Tensions in the Baltic

[KiwiRob]

Russia took Ivangorod & Pechory from Estonia in 1945. Isn't that enough? Can't Russia stop re-fighting old wars?

The only people who appear to think Russia want Estonia or any of the Baltics States are keyboard warriors and the Baltic States themselves, I don't believe Putin is a stupid man, only a stupid man would have a go. I don't believe he would have the support of the Russian people if he tried anything either.

As for Crimea it's a different story, I first went to Crimea in 2007, even way back then a lot of the people I spoke with and still are in contact with today never wanted to be Ukrainian, something was going to happen there either with or without Russian taking part.

 

[KiwiRob]

Estonians will remind anyone who listens that Russians were about 8% of the population of pre-war Estonia, including the regions transferred to Russia in 1945, & less than 5% of the population of modern Estonia, mostly in Tallinn & Narva (in that order), but definite minorities in both places - & for the most part, relatively recent arrivals.

But they ignore pre WW1 when they were also under Russian rule, Russians made up about 15% of the population, along with a similar number of Germans who ran the provinces for the Russians, the German population were the merchant and ruling class, Estonians the help.

Before World War I, the notion of the “Baltic States” did not exist. Today’s Latvia and Estonia were roughly congruent with the so-called “Baltic provinces” of Courland, Livonia and Estland, and a small part of Vitebsk province. Most of modern Lithuania formed the north-westernmost part of the so-called Northwest territory. The Lithuanian-speaking population was dominant in the governorate of Kovno and formed majorities in the northern parts of the governorates of Vilna and Suwałki, the latter of which was part of the Kingdom of Poland. The coastal area around the city of Memel (today Klaipėda) formed the north-easternmost tip of East Prussia.

 

[swerve]

"Estonians the help" - 95% of the population of Estland was literate in 1897, & 92% in Livonia, while the figure for the Russian empire as a whole was 28%. What does that make the population of the Russian provinces? Estonians were about 65% of the population of Tallinn - more than now. There was a long history of assimilation of educated Estonians & Latvians into the Baltic German community, because German was the language of administration, the guilds, etc., & rather closed societies in which to be a merchant, administrator, etc. required one to be a member of the right group. This only changed when Russification began in the late 19th century.

I don't know where you got 15% Russian from. In Estland, first languages in 1897 were (%) -
Estonian - 88.7
Russian - 5.0
German - 3.9

Livonia -
Latvian - 43.4
Estonian - 39.6
German - 7.6
Russian - 5.2

Courland -
Latvian - 75.3
German - 7.6
Yiddish - 5.6
Russian - 3.8

According to the Russian imperial census, hardly likely to understate Russians.

 

[Feanor]

Estonian Govt and Military were warning NATO about a Russian grab of Crimea and disruption of Ukraine over 4 years ago and were vociferous in their warnings

Its Estonia that earned the ire and response of the Russians in 2010 - this notion that they are a next Crimea ignores the fact that they have been volubly anti-russian since 2010 and were the first and have been the loudest about a permanent NATO air presence and in the last few years have been telling the US that if old europe wants to see the last of NATO forces then they are happy to have any US EU assets shifted to Estonia.

They have also been the ones arguing for a sep enclave within NATO comprising Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and Finland.

They won't be rolling over for the Ruissians by any means

So... would they start shooting if hundreds of Russian civilians blocked the entrances of military bases, protesting the troop movement as an alleged crack down on their rioting friends in Tallinn? This, as "polite people" take over the part of Estonia Russia intends to keep.

Think then of what next. If the answer is no, then their response would at least be seriously slowed, letting Russia effectively take out provinces in the east. If the answer is yes, then Russia has their justification for full scale military action, tanks and all. And think of the images, all over the world media. Dead Russian protesters shot by the Estonian military, this after a history of discrimination against their Russian population in modern times. Russia would then easily claim that their military action was caused by this. Their claim may get acceptance, or not (likely not, in the long run the west has much more power in the information sphere, only think back to 888) but it would be too late. The situation would be sufficiently messy, the EU and NATO response necessarily slow, and the entire thing would be presented as a fait accompli.

