Europe's security situation and Russian aggression (Part 4)

Ukraine’s own ballistic missile has been used in combat.

Ukraine has achieved a breakthrough in its domestic missile program. A new Ukrainian ballistic missile has completed a combat test, striking a Russian command post nearly 300 kilometers from the launch site, military analyst and director of the Center for Army, Conversion, and Disarmament Studies Valentyn Badrak revealed.

The missile has now entered serial production.

The missile’s development began in May 2022, with a successful test already conducted in the summer of 2024. According to Badrak, the system is now entering serial production, Badrak stated in a recent interview with Ukrainian news outlet Ukrinform on June 10.

The missile is larger than ATACMS, which the United States withheld for 3 years at the beginning of the war. Now they are no longer needed.

“This missile is clearly bigger than the ATACMS we currently have,” Badrak noted, referring to the American-made Army Tactical Missile System. “And most importantly—it has learned how to strike with precision.”

The current 300km range is being developed further, up to 500km.

“Under international agreements, 300 kilometers is the limit for export, but for domestic use, it should be extended to 500 kilometers,” he said. “Maybe they haven’t achieved that yet—but they will.”

maxresdefault

62 Likes

For a long time, news where Ukraine has recaptured territory. :ukraine:

Quote: "Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi gave a report on the situation on the front and our active operations. Special and significant attention was paid to the Pokrovsk front and our Sumy Oblast – the border districts of our Sumy Oblast. We are managing to drive Russian forces out of there. I thank all our units who are truly delivering results.

Based on the past few days, special gratitude goes to the soldiers of the 225th Separate Assault Regiment – namely for their offensive actions in the border area of Sumy Oblast and for the liberation, in particular, of Andriivka."

46 Likes

A Russian Air Force Su-25 pilot accidentally shot down his wingman with unguided rockets over Donetsk Oblast earlier today. Video Source X (twitter)

50 Likes

Ukrainian saboteurs caused a power outage in Kaliningrad.

23 Likes

Shahed drone production facility destroyed in Iran
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1934192223723143238

The same factory located in Russia also hit
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1934185544864465134

61 Likes

In the current situation, the lifting of senseless virtue signaling, i.e., the mine ban, is progressing.

The Parliament has decided that Finland will withdraw from the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty. In the future, the use of anti-personnel mines will be allowed for the Finnish Defence Forces.

Members of Parliament cast 157 votes in favor of withdrawing from the treaty. 18 representatives voted in favor of remaining in the treaty. No one cast a blank vote. 24 Members of Parliament were absent from the vote.

Nothing surprising in the news itself, more interesting are those who could not vote in favor of withdrawing from the treaty, due to the Social Democrats’ group decision:

MP Johan Kvarnström (SDP) had stated beforehand that he would not vote in favor of withdrawing from the treaty.

He was absent from the vote, as were representatives Elisa Gebhard, Timo Harakka, Kimmo Kiljunen, Krista Kiuru, Suna Kymäläinen, Anna-Kristiina Mikkonen, Eemeli Peltonen and Ville Skinnari.

Since Kiljunen is already known in public as a corrupt figure, attention turns to the other Social Democrats. Why do they want to be in the same camp? What kompromat do they have in their closet?

Perhaps a bit unfair, but I can’t directly think of any reason why anyone on Finland’s side today would want to belong to the same reference group as Kiljunen. The time of old Eastern mummies is over.

45 Likes

Spain Wants to Stay Outside NATO’s Five Percent Defense Spending Target | News in brief | Yle

2.1 percent would be enough, says Spain

Spain estimates it needs 2.1 percent of its GDP to meet its military’s estimated investment needs, Sanchez says.

NATO leaders will meet on Wednesday in The Hague. The meeting has been overshadowed by threats from U.S. President Donald Trump that all member states must raise their defense spending to five percent of their gross domestic product if they want to remain members of the military alliance.

According to the Financial Times, NATO is shortening its summit from three days to 2.5 hours so that Trump doesn’t get bored there.

1 Like

Isn’t that 5% anyway a completely utopian goal? Trump proposed it to get more market for the defense industry. One must arm against Russia, but clinging to such a high percentage figure can backfire. Spain, Italy, and other populist parties do not want to go along with this, and their economies are in a mess anyway. Finland cannot maintain five percent figures by any means either. That is a war economy figure.

And before someone accuses me of being a Putin troll, I clarify that free-riding must stop, and defense must be properly invested in. However, the level must be realistic and suitable for the situations of each country. In Southern Europe, there are political challenges to reach even two percent. If major countries leave the front, it plays directly into the dictators’ hands. The front must be united and strong. A fragmented Europe is what Putin hopes for.

33 Likes

At this point, it is time to show strength to Putin and China. When we make the 5% target clear and even begin to strive towards achieving this goal, even dictators will be able to calculate the massive sum they cannot match. This was also done to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The communists were unable to respond to the arms race, and the people even started running out of cabbage soup.

If, hopefully when, the time for a new détente comes, we can descend from this 5% target to peacetime conditions in exactly the same way. The most important thing now would be a strong message and its corresponding implementation as a demonstration to enemies. Unfortunately, for example, Spain’s socialist government does not want to undertake this, largely for ideological reasons. Even in Finland, politicians of the same persuasion do not want to go along with this. History repeats itself in this respect.

19 Likes

That’s probably how it is. Risks abound from both directions. A Trumpian tactic, where an extreme demand is first presented and then criticized, can cause some to drop out. A common strategy of 5% until Russia loses would be excellent if everyone committed to it. And if even a percentage point of that (at least) were sent directly to Ukraine as material support, even better.

