In this second article of our series on the past, present and future of icebreakers, we focus on Finland, which has emerged as one of Europe’s leading Powers in this sphere. This status is rooted in decades of technological advancement and adaptation to Arctic conditions: Thanks to its high-quality fleet, Finland represents a global hub for icebreaker design and operations.
The country’s deep connection to its frozen waters is rather obvious. Positioned in a true Arctic environment, between the Baltic Sea and the extreme North of the Fenno-Scandinavian Peninsula, Finland has addressed the challenge of keeping its ports operational in winter since the 19th century. This necessity was not merely a matter of trade but the basis for its economic survival. At the time, Finland was an autonomous Grand Duchy under the Russian Empire, and the Gulf of Bothnia’s annual freeze was a severe problem. By the late 19th century, Finland responded by engineering vessels explicitly designed to confront these environmental conditions.
The Finnish icebreaking tradition began with the launch of the Murtaja in 1890. The name itself, which translates to “(ice)breaker” in Finnish, highlights the ship’s purpose. Built to secure access to Helsinki and Turku ports, the Murtaja was among the first vessels globally dedicated to icebreaking. In contrast with Russia’s Yermak, the world’s first polar icebreaker designed for navigating the Arctic Ocean’s thick, perennial ice, Finland’s early models focused on the Baltic Sea’s seasonal ice. This distinction highlights the practical and regional priorities of the Finnish approach.
In the 20th century, Finland navigated a complex relationship with the Soviet Union. Politically independent since 1917, Finland established diplomatic ties with Moscow, formalised by the 1948 Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance. While Finland’s modest economy and small population, coupled with its lack of Arctic Ocean access, prevented it from being a direct Arctic rival to the USSR, it became a leader in Arctic shipbuilding, a field where Moscow’s influence was evident. But while the USSR expanded a nuclear-powered icebreaker fleet for Arctic supremacy, Finland refined more versatile and commercially oriented designs. By the 1960s and 1970s, Finnish shipyards had established a reputation for producing reliable diesel-electric icebreakers, building ships such as Voima, Urho, and Sisu, still operational today. These vessels, iconic for their engineering and durability, became templates for similar ships all over the world.
Today, Finland’s icebreaker fleet symbolises global excellence, mainly because of the technological sophistication that defines each ship. Currently, nine icebreakers are active under the management of Arctia Ltd., a state-owned company overseeing the fleet’s operations. This infrastructure ensures that Finland maintains its key role in Arctic and Baltic maritime logistics.
Finland is now a world leader in icebreaker design and construction: Approximately 60 per cent of the vessels deployed worldwide for polar missions were designed or built in Finnish shipyards, a proof of the nation’s capacity to address the Arctic’s engineering demands. Finnish expertise is not confined to domestic needs. The country has consistently provided innovative solutions to international partners, ranging from state governments to private enterprises.
Finnish icebreakers are essential to regional operations, particularly in ensuring the Baltic Sea’s navigability during winters. Unlike Russia, whose icebreaker fleet prioritises securing transit along the Northern Sea Route, Finland’s focus remains on maintaining efficient domestic maritime traffic. The country’s influence extends further through consultancy agreements and collaborative projects with international stakeholders.
Furthermore, we ought to mention the Polaris, launched in 2017. Equipped with a hybrid diesel-electric propulsion system and LNG as its primary fuel source, the vessel significantly reduces emissions of sulphur, nitrogen and, particularly, carbon dioxide compared to conventional counterparts, demonstrating once again the “real” commitment to adopting sustainable practices in the Arctic by Finland and the Nordic countries in general, for whom environmental impact is an ever-growing priority.
The contrast between Finland and Russia highlights diverging Arctic strategies. Russia emphasises scale, with nuclear-powered vessels designed for the thick polar ice of trans-Arctic routes. Finland, instead, prioritises adaptability, producing durable and lighter ships capable of diverse applications.
In the Arctic context, Finland’s role in icebreaking has long been connected with the region’s political dynamics, particularly in relation to Russia. Throughout history, Finland has developed its icebreaker fleet taking into high consideration the USSR’s and then Russia’s ambitions in the Arctic. During the Cold War, Finland maintained a delicate neutrality, balancing its position between the West and the Soviet bloc, which was reflected in its approach to icebreaking technology as well.
With Finland’s recent formal entry into NATO, this balance has shifted significantly. No longer in the position of maintaining a stable relationship with Moscow, Finland is now firmly integrated into a military alliance that views Russia as a strategic adversary. This geopolitical shift will likely influence Finland’s future icebreaking operations, which were previously designed with a focus on civil and commercial use, potentially opening the door to cooperation with other NATO members in Arctic operations, especially as militarisation in the region intensifies.
In this evolving context, the ICE Pact presents Finland with an opportunity to strengthen its position as a technological leader in the Arctic. With its advanced fleet and long-standing engineering expertise, Finland is well-positioned to offer innovative and cost-effective solutions to the challenges of Arctic navigation and infrastructure. The agreement could allow Finland to expand its influence, applying its expertise in Baltic Sea traffic management to more complex Arctic scenarios, while benefiting from targeted funding for research and international platforms to promote standards aligned with its economic interests.
The challenge for Finland is how to reframe its approach to fit into the more competitive Arctic game, especially now with NATO in the mix. Will Finland look for ways to collaborate like the old days, or has that ship sailed entirely? Only time will tell. The ICE Pact, alongside Finland’s NATO membership, could serve as a platform from which the country reasserts its leadership in Arctic affairs, navigating a rapidly changing and increasingly militarised environment.
Also read the publication:
A History of the Northern Forum