Consider how long it took for the EU and NATO to finally act in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine. Inertia is a powerful thing. Honestly, in retrospect, Putin's actions in Ukraine may have been the best thing the Baltics could hope for. Now they've been justified in their fears, and have serious protection from the west. But before that?

 

[gf0012-aust]

So... would they start shooting if hundreds of Russian civilians blocked the entrances of military bases, protesting the troop movement as an alleged crack down on their rioting friends in Tallinn? This, as "polite people" take over the part of Estonia Russia intends to keep.

Think then of what next. If the answer is no, then their response would at least be seriously slowed, letting Russia effectively take out provinces in the east. If the answer is yes, then Russia has their justification for full scale military action, tanks and all. And think of the images, all over the world media. Dead Russian protesters shot by the Estonian military, this after a history of discrimination against their Russian population in modern times. Russia would then easily claim that their military action was caused by this. Their claim may get acceptance, or not (likely not, in the long run the west has much more power in the information sphere, only think back to 888) but it would be too late. The situation would be sufficiently messy, the EU and NATO response necessarily slow, and the entire thing would be presented as a fait accompli.

Consider how long it took for the EU and NATO to finally act in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine. Inertia is a powerful thing. Honestly, in retrospect, Putin's actions in Ukraine may have been the best thing the Baltics could hope for. Now they've been justified in their fears, and have serious protection from the west. But before that?

you cannot seriously present that as a defensible model of russian behaviour - crying wolf by the russians has cachet in the homeland - nowhere else

not now and not even prior to 2010 for estonia. defending the diaspora has limited traction as an excuse to invade another country

 

[Feanor]

you cannot seriously present that as a defensible model of russian behaviour - crying wolf by the russians has cachet in the homeland - nowhere else

not now and not even prior to 2010 for estonia. defending the diaspora has limited traction as an excuse to invade another country

By defensible, you mean it wouldn't be feasible politically? Or do you mean morally? It worked, at least partly, in 888. It helped that Georgia was the aggressor there, but it also helped that they flattened a large part of Tshinval using artillery. But it's not inconceivable that Russian actions on their side of the border couple with mass protests by Russians in Estonia, necessitate Estonian troop movement. And if/when that movement is hampered by Russian civilians inside Estonia, throwing rocks, or just generally obstructing the path, we have that same kind of confrontation. Photos of dead civilians all over twitter could generate a shit-storm that provides sufficient obfuscation for Russia to move.

 

[Toblerone]

I could see that working if the russians in estonia seemed like peaceful protesters and the oppressed minority. Absolutely.

The western press cannot turn against a protesting minority easily ... or at all. And when a situation is muddy, the one that acts has the advantage. NATO is always asleep at the wheel, too.

At the cost of sounding cliche, this could lead directly to ww3, so I doubt anyone would be so desperate or morbidly ambitious.

 

[swerve]

Consider how long it took for the EU and NATO to finally act in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine. Inertia is a powerful thing. Honestly, in retrospect, Putin's actions in Ukraine may have been the best thing the Baltics could hope for. Now they've been justified in their fears, and have serious protection from the west. But before that?

There are some very big differences between Estonia & Crimea, or the rest of Ukraine.

1. The overwhelming difference. Estonia is in NATO. Ukraine is not. This leads to others, such as the presence, from time to time, of NATO troops (there are some permanently in Latvia).

2. There are no Russian soldiers stationed in any of the Baltic states - unlike Crimea. Polite green men couldn't suddenly appear as easily. They'd have to sneak across the border, & smuggle weapons in.

3. None of the Baltic states has had a disputed election, or any of the other crap which Ukraine has suffered: no presidents or prime ministers suspected of complicity in murders, politics isn't dominated by people quarreling over their share of loot from the state, & so on. The governments of the Baltic states are generally more trusted by their people than that of Ukraine - or Russia. Corruption is much, much lower, & declining. In Estonia, it's on the fringes of NW European levels. Latvia & Lithuania are lagging, but they're on a par with the better former communist countries of central Europe, i.e. much less corrupt than anywhere else in the former USSR, or in SE Europe.

