The icebreaker Tor (right) in the port of Sabetta on the coast of the Kara Sea on the Yamal Peninsula in the Arctic Circle, about 2450 km from Moscow.
Kirill Kudryavtesev | AFP | Getty Images
China and Russia are increasing their influence over Arctic shipping routes, turning the rapidly warming region into a new geopolitical battleground with Europe.
Moscow and Beijing agreed last week to expand freight traffic along Arctic shipping corridors, improve services between their ports and deepen cooperation on the construction of polar ships.
The deal 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 emerging as a strategic target, analysts say Europe’s ability to challenge the emerging partnership between China and Russia remains limited given Moscow’s control over the key shipping corridor and Beijing’s growing commercial power.
Europe cannot realistically challenge Chinese and Russian dominance of Arctic shipping in any meaningful time frame.
Alicia Garcia Herrero
Chief Economist for APAC and MEA, 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, ships and industrial capacity needed to develop the corridor, she added.
In contrast, Europe has limited icebreaking capacity and Arctic infrastructure, so despite its position as a key target market, it has little leverage to challenge the partnership.
A new geopolitical fault line?
The Northern Sea Route is emerging as an increasingly attractive alternative as disruptions in the Middle East expose vulnerabilities in established shipping corridors.
According to Fertmax FZCO, the journey of cargo transported between Asia and Europe via the Northern Sea Route could be shortened to 18 to 22 days, which is about 35% less than the 28 to 35 day journey via Suez.
For Moscow, the route presents an opportunity to redirect energy exports to Asia as Western sanctions restrict access to European markets, industry observers CNBC spoke to said.
On the other hand, it offers Beijing another trade route that could reduce its dependence on traditional maritime chokepoints.
David Roche, a senior strategist at Quantum Strategy & Geonomics, said the Arctic’s importance lies less in its potential to transform global shipping than in the increasing economic interdependence between Russia and China.
“The importance of the Arctic route is for Russian energy supplies to China, which will increase China’s control over Russia in view of Russia’s dependence on China to sell its energy to offset losses in its gas markets in Europe,” Roche stressed.
The EU has recognized the growing challenge and highlighted the strategic value of the region in its strategy, as EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas mentioned last week.
As Russia and China expand their influence and ambitions, the Arctic has become a frontline in the global power competition.
Kaja Kalla
Head of Foreign Policy of the European Union
Can Europe strike back?
Europe is not entirely without influence.
The EU’s new strategy calls for expanding Europe’s icebreaking capacity, strengthening maritime surveillance and expanding infrastructure connecting Arctic trade networks to European markets.
It also proposes a maritime security center and better protection for undersea cables, reflecting growing concerns about Russian military activities and threats to critical infrastructure.
But these strengths may not be enough to offset the structural advantages of Moscow and Beijing, experts say.
Garcia-Herrero said Europe’s influence rests largely on its position as a key target market and the presence of large shipping companies that have avoided the Arctic due to environmental and trade risks.
Without a sustained industrial push, which the EU has only just begun to discuss, Europe can increase the commercial and regulatory costs of the route, but cannot prevent or replace the Sino-Russian partnership that now runs it.
Alicia Garcia Herrero
Chief Economist for APAC and MEA, Natixis CIB
Europe also faces a strategic dilemma: Cooperation with the emerging corridor could increase its dependence on Russian-controlled infrastructure, even as it seeks to reduce Moscow’s economic influence.
Daeijin Lee, former global head of research at Fertmax FZCO, said Western operators faced sanctions, insurance and compliance complications that made the route significantly less attractive than for Chinese companies.
“The Arctic offers diversification, not independence,” he said.
A threat to global trade?
Despite all the geopolitical attention, the Arctic remains a marginal player in global shipping.
Roche estimates that Arctic trade accounts for about 0.3% of global shipping today and could reach about 1% by 2030.
Data from Russian state nuclear company Rosatom and CNBC calculations based on UN trade and development figures also support the 0.3% figure, with 37.02 million tonnes of cargo moving through the Northern Sea Route in 2025, compared to 12.72 billion tonnes of global maritime trade in 2024.
According to the Center for High North Logistics, only 3.2 million tons of this cargo, less than a tenth, were ships traveling the entire route, rather than shipments originating or destined in the Russian Arctic.
However, traffic could increase, the latest CHNL data from September 2026 showed.
As of the end of September, Route 104 recorded confirmed transit voyages carrying an estimated 3.7 million tons of cargo, which is more than the 3.2 million tons during the entire 2025 shipping season.
Much of the existing traffic consists of Russian oil, liquefied natural gas and other goods, rather than international container shipments.
However, the route also faces significant commercial hurdles. Ice conditions limit shipping for much of the year, while specialized vessels, insurance premiums and Russian transit fees can wipe out savings on shorter trips.
Matthew Wright, an analyst at Kpler, said the route remains ill-suited to replacing established shipping corridors as operators need reliable, year-round services.
Lee also expects the Arctic to develop primarily as a seasonal express route for select high-value cargo, rather than as 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 estimates that melting polar ice could increase the Northern Sea Route’s annual transit capacity to 127 million to 463 million tons by 2050.