Arctic rush

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Role of the Arctic in Chinese Naval Strategy

Facing Up to China’s Military Interests in the Arctic

At least China is not a foaming at the mouth enemy of Russia like the USA and its NATO minions. If the yanquis want to dominate the Arctic, I say let China have
full access to help Russia counterbalance these ambitions.

Let China take Canada.

Hole wrote:Let China take Canada.

It's slowly happening already.

But for now the anti-Russian bile remains.

At least China is not a foaming at the mouth enemy of Russia like the USA and its NATO minions. If the yanquis want to dominate the Arctic, I say let China have
full access to help Russia counterbalance these ambitions.

The difference is that Russia and China could work together and make it better for both parties... the US just wants control so it can use access to help itself... I was going to say help itself and its allies, but Nord Stream II shows it is nothing to do with allies and everything to do with itself.

The USA is using the usual tricks to sabotage Russia's development in the Arctic. A slew of organizations and companies
associated with the NATzO west declared their love for the Arctic environment and that they would never use the
North Sea Route. This included Nike which never uses the Arctic for anything and even some Danish fishing outfit
which also does not use the Arctic but claimed to be affected by it. Given this "grass roots" concern, the so-called
International Maritime Organization is now pushing for a ban on the use of heavy ship fuel in the Arctic.

Currently just over 80% of Russia's Arctic shipping uses heavy fuel. In the case of Canada it is close to 100% and
is 100% in the rest of the world. This plain and simple sabotage of Russia in the Arctic. The USA and its minions
currently control all the key shipping bottlenecks around the world (Panama Canal, Suez Canal) and are attempting
to control the shipping in the South China Sea. Since the yanqui losers can't even hope to pull any control over
the North Sea Route, they are pulling a tantrum instead and trying to stop commercial shipping in the Arctic. Concern
for the environment is a cheap ploy. The rest of the world is affect by ship bilge water dumping and general fuel
leakage as well. But nobody gives a flying f*ck. But in the Arctic we have the total non-issue of fuel oil since
it the shipping volume is vanishingly small being trotted out as some actual problem. It is a hypothetical problem
at best.

The above video discussion is why Rosatom wants to build a new massive shipyard to produce new container ships to
run a North Sea Route shipping company. They are trying to frustrate Washington's WADA style tactics.

So they need to build tankers that run on natural gas and a few large container ships that will of course be able to offer shorter delivery times compared with those going the long way... over time they will win market share because they are cheaper and two weeks faster...

GarryB wrote:So they need to build tankers that run on natural gas and a few large container ships that will of course be able to offer shorter delivery times compared with those going the long way... over time they will win market share because they are cheaper and two weeks faster...

That is what Rosatom wants. But Russia has to build the container ships and set up the shipping company to enable operation of the NSR.
This allows Washington to impose sanctions on Russian ships and companies and keep the NSR from being used.

The North Sea Route goes through Russian territorial waters... I don't see how the US has any say in the matter and any decision on the arctic can be vetoed by the Russians anyway.

NATO and the US can declare anything they like... they made a declaration of universal human rights a while back and break it every day because one of the rights it mentions is to privacy making any scanning phone calls for criminal activity illegal and a violation of civil rights...

In the end this means that no chinese or korean ships traveling along the NSR will use norwegian harbor. Another example of

They can off load containers at Murmansk or in the Baltic ports onto smaller ships to be delivered to Norway.

GarryB wrote:The North Sea Route goes through Russian territorial waters... I don't see how the US has any say in the matter and any decision on the arctic can be vetoed by the Russians anyway.

NATO and the US can declare anything they like... they made a declaration of universal human rights a while back and break it every day because one of the rights it mentions is to privacy making any scanning phone calls for criminal activity illegal and a violation of civil rights...

Of course NATO cannot dictate to Russia. But it can dictate to basically everyone else. These phony environmental regulations are being contrived
to give NATO a pretext to dictate to the planet in regards to using the NSR. Without these ludicrous regulations NATO would have nothing on
which to deny anyone access to the Arctic Ocean.

The North Sea Route goes through Russian territorial waters...

a portion of is in international waters & therefore is subject to INCLOS; but her islands there, ice, & many other factors allows Russia to claim exclusive rights there.
The strait in the NW Passage is also within Canadian territorial waters/EEZ but the US considers it as "international" to benefit itself. In 1812, the US failed to seize Canada. China asked for permission to sail her icebreaker there.
Btw, China can also claim the 100 mile wide Taiwan Strait since she considers Taiwan its own province & declared that the island won't be allowed to declare its independence w/o triggering a war.

I should clarify why I view the environmental regulations being foisted on Arctic shipping as fake:

1) CO2 emissions are all the rage these days. Shipping via the Arctic can cut down on emissions around 40%.
Preventing use of the NSR does not reduce CO2 production by shipping whatsoever. Any reduction of CO2
emissions from the existing small (relative to global) Arctic shipping activity is not worth the bother.

2) Fuel oil spills. Since when has this been such a big concern? We have substantial amount of shipping around
the whole Arctic basin and this issue has never been raised since ships do not sink every day. We are not dealing
with Exxon Valdez oil tanker catastrophes but with regular ships and their fuel. There is no particular need for oil
tanker traffic in the NSR since all the oil source regions have closer access via the Atlantic and Suez Canal routes.
Nobody is going to ship oil from the Middle East via the NSR. Russia is the prime potential oil shipper in the NSR.
And since Russia's coast is the most likely to be affected by any spill, NATO can go and get f*cked.

In the end this means that no chinese or korean ships traveling along the NSR will use norwegian harbor. Another example of

Well of course... it is a case of China and Russia making changes and spending fairly substantial amounts of money to improve and reduce the cost and time of transit from Asia to the EU and back and the stupid uptight led by America yuropeeans sabotaging it because it involves Russia and Russia bad...

