2.1 Analysis Model
The geopolitical ray of Moscow North, in large approximation, splits into a whole spectrum of rays diverging from a single center along the entire length of the coast of the Arctic Ocean. Thus, we get a complicated model in which three problems arise:
The ratio of the sectors of the North to each other;
Their relationship with the Center (Moscow);
Correlation with other areas of the Russian space (South, East, West)
Geopolitical analysis is divided into several sectors and problems at once. Moreover, the main task is to, if possible, taking into account regional specifics and details, not to lose sight of the general complex of “internal geopolitics of Russia” and an even wider planetary context.
The Center’s geopolitical imperative for the North is to strengthen strategic control over these areas as much as possible. Given the sparsely populated territories located in the Arctic Circle, and the lack of developed political and state traditions of ethnic groups living there, cultural and political aspects recede into the background. The most important side is military control over the coast (military, air and naval bases), information communication, energy supply and provision of food and housing.
2.2 The geopolitical nature of the Russian Arctic
The climatic nature of the northern territories implies a point, rather than a "strip", of its settlement. Hence the role of the centers, which acquire the most important value and become, to some extent, the equivalent of what is defined as “territory” in other areas. This identity of the “center” and “territory” in the North is maximal, since the intermediate spaces are not only unsuitable for housing, but the tundra, cold, lack of villages, roads, etc. are mortally dangerous.
Thus, geopolitically, the North is a system of points located in the Arctic zone, a constellation of discrete settlements scattered throughout a rather homogeneous (climatically and relief) space. The vast majority of the northern lands is the tundra, i.e. northern desert with rare vegetation (lichens). This is the permafrost zone.
The nature of the northern space is somewhat close to the “water element”. In it, the boundaries between the territories have practically no serious significance, since control over a particular land does not give any special advantages. Given the sparsely populated, the question of "competition for nomads" among reindeer-breeding peoples is automatically removed.
The population of the North is a variety of ancient Eurasian ethnic groups that have lived in these territories for millennia without any particular cultural, migration or ethnic dynamics. It is curious that it is in the north of the western border of Russia that ethnic division also takes place: northern Europe, Scandinavia, Germany, Denmark right up to England, Ireland and Iceland are inhabited by “developed” peoples of Indo-European origin (young ethnic groups); and starting from Finland and Karelia and up to Chukotka, the Russian North is inhabited by ethnic groups that are much more ancient and archaic than the population of the European North (Ugrians, archaic Turks and Paleo-Asians of the Chukchi, Eskimos, etc.). Moreover, as you move east along the coast of the Arctic Ocean, the archaic nature of ethnic groups increases. Younger Indo-Europeans (or Turks),dynamically moving along the most inhabited parts of Eurasia, the waves "shifted" the autochthon to the north.
From west to east: after the Karelians and Finns (who nevertheless took an active part in modern history, albeit in secondary roles), they were more archaic Nenets and Komi, then Khanty and Mansi, Dolgans, Evenks, and then Chukchi and Eskimos. The vast sector of Eastern Siberia is occupied by Yakutia (Sakha), but the Yakuts themselves (one of the branches of the Türks) live much south of the Arctic Circle, and the north of the region is almost uninhabited.
From the Ugrians to the Eskimos, the space of the Russian North shows us historical time slices of civilization.
The concept of “Russian North” is a trapezoid, repeating the outlines of Eurasia as a whole. To the west it narrows, to the east it expands. On the Russian-Finnish border, this territory spans about 10 degrees along the meridian, while Chukotka and Kamchatka already cover 20 degrees. But this spatial expansion has little effect on the geopolitical nature of the territory; and by demographic characteristics, and by the degree of development, and by the quality of communications and the frequency of settlements, this trapezoid, geographically expanding to the east, gives a mirror picture, since the "narrow" western flank of the northern sector is mastered and populated more than the opposite eastern flank.
If Siberia is the geopolitical “reserve” of Russia, then the North, and especially the Siberian North, is the “reserve” of Siberia itself, being the region of Eurasia that is the most remote from civilization. This is icy, uncharted land, formally described in maps, but not representing any historical sign, without any global cultural dimension (at least within the foreseeable historical limits of the available study of the past). This situation strangely contrasts with the role that the “north” plays in the mythologies of many peoples. There he is endowed with the quality of a "great ancestral home," "promised land," "ancient paradise." At this historical moment, it is rather the opposite of a cold, inhospitable, hostile to people, alienated space with rare interspersed artificial centers of civilization.
