Minister Alexey Chekunkov discussed the development strategy for the Arctic and Far East through 2050: trillion-ruble projects, the Northern Sea Route, new technologies, and life in extreme latitudes. Key takeaways from the landmark EEF-2024.
33 min read
Share:
Watch the video version of the interview onRUTUBE.
– Alexey Ilyich, thank you so much. We're speaking just a few hours after the Eastern Economic Forum wrapped up. It was the tenth anniversary edition. Everything went successfully, well—what's your take?
– Everything went according to plan. Which means it was successful.
– Here's an interesting question: everyone has fitness trackers these days. Did you measure your step count? You probably logged more than 10,000 steps a day.
– About that, yes. I try to hit 8-10,000 on any given day.
– During the forum, does the pace pick up, intensify? Were you watching the clock?
– During the forum, the schedule stretches across that entire forum week. It flies by like one day. After ten years, we've developed a certain expertise.
– I saw you in several places simultaneously. It always amazes me: you turn on the TV—you're there, you look at a booth—there you are, the Far East pavilion, all the company stands... It seems like you were simply everywhere, moving at some incredible speed.
– We tried to give attention where it was due. Many people put in effort to make the forum successful, including you—thank you. And one of the innovations at this tenth forum was that for the first time in 10 years, this wasn't just a Far Eastern forum, but a full-fledged Far Eastern and Arctic forum. We saw the president's address, where many of the decisions—those major strategic decisions he spoke about regarding the Far East and the Arctic—touched on the unified TOR, high-tech operating regimes, social decisions on mortgages, and including the interesting session you moderated on the Arctic information agenda. In terms of agenda density—not just Far Eastern but also Arctic themes—this forum stood out, and that's a good thing.
– Excellent, we'll talk more about all of this. The format of our program "New World" is to discuss what things will look like in 20-25 years. Considering we're now in 2025: we've had these 25 years that have been so successful for our country, so important and telling, when the economy got back on its feet, when—it seems to me—we as Russians are coming to understand our place in the world. And now the plans for the next 25 years through 2050 are particularly interesting. Where is all this heading, how is the country being built? Indeed, our leadership is planning and laying this out in strategies and plans that ministers then execute. When it comes to the Arctic and the Far East, these are truly plans of planetary scale. Over the next 25 years, it's precisely the Far East and the Arctic that will become the drivers: drivers of our country's growth, drivers of our country's development. And by the way, not just our country—everything else will follow suit, because the center of the world is gradually shifting in that direction.
I want to show some small outline maps and suggest doing a bit of drawing. It's September now, our children have gone back to school. There's a joke that you shouldn't rush to buy outline maps because the world is changing quickly, sometimes faster than we think. But overall, just so our subscribers and viewers understand what we're talking about—the Far East, the Arctic—these seem like something very, very distant, but in fact we'll now understand just how close or far they really are to us. If we take, for example, a world map—we remember it too from geography lessons—we look at it like this now: there's the American story, there's our story, Eurasia, Europe. We're used to looking at the world this way. But if we talk about the world as it will be in 25 years, perhaps it will be a completely different story. What do you think, Alexey Olegovich? What will this map look like? I'm not even talking about the political map. Let's say, geopolitically, where will the center of the world be by the 2050s, where will all the main flows, development, and growth be?
– You see, for world history, 25 years isn't such a long period, but right now we've reached a certain turning point. And it's symbolic that our president flew to the Eastern Economic Forum from Beijing and Tianjin, where dozens of leaders from the world's largest countries, including the most populous—China and India—major Southeast Asian countries, and African states met, essentially discussing a new system of global governance. That's what it was called. And I would, you know, express hope that there won't be major changes in these dotted lines that mark country borders over these 25 years. Because established states live as they live, but the format of interaction between different nations, between different countries—a new one has certainly matured.
The format that existed in the 20th century was essentially defined by the Cold War and this confrontation between West and East. If you recall, both China and India were... India was the most famous so-called non-aligned country, but still with more socialist leanings. China essentially developed with great support and following many paradigms developed in our country, and was in the camp of communist countries, where it remains to this day. And the format of a world split in two, into West and East, where the East was perceived as more collectivist and conditionally hierarchical, while the West was more liberal and in some ways more technologically progressive—this paradigm ended by the end of the 20th century. Now no one would say that the West is technologically more advanced than the East. And I flew to Vladivostok from Beijing, and everyone already understands that the much-discussed pivot to the East has already happened. And probably the economic center of the world and its main engine is somewhere here.
