Compression of physical geography: Shtokman and Moscow-Teriberka

I have argued above about the co-existence of the ‘smooth’ and ‘striated’ spaces in the Russian Arctic. I contend that the ‘smooth’ space forms the context of assemblage construction in the Murmansk region. Below I will explore how geographical proximity can be affected in the frame of ‘smooth’ space. I argue that the Shtokman gas field is contained within the ‘smooth’

space and therefore it has specific function in the security assemblage. The Shtokman gas field is located more than 550 kilometers offshore in the Barents Sea. The location of the field beyond the Arctic Circle in stormy, harsh conditions brings extra technical challenges. These include a sea depth of 340 metres, waves of up to 27 metres high, an annual temperature range

of between -50 and +33°C and the presence of four million tonne icebergs.¹⁵² In order to address the challenges, as I wrote in Chapter 3, a consortium of three companies, representing Russia, Norway and France, was registered in Switzerland in February 2008. The consortium was abolished in 2012. Nevertheless, it affected the ‘territory’ of the security assemblage and below I will discuss how.

The headquarters of the consortium, “Shtokman Development AG” was in Zug in Switzerland, while company branches have been opened in Moscow and in Teriberka village in the Murmansk region. This combination enlarges the space of the security assemblage: its geography includes two countries – Switzerland and Russia – and three different locations – Zug, Moscow and Murmansk/Teriberka. Zug does not play very important role in the assemblage; rather it indicates global trends in business development. Moscow and Teriberka, however, as Russian settlements, create a unique configuration which is important for the security assemblage in the Murmansk region (2007-2012). Moscow is a capital of Russia and Teriberka is a rural settlement on the coast of the Barents Sea. These two places would hardly ever be mentioned in relation to each other were it not for the Shtokman project. In order to illustrate this contrast, I provide two pictures: Moscow (Picture 1.) and Teriberka (Picture 2.).

Picture 1. Moscow¹⁵³ Picture 2. Teriberka¹⁵⁴

Insecurity of expectations as the governing rule of the security assemblage disconnects these places rather than connects them. It creates a distance between the state and the region since they use different strategies to secure their expectations. Moreover, the analysis of the interviews showed that the actors do not consider Moscow to represent the whole country. For example:

152 http://www.shtokman.ru/project/gasfield/ Accessed November 12, 2015.

153 Chistoprudov, http://chistoprudov.livejournal.com/176824.html published online November 10, 2015.

Accessed October 10, 2016.

154 Mordasov, http://bigpicture.ru/?p=594558 published January 20, 2015. Accessed February 6, 2017.

“[Asks (ML)]: As an inhabitant of Murmansk, do you have confidence in the near future?

[Answers (Interviewee 12)]: Yes, indeed. Sure. Today we are on the rise, the whole country, and the Murmansk region probably even rises a little bit more than the whole country. Well, except for Moscow of course, I am not taking it into consideration.

[Ask (ML)]: The state in the state?

[Answers (Interviewee 12)]: Yes. The expression says: Moscow is behind, nowhere to retreat.¹⁵⁵ And we can change it now: Russia ends by the second transport ring. Russia ends by MKAD.¹⁵⁶

[Continues to talk (Interviewee 12)]: Any citizen of Russia mocks Moscow.

[Comments (ML)]: Yes, yes, typical, in the kitchen with a cup of tea.

[Continues to talk (Interviewee 12)]: Yes. And maybe they are good people…They certainly have own challenges there, especially the government” (Interviewee 12, October 2008).

The interviewee talks about the country, but omits Moscow from the picture. I used the popular Russian saying that Moscow is a state in the state and the interviewee refers to another saying that people living in Moscow think it is the whole of Russia while people living outside of Moscow think that “Russia ends by MKAD”. The main message in this conversation is that Moscow does not represent the country, because it has its own life and logic of development.

Challenges in Moscow have nothing to do with the challenges the rest of the country is facing.

Therefore, ordinary people living outside of the centre make fun of Moscow and its perspective on the country. In the end the interviewee adds, people in Moscow, especially the government, have their own problems and challenges.

In Chapter 7 I discussed that public hearings on Shtokman stimulated the development of dialogue between different actors in the region. The hearings on the Shtokman project created a platform where different actors had the chance to discuss their concerns and suggestions, related to the project. The actors could discuss the present situation in the region and its future.

In other words, these discussions were about security of expectation. Shtokman can be viewed as a centre of the ‘territory’, a place where the micro-assemblages ‘collective assemblage of actors’ and ‘collective assemblage of enunciation’ meet each other and are further developed within the ‘smooth’ nature of the assemblage’s ‘territory’. The geographical distance between

155 The full sentence is: “Russia is big, but nowhere to retreat - Moscow is behind.” This saying is popular in Russia, but the origin is not clear.

156 Moskovskay Koltsevaya Avtomobilnaya Doroga, MKAD [Moscow automobile ring road].

Moscow and Teriberka becomes compressed and, as a result, they get equal status in the security assemblage (2007-2012), but signify different interpretations of security. Below I will discuss this connection and its consequences for the assemblage.

