Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur said Monday evening after a phone conversation with U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that deliveries of ammunition for HIMARS multiple rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank systems will be delayed.
“In a situation like this, there really isn’t anything else to do than to look elsewhere. But alternatives must be found. I hope those opportunities exist,” said Kalev Stoicescu (Eesti 200), chairman of the Riigikogu’s National Defense Committee.
“This means that other sellers and other countries will be able to sell more to Estonia. Estonia has also ordered Chunmoo multiple rocket launchers from the South Korean corporation Hanwha, and this is certainly good news for them, because the importance of these systems in Estonia’s procurement plans is increasing — they are a possible alternative to HIMARS,” said Estonian security expert Meelis Oidsalu.
“Overall, I think other market players will simply gain more opportunities to sell to European countries. In the long run, the United States will certainly lose market share because of this,” Oidsalu added.
Former commander of the Estonian Defense Forces General Martin Herem also considered turning to other arms manufacturers to be reasonable.
“HIMARS is a very good weapon system — say what you will about Ukraine, it is a good system. And so far, the United States has also been a very reliable partner. But right now, I would say it’s worth looking at where alternatives can be found. Whether to speed something up with South Korea or come up with something entirely new,” Herem said.
He also pointed out the possibility of cooperating with Ukraine in acquiring armaments.
“If the Defense Forces state very concretely how far and what they want to strike, then one could also look at whether some of these effects could partly be achieved by Estonia in cooperation with Ukraine in the form of certain products — long-range drones, for example, or even missiles.”
Raimond Kaljulaid (Social Democratic Party), a member of the National Defense Committee, expressed hope that the Ministry of Defense and the Estonian Center for Defense Investment, which handle Estonia’s arms procurements, will be able to adapt to the changed situation.
“The task of the Ministry of Defense is precisely to propose what the most expedient way forward is. With a high degree of probability, when we are talking about goods purchased from the United States, these are not easily replaced, and we must also consider that we are certainly not the only U.S. allies and partners whose deliveries may be delayed. As a result, there will certainly be global demand for these alternatives beyond just us,” Kaljulaid said.
“So yes, it’s a complicated task. But that’s exactly why we have the Ministry of Defense and the Center for Defense Investment — to solve such complicated tasks. I wouldn’t turn this into a domestic political issue; I believe the minister and the ministry will try to find the best possible solution here,” he added.
Oidsalu noted that the U.S. decision could accelerate the development of Europe’s own defense industry.
“In some sense, this may even be necessary as yet another wake-up call for European countries. Lithuania, for example, has been very U.S.-centric in its military cooperation policy — I think the Baltic states also need to reassess the reliability of the United States as a supplier. In this case, it is not a matter of political reliability, but purely technical — they are not able to produce enough. The U.S. defense industrial base has not actually developed to the point where the U.S. can fight very intense and large-scale wars. That is also a problem,” Oidsalu acknowledged.
Supply disruptions could have been expected
Oidsalu and Kaljulaid said that, given the intensity of U.S. air strikes, it could have been expected that stockpile problems would arise.
“This news did not come as a complete surprise — there has in fact already been talk since the beginning of the war with Iran that the United States might not be able to produce quickly enough the ammunition it has been consuming in its operations in Iran. And of course, those who follow these processes closely understand that sooner or later this could also affect deliveries to U.S. allies and partners. So this news was not unexpected,” Kaljulaid said.
“The war with Iran and its intensity alone allowed one to assume that the U.S. would face such problems; certain ammunition stockpiles have been depleted very quickly there. And with some types of ammunition, it is even being said that the next five years may be something of a drought — that this supply crisis could be longer-lasting than is perhaps being discussed today. It also depends on how the war with Iran develops; it is not over yet — it could essentially continue,” Oidsalu said.
Oidsalu also pointed out another aspect: part of the military equipment purchased from the United States is financed by the U.S. itself, meaning care should be taken not to damage those relationships.
“The deliveries promised to Estonia are partly linked to U.S. funding through various funds, and these should still be awaited. There is no point in canceling them, because the U.S. government also supports its own arms sales. And there is also no reason to sever so-called armaments ties with the U.S. in light of this news,” he noted.
Javelins are not the problem
According to Herem, the postponement of Javelin deliveries is not a major problem, but the delay in receiving HIMARS ammunition is far more concerning.
“If it’s about Javelin ammunition, I would even dare say it’s not a big deal. We likely already have Javelin ammunition, and we also have alternative means, various anti-tank weapons,” he said. “But HIMARS ammunition is, of course, a problem. If those delays stretch beyond two years, then that’s bad. Fortunately, we have contracts with Korea, which could mitigate or even replace all of this. There is nothing pleasant about this picture — Russia is right next to us, and I think that as long as they are tied up with Ukraine, we have time. Once they are no longer tied up with Ukraine, it cannot be said that they would immediately carry out aggression, but at that point we would have to be very ready indeed.”
“That’s why I say that anything within a two-year timeframe is more or less acceptable, but if it goes beyond that, we would need to look for some kind of alternatives very quickly,” the general emphasized.
—