– Maybe we should even draw it. But is this the East, or is it actually the Northeast, considering the forum and understanding the global and strategic plans for Arctic development as well?
– We have China roughly here: it looks something like this. Yes, here's China, plus or minus here's Mongolia, here's India. These two states, plus, by the way, Indonesia—where 4 billion people live. Here's Southeast Asia. Right now, in this region, there's the most rapid economic growth, and in this region there's the richest resource base. And this is a certain yin-yang, as they say in the East, such a combination—there's no need to be embarrassed about it. For many years we were deceived, and deceived by our own Western friends who taught us how to live and manage our economy in the 1990s: don't be a resource appendage, don't engage in oil, gas, and metals extraction—we'll extract them for you. Under production sharing agreements, investments credited by American partners since 1994 exceeded $100 billion, on which they didn't pay us taxes. That is, this is money they earned from our hydrocarbons, which they convinced us we shouldn't develop and shouldn't be a resource appendage.
Of course, on the contrary—using these riches technologically, competently, and prudently to participate in this development is our unique historical opportunity, for which any country would be willing to give a lot, and there's no other country like this. And of course, considering that this territory is 55% of our country's area: few people live there, the climate is harsh, but the most important, fastest economic changes and economic development are happening there now. They're fueled by the engine that's been launched here in Asia. And in this sense, the EEF is a unique platform that both meets this powerful economic engine and provides opportunities to participate in this unique growth. And the West is watching all this with enormous interest—I wouldn't say with envy exactly, but at least with concern that all this music will be composed without them.
– Yes, of course, there was such a combination of factors here: both the EEF and everything that was happening in Beijing. Of course, our Western "friends" in quotes adjusted their approach. And all their hysterical information dumps—about Ursula supposedly not making it because Russia could have disabled the GPS system, and everything else... You can see they're upset. This alignment is interesting. Why it's sometimes very important to look at a map, especially strategically.
– Notice that we extend with our little piece into the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, the 180th meridian passes through our territory approximately in the area of the Chukotka village of Egvekinot. And, for example, the settlement of Uelen is already technically in the Western Hemisphere. I spoke with our Chukotka blogger from Uelen, and he was amazed to learn that he's actually in a different hemisphere than almost the entire country.
– He didn't even notice. And may I suggest that right now the political map—which looks like this, the one we study from—could it happen that the most central events on the globe...
– From above, you mean?
– Yes, of course, I want to depict this very Arctic. I don't know, you're better at it, you try.
– Well, look.
– Where does Russia fit in this cap?
– Depicting the Arctic is quite simple. Russia will be here, and over here in these archipelagos will be pieces of Canada. Greenland will be somewhere here, Alaska will be here. Here's the North Pole. We have the mainland, we have the main Arctic cities, more than half the Arctic population, the main Arctic resources. And most importantly, the Northern Sea Route runs through our territory.
– So we're set for the next 25 years?
– We're not just set, we're in our rights. That is, we're in the Arctic by right, we've been building this system for more than 500 years, developing these lands, learning to live and conduct economic activity in extreme latitudes. And there are actually three reasons why the whole world is so interested in the Arctic. The first reason is historical—why the Arctic generated so much emotion in the 20th century—because it's the shortest flight path for ballistic missiles. We must acknowledge that it's also the hardest place to detect them. Therefore, starting with the theory of mutual deterrence, with the emergence of nuclear weapons, experts assessed the highest risks in any conflict involving flights over the northern latitudes. Hence, this is where the most complex air defense system is located, and so on. We have the Northern Fleet here, which simultaneously plays both a defensive and preemptive function.
The second reason is economics. This is where the richest, still undeveloped reserves of natural resources are located. That's gas, oil, non-ferrous and precious metals. These are precisely the metals that now form the foundation of the new economy: electrification, new materials, microelectronics. They're located mainly in our territory and in Greenland—hence the United States' interest in Greenland.
– In this configuration, what percentage of the Arctic does Russia currently have?
– About half, even a bit more. Let's say a controlling stake.
– Roughly 50%. The rest, let's say very roughly, 30% and 30%—that's Greenland and Canada.