2.3 North + North
Administratively, the majority of the northern lands are autonomous regions of the Russian Federation, except for Karelia, Komi and Yakutia, which have a more independent political status (republics). Politically, the regions are located as follows (from west to east): Karelia, north Murmansk region, Arkhangelsk region, Komi republic and the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Taimyr (Dolgan-Nenets Autonomous Okrug), northern sectors of Yakutia, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug , Magadan Territory, Koryak Autonomous Okrug and Kamchatka.
The similar geopolitical quality of all these territories is a sufficient basis for them to form a certain territorial strategic block based on certain integration structures. All of these areas face typologically similar problems; their development follows the same paths. This natural similarity, so pronounced even in the most cursory geopolitical analysis, shows the need for some consolidation. This consolidation, a kind of pact of the "Arctic lands", can have several levels from spiritual and cultural to practical and economic.
You can initially outline the general directions of such a block.
A purely Eurasian theory of rethinking traditional civilization as a positive model of a social structure that has preserved the memory of cosmic proportions can become its cultural base. This means that the archaism of the peoples of the North (underdevelopment, lagging behind, primitiveness, etc.) is not a minus, but a spiritual plus. Ancient ethnoses are not only not subject to “re-education” and inclusion in “modern civilization”, but, on the contrary, need their living conditions to be as close as possible to their traditions. Moreover, concern for these traditions should be partially shifted to the state, which seeks to secure strategic control over these lands.
In parallel, the “mythological” aspect of the North as the oldest homeland of mankind should be adopted, and the project of the “spiritual revival of the North” would have acquired a worthy historical scale. The emphasis should be placed on the seasonal specifics of the Arctic year, the polar day and polar night, which were considered by the Hindus and ancient Persians as “days of the gods”. Existence in arctic conditions (common to the whole Eurasian North) returns a human being to a special cosmic rhythm. Hence the spiritual and therapeutic significance of the Arctic zones.
At the material level and especially in relation to the conditions of existence of migrants from the South, i.e. for the most part Russians, it is necessary to rally the efforts of all the northern centers in the development of optimal models of cities and villages, taking into account climatic specifics. In this aspect, the application of the latest technologies of non-traditional energy sources (solar energy, wind power plants, etc.), building know-how for permafrost, communications and transport systems, development of interregional sports aviation countries, etc. is required. The initial project should be a general Arctic development, the development of a single and most effective formula that would make it possible to modernize the settlements as soon as possible, to make their existence more dynamic and interconnected.
Given the importance of this problem, it would be logical to provide a solution to the Arctic regions themselves, providing state support for the entire project as a whole from the center. The development of the “Arctic formula” is up to the northerners themselves.
Since the North is a geopolitical “reserve of reserves” of Russia, its regions should be prepared for possible active migration of the population from the South. This concerns the other side of the problem of a new settlement of the North. Sooner or later, given the demographic processes, this will become necessary, and it is better now to begin to create structural prerequisites for this.
Of particular note is the military aspect. The North is a gigantic strategic military zone of Russia, the most important belt of its security. Many missile bases and strategic aviation bases are concentrated here; Murmansk and Arkhangelsk are the largest naval bases in Russia. This situation is not a consequence of the arbitrariness of the ideological confrontation between the two camps in the Cold War era. The strategic importance of the North in the military sense is preserved for Russia in any case, since it is a matter of observing the interests of Eurasia, heartland. The meaning of the military presence in the North of Russia stems from the continental nature of the structure of the Russian Armed Forces and from the natural awareness of themselves as a continental camp opposing the “forces of the sea”. The main significance of these military facilities is to protect the coastal zone from possible sea and air intrusions and to ensure, if necessary, a nuclear strike on the American continent through the North Pole. This is the shortest distance from Russia to the United States. For the same reason, this territory is a priority zone for the development of missile defense.
