Ma ei tea kas see kvalifitseerub siis paremaks kokkuvõtteks või mitte. Kui tundub vale või eksitav info, võtan maha.1. Estonia’s Defense Posture
1. Force Structure (2023–2025 estimates)
Active Duty & Conscripts: Roughly 7,000–8,000.
Reservists: 30,000–40,000 trained reservists (though not all would be mobilized instantaneously).
Key Assets:
Modernized infantry equipment (e.g., updated small arms, anti-tank weapons like Javelins).
Limited armored capabilities (older CV90 IFVs, some artillery, no large tank fleet).
Air defense is improving, but mostly short-to-medium range systems (e.g., Mistral, potential NASAMS or similar).
Budget: Approaching 3% of GDP in recent years, reflecting a deliberate push to enhance defense readiness.
2. Mobilization & Geography
Estonia’s territory is small (~45,000 km²), so defensive depth is limited.
Mobilization speed is critical—the initial 48–72 hours would see heavy reliance on existing active units and rapid mobilization of local reservists.
3. Defensive Doctrine
Officially, Estonia prepares for a mix of territorial defense (holding key points, slowing advance) and an asymmetric/resistance phase if overrun.
Modern infantry anti-tank weaponry plus strong will to defend can impose real costs on an attacker—but only up to a point before being outmuscled by heavier assets.
References:
Estonian Defence Forces (mil.ee)
International Institute for Strategic Studies (The Military Balance annual reports)
Estonian Government Press Releases on defense spending (riigikantselei.ee)
---
2. Russia’s Military Capabilities (Post-Ukraine War Context)
1. Force Size
Despite casualties in Ukraine, Russia still has an active force of 700,000–1,000,000+ (estimates vary). A portion would be stationed in the Western Military District, potentially available for operations against the Baltic region.
2. Equipment & Losses in Ukraine
Russia lost a notable amount of modern armor (e.g., T-72/80/90 variants), but they have large Cold War–era reserves they can reactivate (T-62, T-72 older variants).
Artillery and rocket forces remain a primary advantage.
Airpower is reduced in terms of modern planes/helicopters but still significant compared to Estonia’s minimal air force.
3. Logistics & Sustainment
Geography favors Russia: it borders Estonia directly (Narva region).
Even with sanctions and war losses, Russia can muster significant firepower on short notice right across the border.
Russia’s biggest challenges in Ukraine—such as poor logistics and command issues—would still apply but might be partially mitigated in a shorter campaign across a smaller area like Estonia.
4. Morale & Readiness
Morale may be mixed after a prolonged war in Ukraine, but large-scale operations could still be launched given Russia’s capacity to mobilize forces near home territory.
References:
RAND Corporation studies on Baltic defense (2016–2019)
CSIS reports on Russian force posture
Oryx blog for equipment loss tallies (open-source)
---
3. Key Analytical Points for Timescale
1. Initial Shock
If Russia commits a sizable force (tens of thousands of troops) with armor, artillery, and air support to an all-out attack on Estonia’s eastern border, local Estonian units would need to hold the line immediately.
The question is how effectively Estonian forces (reinforced by rapid mobilization) could slow or stop a breakthrough.
2. Balance of Power
Troop Ratio: Even with partial Russian force deployment, the ratio is typically heavily in Russia’s favor. Traditional military doctrine suggests that attackers want ~3:1 superiority for offensive operations—Russia could likely achieve or exceed that.
Fire Support: Russia’s artillery, rocket systems, and air assets still vastly outnumber Estonia’s. Historically, artillery dominance heavily influences the timescale of a conflict.
3. Defensive Preparations
Estonia’s extensive training of reservists and strong civil defense mindset improves readiness. Modern anti-tank guided missiles can slow armored columns.
Urban areas (e.g., Narva, Tartu, Tallinn) can be defended with barricades, obstacles, short-range air defenses, and well-positioned infantry. This can force the attacker to proceed methodically.
4. Likely Duration of Organized Conventional Defense
Prior wargames (e.g., RAND 2016) suggested that Russian forces could reach Baltic capitals in ~60 hours if no NATO reinforcements arrived.
Since then, Estonia has increased defense spending and improved some capabilities, potentially extending the timeline. However, Russia, even after Ukraine, retains the capacity for a high-intensity push.
A more generous modern estimate might put organized conventional defense at anywhere from 2–10 days, depending on the size and coordination of the Russian attack.
