Propaganda is no novel strategy employed by nations and their governments to deceive enemies as well as their own domestic population. Shading the truth is simply a part of the practice of governance and international relations in the modern age; be it erasing entire events, cultures, or simply skewing minor data. Moscow requires the Northern Sea Route (NSR) to seem as though it is a real, functioning alternative to Western-dominated maritime order; something emphasized more than ever due to the pressures of sanctions upon Russia. Beijing requires the Polar Silk Road (PSR) to appear equally functional to provide evidence of Chinese interest and therefore a geopolitical foothold in the region. Both nations, therefore, would benefit from propaganda encouraging the viability of the NSR. That is not to say the NSR in practice is not functional, and as ice melts it will not become increasingly so. Rather, this article argues that the role of the NSR in the appearance of China and Russia acts as the exigence for shading the truth in a land that is largely white and blue: the Arctic. The PSR was formalized in 2018 through a Chinese official Arctic policy white paper, established as a viable route to Eurasian commerce;1a justification as well for expanded patrols throughout the Arctic, in tandem with Russia. Additionally, China worked to expand icebreakers and ports, funding which would fall in such a strategic policy, as well as a hedge against the pressures applied to China through strategic chokepoints- namely the Strait of Malacca.2Washington and NATO require the Arctic to appear volatile enough, in turn, to justify an expansion of their own icebreakers, base network, pipelines and cables; as well as the American fixation on Greenland, under US President Trump's administration.
So as politicians trace the halls of Congress, heeled shoes clacking in lockstep, and icebreakers are constructed in shipyards in Finland; sparks fly in both cases. The sawing and soldering of steel hulls, and the fiery words of Presidents and Prime Ministers.
The Arctic, despite its contrasts of pale ice and dark waters, is not black and white. It is the individuals who do not benefit- but instead are harmed by white lies who serve as more trustworthy observers of the Arctic region. Such a role is filled by marine insurers; should the Arctic risk be overstated, the premium volume is lost to a competitor. Likewise, should that insurer underestimate the risk, it is forced to absorb the losses itself. Business that survives not by the trust of the customer, but by the reality of the seas. As such, the marine insurance market, and particularly its pricing, as reflected in the Arctic transits, provides a unique angle of analysis of the true viability of the NSR and PSR; as opposed to what the West fears they are, and the East hopes they will be.
Lloyd's Market Association serves as a looking-glass for the Arctic and its shipping routes; the LMA's manager of marine and aviation, Neil Roberts, described the region as “the new frontier of risk.”3The logic behind this claim was made clear soon after the fact- one a ship is damaged, or in peril in the Arctic, there are very few salvage options. David Lawrence, Lloyd's controller of agencies, also provided the logic that the reputational cost is as unpalatable as the physical cost, noting that “no ship captain wants to be the first to pollute the pristine Arctic ocean.”3No captain has a desire to be the first to pollute pristine Arctic waters, as protecting the environment and local populations is imperative to reputational insulation. To be the corporation that spilled oil against ice caps is a dark look indeed, one which is costly not only in reputation but in customer base as well. The notion that there are few salvage options provides a logic, however, past just reputational concern; the market actors with direct money invested perceive the Arctic as a high-risk environment financially, not geopolitically. As such, the reflection provides insight into the analysis of investors, as opposed to the words of politicians. It is imperative to remember that people and their judgement are not always sound- even if there is money or reputation on the line. Investors may be transparent about their best judgement, but they may be wrong; speakers may lie through their teeth and be right. Such is the world of analytics and judgement; as such, the practical claims themselves provide the hard facts of the case.
Allianz's decade-long tally of Arctic Circle shipping casualties logged more than 500 incidents between 2014 and 2023, with machinery damage or failure- largely due to the freezing temperatures- the leading cause, accounting for almost half.4The operability of the Arctic has long been problematic; it is too cold for survival, and so as ships became more advanced, the issues shifted. First to problems of insulation from the cold; then surviving icebergs and floes; then to machinery withstanding freezing temperatures. The Arctic remains a geopolitical battleground because it is inaccessible; the barrier to entry and cost of involvement in the region is too high to justify operations that elsewhere have a higher return and lower cost. It is easier to prepare to fight in a desert with the risk of loss than to even begin to fight in the Arctic. As such, technology is largely the limit, as well as investment in that technology. While climate change reduces the physical amount of ice in the Arctic, the nature of its cold remains. As such, mechanical and technical failure resulting from the cold is still an innate risk. The Arctic is also an incredibly remote region of Earth, despite serving as the closest point of connection between North America, Asia, and Europe; so ships that break down due to the cold are far from repair yards, spare parts, or search and rescue teams. Additionally, there arises a sunk-cost policy: how many ships can be risked to recover one? Should the ships that endeavor to salvage and rescue the damaged ship also become damaged, the problem only multiplies. Such a cost-benefit analysis and the risk relative to the isolation of the region is not produced by foreign ministries because they lack an exigence to generate it; insurers, by contrast, view incidents one at a time to ensure they never repeat.