Currently, the North provides a huge percentage of the total industrial product of Russia. At the same time, its central significance in the military industrial complex is not taken into account. Many minerals in particular, salt, nickel, etc. mined mainly in the Arctic regions. But there is a huge gap between such industrial development of the North and the lag in other areas of development. Geopolitical logic requires an active alignment of the situation. Moreover, it is most convenient to do this precisely within the framework of the Arctic Pact. In this case, it would be necessary to designate the capital (or several capitals) of the North, in which the intellectual and technological potential would be concentrated, where the main economic, financial and engineering levers would come down. This would give the North significant independence from the center, freedom from control in detail, reserves for flexible regional development and rapid industrial and economic reaction.
At all these levels, the need for integration of the North is clearly expressed. It is important in spiritual, ethnic, cultural, military-strategic, industrial, social, financial terms. The result of such a multi-level integration (existing only potentially so far) would be the creation of a completely new geopolitical reality in which a significant increase in autonomy and regional independence would not weaken the strategic connection with the center. The development of the North would become a path to the future, a springboard for a completely new (based on geopolitics) understanding of space in the long term.
The Northern Earth from a barren desert would again turn into a polar paradise, strengthening the planetary weight of the continent and creating a model of a “Eurasian future” society based on a combination of tradition and development, fidelity to the roots and technological modernization.
2.4 North + Center
The first approach to the geopolitical analysis of the North (North + North) is based on the separation of the "polar trapezoid" into a single connected region, which can be considered as an independent spatial figure. Such a vision of the North allows us to develop the most flexible model of its development, since the most stable geopolitical structure is that which consists of self-sufficient autarky-autonomous (in a limited sense) elements. But even such a relative autarky requires a certain territorial scale. The “trapezoid” of the Russian North meets all the necessary conditions in order to form an independent domestic “large space”. Moreover, such integration autonomy can largely compensate for the strategic centralism inevitable for the state.
The second geopolitical approach is to analyze the system functioning along the Center North axis. This axis has been and in many respects to this day remains the only and main one in the administrative organization of the northern territories. Separate regions and centers of the North were directly subordinate to Moscow, which controlled all the main development vectors of these territories. Such an unambiguous centralism did not allow the most efficient development of the internal geopolitical potentials of the North, deliberately made the specialization of the regions one-sided and focused on the scale of the whole country. This made it possible to maintain a regime of strict centralism, but significantly slowed down the opening of internal capabilities.
Geopolitical logic suggests that the question of the relationship between the Center and the Periphery (and in our particular case, Moscow of the North) should obviously be divided into two components:
1) strict centralism in the field of macro-politics and strategic subordination;
2) maximum emancipation of internal capabilities due to the utmost cultural and economic autonomy.
In other terms: strategic centralism + cultural and economic regionalism.
To develop the most effective model for such a geopolitical distribution of roles, the question again arises of the "capital of the North", which could serve as an intermediate authority between the Center and all areas. All military ties from bases, military units, ports, etc., would converge to this point. In addition, there could be a “government of the North", a flexible instance of political coordination of all parts of the "polar trapeze", reporting directly to Moscow, but speaking on behalf of the whole North. It could be the “parliament of the peoples of the North” and the corresponding executive structures. Moreover, the most important thing would be to achieve a harmonious combination of military leadership with regional representatives, since the centralist nature of strategic control would in this case be coupled with the expression of the regional will of the northern lands.The tandem of the military representative of Moscow with the civilian representative of the “peoples of the North” in such a geopolitical capital could become an ideal prototype of the most effective and efficient, flexible, but tightly connected with the center organization of the entire Eurasian space. At the same time, interethnic and cultural frictions between the peoples of the North in such an integration process will be minimal due to historical and geographical reasons for the fragmentation and mosaic distribution and small numbers of ethnic groups.
It is in the North that this model of reorganization of space should be tested, based on purely geopolitical premises. In this case, all the conditions for such a project are evident in the fact that all regions of the North belong to Russia, territorial and demographic tension, an urgent need for restructuring of industrial and economic systems, some of which fell out of the general system of national “labor distribution”, demographic crisis, and critical situation with the peoples of the North, the collapse of energy supply systems and communications, the necessary reform of the armed forces, etc.
