alt.hn

2/13/2026 at 1:33:56 PM

What China is up to in the Arctic

 https://www.economist.com/china/2026/02/12/what-china-is-really-up-to-in-the-arctic

by andsoitis

2/13/2026 at 3:17:30 PM

What are the environmental impacts of this route becoming more and more active?

More open water means ships can move through places that used to be protected by ice. This would have impact on marine life, fisheries, coastal life.

by aavci

2/13/2026 at 3:26:23 PM

It will have far more impact in the climate of all the world. Ice reflects sunlight, deep water absorbs it, the rate of the planet heating up rises, positive feedback loops should be scary for a reason. At least for something that is not just a new narrow path but a significant portion of ice cover missing on that general area.

by gmuslera

2/13/2026 at 2:58:22 PM

just an alternative route other than Malacca when SG stop pretend to be 'neutral'

by yanhangyhy

2/13/2026 at 3:17:41 PM

I'm a bit sceptical. It feels like part of the white house narrative around greenland and conjuring up an image of threats. The link to Russia is weak and the Chinese military purposes are not substantiated ("Some fear China is...")

I don't think this will make much impact on the EU allies The memory of the made-up WMDs in Iraq is still fresh.

by wolvoleo

2/13/2026 at 4:26:50 PM

Most northern powers have been looking toward the thawing north passages for decades. The shortest distance from Portland, Maine to St Petersburg is about the width of the US. Greenland is of huge strategic value, holding a similar value to Alaska. The shortening of shipping lanes will shape global economics, as well as stoking the fears of other powers establishing footholds in northern regions, for the foreseeable future.

China aggressively projects power, with a willingness to spend a large amount of effort (sand islands) for footholds. Notably, by the time the evidence of these artificial islands was observed, it was too late to reconsider. Russia does the same, when they have the resources. The US is not used to doing this and has historically fared poorly. Ofc there is worry.

by Supermancho

2/13/2026 at 4:29:57 PM

Chinas sand islands are rejected by other countries. They fly over them withouty permission to reaffirm the consider them non-Chinese territory

by HWR_14

2/13/2026 at 4:42:41 PM

Power projection is not limited to national expansion. Strong words and casually flying over them, does not change the strategic or physical utility of the islands. The installations are still there.

by Supermancho

2/13/2026 at 3:20:06 PM

The article did have a lot of opinion in it with limited information based on facts.

by aavci

2/13/2026 at 3:28:35 PM

They included the opinion of Kaja Kallas. She reads a lot of books and is very smart (according to her own words)

by postsantum

2/13/2026 at 4:58:12 PM

I'm not saying it was completely lacking facts. I am more so referring to the less technical language such as "As winter began in the Arctic, China was celebrating a banner year there"

by aavci