The icebreaker Tor (right) at the port of Sabetta in the Kara Sea shoreline on the Yamal Peninsula in the Arctic circle, some 2450 km of Moscow.
Kirill Kudryavtesev | AFP | Getty Images
China and Russia are tightening their grip on Arctic shipping routes, turning the rapidly warming region into a new geopolitical battleground with Europe.
Moscow and Beijing last week have agreed to expand freight traffic along Arctic shipping corridors, increase services between their ports and deepen cooperation on building polar vessels.
The agreement came after the EU unveiled a new Arctic strategy aimed at countering growing Russian and Chinese influence in the region.
Although the competing moves underscore how the once-remote region is turning into a strategic prize, analysts said that Europe’s ability to challenge the emerging China-Russia partnership remains limited, given Moscow’s control over the main shipping corridor and Beijing’s growing commercial clout.
Europe cannot realistically challenge Chinese and Russian dominance of Arctic shipping in any meaningful timeframe.
Alicia Garcia-Herrero
APAC & MEA Chief Economist, Natixis CIB
That’s because Moscow controls the Northern Sea Route, including shipping permits, transit fees and a vast fleet of nuclear icebreakers, while Beijing provides the cargo, vessels and industrial capacity needed to develop the corridor, she added.
Europe, by contrast, has limited icebreaker capacity and Arctic infrastructure, leaving it with little leverage to challenge the partnership despite its position as a major destination market.
A new geopolitical fault line?
The Northern Sea Route offers itself as an increasingly attractive alternative, as Middle East disruptions expose vulnerabilities in established shipping corridors.
Cargo traveling between Asia and Europe through the Northern Sea Route could have its journey shortened to between 18 to 22 days, down approximately 35% from the 28 to 35 day journey through Suez, according to data provided by Fertmax FZCO.
For Moscow, the route offers an opportunity to redirect energy exports toward Asia as Western sanctions constrain its access to European markets, said industry watchers whom CNBC spoke to.
On the other hand, it provides Beijing another trade artery that could reduce reliance on traditional maritime chokepoints.
David Roche, a veteran strategist at Quantum Strategy & Geonomics, said the Arctic’s importance lies less in its potential to transform global shipping than in the deepening economic dependence between Russia and China.
“The significance of the arctic route is for Russian energy shipments to China, which will increase China’s control over Russia in terms of Russia’s dependence on China to sell its energy to compensate for losses of its gas markets in Europe,” Roche highlighted.
The EU has acknowledged the growing challenge, highlighting the region’s strategic value in its strategy, as mentioned by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas last week.
With Russia and China increasing their footprint and ambition, the Arctic has become a front line of global power competition.
Kaja Kallas
Foreign Policy Chief, European Union
Can Europe fight back?
Europe isn’t entirely without leverage.
The EU’s new strategy calls for expanding European icebreaker capacity, strengthening maritime surveillance and developing infrastructure linking Arctic trade networks to European markets.
It also proposes a maritime security hub and greater protection for undersea cables, reflecting growing concerns about Russian military activity and threats to critical infrastructure.
Yet those strengths may not be enough to overturn the structural advantages enjoyed by Moscow and Beijing, said experts.
Garcia-Herrero said Europe’s leverage largely rests on its position as a major destination market and the presence of large shipping companies that have avoided the Arctic because of environmental and commercial risks.
Without a sustained industrial push that the EU has only begun to discuss, Europe can raise the commercial and regulatory costs of the route, but cannot prevent or replace the China-Russia partnership that now operates it.
Alicia Garcia-Herrero
APAC & MEA Chief Economist, Natixis CIB
Europe also faces a strategic dilemma: engaging with the emerging corridor could deepen its reliance on Russian-controlled infrastructure, even as it seeks to reduce Moscow’s economic influence.
Fertmax FZCO’s former global head of research, Daeijin Lee said Western operators face sanctions, insurance and compliance complications that make the route considerably less attractive than it is for Chinese companies.
“The Arctic gives diversification, not independence,” he said.
A threat to global trade?
For all the geopolitical attention, the Arctic remains a marginal player in global shipping.
Roche estimates Arctic trade accounts for roughly 0.3% of global shipping today and could reach about 1% by 2030.
Data from Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom and CNBC calculations based on UN Trade and Development figures similarly supports the 0.3% figure, with 37.02 million tonnes of cargo transiting the Northern Sea Route in 2025 compared to the 12.72 billion tonnes of global seaborne trade in 2024.
Only 3.2 million tonnes of that cargo, or less than a tenth, involved vessels transiting the entire route, rather than shipments originating or terminating in the Russian Arctic, according to the Centre for High North Logistics.
But traffic may be picking up, the latest September 2026 CHNL data showed.
The route recorded 104 confirmed transit voyages carrying an estimated 3.7 million tonnes of cargo by the end of September, exceeding the 3.2 million tonnes recorded during the entire 2025 navigation season.
Much of the existing traffic consists of Russian oil, liquefied natural gas and other commodities rather than international container shipments.
However, the route also faces significant commercial hurdles. Ice conditions restrict navigation for much of the year, while specialized vessels, insurance premiums and Russian transit fees can erode savings from shorter voyages.
Matthew Wright, an analyst at Kpler, said the route remains poorly suited to replacing established shipping corridors because operators need reliable, year-round services.
Lee similarly expects the Arctic to develop primarily as a seasonal express route for selected high-value cargo rather than a replacement for Suez.
However, climate change could shift the balance in the long-term.
A study published in the WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs projected that melting Polar ice could increase the Northern Sea Route’s annual transit capacity to between 127 million and 463 million tonnes by 2050.