Two weeks ago, the long-standing conflict between wind farms and radars was reignited. The head of the Defense Forces Military Intelligence Center, Col. Ants Kiviselg, and the head of the Navy, Cdre. Ivo Värk, gave a joint interview to ERR journalist Vahur Lauri at the end of November. Judging by the reaction of Minister of Defense Hanno Pevkur (Reform), the interview had not been coordinated with the ministry.

The day before the interview was published, on November 27, the commander of the Defense Forces, Maj. Gen. Andrus Merilo, set the stage by commenting at the National Defense Conference on Sweden's decision to ban offshore wind farms. He noted that in Estonia, "there's still a long way to go from planning to building offshore wind farms, and the Defense Forces certainly has a say in this process. If anyone thinks, or has gotten the impression from the news, that the EDF is fully on board and enthusiastically supporting all of this, that's not entirely the case."

The EDF's remarks came as a surprise to many, as the issue had already made headlines five years ago, leading to government decisions. During the tenure of Defense Minister Hannes Hanso (SDE) in 2016, a working group was established between the state and wind energy representative organizations. This effort ultimately resulted in a government decision to acquire additional air surveillance radars for the Defense Forces with European Union funding.

Construction exclusion zones for wind farms were agreed upon and locations for offshore wind farms were later defined in the framework of the marine spatial planning process. These agreements did not remove the Defense Forces' right to impose height restrictions on wind farms built within agreed areas in the future. Thus, Maj. Gen. Merilo's comments at the National Defense Conference were not boastful.

The much-debated construction of the Aidu wind farm had been halted for a long time because the actual development significantly exceeded the approved height and the operational area of the turbine blades was far larger. Since the Defense Forces and the Ministry of Defense had previously approved the development of a wind farm in Aidu, resolving the matter became a lengthy civil court dispute. The state was not in a weak position in this dispute, even when it decided to take a step back two and a half years ago.

The terms under which the Reform Party and the Center Party government settled the dispute remain classified. The wind farm, constructed in violation of regulations, is now receiving generous renewable energy subsidies, while the developer is in no way financially compensating the Defense Forces for the damage caused to its surveillance systems.

The agreement signed on March 23, 2022, and closely guarded as classified, includes a clause prohibiting the parties from publicly criticizing each other – a rather peculiar provision that the developer soon violated.

A significant public relations misstep by the state occurred when a Reform Party politician, under criminal investigation for suspected fraud, commented on the agreement during the ETV program "AK.Nädal." Although the politician provided understandable political justifications, they also reflected the atmosphere of the time, marked by the energy crisis and Russia's full-scale aggression in Ukraine.

To attempt to put the "wind farm genie" back into the national defense bottle, Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur organized a few seminars with the Defense Forces two weeks ago. By December 2, he could already announce to ERR that air surveillance was functioning as required and that solutions were being sought for other concerns. "As far as western maritime surveillance is concerned, it is possible to resolve issues related to wind farms through compensation measures – when and if these wind farms are eventually built. Therefore, we do not need to halt wind farm projects at this time," said Pevkur.

Having been professionally involved with this topic while working at the Ministry of Defense, I have heard detailed arguments from both the Defense Forces and the developers. Overall, I tend to agree with Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur's stance. The issue has been thoroughly and painfully discussed, the Defense Forces have received additional funding for compensation measures from European Union funds, and they still have the ability to impose height restrictions on offshore wind farms located farther from sensors under current conditions. Therefore, the Defense Forces should respect the recent broad agreements on the future locations of development areas.

However, it would be wrong for future political communications to suppress the issue, distort facts or downplay the problem. The factual concerns raised by the Defense Forces are real: wind farms do impact surveillance systems. This impact has increased over time due to the significant growth in wind farm height and turbine blade operating areas. When the Defense Forces' first Kellavere radar was installed in 2001, the tallest wind turbines in Estonia were under 100 meters. The turbines at the Aidu park exceed 200 meters in height. Currently, plans are already in place for parks with nearly 300-meter mega-turbines, including offshore projects.

