0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
3,048 $

The Russian-China Polar Silk Road Challenges British Geopolitics

Support SouthFront

Written by Matthew J.L. Ehret; Originally appeared on strategic-culture.org

Whether the Arctic will become a platform for cooperation or warfare has been a question often posed throughout the past 150 years.

As early as 1875, a vision for Eurasian-American cooperation was becoming realized as leading Americans and Russians alike foresaw the construction of telegraph and even rail lines across the 100 km Bering Strait crossing separating Russia from Alaska. Proponents of this policy on the American side included Lincoln-ally and Colorado’s 1st governor William Gilpin, whose book The Cosmopolitan Railway was published in 1890 showcasing a “post-imperial world” where mutual development was driven by rail lines across all the continents and featured the Bering Strait rail connection as its keystone. Many of Gilpin’s co-thinkers in Russia grew in influence and even convinced Tsar Nicholas II to endorse the project in 1905. The fact that the newly completed Trans-Siberian Railway was modelled on Lincoln’s Trans-Continental Railway and carried train cars built in Philadelphia made this concept very feasible in the minds of many people in those days… not excluding a British Empire that desperately wished to see this potential destroyed.

The Russian-China Polar Silk Road Challenges British Geopolitics

Although a few assassinations, a Russian revolution and Wall Street/London-funded wars disturbed this paradigm of cooperation from unfolding as it should have, hopes again ran high as Franklin Roosevelt and Stalin recognized that they had much more in common with each other than either did with the British Empire’s Winston Churchill. This partnership re-opened discussion for a Bering Strait rail connection during World War II after decades of dormancy. When FDR prematurely passed away in office and his leading American co-thinkers began to be targeted by the FBI-led “red scare”, Stalin ruminated that “the great dream had died”. Churchill’s Iron Curtain ushered in a new age of Mutual Assured Destruction whereby all talk of the Arctic as a domain of cooperation perished.

Despite efforts of certain leading figures such as John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert in America, or Enrico Mattei of Italy and Charles De Gaulle in France to establish cooperation between east and west, the growth of what has today come to be known as the “deep state” continued apace, with the creation of NATO, and technocratic infiltration of all western governments… often over the dead bodies of nationalist leaders.

While the west celebrated the collapse of Communism, and puppets like Sir Henry Kissinger and Sir George Bush ushered in the New World Order of NAFTA, NATO, the Eurozone, and WTO during the 1990s, a new alliance was forming, and soon the emergence of such institutions as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, APEC, and later Eurasian Economic Union occurred.

With these new institutions, the designs for a Bering Strait rail tunnel were once again revived when Russia signaled its willingness to construct the century-old project in 2011 offering over $65 billion towards its funding, which only required the cooperation of the United States and Canada.

As China began to emerge as a global force, it not only petitioned to become an observer in the Arctic Council in 2012, but also soon unleashed the Belt and Road Initiative in September 2013. A year later, in May 2014, China too gave its support to the construction of the Bering Strait Tunnel. Until this period the only serious discussion of the program was found in the work of the Schiller Institute, whose founders had publicized the New Silk Road and Bering Strait rail line through thousands of conferences and publications since 1993.

While the period of 2014-present has been tense at the best of times, and close to world war at the worst of times, the potential of the Arctic as a platform for international dialogue has continued un-abated and has served as the theme of this year’s fifth International Arctic Forum in St. Petersburg from April 9-10, 2019. The theme of the conference which saw the involvement of 3600 representatives of Russian, and international sectors both private and public was “Arctic: Territory of Dialogue”.

Russia’s Arctic: Territory of Dialogue

The keynote speech at the forum’s plenary session was given by Vladimir Putin whereby the Russian leader discussed the plans for Russia’s Arctic development for the coming decades stating: “This year we are going to draft and adopt a new strategy for the development of the Russian Arctic up to 2035. It is to combine measures stipulated in our national projects and state programmes, the investment plans of infrastructure companies and programmes for developing Arctic regions and cities. All Arctic regions should be brought to the level of at least the national average in key socioeconomic indicators and living standards.”