Edit: an addition that has been repeated here several times. In Southern European countries, Ukraine or the Russian threat is certainly not as “close to the heart” as it is here. It doesn’t unite the people, and pouring money elsewhere when there are many domestic problems is not popular. For this reason, threats of leaving NATO, etc., may not necessarily interest the public. According to Wikipedia, Spain’s defense spending is 0.85% (data is very old). Increasing it to 2.1% would itself be a very significant addition.

8 Likes

Sweden sets an example
Parliament approved defense spending in line with NATO’s target | HS.fi

On Thursday, the Swedish Parliament unanimously approved increasing defense spending to five percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

58 Likes

The United States’ own share is something like 3.5%

Finland has 2.4% PLUS the costs of conscription to society, PLUS Finland does not include the Border Guard in this budget, even though our Border Guard is 100% combat-ready. Even more so. Have you seen a 20-year-old Border Guard conscript? How on earth can you get moose genes into a human?

Finland is already at 3% in real life and will soon rise.

18 Likes

Luckily, we got the mines again. It makes defense easier.
Sincerely, Sissi

39 Likes

Of that, 1.5% is pretty much freely selectable infrastructure projects, which can cover the construction and improvement of civil defense shelters, roads, railways, and ports.

6 Likes

Instead of mere percentages, one should examine what capabilities the state brings to the common table with its defense spending. If we exaggerate to the point of absurdity, which would be more beneficial for defense: 300,000 equipped soldiers or a few cruise missiles equipped with diamond tips and 5 men to launch them. Both can consume 3% of GDP.

8 Likes

According to Chat-GPT, conscript service costs the state approximately 300-400 million euros annually. Relative to GDP, it is approximately 0.10 - 0.13% of GDP. With the current model, including conscript service as part of defense spending (which I think would be a sensible thing to do) does not significantly increase its share of GDP, as conscript service accounts for only about 5-7% of the 6.2 billion euro defense budget.

kuva

kuva

If we genuinely want conscript service to increase Finland’s GDP percentage, there’s a simple way to do it. Let’s raise that 6.1 euro daily allowance to the level of an actual salary. Pay 100€/day and double for Sundays.

kuva

Source: https://intti.fi/paivaraha-ja-varusraha

In this case, the calculation changes, and I asked Wikipedia for a little help: In 2023, approximately 4,138,000 military service days were completed in Finland. If 100€ is paid for each, the price tag is approximately 414 million euros. This doubles the military service budget and raises the percentage of GDP from 0.13% to 0.26%.

kuva

This alone would not raise Finland’s defense budget to the 5% level, but I would imagine it would have strong public support, and I would assume that the income would largely remain in the country, either to be spent or, for the more prudent, to cover study costs after military service. Additionally, this income could even be taxed. The current daily allowance is tax-free income.

Well, perhaps this isn’t possible in today’s world, when people are being laid off, the unemployed are being pressured, and change negotiations are taking place in social and health care regions. Some of the population is experiencing significant income losses and unemployment, even though they want to work, so raising conscripts’ allowances might be a politically difficult issue.

But other things can be done. There is a lot of unemployment in Finland, especially in Eastern Finland. What if Finland started developing the defense line of the Eastern border, for example, by building fortifications and other artificial obstacles to advancement, and offered jobs to the unemployed in the Finnish Defence Forces uniform for the next 5 years? If nothing else, then perhaps as a construction site assistant, a driver, a commander’s assistant, or other relatively quickly learnable tasks under expert supervision. Not a perfect solution for everything, but it could be part of a social solution to unemployment and to instill self-belief and faith in the country’s future in people.

I remember when I was 18, putting on the uniform for the first time at the barracks; it instinctively straightened my back, and when I looked at my bunkmates, behind the late-teen jokes and banter, I saw camaraderie and pride in a common cause. It’s not impossible later in life either, as many have already gained life experience. At that point, such camaraderie is already deeply appreciated.

Let’s appreciate each other, whether we are in uniform or not. Happy Midsummer to everyone!

27 Likes

A clarification is that the majority of the costs for the Border Guard’s military defense are indeed paid by the Defence Forces. For example, all of the Border Guard’s military equipment is material of the Defence Forces. The training of conscripts is funded by the Defence Forces, etc. Of course, some tasks funded by the Border Guard’s own budget, such as border security, are closely related to military defense, so it can at least be mentioned in this equation. However, in terms of costs, that portion is probably not significant in this context.

1 Like

A brief comment on this: the true cost of military service to the economy is greater than what a direct calculation of money transfers yields. There is at least one theoretical article on this, which is linked below. The article estimates that the true cost could be up to 3% of GDP through opportunity costs, but smaller in Finland’s case. However, we are probably talking about >1% rather than what you calculated. I think it would be good to keep this in mind when considering Finland’s true defense spending. Taking into account that NATO’s 5% target was divided into 3.5% for military spending and 1.5% for civil defense. Finland might already be fulfilling this obligation when all these expenses are considered.

A warning about the article: Poutvaara’s articles on the subject were written at a different time, when it was naively thought that a total war like in Ukraine would no longer be seen, so most of them would recommend a professional army for Finland as well. I don’t know if Poutvaara still holds the same opinion.

13 Likes

Into this calculation, one could also factor in what it costs society that young people are typically out of working life / studies for about a year. The cost probably at least doubles.

13 Likes

I strongly agree with that comment. Simply increasing spending will not create much else than exacerbate Europe’s economic problems. This discussion unpleasantly reminds me of the COVID recovery package. Yes, it was necessary and even essential, but when public money starts being recklessly wasted under some headline, that money also starts burning on many trivial things.

In defense, Europe does not need to panic. Pulling itself together is enough. That too will significantly increase spending, but returning to the COVID example, there’s no need to frantically chase every mask scammer’s offer with a wad of cash.

20 Likes