The ongoing conflict in Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have heightened global attention on alternative shipping routes. Russia is advocating for the Northern Sea Route (NSR), an Arctic passage along its northern coastline, as a viable alternative. President Vladimir Putin has emphasized the route’s potential, calling it “the most safe, reliable and efficient path.” But how feasible is this vision?
The Northern Sea Route: A Shorter Yet Underutilized Path
The NSR offers a maritime corridor that could cut travel distances between Asia and Europe by up to 40% compared to the traditional Suez Canal route. However, the route’s limited accessibility due to ice and geopolitical tensions have kept its usage low. Despite ambitious plans by Moscow to transport 80 million tons of cargo through the NSR by 2024, only 38 million tons were recorded, partly due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and resultant sanctions.
Russia remains committed to the NSR, investing 1.8 trillion Russian Rubles (around €20.5 billion, $24 billion) in its development until 2035. The route primarily serves Russian oil and LNG exports, which made up over 80% of the cargo in 2024, according to the Bellona Environmental Foundation’s 2025 report.
Challenges Facing the NSR: Ice and Infrastructure
Climate change has indeed opened the NSR for a few months each year, but it remains hazardous. The route is navigable from mid-summer to mid-autumn, and ships often require icebreakers. Russia holds a monopoly on icebreaking services, further complicating passage. The lack of emergency infrastructure also increases the risks associated with NSR shipping.
Ksenia Vakhrusheva, advisor at Bellona, notes, “Economics of the use of this route is not matching the image that Russia wants to create around it.” She adds, “If every ship will need an icebreaker to go through the whole route, then it will be extremely expensive.”
Environmental Concerns in the Arctic
Despite being shorter, the NSR is not necessarily more environmentally friendly. The ice-class ships required burn more fuel, and any oil spill could have devastating effects due to the slow decomposition of oil in cold waters. The UN’s International Maritime Organization has banned heavy fuel oil in the Arctic from 2024, but Russia did not sign the ban.
Vakhrusheva highlights that, “It’s not the complete picture,” when considering the environmental impact of the NSR. Additionally, black carbon emissions from ships exacerbate warming by reducing the reflectivity of ice.
International Perspectives and Future Prospects
China has tested the NSR for potential integration into its “Polar Silk Road” strategy but paused after the Ukraine invasion. South Korea plans a test shipment in 2026. However, significant investments from major logistical players remain unlikely, as Vakhrusheva points out, “Major logistics and shipping companies are not keen on investing money right now in this route.”
China’s involvement is cautious, given Russia’s control over the NSR infrastructure. Vakhrusheva observes, “I don’t see that China is so keen to just throw money in Russian infrastructure because, of course, China wants to have some control of it.”
Even with potential climate changes making the NSR more accessible by 2100, the global environmental situation may alter the strategic importance of the route. Vakhrusheva asks, “With this effect of climate change, what will the rest of the world look like? Will we need this route then?”
Edited by: Hannah Cleaver
Original Story at www.dw.com