– There's also a bit of Scandinavia here. Here's Scandinavia, Iceland, and here's Greenland. The other 7 countries... In the Arctic, above the polar circle, we have a total of 8 countries. That's Russia, the United States, Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Denmark.
– The point is that the largest share, the biggest pieces, in geopolitical terms, belong to us. The point is that if America wants to expand its influence, that's why they need these seemingly wild things we're hearing about—that they want to buy Canada, Greenland. It makes sense, because everything will unfold here, the center is here. And just as in Jack London's time there was a gold rush—Alaska, now there was even a summit in Alaska...
– A white rush.
– And overall the mood now is, shall we say, anxious, because all countries have already understood where the piece of the pie is for the next 25 years. And once again there's this rush happening in the Arctic, in a good sense. It seems to me that everything points precisely to this.
You know, I'm in favor of constructive development, especially in the high latitudes—it's bad when things are turbulent. And this kind of reshuffling of the global world map—I can't comment on the United States' plans regarding Greenland or Canada, but it doesn't add stability to Arctic development. And we haven't even mentioned another aspect of Arctic development yet.
The third point?
The third point is logistics—it's also the shortest route between Europe and Asia, our Northern Sea Route. And there's an aspect that concerns all countries in the world: ecology. The Arctic is the kitchen of global weather. Here we have year-round ice cover: every winter it increases, every summer it shrinks. Well, the area of this ice cover is getting smaller and smaller year after year. This ice reflects sunlight. So when the ice cover shrinks, the process of warming the entire planet accelerates. This ice melts, turns into water, into fresh water, which changes fundamental currents, including ones like the Gulf Stream. And there's a scientific theory of an almost apocalyptic nature...
Does this theory cover the next 25 years?
Let's put it this way: within 25 years, dramatic consequences in the form of natural extremes will already be felt, could be felt. Events like extreme heat in latitudes where it's never existed. I'm talking primarily about Europe...
So will there be flooding after all?
Flooding, heat, or the opposite: if the Gulf Stream retreats, there could instead be a sharp drop in temperatures. And, hypothetically speaking, England and Scotland won't be able to live the way they've lived until now. These events happen, you know, slowly accumulating, and then they switch on like a toggle. And generally, the scientific community treats this very cautiously, while in the world all mechanisms for any kind of coordinated response to these threats have collapsed. So right now we're living in a regime where this locomotive is racing somewhere, but the engineer has left the cabin, the switchman has been dragged off somewhere, and where it's heading is unclear. I'm talking about climate. My opinion is still that climate change exists. And at minimum, we need to research and monitor it in order to adapt in time, just as with those risks—to read them in time. Right now, as a family of nations, we're not doing very good work in this direction.
I see. And what about the Arctic and its habitability? Again, when we were discussing what this interview would be about, it's hard to explain what it's about. We're still looking at all these processes, at the WEF itself, from the perspective of 25 years. Arctic habitability: if we've discussed that the climate is complex, not all the phenomena that will occur there are fully understood, but still, is there a possibility for us in the next 25 years to launch some new city where people will live? Do such technologies exist?
You can do anything, but whether you should is the question. After all, we're the largest country in the world—17 million square kilometers, we have places for people to live. The Arctic is a territory for bold, unusual people, for people who serve, work, create unique projects, but we have no plans for mass settlement of the Arctic and necessarily moving people from the South to the North to live. I'd even say somewhat the opposite, probably from the standpoint of climate zones—I'd look more carefully at the south of our Far East, where indeed, as is well known, Vladivostok is located at the same latitude as Sochi. You yourself just came from there, you'd agree the climate there is quite pleasant. It's Asian, quite humid, but it's the ocean, it's the Pacific basin. And along the entire length of our long border with China, these are very, very comfortable places for people to live—there's a sharply continental climate, almost 300 sunny days a year. And as a place for promising development of our population centers, mass migration of people, I would consider precisely Siberia and the Far East. The Arctic is a territory of projects. It's a territory where you can do projects on the level of Norilsk Nickel, Prirazlomnaya, Baimskoye deposit, Varandey and many, many projects that change the economic map of the world, but they don't require cities of millions. At the same time, the cities already created, of which we have, I repeat, the most in the Arctic—in the world Arctic, in the world's polar regions, we have the most people living there.
And how many people is that?
