Why was is decided to shoot down the drone this time?

Every case is different. In this instance, we assessed several factors, as we always do: how dangerous it was to populated areas, what response options were available, and based on the combined assessment of those factors, the decision was made to shoot it down.

It was fortunate that a Romanian pilot happened to be in the area. If the Romanians had not been on a training flight, who would have taken the drone down?

In that case, the Portuguese fighter jets would have done it. The Portuguese fighters stationed at Ämari were on the same level of readiness as the Romanians, but the Romanians were already airborne. (The Romanian F-16 jets are based at the Šiauliai airbase in Lithuania — ed.)

And the drone would have flown farther inland.

There certainly would have been a difference of a few minutes. But the key issue was that when the decision was made to bring the drone down, the assumption was that any potential collateral damage would be minimal or nonexistent. Fortunately, there was essentially no damage this time — only a small patch of forest was slightly affected.

Whether it was 50 meters or somewhat farther from the nearest residential building where the drone came down, it still posed a certain danger. Until now, it has been said that no danger should be created on the ground. Why was such a decision made this time? How did you know it was safe?

The danger is that our neighbor is Russia and Russia continues to wage war against Ukraine while Ukraine defends itself. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that Russia is using increasingly powerful electronic warfare capabilities to interfere with these drones. Even when the drones are flying deep inside Russian territory, if they are disrupted from a considerable distance and even a slight deviation of a few degrees is introduced into their flight path, they may end up in Latvian, Estonian or Finnish airspace. Whether they are shot down or not depends on the threat assessment in each individual case and above all on the potential risk to Estonian territory and the Estonian people.

Was the drone carrying explosives?

That is currently being determined by the investigation. The Internal Security Service has opened proceedings and is leading the investigation. Looking at the crash site, every drone carries fuel, so regardless of whether it had a warhead or not, it is always dangerous on the ground.

How far from residents did the drone actually come down?

According to the police report I received, it was hundreds of meters away, in a wooded area. No one has gone over the site with a ruler, so to speak. But regardless of whether it was 500, 200 or 50 meters away, the reality is that when a drone is shot down from an altitude of 300 meters, it is impossible to determine its exact crash site from above. So there will always be risks on the ground.

What exactly does the cooperation with the Ukrainians involve? Was this a later apology to the Estonian public or did you receive advance notification from Ukraine that the drone was headed toward Estonia?

Naturally, we do not comment on the channels through which intelligence is exchanged. What we can say is that my communication with the Ukrainian defense minister, as well as the communication between Chairman of Ukraine's Security Committee Rustem Umerov and Estonian institutions, was immediate. They have indeed apologized, but they have also reaffirmed that they are doing everything on their part to ensure that these drones do not enter NATO airspace.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!