Closure of the Strait of Hormuz: Is Alaska the Plan for a Bailout?
By Lola McEwen – Rise to Peace Fellow
This past year, President Donald Trump met with President Vladimir Putin at a summit at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) in Anchorage, Alaska, primarily discussing the state of the war in Ukraine. This invitation marked a huge step Putin and the Kremlin likely did not believe would happen anywhere in the near future from the many nations who sided heavily with Ukraine after Russia’s 2022 invasion. Putin’s travel had been obviously limited to only countries that were in support of Russia, North Korea and Belarus. While many journalists were expecting a traditional press conference, it seemed the two leaders were simply there to make pre-planned statements, including Putin addressing Russia’s history with Alaska. While not much was said regarding the war in Ukraine, Putin did express his opinion that a ceasefire could not be negotiated until the “root causes” of the conflict could be resolved [5]. Trump only indirectly referenced Ukraine, stating that there needed to be an end to the bloodshed, saying that he and Putin had an “extremely productive meeting”, yet there did not seem to be any real steps to solving the conflict. The summit did seem to open up doors for future United States and Russia diplomatic relations, with Putin making a rare statement in English stating that they could meet, “Next time in Moscow”[5].
What Does This Mean for Diplomacy Between the Two Countries?
With the recent mending of ties between the United States and Russia, it makes us wonder just how open those doors are for future diplomacy between the two nations. According to American financier Gentry Beach, those doors have already been thrown wide open, with a deal being made between Beach and Russian natural gas company Novatek [3]. While Beach confirmed the relationship, amid failure to admit association with Beach by Novatek, Beach did admit that they still had several hurdles to overcome to be able to continue with the deal to liquefy natural gas in remote Alaska. Beach has long been associated with the Trump family, originally a college friend of Donald Trump Jr. (Soldatkin & Khalip, 2026). Beach even helped raise funds for Trump’s first election campaign in 2016. The deal was allegedly made between Beach and Leonid Mikhelson, Novatek’s chief executive, in Dubai and Europe last year [4]. Beach denied any role that the Trumps could have played in this deal, saying this had nothing to do with the U.S.-Russia peace talks, but that Washington and Moscow alike were both very well informed about the negotiations at hand [4]. While Beach and Novatek claim to not tie this deal explicitly to their respective governments, it does bring multiple questions of what sanction laws are in play for these dealings, and what future economic deals between the two countries can come of this, even with the war in Ukraine continuing.
What Sanctions Are in Place?
While Russia originally had many sanctions put on them starting in 2014 for undermining Ukraine such as EO 13660 and EO 13662, additional sanctions were placed in 2022 following the war in Ukraine specifically the ban on Russian oil importing EO 14066, and a ban on new investment and services to Russia EO 14071. The latter are most likely in play with Beach’s deal in Alaska for the LNG Project, with TotalEnergies, a french company, at the head. TotalEnergies had a previous relationship with Novatek, including holding a major stake in Novatek which they have reported an inability to be able to sell the rest of their stake due to previous agreements. However, it is starting to look like TotalEnergies will not have to worry about selling the rest of their stake as they may be back in business with Novatek once again, the question is, how can Novatek legally work on the Alaska LNG Project with the amount of sanctions that are working against them?
What Do Alaskans Think?
Alaskans have responded against the news of Novatek’s involvement, with Anchorage Daily News stating their own opinion that, “Alaska energy projects should benefit Alaskans, not Russians.” The article makes it clear that the Russian sanctions were put into place because of Russia’s international law violations, human rights offenses, election interference and hostile cyberattacks [2]. The article also states, “What do we stand for if we drop sanctions when an opportunity rises?” With the current sanctions in place, it seems that Novatek and Beach would need approval from both Putin and Trump, which they seem to have, without the knowledge of the Alaskan people which this deal disrupts the most. The article also claims that there have been confusing statements made, including Novatek stating that U.S. made equipment will be used, when Beach claimed that Novatek already has partially built one of the units. The article also brings up how this would affect the villages, including tankers, who will have to stay several miles offshore considering the North Slope has an extremely shallow shoreline, and how whale hunting will significantly decrease due to tanker traffic. It is simply not plausible to consider an option without a pipeline, especially considering that the Alaskan people have been promised for years that the LNG pipeline project from the North Slope to Nikiski, Alaska, will be implemented, meaning affordable natural gas for several communities. The authors also make the point that Alaska is a resource-based economy, meaning this pipeline could support several of the next generations of Alaskans to live off of and to work for. This can also reduce the risk of pollution in the Kuskokwim River which is currently the route that diesel tankers take to supply gas to villages [2].
