After reading this article at @RStatecraft by @connor_echols I am more convinced than ever that admitting the Baltic States into NATO was the biggest mistake NATO ever made: three miniscule states with three tiny militaries dominate policy yet contribute nothing but acrimony and accusations towards Russia.
Just read the stridency of their claims towards Russia. Former Latvian PM: “Putin acts the way he acts, and the only options for the West are either to submit or to resist.” Or the present Estonia FM: “Russia’s war against Ukraine is driven by one thing and one thing only: its refusal to accept the Soviet Union’s collapse and its unrelenting imperialist ambitions.”
It’s our annual fundraiser. We’ve raised a little over $7,620 from 65 people in the last twelve days, out of our goal of $12,500. If you’re a regular reader and can afford to support our writing, please subscribe or donate. Over 10,000 people read every day, but without those who give the site would not survive.
Look, I get the Baltics are paranoid about chimerical Russian irredentism towards the three republics. NATO can’t and shouldn’t allow alliance policy to be dictated by its three smallest members, who are tiny, paranoid and are lead by some critically undereducated fools, like Kaja Kallas, who said, “Chinese are very good at technology but they are not that good in social sciences . . . . The Russians… are not good at technology at all, but super good in social sciences.”
I’ll let that one go without comment. The bottom line is tiny states are dictating the policy of huge institutions and nations, just take a look at how the Israeli tail wags the American dog.
We’re supposed to make peace with enemies, folks, not friends.
Dialogue is essential more than ever. Not paranoia.
It’s Our Annual Fundraiser. If you read us a lot, please Subscribe or Donate.
j
I guess I have to start this with: I’m an estonian. One that is critical about the (foreign) policy of my country, but maybe I can still offer some insider perspective on this.
Kallas was not made the foreign minister of EU despite of her rabid anti-russian views, it was because of them. The FM is appointed by the Council and has to get approval from the Parliament. One does not waltz into that position, and stay there, holding views that are not backed by the majority of the EU governing institutions.
As to her actual views, she’s a careerist politician with no principles like any other. And what she lacks in competence she makes up with arrogance. She had absolutely no problem with her husband doing business as usual in Russia all the while she was calling for the sanctioning of all Russian business ties, and she could for the life of her not find anything wrong with it when it hit the fan. But neither Estonia, nor the other Baltic states do really have independent foreign policy either. We do what Brussels and Washington tell us, and our politicians try to be a good dog and bark a lot and make a career out of it. Basically all of her term as the PM of Estonia was spent barking to earn political capital in Brussels, at the cost of selling out Estonia’s own problems. The only reason she got to be the PM was that people really did not want the right wing populists to get the position, and that her daddy pulled a lot of strings to get the boys fall in line.
But the anti-russian sentiment in the Baltics is also not at all unfounded. The Baltic nations have basically had a thousand years of awful existence next to, and regularly being subject to, Russia, and they feel no love towards it indeed. So there is no surprise that they jumped to the EU and NATO the first opportunity they had. Had they not, it would be questionable whether they would have had a fate different from Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, or Belarus for that matter. The idea that the thousand year old dog is capable of learning new tricks in a few decades, all the while you see it practicing it’s old tricks on a regular basis, is a tough sell in the Baltics indeed.
The end result of all of that is that our politicians are happy to sing their merry songs that have a welcoming audience in the west for a change, and our people are happy living the dream of a friendly and happy NATO and EU life. And why would they not live it, the West has delivered to them what they have wanted most in the world for since forever – to get Russia off their backs.
Nothing of that is to say that I find the West innocent in the war in Ukraine. The very Merkel that suddenly feels the need to blame the Baltic states has stated herself that the Minsk accords were nothing but gaining extra time to arm Ukraine. But now, suddenly, it’s Putin that was not taking them seriously, and then she left the office and the evil Baltics made the war happen. She’s so full of shit it makes my head hurt, but I guess you have to throw /someone/ under the bus.
It’s not like Germany has too much independent foreign policy either. Let’s remind ourselves of the early war when there was danger that they might want and end to it, and they got their pipes blown up, and they learned their lesson. The reality is it’s not only the Baltics that are vassals to the US, it’s all of Europe. Let’s not forget the US occupation army never left after WWII. In practical terms NATO countries have outsourced their security to the US, and have given up whatever independent policy the US feels in charge of at any moment. So if the US wants to sacrifice Ukraine and maybe Europe to maybe kill Russia, it’s best if everyone finds a way to enjoy it.
