Tensions in the Baltic

SolarWind

Active Member
How legitimate are these concerns and how will various parties react, in your opinion? Will Russia try something in the Baltic?
It's hard to speculate about future events, but one of Russia's popular historic views is that the Baltic countries have not been independent countries except for brief periods after Russian Empire collapse in 1917, which is technically true from what I can gather. The Baltic provinces were gained by Russia's Peter the Great from Sweden during the Great Northern War of 1700-1721, and provided Russia with access to the Baltic Sea. This is where St. Petersburg was build.

Officially, however, Putin seems to have played down ideas about the "Russian World" and the taking back of Russian lands, that seem to have interested certain circles including some hard-liners close to power. This was probably the result of Western sanctions. Future developments will probably depend on how successful Russia is at "import-replacement" for critical technology components used in their weapon systems, as well as how well the shift from the West to their new trading partners goes.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
How legitimate are these concerns and how will various parties react, in your opinion? Will Russia try something in the Baltic?
in the last 2 months the skandinavian proposed new defence co-operation bloc has grown with other countries seeking to be involved

this is separate to NATO and the existing Skandi structure

Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland have had Lithuanua, Latvia, Poland wanting to participate in talks.

The nature of the bloc has also changed where countries like Sweden have started to emphasise military co-operation. The Swedes have increased the discussion points on this since their attempt to surface a mystery lurker a few months back

I get fortnightly updates and every fortnight there are additional discussions or complaints about Russian breaches of territory or Russian restrictions emplaced on what were previous harmonious discussions
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
In my opinion Russia is not interested in retaking the Baltic States, if there are problems with Russian people within the Baltic Region it will probably be of their own making rather than interference from Russia itself. Treat minorities properly and they won't bite back, treat them poorly and whatever happens is your own fault.

You also have to remember many Russians have been in the Baltic's since the 1700's, this is their home, they don't have anywhere else to go.
 

CheeZe

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
You also have to remember many Russians have been in the Baltic's since the 1700's, this is their home, they don't have anywhere else to go.
Yet isn't that enough excuse for a Russian version of Lebensraum? The sort used to justify the annexation of the Crimea and the "We're not sending aid in white trucks which you can't inspect" attitude from Putin? A similar argument to Imperial Russia sticking its nose into the Austrian argument with the Serbs prior to WW 1? Defense of the Slavic people and all that. If anything, I would call that all the more reason to worry if I were Estonia.

Treat minorities properly and they won't bite back, treat them poorly and whatever happens is your own fault.
If we are to use that logic, I fail to see how Ukraine treated its Russian-speaking population in the Crimea poorly to the point where Russia special forces were required to "solve" the problem.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Treat minorities properly and they won't bite back, treat them poorly and whatever happens is your own fault.
Thats an absolute canard of an argument when it comes to this situation. In fact the Skandinavians have gone out of their way to accomodate the russians - even to the point of being mute when the russians started breaching norwegian, danish and swedish air and sea space. The finns have had their borders breached as well. Over 48 breaches of skandinavian air space in the last 2 years - double the ratio of the preceding 8 years added together.

all the russian breaches of skandinavia and baltic air space have been via military assests - the amount of skandinavian and baltic breaches on russian territory can be counted on in the number of ears that sit on a typical head.

the very reason why the baltics are coming together is that they fear that the russians will exercise a ukrainian solution on their own territories and try to recreate a proxy warsaw pact border comprised of "marginilised minorities" seeking secession when they don't have a minorities problem in the first place. the russians created a problem in estonia in 2010 and everyone in the region knows it.

It doesn't matter whether russians feel that they own some of the Baltics by proxy - the fact is they don't unless they want to start converting finlandization into the crimean model and start bleeding in more pseudo conflicts based on the pretext of protecting people with a russian heritage despite them being baltics by birth

The polish-lithuanian commonwealth under catherine the great is hardly the basis of continued emotional claim no matter how much they might want to rewrite history
 

swerve

Super Moderator
In my opinion Russia is not interested in retaking the Baltic States, if there are problems with Russian people within the Baltic Region it will probably be of their own making rather than interference from Russia itself. Treat minorities properly and they won't bite back, treat them poorly and whatever happens is your own fault.

