Finland’s Response to Unauthorized Aircraft Entering Its Airspace

On Monday evening, the airports of the capitals of Norway and Denmark – Oslo and Kopenhagen, respectively – were temporarily closed due to drones being flown nearby. It is clear that the drones were not flown by accident, but deliberately. Therefore, it was not hobbyists, but some actor or actors who wanted to cause disturbances.

Personally, I suspect it was the same party that shortly before had flown its fighter jets into Estonian airspace and its drones into Polish airspace. That is why this incident must be taken very seriously.

* * *

Norway also announced today that Russia has violated its airspace three times during the spring and summer. Two of the aircraft that entered the airspace without authorization were fighter jets, while the third was a small transport or passenger plane, mainly operated by Aeroflot.

According to Norway’s foreign minister, “if Russia deliberately challenges the airspace of multiple countries, this is extremely serious.” This is a view worth sharing, but at the same time it should be noted that even the most temperate cat may scratch if provoked enough – and it would be highly irresponsible if the aforementioned party were to cross NATO countries’ threshold of irritation.  

* * *

Today, information was published in Finland about how the country has prepared for the appearance of unauthorized aircraft crossing the border. Such an event cannot go unnoticed, as Finnish airspace is monitored by radar around the clock, and practically all incoming flying objects near Finland’s borders are detected well in advance.

If there is a risk that a device approaching the border might enter Finnish airspace without permission, Finnish fighter jets are dispatched. As the violations of Estonian airspace have shown, this does not take long. For example, Finnish jets arrived faster than the Italian ones, which took off from Estonia itself.

If Finnish airspace is actually violated, radio contact is first attempted with the intruding aircraft, if possible. If that fails, a fighter jet flies alongside the foreign aircraft to get the pilot’s attention, for example by rocking its wings. In addition, the intruder can be warned by firing flares, which demonstrates readiness to use weapons and makes clear that the fighter is armed.

In peacetime, a manned aircraft is only fired upon if authorization is given by the national leadership. However, this does not need to be awaited if a Finnish fighter itself comes under fire, or if the intruding aircraft uses its weapons against another Finnish target. In such cases, the pilot has the right to destroy the aircraft that has crossed the border at their own discretion.

Unmanned aerial vehicles, however, are always shot down immediately if they cross into Finnish airspace. Therefore, long drone flights from across the border, such as those seen in Poland, are not possible in Finland.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Russia’s Aging MiG Fleet vs. Finland’s Modern Air Power
Responding to Russia’s Challenges Is Essential
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?

Kremlin’s Provocations Echo Pre-War Rhetoric on Ukraine

Vladimir Putin’s Russia once again tested Estonia’s air defense by sending fighter jets flying “dark” – that is, without transponders – toward Tallinn. However, the planes turned back after first Finnish and then Italian fighter jets appeared to meet them.

The details of the encounter have not been made public, so we do not know whether the mere appearance of NATO aircraft was enough to make the Russians retreat, or whether the jets had to make it clear in some way that they were serious—perhaps using some kind of signaling, or even weapons, to drive the message home.

In any case, this was the fourth such incident this year, so it cannot be dismissed as a navigational error. Rather, it was a deliberate action—and therefore a dangerous game that relies on the assumption that airspace violators will not be shot down.

* * *

The situation is, of course, extremely difficult for Estonia and for NATO’s defense as a whole. Previous airspace violations have lasted around a minute, but this time the incursion was stretched to four times that length. And as noted above, the course was set toward Tallinn.

The obvious question is whether NATO has agreed on some kind of threshold after which Russian fighters will be actively intercepted—that is, shot down, as happened recently with drones flying in Polish airspace.

Naturally, the threshold for such an action is very high, since downing aircraft would almost certainly trigger extreme military and political tension. At the same time, it is equally clear that Russian fighter jets flying dark and without permission cannot be allowed over Tallinn; they must be stopped in time, and by any means necessary if required.

* * *

It remains to be seen whether these Russian violations of Estonian airspace will continue and lengthen in the coming days and weeks—and whether they might extend into Finnish airspace as well, testing Finland’s readiness in the same way.

This possibility may be hinted at by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s claim that the Finnish government’s “façade of neutrality has fallen away,” and that a politics of retribution has “literally arisen” in our country. A similar goal also seems to be served by statements from Russia—apparently aimed at undermining Finnish unity—suggesting that Finland’s population is dissatisfied with the government, and that the absence of Russian tourists in eastern Finland has led to “population decline” and economic weakening in Southeast Finland.

According to the American think tank Institute for the Study of War (ISW), these narratives resemble the kind of rhetoric the Putin regime used to justify its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. That is why Finland’s—and NATO’s—communication toward Russia must be firm and unequivocal, making it clear that Russia has nothing to gain beyond its northwestern borders.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The War in Ukraine Came Close to Me
Did Russia Realize the Risk Was Too Great?
Did a Finnish Fighter Jet Rush to Intercept a Russian Sukhoi Yesterday?

Everyone has the right

Yesterday's sports news was about an Algerian boxer’s victory over an Italian female boxer. This became news because the Algerian was found to be a man during the 2023 Women's World Championships.

For any reasonable person, it's obviously unethical to allow a man to box against a woman—it's more akin to permitting assault rather than competitive sport. Such a thing should not be allowed under any circumstances.

Yesterday, the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which had allowed the Algerian to compete against women, also commented on the matter. According to the IOC, "all athletes participating in the boxing tournament of the Olympic Games Paris 2024 comply with the competition’s eligibility and entry regulations, as well as all applicable medical regulations set by the Paris 2024 Boxing Unit."

Up to this point, this sounds good, but then comes the bombshell: the IOC's message continues, "as with previous Olympic boxing competitions, the gender and age of the athletes are based on their passport." Yes—dear readers—you read that correctly, the Algerian's presumed gender is based on passport information.

On the other hand, the text later mentions that according to protocols available on the International Boxing Association’s (IBA) website, "this decision"—that is, the Algerian’s suspension—"was initially taken solely by the IBA Secretary General and CEO. The IBA Board only ratified it afterwards and only subsequently requested that a procedure to follow in similar cases in the future be established and reflected in the IBA Regulations. The minutes also say that the IBA should 'establish a clear procedure on gender testing.'"

In other words, the IOC emphasized that its own decision to allow the Algerian to compete in the women's category was not based on proper gender testing. Instead, it was based solely on the suspicion that the Algerian's suspension from the World Championships was without substantial grounds.

Therefore, it is at least ironic to read—still from the same statement—that the IOC "the IOC is committed to protecting the human rights of all athletes participating in the Olympic Games as per the Olympic Charter, the IOC Code of Ethics and the IOC Strategic Framework on Human Rights. The IOC is saddened by the abuse that the two athletes are currently receiving."

Based on this statement, the IOC seems—quite seriously—to consider it appropriate to allow the beating of women by an individual—possibly a man—whose gender is under serious suspicion. And to defer the investigation to some future time, by which point this individual—possibly a man—may have already assaulted up to five women with the support and consent of the IOC.

Finally, it must be said that as a result of the analysis I’ve written above, the woke-sounding opening sentence of the international statement seems downright grotesque and sexist. It states that "every person has the right to practise sport without discrimination."

I wonder what the Italian woman beaten by the Algerian thinks about this—and especially about her own rights?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Mistreatment of Women at the Olympics?
Women full of testosterone
"Woke" pushes American science academies to favor women in their membership selections