Close Menu
    Europa

    Perché gli Stati Uniti acquistano rompighiaccio dalla Finlandia

    Share.
    View 16 Comments

    16 commenti

    1. EditedRed on

      Let me guess, to break the ice around Greenland for the troop deployment?

    2. david_916 on

      Perhaps Trump has set his sights on the entire Arctic and not just Greenland!😱

    4. justbecauseyoumademe on

      This sale should really be blocked until the US shows it can act like a reasonable adult

    5. TheWhiteGuardian on

      Allowing this to go through now seems…ill advised given the current political climate, to put it mildly.

    6. suiluhthrown78 on

      >Following Trump’s outline announcement last autumn, the first contracts were awarded on 29 December.

      >Finland’s Rauma Marine Constructions is to build two icebreakers for the US Coast Guard at its shipyard in the Finnish port of Rauma. The first ship is due to be delivered in 2028.

      >A further four will be constructed in Louisiana, with all six using an Aker Arctic Technology diesel-electric powered design.

      >The US orders are part of an effort to catch up with the number of Russian icebreakers. Currently Russia has around 40, including eight that are nuclear powered.

      >By contrast, the US presently only has three in operation.

      >Meanwhile China operates around five polar-capable vessels. “None of them are technically icebreakers,” says Rybski, pointing to their design not meeting the strict criteria. “But they are increasing their fleet.”

      >He adds that China has increasingly been sending these “research” ships into Artic waters, external between Alaska and the far east of Russia, including areas that the US considers its “exclusive economic zone”.

      >”With limited means to respond this becomes a problem [for the US].”

      >Trump’s desire to enlarge its icebreaker fleet goes beyond the practicalities of operating in ice-clad Arctic seas, assesses Lin Mortensgaard, a researcher at the Danish Institute of International Studies. She says it is also about projecting power.

      >”No matter how many aircraft carriers you have and how much you use them to threaten states with, you cannot sail your aircraft carrier into the central Arctic Ocean,” she says.

      >”Icebreakers are really the only kind of naval vessel to signal that you are an Arctic state, with Arctic capabilities. And I think this is what much of the US discourse is about.”

      You would think that the US of all countries would have had more than 3 of these this entire time

    8. Specialist-Stuff6255 on

      so they threaten the EU and were giving them the means to do us harm? wtf kinda times are we living in?

    9. AlleKeskitason on

      I hope they have a software switch so that they can be turned into a floating bath ducks if they use them in any way that we don’t like, just like US does with F-35s I’ve heard.

    10. Boring-Rub-3570 on

      US has a state called Alaska, where they need icebreaker.

      Also, US has a number of research stations in Antarctica and they need icebreaker for Operation Deep Freeze.

    11. stvaccount on

      Seems like imminent US attack. EU sleeps. Greenland is gone!

    12. rikos969 on

      The Greenland thing is made up to cover intentions to attack Russia from land and the northern sea, In case of war escalation

    15. chipoatley on

      The deal for these icebreakers was carefully negotiated and signed during the previous administration. Let’s be glad the Orange monster didn’t cancel for that alone. It puts Canada and Finland in an agreement with the U.S. for ships that all three countries need. The Finns get ships and jobs (and revenue), the Canadians get ships they otherwise could not afford.

      Ironically, that shipyard in Finland (and not too far from St. Petersburg) was Russian-owned and was building state of the art icebreakers before the Biden Administration sanctioned it and forced the sale.

      The Americans really are desperate for icebreakers. The story says they have three, but that includes one that is stationed in the Great Lakes so it doesn’t really count as arctic-capable (or Antarctic, because they go there too. Of the other two, the one they call “heavy” is half the displacement of the Russian heavies, and it has limitations on the thickness it can handle. Also, it is so old that it and its sister ship were decommissioned years ago, but this one was recommissioned with the sister ship being cannibalized for parts to keep this one running. The second is 60% the displacement of the heavy, so it has even greater limitations. Also, it is equipped as a research vessel so it is even more restricted wrt to mission capabilities.

      And yes, the U.S. no longer has the capability to build icebreakers. This is what a country gets (partly) when it severely underfunds its coast guard for decades. The USCG is nominally part of DHS. We have seen what is going on there. It should not be surprising that as the civil service is replaced by loyalists (Project 2025) the deal may be significantly renegotiated to the detriment of the other parties. Maybe to the extent that the deal, being a “Biden deal”, may even get broken and not happen. It is not currently possible to predict what might happen.

    16. Accomplished-Type880 on

      Because we are so awesome, the envy of the world, (not this one), we are outsourcing something not because we suck at it, but because we are charitable.

    Leave A Reply