Moscow signals concern for Russians in Estonia

[levp]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Russia signaled concern on Wednesday at Estonia's treatment of its large ethnic Russian minority, comparing language policy in the Baltic state with what it said was a call in Ukraine to prevent the use of Russian.

Russia has defended its annexation of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula by arguing it has the right to protect Russian-speakers outside its borders, so the reference to linguistic tensions in another former Soviet republic comes at a highly sensitive moment.
(...)
But amid the growing Crimea crisis, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - which like Ukraine were all parts of the old Soviet Union - have expressed growing apprehension over Moscow's intentions.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/19/us-russia-estonia-idUSBREA2I1J620140319?irpc=932

---

One has to wonder if this is some kind of sophisticated provocation, or if Putin and his people are actually insane.

[hobbit709]

1. Can anyone say Sudetenland?

[Bad Thoughts]

5. I can also say Ostpreuen and Elsass. eom.

[hobbit709]

85. Hello and goodbye

For someone brand new you seem to know a lot

[baldguy]

134. History doesn't really repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

[Beacool]

141. Hillary can, but the usual crowd around here bashed her for making the analogy.

I guess they prefer to hide their heads in the sand and pretend that Putin is a swell fellow.

[hrmjustin]

2. The bully feels emboldened.

[Cha]

67. He is certainly "emboldened" by a loud little handful of the DU population.

[dreamstst]

90. It's sad.

These cheerleaders for tyrrany are trying to undermine our President's efforts to protect innocent Ukrainians from Russian aggression.

[Cha]

95. Yeah, they're "trying" but they're not accomplishing

jack-shit.

Welcome to DU, dreamstst.

[uhnope]

140. Emboldened also by progressives like Hartmann on RT

After the invasion of Crimea and the resignation of Liz Wahl from RT, there's no excuse for Hartmann on the station. It only serves to give Putin more cover at home and also abroad when leading progressives like Hartmann collaborate with the Kremlin.

[uncommonlink]

3. Well this is an unhappy development.

Isn't this the same excuse they used to move into Crimea?

[awoke_in_2003]

19. Welcome to DU...

Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)

yes, it is the same excuse. Anyone who thought Putin would stop with Crimea is divorced from reality. Sadly, I don't know what we can do about it.

on edit: Forgot Estonia is part of NATO, so they should be safe. I still do not think Putin is done screwing with his neighbors.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Estonia is a member of NATO. Alas, it won't be a matter of "can."

[awoke_in_2003]

40. Yeah, forgot about that...

I will edit my post accordingly.

[uncommonlink]

49. Thanks for the welcome.

Like you, I believe Putin will push the West as far as he can without actually triggering a violent NATO response, the problem with that is, he may very well overestimate how far he can push and invite that same NATO response he'll try to avoid.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

137. And Poland and England had a mutual defense treaty.

Plus chamberlain came back waving a piece of paper.

That worked out well, if I recall.

[Retrograde]

4. This is sounding disturbingly familiar (n/t)

[geek tragedy]

6. Too bad, so sad Pooty Poot. Estonia is a NATO country, which means your goons

stay on your side of the border.

This is why NATO exists.

[frazzled]

7. indeed, a member of the EU and NATO

If this insinuation should go any further, one would suspect Senor Putin is pushing to provoke a rather nasty and inevitably widespread war.

[geek tragedy]

9. it's bluster, Russians hate Estonia, fricking hate that country with a passion,

This is pandering to his ultranationalist wackos back home,

A single Russian boot crosses that border would mean real sanctions, crippling sanctions, the kind that would put Russia's economy back to what it was under Nicholas II.

Not to mention NATO forces bombing Russia.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. My concern is

it is just as easy to stumble into a war as leap into one. Not long ago I read a book about how Sparta and Athens both sought to avoid conflict with each other only to have their allies and circumstances drag them into the Second Peloponnese War.

[geek tragedy]

29. I've heard that theory, never bought it. War between Athens and Sparta was not an

accident, imo.

Maybe stumbling into a situation in Ukraine. But no way he stumbles into a shooting war with a NATO country. That's why Russia was so opposed to having NATO expand to its neighbors.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. I can see Putin blustering for domestic consumption

and then some circumstance leading the ultra-nationalists to call his bluster. Or maybe the transplanted Russians spoken of in Post #14 start agitating and get out of control or the Estonians seek to suppress their disruptions/evict them. Or maybe Russia's neighbors mobilize troops and Russia responds in kind and some twitchy conscript somewhere makes a mistake.

