When discussing the strengthening of Estonia's defense capability in the face of the looming Russian threat, the focus is primarily on combat capabilities and "munitions," which has become a new buzzword. Emphasis is placed on the need to reinforce the Defense Forces and the Defense League. Far less attention is given to civilian capacity and the readiness of ordinary citizens to resist an enemy.

Ignoring the Constitution

Article 54 of the Estonian Constitution states that every Estonian citizen has the right to engage in spontaneous resistance against the violent overthrow of the constitutional order. This includes armed resistance. The very goal of any potential aggression against us is precisely the violent overthrow of the constitutional order — that is, the destruction of the state.

It is an old truth that one of the best defenders of democracy and statehood is an armed populace. This is also one of the most effective means of deterring an enemy. If an aggressor knows that a bullet could come from any house, apartment or street corner, their eagerness to attack is significantly reduced. There is a reason why every occupying power has always made disarming civilians one of its first orders of business. Unfortunately, Estonia is in a poor state when it comes to arming its people.

Overregulated weapons law

Many people are well aware of the bureaucratic ordeal involved in obtaining a firearms license, and many give up on the process for that reason alone. Moreover, it seems that with each passing year, these regulations become stricter rather than more lenient.

It was, of course, the right decision to revoke firearm licenses from citizens of third countries — namely, Russia and Belarus — but it is incomprehensible why obtaining a firearm license has been made so difficult for Estonian citizens, most of whom are patriots. As a result, Estonia has only five legally owned firearms per 100 residents, amounting to approximately 25,000 firearm licenses, whereas neighboring Finland has 32 registered firearms per 100 residents. Finland has 460,000 firearm licenses and 1.5 million registered firearms.

Supporters of strict gun laws argue that Estonia has the Defense League and that anyone with an interest in firearms should simply join. But not everyone is eligible — some are too young, some too old and others may have health conditions that disqualify them. Yet the will to defend remains.

Instead of tightening gun laws, Estonia should launch a national program to arm its citizens. This initiative could start at the local government level. Every county should have a shooting range where citizens can practice under the supervision of experienced instructors. And if there are compelling reasons why some individuals cannot be granted a personal firearm license, an alternative could be to establish armories under the aegis of the Defense League, where weapons would be stored and made accessible in case of an emergency. Gathering points and specific operational tasks should also be carefully planned in advance.

Who fears their own people?

The war in Ukraine offers an important lesson. The defense of Kyiv was largely successful because automatic rifles were distributed to the population. Granted, not everyone knew how to handle them properly.

A classic example of a strong civilian gun culture is Switzerland. Nearly half of its 8.8 million people have firearms at home. Notably, gun-related crime in the country remains very low. Switzerland's gun culture is long-standing, and some historians believe it was one of the reasons the country managed to maintain its neutrality during World War II.

Overregulated gun laws in Estonia lead to only one conclusion — the authorities are afraid of their own people. If that is the case, why should anyone assume that the people will rush to defend the government in times of crisis? Defending the state is one thing, but with what?

Unfortunately, the state has also failed in one of the most basic aspects of civilian protection — shelters. Only 16 percent of the population has access to designated shelter spaces, and these are not true bomb shelters but rather temporary refuge areas in the underground parking garages of shopping centers. In contrast, Finland has 50,000 real bomb shelters, capable of housing 4.8 million people — out of a total population of 5.6 million.

So, while installing emergency sirens is certainly a necessary initiative, what good are sirens if people have nowhere to take cover?

--

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