Comparative analysis of the Russian and American strategies of the development of the Arctic

Now are the obvious importance and the need to expand the presence of Russia in the Arctic because of the strategic nature of the Arctic zone of the prospects for the socio-economic and political development of the country and its territories. The Arctic, as emphasized by the researchers, is a "strategic resource base of the Russian Federation, which provides the solution of problems of socio-economic development of the country" [2]. The Arctic zone should ensure the sustainable development of the country in the long term. It is through the resources of the Arctic and

Sub-Arctic areas in the future it will be possible to maintain the country's economy [7]. This implies the search for the optimal management of the political and administrative model that would adapt the socio-economic and political conditions in the territory of the perspective directions of the development of the country. As noted by Sallust, "any position of power could be approved only by the means and art, by which it was originally purchased" [18, p.302]. Consequently, the implementation of a clear strategic doctrine should be based on the current level of the socioeconomic development of the country, a certain degree of maturity of the management and organizational culture. These circumstances determine both the strengths and weaknesses of policies aimed at the efficient use of the resources in the Arctic at the moment.

It should be noted that, in matters of the development is traced euro-oriented Russian policy regarding the Arctic zone. Thus, the major projects in the region, as follows: "Creating a North European gas pipeline to deliver gas from Russia through the Nordic countries in the continental Europe, the Shtokman gas condensate field in the Barents Sea ( the fifth-power gas field in the world), the creation of the Baltic pipeline system (BOPS), the purpose of which is to connect the network of the pipelines Russia EU markets through the Finnish port of Porvoo and the Russian port of Primorsk, the construction of the Baltic electricity transmitting system (BALTEL) to create a common Baltic electricity market in the region, among the priority transport projects are the projects: "corridor 9 a" from Helsinki to Moscow via St. Petersburg, "via Baltica", designed to link the three Baltic States and Finland, and Poland" [8].

The question of the Spatial Development of the North Russia at the present time is no less important than the question of the resource use of these areas. It is through the development of Russian regions (especially the Arctic) it is possible to grade the presence of Russia in the Arctic. At the same resources to the development of these areas, as might be expected, may be involved in the present only in the development of the Arctic oil and gas. As noted by Karl Haushofer, the "power users with large spaces that can maneuver, having a space ..." [18, p. 307]. Thus, we can conclude about the possibility and the need for the full development of the new modern Russia, the compensation model of the development of Russian territories. This model involves developing a common strategy for the development of the Arctic (and other) parts of the country, taking into account their complex communication and the strategy to bind to specific regional strategies.

Inside oriented model of the development of the region and the country as a whole can be built in the accordance with the principle of the homeostasis, and rely on a network of the specialized research centers [11] capable of in a professional manner to form spatio-temporal parameters of the development areas. The main support of data centers today, it is advisable to consider a research staff of the regional universities [6]. This model will enable management to depart from stereatipized in the approaches and ways of the development of the Arctic zone and the country as a whole and build future plans for development of the territories.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, June 13, 2013 drew the attention of the heads of the subjects of the need to raise the level of the management culture [4]. Its no secret that most areas of the country that does not provide adequate economic returns remain outside the attention of authorities to their future development, although at the present the strategic development of the territories, of course, gets more attention than a few decades ago. At the same time, the poor infrastructure of the civil society, which should contribute to the independent development of the regions, leads to the fact that the territory of their own and are not able to date to develop the qualitative concept of the development, all the more so for their implementation in the regions are often not planned facilities. These problems lead to the "extinction" of territories, where people prefer to leave them in the absence of the long-term programs of the development.

As an example of an effective management model can be considered a model in Germany. In Germany, the federal government provides a number of the measures for the development of territories. For example, a single scheme for the restructuring and the development of all land [9]. This allows areas not to be tied to resource stocks and design capabilities of its long-term development on the basis of the possibility of the application of new techniques and technologies. This practice can be useful to the country and region in the formation of the effective mechanisms of the government and the civil administration. Thus, the strategy of the development of the Arctic should initially consider the prospects poststress use and the development potential of the territories surrounding land.

The need to determine the perspectives for the spatial development of the Russian Arctic has led to the formation of a number of the strategic documents. To date, the current strategy is the development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and the national security for the period up to 2020 [17]. The strategy defines the prospects of the Arctic, " in particular, the completion of hydrographic work, providing clearance, preventing the loss of the spatial and the worst compared to other Arctic coastal states legal environment in Russia in the Arctic, as well as the creation and the development of the Coast Guard of the FSB of Russia in the Arctic region, the creation of integrated information and telecommunications infrastructure, the development of the rescue preparedness, development of a single national system for monitoring the state of the pollution and the environment" [15].

Thus, the strategy takes into account the large number of the questions, which are reflected in the scientific literature: the socio-economic, legal, military, political, informational, cultural, ethical, environmental, and others [see, eg, 19, 13, 4, 14, 12, 10, etc.]. The strategy reflects the perspectives of development not only of the region and the country as a whole, therefore, on its quality and completeness of the implementation depends on the socio-economic and political future development of Russia.

Along with the interests of Russian interests in the Arctic are implemented and other countries. It is divided into three clusters of countries whose interests are directly intersected in the region (author's classification): I cluster - the former Soviet Union (Russia and Belarus); II cluster -NATO countries (Canada, Denmark, Norway, and USA); III cluster - a neutral country (Iceland, Finland, Sweden).

The main goals and objectives of these countries in the Arctic observed in their foreign policy concepts that reflect the mechanism of the forecasting and planning of the space and territorial development. A key opponent of Russia in the Arctic are still the United States, whose concept of the development in the Arctic is set out in the National Security Presidential Directive in 2009 [1]. Analyzing the above-mentioned strategy of Russia and the U.S. to develop the Arctic should highlight similarities and distinctive hand, which determine, ultimately, the quality of these strategies and the ability to implement them in practice (Table 1).

Table 1

Comparatyve analysis of the strategis of Russia [17] and the USA [1] in the Arctic (Authors variant)

Analysis of the strategies to determine the strategy of the United States as a strategy for a regional review of the principle of the Arctic and policy in the region. Structuring issues before committing allowed the U.S. clearly aware of the value of each group of the questions for the future of the country. It should be noted that the strategy is not only identifies key challenges oper- ates real documents, but barking in the implementation mechanisms for the real political institutions and mechanisms. Strategy of Russia in the Arctic should be defined as a strategy for the geographical principle consider the prospects of the development of the region, which eliminates the political and administrative mechanisms for its implementation and can lead to negative effects .

Moreover, it is clear that in this case we are faced with two ways of the structuring the spatial areas in the Arctic. Can be designated as their divergence gentnoe and convergent thinking in the context of the overall management paradigm that is characteristic of the western and eastern mentality. According to Tim Brown [3], this distinction is a profound conceptual in nature and determines not only tactical but also strategic vision of the leaders of the West and the East.