The article addresses the urgent question of what Estonian citizens should do in the initial hours of a potential armed conflict, emphasizing that modern conflicts may not begin with a clear declaration of war. Instead, they might start with hybrid attacks, armed provocations, or organized violence, creating confusion regarding state leadership and decision-making during such critical moments. This lack of clarity poses a significant challenge for citizens, who may find themselves needing to act quickly without clear guidance or orders from the government.

Central to the discussion is the distinction between self-defense and resistance against authority in the face of armed aggression. The article raises critical questions regarding whether citizens should wait for instructions from the government, if they are entitled to defend themselves and others, and how self-defense might be perceived in the broader context of military engagement. Currently, Estonia's laws permit citizens to repel immediate attacks, and the constitution grants the right to resistance should no other options be available, but international law warns against civilian involvement in hostilities, complicating the citizens' legal and moral grounds for action.

Ultimately, the piece highlights the pressing need for the Estonian government to provide clear guidelines to its citizens regarding personal and collective security in the event of an armed crisis. As threats evolve, citizens must be informed not only of their rights but also of their responsibilities and the implications of their actions in such unpredictable and volatile situations.