top of page

Global power politics and the Arctic shipping routes

12 Jan 2025

At a glance

  • Increased geopolitical conflict and climate change have shifted global focus on the Arctic region as an alternate shipping route.

  • Arctic ice melting, driven by heavy fuel oil emissions, threatens global survival, raises shipping costs, and intensifies geopolitical tensions as Russia, China, and NATO compete for influence in the region.

  • This shift in focus has the potential to severely damage any environmental gains achieved over the years.

What is happening?

Conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine and North Africa, coupled with climate change, are causing transformative changes in global shipping routes. In the wake of Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon since December 2023, the strategic route linking Europe to Asia through the Suez Canal has lost 40% of its usual traffic. While it is hard to establish a death toll during an ongoing conflict, researchers fear the death toll could reach 186,000 from direct war and its consequences like malnutrition, cold and lack of healthcare facilities.


Meanwhile in Yemen, the Houthis – a Zaydi Shiite movement that has been fighting the Sunni majority government for over a decade –  pose a threat to ships around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, purportedly in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Consequently, shipping operators increasingly sail along the African coastline, around the Cape of Good Hope, leading to increased time and cost. Similarly, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 caused disruptions to shipping routes in the Black Sea, leading to an 81% fall in Egypt’s import of wheat from Ukraine. Egypt has been forced to seek emergency supplies from the UN and Russia.


Climate change has also contributed to the shift in focus to Arctic channels as a more viable shipping route. Disruptions in the critical Panama Canal have largely been caused by droughts and low water levels. The combined rerouting due to the disruptions in the Black Sea, Red Sea and Panama Canals has increased the cost and the distance of shipping. This has also caused an increase in carbon emissions. A 1% increase in speed, aiming to mitigate the delays caused by distance, leads on average to a 2.2% rise in fuel consumption.


This has led to the opening of several new trans-Arctic shipping routes. These include the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and Northwest Passage (NWP) operating largely via ports built by Russia and Norway. The Arctic is therefore increasingly becoming significant as a domain for economic, military and geopolitical competition. China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state”, a title that remains unrecognised by most Arctic nations themselves. This new interest and increased Chinese investment in the NSR reflects new business opportunities. It also lays the foundation for increased China-Russia cooperation. In September 2024, China and Russia launched “Ocean-24”, a large-scale naval and air exercise spanning the Pacific and Arctic Oceans. The USA and NATO are closely watching these developments: in July, American fighters intercepted two Russian and two Chinese bombers in the US Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) above Alaska.


What is in it for you?

Readers should be aware and vigilant of the rate at which ice is melting. About 75% of Arctic marine shipping fuel is heavy fuel oil (HFO), it produces high levels of black carbon that accelerates ice melting and breaks down slowly in cold waters with no effective way to be cleaned.


For readers in the US, Europe and globally who like to keep up with the balance of global power politics, the cooperation and militarisation in the Arctic supported by Russia and China are important to follow. These may also manifest in economic gains, while also having deep geopolitical consequences. Increased militarisation in the region could pose the threat of the Arctic becoming a new sphere for hybrid attacks or a form of buffer zone for the West and the Russia-China bloc. The US Department of Defence’s 2024 Arctic strategy stresses increased cooperation with NATO’s Allies in the region to match Russia and China’s presence. However, it remains to be seen whether besides the military might of the United States NATO Allies such as Canada, Norway and Denmark possess the capacity to invest heavily in this global race to secure the Arctic.


What happens next?

The evolution of the conflict in the Middle East will have significant implications for the global development of the alternative supply chains navigating the Arctic. The spectre of greater involvement by Iran and its proxy forces, despite their degradation by Israel’s offensive, further contributes to the uncertainty and volatility of the region.


The increased militarisation of the Arctic and its viability as a new shipping route will have severe environmental consequences. However, there might also be opportunities for bilateral and multilateral engagement. Fostering cooperation in all efforts related to the Arctic routes might in the end benefit not just China and Russia, but also help regional economies and contribute to more resilient global supply chains and prosperity. This increased cooperation could also allow greater international focus and attention given on the diminishing ice in the region, and the expensive consequences of climate change-induced disruptions to global shipping routes.


The Polis Team in London

bottom of page