The total population of the Arctic is 2.3 million people—our Russian Arctic. Of them, about 70% live in cities. That is, 1.6 million people live in key Arctic cities. These 1.6 million represent approximately 1% of the residents of the Russian Federation, who carry on their shoulders a very large part of the Arctic economy, Arctic security, Arctic social sphere. Without which there is no Russian Arctic, no Northern Sea Route, no great projects. And this really is a special percentage of people for whom we work—so that they can live comfortably with modern technologies, modern capabilities. The disadvantages they objectively experience due to climate and high latitudes—polar night, extreme temperatures, permafrost, northern delivery—so that these disadvantages are offset by technologies. We're living for the first time in an era when many such age-old problems of life in the North are being solved with the help of technology.
Give an example.
– Communications. In Soviet times, it really was the case: how mail reached the Arctic – a letter took a month. Now the internet has basically reached if not the most remote settlements, then all Arctic cities are reliably covered by internet, and places where the largest projects are being implemented have satellite technologies and other technologies. People are maximally connected. Arctic medicine: now there's air ambulance services, mobile medical teams, telemedicine, new medical complexes. Take the cardiac center in Yakutsk, for example – although Yakutsk is formally not part of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation, it's the far north. This is super-modern social infrastructure that has come to people in the north where it never existed before. And it makes life much more comfortable and secure.
– As I understand it, there's a plan for anchor cities that will be developed. And this is already a ready master plan. This isn't some discussion somewhere, but an already mapped out, clear model according to which these cities will be restored or even practically created anew.
– They will be, as we call it, modernized. Sixteen anchor settlements will receive the facilities, the improvements, the technologies that are needed to make life there better. Starting from heated bus stops and energy-efficient lighting systems and ending with, indeed, schools, hospitals and sports centers that are simply needed for everyday life.
– When I talked about habitability and about possibility, about probability – of course, we can't imagine now how quickly technologies can develop, say, even in 5-10 years. But if we assume that in 25 years we have technologies being developed at the Snezhinka polar station. This is also a major project. For you, who have been working on this for a long time, this is all not news, but for us it's amazing. When we were preparing for the interview, my editorial team, for example, didn't know about this project. They said: ask more about Snezhinka, what kind of technologies are there, what's being grown there. If plants are growing there, say, such special climate conditions are being created, is it possible using such technology to create such conditions for people, for entire buildings, cities.
– Good question. Snezhinka is now designed, and we expect that construction will soon begin in Yamal. The main idea of Snezhinka is energy autonomy. That is, it's a closed loop that constantly provides itself with energy.
– An almost closed dome, right?
– Dome-shaped spheres made of plastic, conventionally speaking, a composite material that is heated and supplied with electricity through hydrogen. Snezhinka's solution is hydrogen. There may be competition among technologies – it could be liquefied natural gas. Actually, during the polar day and even partially solar energy – the level of ultraviolet is quite sufficient to generate some energy from the sun. And it's interesting that you mentioned food: indeed, there are already technologies for such containerized vegetable farms, so-called hydroponics, which allow vegetables to be produced when there's an energy source, which, I repeat, in our case could be hydrogen or liquefied natural gas. And basically, this can be organized almost anywhere, even at the North Pole.
– And at any scale? Like, for example, Magadan strawberries that grow in a greenhouse in the snow.
– At any scale, because it's a modular system. And indeed, there can be one container, there can be twenty containers – it depends on how many people need to be served. Like those same Magadan strawberries, you're right. So the technologies exist, any people who live whether at Snezhinka station, or in a small settlement, or in a large city – they're all connected to the internet, all connected to each other and provided with modern transportation, provided with modern medicine, provided with modern products.
In the Arctic, by the way, you know, the food is quite delicious. My observation, I travel to many places: the peculiarities of Arctic cuisine – it's very healthy, there's a lot of protein, it's reindeer and fish, two main sources of protein, a lot of vitamin C from berries, primarily cloudberries and cranberries. In the Arctic, people approach cuisine and cooking unhurriedly and with such love and creativity. Frankly speaking, borrowing something, because the Arctic is so close-knit: people who even live in Arkhangelsk, in Murmansk, they feel close to Scandinavia. And historically there was such a neighborhood: people who live above the 66th parallel feel some kind of commonality. Indigenous peoples generally interact around the entire perimeter, and even in the most difficult recent years, interaction with North American indigenous peoples has not ceased – through our KMNS association this dialogue continues. So the Arctic is also such a territory, you know, of closer interaction in conditions when the entire rest of the world south of the 66th parallel has already quarreled badly.
