The deadliest hook in the league
I wrote this originally during March '26, and finished it while on a train to Kyiv.
I hope this awakens some feelings inside of you. Good or bad.
In Europe, and in the Nordics especially, we are very fixated on the term "defence". We would rather call military technologies dual-use. We like to fund projects in hot industries, as long as they do not kill anyone.
During my first visit to Ukraine, an officer told me, "We like you Finns because for you we don't have to explain why Russia is bad."
But still, for some, we need to.
For you, please answer this: there is an adversary invading a Western country, killing its civilians, and preparing to continue beyond, and you don't want us to develop capabilities to kill them once they do?
The people who know me know I hate the word "dual-use". Dual-use is cowardice dressed as strategy. Dual-use is not a real thing. If you're a military company and you have a military product, calling it dual-use weakens the soldiers.
Focus on making our soldiers more powerful and harder to kill. Otherwise, don't do this.
And the same starts to be for "defence tech". From now on, never refer to us as a defence tech company, but as a military technology one.
Let me tell you why:
In boxing, you can have the best guarding in the sport, but if you can't make a hit, you won't win the fight.
The same goes into warfare. We are currently very fixated on developing just defence tech — with cUAS at the top. Don't get me wrong, all the respect to everyone working in the field, but it is just as important to develop the capabilities to punch as well.
Personally, I would want to be the boxer who's known for the deadliest hook in the league.
And with 100% certainty, some would call me with unflattering titles, but be it so.
We need the superior capabilities to make fighting for our adversaries a living hell. I want them to be absolutely destroyed.
And I don't see it happening with tanks, mortars, or missiles anymore.
To be fair, I don't really care what the way is to make our enemies' lives a living hell, but because I've bet on a horse in this race, I believe the way is with intelligent and autonomous systems.
I want our defence forces to be an army that can fight offensively as well. And so I want for our allies.
I would say there is a line between companies developing defence tech and companies developing warmachines, and we belong to the latter.
Now, we can get to the ethics of autonomous weapons and pacifism, but I'd rather not, for a very simple reason:
Whether we like it or not, our adversaries are doing their best to develop these capabilities.
We can talk about this as much as we want. The fact is, this is what is against us.
We, as a country, need to be taken seriously, and for defence, that means we're capable of great harm in a warfare situation.
Because a country that is not capable of great violence is not peaceful, it's harmless.
Credible deterrence is the only way peace works. For a state leader, knowing that you might lose your entire army and undermine the citizens' morale keeps us at peace.
And you can now talk against these capabilities, but I can assure you that in a situation where you've spent 3 weeks in a foxhole, where all of your friends are dead because of these weapons, you won't walk to the UN to go talk against these weapons. You won't appeal to the Geneva Conventions. You want us to have them.
If this is a hard topic for you, come visit Ukraine. I promise, by meeting the locals here, you will understand what I am talking about.
And even if you understand, I would recommend everyone to spend time in Ukraine, in Kyiv or Lviv.
Ukraine is one of the most beautiful and honest places, and the food, coffee and beer are out of this world.
One of the biggest personal motivators behind Kova is that I never want to see what Maidan Square looks like today replicated in front of the Helsinki Cathedral.
Flags and photographs of those who never made it home.
- T