There's an interesting difference in attitudes of Russian-speakers depending on age. Among those over 40, there's a majority against NATO membership, while the majority under 40 are in favour - 57% of 20-29 year olds, & 72% of under 20 Estonian national defence opinion survey

 

[Feanor]

There are some very big differences between Estonia & Crimea, or the rest of Ukraine.

1. The overwhelming difference. Estonia is in NATO. Ukraine is not. This leads to others, such as the presence, from time to time, of NATO troops (there are some permanently in Latvia).

2. There are no Russian soldiers stationed in any of the Baltic states - unlike Crimea. Polite green men couldn't suddenly appear as easily. They'd have to sneak across the border, & smuggle weapons in.

3. None of the Baltic states has had a disputed election, or any of the other crap which Ukraine has suffered: no presidents or prime ministers suspected of complicity in murders, politics isn't dominated by people quarreling over their share of loot from the state, & so on. The governments of the Baltic states are generally more trusted by their people than that of Ukraine - or Russia. Corruption is much, much lower, & declining. In Estonia, it's on the fringes of NW European levels. Latvia & Lithuania are lagging, but they're on a par with the better former communist countries of central Europe, i.e. much less corrupt than anywhere else in the former USSR, or in SE Europe.

All of this makes it much harder to pull off, and therefore significantly less likely, but not impossible. Maybe you're right, and they were in no danger of Russian aggression at all. But if that's what you were implying, then what's all the fuss about? Or are you saying that it would take a much more overt Russian invasion to rout the Baltics? I.e. something like Crimea was never on the table, but rolling in with jets roaring and arty firing was?

There's an interesting difference in attitudes of Russian-speakers depending on age. Among those over 40, there's a majority against NATO membership, while the majority under 40 are in favour - 57% of 20-29 year olds, & 72% of under 20 Estonian national defence opinion survey

Not surprising. Prior to the recent anti-West rhetorical build-up, there were similar (though still mostly opposed to) changes in perception among people in Russia. The generation that grew up with the Cold War are slowly disappearing, and the new generation has a different view of the world. In the early 2000s there were even ideas floated about eventual Russian NATO membership. Of course that's all dead and buried now.

Honestly, the sad thing here is that if the Baltics had properly integrated their Russian minorities, they could have become an example to Russia itself. With the higher GDP per capital and much better governance, then most regions in Russia, they could have been an example, and a good one. But anyways.

Russia has been relatively quiet on the Baltic side, probably too busy with Syria. It will be interesting to see if they end up adding more new ships to the Baltic Fleet or not. The first 4 22350s are going to the Northern Fleet, but the last two could go to the Baltic. They've contracted a total of 6 ships, but only laid down 4 so far. With a couple of frigates to replace the aging Neustrashimiy (iirc it never even got it's AShMs), and a couple of 636s to replace the old 877s, they could be set for the next decade, and easily provide ships for deployment to the Mediterranean.

 

[Ranger25]

So... would they start shooting if hundreds of Russian civilians blocked the entrances of military bases, protesting the troop movement as an alleged crack down on their rioting friends in Tallinn? This, as "polite people" take over the part of Estonia Russia intends to keep.

Think then of what next. If the answer is no, then their response would at least be seriously slowed, letting Russia effectively take out provinces in the east. If the answer is yes, then Russia has their justification for full scale military action, tanks and all. And think of the images, all over the world media. Dead Russian protesters shot by the Estonian military, this after a history of discrimination against their Russian population in modern times. Russia would then easily claim that their military action was caused by this. Their claim may get acceptance, or not (likely not, in the long run the west has much more power in the information sphere, only think back to 888) but it would be too late. The situation would be sufficiently messy, the EU and NATO response necessarily slow, and the entire thing would be presented as a fait accompli.

Consider how long it took for the EU and NATO to finally act in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine. Inertia is a powerful thing. Honestly, in retrospect, Putin's actions in Ukraine may have been the best thing the Baltics could hope for. Now they've been justified in their fears, and have serious protection from the west. But before that?

They're are multiple other non-lethal riot control techniques that could effectively be used to move crowds away from gates negating that type of escalation.

 

[CheeZe]

They're are multiple other non-lethal riot control techniques that could effectively be used to move crowds away from gates negating that type of escalation.

