The idea of a tunnel between Chukotka and Alaska made Donald Trump curious and upset Vladimir Zelensky. Experts are divided over the project, some calling it an utopia and others calculating the payback period. Meanwhile, Russia continues to build extremely complicated infrastructure facilities that may become part of the land-based transport corridor between the two hemispheres, Zakhar Andreyev noted in his article.

“You are not going to like it”

“That is an interesting one. We just did a nice road in Alaska. It’s going to get us to a lot of minerals,” the US President said at a recent meeting with Vladimir Zelensky at the White House. Addressing his guest, he added: “I don’t think you’re going to like it.” “I’m not happy about it,” Zelensky confirmed.

The idea is actively promoted by Director of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriyev. He referred to the hypothetical facility as the Putin-Trump Tunnel, similar to a facility discussed during the Khrushchev and Kennedy era.

The director of the fund said that Russia had been working on the feasibility study for the tunnel for six months. He said that, while the project cost has been earlier estimated at $65 billion, the use of “modern technology from Elon Musk’s The Boring Company” can cut down the expenses to $8 billion.

Yet, realizing the concept would require a monumental engineering effort of the century, according to US media.

A century-old idea

The direct distance between Chukotka and the Seward Peninsula (Alaska) is 82.5 km. There are two islands located roughly in the middle. Ratmanov Island, or Big Diomede Island, belongs to Russia while Little Diomede Island, also known as Krusenstern Island, belongs to the United States. The international date line runs between the two. Ratmanov Island is almost 24 hours ahead of its neighbor, which has prompted other names like Tomorrow Island and Yesterday Island. If there happens to be a bridge or a tunnel, the infrastructure project will most likely run directly below them.

Climate will certainly be an obstacle: the average temperature in the strait area is -20 degrees Celsius, with a potential drop to -50 degrees. Permafrost – which has been rapidly thawing in recent years – further complicates the endeavor. Summers are very short, allowing only several months per year for construction work.

Even in view of these circumstances, construction of a land-based corridor between the two hemispheres is a solvable task, at least from a technical standpoint. It was already considered feasible 100 years ago.

A bridge to nowhere

The prospect of a railway connecting Chukotka and Alaska was first proposed in the United States in the 1890s. The concept has resurfaced repeatedly since then, during the era of the Russian Empire, the Soviet period, and again within the past two decades.

According to the media, Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President George W. Bush may have discussed the project during their one-on-one meeting in 2008. Roman Abramovich was supposed to become the major investor. However, no specific decisions were made at the time.

The primary challenge is that, if built, a tunnel or a bridge would essentially lead nowhere. The territories are uninhabited wilderness for thousands of kilometers in every direction, with no infrastructure accessible. The closest railway on the Russian side is located 2,800 km away. The closest road, with no hard surface, is located 2,000 km away. There is a plan to extend the road to a point of 600 km away from the strait, albeit only by the 2040s.

The prerequisites are similar on the American side: to connect the hypothetical transcontinental passage to infrastructure, Americans would have to build 1,200 km (750 miles) of roads and railways across Alaska. The required infrastructure could ultimately cost more than the tunnel itself.

This raises the biggest question: is the construction project even economically feasible? Some experts believe it is.

Pros

Top manager of a Russian manufacturing holding Georgy Mashnin wrote on his Telegram channel that the greatest advantage of a transhemispheric railway would be its speed. Currently, the majority of cargo between East Asia and the United States is shipped by sea, which has led to significant congestion at major ports. Transporting goods to the Atlantic coast requires passing through the Panama Canal.

“The average time of cargo in transit from Seoul to Los Angeles is 25 days, and from Seoul to New York 43 days – in perfect circumstances. The reality may be 45 to 60 days,” Mashnin says.

He estimates that overland transit would require approximately one and a half to two weeks.

“This route will certainly be more expensive than container ship delivery. There are, however, products that would largely benefit from saving 20-30 days. Moreover, stable supplies and predictable shipping significantly affect the net cost,” the expert notes. “The most important factor that makes the Bering Strait passage a highly promising project, including for Southeast Asia, is avoiding political risks associated with the Taiwan conflict and the Panama Canal.”

Maritime shipping to North America via the Pacific Ocean is estimated at 2.5 billion tons, or 123 million containers per year. According to Mashnin, even if five percent could be redirected via the Bering Strait, the construction project would pay off in 10 to 15 years.

“That would be incredible performance for an infrastructure project of this scale,” he stresses.

