AYESHA RASCOE, HOST:
Competition for control of the Arctic is heating up. Russia and China recently carried out a joint patrol of the region - a first, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. And the U.S. might increasingly be at a disadvantage because of a shortage of ships needed to navigate the Arctic, icebreakers. Peter Rybski is a retired U.S. naval commander now living in Finland. He writes a substack called "Sixty Degrees North," focusing on national security and maritime issues. Welcome to the program.
PETER RYBSKI: Thanks. It's great to be here, Ayesha.
RASCOE: Why are countries competing for influence in the Arctic and why are icebreakers so key to that effort?
RYBSKI: Well, Ayesha, so over the past two decades or so, with the receding of the sea ice, particularly in the summer, you've had an increase in maritime traffic because the waters are open and they're open for longer. And with that, you have areas of the Arctic that are more open for oil, gas and mineral exploration and fishing, whereas, maybe 20 years ago, you didn't have so much maritime traffic off the coast of Alaska going through the Bering Strait and around the U.S. These days, traffic is markedly increased, and Russia's working hard exploring and bringing natural gas to market through the Northern Sea route and through the Arctic to the Far East.
RASCOE: Why are icebreakers, then, important? Is it because, even though the ice is receding, the waters are still pretty kind of treacherous or difficult to traverse?
RYBSKI: Yes, that's exactly it. Just because there's more open ice doesn't mean you don't have to break the ice through some of the areas or, you know, keep the ice out of the way. Sort of paradoxically, I mean, the more open ice you have, the more ships you have. And then to keep those vessels safe and to get them through some of the stickier parts, you need more icebreakers or ice-capable vessels to do it.
RASCOE: Well, let me ask you about that because the subject of icebreakers came up at a recent congressional hearing, and I gather that the U.S. Coast Guard has just two in operation. Why does the U.S. Coast Guard only have two, and how does that compare with Russia and China?
RYBSKI: That's right. At the moment, the U.S. Coast Guard has two polar-capable icebreakers. And really, for quite a long time, up until this traffic really took off, most of what the U.S. Coast Guard was doing with their icebreakers was supporting scientific research missions. And for that, two vessels was largely sufficient. But they realized that in order to patrol all this area and to ensure that the Navy - should it need to - have access to the Arctic or the Antarctic waters when they're ice-covered, they would need to have eight or nine vessels. So they started a program to do so, but it's not going so well. People often like to compare the numbers because it's quite stark. I mean, Russia has - depending on who you talk to and how you - where you draw the line on what is an icebreaker - you know, 40 to 55 ice-capable vessels that are operating. But realistically, they have a need to. I mean, they use a northern sea route to move goods between their own ports. So I don't think the numbers themselves tell the whole story. Rather, it's can we do what we need to do and ensure that the Navy has access should it need it?
RASCOE: So this summer, the U.S. did sign an agreement with Canada and Finland to increase collaboration on building icebreakers. How significant might that be, especially in terms of increasing the fleet of icebreakers?
RYBSKI: I think it could be significant, but at this stage, it's too early to tell. I know that the Finns think that they have the expertise and the ability to help us acquire vessels. But right now, the indications that I've seen is that the U.S. Coast Guard wants to build all of its icebreakers in the United States.
RASCOE: I guess, why is the U.S. industry struggling to do this?
RYBSKI: I think there are two reasons. First is that we haven't built an icebreaker in the U.S. - a heavy icebreaker - since the 1970s. And they require a lot of special metals because the hull has to be pretty strong, which requires some welding techniques that our shipyards are struggling with trying to learn. And basically, we just haven't done it in a while.
The second part is that the technology has changed. In the 1970s, icebreakers - like, their ability to break ice was determined by two things. There's the shape of their hull and how powerful their engines were. But now modern icebreakers using something called azimuth propulsion - they're just little pods that spin around. They can break ice in a different manner that requires less engine power. And so we're trying to build a modern icebreaker as well, something that hasn't been done in the United States.
RASCOE: What might be the consequences if the U.S. doesn't increase its presence in the Arctic?
RYBSKI: Well, at the rate we're headed, one of our icebreakers is, I mentioned, is over 50 years old, and it spends half of its time in drydock being repaired so it can support the mission. So if we have a casualty or a mechanical problem, we'll have no presence in the Arctic, which, from a national security standpoint, means that we can't be present to keep an eye on what Russia or China may be doing up there. And if we can't see it and we can't patrol it, then we can't control our own waters.
RASCOE: That's Peter Rybski, a retired U.S. naval commander. Thank you so much for joining us.
RYBSKI: Thank you. Thank you very much. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