They can off load containers at Murmansk or in the Baltic ports onto smaller ships to be delivered to Norway.

So the port work and product handling fees goes to Russia... sounds good to me...

Deepening and making wider the canal that goes from the arctic ocean near Murmansk to the baltic sea through Russia is making more and more sense... either offload the stuff in Murmansk and load on to trucks there, or onto smaller boats to canal to baltic sea... wont need to bother with the Baltic Ports except the Russian ones.... maybe send it to Kaliningrad and distribute it by truck from there so their port makes money too.

Of course NATO cannot dictate to Russia. But it can dictate to basically everyone else. These phony environmental regulations are being contrived
to give NATO a pretext to dictate to the planet in regards to using the NSR. Without these ludicrous regulations NATO would have nothing on
which to deny anyone access to the Arctic Ocean.

But that is perfect... having a shorter cheaper route from Asia to the EU and back that is exclusively run by Russian owned and operated ships means Russia could dominate the sea trade between Asia and the EU... they could maximise their domination by making their ships operate on LNG or nuclear power... which are the green options...

a portion of is in international waters & therefore is subject to INCLOS; but her islands there, ice, & many other factors allows Russia to claim exclusive rights there.

Would love to see NATO try to get ships to those international waters to deny Russian ships access...

Btw, China can also claim the 100 mile wide Taiwan Strait since she considers Taiwan its own province & declared that the island won't be allowed to declare its independence w/o triggering a war.

I don't see China being a problem in this... they are working together with Russia and a lot of other countries to provide trade route options from Asia to the EU and back... trying to dick Russia around with their little bit leaves them open and vulnerable to Russia just saying no to allowing Chinese ships or trains in their territorial waters or rail network.

For China the Russian rail network is a simple and obvious solution to getting rail cargo from Asia to EU quickly... they simply have no reason to upset Russia the same way Russia has no reason to upset China for mostly the same reasons... there is enough potential for everyone to make money... except the US which is why they are all prickly and butt hurt.

I don't see China being a problem in this... they are working together with Russia and a lot of other countries to provide trade route options from Asia to the EU and back...

They may charter new Russian monster icebreakers year round for transpolar route bypassing the NSR, saving even more time; before they r built, their own NP icebreakers could be used on it every few month. Also they can sign a deal to allow their icebreakers on the Eastern NSR.

They could and they might, but if the NSR is already being used it is cheaper to pay those icebreakers that are already getting paid by other ships on that route than to hire your own and forge your own way through deeper ice further north... and they own the icebreakers at the moment anyway so I don't think they would care either way.

That is like saying China could pay to have an alternative to the Panama or Suez canals built, except the huge difference is that Russia didn't have to pay to build the NSR... it is there... all they are doing is buying the type of ships needed to clear the way for traffic... there will be plenty of customers shipping stuff from Europe to Asia or from Asia to Europe who will want to save 2 weeks off the normal transit time... there are ports along the way that they can pick up stuff and drop stuff off or get repairs if needed... if China wants to forge a way further north right over the pole that is fine but what happens if there is a problem and they need repairs... they are going to have to go to Russia or Canada for a port...

and they own the icebreakers at the moment anyway so I don't think they would care either way.

They have 1 that is ice strengthened converted cargo ship & 1 recently built purpose built icebreaker. For transpolar & Eastern Arctic year round navigation, NP icebreakers r needed.

..if China wants to forge a way further north right over the pole that is fine but what happens if there is a problem and they need repairs...

in that case, their or Russian icebreakers can tow them to a nearest port/military base. They'll still save a lot on shorter transit time & NSR fees by sailing across/near the N. Pole. That's the purpose for big icebreakers that China will continue building. Otherwise, they would have relied on the Russian big icebreakers.

Sky, helicopter, Arctic: mobile airfields will appear in the Arctic

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-force-fixing-up-norwegian-base-arctic-near-russia-2020-1

The icebreaker "Leader" was given the green light
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4221091

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/travel-life-and-public/2020/01/worlds-biggest-nickel-miner-has-plan-its-crisis-ridden-town-border

World’s biggest nickel miner has a plan for its crisis-ridden border town: here could come a hub for Arctic tourism

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/industry-and-energy/2020/02/black-day-coal-company-it-abandons-grand-arctic-dig

Black day for coal company as it abandons grand Arctic dig

owais.usmani wrote:https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/industry-and-energy/2020/02/black-day-coal-company-it-abandons-grand-arctic-dig

Black day for coal company as it abandons grand Arctic dig

The key detail is that there are real and high quality deposits in this region. Maybe the market now is discounting coal prices to non-competitive
levels, but in the future things will change. There is really nothing to this story other than normal business events.

Of course this propaganda rag just had to twist the narrative with its "controversial owners" BS. Considering what coal miners do in the
USA (remove whole forested mountains) this Russian company was not anomalous in its actions. But anything pertaining to Russia is
always hyped into the sky is falling absurdity.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-industry-and-energy/2020/02/moscow-outlines-eu208-billion-plan-arctic-oil

Moscow outlines €210 billion plan for Arctic oil

Found on Sputnik. Charkowtschanka-2. Special vehicle for the Arctis/Antarctica. Interior: 28m², 8 bunks.

Airfields in the Arctic cost billions of rubles

Airfields anywhere cost billions of rubles... but in the arctic where building roads and rail lines is expensive too it makes sense to build airfields and railway tracks and roads because it improves access to the wealth of the region...

Moscow May Soon End ‘Provisional Enforcement’ of 1990 Bering Strait Accord With US

Northern Sea Route: consequences of Shevardnadze’s betrayal
https://regnum.ru/news/economy/2849425.html