While this is true, it is also in the air whether the personnel in-situ at the moment of crisis are adequately (if at all) trained and equipped for non-lethal crowd control. Worse, the line between non-lethal and lethal is very fine. It's very easily crossed and can be done so with "non-lethal" weapons.

And if the crowd is looking for a fight, things escalate even more. One need only look at the past year and a half of US law enforcement for an example how quickly things will turn into a mess.

Honestly, the sad thing here is that if the Baltics had properly integrated their Russian minorities, they could have become an example to Russia itself.

I don't think anyone can claim to have a fully inclusive integration of minorities. The pivotal issue is whether using the discrimination of ethnic minorities is an acceptable casus belli in today's context. I won't deny it's historical usage to start WW1 and WW2 by Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. However, do old rules still apply all the time or just as and when is convenient?

 

[Toblerone]

If something can be used for propaganda, then it is a useful tool to have. And if anything is actionable, it is suppression of minorities, protesters and protesting minorities, heh

 

[Volkodav]

There just seems to be something intellectually dishonest with the concept of disenfranchising (effectively conquering) a majority because of the perception that a certain ethnic minority is being discriminated against or even mistreated by a political minority associated with the majority. Using that sort of logic every nation state has the justification to interfere with the affairs, even to invade and seize the territory of any other sovereign state.

How about we make it legally acceptable for every single colonial power to retake control of any former colony, or that any country that has any number of ex-patriots permanently resident can effectively lose their sovereignty.

 

[Feanor]

There just seems to be something intellectually dishonest with the concept of disenfranchising (effectively conquering) a majority because of the perception that a certain ethnic minority is being discriminated against or even mistreated by a political minority associated with the majority. Using that sort of logic every nation state has the justification to interfere with the affairs, even to invade and seize the territory of any other sovereign state.

How about we make it legally acceptable for every single colonial power to retake control of any former colony, or that any country that has any number of ex-patriots permanently resident can effectively lose their sovereignty.

I mean we get it that this is just an excuse to do whatever they want. But it comes back to the fact that the west behaves the same way (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.) and Russian elites see this and think that if they are powerful economically and militarily then there is no reason they can't play that game too. If you want a world where it's ok for the west to support rebels in Libya or Syria, then it becomes hard to question Russian support of rebels in Ukraine. Not because the situations are identical, but because it's a question of principle. Either we support the idea that internal affairs of neighboring states can not be interfered in (looking at USAID and democracy promotion) or we don't. If we do then we have to admit that the problem is not Russia, it's not a couple of bad countries or an axis of evil, it's a fundamental problem in the international arrangement. And punishing Russia and then pretending like that equates taking a stand on the issue, while quietly washing their hands of the gigantic clusterf*ck western intervention has made of the Middle East is just hypocrisy.

 

[Hone C]

I mean we get it that this is just an excuse to do whatever they want. But it comes back to the fact that the west behaves the same way (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.) and Russian elites see this and think that if they are powerful economically and militarily then there is no reason they can't play that game too... it's a fundamental problem in the international arrangement.

Trying to moralise about the games nations play is quite pointless, and as you say, quickly descends into hypocrisy. The international arena is and has always been a Hobbesian environment, as the Melian dialogue states;

"But you and we should say what we really think, and aim only at what is possible, for we both alike know that into the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters where the pressure of necessity is equal, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must."

The Baltics are practically indefensible, lying on the Northern European Plain, and across the Baltic Sea, from some rather larger neighbours. This places some limits as to what is possible. They will have to find a way to accommodate or balance those neighbours in such a way as to ensure their independence, or risk history repeating.

 

[Todjaeger]

I mean we get it that this is just an excuse to do whatever they want. But it comes back to the fact that the west behaves the same way (Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.) and Russian elites see this and think that if they are powerful economically and militarily then there is no reason they can't play that game too. If you want a world where it's ok for the west to support rebels in Libya or Syria, then it becomes hard to question Russian support of rebels in Ukraine. Not because the situations are identical, but because it's a question of principle. Either we support the idea that internal affairs of neighboring states can not be interfered in (looking at USAID and democracy promotion) or we don't. If we do then we have to admit that the problem is not Russia, it's not a couple of bad countries or an axis of evil, it's a fundamental problem in the international arrangement. And punishing Russia and then pretending like that equates taking a stand on the issue, while quietly washing their hands of the gigantic clusterf*ck western intervention has made of the Middle East is just hypocrisy.