If nothing else I think we can agree Putin is arrogant. In that arrogance he may well overestimate his ability to anticipate and control all the variables. My Lover Boy has a saying: If you need to be someplace there is only 1 compass azimuth that will get you there and 359 ways to get lost. Even being "close" will do nothing more than increase your deviation the further you go.

Putin is a thug. We cannot back down. But I'm still scared as hell.

[geek tragedy]

37. All possible, but I'm pretty sure this is just a tweaking on his part.

Ethnic Russians living in NATO states know the cossacks aren't coming to rescue them. They know Russia is no match for NATO.

[LiberalEsto]

119. And that's why Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were so anxious to join NATO

Because even after they regained their freedom in 1991, they knew the Russians would try whatever they could get away with to rule over them again.

[amandabeech]

103. Yes, and Austria-Hungary and Serbia dragged Germany and Russia, respectively,

into WWI.

France had an alliance with Russia and Britain had an understanding with France.

Millions died.

Earlier this year I saw a weekend C-SPAN program about a new book on the events leading up to WWI. The author was the head of the History Department at Oxford. She said that often junior members of an alliance become more aggressive because the junior partner believes that the senior partner must back them up no matter what. She mentioned the Second Peloponnese War, but, obviously, her main focus was on WWI.

Currently, the US has many junior partners, some of them in Europe, but others in Asia. Obama must remain firm in the face of aggression, for instance, by Russia or China, while reigning in the most aggressive actions by junior partners, like Estonia or the Philippines and even Japan. Obama, Kerry and other members of the foreign policy team have a real test ahead, IMHO.

[LiberalEsto]

120. What aggressive actions by Estonia?

I can't think of any.

[amandabeech]

130. I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear.

I was making a hypothetical situation to relate the current problem with Russia to one of the themes of the author's book, which was that a junior partner in an alliance sometimes becomes a bit more belligerent if it believes that the senior partner will step in no matter what.

I could have chosen any of the small countries with a frontier with Russia for the hypothetical, but I think that Estonia popped into my head first because I've seen your posts. Ordinarily, I probably would have written "Lithuania," because I visited there in 1995, not that Lithuania has been acting in a provocative manner toward Russia's Kaliningrad region.

I do not mean to suggest that Estonia is doing or has done anything unwise to provoke Russia. In fact, I remember at least one situation in which Estonia acted reasonably and Russia got all bent out of shape. It was the movement of the monument to WWII Soviet soldiers from the middle of town to a cemetery nearby in which many of those soldiers were buried. Russia had a fit.

Please accept my apologies.

[LiberalEsto]

131. No need to apologize, I wasn't upset with you, just curious

We Estos aren't generally that aggressive unless we're stinkin' drunk, and by that time we're usually too drunk to aggress.

[amandabeech]

136. I'll keep that in mind!

[Cha]

68. INteresting.. thank you, geek.

[freshwest]

63. My first thought. Don't fuck with NATO, it won't go well. Like it or not, they're in this:

Last edited Thu Mar 20, 2014, 04:32 AM - Edit history (1)

The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world's defence spending...

Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the 11 September 2001 attacks,[5] after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF. The organization has operated a range of additional roles since then, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations[6] and in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

The less potent Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members, has been invoked four times: by Turkey in 2003 over the Iraq War, twice in 2012 by Turkey over the Syrian Civil War after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria[7] and by Poland in 2014 following the Russian intervention in Crimea...[8][4]

The members agreed that an armed attack against any one of them in Europe or North America would be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agreed that, if an armed attack occurred, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, would assist the member being attacked, taking such action as it deemed necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. The treaty does not require members to respond with military action against an aggressor. Although obliged to respond, they maintain the freedom to choose the method by which they do so.

This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels, which clearly states that the response will be military in nature. It is nonetheless assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. The treaty was later clarified to include both the member's territory and their "vessels, forces or aircraft" above the Tropic of Cancer, including some Overseas departments of France.[13]

In other words, the strong will protect the weak, like Estonia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

An link to an interesting piece on NATO's current role in the world is below, and it explains a great many questions we see on DU. Such as why are Navy SEALS doing this or that overseas. It explains almost everything that Obama has done abroad, as well. And no, it's not because he:



Nice of EarlG to clear that up.

