Finland summons Russian ambassador over suspected airspace violation: ministry
HELSINKI: Finland's foreign ministry said on Monday it had summoned the Russian ambassador over suspicions that two Russian military aircraft violated its airspace last week.
Finland, which dropped decades of military non-alignment to join NATO in 2023, following Russia's fully-fledged invasion of Ukraine, has a 1,340-kilometer (830-mile) border with Russia.
The defense ministry reported on Friday there had been a suspected airspace violation off the coast of Porvoo, around 50 kilometers (30 miles) from the capital, Helsinki.
It said an investigation into the incident was ongoing.
'The foreign ministry of Finland has today summoned the ambassador of Russia and requested an explanation regarding the suspected violation of airspace,' the ministry said in a post on X.
Moscow has repeatedly warned Finland of repercussions since it joined NATO.
Last week, Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen told AFP that Finland was 'closely monitoring and assessing Russia's activities and intentions.'
He was commenting after the New York Times published satellite images appearing to show an expansion of Russian military infrastructure near the border.
Hakkanen said in an email that Russia's moves 'to strengthen its armed forces have not come as a surprise to Finland.'
Helsinki has increased its military investments and preparedness since joining NATO.
In April, it announced it would boost defense spending to at least three percent of GDP by 2029 and reform its defense forces to tackle security threats.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Britain still has work to do on defense
The British government last week published its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review. Led by former Defence Secretary and NATO secretary general Lord Robertson, the review outlines the major geopolitical challenges facing Britain and offers 62 recommendations to make the UK and its allies more secure. The government accepted all of them. Unsurprisingly, the review identifies Russia as the most acute threat to UK security. However, it also highlights the challenges posed by China, North Korea, and Iran. While many of the findings reaffirm existing concerns, the review makes three particularly important observations and course corrections that deserve attention. First, it shows that the UK is taking seriously the military lessons from Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. After three years of near-nightly missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities, the need for robust air defense is clearer than ever. The review pledges £1 billion in new funding for homeland air and missile defense, a long-overdue investment. Another lesson from Ukraine is the critical importance of a strong defense industrial base capable of producing large quantities of munitions and artillery shells. At points during the war, Russia and Ukraine were expending more shells in a week than some European countries manufacture in an entire year. When the time came to supply Ukraine, many European nations lacked sufficient stockpiles. This was a wake-up call — especially for countries that had allowed their defense industries to atrophy. The UK is now taking steps to address this. The review commits £6 billion to build six new munitions and missile factories, including £1.5 billion for an 'always-on' production facility. This means Britain will be able to rapidly surge production in a crisis without starting from scratch. Additionally, the review commits to producing 7,000 long-range strike weapons in the near term, another recognition of evolving battlefield needs. Second, the review firmly reorientates the UK toward European security by adopting a 'NATO First' policy. This means prioritizing Britain's role in the alliance above other regional or global commitments. The timing is appropriate. Since Britain left the EU in 2019, its place in Europe has often been questioned. But following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the UK has reasserted its leadership role in European defense — both within NATO and through bilateral and multilateral cooperation. The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Luke Coffey The explicit commitment to NATO First is a welcome signal to Britain's European partners. It affirms that, even outside the EU, the UK remains a key pillar of the continent's defense architecture. Third, while NATO remains the primary focus, the UK will continue to project power globally. The review confirms plans to produce a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, developed jointly with the US and Australia under the AUKUS partnership. This capability extends Britain's reach far beyond Europe and demonstrates that, in the words of the review, 'NATO First does not mean NATO only.' The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Each of the six Gulf monarchies is mentioned by name, and the review reaffirms Britain's long-standing naval presence in Bahrain — an essential strategic foothold in the region. Despite these strengths, the review contains gaps and raises concerns, particularly around funding. Accepting all 62 recommendations is politically bold, but doing so without guaranteed funding is risky. Although the government has pledged to increase defense spending from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, this falls short of the 3–5 percent levels being discussed by NATO leaders before their summit this month in The Hague. Take, for example, the eight new attack submarines: there is no full funding commitment. The government promises new investment 'in future years,' but offers no guarantees. A so-called Defense Investment Plan will be published this year to detail how these ambitions will be financed. But for now, this ambiguity leaves observers uncertain. Why accept all recommendations if the Treasury hasn't formally agreed to pay for them? Another concern is the lack of whole-of-government coordination. Unlike the previous Conservative-led government, which conducted numerous Strategic Defence and Security Reviews, the Labour government dropped the 'security' component. Past reviews incorporated not only military planning, but also issues such as cybersecurity, border control, counterterrorism, and resilience against pandemics and disinformation. These are vital elements of national security, and omitting them risks undermining Britain's broader preparedness. The new review does warn of threats from cyberattacks, assaults on critical infrastructure, and disinformation campaigns, but these threats are often outside the remit of the armed forces to address. Unless the government embraces a cross-departmental approach and integrates other security agencies into defense planning, it risks creating dangerous blind spots. Perhaps the most glaring issue is the size of the British armed forces. If there is one lesson from Ukraine, it is that large, professional armies still matter. Britain's Army currently stands at just 74,400 soldiers. The review proposes to increase this to 76,000 after the next election, a marginal boost that will also take years to implement. This is insufficient. Moreover, a smaller conventional force shrinks the recruitment pool for the UK's elite special forces, who are typically drawn from the regular military. Despite these challenges, the review is an important first step. Its focus on NATO, industrial resilience, and lessons from Ukraine are encouraging signs that Labour is serious about restoring Britain's defense credibility. But serious work remains. Unless the government fully funds its promises, addresses the absence of cross-government security integration, and expands the armed forces in a meaningful way, the review will fall short of its ambitions. When Labour last came to power in 1997, they published a defense review in 1998 but then failed to produce another during their entire 13 years in office. This time, they should follow the Conservative model and commit to conducting reviews every few years. As this review rightly notes, the world is becoming more dangerous. It is in everyone's interest for Britain to remain a strong, credible force on the global stage. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey.
