The Iran War and the resulting blockade of the Strait of Hormuz have focused attention on international shipping. Russian officials are promoting the Northern Sea Route (NSR), an Arctic sea lane running along their country’s northern coast. President Vladimir Putin said in April that the importance of the route as “the safest, most reliable and efficient route” is becoming more apparent.
It is the shortest sea route between Asia and Europe. But it stays put for most of the year, and comes with important political considerations. DW asked an environmental foundation that has studied the route – how realistic is this vision of the NSR as a new major shipping route?
The northern shipping route was less popular due to Russia’s location in Ukraine.
Shipping goods via the Northern Sea Route can reduce travel distances by up to 40% compared to transit through the Suez Canal, the most common route between Asia and Europe. But for several reasons, NSR is not used as often.
Moscow had planned to move 80 million tons of goods through it by 2024, but those ambitions were dashed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and subsequent Western sanctions. NSR infrastructure operator Rosatom recorded less than half of the target, about 38 million tonnes of cargo, actually passing through that year. This accounts for less than 1% of global maritime trade – compared to up to 15% that typically passes through the Suez Canal.
Nevertheless, Russia is continuing significant investments, budgeting 1.8 trillion Russian rubles (about €20.5 billion, $24 billion) for NSR development through 2035.
The NSR remains primarily a route for Russian crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG), which will account for more than 80% of cargo transit in 2024. Bellona Environment Foundation’s 2025 ReportAn international environmental NGO headquartered in Oslo, Norway. Ksenia Vakhrusheva, Bellona’s Arctic project consultant and co-author of its NSR report, told DW that the Kremlin wanted the route to become more popular.
“The economics of using this route do not match the image that Russia wants to create around itself,” she says.
This route emerged as climate change caused Arctic ice to melt and reshape the region. But it is still fully accessible only for a few months a year, from mid-summer to mid-autumn. And yet, floating ice can pose a danger to ships. The rest of the year the NSR is covered with ice, making passage possible only under the guidance of icebreakers.
Ice still a problem on NSR despite climate change
The lack of emergency rescue infrastructure capable of responding quickly to incidents makes an already risky journey even more dangerous, Bellona reports.
And despite the continuing climate crisis, Vakhrusheva says it’s unlikely the NSR will become much easier to navigate within the next decade, meaning year-round shipping won’t become a reality anytime soon.
“If every ship needed an icebreaker to pass the entire route, it would be extremely expensive,” she says, adding that Russia only allows its own icebreakers to operate there.
Any ship passing through the NSR must also obtain a special permit.
Vakhrusheva says there is also a question of Russia’s dependence. Moscow’s ongoing war against Ukraine has reduced the attractiveness of using the NSR.
She says, “If the government continues to disregard international law, then, of course, it is very dangerous for any country to rely on anything controlled by Russia.”
Environmental risks are greater in Arctic waters
Although the NSR is more direct than other routes between Asia and Europe, it is not greener.
“There’s also a common idea that if it’s smaller, the ships use less fuel and… emit less greenhouse gases,” says Vakhrusheva. “It’s not the whole picture.”
She says the ice-class ships required for such waters burn more fuel per nautical mile than normal ships, because they are heavier.
And any fuel spill poses a greater threat in the Arctic than elsewhere, because oil products decompose very slowly in the cold. Additionally, black carbon emitted by ships’ engines exacerbates climate change more rapidly when they land in the Arctic, as soot alters ice and blackens the ice, reducing its reflectivity, meaning it absorbs more sunlight and traps heat.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN body that regulates international shipping, has banned the use and transport of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in Arctic waters from 2024. Its risks in the event of a leak and its contribution to black carbon production are considered very high. But Russia did not sign the ban, and it is unclear whether it will do so before its exemption expires in 2029.
European reluctance to cooperate with Russia to use the NSR may be strengthened by such environmental concerns.
“If European countries say they do not want to transport goods through Arctic routes, because the region is extremely sensitive from an environmental and climatic point of view, then there is no development for it,” says Vakhrusheva.
Asia tests Arctic shipping, but blocks big investment
China’s shipping giant COSCO began test cargo voyages between China and Europe via the Arctic in 2013, but were discontinued in 2022 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Nevertheless, the activity has not completely disappeared: small-scale shipments from Chinese to Russian ports resumed in 2023. Two years after that, the container ship Istanbul Bridge also completed a test transit from China to European ports, seen as part of China’s “Polar Silk Road” strategy.
Earlier this year, South Korea also announced plans to send a container ship to Rotterdam via the NSR on a trial basis in September 2026.
Nevertheless, Vakhrusheva feels that this route is still unlikely to capture any significant share of international trade.
“Major logistics and shipping companies are not yet willing to invest money in this route,” she says, adding that she sees the current engagement as “more political than economic.”
China’s hesitation lies in the question of control. Russia effectively manages the NSR, so any Chinese investment in it will depend on Russian infrastructure.
“I don’t think China is so eager to throw money into Russian infrastructure because, of course, China wants to have some control over it,” says Vakhrusheva.
This is not China’s only area of interest – and there are safer and more predictable alternatives available.
“China…is trying to be a part of every possible infrastructure development in the world,” says Vakhrusheva. “But I don’t think the Northern Sea Route is the primary interest at the moment.”
Yet in the long term, the climate crisis could change this. A Studies in the scientific journal Communications Earth and Environment In 2024 it is suggested that the NSR could be navigable year-round by 2100. However, Vakhrusheva says that if this is the case then there would be other, far greater concerns for humanity.
“With this impact of climate change, what will the rest of the world look like?” she asks. “So will we need this route? Who will use it?”
Edited by: Hannah Cleaver