Here's that explanation, it's worth the read for those who ask those things and don't know why Obama does what he does, which is his constitutional duty:

http://www.un-arm.org/PoAISS/GlobalOrganization.aspx?GlobalOrganizationId=2

A dissenting view on NATO's usefulness from Forbes, one can decide if he's right or wrong. I read it and I then read his other writings...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2013/04/22/natos-lack-of-any-serious-purpose-means-it-should-retire/

Unfortunately, he sounds like a total ass in his other writings, and surely has an agenda:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/

So take your salt shaker. But consider the impact of Russia and China forging alliances for trade.

Don't you think that as China ascends, the power of NATO and other such organizations will logically decrease?

[Cha]

69. Thank you for all this information, Fresh..

[freshwest]

70. YW, friend! n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

76. Excellent info Fresh!

Many thanks!

[sharp_stick]

8. Now we see why

so many of these former Soviet controlled areas were desperate to become part of NATO.

[Dustlawyer]

10. Hey Pootin, I abused a Russian American, want to come over here and do something about it?

All we need in the f'ed up world is another short dictator with an inferiority complex who feels he must compensate for lack of height by invading countries.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

12. Why did you abuse a Russian American? n/t

[Dustlawyer]

25. Putin's excuse to invade the Crimea is to protect anyone of Russian decent. I hypothetically

abused a Russian American, I have nothing against Russians in particular. Plus, I really wanted to be petty and call him Pootin.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

31. LMAO ...

Okay, wasn't sure if it was hypothetical.

I like to use "Pootin," too, but because I have an immature streak.

[KamaAina]

13. There are enough Russian-speakers in San Jose that ballots, etc. are printed in Russian

Someone must have abused one at some point. Should we be afraid?

[Dustlawyer]

26. South Beach in Miami too!

[geardaddy]

33. Here in the Twin Cities too! n/t

[geek tragedy]

35. the ones in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn don't give a fig about Putin.

Amazingly, people can be ethnic Russians, speak Russian, yet be loyal and productive citizens of the country where they reside

[KamaAina]

56. Who would have thought?

[dembotoz]

22. milw has(had) a senior housing building that was virtually all russian

my aunt who lived there was one of the last(only) non russians there

she has been dead for a few year now and i do not know if the demographics of the building remain--actually--not sure if the building is still there--i don't do down that way often

[SoapBox]

11. Wow...I guess Puty has some kind of a death wish...

Well for millions, other than him, since it sure looks he's just asking for a world ending war.

Hey IOC! This bullshit is exactly why you should have moved or shut this Olympics!

[LiberalEsto]

14. Putin is a god-damned viper

Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 08:14 PM - Edit history (2)

Here we go, as Estonians and others have suspected. I am Estonian-American, and I have close relatives in Estonia.

First Crimea, then Ukraine, then the Baltic states and then any other free nation he can get his filthy claws on.

During Stalin's bloody reign, tens of thousands of Estonians (and Latvians and Lithuanians) were dragged out of their homes and sent to Siberia. Many died on the way, many perished in Siberia, many never returned.

From Wikipedia: "More than 200,000 people are estimated to have been deported from the Baltic in 1940–1953.[citation needed] In addition, at least 75,000 were sent to Gulag.[citation needed] More than 10% of the entire adult Baltic population was deported or sent to Soviet labour camps.[78] In response to the continuing insurgency against Soviet rule,[79] more than 20,000 Estonians were forcibly deported either to labour camps or Siberia (see Gulag).[80]"

Meanwhile, Stalin flooded the countries with Russians, in a plan to "Russify" them. In other words, to kill their indigenous languages and culture and history. Russian became the official language. School was taught in Russian. All the best jobs went to the Russian incomers, whom one might liken to carpetbaggers. The Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians were treated like dirt in their own native lands.

Even after Estonia and the other countries finally regained their freedom in 1991, there remained a sizable Russian population in each of the countries. The vast majority of them refused to move to Russia, but stayed and became convenient tools for Russian manipulations designed to intimidate the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians.

Any time one of the Baltics did anything that annoyed Mother Russia, these carpetbaggers would whine, protest, etc. They refused to learn the languages of these countries, although Russians have no compunction whatsoever about forcing others to speak Russian. Russian officials made constant threats to the Baltic nations on behalf of their stooges remaining in these countries. This has gone on for the entire 23 years of freedom in these countries.

Now Putin is once again manipulating the Russian carpetbaggers in these nations, only this time he is showing his true colors. He has a grandiose mania to "restore" the Soviet Union. So he expresses "concern" about these Russians in Estonia. He will find pretexts to invade. Next step, annexation with guns and tanks.