In attendance were the heads of every Arctic Council nation (except Canada and the USA) who listened to Putin describe the upgrading of a global transportation corridor involving the Northern Sea Route, the Northern Latitudinal Railway connecting western Siberia to ports on the Arctic Ocean, a boost of freight traffic to 80 million tons by 2025 (from its 20 million tons today), and the creation of new nuclear powered ice breakers. Vast programs for resource development of LNG, oil and other minerals were announced throughout the conference and a new federal law to offer a special system of preferences for Arctic zone investments was publicized. Over 100 oil and gas extraction, infrastructure and tourism projects were finalized totalling over $164 billion.

Most importantly, a vision for this growth process was tied to the creative spirit of scientific discovery that distinguishes the human species as unique among the biosphere, as scientific and educational centers to integrate universities, research institutions and the private sector with the productive industrial processes underlying the “real economy” were announced. This last component of an Arctic vision brought into focus Russia’s partnership with China brilliantly, as a strategic agreement on scientific cooperation was signed between the two allies

The Russia-China Silk Road on Ice

China’s Belt and Road Initiative has already spread across Eurasia and Africa uplifting standards of living, cognitive potential and building mega projects along the way. The grand design is a fluid concept driven by rail development and city building on its land (road) component, with ports and shipping lanes on its sea (belt) component. A philosophical commitment to scientific and technological progress (aka: creative reason) which once animated western society is its driving power.

In January 2018, a Chinese white paper announced China’s northern vision with Russia “will bring opportunities for parties concerned to jointly build a ‘Polar Silk Road’, and facilitate connectivity and sustainable economic and social development of the Arctic.”

In its press release announcing the creation of the China-Russia Arctic Research Center (CRARC) on April 10, 2019, the Russian government announced: “Joint efforts will be made in Arctic marine science research, which will promote the construction of ‘Silk Road on Ice’. In future, QNLM looks forward to more fruitful and efficient partnerships worldwide to contribute to the sustainable development of the world oceans and a shared future for mankind.”

NATO hawks Freak Out

NATO hawks have reacted to these incredible developments as if the Cold war had never ended, with James Stravridis (former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO) penning an op-ed on April 16 stating China’s polar silk road is only an “aggressive program of building influence” and that the melting arctic ice “will create shipping routes that could be geopolitically central for China’s One Belt, One Road global development strategy.” Citing the recent China-Russia joint military exercises such as the Vostok 2018 China-Russia-Mongolia maneuvers of September 11-17, 2018 that involved over 300 000 military personnel, Stravridis said “they [Russia and China] see working together as a hedge against the US and their cooperation will create significant challenges for the NATO nations with Arctic territory”. The cold warrior called on the USA and Canada to respond with their own joint military maneuvers and collaboration with NATO.

Stravridis’ words echoed those of NORAD chief US General Terrance O’Shaughnessy who spoke in Ottawa earlier calling for joint military cooperation in the Arctic saying “we must acknowledge the reality that our adversaries currently hold our citizens, our way of life and national interests at risk… we are at risk in ways we haven’t been in decades”.

While fear-mongering headlines documenting Russia’s Arctic Summit with such titles as “Putin Bolsters Arctic Presence with Anti-Aircraft Missiles” are the norm in the western press, a major Canadian Foreign Affairs Committee report published on April 11 features a valuable insight into the powerful effects of which the New Silk Road paradigm is creating even among pro-NATO countries as hostile to the BRI and Russia as Canada has proven itself to be over recent years.

The New Paradigm inspires potential change in Canadian Artic Strategy

In the report begun in June 2018 entitled “Nation Building at Home, Vigilance Beyond: Preparing for the Coming Decades in the Arctic”, a non-partisan effort was released to call for a complete reversal on the Arctic policy which has governed Canada since the Deep State-led ouster of Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in 1963, whose “Northern Vision” was killed with his position as Prime Minister.

While paying lip service to the “danger of Russian and Chinese interest in the Arctic”, the 140 page committee report broke with the tradition of treating the Canada’s Arctic Sovereign as somehow “threatened by outside forces” as has been the trend for decades and instead stated that “the Committee is of the view that the challenges Canada faces in the Arctic are those of security, national defence, stewardship, well-being, and prosperity. With that in mind, it seems unproductive to continue approaching these issues from the perspective of determining whether Canada is somehow losing sovereignty over land and waters that are Canadian.” Expressing an awareness that a new global system was rising the paper stated “the government must … ensure that it is not caught unprepared if the geopolitical reality changes.”