The attitude of Moscow North directly depends on the general integration of the northern regions into a single block and for another reason. Russia has a latitudinal geographic structure; it is elongated along the parallel. The main trends in its development were precisely latitudinal dynamics. The Russian State was built on the integration of spaces along latitudes. For this reason, the main communications and communication systems within Russia evolved in accordance with this model. The latitudinal process was especially vividly expressed in the development of Siberia and the “breakthrough to the Ocean”. Therefore, the stability of the internal structure of Russia directly depends on the completeness and dynamics of latitudinal integration. If we take Russia as a whole, then for its continental strategic usefulness, development along the North-South axis is necessary. This applies primarily to expansion beyond its borders,since any geopolitical organization of space vertically gives the maximum degree of strategic autarky. But within Russia itself, such a complete autarchy is completely inexpedient. Here, on the contrary, one should insist on the utmost strategic centralism, on the interconnection of regional spaces with the Center. Therefore, we can formulate a geopolitical law:inside Russia, the West-East integration axis is a priority; outside Russia, the North-South axis. (This law is formulated more nuanced as follows: tightly ethnically and politically controlled by Russia and Russian spaces require widespread integration, while domestic Russian lands, compactly populated by other ethnic groups with historically fixed traditions of political separatism, on the contrary, need integration along the meridian basis. ) Dynamics along the meridian makes a political entity independent of its neighbors left and right. This is necessary for the country as a whole, but unnecessarily for individual sectors of this country. Dynamics along a parallel, on the contrary, rigidly connects the Center with the periphery; it is useful for the internal political organization of the state, but leads to conflicts and imbalance at the interstate level.
Based on this regularity, one should insist precisely on the latitudinal integration of the Northern regions, taking into account their belonging to a single climatic and relief zone, and not their purely geographical (and even in some cases ethnic) proximity to other (southern, eastern, or western) regions. The wide association of the North will contribute to its cultural and economic development, but will hinder the creation of prerequisites for potential political and strategic sovereignty. Only such a structure will solve the problems of the Center Peripheral in the most positive, from a geopolitical point of view, vein.
2.5 Finnish question
The only international problem related to the Russian North is the problem of Karelia (and Finland). Karelian ethnos is close to Finnish and is connected with it by cultural and historical unity. Based on the logic of latitudinal integration, the Karelian question seems, at first glance, an anomaly. Two approaches are possible here.
The first is to absolute the geopolitically Karelian-Finnish border and offer the Karelian Republic to integrate along the North-South axis with the native Russian regions around Lake Onega, Ladoga. Such a vector of development is unnatural and should be resorted to only in the worst case, since the artificial breakdown of ethnic unity along the administrative line of a purely political border never gives the region geopolitical stability. The matter is aggravated by the fact that the Karelian-Finnish border is an easily passable forest and marshy relief and has a huge length; it is extremely difficult, cumbersome and expensive to reliably protect such a border.
The second approach involves the creation of the Karelian-Finnish geopolitical zone, culturally and partly economically unified, but representing a strategic pillar of the Eurasian Center. In European languages there is the term “Finnishization”, which appeared during the Cold War. It is understood as a nominally neutral state with a capitalist economy, but strategically inclined towards the USSR, i.e. to heartland. Finland as a state is a highly unstable and far from autarky entity, naturally and historically entering the geopolitical space of Russia. This was manifested at various stages of history.The center could go for wide autonomy of the Karelian-Finnish association with the only condition being strategic control over the Gulf of Bothnia and the deployment of Eurasian border troops on the Finnish-Swedish and Finnish-Norwegian borders. The length of the border would be halved, while the Finnish-Swedish and Finnish-Norwegian borders are much less uniform and easily passable than the Karelian-Finnish ones. In addition, Russia would be able to control the Baltic from the North.
The second approach is preferable in all respects, and it is precisely such tactics that should be used by the continental Center in all ethnically and culturally mixed zones on the borders of the state. Broken ethnic unity automatically means instability of the border zone, instability of borders. The Atlanticist adversary will sooner or later try to adopt this circumstance in order to carry out ethnic integration for their own purposes i.e. strengthen control over rimland'om and weaken heartland. Therefore, continental forces should actively and aggressively use similar tactics and not be afraid to cede cultural and even economic sovereignty to border nations in exchange for a strategic presence and political loyalty.
