Sources & Methodology¶
This page explains how CEEDefense articles are researched, what sources we use, and how we handle errors.
Source Hierarchy¶
CEEDefense operates on open-source intelligence (OSINT). All sources are publicly available. We have no access to classified or proprietary information.
Primary sources
- National defence ministries — annual reports, white papers, capability reviews, budget submissions, press releases (Polish MoN, Estonian MoD, Latvian MoD, Lithuanian MoD, Romanian MoND, Czech MoD, and equivalents)
- NATO — summit communiqués, SACEUR reports, DDA (Defence and Deterrence Agenda) documents, eFP framework publications, capability target documentation
- Official procurement records — national tender announcements, contract award notices, parliamentary defence committee proceedings
- Statistical databases — SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, NATO Defence Expenditure Statistics, World Bank defence indicators
Secondary sources — institutional
- IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies) — The Military Balance, Strategic Survey, defence technology assessments
- SIPRI — arms transfer database, military spending trends
- RAND Corporation, CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), CEPA (Center for European Policy Analysis), ICDS (International Centre for Defence and Security, Tallinn) — regional defence analysis
- Specialist media — Jane’s Defence Weekly, Breaking Defense, Defense News, Militär Aktuell, and national defence publications
Analytical Standards¶
Numerical data — figures for troop strength, defence budgets, equipment quantities, and delivery timelines are taken directly from the primary sources listed above and attributed accordingly. Where official figures diverge between sources, we note the discrepancy and explain it where possible.
Procurement status — we distinguish between announced intentions, signed contracts, funded programmes, and delivered systems. These are materially different and we treat them as such.
Uncertainty — where data is unavailable, estimated, or contested, we say so explicitly. We do not present uncertain figures as established fact.
Scope — our analysis is descriptive and structural. We explain what is procured, what capability it provides, and what strategic logic it serves. We do not advocate for specific equipment choices or defence budgets.
Update Policy¶
Defence procurement is a moving target. Articles are reviewed and updated when:
- New official data supersedes existing figures (updated budgets, contract revisions, delivery confirmations)
- A significant development materially changes the analytical picture
- A reader identifies a factual inaccuracy
Each article carries both an original publication date (date:) and a last-updated date (updated:). Both are reflected in the article schema for transparency.
Corrections¶
If you identify a factual error in any article, email desk@veilmark.org with the article title and the specific claim. We will review, correct if warranted, and note the correction at the foot of the article. We do not silently alter articles.
What CEEDefense Is Not¶
- Not a news wire — we do not cover breaking events in real time
- Not affiliated with any government, military, intelligence agency, or defence contractor
- Not a vehicle for sponsored content, paid placements, or undisclosed commercial interests
- Not producing classified or non-public intelligence
Editorial Independence¶
CEEDefense is owned and operated by Veilmark LLC with no institutional funding. Revenue, where it exists, comes from display advertising. No advertiser or third party influences editorial decisions.