Now finally coming to the topic of NATO expansion. It was already Kennan who pointed out that NATO expansion towards the east was going to end up in a war, most probably in Ukraine. This point has been reiterated on numerous occasions by the diplomatic circles, and has never been a secret to the US political circles. That US has kept on expanding NATO east until pretty much the borders of Russia, disregarding the warnings, means only one thing. The end game was always Russia itself.
Sean Paul Kelley
@j: Thank you for your comment. I cannnot find a single thing to disagree with except your assertion that the Baltics have been under the thumb of the Russians for a thousand years. That’s flat out wrong. The Baltics spent almost as much time under the Teutonic Order/State and then as a part of the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was only in 1721 after the Great Northern War was resolved with the Peace of Nystad, which affirmed the Russian conquest of Riga in 1710, the eviction of the Swedes from Tallin in 1710 and the Russian conquest of Estonia and Lithuania between 1710-1721.
That said, the Baltic States have GOOD REASON to be paranoid about Russia. They were independent between WWI and WWII, then lost their independence. So, I get how dear and valuable their independence from Russia is and its continuance.
I still think the Baltics should have joined the EU and declared neutrality, a lá Switzerland and/or Austria. But it’s a moot point.
As to the remainer of your incisive analysis, I cannot find any fault in it. Thank you for a thoughtful reply.
j
I did not say under the thumb for a thousand years. But we have had Russia as a neighbour for about that time, during which they have “visited” for longer and shorter periods for multiple times. Last time they even “liberated” us, it’s just that they forgot to liberate us from themselves. Going from nazi to soviet rule was not much an improvement.
In any case the first recorded such visit in Estonia was when Jaroslav I took Tartu in 1030 ad. There followed a period of back and forth, until the danes and the germans and the swedish and the Pope arrived and took the reins by the 13th century.
Latvia had basically the experience, while for the Lithuanian kingdom, and later the commonwealth, it took some time until the histories merged.
The baltic german elite that came to be in Livonia in the 13th century basically administered it until the first world war, while the territories switched hands on a regular basis. Swedish rule is remembered to be the somewhat tolerable period of the 700 years of slavery, russian rule – the worst of the worst.
Russians are also the only ones that tried to snuff out our languages, cultures, and nations for good. Multiple times, at that. To be fair, the nazis probably had the same in store for us, but they did not get their chance. I’m not sure how we have managed to survive all of that. Sometimes I wonder whether Bishop Albert was onto something when he dedicated Livonia to the protection of Virgin Mary in 1201.
Neutrality, yes, I have given it a lot of thought too. Turns out we are not the first ones, either. Estonia and Finland had a neutrality plan for the first world war – the idea was to mine the Gulf of Finland and enforce it as a demilitarized waters. Nobody invading St. Petersburg, nobody setting out from there to invade anyone else either. If you should ever visit Tallinn, there’s a great museum with one of the subs from that plan among other things. But as St. Peters is the most important military objective in these parts, there should exist a possibility to keep the war away by preempting both from entertaining the thought.
The alliance between the young republics soon fell apart under the pressure from the Soviet Union though, and both were picked apart separately. My take of this is that this neutrality would require at least the addition of Sweden as defence in depth. Latvia and Lithuania on board makes a lot of sense too, although the latter needs a good and well understood plan for the question of Kaliningrad.
Because while the existence of Kaliningrad as a Russian forward base takes a lot of heat off of northern Baltic Sea, it depends existentially on the Suwalki Gap, which is not a good vibe for neither Lithuania, nor Poland. So yeah, complicado.
In any case the current defence plan is article five. Knowing how the US operates, I consider the article more of a bluff really, but I also don’t think Russia is going to call that bluff, there’s nothing much for them to win there really. But I’m also not too optimistic about the future of this arrangement, since even if NATO manages to survive the war in Ukraine, the US is still in terminal decline and that means an end sooner or later.
Feral Finster
j: well put, both of your comments.
“Kallas was not made the foreign minister of EU despite of her rabid anti-russian views, it was because of them.”
Kallas knows full well what will earn her directorships in London and appointments to plum posts in New York.
Note that the welfare of the estonians never plays into it, any more than a farmhand cares about the sheep they shear or fleece.