SANDRA LAUR ⟩ We need to restore the military border guard

Estonia-Russia border. Illustrative image. — Photo: Mihkel Maripuu / Postimees. Photo: Mihkel Maripuu / Postimees

• A military border guard ensures the first line of resistance at the national border.
• The police are not prepared to counter hybrid attacks.
• A foe may see Estonia's border as NATO's and the EU's weak link in the east.

At a time when American leaders are threatening to withdraw from NATO, it is necessary to critically reassess how well the Estonia-Russia border, NATO's and the European Union's first line of defense, is protected. Weaknesses in our border security directly impact the security of the entire region, Sandra Laur, a student of international relations at King's College London (Center Party), writes.

Currently, Estonia is the only country in our region that lacks a militarized border guard force. Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania all have one. However, Estonia, along with the European Union, relies on the police to guard its 338.6 km border with Russia.

What is the difference between a police-led border guard and a militarized border guard?

Simply put, the police catch criminals, while the defense forces fight enemies. Their functions are different. The police can ensure internal order and respond to violations. However, they lack the training and equipment needed to protect the border in situations that require military readiness. While in peacetime, the police may be able to handle border security and a militarized border guard may seem unnecessary, the situation changes in the event of an armed conflict.

Several people with military backgrounds have provided an example: if a soldier is given the order, «Defend this house!», they take up position, determine firing sectors, build fortifications, and, if the enemy approaches, open fire and fight. A police officer, on the other hand, would approach the task differently. They would install surveillance cameras around the house and set up an alarm system. If an intruder broke in, the officer would rush to the scene and try to apprehend them.

This difference is critically important. The role of a military border guard force is to ensure the first line of resistance at the national border. It is necessary to gather intelligence, monitor airspace for low-altitude flights, and, in the event of a military threat, involve reservists. Additionally, strategic objects need to be protected, and the border area should be prepared for guerrilla warfare.

The Finnish Border Guard includes both professional guards and reservists.

It is crucial that military units be led by officers with appropriate military training, not by civilian specialists like police officers.

Fortunately, we do not need to reinvent the wheel—we can take inspiration from our neighbors. For instance, our northern neighbor, Finland, which shares nearly 1,300 kilometers of border with Russia, has a militarized border guard force. They have received military training and are equipped with military weaponry. The Finnish Border Guard consists of both professional guards and reservists. Their primary combat tools are not sniper rifles or machine guns (although they have those too), but explosives and mines—something the police do not have. A key task is the demolition of road and railway bridges and the mining of roads. This provides the necessary time advantage for the defense forces in the event of an external attack.

A militarized border guard force is definitely not an alternative to combat units. However, what it does ensure is an initial resistance capability that buys Estonia critical time until NATO allied forces arrive, which will largely determine the success of further defensive operations. Ukraine's experience shows that the first attacks are directed specifically at border guard units stationed at the national border.

Under the current system, if an enemy attacks us, responsibility is transferred from the police to the defense forces, based on the assumption that early warning works perfectly. The border guard leaves, and the defense forces take over. This process takes time, and things may not go according to plan.

The role of border guards in crisis situations​

Border guards play a crucial role not only in wartime but also in peacetime and crisis situations. It is enough for Russia to loosen or completely abandon its border regime, and there would be no need for direct combat.

Take Lithuania as an example. In June 2021, Lukashenko declared the border with Lithuania «open,» and by mid-August, more than 4,000 people had arrived at the border—migrants from Iraq, Syria, Africa, and other regions. This was part of a hybrid attack aimed at destabilizing EU eastern border states and forcing the EU to lift its sanctions against the Belarusian regime. Lithuania resolved the crisis with its military border guard.

The police are not prepared to counter hybrid attacks. The military, however, was able to take more decisive action. If such a scenario were to occur at the Estonian border today, would the police be ready to handle it? What would this mean for our NATO allies? Are we, with our weakness, essentially provoking an attack?

Why is Estonia's highly critical border with Russia guarded by the police instead of a militarized border guard? In fact, Estonia had a militarized border guard until the late 2000s, but in 2010, the Border Guard and the Estonian Police were merged into the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA).

This reform was part of a broader restructuring of state institutions and so-called optimization. If we examine how government agencies justified this reform, the main argument was cost savings. The security dimension was almost entirely absent from the discussion, despite the fact that Russia had already invaded Georgia in 2008.

Even as late as in 2018, when Crimea had been occupied for four years, then-president Kersti Kaljulaid's security adviser questioned the need to discuss a militarized border guard, arguing that there was no immediate military threat. Politicians who spoke in favor of a military border guard at the time were dismissed as warmongers.

The elimination of the military border guard created a gap in our national defense capability.

Some claimed that there were many other societal problems requiring funding, making the debate on this issue populist and unacceptable. I would remind them that at the time, increasing defense spending to 2.5 percent was also considered unnecessary. Today, we are discussing the need to raise defense spending to over four percent. The situation has changed drastically.

Thus, the elimination of the military border guard on the Estonia-Russia border created a gap in our national defense capability. A potential adversary may see Estonia's border as a weak link in NATO's and the EU's eastern frontier.

For example, according to a recent Danish intelligence report, if NATO does not rearm quickly enough after the war in Ukraine ends, Russia could be capable of waging a localized war against one of its neighboring countries within six months. In about two years, Russia could pose a real threat to one or more NATO countries, meaning it would be prepared for a regional war against several Baltic Sea states. In about five years, Moscow could be ready for a large-scale war in Europe without US involvement.

Churchill has warned that only constant vigilance and preparedness prevent bad things from happening and the only way to ensure that good things happen is through action. Estonia should recognize that abolishing the military border guard 15 years ago was a mistake and follow the example of its closest neighbors, whose borders are militarized.

Restoring the military border guard is not just in Estonia's interest but also in the collective defense interests of NATO and the European Union. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Our border must not be that weak link. Estonia and Europe need a combat-capable border guard!

Based on a presentation at a security conference held in the European Parliament on February 19, 2025.