As technology improves, so too does trade in the Arctic; the Arctic Council's Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) working group has tracked a 37% increase in the number of unique vessels entering the Polar Code area between 2013 and 2023.5Allianz separately estimates the regional economy has more than tripled since 2003, to over $650 billion in value.4Naturally, density increases the frequency of accidents; hence a pattern: falling ice, rising temperatures, rising investment and traffic, rising incident count. The Arctic is not more dangerous as before but is rather simply seeing a rise in vessels within it. The risk lies not in the region but in the machinery and technology which is employed in the region, without proper preparation for the environmental dangers. Moscow and Beijing report consistently that the NSR is an emerging functional trade corridor; 2025 was reported as a record year for NSR activity, and that same year saw the first-ever China-Europe container transit voyage, halving the time of the Suez Canal voyage.4The commercial logic- the lost costs of crew, maintenance, and energy- is sound. Faster trade allows goods to be sold at a premium, creating a significant profit boost. What takes 20 days in the NSR takes 40 through the Suez and 55 around the Cape of Good Hope; such a strategy grants Beijing great value and a wise investment in 2018. A route which braces for sanctions, insulates against chokepoint pressure, and is less surveilled by the West, particularly the US, is of incredible value outside of profit margins alone to China. However, the diversity of shipping in the NSR for the world as a whole, utilizing a novel route, has since been shattered. As of 2024, some 95 percent of international Arctic transit traffic moved from Russia to China, according to shipping data compiled by the Centre for High North Logistics.6Western operations have kept a healthy distance as the route itself is patrolled and escorted by Rosatomflot. Russia's nuclear-powered operator escort through the NSR and Arctic is often mandatory; Rosatomflot is a corporation under significant sanctions by Western powers since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The complications of sanctions while also working with a sanctioned corporation are rather messy; additionally, should a US ship require rescue and receive aid from a Russian nuclear icebreaker, it provides Russia immense leverage over the US by holding the ship hostage. The operational risk of the region is enhanced entirely due to the nation that largely patrols the NSR.
The G7 and the EU have imposed a number of sanctions related to the Arctic region, namely targeting the Russian Arctic fleet, the sanctioned Arctic LNG 2 project, the shipping and infrastructure industries that provide navigation and transportation via the NSR, and Arctic oil exploration and production, among others.7
Already in 2019, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticised the Russian management of the NSR, arguing that Moscow's demand to obtain permission to pass through the NSR is “illegal,” and also criticised the increase in military bases in the region.8
Russia invests heavily in the Arctic region to maintain its leadership, though it faces few competitors, especially in its icebreaker fleet. The sanctions programmes have never been focused primarily on the Arctic region as such, but rather on reducing Russian energy revenues and maximising expenditures on new critical energy infrastructure projects, since energy exports primarily drive the Russian war economy. Targeted Arctic sanctions packages are missing, aside from some jurisdictions that target specific sectoral sanctions in the Arctic region (as introduced by Canada). In principle, as Russia tightens its grip over the NSR, the presence or absence of sanctions would change little in terms of volumes and voyages completed. However, their application substantially increases the cost of any new construction in the Arctic region, making Russia's goal of growing its share of global LNG exports from roughly 8% to 20% of the global market more challenging.9
The NSR and PSR therefore do not aid in diversified worldwide trade; there is not a new shipping route for nations invited to utilize the NSR, such as India. Instead, it remains isolated to China and Russia, and although it benefits such nations, it does not function as promoted by Moscow and Beijing; in theory, the insurance infrastructure which would make the NSR utilizable is simply absent. Russia and China bilateral logistics are the only engine running the NSR and PSR, which, although beneficial to such nations, is not the final, intended outcome. China's Belt and Road Initiative seeks to connect the world through trade like never before; such trade does not work if only China trades utilizing it. In short, a port will not attract international trade if only one or two nations utilize it, due to high risk and a lack of insurance or search-and-rescue capability. Additionally, the aid which would presumably be provided only by Russia further discourages involvement in the NSR, as Russia has been deemed an untrustworthy nation following the invasion of Ukraine. The role of Western P&I cover, salvage and escort support, and untangled sanctions exposure is not present in the NSR- at least not at this time, and likely not until a ceasefire is established between Russia and Ukraine, and sanctions are dropped. The past four years, however, have indicated only rising tensions between powers, not falling ones; as such, it is likely to assume such sanctions will be retained for some time. Although there is record NSR activity, it is solely dependent upon China and Russia; if those nations, which benefit the most from fabricating numbers, seek to expand the role of the NSR, they are able to do so by subsidising shipments utilizing the NSR. If, for example, Beijing encouraged Chinese ships to transport largely through the NSR, they likely would, and the NSR would seem to have an explosion of usage; but the 95% would remain Chinese and Russian, as such, such a metric holds little true value. Europe, which benefits from faster trade, does not utilize the NSR itself, further establishing the present limitations of the ideal Polar Silk Road.