– So there's hope that people there will unite rather than stage potential major global military conflicts. A very important question that you touched on is the question of energy. If a small Snezhinka station runs on hydrogen, then globally for our huge plans for developing, economically developing the Arctic and the Far East, we certainly need capacity. And this is such a major strategic task. Tactical solutions are not yet fully clear. The question of electricity. I know there was a major meeting on energy headed by the president during the Eastern Economic Forum. Have any decisions been reached? Am I correct in understanding that today's capacity, given our plans, is insufficient, and new capacity needs to be built?
– The president's meeting primarily concerned the Far East. But here, in general, the question is fair, because the Arctic, first of all, is largely located in our Far East: in parts of Yakutia, Chukotka. Secondly, the north and isolated regions are generally 2/3 of our country's territory. And questions of energy supply in such new conditions, of course, require new technological solutions. Here atomic energy has great potential. Now the whole world is looking for solutions for increasingly compact nuclear reactors. There are already prototypes of 10 megawatts. That is, a nuclear power plant no longer necessarily has to be a giant, gigawatt-scale unit costing $10 billion that needs 10 years to build. These can quite well be modular nuclear reactors. We have just such a case in the Arctic, in Kyuchus, in the Republic of Sakha-Yakutia, where a small-capacity nuclear station is being built. ASMM – two units, initially one unit was planned, here there are 2 units with a capacity of approximately 55 megawatts each, which together will be an energy center for organizing mining and the life of an entire cluster of enterprises and settlements around this nuclear power plant.
– So overall, the energy sector over the next 20 years will move toward more mobile, smaller-scale nuclear resources that will be able to provide...
– Not just nuclear. The forum also discussed traditional fuel types, including coal—small modular coal-fired plants. By the way, I wouldn't write off coal just yet. People have been burying coal for 800 years now, but in 25 years it absolutely won't be going anywhere. First, modern emission-cleaning technologies already exist that allow coal to be used in a fairly environmentally friendly way. Coal is simply difficult to transport over long distances, and as we know, it's cumbersome—it clogs up the railways, which is a problem for us. On the Eastern Range, on the BAM, on the Trans-Siberian, hauling coal from far away is difficult. But where it's available nearby—in Yakutia, in Chukotka—it's definitely one component of the fuel and energy balance. But let's not fixate on coal: there's no doubt that new technologies like hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and certainly nuclear technologies will be more widely adopted. It's very important to mention floating nuclear power plants, which are world firsts: the Akademik Lomonosov, already stationed in the Arctic, and four more being built for the Chukotka Autonomous District. I think this technology will be in demand everywhere in the world. Hydrogen is a technology that has almost—almost—arrived over the past 25 years, but it still hasn't fully taken off. And here there are probably several scenarios—from continued niche use, because all the technological solutions already exist, things run on hydrogen...
– Why can't they scale it up like that?
– Infrastructure. Because the existing infrastructure is designed for the fuel types currently in use—gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, coal. For cars, public transport, trucks, utilities, enormous infrastructure has been built that uses and transports the fuel that exists. You can't completely convert, say, gas pipelines into hydrogen pipelines. They've studied this question, but it's so borderline that specialists say: we need to build new hydrogen pipelines. Of course, when hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in gas pipelines, building hydrogen pipelines is difficult.
– But perhaps a hydrogen pipeline—Power of the Arctic.
– Maybe, yes, maybe. But I still think we need to rely on the strengths we already have. The Arctic, since we've touched on this topic, is absolutely the gas capital of the world—of the world, not just our country. This is Yamal, which actually accounts for more than 80% of all gas production in our country. And historically, the main exports came from Yamal. Now the western route has closed, and the decision to build Power of Siberia 2, the connector, creates the opportunity to pump Yamal gas eastward and supply Asia with Yamal gas under new contracts. This essentially makes the Arctic also a supplier of energy resources to the most densely populated region in the world.
– What other resources will be, let's say, at the top of the world's economic agenda for the next 25 years? We've all heard about rare earth metals: no one really fully understands what they're needed for, but supposedly they're also in the Arctic—on our side of the Arctic.