One of the key differences (there are others, mind you) is that the West is not looking to claim or retain territory, or absorb any of the population.

The interactions between Russia and ex-Soviet SSR's are steeped in all the background history of Soviet and potentially before that, Tsarist rule. Given the degree of forced migrations (now called ethnic cleansing...) which occurred during the Soviet era, especially under Stalin, there is little wonder why so much of non-Russian Eastern and Central Europe has little love of Russia. Given that the current Russian leadership seems to also seek to emulate some aspects of Stalinist rule...

 

[Toblerone]

One potent counter argument is that at least Russia is intervening for its own populace. The west is intervening on behalf of faux moderate rebels, non-existent weapons of mass destruction etc.

Western public opinion sees the realpolitik behind the "freedom wars" of USA and its effects (Europe getting swarmed by immigrants). The United Nations have become a joke as an authority, latest laugh was choosing Saudi Arabia to host human rights talks.

I don't think the european or american public would readily back any intervention against Russia, unless a propaganda miracle happens.

A lot will depend on Russia's attempt to bring (part of) Syria under control. The diplomatic capital they stand to gain is immense.

 

[Volkodav]

One potent counter argument is that at least Russia is intervening for its own populace. The west is intervening on behalf of faux moderate rebels, non-existent weapons of mass destruction etc.

Western public opinion sees the realpolitik behind the "freedom wars" of USA and its effects (Europe getting swarmed by immigrants). The United Nations have become a joke as an authority, latest laugh was choosing Saudi Arabia to host human rights talks.

I don't think the european or american public would readily back any intervention against Russia, unless a propaganda miracle happens.

A lot will depend on Russia's attempt to bring (part of) Syria under control. The diplomatic capital they stand to gain is immense.

Seriously? Much of what Russia is currently doing is pretty much exactly what they have been accusing the "imperialist" west of wanting to do for decades. The UN reference is pointless because the west does not control it and never has, the UN does what its, often bribed, membership wants it to do, or more to the point, keeps out of what certain wealthy or powerful countries want it to keep out of.

The basic flaw with your comments is you appear to think the "west" is a monolithic, centrally controlled entity that follows a single, unchanging policy to cement the supremacy of a particular ideology, or even the authority of a particular group. This completely misses to reality that the nature of most of the western democracies, their policies and actions can and do change frequently and sometimes very rapidly as democratically elected governments and their leaders themselves can literally change overnight dependant on domestic , usually economic, matters.

The only nations that can and do stay on the same unchanging path for long periods are those where the leadership is not truly subject to the law, let alone the ballot box.

 

[Toblerone]

The USA foreign policy has huge inertia and doesn't change easily at all. Presidents take long to change, too. And there's basically two lobby-controlled parties, it's a faux democracy when it comes to the big issues.

The EU is governed by non-elected agenda-driven beaurocrats that work one year for big corporations and bankers and the next for the EU and so forth.

Like my father used to say, the ballot box determines the faces and money determines the policies.

 

[Volkodav]

The USA foreign policy has huge inertia and doesn't change easily at all. Presidents take long to change, too. And there's basically two lobby-controlled parties, it's a faux democracy when it comes to the big issues.

The EU is governed by non-elected agenda-driven beaurocrats that work one year for big corporations and bankers and the next for the EU and so forth.

Like my father used to say, the ballot box determines the faces and money determines the policies.

Much better to have the same faces, parties and families with either token changes or no changes, combined with brutal suppression of decent? I do not for one second claim western democracy is perfect, but rather many complaining about it are not so much wearing blinkers but staring at it with high powered microscopes, picking at details, while ignoring the glaringly obvious occurring elsewhere.

This includes developing convoluted conspiracies, and assigning characteristics and blame totally inappropriately. For example suggesting long standing deliberate collusion between generations of the leadership of sovereign nations as well as multinational organisations, while turning a blind eye to the consistent rhetoric and behavior of the likes of Putin over more than a decade.