Posts
The 2025 Moment: Trump, Musk & the $8 Billion Dream
How a century-old vision exploded back into headlines with a Russian pitch, Boring Company hype, and a single word from the President: "Interesting"
Abstract
In October 2025, the Bering Strait tunnel—a dream as old as the Trans-Siberian Railway—burst back into global headlines with unprecedented force. Russian investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev pitched a "Putin-Trump Tunnel" with a stunning claim: modern tunneling technology from Elon Musk's Boring Company could slash costs to just $8 billion and complete the project in under eight years. When asked about it, President Trump responded with a single word that reverberated across media worldwide: "Interesting." This paper examines what makes the 2025 proposal different from its predecessors, why it emerged at this precise moment in geopolitical history, and whether the mathematics of the project bear any resemblance to reality. The answer reveals as much about Arctic competition, Sino-Russian strategy, and America's evolving relationship with mega-infrastructure as it does about tunneling under one of Earth's most unforgiving waterways.
1. October 2025: The Proposal That Wouldn't Die
The timing was perfect—almost too perfect. On October 17, 2025, shortly after a phone call between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussing potential paths to end the Ukraine conflict, Kirill Dmitriev made his move. As Putin's investment envoy and CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Dmitriev took to X (formerly Twitter) with a proposal that would dominate news cycles for weeks: a 112-kilometer rail and cargo tunnel beneath the Bering Strait, connecting Russia's Chukotka region with Alaska.
Dmitriev didn't just float the idea—he branded it. The "Putin-Trump Tunnel," he called it, "a 70-mile link symbolizing unity" between the Americas and Afro-Eurasia. But the real headline grabber was the price tag: $8 billion, completed in under eight years. For context, previous estimates for the same project hovered around $65 billion. Dmitriev claimed that Elon Musk's Boring Company technology could achieve a cost reduction of roughly 90%—from traditional estimates exceeding $65 billion to less than $8 billion.
The Core Pitch
"Imagine connecting the U.S. and Russia—the Americas and Afro-Eurasia—with the Putin-Trump Tunnel. Traditional costs are over $65 billion, but Boring Company's tech could reduce it to less than $8 billion. Let's build a future together."
— Kirill Dmitriev, October 17, 2025
The Trump Response
At a joint press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky just hours later, a journalist asked President Trump about the tunnel proposal. His response was characteristically brief: "Interesting." He then, oddly, turned to Zelensky and asked for his opinion. Zelensky's response—a shrug and "I'm not happy with it"—was understandable given Ukraine's ongoing conflict with Russia.
But the damage (or intrigue, depending on your perspective) was done. Russian state media ran with headlines proclaiming "Trump Supports Russian Idea of Tunnel Under the Bering Strait," while simultaneously noting "Zelensky Rejects Bering Strait Tunnel Proposal" in smaller print. The narrative was set: while Ukraine wanted to continue the war, Trump and Putin were already discussing massive joint infrastructure projects. The symbolism was deliberate and powerful.
The Historical Anchor
Dmitriev's proposal didn't emerge from nowhere. Days before, Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna released a trove of declassified Soviet documents related to the JFK assassination—documents shared by Russia. Buried within the 386-page archive was a hand-drawn diagram from the 1960s proposing a "Kennedy-Khrushchev World Peace Bridge" across the Bering Strait, with an annotation suggesting it "could and should be built... at once."
The document's authenticity remains debated, but its impact was immediate. Dmitriev seized on it as historical precedent, framing his 2025 proposal not as a new idea but as the resurrection of a Cold War-era peace initiative—this time with 21st-century technology making it finally feasible.
2. The Numbers: Fantasy or Breakthrough?
The $8 billion figure is where Dmitriev's proposal lives or dies. To understand whether it's remotely plausible, we need to examine what The Boring Company has actually achieved versus what it claims it can do.
What The Boring Company Has Actually Built
The Boring Company's flagship project is the Las Vegas Convention Center Loop—a 2.7-kilometer system with five stations that opened in 2021. The company claims it cost approximately $47 million, or about $27 million per mile. If we're generous and accept these figures at face value, that's a 10x reduction from traditional U.S. tunnel costs of $200-500 million per mile.
But here's the critical context: the LVCC Loop is a small-diameter tunnel in ideal geology. It's designed for individual Tesla vehicles, not freight trains. There's no complex ventilation system for diesel locomotives, no heavy-duty rail infrastructure, and no extreme cold or seismic challenges. It's a 12-foot diameter tunnel through dry, stable desert rock.
The Scaling Problem
The Bering Strait tunnel would need to be approximately 16.5 meters in diameter to accommodate freight and passenger rail—more than four times wider than the LVCC Loop. Tunnel costs scale exponentially with diameter, not linearly. A tunnel twice as wide doesn't cost twice as much; it often costs four to six times as much due to exponentially greater material, excavation, and structural support requirements.
