Drone incursions in Baltic states: how to respond?
Incursions by large drones are causing concern in the three Baltic states: on Tuesday, for the first time, Nato fighter jets shot down a drone over a lake in Estonia. On Wednesday, there was an official air raid alert in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius. A row over drone strikes in Latvia in the early May even led to the collapse of the country's coalition government.
Nato territory being turned into a war zone
Die Weltwoche warns that Nato is being drawn into a hot war:
“Most of the missiles are now coming from Ukraine and heading towards Russia. Moscow claims that Kyiv is using Baltic airspace for its attacks. The accusation is that Vilnius, Riga and Tallinn are complicit, and as a result Russia has threatened to retaliate. Ukraine, for its part, claims that Russia is diverting the drones into the Baltic states by electronically jamming their flight paths. Nato and the EU agree with this interpretation. ... Let us stick to the indisputable facts – they are frightening enough: two warring parties are turning Nato territory into a war zone. And there is still no European peace initiative.”
Latvia defenceless and without a plan
Neatkarīgā criticises the fact that Latvia has no defence plan:
“The instruction to hide behind walls and stay away from windows basically amounts to: it's up to you to look after yourselves! And what if a drone gets close to Riga? What is the defence plan for such a scenario? Stay away from windows? Shouldn't our incompetent leaders finally be replaced by those who can devise a plan that clearly tells us all what to do if we spot a drone? Latvia, the 'drone superpower', has neither a drone defence wall nor a civil defence system, nor a contingency plan, nor a law permitting the shooting down of drones, nor weapons capable of doing this.”
Not enough room in the shelter
Kauno diena points out that mobile phone alerts only provide safety if people are actually able to take shelter:
“The Speaker of Parliament [Juozas Olekas] promptly declared that such alerts would give people a greater sense of security. But who exactly are 'the people' in this case? We learned that the head of state (a person) was taken to a shelter, while members of parliament (also people) were instructed to suspend their sessions and seek shelter. ... We also learned that there was nowhere near enough room for everyone. ... So the question is: in the opinion of the Speaker, did those who did not get a place in the shelter also feel safer – or do they not count as 'people'?”
Overreacting makes things worse
Delfi concludes that Estonia's response to the drone incidents has been more sensible than those of Latvia and Lithuania:
“With hindsight, it's clear that its southern neighbours overreacted. While it is true that safety comes first, their reaction brought part of normal public life to a standstill. ... Such nervousness can have more serious consequences than a certain degree of willingness to take risks. The danger posed by Ukrainian drones – if Russia were to divert them – is very real, but it shouldn't be exaggerated.”
Defence based on AI and robots not a utopia
In ERR Online, security expert Meelis Oidsalu calls for a quantum leap in defence technology for drone interception:
“Shooting down drones over populated areas and in non-restricted airspace could be more dangerous in peacetime than not intercepting them. ... A drone interception system that protects the population and essential services is not an impossible utopia and must be put in place. ... The transfer of military technology, both large-scale robotics and AI, should be managed with the same vigour as, for example, the transition to the euro. Otherwise, the reality of defence will not keep pace. We are several years behind our adversaries in terms of innovations.”