Arctic Geopolitical Configuration
119conflict due to temperature variation, the Murmansk case is therefore the
most prone to intraregional conflict.
At the same time, we contrast the conflict potential of provinces
belonging to three zones of conflict: the “North America to Norway–
Russia” buffer, the “Russia–Northern Europe” buffer, and the “Northern
Europe–North America to Norway” buffer, according to three conflict-
related dichotomous parameters: regime type, attitude towards conflict,
and trade status. The results of this qualitative assessment of the Arctic
states’ proneness to intraregional conflict are presented in figure 7-2.
Figure 7-2: Arctic States’ Conflict Potentials as Defined by Regime Authority,
Attitude to Conflict, and Trade Policy.^69
In 2010, 18 Arctic provinces shared the same Polity Score, +10,
meaning that were democratic regimes. In contrast, all Russian provinces
were characterized by anocracy, as their Polity Score equaled 4. The
attitude towards conflict in Russia and the United States is militaristic;
given the rate of military conflict participation since the 1970s, the
numbers for ten provinces belonging to these two states have been the
greatest throughout the Arctic region (19 and 18, respectively). 17
provinces share a peaceful attitude to conflict, as their respective nation
states have conflict participation numbers extending from 1 (Finland,
Sweden) to 5 (Canada, Denmark, Norway). Finally, while one province
belonging to the United States is autarkic (the share of foreign trade
“ȼɫɬɭɩɥɟɧɢɟ Ɋɨɫɫɢɢ ɜɨ «ȼɫɟɦɢɪɧɭɸ Ɍɨɪɝɨɜɭɸ Ɉɪɝɚɧɢɡɚɰɢɸ»: ɩɪɨɛɥɟɦɵ ɢ
ɩɟɪɫɩɟɤɬɢɜɵ”, 42.
(^69) Compiled by the author.
Regime Authority Attitude to conflict Trade policy
Anocracy Democracy Military Peaceful Autarky Openness
Canada
Denmark
Finland
Iceland
Norway
Russia
Sweden
USA