The Aidu wind farm remains within a construction exclusion zone agreed upon by the wind farm working group and continues to disrupt radio surveillance. This is a fact, and the classified 2022 agreement does not change it. The Defense Forces must, now and in the future, speak about these matters as they are – it is their duty to defend the requirements of national defense. No one else will do it for them, unless it happens to align with a politician's interests. Even this summer's ammunition shortage dispute would not have resulted in additional funding had it not been politically advantageous for [Reform Party head and Prime Minister] Kristen Michal.

The renewed spotlight on the wind farm issue has been compared to the summer's ammunition shortage controversy, with some suggesting that, just as the Defense Forces managed to advance their agenda by appealing to public opinion over the summer, they might now hope for similar success. This is particularly relevant given that Sweden's Defense Forces have firmly opposed wind farm development, and the plans for such projects in Estonia lack widespread support – even among certain media outlets.

There may be several reasons why the issue of offshore wind farms and radio surveillance has resurfaced. The first is political maneuvering within government agencies. Both the head of the Navy and the head of military intelligence are relatively new to their positions. In state institutions, as in other organizations, it often happens that a seasoned advisor presents unresolved longstanding issues – sometimes even those for which compromises were recently reached – with an earnest and concerned demeanor to a fresh leader. Ignoring such issues would risk the leader appearing weak or unwilling to advocate for their field. In this context, the actions of Intelligence Chief Ants Kiviselg and Navy Commander Ivo Värk were logical moves.

Another plausible reason for the renewed discussion is that, a few years ago, responsibility for maritime surveillance was transferred from the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) to the Defense Forces, along with the necessary resources. Due to the differing roles and orientations of the PPA and the EDF, the two institutions view Estonia's maritime territory through distinct lenses. Sweden's defense minister, for example, justified the decision to block offshore wind farms by pointing out that ballistic and cruise missiles launched from the sea are difficult to detect on radars that should provide early warning to Patriot air defense systems. The Defense Forces naturally take a more militarized view of maritime matters than the PPA did, and this shift in perspective was one of the intended outcomes of the reform. Furthermore, the agreement on the Aidu wind farm may have seemed overly lenient to the Defense Forces, leaving them feeling insufficiently heard.

Sweden's decision to reject wind farm development is not unprecedented. Nearly two decades ago, the United Kingdom took a similar position on wind farms. Around the same time, debates began in the United States, where the Department of Energy promised to develop technological solutions – either improvements to radar systems or wind turbine designs – by the end of the decade to alleviate such concerns. Efforts to reconcile maritime and air surveillance radars with wind farms have been ongoing in both the U.K. and the U.S. for more than a decade. However, such technological breakthroughs take time and have yet to yield significant success.

The timing of the issue's resurgence in Sweden, meanwhile, could reflect the country's traditionally pacifist stance and a prolonged neglect of its defense forces, stemming from an assumption that war was unlikely. It's possible that Sweden has hit the brakes for now but may revisit development once it adapts to what is, for them, a "new" problem, learning from the experiences and solutions of other countries. Neighboring Finland, for instance, addressed similar issues over a decade ago and even advised Estonia's wind farm working group.

As former Navy Commander Jüri Saska recently noted, Estonia is only now beginning to fully grasp that its maritime area is also part of its territory. The hesitant responses by Baltic Sea countries to incidents like the Balticconnector gas pipeline damage and repeated attacks on underwater infrastructure demonstrate that even the navies of the Baltic Sea states are only just waking up to this new reality.

From one perspective, the Defense Forces' decision to revisit the wind farm issue despite recent agreements could be seen as selfish and manipulative. On the other hand, such persistence might be interpreted as a sign of their determination and sense of duty. Raising this topic is not a comfortable task for the commander of the Defense Forces or intelligence officials. In many NATO member states, military personnel are not permitted to speak out publicly on such issues without authorization. This culture of civilian control has, in some cases, led to the stagnation of military defense capabilities in NATO countries. In this light, it is commendable that Maj. Gen. Andrus Merilo continues the straightforward approach pioneered by Gen. Martin Herem.

No matter how unpleasant it is to hear the truth on certain issues – be it an ammunition shortage or the impact of wind turbines – we must allow professionals to speak freely. This is especially important in sensitive areas such as defense, where politicians can often steer and suppress discussions by vaguely citing confidentiality.

Listening to professionals in public forums does not mean that politicians must always agree with their advice. Political intervention in state governance is a perfectly legitimate aspect of democratic rule.

--

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