I did add my meaningfull opinion. This must be enough for you kuffar.
Tensions in the Baltic
- Thread starter CheeZe
- Start date
Sure. And they're working hard on beefing up the anti-air and anti-ship capabilities in the Black Sea. The Black Sea Fleet will be the next mass recipient of Kalibr carriers, for example, for cruise missile purposes. They will have at least 6 Buyan-M Small Missile Ships, 3 11356 frigates, and 6 636.6 subs, all carrying the missile. While it's long-range use against surface targets was recently highlighted, let's not forget that these can also be anti-ship missiles, giving the Black Sea Fleet the most modern and capable anti-ship arsenal out of the all the fleets. So yes, potentially the Black Sea could turn into a no-go zone, at least until a significant effort was mounted to disrupt and degrade those assets and capabilities.
Back on subject of the Baltics, it's interesting that the Baltic Fleet right now has one of the most modern OrBats, with 4 22380s in it. Though future plans seem to be to put 3-4 of them in the Pacific fleet and at least initially the two 22385s that got laid down were meant for the northern fleet. I wonder if they will end up testing the Kh-35s on those corvettes against ground targets. That would certainly be interesting, given that they're purchasing large quantities of the Bal coastal AShM complex.
It will also be interesting to see whether they end up turning Kaliningrad into an island-fortress like they have with Crimea, and are currently doing with Arctic outposts, and the Kuril Islands. Then again, it's in the heart of Europe and not doing so but reserving the potential might be more meaningful. It's also significantly less likely to actually become a battle ground. I would say that when Russia starts packing Kaliningrad full of modern gear and massively expanding their presence there, that's when the Baltics should really start worrying.
corporalclegg
Banned Member
For the Baltic states it`s justl like a habbit - to fear Russia and Russian invasion. But the fact is that Russia don`t need them at all. There is a big difference between them and Crimea or Eastern Ukraine. Russians think all that territories always was Russian, historically. But Baltic for Russians always was a West. Stalin got them just for more safiety from Hitler.
They're afraid because of Russian behaviour & threats, not because it's a habit.
Saying "Russia doesn't really want them" is no reassurance when there are surprisingly well-funded groups in their Russian minorities demanding 'autonomous Russian regions' incorporating the majority of the population of the country, & in which Russians would be a minority (see the maps some of these loonies have put on the web), vocal Russian support for the less extreme aims of the same groups, open friendliness by Russian officials to the leaders of such groups, warnings by Russia about dire consequences of not being nice to Russian minorities, casualness about crossing the border by Russian border guards, etc.
Saying "Russia doesn't really want them" is no reassurance when there are surprisingly well-funded groups in their Russian minorities demanding 'autonomous Russian regions' incorporating the majority of the population of the country, & in which Russians would be a minority (see the maps some of these loonies have put on the web), vocal Russian support for the less extreme aims of the same groups, open friendliness by Russian officials to the leaders of such groups, warnings by Russia about dire consequences of not being nice to Russian minorities, casualness about crossing the border by Russian border guards, etc.
Estonia particularly has a serious problem with a large Russian minority that's concentrated in certain portions of the country. So they have real reasons to be afraid. And if Russia was under the impression that they could annex eastern Estonia with impunity, they likely would move in that direction. NATOs current build-up in the Baltics is, in my opinion, the right and long overdue move.
The Baltic states (Estonia and Latvia) were Russian from The Great Northern War until just after the October Revolution, a short period of independence then back under Russian control until 1991.
Agreed
The US Army has approved a plan to expand its European Activity Set from one heavy Battalion to a full Combined arms Brigade. IMO a needed move given it currently only has two light brigades deployed, the 173rd ABN and the 2nd ACR(Stykers)
The need for heavy formations is an absolute must
The problem of course is that unless the Estonians take political steps, all of this is just a temporary solution. If they don't take steps to integrate the Russian community into Estonia, they will always be a potential or active 5th column.
There are portions of Estonia where ethnic Russians are a majority. Take a look at the top right province. It contains the major city of Narva (over 80% Russian ethnics, over 90% native Russian speakers).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Russophone_population_in_Estonia.png
It, like Crimea, would be a ripe target for annexation.
And since it worked in the Crimea, the possibility must have crossed Putin's mind that the same ploy, with some modifications, could work in one or more of the Baltic states. He would just have to be far more cunning about having plausible deniability because of NATO.
To be honest, if the Estonians are hellbent on not acknowledging their Russian minority in any way, they'd be smarter to just jettison Narva and it's suburbs right now. It's a tiny piece of territory with a foreign population that's just going to cause disproportionate amounts of trouble. Right now their population is a quarter Russian, but if they were to ditch just that tiny little corner, they'd be way down. It would be a really clever move that would let them keep beating their little chest, and tearing down Soviet war monuments, and Russia would lose their main lever. It would also defuse a potential conflict zone, and leave Russia with another impoverished piece of the ex-USSR to support. Of course the same nationalistic attitude that makes them so unwilling to make any accommodation for a quarter of their population also makes them unwilling to move 6 inches on any territorial question.