While other similar white papers published over the years have taken more aggressive stances against Russia and China’s BRI, this committee report stated “The Arctic situation now goes beyond its original inter-Arctic States or regional nature, having a vital bearing on the interests of States outside the region and the interests of the international community as a whole, as well as on the survival, the development, and the shared future for mankind.”

Ultimately, the report called for Canada to break the British-steered zero growth/post-industrial policy of the past 60 years and instead create a new federal program for Arctic infrastructure investment, cooperation with China on the Polar Silk Road, involve natives trapped in suicide-laden under-developed reservations with the opportunity to participate in growth programs, mapping of northern resources (which Canada has failed to do unlike their Russian counterparts), and importantly provide for the social integration of natives with the rest of Canada.

Of extreme importance was the call to reverse the 2016 Trudeau-Obama ban on Arctic drilling which was done to protect the ecosystem while excluding all natives who live in said ecosystems with any opportunity to have a say. The report stated “The manner in which that decision was carried out was not described warmly by the people with whom the Committee met in the North. There was a feeling that the decision had been made without consideration for the interests of the people who live and work there. One Indigenous organization received 20 minutes’ notice.”

Rather than call for confrontation, or joining NATO’s ABM encirclement of Russia as previous reports had done, the committee called for discussion, science diplomacy, dialogue and a return to an Arctic growth policy not seen in over 70 years.

While discussions of the Bering Strait rail connection between Eurasia and the Americas was absent, as was all discussion of nuclear energy, whose development is instrumental for the Arctic, it is relevant that no mention was made of “green energy” like windmills and solar panels which would serve no use in any serious national development strategy.

The fact is that the polar Silk Road is a reality. The ports and shipping lines opening up along the Northwest Passage express only the beginning phases of it, but as Russia continues to develop rail and scientific capabilities with China’s assistance across its Arctic, the rail will follow and the dream of Governor Gilpin and Tsar Nicholas II to unite both worlds new and old with rail will occur, as long as the west chooses to take history seriously and not sleepwalk into world war once more.

Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Douglas Houck

I’m not sure what the author’s point is, and his biases show through (nuclear power is the only viable polar energy source WTF?!). It is doubtful that anyone is going to build a tunnel from Alaska to Russia under any scenario as the costs don’t justify the benefits. Not until ocean going ships are no more and English speaking people no longer hate/fear the Russians/Chinese.

Dick Von Dast'Ard

The Russians and Chinese are very good at building bridges and artificial Islands,100 miles is no problem for them. In other words costs split by two artificial Islands and 4 x 25 mile sections. (between U.S., Canada, Russia and China)

Douglas Houck

I have no doubt that a connection could be build, simply that the costs outway the benefits and that the demonization of Russia and China by the world’s english speaking countries would never allow for such a connection. And after building such a line, who is going to build the required railroad from western Alaska to Prince Rupert, British Columbia?

AM Hants

Guess you missed out on the events of the past 5 years.? How the Rothschild controlled nations and institutions, courtesy of their hissy fits and deminisation of Russia, have simply strengthened the nation. Courtesy of forcing self Determination on the strong citizens of a very strong and powerful nation.

Douglas Houck

I’m not sure I understand your Reply. I don’t see this article dealing that much with the strenth of Russia. Look at the last paragraph which is the author’s summary.

Yes, the polar Silk Road is a reality, but again, nobody is going to build that railroad and the “dream of Governor Gilpin and Tsar Nicholas II to unite both worlds new and old with rail…” is never going to occur for the simple reason it isn’t ever going to be economical.

There is little trade between Russia and the US and most of it doesn’t lend itself to rail transport. Even China seldom uses rail to transport goods by. In 2016 China used rail for less than 1% of total volume to Europe.

This is an opinion piece and not much of it is based on reality at that.

AM Hants

Check the Russian and Chinese rail infrastructure. You might be surprised. US rail system, not exactly the best on the planet, now is it?

You can call me Al

But why ?.

John Whitehot

afaik Russia did not build artificial islands, but China has done it since the 70ies (and went to war with Vietnam over one or two of them).