– Rare earth metals are an interesting thing. They're actually not as rare as a rule—there are plenty of them, but they're very difficult to mine and process. And their peculiarity is that they're needed in very small quantities. If you need to build 100 high-class fighter jets a year and each fighter needs a magnet weighing 100 grams, then you need a kilogram a year of some super-rare, let's say, germanium. You need 1 kilogram, but to extract that kilogram you need such an industrial physical and chemical process that requires enormous investment—it never pays off. And it turns out that either, for the economics to work, there must be one producer of this stuff in the world and it will supply the whole world. But this increasingly doesn't align with the theory of technological sovereignty that all countries are now pursuing—all countries want to be as self-sufficient as possible in everything. Or accordingly, government decisions are needed so that we provide ourselves with strategic metals. Such decisions have been made, and Russia has a whole strategy for developing the rare earth metals sector.
– You're being so diplomatic about it, but are they actually in the Arctic? Are they there in sufficient quantities? We clearly need more than a kilogram.
– They're there. And in some cases, not more than a kilogram. That's the peculiarity of these metals—maybe 100 kilograms are needed. These aren't metals needed in industrial quantities, as a rule, that would economically justify their processing.
– But they exist on our territory and they're also being developed?
– They exist on our territory, the bulk of them are there. And the question is much more about organizing the technological process than organizing extraction. Of course, the Arctic is a source not only of rare earth metals, but also non-ferrous and precious metals, which are actually no less needed. And those are needed in industrial quantities: metals like palladium, cobalt, platinum are used in both microelectronics and machine building. Although now with internal combustion engines—this transition is happening more and more clearly, but in this transition copper, a very ancient metal, is playing with new colors. There are calculations now showing that in the next 10 years there will be a copper shortage in the world. That is, all the copper needed for everything to switch to electricity, as the main conductor of electricity, the projects that have been launched don't meet the demand. This means the price of this metal will rise, and here our Arctic, projects like the Baimsky plant—a gigantic project with investments of a trillion rubles—will be very much in demand.
– What are the top three projects that came together at this EEF that just concluded? You can rank them by size. I can see you're a precise person – by kilograms and grams.
– Yes, the largest project that was signed is 1.7 trillion rubles. It's very much in demand and concerns fuel production, including motor fuel, in the Far East. Unfortunately, I can't name the investor for obvious reasons – we're still moving forward in confidential mode – but it's an experienced group that has already implemented similar projects. So we'll pay close attention to supporting this project. Next is the development of an entire new iron ore cluster – this is basic construction, metal production, and there are several processing stages in Khabarovsk Territory. This is the Amerikanskoye deposit, also a very powerful investor, a metals investor – the same investors who are doing Udokan Copper for us. This will be a landmark, excellent project.
And then, not by investment volume but by technological significance, also among my favorites. The top three definitely includes a relatively small project, but a very innovative one, signed by Cognitive Pilot to launch the first – probably not just in Russia but in the world – project for autonomous agricultural robots. We'll be the first to deploy several dozen completely autonomous machines in the fields, these small cabinet-sized units weighing 1 ton that will plow, sow, and cultivate fields on their own using artificial intelligence and machine vision, while collecting enormous amounts of data in real time. A completely new level of efficiency and productivity. You see, such a range of projects – from heavy projects in traditional sectors: oil refining, mining, metallurgy, to very innovative projects involving artificial intelligence and machine vision, and in the food production sector at that. This reflects the fact that the EEF is a forum with a very broad range – practically all sectors of the economy are covered, and businesses perceive it as a platform where they need to move forward on all fronts.
– There's a concern that if not artificial intelligence, then robots themselves could replace human labor and human presence in many spheres. And it's clear that the Arctic has difficult climatic conditions. Won't it be the case that soon, in 25 years, the Arctic will be filled with boxes on wheels from Cognitive Pilot with brains that are artificially controlled through the cloud, and people won't be needed? Do you see people there, or such a functioning economic machine that will indeed provide our country with everything necessary, but it's more about machines?