Narva has 16% of the Russian population of Estonia. Ida-Viru county has 33%, but it also has rather too many Estonians for it to be acceptable to hand it all over.
And don't forget that those Russians are largely the result of replacement of Estonians by Russian settlers after 1945. Accepting that as a Russian land grab would be anathema to the Estonians. Narva was mainly Estonian before WW2. Despite being much larger now than pre-war, it has never got back to its pre-war Estonian population, mostly because for years after the war the Soviet government prohibited the return of Estonians who'd fled the fighting in 1944. It was repopulated, then expanded, by settlement of Russians from outside Estonia. This is not forgotten in Estonia. Nor is the decision to demolish the ruined & damaged old town instead of rebuilding - seen as an attempt to obliterate the past.
Russia took Ivangorod & Pechory from Estonia in 1945. Isn't that enough? Can't Russia stop re-fighting old wars?
And don't forget that those Russians are largely the result of replacement of Estonians by Russian settlers after 1945. Accepting that as a Russian land grab would be anathema to the Estonians. Narva was mainly Estonian before WW2. Despite being much larger now than pre-war, it has never got back to its pre-war Estonian population, mostly because for years after the war the Soviet government prohibited the return of Estonians who'd fled the fighting in 1944. It was repopulated, then expanded, by settlement of Russians from outside Estonia. This is not forgotten in Estonia. Nor is the decision to demolish the ruined & damaged old town instead of rebuilding - seen as an attempt to obliterate the past.
Russia took Ivangorod & Pechory from Estonia in 1945. Isn't that enough? Can't Russia stop re-fighting old wars?
Don't hand over the entire province. Narva, like Lugansk, is located right on the border. You can pretty much walk into Russia from there. Hand over Narva itself, and the suburbs immediately surrounding it. It would be a tiny piece of territory, even for Estonia, and it contains the biggest problem population Estonia has.
What Russia can and can't do is a separate discussion. And for Russia this round of expansionism isn't re-fighting old wars, it's fighting new ones.
But either way, Estonia can't effectively dictate Russian policy or Russia's stance. It can only react to what is. Countries don't exist in an international space governed by rights and laws. They exist in a space controlled by politics, economics, and military power. There is a reality to these things. Ignoring it leads straight to disaster. A firm NATO stance on protecting Estonia is important, but equally important is some sort of long term plan on how to deal with this large ethnic minority. Especially since it's mostly in a geographically continuous enclave. Estonia can find a way to either include the Russian community, as a community, into Estonia, or it can jettison it entirely. Both would resolve the issue. But this continuation of "we don't want you but we won't let you go" is going to continue causing problems.
Nope. The biggest problem population is in Tallin & its eastern suburbs, where the majority of Russians in Estonia live, over three times as many as in Narva.
The border currently follows the river Narva. This was Russia's choice, not Estonia's. Estonia would have liked its pre-war borders, but Russia wanted the Soviet SSR border. It has the advantages of being obvious, not easy to argue about, & dividing communities neatly.
Transferring Narva would leave over 80% of the current Russian population of Estonia still in Estonia, & make the border messy, & not at all obvious. It'd cut people outside Narva off from shops, hospitals, schools, etc. And worst of all, it'd set a precedent for Sillamäe, Narva-Jõesuu, Jõhvi & Kohtla-Järve, with even messier borders. Once you start, it'd be very hard to decide where to stop, & the opportunities for trouble would be endless. Transfer all of them to Russia & you'd be transferring tens of thousands of Estonians living on their ancestral lands, to cater to post-WW2 Russian settlers. But the modern, Soviet, Russian centres are surrounded by Estonian rural areas where they've lived as long as anyone can track back. How to draw lines?
BTW, about half of the population of Narva have chosen - & been granted - Estonian citizenship. 15% are 'undefined citizenship', i.e. they;ve not qualified (or not applied) for Estonian citizenship but nor have they chosen Russian citizenship, although they'd qualify.
Interesting, I didn't know there were that many there. It makes sense, to be honest.
The pre-WWII borders you mean? They would've put an even bigger Russian population inside Estonia, no?
Well, in that case the territorial solution is probably off the table. Which makes producing a viable way to integrate the Russian community even more important. And of course it makes the threat of Russian interference that much greater.
Agreed 100%
With all of this discussion I personally don't see VPP making an imminent move with little green men into Eastern Estonia. Especially given the increased NATO visibility into the Baltics.
