A media campaign is gradually unfolding in Finland, aimed at potentially forcing the country to withdraw from the icebreaker deal signed in October 2025, which envisages the construction of a series of 11 medium-sized icebreakers for the US Coast Guard, the first of which could enter service as early as 2028.
BACKGROUND
It’s worth noting that the US administration’s substantive threats against Greenland were made long before the icebreaker deal was signed and have not provoked a negative reaction from either the government or the public in a country whose economy has not grown since 2009, which explains the nature of the deal.
The glitter of gold coins and the prospect of creating a large number of new, high-paying jobs, the small country’s only pride in its technological superiority over the global hegemon, and the country’s elevated status and authority, easily lulled the public’s conscience, which was further facilitated by the Finnish press’s resounding silence about the obvious connection between the US military threat to Greenland and the Finnish icebreakers.
As President Trump escalated the Greenland narrative, Finland’s dormant conscience began to show signs of life, and the country began preparing public opinion for the previously unimaginable—a possible rejection of the promising deal. The Finns wisely refrained from attacking the American grizzly first, instead giving the floor to an American-educated Spanish political scientist who, in an interview with Helsingin Sanomat, the Finnish equivalent of the Soviet newspaper Pravda, on January 21, revealed the terrible truth: the deal was bad, and Finland might be forced to abandon it.
Now the Finnish participants in the information war could be unleashed on the grizzly. Finnish media, however, patiently waited a whole month for the Spanish information bombardment to reach the country’s most remote villages, which had been connected to broadband internet back in 2015.
On February 24, the fourth anniversary of the start of the Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, a new information salvo was launched through the country’s most accessible free media outlet, the state-controlled private television and radio broadcaster Yle. The timing of the publication was certainly not accidental, and the subtitle of the article contains its essence and meaning:
“Finland is taking a risk by making a deal on icebreakers with Trump’s United States.”
The subtitle’s essence is simple: there is the United States, and then there is President Trump, who is inconvenient for Europe and Finland, and whose departure from the political arena will solve all the unpleasant problems in transatlantic relations. However, we’ll have to wait almost three more years, as Trump’s health appears to be excellent, and a possible defeat for the Republican Party in the midterm elections is not certain.
The timing of the publication may indicate an equal degree of threat to Europe, however imaginary, from both Russia and the United States, and a confrontation between these powerful countries simultaneously, which presupposes a protracted conflict, not necessarily a military one, on two fronts.
Historically, in Europe, only Germany has waged two unsuccessful wars on two fronts. As is evident from the European press recently, all of EU Europe is now preparing to wage a conflict on two fronts. The conflict will be waged in ideology, politics, diplomacy, economics, finance, science and technology. The least likely scenario is a military conflict, for which Europe lacks the will and all kinds of resources. The outcome of this confrontation will be the same as that of the Kaiser’s and Hitler’s Germany—no one has ever won such an epic war on two fronts.
Yle’s publication is undoubtedly part of a coordinated information offensive by EU countries, the UK, Norway, and even tiny Iceland, directed against Trump’s America. A pack of small dogs is latching onto the leg of an American grizzly bear to deprive it of its freedom of action, acting in concert with the US president’s political opponents within the country. The North Observer will continue to focus on this topic.
Threatening Denmark With Military Action
US President Donald Trump has threatened Denmark with military action to take over the world’s largest island for the Americans. Trump has said that he will take what he wants “by any means necessary”.
Among other things, he said at the turn of January and February that negotiations are already underway on the future of Greenland. And on January 12, Republican Congressman Randy Fine filed a bill that would give Trump the authority to annex Greenland to the United States.
In an interview with the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, Trump’s former advisor John Bolton says that the Greenland crisis is not over, but that the situation has only calmed down for a while.
“As long as Trump is president, Greenland will remain a problem.”
In October 2025, Finland signed an agreement with the United States for 11 icebreakers, 4 of which will be built in Finland. At least some of them are planned to be launched by 2028—meaning they would be ready for use by the Trump administration.
We asked five military policy experts and the Finnish foreign and security policy leadership what they would say about a scenario in which Finnish-made icebreakers would head to conquer Greenland?
Some of the experts appear in the story anonymously, as they cannot publicly assess relations between Finland and the United States due to their positions.
Can an Icebreaker Even Be Used as a Warship?
Before we delve into the scenario question, we need to answer the question of whether icebreakers can be used as warships at all? The answer is yes, because thanks to the gun platforms being installed in the United States, icebreakers can also be used as warships. The trend emphasizes the transformation of icebreakers from mere auxiliary vessels to part of the strategic defense fleet in the Arctic regions.
Mikko Suominen, an associate professor of marine and arctic engineering at Aalto University, says that in practice any ship can also be used as a warship.
“In any case, quite big changes need to be made. It is worth noting that an icebreaker is probably not a good warship. In open water, they are not as agile as ships designed specifically for open water.”
Suominen only commented on the technical side of the matter, not security policy.
The chairman of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, Johannes Koskinen, is not surprised that the United States can also use icebreakers built in Finland or based on Finnish expertise and technology for military tasks.
Koskinen states that the icebreakers will be used by the US Border Guard.
“But this was not on the agenda at the time when the decisions in principle were made to order the icebreakers. The equipment of the ordered icebreakers has been left to more detailed contract negotiations, as has the division of labor between Finnish and American companies and shipyards,” Koskinen continues.
The durability and efficiency of icebreakers in particular make them potential platforms for military surveillance and maintenance tasks in the Arctic regions.
Icebreakers are currently being built in Rauma, which are designed to be equipped with cannons. Such ships have never been manufactured in Finland before.
Could Icebreakers Be Used to Invade Greenland?
The position of a former high-ranking officer in the Finnish army, who is also an expert in military strategy and international politics, who responded on condition of anonymity, is clear:
“Yes, it is entirely possible. If a situation arises in which the United States decides to use armed force in the Arctic region, icebreakers will be needed to help. Greenland is certainly one of the most important destinations where the United States needs ships suitable for Arctic conditions.”
According to another anonymous expert, the United States could theoretically use icebreakers to invade Greenland, but the occupation operation would be more successful without them.
“The United States would be able to move the necessary number of troops and material much faster and more discreetly by air to the Pituffik base. Due to the ice, supplies can only be delivered to Pituffik by sea for a very short time. This time window can be stretched a little with icebreakers at both ends.”
However, according to the expert, sea freight would not be necessary for the United States, because the occupation of Greenland does not require such heavy equipment that it could not be flown to the island.
Mika Kerttunen, retired senior lecturer of the Department of Strategy at the National Defence University, Doctor of Political Science and Lieutenant Colonel, agrees.
“If Greenland is attacked, the island will be taken over by air, every air route is actually already in use by the Americans. Icebreakers would most likely have a supporting role for military shipping—when it is absolutely necessary due to transportation and circumstances.”
However, Kerttunen sees no reason to make too much of a fuss about the direct military use of icebreakers.
“Although weapons can be carried on any ship, the real naval power is in actual warships, sailing both on the surface and below the surface.”
Timo Hellenberg, a doctor of political science and an expert in international crisis management, believes that the dual-purpose function of icebreakers is entirely possible.
“They can create a framework for operations that, for example, keep a supply route open for a military operation. Arctic naval operations need open supply routes to succeed, and without icebreakers, this is difficult—if not impossible.”
One of the military policy experts we interviewed reminds us that the polar ice is melting, and at the same time new areas in the Arctic are being freed up for economic exploitation and military control.
“It is precisely for these purposes that the United States now needs new icebreaker fleet: icebreakers are not at the core of the strategy, but they enable the use of the rest of the fleet both in a wider area and for a greater part of the year.”
The United States has long learned to build icebreakers, but with poor results. The icebreaker deal has been mooted for a long time, as the importance of the Arctic region is growing and there is a fierce competition between the great powers.
Donald Trump in particular has expressed deep concern that Russia has a clear lead in the race: the country has about forty icebreakers, while the United States currently has three.
Associate Professor Suominen believes that Finnish-made icebreakers do not actually affect the United States’ chances of taking over Greenland.
“There is little need for icebreakers on the southern or western coasts of Greenland, where there is not much ice in the summer months. Similarly, these ships in question, as far as I understand, cannot cope with the multi-year ice found in the northern and eastern parts of Greenland.”
The chairman of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, Johannes Koskinen, reminds us that the delivery of the icebreakers is years away.
“Peaceful solutions regarding the defense and security of Greenland will certainly be made before then. Fortunately, President Trump has begun to withdraw his most disturbing speeches about taking over Greenland, but there is still plenty of difficult work to be done.”
Official Finland Reiterates Its Trust in the US, Even Though Things Are Bustling Behind the Scenes
Heikki Autto, Chairman of the Parliamentary Defence Committee, states in his email that the acquisition of icebreakers and the US’s expressed interest in a change in Greenland’s statehood are in no way connected.
“From the US perspective, the icebreakers ordered from Finland are a scarce resource and it is appropriate to use them specifically as icebreakers. It is advisable to use ships that are designed to be warships, for which the United States has its own defense industrial capability.”
Autto is convinced that the United States is heading to the Arctic regions to bring security and not in an imperialist spirit of conquest.
“The icebreaker acquisition strengthens the US presence in the Arctic region and thus increases the security of the entire alliance—that is, NATO.”
In any case, the risk assessment of dependencies on the United States is probably in full swing in Finland’s foreign and security policy leadership, even though the rhetoric is still dominated by traditional liturgy.
“From Finland’s perspective, even a small possibility of dual use is embarrassing in this situation, but icebreakers are not being sold or manufactured directly for military use or for the occupation of Greenland,” argues Lieutenant Colonel (retd.) Mika Kerttunen.
When asked whether the Greenland crisis will in any way affect the icebreaker trade between Finland and the United States, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Johannes Koskinen, answers this way:
“Well, I don’t know, but we have to closely monitor how these contract negotiations progress.”
Source: Yle (in Finnish)
More posts by the author:
- The US Is Sending an Ark to Help the People of Greenland
- Finnish Secret Service Reveals Its Secrets in a Chief of Staff's Book
- Greenlanders About the King's Visit: Should Have Arrived Earlier
- Finnish Program Fleet 2020 to Be Completed in 2029
- UK Carrier Strike Group to Deploy to North Atlantic in 2026