.png)
2 hours ago
1
The Arctic has long ceased to be a remote, inhospitable and virtually inaccessible region. In fact, it has become quite tangible for ordinary mortals.
Far from that image of a distant place, the area is now a hotbed on the economic front — with vast deposits of energy and mineral resources — as well as the geopolitical one, with an increasingly fierce fight for dominance being waged among the major powers of the Northern Hemisphere. And this race requires a naval battering ram: large (and extremely expensive) vessels, which are needed to blaze a trail across a still-frozen sea.
The Arctic is a big prize. And, at the moment, Russia is the country with the most military bases north of the Arctic Circle. It has a fleet of nearly 50 icebreakers (more than all of NATO). This fleet includes several nuclear-powered ships with atomic reactors on board, giving them much greater autonomy than vessels powered by diesel or natural gas.
China — although much more distant geographically — defines itself as a “near-Arctic state.” The Asian superpower has four of these vessels in service and one more in its portfolio. As for the United States — which currently has a very small fleet for its size and physical proximity (just three vessels) — the government is beginning to step on the accelerator to keep up: it aims to have more than 50 icebreakers in the long term and has just finalized an agreement with Finland to purchase 11 of these ships from the Nordic country.
“The Arctic is the arena where the world’s major powers compete for resources, trade routes and influence. I’m not saying we’re heading toward a major conflict in the region, but it’s certainly an area of growing geostrategic importance,” says Jason C. Moyer, a defense expert at the Atlantic Council.
The United States has been suffering from a shortage of icebreakers for a long time: “It needed to catch up after decades of lagging in this area,” Moyer explains. For Washington, Helsinki’s technical leadership represents a fast track to narrowing the gap with Russia, given the impossibility of achieving this with its domestic production.
Finland is key
It’s no coincidence that Finland is the country chosen to meet U.S. needs. This is because — despite its tiny size compared to the trio of great powers — it has the largest fleet per capita of all: a dozen vessels for a population of just over five million. It’s the only country in the world where all its ports can freeze over in winter. And, for the Finns, the sea route is the only possible way to receive supplies during the cold months. Hence, their survival has long depended on their ability to keep their waters navigable. Since launching their first icebreaker in the 1930s, the Nordic country has perfected the art of building these types of ships and has become the world’s leading power in this field.
American interest in this area isn’t new. Even in his first term, President Donald Trump sought to address this historic Achilles’ heel with purchases from Finland. And these talks — according to Moyer — have been accelerated by the Nordic country’s recent accession to NATO. With Finland and Sweden in the fold, the defense expert believes that the Alliance is “much better prepared” to operate in an “increasingly important” region. Even though neither country has an Arctic coastline (their icebreakers typically operate in the Baltic Sea), their ships and their experience navigating icy waters make them strategic allies on the new polar stage.
With two leading shipyards — Arctech and Rauma — and a leading design firm — Aker Arctic — Finland has been able to sell its experience in the construction and operation of these giants to the world, and now also to Washington. The Finns are also proud of having launched more than half of the icebreakers currently sailing around the world. Moreover, around 80% of the total were designed in Finland.
Adding to these advantages is the recent apparent closeness between Trump and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, a conservative who, amid fanfare and praise, has skillfully managed the relationship. And there are more perks for the White House: while using technology from the Nordic country, seven of the new icebreakers will be assembled on U.S. soil, in Texas and Louisiana-based shipyards.“Made in America,” as Trump touts to his followers, while relying on Europe for a strategically important naval project.
Since returning to the White House, Trump has demonstrated his interest in the Arctic: he has disparaged Canada — the world’s second-largest country, with the second-most miles of Arctic coastline and the second-highest number of icebreakers after Russia — by repeatedly calling it “the 51st state.” He has also threatened to annex Greenland — even without ruling out the use of military force — “to ensure international security.” And harshly criticized Denmark for not investing enough in the defense of the gigantic island that is part of its kingdom. All this while Washington still relies on a Canadian icebreaker to resupply its Pituffik military base in northwestern Greenland.
Most analysts maintain that the main challenge for the U.S. in the Arctic lies not in the North Atlantic, but on the Pacific flank. There, Russian and Chinese icebreakers, warships and even nuclear-capable bombers regularly patrol the waters and airspace near Alaska.
Trump doesn’t just have an interest in strengthening security in the Arctic: he also has an appetite for natural resources, given that the region is estimated to hold vast oil and gas reserves, as well as substantial critical mineral deposits. Recently, the Trump administration relaxed oil industry regulations and boosted drilling in Alaska.
Less ice, but more challenges
Global warming means that the race to add more and more icebreakers to national fleets is somewhat paradoxical. Rising temperatures are melting Arctic ice, meaning these ships may be less necessary in the long term. In the meantime, however, they remain vital. A larger fleet gives a state greater influence and capacity for action in the Arctic.
Icebreakers are versatile vessels. In addition to keeping ports open and clearing ice-covered areas, they’re used for surveillance, scientific research, as well as search-and-rescue operations. They can also escort warships and maintain supply lines to Arctic bases under extreme conditions.
Jukka Viitanen is an executive with Arctia, the Finnish public company that manages the country’s icebreaker fleet. He recalls that, in the 1980s, “winters were colder and longer; now, however, they’re rainier and windier. Several times a day, [powerful] winds move the ice packs from one point to another.” This change in pattern forces icebreakers to make more rounds to clear the way for other ships, be they merchant, military, or — to a much lesser extent — passenger vessels.
“The Arctic is the region most affected by climate change. It’s warming rapidly. This means that new trade routes are emerging, but they’re only navigable for a few months in the summer,” Moyer notes.
In the still-long winter months, icebreakers will continue to be essential: “[The conditions] will continue to be difficult for navigation. And most icebreakers have a lifespan of several decades, so there’s a clear need for these highly-specialized vessels.”
Moyer says that they’ll be required at least until the end of the 21st century. “A completely ice-free Arctic is still a long way off.”
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