You also have to remember many Russians have been in the Baltic's since the 1700's, this is their home, they don't have anywhere else to go.
Ah yes, like the occupation of 1940, after they'd done everything demanded of them in 1939, was their own fault, as were the mass deportations & settlement of Russians which account for most of the Russian populations of the Baltic states.

Yes, there were Russian minorities pre-war, but despite 200 years of Tsarist rule, they were comparatively small.
Estonia - 8.2%, half of them living in border districts which became part of Russia in 1945
Latvia - 10.6%.
Lithuania - 2.5%.

1989 - just before independence
Estonia - 30.3%
Latvia - 34%.
Lithuania - 9.4%
But they've been there since the 1700s, it's their home & they have nowhere else to go!

Ida-Viru county, which includes Narva, voted to be part of independent Estonia in 1917. Fair enough, since it was mostly Estonian. It then included Ivangorod, now in Russia. Without Ivangorod, it's now over 70% Russian. Narva has half the total population & most of the Russians . Didn't happen by accident. The population of Narva was forced out or fled the fighting in 1944, & wasn't allowed to return. Almost all that was left of the town was demolished, & replaced by new Soviet buildings, given to immigrants from Russia.

Like to wonder why the Estonians fiercely oppose any suggestion that the 94% Russian-speaking population of Narva (it was 65% Estonian pre-war) should be allowed to decide which country it's in?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Ah yes, like the occupation of 1940, after they'd done everything demanded of them in 1939, was their own fault, as were the mass deportations & settlement of Russians which account for most of the Russian populations of the Baltic states.

Yes, there were Russian minorities pre-war, but despite 200 years of Tsarist rule, they were comparatively small.
Estonia - 8.2%, half of them living in border districts which became part of Russia in 1945
Latvia - 10.6%.
Lithuania - 2.5%.

1989 - just before independence
Estonia - 30.3%
Latvia - 34%.
Lithuania - 9.4%
But they've been there since the 1700s, it's their home & they have nowhere else to go!

Ida-Viru county, which includes Narva, voted to be part of independent Estonia in 1917. Fair enough, since it was mostly Estonian. It then included Ivangorod, now in Russia. Without Ivangorod, it's now over 70% Russian. Narva has half the total population & most of the Russians . Didn't happen by accident. The population of Narva was forced out or fled the fighting in 1944, & wasn't allowed to return. Almost all that was left of the town was demolished, & replaced by new Soviet buildings, given to immigrants from Russia.

Like to wonder why the Estonians fiercely oppose any suggestion that the 94% Russian-speaking population of Narva (it was 65% Estonian pre-war) should be allowed to decide which country it's in?
Ok then, how does it work? Do we arbitrarily decide a cut-off point for how long a population has to live in an area to be indigenous? How long do Russians have to be a majority in Eastern Estonia for them to have the right of self-determination?

I'm loathe to bring up the example of Kosovo but the analogy is quite relevant here... ;)

At the end of the day everyone settled into an area at some point, usually displacing or assimilating locals who were already there. What's the time frame and why?

Those 94% Russian Narvans grew up there, and in many cases so did their parents. You're right in that historically speaking they're recent immigrants, but you're wrong if you think they have somewhere else to go. They don't. The re-patriation program Russia runs is a joke, and realistically speaking moving back to Russia is not easy, even from an FSU state. So what do you suggest for them? Especially if they're not big fans of the authoritarian oligarchy that runs Russia, but none-the-less have no desire to disown their nationality or heritage?

