• Harsh conditions, high costs, Russian control make route unviable as Suez alternative
• Analysts warn greater EU reliance on Northern Sea Route would create new dependencies

BRUSSELS

Rapidly melting Arctic ice has increased interest in the Northern Sea Route as a potential shortcut between Asia and Europe, but experts told Anadolu that improved access does not automatically translate into viable, reliable shipping and that Europe should respond cautiously to avoid new strategic and economic vulnerabilities.

The Northern Sea Route, running along Russia's Arctic coastline from the Kara Sea to the Bering Strait, could theoretically shorten transit times between Asia and Europe by up to 40% compared with the Suez Canal.

A container ship sailing from Shanghai to Hamburg currently takes around 35 days via the Suez Canal, while a voyage along the northern route could take roughly 19 days under favorable conditions.

Russia, whose Arctic coastline spans roughly half of the Arctic Ocean, has identified the route as a strategic priority and has invested in icebreakers, ports and navigation infrastructure to support its development.

The EU is also reviewing its Arctic strategy, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen saying in 2025 that “Europe must be more proactive and more invested in the Arctic,” to counter Russian control over the Northern Sea Route.

China has also shown increasing interest. In its 2018 Arctic policy white paper, Beijing described itself as a “near-Arctic state” and outlined plans for a “Polar Silk Road.”

Satellite data from climate research institutions show that Arctic summer sea ice has declined by more than 40% since 1979, extending the navigable season along parts of the Northern Sea Route to several months a year.

Yet experts stressed that shrinking ice coverage does not automatically translate into reliable or commercially viable shipping, noting that navigational, environmental and geopolitical risks continue to limit its appeal.

Shrinking ice does not guarantee safe navigation

Ksenia Vakhrusheva, Arctic policy advisor at the Norway-based Bellona Foundation, told Anadolu that shrinking ice coverage should not be confused with safer sailing conditions.

"While global warming leads to the reduction of the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, it does not automatically mean that conditions for navigation along the route will improve," Vakhrusheva said.

"Shrinking ice cover does not eliminate floating ice formations which can block narrow straits or meet ships on their way along the generally ice-free waters. Severe weather conditions at sea will only increase with further global warming. It means that all year round navigation along the Northern Sea Route likely would not be possible for the next decades," she added.

According to Vakhrusheva, harsh conditions, the need for ice-class vessels and specially trained crews, as well as weak infrastructure – including limited search-and-rescue capacity – significantly increase costs and reduce the predictability of voyages.

"I do not foresee that the Northern Sea Route will become a viable transit route for commercial shipping in the nearest future," she said.

Andrea Dugo, an economist at the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE), agreed that any commercially consequential development of the route is likely at least a "decade away."

"Environmental conditions simply do not permit sustained, predictable use of the route. And even if navigability improves, the Northern Sea Route is more likely to remain a marginal complement, not a wholesale alternative to the Suez Canal, despite some claims to the contrary," he said.

Scale and insurability limit commercial appeal

While the route can shorten sailing distances between Europe and North Asia by around 30% to 40%, Dugo stressed that distance alone does not determine shipping competitiveness.

"A 40% reduction in sailing distance does not translate into a 40% reduction in costs – not even close," he said. "In shipping, other crucial determinants of commercial viability are reliability, insurability and scale.”

The Northern Sea Route transit volumes remained around 3 million tonnes in both 2024 and 2025, he explained, compared to approximately 1.57 billion tonnes handled by the Suez Canal in 2024.

"The Northern Sea Route remains a rounding error for Europe – fractions of a percent of Suez-scale flows," he said.

Dugo added that uncertainties related to ice variability, reliance on icebreaker convoys and limited search-and-rescue capacity make the route unsuitable for just-in-time container shipping, explaining why major liner companies remain cautious.

Russian presence

Vakhrusheva said Russia’s efforts to increase shipping along the Arctic coast should not be ignored, but actively opposed due to environmental and security concerns.

“The way Russia is using the Northern Sea Route is unsustainable and can lead to a major oil or chemical spill, or a nuclear accident,” she said, noting that Russia has not joined the heavy fuel oil ban and allows older tankers, including vessels linked to its so-called shadow fleet, to operate along the route.

Russia currently uses and will continue to use the route primarily for exporting natural resources extracted in the Arctic region, especially oil and gas, she said.

Russia lacks sufficient financial resources and advanced technology to expand Arctic infrastructure on its own, which is why it is attempting to attract China and other Asian countries to invest in the route and use it for shipping, she added.

From the perspective of Europe's "strategic autonomy," Vakhrusheva warned that any reliance on the Northern Sea Route would create security risks rather than diversification benefits.

She argued that the route’s development is not primarily about offering an alternative global trade corridor, but about strengthening Russia’s dominance in the Arctic through resource extraction, route control and expanded military presence.

"Fortunately, there is no reliance on the Northern Sea Route from the EU now and I hope it would not appear in the future," she said.

According to Dugo, any competitiveness benefits for Europe from the Arctic route would be narrow and sector-specific, potentially limited to bulk trades, project cargo or niche time-sensitive shipments under favorable conditions.

"Europe’s competitiveness problem is broader: energy costs, investment gaps, productivity stagnation and limited scale. The Northern Sea Route does not solve any of those constraints," he said, adding that Europe instead should strengthen resilience in existing trade routes.

‘EU should hedge, not hype’

The EU’s push for strategic autonomy seeks to strengthen its capacity to act independently in security, defense and key economic areas amid growing geopolitical uncertainty.

But Dugo warned that greater European reliance on Arctic corridors could create new geopolitical dependencies.

"The Northern Sea Route is largely administered by Russia, and in practice navigation often relies on Russian icebreaker and escort services, as well as Russia-adjacent ports and supporting infrastructure," he said.

He pointed out that the route's growth is closely tied to energy shipments embedded in Russia’s Arctic strategy, precisely where EU sanctions exposure and political risk are highest.

"For Europe, replacing dependence on Russian gas with dependence on a Russia-controlled shipping corridor like the Northern Sea Route would be a strategic own goal," he said.

Both experts agreed that the EU should treat the route as a seasonal and opportunistic option rather than a core trade artery.

"A competitiveness-oriented EU posture should be to hedge, not hype," Dugo said, arguing that Europe should avoid policies that indirectly subsidize dependence on Russian-controlled services.

“The bottom line is that the Northern Sea Route is best understood as a niche, seasonal corridor and a Russian industrial artery, not ‘the new Suez,’” he said.