During the interviews, the configuration Moscow-Teriberka had a very special place. As I pointed out in Chapter 6, for people living in Murmansk, Moscow is a very specific place on the map, where political power is concentrated. This is how the city is characterized by one of the interviewees:

“All companies and head offices are located in Moscow. Moscow, poor thing, is already swollen from the money. Tomorrow a social explosion may follow, which will be caused by the particular antagonism between the city and the rest of Russia” (Interviewee 13, October 2008).

Teriberka, by contrast, is one of many places in Russia which coincidentally happen to be part of a big and important project. As one of the interviewees noticed:

“We need changes. They are [here], these changes. [The Shtokman] project is developing. There are all sorts of these [kind of projects like], Teriberka. You told you are going to have another meeting today. They will tell you about the LNG plant and a lot of things like this. A second life for Lodeinoe.¹⁵⁷ And so on. But the reality is different” (Interviewee 13, October 2008).

While talking about projects and stressing the fact that some development related to the gas field is already happening in the region, the interviewee does not have any illusion about the role of Teriberka in these plans. The interviewee warns me that I have to be careful while listening to all the prospects for development, “they will tell you about the LNG plant and a lot of things like this. A second life for Lodeinoe,”but “the reality is different”. As I discussed in Chapter 5, another interviewee compared petroleum projects initiated by the state with shashlik. Shashlik is a meat dish, where meat is cut into small pieces which are one by one placed on a skewer. It means that the state has several projects (pieces of meat) and the Shtokman project is just one of many, a small brick in bigger plans.

Moscow and Teriberka are connected through the intensities of emotions expressed by people, and their expectations of these places. If Moscow appears synonymous with the state and

157 As I described in Chapter 1, Lodeinoe is a part of Teriberka.

central power, Teriberka was framed in the interviews as a place of hope and desperation. I discussed in Chapter 7 that Teriberka became a place where expectations of the local community were high, but people had no guarantees whether these expectations would be met or that promises given by Gazprom would be fulfilled. One of the interviewees quoted the words of a governor of Murmansk region about the settlement: “Teriberka is a Pomor village.

It should not finish its historical significance, but continue to live. At least its traditional activities should be secure in order to stop the village from dying” (Interviewee 5, October 2008). The situation in the village is described in strong words: it is “dying” and strives to survive. I wrote in Chapter 7 that the lives of inhabitants are connected to fishing and the gathering of berries and mushrooms in summer and autumn. Everyone knows one another. This is how one of the interviewees describes daily life there: “And life itself in the village is quiet, trivial. For example, we do not have so horrible crimes, like everywhere else. Probably because everybody knows each other” (Interviewee 5, October 2008). The lifestyle of the village cannot be compared to the lifestyle in Moscow.

However the region and the centre became bonded together by desire as a driving force of the security assemblage. As a capital city, Moscow symbolizes power and strength in the space of state security. As a remote, semi-destroyed settlement with high rates of unemployment and out-migration, Teriberka is an indicator of the desire for stability and security in the Arctic.

‘Desire’ for security, which might be different from the state perspective on security.

Remarkably, Teriberka came to the attention of the Russian media in 2014 after Zvyagintsev’s film Leviathan, which was filmed in Teriberka, winning the Golden Globe award. Teriberka became a destination for tourists, who wanted to learn more about the film, and to witness the situation there first hand.¹⁵⁸ Many pictures of the settlement appeared on the internet and Teriberka became a symbol in the media of the desperate life in the Russian periphery (see Picture 3. and Picture 4. on the next page).

158 See, for example, Mordasov “Unesennye Leviafanom, ili nevynosimaya sin’ Teriberki.” [Taken by

Leviathan, or unbearable blue of Teriberka]: http://bigpicture.ru/?p=594558 published online January 20, 2015.

Accessed October 10, 2016; Zhitsky “Bog v Teriberke.” [God in Teriberka]:

https://snob.ru/profile/5893/blog/95275 published online July 16, 2015. Accessed October 10, 2016.

Picture 3. Coast of Teriberka¹⁵⁹ Picture 4. Northern lights in Teriberka¹⁶⁰

The Shtokman project became a catalyst of discussions related to security of expectation and these discussions opened a space where the actors could express their own understanding of security. The location of the Shtokman gas field in the ‘smooth’ space of the Arctic induced the unique territorial configuration of periphery (Teriberka) and centre (Moscow). These two places, despite the distance and differences between them, become equally important parts of the security assemblage in the Murmansk region (2007-2012). Even though for Moscow Shtokman means revenues from the petroleum sector, and for Teriberka petroleum activity nearby the settlement is a matter of survival, public hearings on the Shtokman project allowed different actors to convey their concerns and expectations in the public space. Thus the Shtokman gas field is a centre of the ‘territory’ of the security assemblage where meanings of security are revealed. The Shtokman project accelerates talks on security in the situation when community members have limited verbal resources to express their opinion related to security issues. Below I will explore how the geographical space of the Murmansk region helps to articulate interpretations of security.