Personally I don’t like much this kind of assertiveness, but China is certainly in a particular strategic position, and it can’t allow not to maintain an outer ring of defense/surveillance against possible aggressors (read – the US Navy).

Another thing is the exploitation of maritime resources, something that should be discussed under more fair conditions for everyone.


The Silk Road is a for sure loss for nato.

The challenge however is for Russia and China on how to get through its main arteries (Taliban Afghanistan, Idlib, and AlQaeda Global). These arteries arent spic mafia, Rebels are literally upholders of morality, and will never allow degeneracy to pass through its land

So to try to crush Rebels like ants, will only prove the case for Rebels, that they will be crushed like flowers in ‘chellenged’ hands, hands that dont see that any obstruction on the Silk Road is moral objection to its passing through at a local level, aka the main arteries along the Silk Road.

John Whitehot

British geopolitics? is this supposed to be a joke?

You can call me Al

They were different times back then.

AM Hants

How I miss times of old. Do you remember, when we were allowed to laugh?




I tried to post a “LOL” , but it was censored.

John Whitehot

who took that from you?

AM Hants

I still laugh. Nobody will ever take that from me.

You can call me Al

Laugh !!!….oh yeah. I thought there was something else missing in my life, as well as sex, pub grub and all the lads going to goodison park.

AM Hants

Poor love, you will have me feeling sorry for you. No sex, no laughter – how do you cope? Goodison Park and Pub Grub, well, acquired taste, I never got the hang of haha. Saying that, do tolerate pub grub, owing to not knowing what a kitchen looks like, haha.

You can call me Al

Feeling sorry for myself, this menopause thing or whatever, oh no mid-life crisis…..I work for 30 years + then get this shite thrown at me, without me knowing.

Chat uo the birds and get the response “pheeew, fuck off Grandad”…. what happened to respect ?.

Just because you fitted a car battery to your hubby, doesn’t mean we are all so lucky.

Right, I’ll be back to normal tomorrow, nice one hot stuff.


Why a joke?

The ruling class of Britain is still very much in charge. They only hijacked the USA to continue their dirty work.

AM Hants

City of London, Washington DC, plus, the Vatican – all controlled by same crowd. 3 corporations, who once upon a time, ruled the world.

John Whitehot

a joke related to the current geopolitical weight of the UK.

But in fact, they didn’t hijack the US to create Israel, they did it themselves, probably as the “swansong” of their foreign policy.

For the rest, after the Suez crisis (where curiously, the US and the Soviets basically were on the same side against the UK, France and Israel), their actions have always been reflexes of the US ones.

Even the malvinas war would have ended bad, if the US didn’t share practically their entire intelligence capability with the UK (and even with that, they managed to lose 7 combat ships, including 2 destroyers and 2 frigates).

I’m not saying that the UK is a paper tiger, yet it’s much less than it is implied.

The most odious thing is that with their role, both in NATO and in the US security council, they have been used to give legitimation the worse war crime perpetrated by the US, like the aggression on Irak.

Without UK support, the US would have been alone in their ventures; this would had caused diplomatical isolation of the US.


Respectfully, I think you’re ignorant of the immense weight the clique in question has played in the world for the past centuries. I invite you to read Carroll Quigley’s “The Anglo-American Establishment” to familiarize yourself (available for free in his site): http://www.carrollquigley.net/books.htm

If you read my comments again, you’ll see that I wrote “the ruling class of Britain” (the deep state) and not “British government” (who only makes the deep state’s orders official through laws and policies). Neither did I write that they hijacked the USA to create Israel. The takeover of the US and the creation of the Zionist state were two separate – but interlinked – endeavors.

I haven’t looked into the intricacies of the Malvinas War but I doubt that it’s any different than the rest of the wars and conflicts: inner details and mainstream narrative often, if not always, diverging.

NATO, Security Council, etc —the USA is the continuation of the British Empire; nothing more or less. The CFR, Trilateral Commision et al. aren’t linked to mother think-tank organizations in London (Chatham House et al.) for any reason.

AM Hants

Interesting article, together with the timing of it all. Now what was going on in 2014 and look how events pushed Russia and China, closely together?


In the light of this article and the potential for East-West dialogue and cooperation, it seems to me that NATO is the main stick in the mud designed to prevent such dialogue and cooperation.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x