• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

The Northwest Passage is Open

I’m certainly not a expert but isnt that the NorthEast passage?

From Europe to China (in the Eurocentric view in the times of discovery) is a passage to the east.

The Northwest is passage over Canada and the US and moved east to west longitude

The passage China to Europe (or Europe to China) is not measured from a terminus or extreme point but by the change in longitude. Otherwise each end would have different names and would be confused with the other passage.

Anyway thats how I remember it. Now Im ready to receive a shellacking. Please form two lines: whippings to the left and drubbings to the right…


Edit: grammar only
 
Last edited:
I really do not think the climate change debate matters to the point here. The climate changes with or without us, and there is evidence humanity may be accelerating what we are seeing. But that is not my point.

The important part is that after centuries of exploration, Arctic sea routes are becoming increasingly accessible. That obviously creates opportunities for Russia and potentially gives China a shorter route into Europe.

BUT a route only matters if there are buyers at the other end.

➡️Since Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe has spent years reducing its dependence on Russia. Europe is also increasingly trying to reduce critical dependencies on China. That does not mean cutting China off entirely, but it does mean Europe no longer views either country as the kind of long term strategic partner it once might have.

➡️➡️➡️Seven of the eight Arctic states are also NATO members. Russia is the only one outside the alliance. Even if relations between the United States and Europe deteriorated, Canada and Europe would still have their own reasons to view Russian and Chinese expansion with suspicion.

So yes, an increasingly open Arctic gives Russia and China new opportunities. But having a shipping route and having a market are two very different things.

Russia may eventually discover that by the time the Arctic becomes commercially transformative, much of the market it hoped to reach has already spent decades making sure it does not need Russia anymore.
 
DarkNoon said:
I really do not think the climate change debate matters to the point here. The climate changes with or without us, and there is evidence humanity may be accelerating what we are seeing. But that is not my point.

The important part is that after centuries of exploration, Arctic sea routes are becoming increasingly accessible. That obviously creates opportunities for Russia and potentially gives China a shorter route into Europe.

BUT a route only matters if there are buyers at the other end.

➡️Since Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe has spent years reducing its dependence on Russia. Europe is also increasingly trying to reduce critical dependencies on China. That does not mean cutting China off entirely, but it does mean Europe no longer views either country as the kind of long term strategic partner it once might have.

➡️➡️➡️Seven of the eight Arctic states are also NATO members. Russia is the only one outside the alliance. Even if relations between the United States and Europe deteriorated, Canada and Europe would still have their own reasons to view Russian and Chinese expansion with suspicion.

So yes, an increasingly open Arctic gives Russia and China new opportunities. But having a shipping route and having a market are two very different things.

Russia may eventually discover that by the time the Arctic becomes commercially transformative, much of the market it hoped to reach has already spent decades making sure it does not need Russia anymore.
Click to expand...
Economic conditions, trust, accepted business and diplomatic relationships often effect things more than just routes.

It’s also worth noting I think that the passage is only projected to be open 4-6 weeks during the summer. I think this keeps its impact limited to seasonal trade opportunities.
Not really a strategic concern.
It’s not a dumb thing for Russia and China to develop.
But it’s also not an untying of a strategic Gordian knot.
 
Torch said:
I’m certainly not a expert but isnt that the NorthEast passage?
Click to expand...
Left , right, port, starboard, what day is it! :ROFLMAO: 🤭
Torch said:
From Europe to China (in the Eurocentric view in the times of discovery) is a passage to the east.

The Northwest is passage over Canada and the US and moved east to west longitude

The passage China to Europe (or Europe to China) is not measured from a terminus or extreme point but by the change in longitude. Otherwise each end would have different names and would be confused with the other passage.

Anyway thats how I remember it. Now Im ready to receive a shellacking. Please form two lines: whippings to the left and drubbings to the right…


Edit: grammar only
Click to expand...
 
Publius said:
Economic conditions, trust, accepted business and diplomatic relationships often effect things more than just routes.