Best-case (for Estonia): Russia’s logistic issues, command problems, and stiffer-than-expected resistance force a more cautious advance, extending defense to a week or slightly more.
Worst-case: A large, coordinated assault overwhelms forward positions within 2–3 days.
5. Follow-On Resistance
If main defense lines collapse, Estonia has plans for guerrilla operations, sabotage, and insurgency. This could last weeks to months, harassing supply lines and occupying forces.
However, this no longer qualifies as a conventional defense of territory. The question specifically asks how long the Army “can defend” the country, which usually implies holding territory in a conventional sense.
---
4. Conclusion: Estimation Range
Given available data and typical wargaming assumptions (no outside help, Russia focusing sufficient combat power), a realistic timescale for organized conventional defense is a few days to about a week before being overwhelmed. Guerrilla/insurgency could extend the conflict but not hold territory conventionally.
Most Likely: 2–7 days until major cities or strategic nodes fall.
Potential Insurgency: Weeks or months of irregular warfare thereafter.
---
5. Why the Estimate? (Bullet Summary for Skeptics)
Troop & Equipment Disparity: Russia retains massive numerical and material superiority, even accounting for Ukraine war losses.
Geographical Constraints: Estonia’s small size and proximity to Russia limit defense depth.
Historic Wargames: Multiple studies (RAND, NATO, local experts) consistently show a rapid overrun scenario without allied reinforcement.
Estonia’s Improvements: Enhanced readiness and modern anti-armor weapons help, but do not close the overwhelming gap in tanks, artillery, and airpower.
No NATO Factor: The scenario explicitly excludes allied support, removing the deterrent effect of large NATO forces and airpower.
Martin Herem, the Commander of the Estonian Defence Forces (EDF), has repeatedly emphasized that Estonia’s defense concept is built around rapid mobilization, layered territorial defense, and the idea of not ceding territory without a fight. Public statements over the past few years—several cited on Estonia’s national broadcaster ERR News (err.ee) and interviews reported by Postimees (postimees.ee)—highlight a plan to activate reserve brigades quickly, reinforce them with modern anti-armor and artillery systems, and use asymmetric tactics if forward lines are breached.
In a March 2022 interview with ERR (article in Estonian), Herem noted that Estonia’s initial defense would involve:
1st Infantry Brigade, composed of a mix of professional soldiers, conscripts, and rapidly mobilized reservists with modern infantry equipment (including Spike or Javelin anti-tank missiles, plus the CV90 infantry fighting vehicles).
2nd Infantry Brigade, which is smaller, partly motorized/mechanized, and also reliant on mobilized reservists.
Kaitseliit (Estonian Defence League), a volunteer organization of about 20,000+ active members (the number fluctuates; some sources, including Kaitseliit’s official site (kaitseliit.ee), put it at 25,000–26,000). They would conduct local defense, sabotage, and protect critical infrastructure.
Estonia has been procuring and receiving new equipment intended to increase defensive endurance. Public documents from the Estonian Centre for Defence Investments (kaitseinvesteeringud.ee) and official statements from the Ministry of Defence indicate:
1. Short- and Medium-Range Air Defense:
Mistral MANPADS are already in use.
Potential procurement of a medium-range system (discussions or agreements with partners like Norway/USA for NASAMS or equivalent).
2. Artillery Modernization:
A contract for K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers (South Korean origin). The first deliveries began in 2023; full operational capability expected around 2026.
Existing towed artillery (e.g., 155 mm FH-70) remains part of reserve brigades.
3. HIMARS and Other Precision Systems:
Estonia signed a deal (announced publicly in late 2022/early 2023) to acquire the M142 HIMARS from the United States. Expected deliveries start around 2024–2025, with full operational use slated for the second half of the 2020s.
This capability, with a potential range of up to 300 km using certain munitions, is designed to interdict Russian staging areas and slow any major offensive.
4. Anti-Tank Armaments:
Javelin ATGMs have been in EDF service since ~2015–2016; more units procured in subsequent years.
Carl Gustaf recoilless rifles, Spike LR, and mines are also standard in infantry units.
Estonia’s active service (professional + conscripts) is typically cited between 6,500–8,000 at any given time. The total trained reserve pool is generally acknowledged to be around 30,000–40,000, though not all would be mobilized instantly. Herem and other defense officials have stressed that:
1. Initial Defensive Operations would try to halt or stall Russian armored/mechanized advances along critical axes (e.g., near Narva in the northeast, and through southeastern regions near the Pskov border).
