MOSCOW, Aug 10: Russia has officially proposed a direct overland rail route
to India. The proposal was revealed by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Marat Khusnullin
in an interview with the State news agency TASS on Sunday.
To bypass the sea entirely, the proposed intercontinental rail corridor would
cut straight through land, routing from Russia down through Turkmenistan, Iran,
Afghanistan and Pakistan before crossing into India.
The proposal faces immense geopolitical friction, particularly regarding the
railway crossing through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
The Hormuz closure has nothing to do with the proposal or its timing as that
is not by itself affecting any Russian sea route. Physically speaking, a closure
of the Strait of Hormuz has zero impact on Russian ships sailing to India.
None of the maritime routes —whether from the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea or
the seasonal Arctic—ever enter the Persian Gulf or pass through the Strait of
Hormuz to reach Indian ports like Jamnagar or Chennai.
The "impact" on Russia is entirely economic and geopolitical, rather than physical
or logistical.
When Russian officials or global analysts say Russia is "affected" by a Hormuz
closure, they are talking about market disruption, not blocked ships.
Hormuz handles 20% of the world's petroleum. If it closes, global oil prices
instantly skyrocket. Because Russia sells oil, a Hormuz crisis makes Russia
billions of dollars in unexpected profits overnight.
India gets a massive portion of its oil from the Persian Gulf (via Hormuz).
If that gets cut off, India faces an energy crisis and is forced to buy even
more Russian oil.
Russia proposed the overland rail route through Iran and Pakistan not because
its ships are blocked at Hormuz, but because it wants to offer India a permanent,
un-blockable land alternative to the volatile Persian Gulf shipping lanes.
In short, a Strait of Hormuz closure blocks India's traditional Middle Eastern
suppliers, which indirectly turns Russia into India's ultimate energy lifeline.
Why the Baltic Route and Black Sea route are highly vulnerable
Russia's major supply routes originate from the western ports like St. Petersburg
on the Baltic Sea and Novorossiysk on Black Sea.
While the Baltic route handles roughly 60–70% of Russian oil exports to India,
it is a geopolitical nightmare for Moscow for two reasons:
1. The "NATO Lake" Problem: The Baltic Sea and the North Sea are completely
surrounded by NATO member-states (like Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Denmark, and
the UK). Western navies can easily monitor every single Russian tanker from
the moment it leaves the port.
2. The Red Sea Threat: Just like the Black Sea route, if drone strikes or regional
conflicts close the Suez Canal/Red Sea, these Baltic tankers are forced to abandon
the Mediterranean entirely. They must instead sail all the way down the western
coast of Africa, around the Cape of Good Hope, adding massive delays and costs
to the trip.
Why the proposal came just now.
One reason is persistent western sanctions on its traditional sea channels.
Nimber two is Strait of Hormuz and Bosphorus vulnerabilities: Moscow explicitly
stated that escalating risks, naval blockades and geopolitical tensions surrounding
major global maritime chokepoints—specifically the Strait of Hormuz and the
Bosphorus Strait—made land alternatives a strategic necessity.
That specific route—originating at the Novorossiysk terminal on the Black Sea—is
one of the primary pathways used to deliver Russian crude oil to India.
Russian seaborne energy and freight actually rely on two European choke points.
The Black Sea Route (approx. 30% of supply)
Tankers leave the Black Sea and transit the Bosphorus Strait, enter Marmara
sea and through Dardanelles Strait (both in Turkey) exit to the Aegean Sea which
is an arm of the Mediterranean Sea. Enter the Mediterranean waters and sail
straight east across to Port Said and enter the Suez Canal (Egypt). Exit into
the Red Sea, pass through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden, and
cross the Arabian Sea directly to Indian ports like Jamnagar.
Why this long route is causing headaches.
This exacting journey highlights why Russia proposed the overland train route.
The Red Sea security crisis heightened by military tensions and drone attacks
near the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait (the exit from the Red Sea) has forced many Russian
oil tankers to entirely bypass the Suez Canal.
When forced to avoid the Suez Canal, ships must sail around the Cape of Good
Hope (the southern tip of Africa). This adds weeks to the journey, inflating
transit times to nearly 45 days and driving up shipping and insurance costs
significantly.
