Features | Economy | East Asia

How China’s Arctic Ambitions Inflate Russia’s Geopolitical Leverage

Russia’s law suggests that Moscow is not preparing the Northern Sea Route for international use. It may instead be profiting from a misplaced expectation.

One of the most seductive assumptions in Arctic strategy is that climate change is gradually opening up a new trade corridor along Russia’s northern coast from the Kara Gate to the Bering Strait. As sea ice recedes, it is widely imagined, the Northern Sea Route will become an artery between Europe and Asia, a perception reinforced by China’s use of the theatrical phrase “Polar Silk Road.” 

But the route’s significance may be less a commercial reality in formation than a geopolitical illusion in circulation. Russian law suggests that Moscow is not preparing the route for ordinary international use. It may instead be profiting from the expectation of a corridor it has no real intention of fully opening.

This is the source of tension in the China-Russia Arctic partnership. China treats the Northern Sea Route as an emerging international transport corridor whose use should not depend on another state’s political discretion. Conversely, Russia governs the emerging shipping lanes as a historically developed national artery whose use remains fully contingent on Russian prior authorization and control. That difference matters because the minimum condition of a genuine international route is predictable access. 

Analysts have noted the division. What they have often missed is that, buried beneath the legal language, Russia may not be preparing the passage for international openness at all. If Moscow truly wanted the Northern Sea Route to mature into an open corridor of world commerce, it would not be quietly building a legal regime organized around permission, routing, and discretionary control. 

To see that clearly, one must resist the common Western reflex of dismissing Russian legal language as analytically negligible, on the grounds that Russia is not a liberal rule-of-law state. The legal language matters because it formalizes the state’s historically grounded claim to rightful authority. The pattern is clearest in Russia’s justificatory discourse on Crimea and Ukraine. In both cases, legal language was used to carry claims of history and inheritance for arguments about statehood, security, and right. 

In the Arctic, law performs the same function. It gives juridical form to a longstanding Russian conviction that the northern passage is something rendered usable through Russian sacrifice and administration, and therefore rightfully subject to Russian control.

The deeper point, missed by much Arctic analysis, is that Russia’s legal regime for the Northern Sea Route should not be seen as merely the latest regulatory obstacle to its partnership with China in the Arctic. It is better understood as the revival, in modern statutory language, of a much older Russian tradition claiming historical legitimacy over Arctic passage and of preserving it as a national and politically controlled artery. 

In the Russian telling, the passage was never simply an open lane waiting for world commerce. Centuries of failed expeditions and Arctic deaths have characterized the passage since the age of Peter the Great. Generations of Russian scientists embarked on painstaking surveys to learn the passage before bringing it into use. Under Stalin, Russian control was deepened by transforming the route into a managed national artery supported by ports, meteorological stations, and icebreaker capacity. In the Russian narrative, the Northern Sea Route was something that Russia actively sought, suffered for, and gradually made its own. 

A 1965 Soviet decree was a milestone in turning that accumulated history into a seminal legal doctrine. By classifying the route as territorial and historic waters, the decree placed the passage under Soviet control.

Today’s legal regime governing the Northern Sea Route preserves the same logic in updated form. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not make Russia abandon the historical psychology that treats the route as a distinctive Russian space. A 1998 law described the Arctic passage as a “historical national transport route.”  More recent rules require commercial vessels using the Northern Sea Route to obtain prior authorization, submit voyage........

© The Diplomat