EDIT: To make my point, modern Americans are descendants of settlers who settled the new world, and really the Indian tribes should be the ones to decide the future of the country. What? In the historical timeframe of millenia of human history, 500 years isn't that long, and many if not most, came much later then that. Give the USA back to the Iroquois?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
If we are to use that logic, I fail to see how Ukraine treated its Russian-speaking population in the Crimea poorly to the point where Russia special forces were required to "solve" the problem.
Required is a strong word, and I think we all understand that Russian actions in Crimea had little to do with the genuine protection of Russian minorities, and more with Russian geopolitical interests (especially an attempt to force the new government of Ukraine to recognize that the EU can't protect them from Russian military power). But on the other hand, the Ukrainian government certainly did it's share in alienating and angering the Crimean population. From disgusting infrastructure, to decaying hospitals (the only hemodialysis center currently in Crimea was opened by Russia after the "occupation"), to complete idiocy like renaming streets and requiring the local population to use only Ukrainian in all official paperwork, it really wasn't smart. Neither was the erection of a hideous statue in the center of the city (Petro Sahaidachny). So while Russia certainly took advantage, this was made possible by the Kiev government, not only the current one, or the recent one (Yatsenyk/Turchinov) but by all of them, over the last two decades. KiwiRob, in my opinion, has a valid point about the treament of minorities. Like it or not, but they live there and unless you're prepared to deport them en-masse (or slaughter them I suppose) you either have to come up with an arrangement that doesn't leave them permanently discontent or risk them turning against you (or at the very least being complicit and docile to a foreign occupation). The Soviet learned the same lesson the hard way during the Great Patriotic War.

Thats an absolute canard of an argument when it comes to this situation. In fact the Skandinavians have gone out of their way to accomodate the russians - even to the point of being mute when the russians started breaching norwegian, danish and swedish air and sea space. The finns have had their borders breached as well. Over 48 breaches of skandinavian air space in the last 2 years - double the ratio of the preceding 8 years added together.

all the russian breaches of skandinavia and baltic air space have been via military assests - the amount of skandinavian and baltic breaches on russian territory can be counted on in the number of ears that sit on a typical head.
What? Scandinavia has no real Russian minority. Their willingness to accommodate Russia has nothing to do with treating a Russian minority well.

the very reason why the baltics are coming together is that they fear that the russians will exercise a ukrainian solution on their own territories and try to recreate a proxy warsaw pact border comprised of "marginilised minorities" seeking secession when they don't have a minorities problem in the first place. the russians created a problem in estonia in 2010 and everyone in the region knows it.
One of the reasons their fears are so realistic is because they haven't treated their Russian minorities well and (unlike say Kazakhstan) have simultaneously pissed of Russian political leadership. It's a very real vulnerability, but one that they have at the very least contributed to through their domestic policies.

It doesn't matter whether russians feel that they own some of the Baltics by proxy - the fact is they don't unless they want to start converting finlandization into the crimean model and start bleeding in more pseudo conflicts based on the pretext of protecting people with a russian heritage despite them being baltics by birth
But there is no Finlandization. From expressing political support for Saakashvili's Georgia (despite it's pigheaded position in the conflict) to hosting SS veterans' parades, the Baltics have done the opposite of Finlandization. They not only haven't appeased Russia, they've done what little they could to provoke it.

The polish-lithuanian commonwealth under catherine the great is hardly the basis of continued emotional claim no matter how much they might want to rewrite history
No. But then one might argue that neither is the former population of Narva pre-1940.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
Thats an absolute canard of an argument when it comes to this situation. In fact the Skandinavians have gone out of their way to accomodate the russians - even to the point of being mute when the russians started breaching norwegian, danish and swedish air and sea space. The finns have had their borders breached as well. Over 48 breaches of skandinavian air space in the last 2 years - double the ratio of the preceding 8 years added together.

all the russian breaches of skandinavia and baltic air space have been via military assests - the amount of skandinavian and baltic breaches on russian territory can be counted on in the number of ears that sit on a typical head.

the very reason why the baltics are coming together is that they fear that the russians will exercise a ukrainian solution on their own territories and try to recreate a proxy warsaw pact border comprised of "marginilised minorities" seeking secession when they don't have a minorities problem in the first place. the russians created a problem in estonia in 2010 and everyone in the region knows it.

It doesn't matter whether russians feel that they own some of the Baltics by proxy - the fact is they don't unless they want to start converting finlandization into the crimean model and start bleeding in more pseudo conflicts based on the pretext of protecting people with a russian heritage despite them being baltics by birth

The polish-lithuanian commonwealth under catherine the great is hardly the basis of continued emotional claim no matter how much they might want to rewrite history
Nothing you have written has anything to do with the situation, in particular Scandinavia, what has Norway and Sweden's position got to do with the Baltic's? The answer to that is nothing, you went off on an irrelevant tangent.

I don't think the Russians think they own the Baltic's either, my personal take on it is grandstanding by Baltic politicians, looking to act tough to their constituents, and media outlets scaremongering.

