There is plenty of disagreement to be found in the national security policy foundations, and precisely on questions concerning intelligence and the risk assessments they provide.
A couple of weeks ago, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky got Estonian politicians worked up with a statement that Russia might attack NATO, including the Baltic states, after its upcoming mobilization (if it happens, which is still uncertain).
In response, the head of military intelligence, Colonel Ants Kiviselg, said at a Defense Ministry press briefing on April 24: «From a rational perspective, it would certainly not make sense for the Russian Federation to open a new front somewhere else in the region. But we have seen that the Russian Federation is not always rational in its decisions and they can make strategic miscalculations».
The word «miscalculation» also appears in the laconic strategic risk assessment of the national security policy foundations.
The parasitic word «miscalculation» that has taken root in our warning lexicon corresponds in sound alone most directly in NATO and Anglo-American security discourse to the word miscalculation, which is rather a term for accidental escalation, associated with tactical-level risk management.
If Zelenskyy’s recently posed question is whether Russia might attack NATO in the near future, then Estonian intelligence has the opportunity to answer in three ways: no, yes, or I cannot say with certainty (data is lacking). Colonel Kiviselg essentially did that third option, using the word «miscalculation».