The Joint War Committee (JWC), which serves as Lloyd's and the International Underwriting Association body, retains a list of “Listed Areas” where shipowners must notify their war-risk underwriter before embarking on any voyages. As such, there is a case-by-case analytical system of negotiation over an additional premium, based on the cargo, voyage, crew, and region. The JWC list added the Ukrainian and Russian Black Sea as well as the Sea of Azov waters within days of the 2022 invasion; money cannot afford to be slow to the draw the way government policy is innately sluggish. In March 2026 the JWC again revised its Listed Areas amid the conflict involving Iran, adding Bahrain, Djibouti, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar, and widening the boundaries of the Persian/Arabian Gulf-Gulf of Oman-Indian Ocean-Gulf of Aden-Southern Red Sea zone to include the Strait of Hormuz in full.10In the weeks that followed, additional war-risk premiums for transits through the Strait of Hormuz reportedly climbed as high as 7.5 to 10 percent of a vessel's hull value, while the riskiest Black Sea ports- Odesa among them- commanded a substantially lower, though still elevated, three to five percent.11In short, the risk of the region is reflected in the premium; the disparity between the Black Sea and the Gulf provides a key example of how finely insurers calibrate geography to actual threat. Such numbers outline clearly and cleanly what government policy construes; risk is present in regions such as the NSR, despite the required maintenance on it. The West benefits from watching the NSR and inspiring concern over it, as it spurs on policy action and retains power in the region; or halts it before it starts. Russia and China, however, benefit from making the NSR appear highly valuable and viable where the West perceives it as volatile. The NSR is not, in and of itself, a JWC Listed Area the way, for example, the Black Sea is; there is naturally no active war in the region. Nonetheless, the absence of any recognition in the NSR is telling of how little-used it is. War premiums are volatile and shift with conflict; peace and war shape the economy, as is recorded throughout time and place. The Arctic, however, is innately higher risk due to the environment; one which rising temperatures slightly shift, but not significantly; certainly not as significantly as missiles and bullets flying through the air, or pirates with hostages. The Arctic lacks infrastructure; it lacks ports for rest and parts to repair with; it lacks salvaging and search-and-rescue capabilities; in effect, the Arctic is a region built on risk with reward for nations which can incur deep costs.
China is able to absorb the costs of lost ships in the PSR because the PSR is a piece of state security and expansion; Chinese influence in the PSR is not a matter of cost if the government foots the bill. China is as such able to allow losses in the Arctic without significant consequence because it is a national strategy, not a commercial plan. Such is the case in regions such as Balochistan, Pakistan- Chinese-funded projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor have continued to advance despite years of attacks by Baloch separatist groups on Chinese nationals and installations.12The lack of commercial viability that deters purely profit-driven operators is exactly what makes state-backed involvement viable for China, due to state-controlled corporations; Russia benefits from the use of the NSR because it allows the nation greater say in international trade, something the West has been hesitant to grant it; further reason for nations to stay away from Russia. With US economic warfare, sanctions and secondary sanctions could be imposed upon the companies which take on Rosatomflot's escort arrangements in the NSR; thus forcing nations to either not use the NSR (if Russia continues to require the escort) or to cut Russia out of the system (if Russia does not require the escort in the future); either way, Russian leverage is lost over the NSR, which exists for exactly that reason. For the time being, however, it will remain a merely Russian-Chinese investment, one which is profitable, but only if nations are able to incur costs directly; otherwise, corporations won't touch the region.
