Russia bolsters Arctic dominance with nuclear icebreakers

Control over the Arctic and the Northern Sea Route has provided the Kremlin with great hopes for years, evident in the construction of enormous nuclear icebreakers. Other Arctic countries also have no intention of giving up their aspirations. China, which has declared itself a "country close to the Arctic," does not hide its claims to the far north. Preparations for a confrontation have already begun.

The Project 22220 vessels are the largest icebreakers in the world. Russia has ordered seven such ships, three of which—Arktika, Sibir, and Ural—are already ready. Each is 560 feet long and displaces over 36,000 tons, putting it on par with British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships of World Wars I and II.

The power for these large ships is provided by two RITM-200 pressurized-water reactors with thermal power of 175 MWt – that's roughly enough to heat residential buildings in a city of 55,000. Thanks to its powerful power plant and reinforced hull, the icebreaker can sail through ice up to nine feet thick.

The ship can also adjust its draft. Full displacement is needed to break through the ice in the open sea, but when it needs to navigate the mouth of a frozen river, the Project 22220 icebreaker can reduce its draft from 34 to just under 30 feet.

Russian ambitions do not end with Project 22220. The sole ordered icebreaker of Project 10510 – Rossiya – is already halfway ready. It's even larger (displacing 77,000 tons), more powerful (two RITM-400 reactors with 315 MWt power), and capable of breaking through ice up to twelve feet thick (with some sources even stating up to thirteen feet).

Why is Russia, which has long had the world's largest fleet of icebreakers, building new, even more powerful ships of this class at great expense – though not without delays?

The answer lies in the quest for control over the Arctic. The climate crisis is gradually making the waters around the pole more accessible for navigation. This means the possibility of using the Northern Sea Route and easier access to rich deposits of natural resources.

Beyond the Arctic Circle lies one-third of the world's natural gas reserves and at least several percent of the world's oil deposits. There are also rich deposits of rare earth metals. Who can take advantage of them? The shores of the Arctic Ocean belong to six countries. These are:

• Canada
• Denmark
• Iceland
• Norway
• Russia
• United States

These countries – as well as Sweden and Finland, which lack direct access to the Arctic Ocean – form the Arctic Council, which also includes representatives of the indigenous peoples of the North. It is an international forum aiming for cooperation and coordination of actions in the Arctic. It is not a simple task, as Arctic countries have conflicting interests and partially overlapping territorial claims.

Besides claims based on extending economic zones, the United States is in dispute with Canada over control of one of the sea routes (the Northwest Passage). Additionally, three countries – Denmark, Canada, and Russia – have made claims to the North Pole. These countries argue that the Lomonosov Ridge, which runs through the pole, is an extension of their continental shelf.

Not waiting for legal resolutions, in 2007, Russia sent an expedition to the pole that lowered two bathyscaphes to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. One of them, using a robotic arm, placed a capsule with a Russian flag on the seabed.

“The aim of the expedition is not to display Russian claims but to show that our shelf extends to the North Pole,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at the time. Translated from political language, his statement boils down to: "Disputes are pointless because the pole belongs to Russia."

Claims to Arctic areas are not only about the desire to exploit large deposits of natural resources. They also mean control over the trade route using the Northern Sea Route.

The route itself – and its currently used branches, known as the Northwest Passage (along Canada's coast) and the Northeast Passage (along Russia's coast) – is not new. What is new are the opportunities related to the climate crisis. Climate change in the Arctic is particularly dynamic, and according to current estimates, by about 2050, the Arctic Ocean will be entirely ice-free in the summer.

From the perspective of maritime transport, this opens up a very promising – and about 30% shorter – route from Asia to Europe and North America. In the future, its significance could be similar to the route through the Suez Canal or the Strait of Malacca. The Polish-Finnish company ICEYE, equipped with a SAR satellite constellation, was created to monitor the Northern Sea Route.

It is worth noting that despite the obvious benefits of shortening the sea route from Asia to Western Europe or North America, the Northeast Passage is almost exclusively used by Russia for now.

Large international trade still prefers southern routes, contrary to relatively recent forecasts. This is due to significant threats to navigation from floating ice, political issues, and logistical and security concerns (hence higher insurance costs).

Providing effective assistance to a sinking ship or one in trouble is extremely difficult in the far north, and the only large ports – Murmansk and Arkhangelsk – are located in the European part of Russia.

