Neither Siberia Nor Alaska Has Railways Needed For Bering Strait Tunnel – Analysis
By Paul Goble
Moscow is again promoting the construction of a tunnel under the Bering Strait that would connect the Russian Far East with the U.S. state of Alaska. This has generated some interest in Washington, and some Russian officials are proposing to call it the Putin–Trump Tunnel (The Moscow Times, October 17, 2025; Ekho Rossiya, June 4). Unfortunately for the advocates of such a project, neither the Russian Far East nor Alaska has the transportation networks needed for its construction, or—were it in fact built—for it to be economically viable.
To be economically viable, Russia would need to build some 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles) of rail lines from Yakutsk to the straits, and the United States would need to build both 1,000 kilometers (621 miles) of rail lines between the straits and Anchorage and then an even longer railway connecting Anchorage not just with northwestern Canada but with the lower 48 states of the United States as well. These are projects that have long been discussed but never completed (Sibirskii Ekonomist, May 28; Svobodnaya Pressa, June 5). Doing so would be enormously difficult and expensive, given the climate and topography in both cases, as well as the lack of intervening industrial centers on either side of the strait. Building the tunnel alone would likely make it into an enormous white elephant, however much Moscow may now celebrate it (The Asia Business Daily, June 5). Nonetheless, some in Moscow are attracted to the idea for political reasons and are likely to be upbeat about its symbolism—at least until the figures come in, not just for the tunnel but for the rail and road networks needed to make it realistic (Ekho Rossiya, June 4).
For more than a century, Russian and U.S. officials and businessmen have talked about the possibility of a bridge or, more often, a tunnel across the Bering Strait. This had occurred most prominently until very recently, during the thaw in relations between the Soviet Union and the United States in the early 1960s, under Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and U.S. President John F. Kennedy (The Moscow Times, October 17, 2025). Now, talk about a Bering Strait tunnel is heating up with Kirill Dmitriyev, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special representative who heads the Russian Fund for Direct Investment, leading the way and implying he will have the cooperation of multi-billionaire Elon Musk and suggesting U.S. President Donald Trump is positively disposed (The Moscow Times, October 17, 2025; Ekho Rossiya, June 4).
This talk came to a head last week at the St. Petersburg International Economics Forum, when Dmitriyev appeared to suggest that an agreement would be signed by representatives of the two countries. Nothing more than the signing of a contract between his organization and a Russian design firm to continue cooperation, however, has actually happened (TASS; Ekho Rossiya, June 4). Even that was enough to spark widespread speculation that the tunnel project would be built. As Dmitriyev put it, if there is an agreement, there will be a tunnel (Caspian Post, June 5). Specialists in Russia cast doubt about whether any such tunnel would be built anytime soon primarily because of the absence of rail connections on both sides of it (Svobodnaya Pressa, June 5).
While the technology exists to build a nearly 100-kilometer (62.1-mile) tunnel under the Bering Strait, there is good reason to think the harsh climate there will make the costs enormous. Dmitriyev says that the original estimates of $65 billion are far too high, and that using the technology of Musk’s firms can reduce the cost to less than $8 billion. He claims that construction can be completed in less than eight years (The Moscow Times, October 17, 2025). Both the experience of other Russian construction projects in the Far North and the need in particular to build new rail lines on both sides of the strait almost certainly mean that the price and length of time to complete the project will be far greater than the more optimistic figure and likely far greater than even the higher original estimates.
Some Russian experts are very much alive to those possibilities. Mikhail Blinkin, director of the Institute of Transportation Economics and Politics at Moscow’s Higher School of Economists, says that the location of the tunnel is the beginning of the problem, pointing out:
The distance from the tunnel’s entry and exit portals to the nearest freight terminal in the Yakutsk area is approximately 3,000 kilometers [1,864 miles], while the distance to Anchorage is about 1,000 kilometers [621 miles]. These roads will also have to be built, because otherwise, the tunnel portals would simply open onto an icy wasteland at both ends (Svobodnaya Pressa, June 5).
It does not end there. Unless an enormous new rail network is constructed, the tunnel would only be used to move bulk cargo such as coal or lumber rather than the finished goods many appear to assume it will carry from the beginning (Svobodnaya Pressa, June 5). Other Russian economists and political scientists agree, pointing to even larger geoeconomic and geopolitical problems (VFokuse, June 4). They note that even if the rail links were built, they would leave Europe and possibly the People’s Republic of China out of any profits from the Bering Strait route, which could affect Russia’s relationship with each. That may not be enough to kill the project, they suggest. It needs to be a consideration, however, especially given current relationships and the difficulty of specifying what those relationships will be in the eight or more years it will take to finish this mega-project.
Despite such warnings, planning for a Bering Strait tunnel is likely to proceed, given the symbolism such a route would have for a possible warming of U.S.–Russian relations and the current preference in Moscow for mega-projects. The actual construction of such a tunnel, however, is unlikely to begin anytime soon—and may once again be delayed by either side for reasons of cost and geopolitical calculations regarding relations with other countries. The situation thus warrants a watching brief rather than immediate concern. Nonetheless, no one should be misled by the enthusiasm of Dmitriyev and other advocates. They do not have the support they have implied in their own countries, let alone others, and what support they do have may very well thin as the costs and difficulties come into sharper focus.
- This article was published by The Jamestown Foundation