When stable borders cannot be achieved through direct military or political expansion, an intermediate flexible option should be used that, in the anti-Eurasian sense, thalassocracy constantly and successfully uses.
2.6 North and Non-North
The specifics of the geography of the Arctic coast of Russian Eurasia reduces the problem of the correlation of the regions of the North with other regions to a more simplified North-South formula, since latitudinal problems (namely, with the West) arise only in the case of Karelia. The only exception is the problem of Yakutia, which stands out here, since Yakutia has, albeit an extremely artificial, but still historically fixed tradition of political separatism. This aspect is reflected in the later classification by Mackinder of Eurasia, where he distinguished “Lenaland”, “the land of the Lena River”, and Yakutia (Sakha) forms the axis of this region, stretching from the Laptev Sea to the Amur Region and Altai in the south. But the case of Yakutia must be considered separately.
Let's start from the western part of the “northern trapezoid”. The Kola Peninsula, Murmansk and the Karelian Republic stand out here. Together with Finland, all this makes up a single geographic and geopolitical sector, which would most effectively be integrated into an independent and complete system, in which the Murmansk region and Murmansk itself would have strategic priority and quality of a military decision center, and the Karelian-Finnish space would be endowed with a wide cultural and economic sovereignty. In this case, the Murmansk region could be increased due to the northern regions of Finland, Finnish Lapland. The balance between Murmansk (the strategic projection of Moscow) and the Karelian-Finnish space would be a concrete expression of the Eurasian arrangement of the continent as an example of “new Finnishization” in conditions of emerging after the end of the Cold War.
Further movement to the south of this block we will consider in the chapter on the Russian West. It should be noted that in any case, the fundamental strategic axis in this case will be the Murmansk Moscow axis.
Next: Arkhangelsk Territory. An exception to the general rule should be made here and the importance of integration not only in the North-North latitude, but also along the meridian should be indicated. The fact is that the Arkhangelsk Territory is located strictly above the Central European part of Russia, and therefore, the idea of the possible sovereignty of this vertical sector from the White Sea to the Black Sea regarding Russia as a whole is excluded, since this region is Russia itself. Therefore, Arkhangelsk and the Arkhangelsk Territory are in that strategic position, which most of all meets the principle of strategic integration of the North in the interests of the Center. The Moscow axis Arkhangelsk is the only one from the entire spectrum of internal “geopolitical rays” that is not just a military-strategic construction. Here it is necessary to achieve maximum and diverse integration with the South,right up to Moscow, try to create a smooth transition from the (relatively) densely populated areas of the Vologda Oblast to the point settlements of Pomor. The migration of the Russian population to the North, its active development, development and transformation should begin precisely from Arkhangelsk. This largest port is in the most advantageous position in comparison with all other settlements of the North, therefore it is most logical to choose Arkhangelsk as the “capital of the Arctic Pact”. The development of the Moscow axis Arkhangelsk should be comprehensive and priority. The consistency and effectiveness of the entire “Arctic Pact” will depend on the quality and dynamics of this only (from the whole North) meridian integration.
To the east, two administrative units of the Nenets Autonomous Okrug and the Republic of Komi are included in the zone of the North. The integration of these spaces among themselves has no contraindications, especially when taking into account the low population of the Nenets Autonomous Okrug. The proximity to Arkhangelsk allows us to actively and priority develop this region in the framework of a common project. Of particular importance is the development of the islands of Novaya Zemlya and Franz Joseph Land. These Arctic lands have tremendous strategic importance in the context of intercontinental confrontation. These are the Russian territories closest to the pole, and, accordingly, to the USA, which are used as military-strategic bases. As in the case of Karelia and Murmansk, the northernmost spaces are controlled mainly by the military,whereas to the south the civil administration is more developed. The whole region as a whole has the center of Vorkuta, to which the main communications and communication lines converge.
Vorkuta is a large industrial and strategic center, which is located not far from the Yamalo-Nenets okrug, where there is no center of similar scale. Consequently, Vorkuta could also control the gigantic territory of the Kara Sea coast up to the mouth of the Yenisei and the basin of the mouth of the Ob. In this region, the Yamal-Nenets okrug is geographically close to the Khanty-Mansiysk okrug, and both of them are part of a single geopolitical sector.
