Click to see the full-size image
Russia’s Bering Strait tunnel pitch, dubbed the Putin-Trump link, ignites debate on US-Russia reconciliation amid Ukraine tensions. This mega-project promises Arctic riches and faster China trade – but irony looms as the US torched Europe’s Russian energy bridge (Nord Stream) while potentially eyeing its own. Be as it may, Zelensky doesn’t like the idea – and neither does the Deep State.
Written by Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions
In a somewhat surprising development, Kirill Dmitriev, Russia’s investment envoy and head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, floated the idea of a rail tunnel under the Bering Strait to link Alaska and Siberia, just days ago. Dmitriev is known to play an important role in diplomatic backchannels. Dubbed the “Putin-Trump” tunnel, the 70-mile project would symbolize cooperation between the two Great Powers, and would potentially be built by Elon Musk’s Boring Company for as little as $8 billion and completed in under eight years.
US President Donald Trump, fresh off a long phone call with Vladimir Putin to discuss ending the Ukraine war, called the proposal “interesting” during a joint presser with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky was blunt enough: “I’m not happy with this idea.” The room chuckled, but the idea raises a serious question: Could this undersea link really happen, or is it just diplomatic theater?
Historically the Bering Strait is no stranger to bridging worlds. It is a well known fact that tens of thousands of years ago, during the last Ice Age, it formed a land bridge known as Beringia, allowing ancient migrants from Eurasia to populate the Americas. Such crossings laid the groundwork for the diverse indigenous peoples of today’s North America. Dmitriev’s pitch in a way revives that spirit, positioning the tunnel as a modern bridge between East and West, not just for trade but for thawing relations, in a potential reset. Even a few months before Trump and Putin talked there were already rumors that proposals about the tunnel would surface.
The Bering Strait tunnel idea isn’t new, in fact. As early as 1890, William Gilpin envisioned a global railway with a Bering link, while Czar Nicholas II briefly backed a tunnel in 1905 before political turmoil halted it. Later, in 1958, engineer Tung-Yen Lin pushed for an “Intercontinental Peace Bridge” to connect the Soviet Union and the US, keeping the dream alive.
Could it become true? For the US, the upsides are clear enough. It would open direct rail access to vast Arctic resources, from rare earth minerals to untapped oil and gas fields in Siberia, easing America’s dependence on distant suppliers amid rising global demand. Estimates suggest the tunnel could handle 3% of world freight, slashing shipping times and costs for goods flowing into North America. It would also allow one to travel from New York to Beijing in under two days by rail, via a US-Canada-Russia-China network. For Russia, in turn, the project means billions in investment to develop its remote Far East, creating jobs in a region needing more infrastructure. It would integrate Chukotka’s sparse rail lines with global routes, boosting exports of energy and raw materials while drawing in US energy majors for joint Arctic projects, something Dmitriev and others already pitched.
Yet the real intrigue lies in the geopolitical ripple effects. This isn’t just about cargo haulers; this would in fact signal a bold step toward a “New Detente”. Linking the Americas to Eurasia could rewire global supply chains, diluting the dominance of sea routes controlled by naval powers. Russia would gain a foothold in North America, easing its isolation from Western markets battered by sanctions.
The US, in turn, would secure a backdoor to Eurasian trade without necessarily fully endorsing NATO’s endless eastward push. Suffice to say, in a world of escalating nuclear flashpoints, such connectivity could dial down tensions, fostering economic interdependence over endless proxy wars.
No wonder Dmitriev referenced the “Kennedy-Khrushchev World Peace Bridge” concept from the Cold War in a message to Elon Musk (that took the form of a X publication).
The irony is that if such a tunnel ever breaks ground, it would expose the blatant double standard in US foreign policy: Washington spent years torching Europe’s direct energy lifeline to Russia, the Nord Stream pipelines, a topic I’ve covered a number of times (including the ongoing controversies about their explosion). Now picture the US greenlighting one to its adversary, with trains humming beneath the Bering Strait, while Europe is left stranded without its own connection.
In any case, the truth is that, time and again, Russia has extended olive branches to the West, only to watch them snapped. Putin himself floated joining NATO in the early 2000s, to bury Cold War hatchets and align against common threats. It did not happen. In fact, NATO’s creep eastward, gobbling up former Soviet states, fueled the very Ukraine crisis still unfolding.
The project is not “idealistic” in any way. Peaceful coexistence isn’t naivety; it’s strategy. Be as it may, Trump’s tightrope walk adds another layer of doubt. The American leader, as I’ve written, needs to appease the defense sector, while strong forces pressure him for a tougher line on Moscow, even as he pivoted toward sanctions to placate domestic “hawks”. One may recall that, thus far, Trump has faced three assassination attempts, including one tied to an Ukrainian far-right recruiter (Ryan Routh), which suggests possible rogue intelligence involvement.
So, is the tunnel viable? Technically, yes — Musk’s tech could tame the permafrost and quakes, though costs would be around $65 billion-plus, including thousands of miles of new rails in Alaska’s wilds and Chukotka’s mountains. The costs, and harsh geography, are challenging enough.
Geopolitically, the consequences could be profound: a more balanced coexistence (despite various points of contention), easing Arctic frictions over resources and routes to some extent, while potentially curbing NATO’s adventurism.
Yet will the American “deep state” allow it or any other materialization of a New Detente? Probably not. Trump for one thing talks big, but his actions can be quite unpredictable. If any such proposal somehow gains traction, one should expect to see lots of blowback and sabotage efforts.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
google is now paying $300 to $500 per hour for doing work online work from home. last paycheck of me said that $20537 from this easy and simple job. its amazing and earns are awesome. no boss, full time freedom and earnings are in front of you.
.
more details for us→→→→ https://www.money63.com
lol another debil talking , another produt of the russia scum geopolitics specialist lol
that would be a blast! after 3 nordstream pipes the us took out.
some have wonderful dreams of development and prosperity while there are many in power who only dream of invasion and conquest.
stupidiest thing ever… yes man people in russia need to be hanged!
united states is the enemy of russia, every appeasement is a signal of weakness!
the new nazis: europe and amerikunts!
we will defeat them, and hang russian liberals!
i am for international trade. it benefits civilization