The contribution probes the burgeoning phenomenon of city twinning by engaging with four city-pairs transcending and challenging the difference-producing impact of national borders in northern Europe (Imatra–Svetogorsk; Tornio–Haparanda; Valga–Valka; Narva–Ivangorod). It also aims at discussing the dynamics and meaning of twinning in a broader, more principled and critical perspective. Despite a number of obstacles, city twinning has more recently turned into an established form of overcoming of the divisive effects of borders. The model of cities re-imagining their borders, activating them through increased cooperation, not only changes the local landscapes but may entail broader state-related and European consequences as well.

In contrast with a widespread perception of Russia as an expansionist power in the Arctic, this article argues that Moscow does not seek military superiority in the region. Rather, Moscow's military strategies in the Arctic pursue three major goals: first, to demonstrate and ascertain Russia's sovereignty over its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in the region; second, to protect its economic interests in the High North; and third, to demonstrate that Russia retains its great power status and still has world-class military capabilities. The Russian military modernization programs are quite modest and aim at upgrading the Russian armed forces in the High North rather than providing them with additional offensive capabilities or provoking a regional arms race. The Russian ambitions in the Arctic may be high, but they are not necessarily implying the intentions and proper capabilities to confront other regional players by military means. On the contrary, Moscow opts for soft rather than hard power strategy in the Arctic.

In contrast with the internationally wide-spread stereotype of Russia as a revisionist power in the High North, this paper argues that Moscow tries to pursue a double-faceted strategy in the region. On the one hand, such a strategy aims at defending Russia’s legitimate economic interests in the region. On the other hand, Moscow is open to cooperation with foreign partners that are willing to partake in exploiting the Arctic natural resources. The general conclusion is that in the foreseeable future Moscow’s strategy in the region will be predictable and pragmatic rather than aggressive or spontaneous.

This study aims to examine Moscow’s Arctic policies in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis. Particularly, it tries to explain why the Kremlin – in contrast with its strategies in the post-Soviet space – opted for a cooperative model of its behaviour in the High North. Furthermore, this paper discusses the question whether Moscow has radically changed its Arctic strategies in the context of the Ukrainian crisis or its course basically remained the same? Based on the analysis of Russia’s principal doctrinal documents, this article explores Moscow’s threat perceptions and its strategic priorities in the Arctic. The authors emphasise the inward-, rather than outward-looking nature of Russia’s Arctic strategy which focuses on numerous economic, societal, environmental and socio-cultural problems of the Russian North. In fact, Moscow’s international strategy in the region is subordinated to its domestic needs. On the other hand, Russia’s preoccupation with its internal problems does not preclude the Kremlin from a rather assertive international course when it comes to the protection of Russia’s national interests in the Arctic. In this context, the authors analyse Moscow’s renewed claim on the expansion of the Russian continental shelf and military modernisation programmes. In sum, the authors believe that Russia is serious about being a responsible and predictable actor who is interested in fostering regional cooperation and strengthening multilateral regimes and institutions in the Arctic.

The main research objective of this study is to examine how coastal urban communities in the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation (AZRF) organize the sustainable development (and emerging blue economy) strategy planning process. Along with this general objective, this study focuses on four more specific questions: First, to examine whether the sustainable development and blue economy concepts are integrated into the urban development strategies and whether they are a real priority for the northern coastal communities? Second, to figure out which local government and civil society institutions are involved in the policy planning process and whether this sphere of local politics is transparent and open to public discussions? Third, to find out which specific aspects of the sustainable development and coastal blue economy concepts are given priority in the municipal development strategies? Finally, to discuss whether the AZRF coastal sustainable development/blue economy strategies aim to solve short-term/most pressing problems or they suggest long-term policies built on sustainability principles and are oriented to solve fundamental socioeconomic and ecological problems of the AZRF coastal communities? The hypothesis of this study is that a properly designed strategy planning system would be helpful for both familiarizing northern municipalities with the blue economy concept and its effective implementation. This research is based on several empirical cases, including major Arctic coastal urban centers/ports—Anadyr, Arkhangelsk, Dudinka, Murmansk, Naryan-Mar, Pevek, Sabetta, and Severodvinsk.