6 ms·

Finland is part of NATO. The US and Canada should collaborate with it too. Sharing knowledge is a perfect way for European NATO allies to carry more of the coll

by ChiMan 2y ago

Finland is part of NATO. The US and Canada should collaborate with it too. Sharing knowledge is a perfect way for European NATO allies to carry more of the collective defense burden.

helsinkiandrew 2y ago
It's an interesting side note that in the 80's the Soviet Union, despite having a large icebreaking ship building capabilities, also bought icebreakers from Finland (then not a member of NATO) Including a couple of Nuclear ones (they fitted the nuclear engine themselves): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaygach_(1989_icebreaker) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaygach_(1989_icebreaker)
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  When I was living in Helsinki, there were two huge icebreakers there whose main job it was to keep the baltic see open for the Russians. I think that probably changed a bit since they joined NATO. I guess that aside from Alaska, the US doesn't have to deal with a lot of sea ice and isn't that dependent on arctic shipping routes. For Russia that's very different. The sea near St Petersburg can freeze over and Murmansk is also hard to reach in winter. And with Svebastopol and the black see fleet out of action, those would be strategically important for Russia. And they rely on the northern arctic route for trade with China as well.
  - helsinkiandrew 2y ago
    Sisu and Urho - they're still there - along with newer sister ships. Visible from satellite view of Google Maps. https://maps.app.goo.gl/rUq42cC1xFhUB8ij9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/rUq42cC1xFhUB8ij9
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    The US Navy will send ships in the Arctic Ocean past Alaska. It tends to be more common for submarines to be there, but surface ships do go there on occasion.
impossiblefork 2y ago
Does it really make sense for Finnish shipyards to share knowledge of icebreaking when there the released text above discusses things such as the US and Canada selling icebreakers to third parties? It seems more like a way taking over the industry from the Finns. Obviously there may be specifics of the deal that makes it acceptable, but the vague text I see seems just terrible for the Finns. I suppose it might be accepted because of the Canadian ownership of the shipyard in question.
- bluGill 2y ago
  It is in US/Canada's interest to have a shipyard in North America building ice breakers. Even though Finland is a NATO member, if something happens to Finland NATO may need some ship yards elsewhere to build more ice breakers (running 24x7 shifts!) while liberating Finland. Remember NATO (and military in general) needs to plan for all worst cases not likely cases. The above does not mean the shipyards need to be US/Canada. If they are Finland owned and operated that is fine. So long as the workers and a couple (minor) engineers are local that is enough - in the worst case (Finland's shipyard is taken and all the experts there killed) that shipyard is expanded and has some expertise to build on.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    Yes, but the yard is Canadian owned. I suppose it was Russian-owned before. But the combination of foreign ownership together with exporting know-how, this combination is kind of how one loses an industry to some other country; and then upon that there's that you can't even sell to the country that owns the company because of protectionism on their part.
- ca_tech 2y ago
  It is a case of economic security. US National Security Advisor Daleep Singh spoke about this on the Odd Lots podcast a month ago. The goal is an integrated supply chain across all three countries, and an end result of marketing the ice breaker capacity to other allies. https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/odd-lots/how-the-white-house-thinks-dk8gUGMpSs5/#1071 https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/odd-lots/how-the-white-... Transcript Notes at 00:17:51

by ChiMan 2y ago

Finland is part of NATO. The US and Canada should collaborate with it too. Sharing knowledge is a perfect way for European NATO allies to carry more of the collective defense burden.

helsinkiandrew 2y ago

It's an interesting side note that in the 80's the Soviet Union, despite having a large icebreaking ship building capabilities, also bought icebreakers from Finland (then not a member of NATO) Including a couple of Nuclear ones (they fitted the nuclear engine themselves): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaygach_(1989_icebreaker) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaygach_(1989_icebreaker)

jillesvangurp 2y ago
When I was living in Helsinki, there were two huge icebreakers there whose main job it was to keep the baltic see open for the Russians. I think that probably changed a bit since they joined NATO. I guess that aside from Alaska, the US doesn't have to deal with a lot of sea ice and isn't that dependent on arctic shipping routes. For Russia that's very different. The sea near St Petersburg can freeze over and Murmansk is also hard to reach in winter. And with Svebastopol and the black see fleet out of action, those would be strategically important for Russia. And they rely on the northern arctic route for trade with China as well.
- helsinkiandrew 2y ago
  Sisu and Urho - they're still there - along with newer sister ships. Visible from satellite view of Google Maps. https://maps.app.goo.gl/rUq42cC1xFhUB8ij9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/rUq42cC1xFhUB8ij9
- ImJamal 2y ago
  The US Navy will send ships in the Arctic Ocean past Alaska. It tends to be more common for submarines to be there, but surface ships do go there on occasion.

impossiblefork 2y ago

Does it really make sense for Finnish shipyards to share knowledge of icebreaking when there the released text above discusses things such as the US and Canada selling icebreakers to third parties? It seems more like a way taking over the industry from the Finns. Obviously there may be specifics of the deal that makes it acceptable, but the vague text I see seems just terrible for the Finns. I suppose it might be accepted because of the Canadian ownership of the shipyard in question.

bluGill 2y ago
It is in US/Canada's interest to have a shipyard in North America building ice breakers. Even though Finland is a NATO member, if something happens to Finland NATO may need some ship yards elsewhere to build more ice breakers (running 24x7 shifts!) while liberating Finland. Remember NATO (and military in general) needs to plan for all worst cases not likely cases. The above does not mean the shipyards need to be US/Canada. If they are Finland owned and operated that is fine. So long as the workers and a couple (minor) engineers are local that is enough - in the worst case (Finland's shipyard is taken and all the experts there killed) that shipyard is expanded and has some expertise to build on.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Yes, but the yard is Canadian owned. I suppose it was Russian-owned before. But the combination of foreign ownership together with exporting know-how, this combination is kind of how one loses an industry to some other country; and then upon that there's that you can't even sell to the country that owns the company because of protectionism on their part.
ca_tech 2y ago
It is a case of economic security. US National Security Advisor Daleep Singh spoke about this on the Odd Lots podcast a month ago. The goal is an integrated supply chain across all three countries, and an end result of marketing the ice breaker capacity to other allies. https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/odd-lots/how-the-white-house-thinks-dk8gUGMpSs5/#1071 https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/odd-lots/how-the-white-... Transcript Notes at 00:17:51