Putin is a lot of things, but monumentally stupid is not one of them, the Baltic's are NATO members and EU states, which people like to forget, I cannot see Russia making a move against them.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Feanor,

I agree there's a cut off. To me, those ethnic Russians in Estonia etc.have to make up their minds whether they want to be citizens of the countries they now live in, & take part in their politics (& in tow, they're numerous enough to be politically important, if they engage), or move out.

I've met some of those Russians. I remember one in Riga whose father stopped talking to him when he applied for Latvian citizenship. A few years later, they were communicating indirectly, via his mother, which he said was a big improvement from the initial complete cessation of contact. He saw Latvia as his home (he'd grown up there, I think he was born there), & sympathised with the Latvian desire for independence, within its pre-war borders. He was content to be a Russian-Latvian, a Latvian citizen of Russian ancestry. Many felt the same, as the indepdendence referendum showed. But some regarded him as a traitor.

I've seen websites, such as that of one Estonian-Russian group which demanded an autonomous Russian region within Estonia for ethnic Russians, in one contiguous area. It had about as many ethnic Estonians as ethnic Russians, & the powers demanded for it made it effectively independent.

What do you expect the Balts to do with such people? Especially now that they have the examples of Crimea, Luhansk, & Donetsk? Give up territories which within living memory had a majority of their own nationality? Try to deal with people who demand the dismemberment of their states, & the subjection of a large number or their people to Russian rule - again? Ignore Russian manoeuvres on their borders, infringements of their airspace, threats, cyber attacks, & encouragement (including financial support) of the extremists within their Russian minorities?
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Nothing you have written has anything to do with the situation, in particular Scandinavia, what has Norway and Sweden's position got to do with the Baltic's? The answer to that is nothing, you went off on an irrelevant tangent.
lets not continue to be selective in advancing your bias

the baltics have indicated a willingness and desire to join the skandinavians in a separate defence bloc outside of NATO and in a pointed fashiom outside of "old NATO" - if you'd continued to read on you'd have seen the relationship as I articulated.

I don't think the Russians think they own the Baltic's either, my personal take on it is grandstanding by Baltic politicians, looking to act tough to their constituents, and media outlets scaremongering.
The estonians have been warning NATO for some time about the flow on from georgia - and they've turned out to be right. they witnessed russian largesse in 2010 when they had a narrative that the russians objected to. I certainly know of a few in the region who think that the russians are emulating either the sudeten syndrome if not a propensity to do a 68 if they can continue the bluff. It matters what the locals think even if the russians don't

Putin is a lot of things, but monumentally stupid is not one of them, the Baltic's are NATO members and EU states, which people like to forget, I cannot see Russia making a move against them.
and you seem to be ignoring all his comments about a willingness to protect the daispora - and he's been quite happy to reinforce that a number of times. georgia, estonia, ukraine, crimea are all examples of an enthusiasm to flex policy to makea point
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
There's a willingness to protect then there is doing something stupid, messing with NATO and EU countries is something stupid, that's pretty obvious isn't it.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I think you've missed the significance of 'hybrid war', & the strategy of gradual pushing of boundaries while remaining below the threshold which would provoke a NATO or EU military response, getting a new 'reality' accepted, & then starting again, moving on to push the new boundaries.

Putin's been messing with NATO & EU countries for years. He's been careful to keep his messing below the reaction thresholds, & as far as possible deniable (e.g. the cyber warfare), but he's been doing it.
 

bdique

Member
I think you've missed the significance of 'hybrid war', & the strategy of gradual pushing of boundaries while remaining below the threshold which would provoke a NATO or EU military response, getting a new 'reality' accepted, & then starting again, moving on to push the new boundaries.

Putin's been messing with NATO & EU countries for years. He's been careful to keep his messing below the reaction thresholds, & as far as possible deniable (e.g. the cyber warfare), but he's been doing it.
I didn't know the Baltic states were responding so strongly, to the extent of setting up a new defense co-operative arrangement with the Scandinavians. Still, if Putin chooses to engage in 'hybrid war' individually against either of these Baltic states, what can this 'security arrangement' do?

