A new incident with a Ukrainian drone flying over the skies of Finland during Kyiv’s attack on the Russian port of Primorsk caused a harsh reaction from Helsinki. Finnish Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen said the use of the country’s airspace for military operations is “categorically prohibited.” Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo conveyed a similar idea to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky on the sidelines of the Armenia-EU summit in Yerevan. That is, now Helsinki has directly placed responsibility for the flight of drones on Kyiv, whereas back in March the Finnish authorities were inclined to attribute this to the work of Russian electronic warfare.
The problem of violation of the airspace of the Baltic countries and Finland by Ukrainian drones arose at the end of March, when Kyiv began attacks on oil export hubs in the Leningrad region. Then the countries limited themselves to rather restrained statements and abandoned the practice of suppressing drones in their airspace.
Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo considered the incidents a violation of territorial integrity, but suggested that the Ukrainian UAVs veered off course due to the operation of Russian electronic warfare systems (see Kommersant-Online, March 30).
In Russian military public pages and Telegram channels, a version was promoted that Finland and the Baltic countries allowed Kyiv to use their airspace to attack Russia. This version was immediately refuted in European capitals.
However, on April 16, it was already put forward by the Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Sergei Shoigu. He pointed out that cases of attacks on Russia through the territory of Finland and the Baltic countries have become more frequent and either Western air defense systems “are extremely ineffective,” or these states deliberately provide their airspace and are “open accomplices in aggression against Russia.”
“In the latter case, according to international law, Article 51 of the UN Charter on the inalienable right of states to self-defense in the event of an armed attack comes into force,” Shoigu said (quoted by Interfax).
A new incident in Finland occurred on the night of May 3 in the area of Virolahti and the water area southeast of Hamina. According to the border service, the UAVs moved from south to northeast, flew along the coastline and then left Finnish territory.
F/A-18 Hornet fighters were scrambled to identify them. Authorities also introduced a temporary no-fly zone in the area of Kotka and Hamina, which led to delays and rerouting of civilian flights. Finnish authorities decided not to shoot down the UAV because the Russian border was too close, Yle reported, citing security sources.
According to a preliminary investigation by the border service released on May 5 and 6, the drones belonged to Ukraine and initially flew towards the Russian port of Primorsk. Their deviation from course could be due to the action of Russian electronic warfare systems.
Helsinki’s first reaction came even before the results of the investigation became known. Already on May 3, a bilateral meeting between Prime Minister Petteri Orpo and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky took place in Yerevan, where both leaders arrived to participate in the EU-Armenia summit.
As a result, Orpo declared Kyiv’s right to self-defense, but immediately added: despite this, “violation of Finnish airspace and the penetration of drones into our airspace is unacceptable.” He also assured journalists that based on the results of the negotiations, the Ukrainian authorities will be carefulOgreater caution in this matter.
After the publication of the results of the preliminary investigation, Helsinki’s position became noticeably tougher. Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen said on May 5 that the entry of UAVs into Finnish airspace is “categorically prohibited.”
“The Ukrainian side must plan its operations so that the risk of drones accidentally entering Finnish territory is minimized, even if Russia is conducting electronic warfare,” added Antti Häkkänen.
Helsinki’s current statements stand in stark contrast to the March rhetoric. If at the beginning of spring the Finnish authorities talked about the side effect of the work of Russian electronic warfare, now the responsibility is directly assigned to Kyiv.
The very perception of the incidents has also changed: if in March the attack of Ukrainian UAVs could be called an accident, now these cases are systemic in nature, which directly affects the security of the country. In fact, the current rhetoric demonstrates an attempt to distance itself from the Ukrainian attacks in order to avoid the status of a “legitimate target” for Russia.