– The whole world has split into two camps. One camp believes in techno-utopia and that robots will replace us. The second camp believes in people. I definitely belong to the second camp, and I'll give an example from history. At one time, probably 80% of the Earth's population was engaged in producing food. That is, people lived to eat. They plowed the land, sowed, harvested – and 8 out of 10 people were doing this. Now less than 1% of people worldwide are engaged in producing food. 99% of people do other things. We've forgotten about this. Food just is. The level of mechanization in such a fundamental industry, without which there is no life, has reached such a level that labor productivity is incredible. No, robots will never replace us. They will free up human energy, human intellect, our creative and constructive principles for new achievements. The President expressed the same opinion in response to the moderator's question "won't robots replace us" at the plenary session. He said that robots will help us unlock our talents. And this applies to the Arctic as well, especially in extreme climate zones, where the more autonomous robotic systems are used, the better. People's lives will be more interesting, they'll create more beautiful things, open new horizons, conduct research with the help of artificial intelligence. I believe in human genius and in its irreplaceability by machine algorithms, because humans are irrational. Any machine is ultimately built on certain laws – geometric, physical – ones and zeros. But the human mind is not subject to any laws. We are God's children. So I think that robots and artificial intelligence are there to help us, not to replace us.
– Speaking of the human mind. You mentioned the session that we initiated and you supported – thank you for that. This session concerned the contemporary image of the Arctic. And if we talk about our current generation, including Russians, how do they see the Arctic today? Those of us in the media have a general sense that this image is insufficient, it hasn't formed yet. There are only beginnings, the interest is colossal, the information hunger is even colossal – everything is interesting, whatever you say. But we'd like to have information on an industrial scale already, and for an image to form. Our parents have an image of the Arctic, we have a historical image of the Arctic. But the current generation doesn't have one – do you agree with this?
– I'll only partly agree. First, there's no shame in being proud of past heroes – we need to be proud of them, we need to know them. I think we should never forget Ivan Dmitrievich Papanin, Otto Schmidt, Artur Nikolaevich Chilingarov, the Chelyuskin crew, or all those who essentially helped Russia become the world's most powerful northern power, grow these territories, develop them, build. Second, myth and legend – they were also constructed. They were constructed through books: "Two Captains," Kuvaev's novel "Territory." They were constructed through the romanticization of the North long before the North began feeding the country. After all, if the development of the Northern Sea Route and the story of the Chelyuskin crew – all that was actually in the 1930s – the real economic output from the Arctic only began probably in the late 1960s, if not later, in the 1970s. Novy Urengoy is only now celebrating 50 years, and that's, excuse me, 1975. The main output was actually in the 1980s, 1990s, and now. Now the Arctic is essentially returning the investments that the country has made in it for centuries, many centuries. How did it all start: with soft goods, it started with furs, it started with fish. No one imagined that there would be global reserves of hydrocarbons, precious metals, that cities with populations of hundreds of thousands would emerge there. Are new heroes needed? Of course they are. Who are these new heroes and how to tell their stories, how to show them? This is a very difficult puzzle. I think repeating the patterns of the past won't work, no matter how much we might want to. What's very important here – and you as a media professional should feel this first and foremost – is to find the creators themselves who will create these meanings, those people who by their example... Now everything is, as they say, viral. Now one successful, excuse me, blogger can convert tens of millions of people to his faith very quickly if he's convincing, if he has that audience. Conversely, you can spend billions of rubles creating fundamental, monumental cinema, show it on broadcast television, and not as many people will see it as you'd like for a legend to actually be born. So there need to be new legends and new formats. What formats – this is where we'd very much like to rely on you, on media specialists, to come up with these solutions together.
– We're already coordinating as best we can. The session showed colossal interest and, most importantly, understanding that this needs to be discussed in this circle. We're naturally inviting everyone to this work, we'll form such an intellectual, public group that can shape the right direction of thought on what – not even patterns, but what tracks, that's the word today – to use to form the image. And when these tracks and directions are set, the people who want to go in these directions will join. These are creators, these are makers – we've already spoken with Fyodor Bondarchuk, Alexander Tsypkin, the screenwriter. These are people who are stars in their fields, and these are already ignited stars whom the Arctic has infected. I very much believe that together we'll all manage to make the Arctic viral in a good sense, and, you know, so that it becomes personal for each person. Not somewhere very far away and very cold, but nearby, one's own. And our common task through common efforts is to develop it this way, as your ministry does.