An analysis of the NSR is critical to understand from a policy standpoint, through governance of the region, geopolitical tension, and military potential; China may require its own escort system and thereby utilize “protection” in the form of brigades and convoys in the High North. What is fundamentally revealed when observing the insurance market of a given route is the granular data that government releases do not benefit from extrapolating; the leverage China and Russia hold in the NSR exists only on their tab, the US has workarounds to prevent the NSR from benefiting Russia, and while China will utilize it as a foothold in the Arctic, such will be non-viable until better infrastructure is established, which will enable foreign companies to utilize the NSR without risk of loss of life, inability to salvage. The timeline this article predicts is as follows: China and Russia will continue to utilize the NSR, pouring money into it until proper infrastructure, search-and-rescue, and other establishments are created; this infrastructure will be largely Chinese-owned and run, and thereby the route will be Chinese-controlled. Such control will either discourage international trade, or it will enable other nations to utilize the infrastructure they didn't have to construct to hasten trade. China profits, and as the ice melts, the route becomes more and more viable. Russia loses leverage in the NSR as the Polar Silk Road becomes more prominent, and China is able to establish a firmer place in Arctic politics. Alternatively, the NSR and PSR will largely fail, as trade routes are beneficial but without the infrastructure, too risky to utilize. Such are the paths China and Russia could take, and the world with them. The credibility of the Polar Silk Road is able to be tracked over time, by which flag states' insurers are willing to write NSR hull cover, the rates, and under what salvage and escort contingencies. The result is a comprehensive guide to understanding the developments of the PSR, its viability and volatility, which rhetoric and propaganda do not populate. Analysts assessing the durability of the U.S.-Russia sanctions regime could track how quickly, if at all, Western P&I clubs and hull underwriters re-enter NSR-adjacent coverage should sanctions ease, a leading indicator of de facto policy relaxation that would likely move faster than, and independently of, any formal diplomatic announcement. Once again, money moves faster than policy. The icebreaker count in the current debate of Arctic security plays less of a crucial role, if the question is asked, Why does this matter? Yes, icebreakers provide access to the Arctic, and at a steep cost; such is critical for research; however, does Russia's more than 40 icebreakers to America's 3 create such a discrepancy in the region?13More specifically, these Russian ships exist as escorts for the NSR, in some capacity; if the route is never utilized, it is a sunk cost, not an investment. Some presently vital arguments for the NSR and icebreakers in the Arctic may become irrelevant if the NSR itself is never metastasized- at least not within a decade or so- due to a lack of insurance viability, search and rescue, or salvage. Cost is a deterrent which almost always maintains the status quo; flying cars are in theory possible, but are they cost-effective? And isn't the status quo still 'good enough'? Such questions must be asked before considering a route that on paper is faster and cheaper, but in practice is restrictive and highly risky. An icebreaker fleet is a capability. An insurable, liquid, competitively priced shipping lane is a market. The Kremlin has demonstrated the former in abundance. The insurance data suggests it has not yet produced the latter, at least not one open to anyone outside the Russia-China axis.
Naturally no argument is without its flaws; and the notion that insurance is telling contains such flaws. The first and foremost is the fact that insurance pricing is deliberately backward-looking. Premiums, loss ratios and exclusion cases are built on the history of claims, not on a prospective-oriented argument. As such, the changing field of the Arctic, the decreasing risk of ice and increasing infrastructure indicate a potential future, without a concrete insurance for it. The role of the Arctic and insurance in it is telling not of what will come but of what has already been established as the status quo. The risk in the Arctic therefore can only be calibrated in reverse using insurance alone. It is the establishment of policy that provides a forward-looking perspective. A market that has not yet seen a catastrophic NSR loss involving a non-Russian, non-Chinese vessel may simply not have had the opportunity to price that scenario correctly, rather than having concluded it is safe. Sea-ice retreat, in particular, is a trend the historical loss data will always underweight relative to its true forward trajectory, because each new ice-free week of the navigating season is, by definition, unprecedented in the claims record. Nonetheless, if policy indicates growth or more importance placed on the NSR, then such an incident provides unique prospective data.
