Solidarism, Pluralism, Or Beyond? Analysing U. S. Arctic Strategies (2013–2022) Through the Lens of the English School

International relations in the Arctic have often been described as exceptional. Eight Arctic states governed the region based on international law and the norms and rules defined by the region’s written and un-written law. The resulting system survived, despite challenges, until Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In response to economic sanctions and condemnation from other Arctic states, Russia has taken a series of actions that have called into question its continued participation in the Arctic system. In this situation, the U. S. position toward the Arctic system is essential, since only this country has the potential to persuade Russia to comply with Arctic rules. An analysis of U. S. strategic documents along the lines of the English School of International Relations indicates that, starting in 2013, the U. S. strategy increasingly implemented the assumptions of the Arctic system. At the same time, it rejected the Russian concept of isolating the region and increasingly emphasised the military factor. The prioritisation of national interest while increasing the importance of elements of the Arctic system in US strategy indicates that some scholars’ interpretation of international relations in the Arctic in the spirit of solidarism is wrong. Similarly, pluralism does not provide a satisfactory answer. It is more adequate to opt for state-centric solidarism.