I understood Crimean in strategic/Geographic way and why VPP did what he did there, but I don't see similarities to Estonia.
Last edited:
Not at this point, no. He made a mess of the Ukraine business, and can't afford another aggressive move in Europe. But think of this. If he had stopped after Crimea, and then cut Ukraine loose, Ukraine would be where it is today, minus the war in the east. A destitute country, corrupt leadership, broken promises, and no chance of EU or NATO membership. And without the level of awareness in the West. There certainly wouldn't be nearly as great of an effort by the US or EU to make a show of supporting the Baltics as there is now. Estonia would be highly vulnerable, and given the essentially non-violent method of annexation, it would be hard to claim that this is a Russian invasion.
Consider a few other things. In Crimea the Russian military made a point not to move around in tanks or APCs. Trucks and Tigr armored cars were used. The soldiers took control of only a few key objects, airports, etc. It certainly didn't look like an invasion. And it went over very well. Especially in Sevastopol with it's overwhelming Russian majority, where people hung Russian flags from their balconies and (once it became clear there was no fighting) took their kids out to take photos with the soldiers. Could Russia expect a similar welcome in Narva? I think they could. Especially if they hadn't escalated in Donbass to a full scale war.
The Crimean annexation is exactly the kind of aggression that could have worked extremely well. The Ukrainian authorities looked stupid. Nobody died (well almost nobody) and there was no real fighting. The soldiers are friendly, reserved, and generally leave the population alone to go about their business. And the much disliked corrupt regime (the Ukrainian or Estonian one
) gets what many feel it might deserve. Add to that an overwhelming sense that this isn't some foreign army invading, but their own boys here, and Estonia faced a very real threat. Now of course the Talinn government is nowhere near as corrupt as the Kiev one, and the Estonian military is not the pathetic joke that the Ukrainian one was. And of course even in Crimea it took a drastic power struggle in Kiev to distract them from reacting adequately to Russian actions. But even in Estonia, given what swerve wrote about Russians in Talinn, mass demonstrations of Russian ethnics, violent clashes with Estonian police, producing an internal crisis could have been used as cover for a Crimea-style Russian move on eastern Estonia.Do you see the potential for a similar scenario now?
Thank You for the insightful recap.Not at this point, no. He made a mess of the Ukraine business, and can't afford another aggressive move in Europe. But think of this. If he had stopped after Crimea, and then cut Ukraine loose, Ukraine would be where it is today, minus the war in the east. A destitute country, corrupt leadership, broken promises, and no chance of EU or NATO membership. And without the level of awareness in the West. There certainly wouldn't be nearly as great of an effort by the US or EU to make a show of supporting the Baltics as there is now. Estonia would be highly vulnerable, and given the essentially non-violent method of annexation, it would be hard to claim that this is a Russian invasion.
Consider a few other things. In Crimea the Russian military made a point not to move around in tanks or APCs. Trucks and Tigr armored cars were used. The soldiers took control of only a few key objects, airports, etc. It certainly didn't look like an invasion. And it went over very well. Especially in Sevastopol with it's overwhelming Russian majority, where people hung Russian flags from their balconies and (once it became clear there was no fighting) took their kids out to take photos with the soldiers. Could Russia expect a similar welcome in Narva? I think they could. Especially if they hadn't escalated in Donbass to a full scale war.
The Crimean annexation is exactly the kind of aggression that could have worked extremely well. The Ukrainian authorities looked stupid. Nobody died (well almost nobody) and there was no real fighting. The soldiers are friendly, reserved, and generally leave the population alone to go about their business. And the much disliked corrupt regime (the Ukrainian or Estonian one
Do you see the potential for a similar scenario now?
Yes I could easily see a similar situation play out but given the increased Baltic Visibility to NATO after Crimea/Ukraine I don't think it's nearly as possible. Especially now that NATO has military units(small as they are) in the Baltic states The US is considering a Mech IN company to be based in each of the three Baltic nations.
There will now be defined tripwires in place should VPP move West that didn't exist before.
I believe the risk today outweighs the reward whereas 12 months ago it was debatable
Yes, a bit over half in Tallinn. Two-thirds of the rest are in Ida-Viru county, where they're the majority, & are almost entirely urban, half near the border & the rest in several isolated locations surrounded by Estonian-inhabited countryside.
Yes, which is probably why Estonia quickly agreed to accept the Estonian SSR border. It's not been an issue for over 20 years. The number of Estonians on the Russian side of it is very small.
Indeed. The Estonian policy seems to have been to divide the Russian population into those who are happy to adapt to Estonia (shown by a willingness to learn the language & take an oath of loyalty), who they're happy to keep, & those who prefer Russia - who they'd like to be rid of, seeing them as invaders at worst, & at best as immigrants who want to bring their country with them.
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.
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
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