– What can we learn from the United States and Ukraine?
Finland’s foreign trade is completely dependent on its maritime transport. Although the share of services in our foreign trade is constantly increasing, almost all of our foreign trade goods travel by sea.
However, the maritime operating environment is not stable. The COVID-19 pandemic, the closure of the Saimaa Canal, cable breaks on the seabed, shadow fleets, GNSS interference and port strikes are examples of recent crises that have affected our maritime security of supply.
Unfortunately, our competitiveness in maritime transport is constantly weakening. In 1995, Finnish maritime tonnage covered approximately 0.64 percent of the world’s maritime tonnage. About half of this was under the Finnish flag and half under the flags of other countries. Since then, Finnish tonnage has approximately halved. What can we do?
The maritime industry as an example
In Finland, we are proud of our maritime industry expertise, which has even made the world’s greatest economy, the United States, turn to us for icebreaker construction. Less has been thought about the reason why the United States’ own shipbuilding has lagged behind in its development.
The competitiveness of the United States’ maritime cluster has been driven down by the Jones Act, which states that only ships built, owned, manned and flagged in the United States may operate in water transport within the United States, in practice coastal, archipelago and inland waterway transport. The Jones Act particularly affects traffic on large islands in the United States, such as Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
Due to the Jones Act and lack of competition, the United States’ own maritime transport has deteriorated into inefficiency and cost. Goods are mainly transported within the country by trucks and trains. Shipbuilding has focused only on domestic governmental needs. An icebreaker built in the United States is three times more expensive than a foreign one. Even in war, the Jones Act has not been useful; in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, only one ship met the Jones Act criteria.
Logistics expertise plays a key role
Fortunately, Finnish security of supply expertise in logistics is first-class, as demonstrated, for example, by the closure of the Saimaa Canal. Companies using Saimaa Canal quickly transferred their transport along other routes. Similarly, the most traditional security of supply crises, i.e. port strikes, have usually been handled by alternative routings, emergency stocks, changing the mode of transport (mainly to trucks) or postponing or bringing forward delivery. Fortunately, even the completely unforeseen pandemic did not affect freight transport, but the closing of passenger traffic significantly hampered passenger shipping companies.
In Ukraine, too, maritime transport stopped in the beginning of the war, but after a few months the transports have been continuing almost throughout the war, using alternative routes (ports in other countries, ports on the Danube, road transport), attracting drivers from other countries and, above all, continuously exploring new transport options. The example of Ukraine teaches us that there is no single way to prepare for the risks posed by a naval war, but that with a variety of different measures, supply chains can at least partly be kept running even in a serious crisis situation.
Both before and during the war, Ukrainian maritime transport has operated almost exclusively under flags of convenience. A very significant factor in enabling maritime transport has been special insurance contracts, which allow shipping companies to obtain cheaper insurance for war-risk areas.
Finland’s security of supply
The security of supply of Finland’s foreign trade by sea requires logistical expertise, flexibility and alternative routes. The risks are diverse and unpredictable. We need top-class expertise for ports, shipping companies, logistics companies, factories, maritime personnel, research and development activities and administration. In a possible military crisis situation in nearby waters, contractual arrangements with shipping companies can also be considered to ensure security of supply. Finland already has experience with similar arrangements in oil transportation.
We also need competent, growing and developing companies: logistics companies, shipping companies, ports and shipbuilding, which attract young people to study and work in the sector. The example of our maritime industry shows that international competition strengthens expertise, growth and development.
To ensure our maritime security of supply, our maritime support system must be directed towards the diverse development of maritime logistics expertise, the international competitiveness of shipping companies, innovations and technical development.
The article was previously published in the online magazine for maritime professionals Centrum Balticum as a Pulloposti column in Finnish on 2 October 2025.
Tales of Talsinki 