The Arctic also has strategic importance: it is over the Arctic that the shortest straight-line route between the main centres of the United States and Russia runs. During the Cold War, it was over the Arctic that strategic bombers with nuclear bombs were to fly, and this is where intercontinental ballistic missile routes run, targeting each other by nuclear powers.

For Russia, the Arctic is particularly significant because it was, until recently, a safe haven for boomers – strategic nuclear-powered submarines with intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Due to the range of this weaponry, boomers do not have to venture into dangerous, hostile waters but have become a kind of mobile, submersible missile launchers. Operating close to their coasts in water bodies such as the White Sea or the Kara Sea, they were under the protection of their aviation, navy, and anti-ship systems such as Bastion.

For this reason, they were difficult for opponents to detect and protect against unexpected threats from NATO anti-submarine warfare (ASW) forces.

However, climate changes are causing the Russian security system, based on the Arctic's inaccessibility, to collapse like a house of cards. Instead of guarding a few narrow straits, Moscow now faces the need to control thousands of miles of open ocean accessible for more and more of the year.

For Russia, which accounts for about 40% of the Arctic Ocean's coastline, this problem is even greater since, besides Russia, all Arctic countries are currently NATO members. Therefore, it is not surprising that alongside large icebreakers, smaller "patrol ships" – like the Project 23550 vessels – are also being built, which are essentially armed icebreakers.

Although Russia seems best prepared for competition in the Arctic at the moment, the West is not staying idle.

After decades of neglect, the situation has changed with the American program Polar Security Cutter, which plans to build at least three (optionally up to nine) new, large icebreakers capable of breaking ice up to eight feet thick.

Although these vessels will be smaller than Russian ones, they will significantly strengthen American capabilities – currently, the USA has only two large icebreakers, one of which is 50 years old.

Independently of the PSC program (which faces serious delays and cost increases), the United States, Canada, and Finland initiated trilateral cooperation within the ICE Pact (Icebreaker Collaboration Effort) in 2024. The ambitious agreement plans to build 70-90 ships capable of operating in the Arctic over the next decade.

Finland's inclusion in the group is no coincidence. It is currently the global leader in icebreaker production, with the most experience in building them besides Russia.

Simultaneously, the United States is expanding its Arctic military potential. After revealing the fiction of "Arctic" US Army units that did not have equipment capable of operating in low temperatures and deep snow, the 11th Airborne Division "Arctic Angels" was founded (or rather re-established) in Alaska.

Its 1st and 4th BCT (brigade combat teams) have been equipped with gear tailored for operations in the far north. Wheeled Stryker transporters have been withdrawn from these units, and they are to be replaced with tracked, articulated Beowulf all-terrain vehicles, selected within the Cold Weather All-Terrain Vehicle (CATV) program.

However, potential rivals in the dispute over this region are not limited to the above. A few years ago, China declared itself a "near-Arctic state." Beijing does not let geography stand in its way – it has deemed that since the northernmost part of the country is at the 53rd parallel, China is close to the Arctic and can push its vision of the "Northern Silk Road."

It is worth noting that the 53rd parallel, which forms the basis of Beijing's Arctic aspirations, also runs through Poland, roughly at the latitude of Białystok and Bydgoszcz.

Declarations are followed by actions. After a period when China bought icebreakers (such as the Xue Long built in Ukraine), it began building its own. Chinese shipyards produce not only medium-sized vessels, such as Ji Di, displacing 6,200 tons, but also larger ones, like the 15,000-ton Xue Long 2, capable of breaking through five-foot-thick ice.

However, China's ambitions are much greater. Alongside conventionally powered vessels, Beijing is currently building its first large nuclear-powered icebreaker, displacing around 33,000 tons and over 492 feet long. According to unofficial data, the vessel will be capable of breaking through nearly seven feet of ice.

The struggle for influence in the Arctic currently focuses mainly on diplomatic actions and demonstrations of presence, such as the Chinese Arctic circumnavigation or Russian and NATO military manoeuvres.

The expansion of forces capable of operating in the north, orders for more icebreakers, and plans to build dozens of vessels capable of sailing beyond the Arctic Circle clearly show that powers intend to support their claims with actual presence and the ability to control Arctic waters.

In such a confrontation, icebreakers may prove no less critical than aircraft carriers or other warships. The winner of this confrontation will gain future access to invaluable resources and control over a trade route whose full availability – which is only a matter of time – will be a game-changer in the global economy and supply chain, comparable to the opening of the Suez or Panama Canal.