How Does the Conflict in the Middle East Affect the LNG Project?
With the developing Iranian-Israel and U.S. conflict in the middle east, Russia has offered to supply Europe with oil that has been depleted by the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, with Europe declining help from Russia and steadfastness on their sanctions from the start of the Ukraine war. However, Asian countries have been affected the worst from the conflict, leading to the acceptance of Russia’s offer boosting their economy for the first time since Russia invaded Ukraine. With the recent updates on the LNG project after years of halt, especially with the advancement being at the hands of a Russia-U.S. agreement on lowering sanctions, it does make one wonder whether the United States considered Russia’s oil supply when making the decision to enter a conflict with Iran, knowing the risk to the Strait of Hormuz, and could Alaska have played a major role in this decision without the public knowing?
What Is Left for the Project to Get the Go-Ahead?
According to Reuters, Glenfarne, the company that owns 75% of the project, says that the war in the middle east has sparked Asia’s interest in the project, especially since the Alaska LNG project does not have any “choke points” according to Brendan Duval, Glenfarne’s CEO [1]. The open waters that surround Alaska is a significant selling point, in contrast to the Strait of Hormuz that can be and is currently significantly impacted by war and territory control. While the LNG project is still delayed because of the failure to meet the target of signing binding offtake deals for 80% of the planned export capacity of 20 million metric tons a year of liquefied natural gas, the project is already at an agreed upon 13 million, meaning they only need a signed 3 million more, which may very well be met with credits to the conflicts in the middle east. Duval claims that Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea have all signed on the deal, most importantly because of the positioning of Alaska [1]. Japan’s two biggest LNG importers, JERA and Tokyo Gas, have already reportedly agreed to deals to buy 2 million metric tons a year from the Alaska LNG project. Duval also stated that a Greek firm Danaos aims to deliver LNG carriers around the time the project is expected to begin, which Duval states is 2031. Duval also claims that another bonus to the Alaska LNG project is that the ice flows allow regular LNG carriers, allowing any LNG carrier globally to come and go [1].
Was This a Strategic Move Made Several Months Ahead?
While Europe may continue to ice out Putin, President Trump may have been looking several steps ahead when meeting with Putin last summer in Alaska. While Europe continues to condemn the United States move to decrease sanctions on Russia, the United States economy may remain significantly more stable than European countries following the Iranian conflict with this seemingly new deal with Russia, beginning with the Alaska LNG project. This move may also strengthen ties between the United States and Asian countries, with Asia looking for a bail out after the unexpected closing of the Strait of Hormuz, causing disaster for all oil companies not only exporting from the middle east, but for countries that imported from them. The International Energy Agency may also feel relief if the United States is able to help supply not only themselves, but also several other countries with the Alaska LNG project, even though it comes with the cost of supporting Russia’s economy.
References
[1] Golubkova, K., Obayashi, Y., & Reuters. (2026, March 15). Spurred by Gulf War, Alaska LNG aims for go-ahead decisions in 2026-27 and exports in 2031. Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/spurred-by-gulf-war-alaska-lng-ai ms-go-ahead-decisions-2026-27-exports-2031-2026-03-16/
[2] James, M., & James, D. (2026, March 5). Opinion: Alaska needs a gas pipeline, not a North Slope export shortcut. Anchorage Daily News.
https://www.adn.com/opinions/2026/03/05/opinion-alaska-needs-a-gas-pip eline-not-a-north-slope-export-shortcut/
[3] Soldatkin, V., & Khalip, A. (2026, February 20). Trump ally ties up with Russia’s Novatek on natural gas in Alaska, NYT reports. Reuters. Retrieved March 2, 2026, from
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-ally-ties-up-with-russias-n ovatek-natural-gas-alaska-nyt-reports-2026-02-20/
[4] Troianovski, A. (2026, February 19). With ‘Tremendous’ Deals at Stake, Trump Is Bringing Russia in From the Cold. The New York Times. Retrieved March 2, 2026, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/19/us/politics/trump-russia-deals-novate k.html
[5] Trump and Putin Alaska summit: Five takeaways from the meeting. (2025, August 15). BBC. Retrieved March 1, 2026, from