I understand you're being modest, but in fact pioneers like Chelyuskin and all the others – today you're also a pioneer. And the team working with you, and Yuri Petrovich Trutnev – you're making absolutely global changes, world-scale changes. It's very important to me that our viewers and subscribers note and hear this. One final, last question to complete our big journey through the future Arctic. Still, we talked more about strategy. In 25 years you wake up: these master plans that you wrote, that went through you, they've been implemented, in 25 years the EEF-2050 takes place, Alexey Olegovich Chekunkov speaks at this EEF. What words would you begin with? What would you want to say there, what could you be proud of by 2050? It doesn't have to be your result – it's the result of a large team called Russia, under the leadership of our president, that dared to accept such a challenge of fate and show how correctly, how it's possible and how necessary it is to develop the Arctic for the residents of our country. What words would you speak in 2050?
– Any changes are made by people. Any work that is strategic, long-term work is successful only if you manage to inspire as many people as possible with this work. People who will want to dedicate their destinies to it, who will want in their youth, if they're young people, to go study for the relevant professions. If they're mature people – who will want to join this work. Using the example of the same work on the Far East, which I've also been involved with for quite a long time, it's actually an enormous joy to see changes over a fairly long horizon, when from plans, from empty fields, new world-class projects emerge.
– Somewhere since 2013 there have been large-scale projects.
– New enterprises, new airports, new ports, new schools. Perhaps indeed even new settlements somewhere, although I believe this isn't necessary – we have beautiful existing cities, they can be built up, expanded, rebuilt. And if fate at some point gives the opportunity to look back and, so to speak, reflect, it would be very important to me that as many people as possible, talented people, such inspired people, accept this challenge. For now I'll say cautiously, knock on wood, for now this is happening. I see that the same theme of Arctic development and Far East development resonates. We see that young people sense that something unusual is happening there, they sense that it's interesting. It's very important in life, as they say, to find work that you love, and you won't have to work a single day. It's very important that what you do is interesting, that you believe in it, that every day when you wake up... After all, any serious work is difficult, there's no easy work if it's worthy. But in the face of any difficulties, every day you should be joyful that this is exactly what you'll be doing today, engaging in this work. The Arctic, the Far East – they offer such opportunities. And I think if, as you said, 2050, then I would want to thank all those people who accepted this challenge, and congratulate them on having dedicated their lives and destinies to a very interesting endeavor, very necessary for our country, for all humanity.
– And what would you name as a result? Let's say the Northern Sea Route is the main artery with such-and-such cargo flow. In other words, do you set some kind of result for yourself that could be achieved in 25 years? Not even quite for yourself, but more for the country, I suppose.
– Every staircase consists of many steps, so I look at it this way: every project must be implemented. Every undertaking, once it's completed, then lives on for decades. Look, Novy Urengoy is 50 years old, Norilsk is 90, Murmansk is over 110 years old, and so on. It all once began with the first decision, the first stone, the first building. And giant enterprises—Baimka now will still be in full bloom of its operations in 2050, our business plan runs until 2075 if I'm not mistaken. Such enterprises will, first of all, provide the country with interesting work, income, profit, and millions of people will be engaged in interesting work. And that means, as Mayakovsky said: "if stars are lit, it means someone needs them"—it's important that everything we do is needed by someone on a global scale. Because the Arctic doesn't exist by itself, it's needed by the world: Arctic gas, metals, fish, and the Northern Sea Route—they're needed by the world. If the world uses this, it means we're playing our constructive, creative role in the system of the great family of nations. I would like it not to vibrate as a territory of conflict, as a territory of confrontation even in 50 years. But on the contrary, to be a territory of cooperation, where together we would solve strategic problems, study climate together, establish transport connections together, learn to navigate efficiently in ice. I think navigation in 25 years will be at a different level, and we'll see significantly higher flows of the most diverse goods along the Northern Sea Route: there will be containers, not just hydrocarbons and bulk cargo. And in fact, the Arctic will become a very lively transportation and urban region.
– Perhaps we'll be holding the forum not in Vladivostok anymore, but at some polar station "Snezhinka," closer to the North Pole.
– We have an Arctic forum planned. We also have a presence on Svalbard, where our Arktikugol operates, which will be celebrating its centennial in 2031.
– And will there be an Arctic forum there?
– Perhaps in 2050, that's not a bad idea.
– Good. Thank you very much.
– I invite you to Svalbard. Thank you for your contribution, for your work. I think that thanks in part to the efforts of your team, people like you who care, more people will not only learn about the Arctic but will fall in love with it, because once that happens, it stays with us for life.
