Estonia Needs Its Own Air Force

Finland’s Air Force’s operations outside the country’s borders are restricted — in peacetime — by national regulations according to which fighters do not — without a separate decision — fly in other states’ airspace. Now, however, Estonian politician Kalev Stoicescu has asked Finland to change its practices in this respect.

The background is that Estonia itself does not have a proper air force; the defence of its airspace is handled by fighters from other NATO countries stationed at the Ämari base. In the Baltic Sea area in particular, it may happen that Finnish fighters can react to Russian border violations more quickly than those departing from Ämari.

For Finland the problem is that we have a 1,340-kilometre border with Russia. That gives us more than enough to monitor — and, if necessary, to intercept — without expanding the area under surveillance to the south of the Gulf of Finland.

Therefore I am of the opinion that the Estonians would be better advised to consider establishing their own fighter fleet rather than asking the Finns for help. Of course that would be expensive, and the size of Estonia’s economy does not allow for funding a very large fleet, and so would not enable them, in a real crisis, to fend off the Russian Air Force on their own.

On the other hand, an Estonian squadron would not have to operate alone; it would rather complement the support the country already receives from NATO. Through this, Estonia’s defence of its airspace against intruders would also be substantially improved compared with the present.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland’s Response to Unauthorized Aircraft Entering Its Airspace
Russia’s Aging MiG Fleet vs. Finland’s Modern Air Power
Finns - Among the World’s Best

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?