David's Sling Is Proof That Europe Has Failed

Finland’s defence cooperation with Israel made headlines this weekend amid heated debate. I want to offer one more perspective. David’s Sling was the right procurement decision, and that is exactly why it proves Europe has failed.

First, the values. The war in Gaza is horrific, and the suffering of Palestinian civilians must end. Israel and Hamas must be pressured by every means that does not compromise our defence capability. This is non-negotiable. At the same time, a state’s first duty is protecting its own citizens. The two are not mutually exclusive; reconciling them is exactly what this debate is about.

Why Was David’s Sling the Right Procurement Decision?

A defining feature of Finnish defence is that the Defence Forces are built from ordinary citizens. National security does not rest on a professional army. Defending Finland is ultimately the responsibility of conscripts, reservists, and, in a crisis, the whole of society. So the key measure for defence procurement is not political symbolism, but how much security we get per euro.

Every euro spent wisely means more ammunition, spare parts, training, drones, and protection for those who defend us all. In defence, cost-efficiency is not about spending less; it is maximising security.

In public debate, David’s Sling is often compared to the American Patriot system. Patriot is unquestionably capable, but for Finland the question is not which system is best known or most expensive: it is which system delivers the required capability at the best overall cost. David’s Sling is a system worth roughly €316 million, whose interceptor missile costs, according to public comparisons, a fraction of its best-known competitors’ missiles.

The Finnish Procurement Tradition

This mindset has been a strength of Finnish defence policy for decades. Finland bought a hundred used Leopard tanks from the Netherlands for €199.9 million, a price often called close to scrap value. The same logic applied to K9 howitzers: Finland has bought used but excellent-condition units from South Korea at a fraction of the price of new ones, the latest being 112 this spring.

Finland buys capability. David’s Sling continues this same tradition.

What Does David’s Sling Reveal About Europe’s Defence Industry?

Now for the uncomfortable part. When Finland put its high-altitude air defence capability out to competitive tender, not a single European system was competitive. The best option available was found outside Europe. That is a failure of European defence industrial policy, not the Defence Forces’.

I would have much preferred Finland to buy an equivalent system from Europe, not because a European system would automatically be better, but because Europe should be able to offer competitive alternatives even in the most critical defence systems. Building such systems takes tens of billions in investment and decades of seamless cooperation between states, universities, and industry.

Dependence on difficult suppliers is a security risk, whatever the supplier. The war in Gaza makes dependence on Israeli defence technology a particularly uncomfortable fact. But the answer is not for Finland to make a worse procurement decision in the name of political symbolism. The answer is for Europe to build a defence industry that wins competitive tenders on capability, price, and delivery reliability.

Transparency Is Part of National Defence

One more word on process. The memorandum of understanding revealed by Yle is a different matter from the actual 2023 procurement decision, which is exactly why this debate deserves precision. The memorandum is most likely a key instrument for keeping David’s Sling supplied with missiles and spare parts, because buying a system binds the buyer to its supplier’s maintenance and replenishment for decades. Its substance may well be justified from a defence-capability standpoint. The problem is the manner. Commitments this significant must be long-term and agreed on a parliamentary basis, not made in secret. Secrecy erodes the very trust that national defence depends on.

To me, this is patriotism. We protect Finns with wisely spent euros while demanding better from Europe. A nuclear-armed state is waging war in Europe right now, and European countries are indirectly bound up in it. That is exactly why, next time Finland puts a critical system out to tender, the best bid should come from Europe. That is a goal worth working towards.