In recent years, the Arctic region has gained unprecedented strategic importance due to climate change, which is opening new maritime routes and making previously inaccessible natural resources available. In this context, the recent alliance between the United States, Canada, and Finland – recently admitted to NATO – known as the “ICE Pact,” represents a potentially significant turning point in the global competition for control of the Arctic.
The agreement aims to build a fleet of icebreakers to counter Chinese and, notably, Russian influence in the region. With Russia already possessing the largest icebreaker fleet in the world, many ships of which are nuclear-powered, some NATO Arctic nations are gradually gearing up to try to regain a competitive edge.
The ICE Pact and Its Objectives
The ICE Pact (a fortunate acronym for Icebreaker Collaboration Effort) was announced during the 75th NATO summit in Washington, D.C., held from the 9th to the 11th of July. It is a joint initiative among Canada, the United States, and Finland aimed at building a polar icebreaker fleet.
The plan involves constructing vessels initially in Canada, with two icebreakers to be built in Vancouver and six in shipyards in Quebec. The United States and Finland will also contribute to the development of this sort of shared fleet, which, according to the agreements, is expected to reach a substantial size of 90 units within a decade.
Canada and Finland already possess several dozens of icebreakers (respectively 21, two of which privately operated, and 9) and, most importantly, the industrial capacity to produce many more. The agreement would ensure a steady flow of revenue into the coffers of both countries, which also promise to provide expertise to U.S. shipyards to make them self-sufficient in icebreaker construction.
Currently, U.S. law prohibits the Navy from purchasing foreign-built naval vessels, driven by understandable security jealousy and the familiar protectionist aim of safeguarding American jobs and industry. However, this limitation doesn’t strictly apply to the U.S. Coast Guard, which operates the country’s icebreakers, possibly leaving some room for collaboration. Nonetheless, any exchange or procurement involving foreign shipyards – even those of allied countries – would still face regulatory obstacles, proving, from the very beginning, the complexity of turning the ICE Pact’s potential into concrete results.
The Russian Perspective
The ICE Pact, if all of its goals were to be respected, could possibly represent a threat to the Russian economic and strategic position in the Arctic. Russia views the Arctic not only as an economic resource but as an essential component for its national security and global status. Control over the emerging Arctic maritime routes, brought about by climate change, provides Russia with decisive influence over international trade and energy transport.
The Kremlin has heavily invested in an unparalleled fleet of 41 icebreakers, seven of which are nuclear-powered. These investments are part of a clear political strategy: to ensure that the Arctic remains firmly within the Russian sphere of influence. Geographically, Russia is far better positioned to capitalise on the region, with its long and relatively navigable coastline. In contrast, Canada and the U.S. face more complex challenges. Their Arctic regions are dotted with numerous islands and feature scarcely populated territories and a rather underdeveloped human infrastructure, making it harder to match Russia’s readiness.
Russia’s approach to Arctic strategy, combining military, economic and industrial investments, starkly contrasts with the disorganised efforts of the United States and its allies. The U.S. icebreaker fleet, for example, significantly lacks behind that of Russia, with only a literal handful of operational vessels, none of which is nuclear-powered.
Moreover, the U.S. polar fleet has been plagued by operational setbacks. The recent electrical fire aboard the Healy, one of the U.S.’s only two polar-class icebreakers, is a clear indication of the fleet’s precarious state. This incident not only left the ship damaged (after almost one month and a half, the ship is still under repairs in Seattle, WA) but also highlighted the fragility of American capabilities in the region. While the ICE Pact promises a fleet of 90 icebreakers within a decade, the realities of the current U.S. shipbuilding capacity and operational maintenance may raise doubts about whether these ambitions can be met.
Despite the outlined state of the American fleet, the ICE Pact is still a genuine strategic challenge for Russia. The strengthening of cooperation between the United States, Canada, and Finland – while still being an acknowledgment by NATO of the overwhelming Russian advantage in the Arctic – would represent an attempt to undermine Russia’s monopoly on Arctic navigation. Moreover, Russia cannot overlook that this pact exclusively involves Arctic nations and key NATO members. The participation of Finland, situated at the heart of the European Arctic and close to Russian borders, poses a potential instability factor, as Russia may perceive it as a direct threat. Although Finland does not have direct access to the Arctic Ocean, it is already a significant player in the region, a position greatly reinforced by its recent entry into the Atlantic Alliance.
Conclusions
The political-industrial collaboration initiated between the United States, Canada, and Finland within the context of the ICE Pact has the potential to influence the balance of power among Arctic nations. While it may not immediately alter the dynamics at play, just the fact that such an initiative is being actively pursued signals, although yet shyly, a growing strategic interest in the Arctic by NATO.
In response to this pact, Russia may further intensify its military and commercial presence in the Atlantic and European Arctic, potentially increasing investments in industrial capacities and leading to a form of “arms race” in polar naval assets.
The enhancement of the U.S. icebreaker fleet is not merely a response to basic operational needs, but a clear message to its Russian adversary: the United States intends to assert a leading role in the Arctic, significantly countering Russian influence. If the pact results in the promised fleet of 90 icebreakers, Russia will find its status as the dominant Arctic power threatened.
Moscow could soon face a new phase in Arctic competition. Its response to such a scenario could redefine the power dynamics in the region for years to come. Or, by simply mimicking the rivals’ investments to keep up with their progress, just maintain the status quo.
Tommaso Bontempi
Also read the publication:
Climate Change and the Arctic: A Perspective from the Global South