2. If enemy forces achieve a breakthrough, EDF units would fall back in an organized manner, using interior lines and local knowledge.
3. Estonian forces would “continue fighting even if key territories are occupied”, switching to smaller-scale units conducting raids and sabotage. Articles on ERR (err.ee) quote Herem saying that Estonians “know every forest and back road,” implying a prolonged insurgency if conventional resistance becomes untenable.
In terms of Russian losses in Ukraine, open-source tracking (e.g., Oryx or Ukrainian Ministry of Defense statements) shows thousands of destroyed or captured Russian armored vehicles. However, multiple analysts—RAND and CSIS—maintain that Russia retains large active forces and enough armored reserves in storage. Herem has publicly pointed out, in interviews covered by Postimees (2023), that one should not underestimate Russia’s capacity to mobilize men and equipment close to its western borders, despite attrition in Ukraine.
The consensus from past wargames (e.g., RAND’s 2016 “Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO’s Eastern Flank”) suggested that without NATO reinforcement, Russian forces could potentially reach Baltic capitals in under 72 hours. While Estonia’s capabilities have improved since 2016—especially in anti-armor, artillery, and advanced munitions—Herem has cautioned that the fundamental imbalance remains. He has highlighted that even with robust preparedness, Estonia’s conventional forces would likely be outnumbered and outgunned by a concentrated Russian push.
Statements from EDF and Ministry of Defence sources (see mil.ee for official force-structure outlines) generally place the defensive “best case” at several days to maybe a week of effective conventional resistance if Russia stages a full-scale attack and commits significant combat power. Herem has mentioned in multiple interviews that the EDF “aims to make any aggression as costly and drawn-out as possible,” indicating the plan isn’t to defeat Russia in open battle but to delay, degrade, and inflict losses until external assistance arrives or until the cost for the attacker becomes politically and militarily intolerable.
Public references to loss exchange ratios note that modern ATGMs can wreak havoc on advancing armor, especially in forested or urban terrain. However, Russian artillery and air power could systematically reduce major defensive positions, given enough time and coordination. Herem has remarked (ERR, 2022) that Estonia’s small size is both a disadvantage (limited strategic depth) and an advantage (shorter internal lines, easier to quickly reposition defensive units), but ultimately, the attacker’s numerical superiority poses the biggest challenge.
The Estonian defence budget was about 2.3% of GDP a decade ago, rising to around 2.6–3% by 2023–2024 (exact figures differ slightly by year; official budgets are published by the Ministry of Defence (kaitseministeerium.ee) and the State Budget Strategy). Herem and former Minister of Defence Kalle Laanet have both stated publicly that continued increases are aimed at closing critical capability gaps, especially in long-range fires, air defense, and command-and-control systems.
Official EDF planning documents (some summarized in parliamentary briefings and partial press releases) also mention that Estonia can quickly mobilize at least several brigades worth of personnel if given even minimal warning. Still, senior leadership (including Herem in a 2023 Postimees article) acknowledges that facing Russia single-handedly means the strategic goal is to “buy time” rather than “achieve outright victory”.
No single source can give an exact hour-by-hour timetable for how quickly an invasion might unfold, but the widely repeated estimate from Herem and other EDF officers is that organized conventional defense would be measured in days (roughly 2–10, depending on various factors) before giving way to a more dispersed, asymmetric fight in the worst-case scenario of no allied help. This timeframe aligns with multiple open-source wargaming results and the persistent theme in Herem’s statements: Estonia is prepared to resist immediately, but cannot alone hold off a major Russian force for an extended period, given the raw discrepancy in manpower, armor, artillery, and air support.
Igatahes tundub, et polarisatsioon tuleb sellest, et paanika või siis teatav stress on üheaegselt hea ja halb - see paneb meid paremini valmistuma – inimesed liituvad Kaitseliiduga, varuvad, valmistuvad ette ja on oluliselt suurem poliitiline surve rohkem tehnikat varuda. Teisalt, mõned võivad riigist lahkuda, ei investeerita nii usinasti, ei võeta ehk ette uusi ärisid ja pere loomist lükatakse edasi. See jällegi on nõrgestava mõjuga.
Ma nagu saan aru sellest teisest poolest ka, aga minu arust see sarjamine on nagu petlikum/hullem, et ah pole midagi..
