The U.S. strikes on Iran, which began in early March, have significantly depleted stockpiles, holding up deliveries of weapons systems and ammo procured by European states, Estonia among them. In the latter case, this mainly affects M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) ammunition, some of which was due to arrive in-country this year.
On the home front, an agreement was signed to establish an ammunition plant in Kiviõli, Ida-Viru County, scheduled to go online by early 2028, and to be built by a Turkish firm.
The U.S. Secretary of War said yesterday that we can no longer expect to receive ammunition under the original plan. We will get it once the war in Iran is over. But no one knows when that will be. This means that we have purchased very expensive HIMARS equipment, worth billions, but which in principle we cannot do much with.
Fortunately, the HIMARS systems and our long-range strike capabilities as a whole do not cost a billion, but it is still a very large sum in any case — hundreds of millions if we are talking about everything, including the ammunition.
On the one hand, we must understand that the U.S. is currently involved in a conflict and is trying to stock itself and ensure that it is prepared if this war lasts longer. On the other, it is not in their interests to damage allied ties nor to lose confidence in their defense industry such that no one would buy from them in the future.
And this is actually a ray of hope for us. Then there’s the midterm elections — Americans want to wrap up this war as quickly as possible and restore all deliveries, not only to Estonia but to all allies. This decision affects all allies, not only Estonia.
What can be fired using them if the original HIMARS weaponry cannot be obtained? What missile is put into it, and does anyone make anything similar?
Naturally they do. The other system that we are bringing to Estonia and for which the contract has already been signed — the [South Korean] Hanwha multiple rocket launcher Chunmoo system — is very similar to HIMARS. Technically speaking, there is nothing complicated about this: it is a launcher into which a projectile of a certain caliber is inserted. If we are talking about the GMLRS system, that involves a package of six rockets, and in the case of ATACMS, which has a [longer] range of 300 kilometers, one missile is loaded. [Alternatives to] these systems do in fact exist, with the prerequisite that both Lockheed Martin and the U.S. government grant permission. Naturally, we are not looking only at the HIMARS system, but are searching for other alternatives too. Our goal is to influence the enemy from as far away as is possible and, when acquiring systems, to ensure that we really have them available.
The other piece of news that came yesterday, and which is not good either, was what Zelenskyy said: That Russia will likely use men drafted during the mobilization to strike at the Baltic states. And more than that — the Baltic states are supposedly very weak and easy to attack. Why is Zelenskyy talking in this way? This has angered Estonian politicians, while the public is beginning to doubt Zelenskyy. Why is he saying this? It may not be very beneficial for him.
Yes. I think all allies pay attention to what is said about them. Our messages to our allies in Ukraine will be very concrete. I am going there myself, and my conversation with the defense minister and other senior state officials will be quite direct. Such statements do not have a positive effect on boosting our aid or support. In the end, Estonia and the other Baltic states are NATO members. If one is attacked, all of NATO is under attack, and the Baltics cannot be separated from that whole.
How right was he when he said Russia will try to attack the Baltic states in the near future?
There has always been speculation of this kind. At the end of the day, our task is to deter Russia together, and send the message that any such attempt would prove disastrous for them.
On the other hand, we ourselves must do the maximum to ensure that our defense capabilities are strong. It is clear that there is a difference in numbers — so we must be smarter, more capable, have a longer reach, and be more mobile than our opponents.
These messages will not help our deterrence very much — not getting the HIMARS systems and what Zelenskyy has said. What will help with the message of deterrence, however, is that today we signed a major contract to make a €300-million investment in developing Estonia’s own ammunition production. Ammunition production will begin here, including 155 mm shells, 122 mm rockets, and so on. This is certainly an extremely important message for strengthening our own defense capability.
The investment is a little over €300 million. When will it be completed? How quickly do such things actually happen? We cannot spend decades building this factory.
No, it will not take decades. The actual construction period will probably be about a year and a half. Of course, the paperwork also needs to be done. First, the company must get all the necessary permits. Second, we have agreed with the Ministry of Economic Affairs that a separate individual will be hired at the Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority (TTJA) to review defense industry projects. Third, we ourselves must make an effort to ensure that all the infrastructure components — electricity connections, roads, communications, and water — are in place, so that the investor can begin construction as quickly as possible.
When might the first shell roll off the lines at the Kiviõli plant?
The contract states that this could happen at the beginning of 2028. I personally hope that it could happen at the end of 2027. As I said, to achieve that we must make a joint effort both on the side of the State Center for Defense Investment (RKIK) and on the side of the company.
Is this a rational place to build? It is right next to the Russian border. Isn’t Kiviõli too close?
Estonia as a whole is so small. If we look at Ukraine, where Russia attacks targets in western Ukraine with ballistic and cruise missiles, it is clear that within Estonia there is not much difference where the factory may be located. More important is whether the logistics possibilities and energy connections are in place. This is an old quarry area, so from the point of view of environmental impact, it is entirely rational to build the factory there.
Who will it be producing for? This is an international product, but is Estonia the primary buyer?
First of all, we have already concluded many ammunition contracts, and this was one of the conditions of the tender, so that we would not lock ourselves in. We will buy the best quality at the best market price. If we can get it from Estonia, then we will buy it from Estonia. We have the right, but not the obligation, to buy from there.
Will the U.S., which has proved to be an unreliable partner — unfortunately, we have to admit that — have to pay any penalty for failing to deliver the weapons here at the agreed time?
A penalty will not help us move forward. What we are discussing with the Americans is how to restore deliveries as quickly as possible, how to find alternative ways to cover this gap, and whether it might be possible to get, for example, more missiles in compensation for the delay. All these negotiations are still in the future.
So will it have to pay a penalty or not?
According to the contract, there is no obligation to pay a penalty; rather, there is the right to seek additional options.
—