Here is the geographical order of that route from the Black Sea to India:
The real geographical sequence
[Black Sea]
(via Bosphorus Strait)
[Sea of Marmara]
(via Dardanelles Strait)
[Aegean Sea]
Open Waters
[Mediterranean Sea] <--- (Ships now face a choice)
Ships choose one of two directions depending on the geopolitical situation
Choice A: The Standard Suez Route (Fastest)
The ships sail straight across the Mediterranean toward the southeast.
The Path: Mediterranean Sea - Suez Canal - Red Sea - Bab-el-Mandeb Strait
- Gulf of Aden - Arabian Sea - India.
Choice B: The Atlantic detour (if Suez/Red Sea is blocked)
If the Red Sea is too dangerous due to drone strikes or conflict, ships are
forced to sail back west, exit into the Atlantic via Gibraltar, and take the
long way around Africa.
The Path: Mediterranean Sea -Strait of Gibraltar - Atlantic Ocean (South
around the entire continent of Africa via the Cape of Good Hope) -Indian Ocean
- India.
The Suez Canal and the Strait of Gibraltar are on opposite ends (East and West)
of the Mediterranean Sea.
Baltic route (60–70% of trade)
The Baltic Sea route is Russia’s main maritime pathway for sending crude oil
to India. Unlike the Black Sea route, this one begins inside northern Europe
and requires ships to sail down the Western European coastline before entering
the Mediterranean.
Step-by-step path a tanker takes from Russia's Baltic ports to India:
1. The Baltic to the Atlantic Ocean
Departure: Tankers load oil at major Russian Baltic ports like Primorsk
or Ust-Luga (near St. Petersburg).
The Danish Straits: Ships exit the Baltic Sea by navigating through
narrow channels around Denmark (the Danish Straits) into the North Sea.
The English Channel: Ships sail south through the North Sea, pass through
the English Channel (between the UK and France), and enter the open Atlantic
Ocean
2. Entering the Mediterranean (The Gibraltar Pivot) Heading South: Tankers
sail south along the coastlines of France, Spain, and Portugal through the Atlantic
ocean.
Strait of Gibraltar: The ships turn east and pass through the Strait
of Gibraltar. This is the exact moment they exit the Atlantic Ocean and enter
the Mediterranean Sea.
3. The Mediterranean to India (Standard Suez Path)
Once inside the Mediterranean, the route mirrors the final legs of the Black
Sea journey.
The Mediterranean Crossing: Ships sail east across the entire length of the
Mediterranean Sea.
Suez Canal & Red Sea: They enter the Suez Canal, pass into the Red Sea, and
exit through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait.
The Arctic routes
Russian oil shipments via the Arctic accounts for less than 5% of total Russian
oil exports. Tankers have to transit through the ice except for summer and Moscow
finds it commercially unviable. Else it requires renting massive, nuclear-powered
icebreakers. In addition, the Arctic straits are shallow. Passing through South
Korea, Taiwan, Phiiippines and other countries with US bases is strategically
risky also.
Land route and rail proposal
Already there is a 7,200 km multimodal (rail, road, and sea) corridor— International
North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC)— built to link Russia directly to Iran,
Central Asia and India.
However, despite the Corridor being heavily promoted for energy security, virtually
100% of Russia’s massive crude oil exports to India are shipped via traditional
maritime sea routes.
But the new proposal envisages a 100% uninterrupted, direct overland rail line
stretching from Russia through Central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan directly
to India.
While a continuous railway line would offer a faster, sanction-proof alternative
for containerized cargo, it can never match the sheer volume, capacity, or cost-efficiency
required for global bulk trade like crude oil.
Moving a container across open water typically costs around $0.80 per nautical
mile on mega-vessels. This makes maritime transport the absolute cheapest way
to move bulk commodities like grain, steel and oil.
Additionally, ocean liners do not have to pay to maintain the oceans they sail
on, whereas railroads must sink billions into upkeep.
Ocean freight from western Russia to India takes roughly 30 to 45 days. The
new continuous rail line aims to shrink this to 10 to 14 days. A single shipping
container (TEU) traveling between China/Russia and South Asia/Europe typically
costs $2,000 to $4,000 more by rail than by ocean cargo ship, but it hacks running
time.
Therefore, maritime sea routes have the "lowest direct cost" advantage.
) 