It’s also worth noting I think that the passage is only projected to be open 4-6 weeks during the summer. I think this keeps its impact limited to seasonal trade opportunities.
Not really a strategic concern.
It’s not a dumb thing for Russia and China to develop.
But it’s also not an untying of a strategic Gordian knot.
Click to expand...
Yea I wouldn’t call it nothing, of course it isn’t. But I also don’t think it comes anywhere close to the strategic undermining of the West that Moscow and Beijing increasingly portray Arctic development as.

You can establish new shipping routes all day. The underlying geography doesn’t change, seven of the eight Arctic states are now NATO members. Russia remains the only exception. That puts some pretty hard limits on how transformative this can become strategically, particularly as Western economies continue adapting to reduced dependence on Russia.

Militarily, I can see somewhat more significance. Greater Russian & Chinese activity in the Arctic changes planning assumptions, logistics and surveillance requirements. But even there, it doesn’t overturn the existing balance. NATO already operates extensively in the Arctic, and Western submarines certainly not strangers to those waters.
 
Freedom of navigation is the problem here. IMO The US will fight over it. At least we used to. Isn't that what the Navy is for. Russia gives permits for China. What about western countries? What gives THEM the right to issue permits to anybody in international waters.

I guess the debate is: are Artic waters international?
 
william said:
I guess the debate is: are Artic waters international?
Click to expand...
Yes. Flat out 110% confident, outstanding, yes.

Even though Russia and China routinely challenge aspects of international law when it serves their interests, neither has much incentive to undermine the broader principle of freedom of navigation through international trade routes.

➡️➡️Doing so creates a precedent that can be turned against them.

Russia, for example, depends heavily on access through the Turkish Straits into and out of the Black Sea, while China depends on numerous strategic straits and maritime chokepoints that are controlled by, or lie adjacent to, Western aligned states.

If Moscow and Beijing start arguing that major international transit routes can simply be subjected to unilateral national control, they open the door to having the same argument used against their own maritime access.
 
DarkNoon said:
Yes. Flat out 110% confident, outstanding, yes.

Even though Russia and China routinely challenge aspects of international law when it serves their interests, neither has much incentive to undermine the broader principle of freedom of navigation through international trade routes.

➡️➡️Doing so creates a precedent that can be turned against them.

Russia, for example, depends heavily on access through the Turkish Straits into and out of the Black Sea, while China depends on numerous strategic straits and maritime chokepoints that are controlled by, or lie adjacent to, Western aligned states.

If Moscow and Beijing start arguing that major international transit routes can simply be subjected to unilateral national control, they open the door to having the same argument used against their own maritime access.
Click to expand...
Simply... Russia and China have strong reasons not to push this too far, because they depend on the same freedom of navigation they would be challenging. Any rule they try to use against the West could eventually be used against them.
 
william said:
Freedom of navigation is the problem here. IMO The US will fight over it. At least we used to. Isn't that what the Navy is for. Russia gives permits for China. What about western countries? What gives THEM the right to issue permits to anybody in international waters.

I guess the debate is: are Artic waters international?
Click to expand...
That a good question. When the UN put teeth to their treaties (soft teeth, babies really) mostly post WW2 the few I have read were international if the waterway was a navigable waterway at the time.
These northern routes are interesting for several reasons.

First my question: Are we counting submarines transiting in the 1950’s andx 1960’s ?

Second question: Does being an overland route for sail skiffs (forget what they are called) count a navigable waterway? Mostly I expect force of arms to carry the day as the USA and Russia are not giving up their sovereignty anytime soon. Canada too but only if the US helps defend it.

I believe the economy exclusion zones will remain. The US and Canada will not have any major issues but Russia might even have trouble with its self, IMO.

So the folks out there with the chops for these treaties can hopefully make us smart!
 
Perspective 103 transits of this passage in 2025. There are approximately 50000 merchant vessels transiting the world’s oceans a year.
It’s seasonal so it’s not very strategic.
And it’s minuscule. I don’t see it at this point even worth being contested.
This is also not the first time it’s been open. Following historical climate models it’s just as likely to remain limited or sporadic.
Everything else is just speculative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom