Finland has just begun construction on two medium icebreakers in a series of 11 ships for the US Coast Guard. The first is scheduled to be delivered to the customer for final outfitting by the end of 2028, before the end of President Trump’s second term. This represents lightning-fast construction speed by global shipbuilding standards for such a complex project.
The October 2025 deal was overshadowed by threats from the US administration to annex Greenland, a Danish crown dependency that accounts for approximately 98% of the Danish Realm’s territory, by one means or another. Since 1952, Finland has been a member of the Nordic Council, which also includes the four Scandinavian states of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland.
The US threat to the territorial integrity of one of the Council countries had the effect of a cake bomb exploding in the center of the table at a languid party. With their eyes closed, the partygoers repeated, and some still do to this day: “This simply can’t be true, it’s not true, I’ll wake up any minute and everything will be as before—orderly and peaceful. The main villain is simply a figment of my imagination.” However, this autosuggestion didn’t help, and now the Nordic countries, like the rest of Europe, are going through the classic process of accepting a disaster that has already happened: denial—outrage—bargaining—depression—acceptance.
At the end of 2025, the dramatization of the Greenland problem reached its peak, creating an invisible reef smoldering with mutual mistrust. Like the rift between the Eurasian and North American lithospheric plates that runs through Iceland, it is growing, driving the former allies further apart.
An attempt to renew rapprochement based on countering Russia’s and China’s nonexistent hostile actions in the Arctic was initially rejected by an offended Denmark, which pointed out the absence of such a threat.
The most unpleasant fact for the Nordic countries was that the United States can effectively operate in the Arctic—threatening the interests of the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Norway—only with an icebreaker fleet of up to 40 units, roughly the number Russia currently possesses. The first flotilla of this brand-new, powerful fleet—11 icebreakers—will be built for the potential aggressor by a European country, Finland, with its outstanding expertise in this field.
The realization of this bitter truth began to dawn on Northern European politicians and analysts even at the moment the deal was concluded, as follows from the text below, when they were going through a period of psychological denial of the new reality. An explanation acceptable to them was quickly found, disseminated, and served as the basis for a media response: Finnish icebreakers would not be ready for use until Trump left the White House on January 20, 2029, and the US would not dare use military force against a NATO country.
This argument misrepresents the problem: Greenland’s annexation is possible through nonmilitary means. Public opinion in the US and Greenland is fickle, and with skillful use of hybrid warfare, at which the Americans have excelled, it could tilt toward varying degrees of dependence and state ties—for example, an association in which Greenlanders would be allowed to retain the European social model, legal system, and general model of social relations.
Moreover, this naive vision of the future completely lacks strategic perspective. As Belgian Prime Minister De Wever recently aptly noted, the United States has turned its back on the Atlantic and a decrepit Europe and turned its attention to the economically and demographically growing Indo-Pacific region, where it can do good business, obtain necessary resources, and gain access to vast markets.
Like an old woman at a broken trough, Europe will have to get used to its new role as a small, marginal western edge of vast Eurasia, where processes are taking place not in preparation for death, but for a new stage of life.
A Spanish expert specializing in political risk assessment and with a background in European and American higher education is convinced that Finland made a mistake by concluding the icebreaker deal in an attempt to replicate the “Nokia miracle” of the 1990s. Addressing the problem of an economy stagnating since 2009, Finnish politicians believe that an icebreaker “miracle” will put the economy—stalled for 17 years without addressing the long-standing structural and systemic problems of the Finnish economy—back on a development trajectory. This is a vain hope. But perhaps Finland will succeed in betraying its allies in Europe to its own advantage.
Finland May Have to Cancel Icebreaker Deal
Bernardo Navazo considers a rift between Europe and the United States inevitable.
Geopolitical risk analyst Bernardo Navazo said on January 21 in an interview with Helsingin Sanomat that it was a bad decision for Finland to make the icebreaker deal.
“If the United States annexes Greenland or does something else disgusting that forces Europe to take countermeasures, you can be sure that you will be forced to give up those deals.”
Navazo considers a rift between the United States and Europe inevitable. In his opinion, it is a question of whether the separation is sudden and dramatic or gradual and as reconciled as possible. Navazo predicts that only in the latter case will the icebreaker deals remain valid.
In October, Finland signed a letter of intent with the United States to sell 11 icebreakers. Four of the ships are to be built in Finland and seven in the United States.
At the end of the year, Rauma Marine Constructions, the owner of the Rauma shipyard, and the United States Coast Guard signed an agreement to build two medium-sized icebreakers at the Rauma shipyard. The deals for the two icebreakers are still being negotiated.
Will Finland Hurt Denmark and Greenland with the Icebreaker Deal?
President Alexander Stubb did not want to speculate about the possible effects of the situation in Greenland on icebreaker deals between Finland and the United States.
“I don’t want to go so far as to say that Greenland would be forced to become part of the United States. Building the icebreakers will take longer,” Stubb said.
“I don’t think the United States would take over Greenland militarily,” Stubb replied.
Could the United States use icebreakers ordered from Finland for a military invasion of Greenland, which belongs to Denmark?
Finnish experts interviewed by Yle consider this unlikely.
There would be no great need for icebreakers in a military operation. First of all, the United States already has troops in Greenland at the Pituffik base. It has the ability to operate in the area with aircraft and submarines.
If an invasion operation were to take place, the Finnish-made icebreakers would probably not even make it there due to insufficient power. The first icebreakers will be completed in Rauma in 2028. Trump’s term ends at the beginning of January 2029.
Former Minister of Economic Affairs Wille Rydman also dismisses the Greenland concerns as “moonlight conspiracy theories” and points out that the first icebreakers will probably not be completed until the end of Trump’s term.
“These icebreakers will not be completed at lightning speed. In any case, it will be toward the end of Trump’s term. I also do not believe, despite his strong words, that Trump has any aggressive intentions.”
According to a Danish researcher, the icebreaker deal could be embarrassing for Finland if the US were to attack Greenland.
The researcher, however, considers a US attack unlikely.
The icebreaker agreement between Finland and the United States has not been viewed critically in Denmark, said senior researcher Mikkel Runge Olesen from the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS).
From Finland’s perspective, it would be “embarrassing” if Trump decided to invade Greenland at the end of his term and Finnish-made icebreakers were involved, Olesen says. However, he does not believe that the importance of icebreakers would be decisive militarily.
“Whether icebreakers were used or not, it would be over very quickly.”
However, the Danish researcher does not consider a US attack to be likely.
“The political price would be too high. In recent days, the signaling of this price has been clearer than usual,” he says, referring to the statements of European leaders.
Finnish Icebreakers’ Possible Military Use
Finnish-built icebreakers could help the US mine natural resources in the Arctic. They could also be used in military operations.
The Icebreakers Could Participate in Undersea Warfare
The ordered icebreakers are hulls that the US can tailor to suit different missions and threats. The ships could also participate in military operations.
“The United States chose advanced icebreaker models that are adaptable, multi-purpose platforms,” researcher Liselotte Odgaard told Yle.
Danish scholar Odgaard is a senior researcher at the Hudson Institute, a US think tank. She also works as a professor at the Norwegian Institute of Defense.
The icebreakers can be equipped with weapons systems, such as light artillery or machine guns.
The icebreakers can also be made into mother ships for drones operating in the air and underwater. In this case, they could be used to combat Russian or Chinese submarines, for example.
During a war, the ships could assist in clearing sea mines. They could even be used to lay mines at sea. Icebreakers can help transport troops and equipment to places that would otherwise be inaccessible due to ice.
The US Wants to Show Its Power with Icebreakers
Icebreakers are key to the US being able to move in its northern seas and control its borders. Trump has claimed that Russian and Chinese ships are surrounding Greenland in an attempt to occupy it. Denmark disagrees.
The US is also concerned that Russian and Chinese research vessels and warships are operating near Alaska. It is important for the US to show its presence in the Arctic.
The fact is that the world’s most powerful superpower is an underdog in the Arctic. The US has only two icebreakers, while Russia has more than 40. Canada has 19 and China has six.
According to Trump, the United States plans to order up to 40 new icebreakers. In the first phase, the US Coast Guard will order 11 ships, four of which will be built in Finland and seven in the United States.
The ships are medium icebreakers. There are two types that can break ice less than a meter or about one and a half meters thick. These icebreakers are unable to operate north of Greenland, in the North Pole region, or in the Northeast Passage in winter.
Russia has the upper hand in areas with thick ice. It has eight nuclear-powered icebreakers at its disposal, which can penetrate ice up to three meters thick.
The US Will Use Icebreakers to Hunt for Natural Resources
Greenland has many natural resources that interest Trump. Exploiting oil and minerals there has so far proven difficult.
Finnish icebreakers can only partially operate around Greenland due to their icebreaking capabilities, but they are better suited for Alaska.
President Trump wants more oil from there despite climate change. Sea lanes must be kept open for oil exploration, drilling, and transportation.
The Arctic region is home to an enormous amount of natural resources. The United States Geological Survey has estimated that it contains about 13% of the world’s oil reserves and 30% of natural gas reserves that have not yet been discovered. The region also has many valuable minerals. A large part of the natural resources is in the seas.
Icebreakers are also needed to transport minerals mined on land for processing and to market.
US Lags Far Behind Finland in Icebreaker Expertise
According to former Minister of Economic Affairs Wille Rydman, the United States has a long way to go in terms of icebreaker expertise. Shipbuilding expertise cannot be completely copied either.
“Shipbuilding is truly professional teamwork that requires many different types of expertise. This will be a problem for the United States for a long time to come, that there is no shipbuilding ecosystem like the one in Finland.”
Tight Construction Schedule
Also a guest in the IS studio was Mikko Suominen, associate professor of Marine and Arctic technology at Aalto University.
According to him, the icebreaker trade is a huge success for the Finnish maritime and shipyard industry.
“This will be a significant employer,” Suominen said. President Alexander Stubb said on Thursday at the White House that the first icebreaker would be going to the United States as early as 2028, in just over two years.
“That sounds like a really tight schedule to do in two years,” Suominen said.
According to him, the general rule can be considered a year of planning and two years of construction, depending on the size of the ship. According to Suominen, it is possible that Finnish companies have already done quite a bit of planning.
Source:
Independent Expert