Arab News
7 hours ago
- Arab News
US citizen Joseph Tater leaves Russia after detention and psychiatric treatment, TASS says
MOSCOW: US citizen Joseph Tater, who was detained in Moscow last August and later sent for compulsory psychiatric treatment, has left Russia, the state news agency TASS said on Friday. Tater, who according to a Kremlin source last month was one of nine Americans being held in Russia that Washington wanted returned in a prisoner exchange, was sentenced to 15 days in jail last August for 'petty hooliganism' after being accused of abusing staff at a Moscow hotel, something he denied. Russian state news agencies later said he was also being investigated on a more serious charge of assaulting a police officer, which carries up to five years in prison. But on April 6 a court ordered Tater be removed from pre-trial detention, saying he was not criminally responsible for his actions after doctors diagnosed him with a mental disorder, according to state media. TASS reported on Friday that Tater had been discharged from the psychiatric clinic where he was being treated. It cited unnamed medical sources as saying that the clinic had no grounds to keep him there and had let him leave for outpatient treatment. TASS cited a law enforcement source as saying Tater's current whereabouts were unknown, but that he had left Russia.
Al Arabiya
9 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Europe can sustain Ukraine's war effort without US, German general says
Europe is capable of sustaining Ukraine's resistance against Russia, even if the United States were to decide to completely halt its military support to Kyiv, the senior military official in charge of coordinating Germany's arms supplies told Reuters. Major General Christian Freuding said NATO's European members plus Canada had already exceeded the estimated $20 billion worth of US military aid provided last year to Kyiv. They accounted for around 60 percent of the total costs borne by the Western allies, he said. 'The war against Ukraine is raging on our continent, it is also being waged against the European security order. If the political will is there, then the means will also be there to largely compensate for the American support,' Freuding said in an interview. Ukraine continues to receive weapons deliveries approved by former US President Joe Biden. It is unclear, however, whether his successor Donald Trump will sign off on any new supplies - or allow third countries to purchase US weapons for Kyiv. Asked how long the Biden-approved deliveries will sustain Kyiv, Freuding said this depended on logistical processes as well as the speed at which Ukraine burns through arms and ammunition, but that the summer seemed a realistic estimate. 'How the American government handles further requests for military support for Ukraine is unclear at the moment. We can't say anything about that,' he added. 'In general, the US has a great interest in boosting its own defense industry. I make the cautious assumption that at least purchasing US defense goods, and delivering them to Ukraine, will be possible.' Russian rearmament Addressing the potential threat that Russia might pose beyond Ukraine, Freuding said Moscow had a clear plan to reconstitute and grow its military, and was expected to succeed in efforts to double its land forces to 1.5 million by 2026. 'They are recruiting significantly more personnel than they need as replacements for the war in Ukraine. They are producing surplus stocks of ammunition, in particular, which they are 'putting on store.'' Freuding said Russia was also ramping up its military infrastructure, especially in its western military district bordering new NATO member Finland. Any ceasefire in Ukraine could allow Russia to accelerate its rearmament efforts ahead of a possible large-scale attack on NATO territory, he said. The alliance currently believes this could occur from 2029. 'Of course, a ceasefire could change the threat situation,' Freuding said. Russia denies planning to attack NATO and says it is waging a 'special military operation' in Ukraine to protect its own security against what it casts as an aggressive, hostile West. Germany has provided a total of 38 billion euros ($43 billion) in military aid to Ukraine, including funds earmarked for the coming years, making it the second largest donor after the United States, the defense ministry in Berlin says. Freuding said he was not aware of the Trump administration having endorsed any US arms deliveries to Kyiv paid for by third countries. Still, making up for certain crucial parts of US military support to Ukraine would pose significant challenges to Europe. Listing capabilities that would be hard for Europeans to replace, Freuding cited US intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) data, air defense systems like Patriot and spare parts for US weapons. 'If we are capable of replacing specific (ISR) capabilities to a sufficient extent - we need to look into this when we definitely know the Americans won't provide this data anymore.' Ukraine uses US intelligence data to help its air defense, and analysts say also for targeting.