By the way, the example of Lithuania re-introducing conscription, and the issue of 'hybrid war', the whole thing has caught the attention of even Singaporean leaders. I'm sure other smaller states with diverse ethnic population groups would be paying close attention.

https://www.facebook.com/ngenghen.defenceminister/posts/786836151409646:0
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Feanor,

I agree there's a cut off. To me, those ethnic Russians in Estonia etc.have to make up their minds whether they want to be citizens of the countries they now live in, & take part in their politics (& in tow, they're numerous enough to be politically important, if they engage), or move out.
They want to take part in the politics of the region, but to allow that in a productive manner, at this point, requires a move from the Estonian government. It needs to indicate that it is willing to deal with it's Russian minority as an ethnic minority, not simply as so many bodies to be assimilated individually. This doesn't mean a silly Russia-inspired version of autonomy, but a moderate autonomy (the kind say an autonomous republic in Russia has, where they can govern local matters, and possibly given Russian regional status (the ability to apply for say, a permit to own a large dog, or build a small fence, in Russian).

A move of that sort would immediately split the Russian minority from the Russian government. To the Russian government an autonomy of that sort is useless, because it doesn't allow them to split Estonia on key issues, or to pressure the Estonian government on major foreign policy issues. On the other hand it would appease the locals, giving them a chance to participate without having to abandon their culture or heritage. And ultimately it would give them a way to learn how to participate in a liberal democracy, from the grass-roots level.

I've met some of those Russians. I remember one in Riga whose father stopped talking to him when he applied for Latvian citizenship. A few years later, they were communicating indirectly, via his mother, which he said was a big improvement from the initial complete cessation of contact. He saw Latvia as his home (he'd grown up there, I think he was born there), & sympathised with the Latvian desire for independence, within its pre-war borders. He was content to be a Russian-Latvian, a Latvian citizen of Russian ancestry. Many felt the same, as the indepdendence referendum showed. But some regarded him as a traitor.
Of course there is an older generation that doesn't want to let go. Which is why you need a gesture. To some extent this is also a matter of time. If Estonia can include the next generation of Russians in their domestic politics, then the older generation will die (eventually but surely), and the problem will be resolved. If on the other hand they create a new generation of discontents, then the problems becomes cyclical, institutionalized. You have a permanent, festering sore of unhappy Russians in the east. An easy situation for Russia to move in on.

Hell the referendum in Crimea was rigged, but if it wasn't, what do you think the outcome would have been? ;) Prime example of idiotic policy by an western-leaning government.

I've seen websites, such as that of one Estonian-Russian group which demanded an autonomous Russian region within Estonia for ethnic Russians, in one contiguous area. It had about as many ethnic Estonians as ethnic Russians, & the powers demanded for it made it effectively independent.
Yes but how much real support do proposals of that sort really have? It's a provocatory position that polarizes the discourse surrounding the issue. Realistically an offer, by the Estonian government, directly to their Russian minority, an offer of compromise bypassing Putin and Co. would go a very long way towards resolving the issue, and marginalizing those with an unconstructive position.

What do you expect the Balts to do with such people? Especially now that they have the examples of Crimea, Luhansk, & Donetsk?
Learn from the mistakes of the Kiev government, instead of repeating them.

Give up territories which within living memory had a majority of their own nationality?
Honestly that might be one solution. If they're willing to do it, it would negate the issue quite nicely. Especially considering how economic development is geographically distributed in the Baltics ;) .

Try to deal with people who demand the dismemberment of their states, & the subjection of a large number or their people to Russian rule - again?
Not their people, the Russian minorities to Russian rule. But anyways, see above. A gesture of compromise towards their Russian minority by Kiev in March '14 would have likely prevented the war entirely.

Ignore Russian manoeuvres on their borders, infringements of their airspace, threats, cyber attacks, & encouragement (including financial support) of the extremists within their Russian minorities?
Or respond in kind. Instead of responding with Nazi parades, and insulting statements. Those do nothing to resolve the issue, and instead antagonize not only rank and file Russians in Russia, but also rank and file Russians in Estonia. NATO exercises in the Baltics seem to have surprisingly little effect on the Russian public, who simply ignore them. But they certainly send a message to Russian political leadership; NATO is not dead, NATO is not weak, and NATO will not surrender the Baltics.
 

