navigate the Northern Sea Route.
As a result, the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise was intercepted by the coast guard, and 30 crew members were detained, leading to a high-profile legal case. Following an amnesty in December 2013, the detainees were released.
This protest was part of the Save the Arctic! campaign, which was not without flaws, even in terms of environmental preservation. For example, Alaska Dispatch criticised the campaign (while acknowledging its good intentions) for two reasons:
As the environmental organisation directly promoted anti-Russian rhetoric and called for increased sanctions against Russia, it was designated an 'undesirable organisation' in May 2023. As of now, the organisation's website is inaccessible in the country.
The foundation's efforts are aimed at destabilising the socio-political situation and attempting to change power in the country by unconstitutional means.
—The Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation
But what methods does Greenpeace use to destabilise the political situation? One discursive tool is making interconnections between the armed conflict in Ukraine and economic benefits from the Arctic exploration. Consequently, companies operating in the Arctic are targeted. Within the topic of nuclear security, Rosatom is demonised, with accusations of "committing atrocities." The article introduces four demands, two of which are "to invest in renewable energy in Ukraine" and "the imposition of comprehensive sanctions on the Russian nuclear corporation Rosatom and the immediate termination of all relations with this criminal organisation."
Regarding fossil fuels, the case of Nord Stream was allegedly "lobbied" in the European Union by Russia, Gazprom, Lukoil, and Rosatom, according to a study published by Greenpeace France. Novatek is also mentioned.
A common strategy when describing Russia's projects in the Arctic is to omit the other side of the relationship and directly accuse Russia. Notice how, as with the Save the Arctic! campaign, the focus shifts to producers rather than consumers. For example, the title of a study by Unearthed (Greenpeace's investigative platform) reads: "Sanctioned nuclear icebreakers helped export gas from the Russian Arctic bought by Shell."
The original article oddly highlights nuclear icebreakers as the issue, focusing on Russian exports, sanctions against the country, the military operation in Ukraine, and tracking vessels. However, it fails to explain the role of companies like Shell (UK), Naturgy (Spain), and TotalEnergies (France) in importing LNG to Europe. The article notes that Naturgy "provided statements but neither commented on the data provided," while TotalEnergies "did not respond."
The patterns are clear and tend to follow a similar template for the "shadow fleet": the blame for a "fossil-fuelled" operation in Ukraine is placed entirely on Russia as the exporter, while the importing "oil giants" in Europe are largely overlooked. Here, for example, the fund’s activists apply the beloved method to protest against oil vessels—with inflatable boats and white paint, in order to target the alleged Russian shadow fleet. Although, admittedly, the fleet itself is called "a clear sign of the broken energy system" which rests on "the global society’s dependence on oil," the manner of facts presentation can be observed clearly—Russia earns money from exporting oil, but the fault is in the stars—global oil addiction, not in the countries that use said fuel.
The article reads as follows: "We call on the Swedish government to stop allowing this floating gas station enabling the Russian shadow fleet. That would make it harder for the fleet to carry out their mission to profit off fossil fuels.
The Danish government has an opportunity to act, and should do so. It ought to stop allowing these accidents-waiting-to-happen to pass through the Danish straits many times, every single day."
It would be logical, then, to address said governments with white paint and brushes, but the activists somehow miss this ample opportunity to break the vicious cycle between fuel exporters and importers and target the vessels that have whatsoever no legal affiliation with Russia…
Last but not least, a renewed Russian-American dialogue may potentially contribute to developing some bilateral activities which make the Europeans a little bit confused. Such sign is the ‘Their gas, your cash’ protest against Russian and American gas exports to Europe.
On board the notorious Arctic Sunrise, Joeri Thijs, spokesperson for Greenpeace Belgium lifts the matter of energy dependance to the level of national security as Russia fuels from "gas revenues" while "political bullies like Trump use their dominance as gas suppliers to pressure European countries economically and politically."
The crookedness and ongoing persistence of this logic is plain even in the statistics given by Greenpeace itself: "EU imports of Russian LNG rose by 18 per cent in 2024, and 45 per cent of total imported LNG came from the US in the same year, making the US and Russia the EU’s first- and second-largest LNG suppliers."
Despite the fact that the organisation admits the dependance and urges the European community to switch to renewables, actively attacking fossil fuels in the European Union, the frame of mind still doesn’t change as the pattern "Russian military is fuelled by fossils" constantly appears even in the context of domestic EU issues while almost avoiding the roots of given issues.
The Editorial Board of the Arctic Century
Also read the publication:
How Environmental Organisations Target Russia