Expert Skepticism
Tunneling industry veterans have been harsh critics of The Boring Company's cost claims. In 2021, Martin Herrenknecht, CEO of one of the world's largest tunnel boring machine manufacturers, dismissed Musk as "full of hot air" in an interview with a German business magazine. Jian Zhao, a tunnel boring expert at Monash University, stated he didn't "see any new technology being mentioned" that would justify the claimed cost reductions.
A 2021 article in Tunnelling Journal dismissed Musk's Vegas tunnels as a "vanity project." The concern isn't that The Boring Company can't dig tunnels—it's that their much-hyped cost savings appear to come primarily from building smaller tunnels with less complex infrastructure, then extrapolating those savings to projects of vastly different scale and complexity.
The Real Cost: Following the Money
Independent cost analyses paint a far different picture than Dmitriev's $8 billion:
- The tunnel itself: $35-50 billion (accounting for extreme Arctic conditions, seismic reinforcement, diameter requirements for freight rail)
- Alaska approach rail: ~1,200 km of new track through permafrost = $15-30 billion
- Russian approach rail: ~3,000 km through Siberian wilderness = $40-60 billion
- Total realistic cost: $90-140 billion
That's 11 to 17 times Dmitriev's estimate. Even if The Boring Company could achieve unprecedented cost reductions on the undersea portion, the approach infrastructure alone would dwarf the $8 billion figure.
3. Why Now? The Geopolitical Context
The 2025 proposal didn't emerge in a vacuum. Three converging forces explain its timing:
Arctic Resource Competition
The Arctic is no longer a frozen frontier—it's becoming a geopolitical flashpoint. Climate change has accelerated ice melt, opening new shipping routes and access to vast resources. Estimates suggest the Arctic contains $1-2 trillion in critical minerals, rare earths essential for semiconductor and battery production, plus massive hydrocarbon reserves.
By 2025, Russia, China, and the United States are locked in what analysts call the "New Arctic Great Game." Russia has reopened over 50 military installations in the region since 2014. China, despite having no Arctic coastline, declared itself a "near-Arctic state" and incorporated the region into its Belt and Road Initiative as the "Polar Silk Road." The U.S., meanwhile, is rapidly developing a deepwater port in Nome and fast-tracking Arctic-capable vessels.
The Northern Sea Route
Russia's Northern Sea Route—which would intersect with any Bering tunnel project—is central to Putin's Arctic strategy. The route could cut shipping time between Europe and Asia by nearly half. Russia has committed $19 billion in infrastructure investments for NSR development through 2035, viewing it as potentially "Russia's biggest revenue source in the Arctic."
Sino-Russian Cooperation
The Dmitriev proposal must be understood in the context of deepening China-Russia alignment. While the proposal is framed as U.S.-Russia cooperation, China is the implicit third partner. Chinese state-owned companies have already invested heavily in Russian Arctic projects and conducted joint naval exercises in the region.
A Bering tunnel would complete what China calls its "Polar Silk Road," potentially giving Beijing unprecedented land access to North America. This is precisely why Western security analysts view the proposal with alarm—it's not just about trade; it's about strategic access.
Trump-Putin Rapprochement
The proposal's timing—immediately following a Trump-Putin call about Ukraine—was no accident. It serves multiple Russian strategic objectives:
- Frame Russia as forward-looking and cooperative while Ukraine is portrayed as obstinate
- Test American willingness to engage on major projects despite ongoing sanctions
- Create a narrative of "normalization" that could weaken European support for Ukraine
- Offer Trump a "big, beautiful project" that appeals to his infrastructure instincts
Whether or not the tunnel gets built, the discussion itself serves Russian strategic interests by suggesting that U.S.-Russia relations could return to "business as usual."
4. The Infrastructure Reality Check
Even if we accept the tunnel itself as theoretically possible, the surrounding infrastructure challenges are staggering.
The "Empty Lands" Problem
The Bering Strait tunnel's endpoints are in some of the most remote locations on Earth. On the Alaskan side, the nearest major rail connection is in Fairbanks—over 1,200 kilometers away. On the Russian side, the nearest significant railway terminus is approximately 3,000 kilometers distant. The M56 Kolyma Highway, the closest major road, is currently unpaved and about 2,000 kilometers from the strait.
Permafrost: The Silent Killer
Building rail through Arctic permafrost is exponentially more expensive than conventional construction. The ground literally moves as it thaws and refreezes. Studies show permafrost degradation rates of 0.5-1.0 meters per decade, with thaw-induced subsidence of 10-15 cm annually in analogous Siberian sites. This means infrastructure requires constant maintenance and can increase long-term costs by 40% over 50 years.