CheeZe

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
Estonia's president has again called for a permanent NATO force within his country. Regardless of how ordinary Russians (within Russia) view NATO or the Baltics, it's evident that (1) the leadership in the the Baltic states are uneasy with Russia and (2) Russian leadership has no intention of assuaging those fears. The saber rattling continues.

Estonia President Toomas Ilves seeks permanent Nato force - BBC News

For added emphasis, the Russians canceled a photo event showcasing US/USSR troops meeting up. Even the event director said the decision was political despite the "official" reason of "technical difficulties". Russia or, perhaps more accurately, Putin wants to play a tit-for-tat game with the West.

Russia halts UK-US display of WW2 photos - BBC News

Germany, meanwhile, is bringing back 100 Leopard 2s. After the massive reduction in its Panzer force years ago, this re-armament (though small in comparison to the numbers fielded previously) is an interesting development. A hundred tanks for the NATO Rapid Reaction Force perhaps?

Germany to bring 100 mothballed tanks back into service - BBC News

Regardless of the presence of ethnic Russians, as I said previously, it is obvious that the Russian leadership is not interested in allaying any fears. It is not interested in harmonious existence. Diplomatic relations aren't even considered. It is an even more heavy handed approach to sabre rattling than what China is currently pursuing.

In my opinion, rather like Nazi Germany, it is pursuing its own form of lebensraum. Kaliningrad and a corridor to the sea? Tongue in cheek aside, though, things do eerily resemble the lead up to the Second World War.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
unfort the skandinavian sensitivities about russias behaviour haven't been getting much traction outside of their own countries

eg the norwegians, swedes, finns all skipped the russian V-Day celebrations

Nikolay Patrushev, head of the Russian Security Council warned against negative influence from neighboring Finland - and has been "talking up" Finnish negativity towards russia and russian citizens

eg support for Finland joining NATO is far higher among members of the Finnish Reservists’ Association than in the rest of the country - and they were prev agnostic towards russian behaviour

the russians don't like admitting it, but their cross border incursions across skandinavian countries has increased by 600% over the last 3-4 years - and increases numerically every year

To add. some of the Balkans states are interested in establishing a similar construct to what the skandinavians are doing. Lithuania. Latvia, Estonia, Poland have been actively looking at the option for the last 12 months. 2 of them have said that if "old europe" doesn't want US forces on their soil then they'll accommodate them.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Estonia's president has again called for a permanent NATO force within his country. Regardless of how ordinary Russians (within Russia) view NATO or the Baltics, it's evident that (1) the leadership in the the Baltic states are uneasy with Russia and (2) Russian leadership has no intention of assuaging those fears. The saber rattling continues.

Estonia President Toomas Ilves seeks permanent Nato force - BBC News

For added emphasis, the Russians canceled a photo event showcasing US/USSR troops meeting up. Even the event director said the decision was political despite the "official" reason of "technical difficulties". Russia or, perhaps more accurately, Putin wants to play a tit-for-tat game with the West.

Russia halts UK-US display of WW2 photos - BBC News

Germany, meanwhile, is bringing back 100 Leopard 2s. After the massive reduction in its Panzer force years ago, this re-armament (though small in comparison to the numbers fielded previously) is an interesting development. A hundred tanks for the NATO Rapid Reaction Force perhaps?

Germany to bring 100 mothballed tanks back into service - BBC News

Regardless of the presence of ethnic Russians, as I said previously, it is obvious that the Russian leadership is not interested in allaying any fears. It is not interested in harmonious existence. Diplomatic relations aren't even considered. It is an even more heavy handed approach to sabre rattling than what China is currently pursuing.

In my opinion, rather like Nazi Germany, it is pursuing its own form of lebensraum. Kaliningrad and a corridor to the sea? Tongue in cheek aside, though, things do eerily resemble the lead up to the Second World War.
Both Germany and the Netherlands had some great surplus sales on Leo2s (Canada bought 100). Both may be regretting these sales now.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Germany has just bought back the remaining Leopard 2s (ca 100) returned to the manufacturers for resale.

AFAIK, only Switzerland, & maybe Sweden (the 2A4/Strv 121s it got to fill the gap until the Strv 122/2A5 was delivered) & Spain (2A4 - again, gap filler pending 2A6) have potentially surplus Leopard 2s now.
 
Top