It should be emphasized that the southern border of the Northern Trapezoid in the case of the Komi Republic has a very important geopolitical significance. In this case, the integration processes of this north-Ural region with the rest of the Urals (and the northern Volga region) are not only inexpedient, but frankly harmful, since Tatarstan is located southwest (beyond the Komi-Permyak okrug), where separatist tendencies have a long history. Being placed in the middle of Russian lands, Tatarstan does not pose any particular danger, but in all similar cases the “separatist logic” forces us to seek access to the seas or foreign territories, and any vertical integration processes in this case sooner or later can be extremely dangerous.Here you should go the opposite way (rather than in the case of the Arkhangelsk region) and try to tear off the entire north-Ural region and its neighboring sectors in the east and west from the Volga and Urals. In this case, the "northern trapezoid" should be strictly separated from the entire continental space located to the south.
Even to the east lies the lands of the Yenisei basin, which administratively fall on the Taimyr and Evenki autonomous okrugs and the former Turukhansk territory on the northern part of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. In this area, Norilsk stands out, which can be defined as the center for this entire gigantic region. In this case, the meridian dynamics along the North – South axis is not excluded, since South Siberia from Omsk to Lake Baikal is densely populated by Russians, and integration in this direction cannot be of particular danger. This entire block lies on the intermediate territory, where the zone of more or less even settlement of the territory ends and Lender Mackinder, the “no man’s land” begins. This zone and increasingly eastern territories constitute a gigantic continental desert,the lifeless tundra in the north and the impenetrable taiga in the south. This is a "potential space." From the south, it was partially mastered by both the Russian and ancient Turkic-Mongolian peoples with a relatively developed political culture. But in the North itself, it is “no man land”. This situation cannot be changed quickly and with one jerk, and, therefore, a gigantic region with a center in Norilsk for a certain time will constitute the “internal border” of continental Russia in the northeast, a strategic outpost of the Center in the North. This logically leads to the need to develop specifically Norilsk, which has extremely important geopolitical significance. The function of control over Taimyr (and the island of Severnaya Zemlya) in the north and the Yenisei basin in the south lies on it, and in addition, a zone of a less wide one, i.e.more precise, narrowly focused control of the Center over the “far North-East” of Eurasia, over Lenaland.
Lenkind Mackinder includes Yakutia, Chukotka, Kamchatka, Magadan Territory, Khabarovsk Territory, Amur Region and Primorsky Territory, Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands. The whole space is divided into two geopolitical regions, a fragment of the “northern trapeze”, on the one hand, and South Yakutia, Amur Region, Primorsky Territory and the southern half of Khabarovsk Territory, on the other. Both spaces are qualitatively completely different. The southern part, especially the coast of the Sea of Okhotsk and the Sea of Japan, is relatively densely populated, has ancient political traditions, is the place of residence of fairly active Eurasian ethnic groups. From the point of view of technical development and, at the same time, in the climatic sense, this southern sector is a continuation of southern Siberia.
The exact opposite is the northern part of Lenaland. This is the most undeveloped and “wild” part of Eurasia, a giant continental layer, with rudimentary infrastructure and almost no population. The only large center of the entire region is Magadan, but it is a port very poorly connected with the vast continental expanses of Kolyma, Northern Yakutia. Anadyr in Chukotka is also not a center in the full sense of the word and is also not connected with the continent. This sector is a separate continent, brilliantly protected by sea borders, having numerous minerals, but at the same time completely undeveloped and not developed, in potential condition. This part of Siberia is beyond the scope of history,and it is precisely to her that Spengler’s futurological prophecy regarding “the coming Siberian civilization” applies to a greater extent. This unique sector of the Old World, has not yet spoken in the history of civilizations and has not yet shown its geopolitical function.
This underdevelopment of this region is explained on the basis of the so-called “The Potamic theory of civilization”, according to which the cultural development of a region occurs much faster in those cases when the main river channels in it are not parallel to each other, but intersect. Siberia (especially East) is a classical confirmation of this principle, since all major rivers in it flow in the same direction and do not intersect. However, developmental delay is not a purely negative characteristic. Historical lag helps to accumulate (based on a rational understanding of the history of other territories and nations) the most important historical experience. Under certain circumstances, this may become the key to an unprecedented take-off.