Nonetheless, there is the fact that political risk pricing is rather subjective. The JWC's Listed Areas is innately binary and geography-based, a vessel is either within a boundary or outside of it, there is not such a grey zone, which impacts the volatility of a region. Skirting the edges of a dangerous area holds danger, even if less so, without the corresponding insurance costs, for example. The same principle can be applied to the Arctic, if a vessel travels strictly along the Russian coastline, where aid is slightly more accessible, even if the time frame is longer. A country-by-country or route-by-route political risk assessment conducted by a serious foreign ministry or think tank produces more credible data in such a situation, with the nuance of travel which is absent in insurance alone. The absence of an NSR war-risk listing reflects the narrowness of what the JWC's mandate actually measures (armed conflict, piracy, terrorism) rather than a comprehensive judgment that the route is politically safe in every other sense that might matter to a policymaker, expropriation risk, dependence on a sanctioned counterparty, the durability of Russian-Chinese cooperation itself. Risk is innately nuanced, not binary, and should be treated as such. As a result, the sheer risk of the Arctic is not yet calibrated. Despite these shortcomings, insurance data provides a starting point of analysis of risk and probability in the NSR, that is otherwise absent, due to the lack of foreign ministry or think tank press releases. The only method of data analysis present is that of insurance binary war-risk instrumentation, which changes ex post facto not preemptively. It is a faster and more falsifiable result than a diplomatic assessment which sits unrevised for years. As such, insurance is not the clearest and cleanest, flawless way to analyze the risk of the PSR and NSR, however it serves as the most viable option at present, due to its real-time response to risk developments regionally. The honest conclusion is not that insurance markets are a perfect Arctic intelligence system. It is that they are the most rigorously tested, financially accountable, and incentive-clean signal currently available, which, set against the alternative of relying on the stated positions of Moscow, Beijing, and Washington, is a considerably lower bar to clear than it should be.
The Northern Sea Route and the Polar Silk Road are, in the political vocabulary both Moscow and Beijing have chosen, framed as instruments of a multipolar trade order; proof that global commerce no longer needs to run through chokepoints the United States and its allies can dominate. Underwriters are not in the business of adjudicating that claim. But by deciding, transit by transit, whom they will insure, at what price, with what salvage contingency, and under what sanctions exposure, they end up adjudicating it anyway, as a byproduct of doing their actual job. The verdict so far, read through the pricing and the participant list rather than the press releases, is that the Polar Silk Road exists- but mostly as a bilateral logistics channel between two sanctioned and semi-sanctioned partners, insulated from and largely uninsurable for the rest of the world's shipping industry. That is a meaningfully different claim than the one being marketed, and it is one no foreign ministry on any side of the relevant conflicts has an incentive to state plainly. The insurers, because they have to get the number right or go out of business, already have.
Propaganda and press releases serve as state-sanctioned posts, but not as entirely accurate summations of risk, or true development. While it is easy to become involved in the emotional fearmongering or risk analysis of a volatile region, true analysis of risk, probability, viability and volatility originates from falsifiable data, not state-sponsored claims. Naturally nations benefit from creating an emotional pull in occurrences such as the development of a novel trade route. That does not mean that the trade route is innately successful, popular, or viable for most nations. While a route established by Russia and China is uniquely strategic, it remains, for now, a channel that connects two sanctioned partners to each other far more securely than it connects either of them to the rest of the world.
13. Foreign Policy Research Institute, “America Looks to Finland to Save Its Icebreaker Fleet,” November 6, 2025, https://www.fpri.org/article/2025/10/america-looks-to-finland-to-save-its-icebreaker-fleet/.
Additional reading: Lloyd's Market Association, via Insurance Business, "Lloyd's lists the top risks in shipping" (2017) — origin of the "new frontier of risk" and "salvage gap" framing.
Allianz Commercial, Safety and Shipping Review 2026 and the accompanying "Loss log: Arctic shipping" analysis — Arctic incident counts, machinery-failure share, NSR transit-time and traffic-composition data.
Arctic Council, Arctic shipping update (Jan. 2024) — 37 percent increase in unique Polar Code–area vessels, 2013–2023.
gCaptain, "Allianz Sees Arctic Shipping Boom Potential, But Warns Risks, Sanctions and Geopolitics Could Hamper Growth" (2026) — Rosatomflot sanctions, NSR traffic composition, Arctic regional GDP.
Joint War Committee (Lloyd's Market Association / IUA) Listed Areas circulars, and reporting via SAFETY4SEA, Maritime Executive, and NorthStandard — Black Sea and Gulf listings, Additional Premium mechanics.
CNBC, "How Chinese, Russian Arctic ambitions are fueling a U.S. polar icebreaker mission" (2026); GZERO Media, "Graphic Truth: Russia's icebreaker fleet dwarfs US & Canada" (2026); Atlas Institute for International Affairs, "Arctic Icebreaker Fleets: The Great Gap" (2025) — icebreaker fleet comparisons.
Prefer the original layout? Open this essay in the PDF issue (p. 15) →