Seismic Hazards
The Bering Strait sits on the Pacific Ring of Fire. According to the USGS National Seismic Hazard Model 2025, the region can experience magnitude 7.9 quakes with recurrence intervals of 200-500 years. Between 2024-2025, over 15,000 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater occurred in the region. The 1964 Alaska earthquake—magnitude 9.2—sent tsunamis 10-20 meters high toward Chukotka.
Any tunnel design would need extensive seismic reinforcement, potentially doubling structural costs. Some estimates suggest seismic considerations alone could cause 7-10% construction downtime on Arctic projects.
Climate: The Double-Edged Sword
Climate change presents a paradox. While melting ice makes Arctic shipping routes more accessible (potentially reducing the tunnel's economic necessity), it also makes permafrost construction far more challenging. Thawing permafrost creates unstable ground conditions that complicate foundation work for both the tunnel approaches and thousands of kilometers of access rail.
5. The Economic Question: Who Would Use It?
Infrastructure projects live or die based on utilization. The most sophisticated tunnel in the world is worthless if there's insufficient traffic to justify its cost.
Trade Volume Reality
U.S.-Russia trade is minimal and shrinking. In 2024, bilateral trade totaled less than $30 billion annually—down sharply from pre-sanctions levels. For comparison, U.S.-China trade exceeds $750 billion annually. There simply isn't the cargo volume to justify a $100+ billion infrastructure investment between the U.S. and Russia.
— Andrei Malgin, The Moscow Times, October 2025
Maritime Competition
Modern container shipping is incredibly efficient and flexible. A fully loaded container ship can carry 20,000+ containers at a fraction of the per-unit cost of rail transport. The only advantage rail offers is speed—but that advantage disappears when you factor in the time required to load/unload at tunnel endpoints, navigate thousands of kilometers of remote rail, and deal with customs at multiple border crossings.
Moreover, climate change is opening the Northern Sea Route for longer periods each year, potentially making Arctic shipping competitive with traditional routes through the Suez or Panama canals—without requiring a $100 billion tunnel.
6. The Real Story: Symbol vs. Substance
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the 2025 proposal is what it tells us about the gap between infrastructure as symbol and infrastructure as function.
The Pattern of Revival
The Bering Strait tunnel has been proposed at least once per generation for 120 years. Each revival follows a similar pattern:
Proposal emerges during periods of technological breakthrough or geopolitical thaw
Advocates insist new technology makes it finally feasible and affordable
Headlines proclaim the project as humanity's next great achievement
Detailed analysis reveals crushing financial, technical, or political obstacles
Project fades from discussion without official cancellation
The 2025 proposal fits this pattern perfectly. What's different this time is the geopolitical context—the proposal serves Russian strategic interests regardless of whether construction ever begins.
The Feasibility Study Claim
Dmitriev claimed that feasibility studies had been underway for six months before the October announcement. Yet no details of these studies have been released. No engineering firms have been named. No geological surveys have been published. No financial models have been shared.
This suggests the "feasibility study" was more about political messaging than serious engineering analysis—a way to make the proposal seem more concrete without committing to verifiable claims that could be debunked.
7. Conclusion: "Interesting" Indeed
President Trump's one-word response—"Interesting"—may be the most honest assessment of the 2025 Bering Strait proposal. It is interesting as a geopolitical signal, as a window into Arctic competition, and as a case study in how mega-infrastructure projects serve symbolic purposes that transcend their practical feasibility.
The mathematics simply don't work. Dmitriev's $8 billion figure is fantasy—the true cost would be 10-15 times higher. The approach infrastructure alone would cost more than his entire estimate. Trade volumes don't justify the investment. The geopolitical environment makes international financing virtually impossible. And even if these obstacles were overcome, maritime shipping and emerging Arctic sea routes would likely provide cheaper, more flexible alternatives.
Yet the proposal succeeds on another level entirely. It positions Russia as forward-thinking and cooperative. It tests Western resolve on sanctions. It appeals to Trump's infrastructure ambitions. It advances the narrative of U.S.-Russia normalization. And it plants a flag in the Arctic resource competition, signaling that Russia views the region as central to its 21st-century strategy.
The Bering Strait tunnel isn't happening in 2025, or likely ever in the form proposed. But the idea of the tunnel—and what that idea reveals about our current moment—is far more significant than any actual hole through the seafloor could ever be.
In our next paper, we'll step backward in time to examine how China's Belt and Road Initiative collided with the Bering Strait concept in the 2010s, creating a proposal even more ambitious—and more alarming to Washington—than anything Dmitriev has suggested.
No comments:
Post a Comment