The northern half of lenaland, from a purely geographical point of view, involves consideration as a single geopolitical complex. And here a very important question arises. What center will this future geopolitical formation be able to form around? What orientation will it adhere to? The fact of Mackinder’s doubts as to whether or not lenaland should be considered a “geographical axis of history” indicates the possibility of alternative solutions to the situation. This is enough for the continental strategy to pay particular attention to this sector.
It is clear that the maximum objective is to include this area in the “Arctic Pact” under the control of the Center (Moscow) and to correlate with other secondary centers of the Northern belt. But two obstacles arise here:
The absence in the center of this region of some major strategic point around which integration systems could be built;
The axial position of Yakutia (Republic of Sakha) in this region, which is especially complicated by the presence of Yakuts, albeit nominal, but historically fixed “separatism”.
In this case, the ratio of the northern half of the "Arctic trapezoid" with the South for the first time takes on a truly dramatic character, since Yakutia has such a strategic location that provides all the prerequisites for becoming an independent region independent of Moscow. This is ensured by the long coastline and the meridian structure of the republic’s territories, and its technical isolation from other Siberian regions. Under a certain set of circumstances, it is Yakutia that can become the main base of the atlantist strategy, departing from which the thalassocracy will restructure the Pacific coast of Eurasia and try to turn it into a classic rimland controlled by “sea power”.The increased attention of the atlantists to the Pacific range and the highly indicative allocation of Lenaland to a special category by Mackinder, and then the inclusion of this territory in the rinmland zone in the maps of the Atlanticists Speakman and Kirk, all this suggests that, at the first opportunity, all this is weakly connected with the center of the region, anti-continental forces will try to get out of Eurasian control.
In this regard, the following measures should be taken:
Dramatically limit the legally political sovereignty of Yakutia.
Divide Yakutia into two or more regions, and it is most important to administratively separate the region of the coast of the Laptev Sea and the East Siberian Sea from the continental basin of the Lena River. It is also important to maximize the zone separating the borders of Yakutia from the Pacific coast and strengthen strategic control over these coastal zones.
Establish special strict control over the representative of Moscow over this entire territory.
Organize the industrial and financial integration of Yakutia into the Neyakut regions, to make the region as dependent on the Center as possible or on its projections in the North and South of Siberia.
The above steps suggest such a reorganization of this territory that would create a completely new geopolitical structure, a new center and new radial links. In other words, without waiting for the reorganization of Lenaland according to the atlantic scenario, while this region remains a part of Russia, we should immediately proceed to the construction of the continental Lenaland according to the Eurasian model.
The problem of North – South correlation has a special solution for this sector here: it is not just necessary to limit contacts along this axis, but to reorganize the entire northern space, tearing its polar and coastal zones from the continental spaces of Yakutia. This is not only a preventive geopolitical move, it is a geopolitical attack, a positional war for Lenaland, for future Siberia, for its continental, Eurasian fate. So far, this issue may have domestic political significance. It must not be allowed that it has acquired international significance and become foreign policy.
The northern belt of the Eurasian continent, which is part of Russia, represents the most important geopolitical reality, the value of which will steadily increase with the development of planetary dynamics. Moreover, this region is especially important for Russia to establish its global geopolitical status as the “geographical axis of history”.
Only when defining Atlantism, thalassocracy as its main geopolitical adversary does the whole system of the North acquire real strategic content. When refusing to recognize geopolitical dualism at the level of military doctrine or international politics, this whole topic instantly loses its meaning. Moreover, not only the rapid degradation of the Russian North is inevitable, but also in the future, its fragmentation and even the exclusion of individual regions from Russia.
The general rhythm of geopolitical processes at present is such that the question of the geopolitical reorganization of the North in accordance with the geopolitical constants listed above is highly relevant and urgent. Even in order to maintain the status quo, it is necessary to immediately begin the geopolitical reorganization of all these spaces.
The fate of Russia is directly related to the geopolitical fate of the North. This law is the basis of its future geopolitics.
The North is the future, this is fate.