Most experts, however, consider the discussion of the tunnel a symbolic gesture, intended primarily to demonstrate goodwill.

Cons

“The idea of building a tunnel below the Bering Strait mostly looks like a political statement so far. It is a prospect of a better future where opposing political forces could concentrate their resources on cooperation rather than military confrontation – and realize the concept of a land connection between the two continents that would be a milestone for the entire world,” says Sergei Zaborov, Managing Partner at the TRIADA Partners consulting company.

Zaborov believes that, aside from infrastructure and geopolitical obstacles, there may be financial, social, environmental and cultural barriers.

“Even with state participation, the payback period of several decades makes the project unpopular among private investors. State budgets are limited, with other infrastructure goals taking priority,” he explains. “Moreover, the regions surrounding the strait encompass Arctic ecosystems and the historical territories of indigenous peoples. Construction and associated development could lead to coastal erosion, pose risks to traditional livelihoods, and disrupt the way of life for local communities.”

Yevgeny Sumarokov, Associate Professor at the Department of International Business of the Financial University under the Russian Government, believes that  the project is rather a symbolic step towards reconciliation at this point. He argues that, if the project progresses beyond the conceptual stage, cost overruns for the mega-construction would be inevitable.

“Currently, the cost is just an estimate. As a rule, projected estimates and final costs invariably diverge. Adjustments for inflation, logistical hurdles, environmental and climate-related factors, along with other unforeseen construction challenges must be factored in, particularly for a project spanning decades.” the economist says.

He adds that several international partners are expected to get involved – in particular, to finance an enterprise that would handle cargo and passenger transportation, as well as joint development of energy resources and creating jobs on both sides of the Arctic. Should this endeavor succeed, the cost of financing will be relatively low. It should be noted that China earlier expressed interest in participation.

Maritime asset financing expert Alexei Ponomaryov believes that the projected payback periods are overly optimistic.

“The tunnel could become part of the new Europe – North America land-based corridor, to reduce cargo delivery times and opening unique opportunities for trade and transit, and to stimulate the development of Russia’s northern territories. However, this sort of project will take at least 50 years to pay off,” he says. “In the current geopolitical reality and amidst Russia’s competition with Western countries, it is unlikely somebody would seriously consider such a long-term investment.”

Meanwhile, Russia has already begun working on a crucial infrastructure facility that may become part of the transport corridor connected to another continent.

First step

Construction of a bridge across the Lena River began in October 2024. It is a unique and extremely complicated project that was first considered in the Soviet times. The central load-bearing structure will rise to a height of nearly 285 meters, comparable to that of a skyscraper. The plan is to build 26 supports using 920 concrete piles, some being over 40 meters long. The total length of the bridge will exceed 14 km, including access roads. The construction began only in 2024. The concession holder is VIS Group.

A company representative told RIA Novosti that, should the decision be made to proceed with the construction of a Chukotka – Alaska bridge or tunnel, the group is ready to offer its 25 years of expertise in major infrastructure projects covering all climates.

The bridge’s construction team is dealing with challenges similar to those anticipated for the Chukotka – Alaska connection. The construction season is limited to only four months.

“We are operating under challenging geological and climate conditions typical for permafrost regions. Over the summer, VIS Group deployed 300 personnel and 95 pieces of heavy machinery in the Lena bridge project. In line with seasonal constraints, the workforce has now been scaled back to 200 people and 50 units of equipment across the construction sites.” the representative commented.

The Lena bridge project in Yakutia is unique in many aspects, according to the company. There is no other major transport infrastructure facility in the world that has been built in Arctic conditions.

“Many of the technologies employed for the construction of this three-pylon cable-stayed bridge in Russia are brand-new. For example, we are using floating cofferdams (temporary watertight enclosures that create a dry work area by diverting water from the construction site – ed.) to install reinforced concrete pylons,” the VIS Group representative explains.

The bridge is scheduled for opening in 2028, subject to potential delays. It is expected that the bridge will primarily ensure year-round land-based connection between the capital of Yakutia and the rest of the country. It will also connect the Trans-Siberian and Baikal-Amur railways to the Northern Sea Route, linking Eastern Russia to the Sea of Okhotsk.

“This makes the bridge a potentially important factor when considering transport corridors leading to the furthermost border, the Bering Strait. The construction of the Lena bridge will open up opportunities for further progress in this area,” the construction company comments.

It is yet unclear whether this project will extend to the American shore. Yet, few believed in the feasibility of a Lena bridge – and the Crimean Bridge, for that matter.