91Ӱ��

“When narratives are dictated, the consequences can become very real,” said 91Ӱ��’s Yuri Sergeev as he opened 91Ӱ��’s event on the Kremlin’s attempts to influence discussions about the development of the Northern Sea Route and the Arctic more broadly.

Disinformation about the Northern Sea Route is shaping both the environmental debate and the security picture in the Arctic. Growing polarization in the region formed part of the backdrop for 91Ӱ��’s event during this year’s Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø.

Ksenia Vakhrusheva of the 91Ӱ�� Environmental Transparency Center in Vilnius warned that Russian narratives about the safe and sustainable development of the route are often repeated without critical scrutiny.

“Many people fail to question icebreaker capacity or whether Russia actually has the ability to build 36 new search-and-rescue vessels by 2030,” Vakhrusheva said, noting that Russia also stopped publicly reporting accidents along the route in 2023.

She presented environmental risks linked to increased transit traffic and limited emergency preparedness along the Northern Sea Route.

Influencing the global conversation

Benjamin Shultz, head of analysis at the American Sunlight Project (ASP), demonstrated how Russian state-controlled media spread their narratives about the Northern Sea Route through Pravda — a coordinated network of websites disguised as independent media outlets

“ASP and 91Ӱ�� have recorded a 238% year-on-year increase in state media content about the route, while total views dropped by 31%. That may indicate the content is increasingly aimed at language models or closed channels such as Telegram and WhatsApp,” Shultz said.

He said this suggests the Kremlin is actively pushing its Northern Sea Route narratives and that the target audiences may increasingly be algorithms rather than people. A fact sheet presented at the event summarized the key Russian narratives identified by ASP and 91Ӱ��.

The American Sunlight Project and 91Ӱ�� have identified the following Russian narratives about the Northern Sea Route:

• The Northern Sea Route will benefit the world through faster shipping times, lower costs, and new partnerships already being developed between Russia and China.
• The Northern Sea Route is important for Russia, China, and BRICS in order to weaken Western hegemony, promote non-dollar currencies, and stimulate economic growth.
• NATO, the EU, the United States, and other democratic powers are responsible for hindering Russia’s growth and threatening Russia’s security; the Northern Sea Route will enable Russia to regain its place on the world stage.
• Russia has the tools, equipment, vessels, and technology necessary to develop the Northern Sea Route in a safe and successful manner.

Webcams tell a different story

During the panel discussion, Thomas Nilsen, editor of The Barents Observer, noted that journalists no longer have independent access to several of the most contested areas along the route.

“That also applies to Russian journalists,” he said.

At the same time, Nilsen stressed that it is still possible to extract information from inside Russia. He has tracked how construction of Russian icebreakers has stalled following the break with the West, using a public webcam at the shipyard where the vessels are being built.

Sian Prior of the Clean Arctic Alliance warned against attempts to undermine established research.

“Russia submits so-called scientific articles that cast doubt on the harmful effects of black carbon, despite solid documentation,” she said.

The event concluded with an engaged audience discussion on disinformation, Greenland, journalism, and trust in the Arctic.

EU foreign policy chief at Arctic Frontiers

The Arctic now ranks high on the international agenda. That was evident both in the list of participants and in the increased media presence. Among those on stage were EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, and Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt.

If the conference were to be summed up in one word, it would be security — closely followed by climate crisis, in a time of declining trust in both authorities and science.