If Estonia is such a terrible place, why don't all these Russian folks pack up and move back to Russia? Why? Because they know very well they have more opportunities, more freedom and better lifestyles in Estonia than they would have in Russia. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't receive stipend checks from Moscow to encourage them to stay put in Estonia.

I am scared for my kinfolk.
Goddess, protect them from this murderer.

[MBS]

17. + 1 n/t

[joshcryer]

21. Good overview.

[elleng]

32. 'Thanks' for this. 'Following' you on this, LibEst.

[geardaddy]

36. This should be its own post.

Thanks for posting!

[Iterate]

48. Thanks. Just the right post.

Until the last two days or so I had the impression that even among those posting here who are clearly against the invasion, only a very, very few had a fucking clue how dangerous this is.

People I've talked to from Latvia, Poland, to Romania and Bulgaria in the past have told the same story your family is telling.

Alarm bells with me went off over the summer over increasingly aggressive Russian energy policy, which became focused on forcing Ukraine to accept the Russian trade agreement, which then backfired and became invasion-lite, and now playing the ethnic card. It's a violation of core European principles and progress. The EU process is slow but it works -even Serbia and Kosovo are now talking- and the intent seems to be the unraveling of its success.

I place the danger above anything since 1945. And not because of an exact repeat of problems we've had since them, but maybe more concern for the catastrophes and consequences we haven't though of --plus the fact that we don't have time for this shit. The CO2 isn't waiting for anyone.

[Cha]

71. Oh, I wondered what the "Esto" stood for.. thank for this, LE..

[davidpdx]

72. It is interesting to hear someone's take who has roots there

I'd love to visit areas around there some day. There are too many things to see and not enough time to see everything. I did an ancestral search and was able to find some roots in Eastern Europe (but they were wayyyyy back). I'll have to take a look again to see if there was anyone from Estonia.

[LiberalEsto]

78. Check out Geni.com

It's a great genealogy web site and many Estonians use it.

[Adrahil]

73. +1! NT

[okaawhatever]

82. Remember, there is no invading just Estonia. It is now invading NATO and the 28 countries that

represents. The paper tiger meme won't hold up when these countries are forced by treaty to defend one of it's own. The politicians won't have to worry about approval numbers or parliamentary approval so response won't be a problem.

[Igel]

92. Assumes that NATO would go to war over partial occupation or annexation--

or full annexation--of Estonia.

Even here the attitude is that we really have more important things to do, and if Russia wants to re-assert itself in its sphere of influence, okay.

Would people in Taos really want to send troops to Tallinn to die in order to defend Estonian sovereignty?

Putin would like to break NATO. If he finds a place that he could invade and make it obvious that the treaty obligations of NATO are just a "scrap of paper" then he'd be more than happy to do so.

It's not like it wouldn't be the first time. France, for, instance, was supposed to protect Czechoslovakia in 1938. But it, like other countries, decided it was a bad time, they had to stay home and wash their hair.


A decade later Stalin showed he learned the lesson. He got the Polish territory he wanted. He got Koenigsberg and other areas. He annexed the countries he occupied before WWII. Europe and the US were tired. And even ceded him other countries they didn't care about, just like Europe before the war ceded to Hitler countries *they* didn't really much care about.

Stalin was surprised, seriously surprised, at W. Berlin. It was entirely out of character with his and his advisors' perception of the West. Same for Cuba--it was again the military capability and threat of direct military action that made the difference. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war, to be sure. But that really rather worked out poorly with Hitler, and the only reason we think it worked out better with Stalin is (a) we weren't the people suffering (our suffering is always orders of magnitude more important than anybody else's) and (b) much to most Soviet officials' surprise, the USSR collapsed gracefully, quickly, and remarkably peacefully. We also have the nice fiction that in all sorts of place were Soviet weapons poured in with Soviet advisors they were always "grassroots people's movements", not part of a messy military campaign fought often by proxy in out-of-the-way places ... with a lot of dead and a lot of economic devastation.

[okaawhatever]

100. I don't doubt NATO would step up to the plate for Estonia even if it were a partial invasion. All

countries wouldn't respond, in fact, it would likely be a few of the European NATO members due to logistics with the others contributing money.
Since NATO wasn't formed until 1949 all of Hitler's and Stalin's annexations and occupations preceded its creation. The W Berlin airlift was helped define what NATO would become. I don't think you can compare pre- or early NATO with today. And France, what can you say about France? They claimed they wanted out of NATO and the HQ were moved, etc. France wanted to do their own thing, which they did, but have remained in NATO. I don't know how much France is counted on when the NATO strategists compile analyses and engagement plans. For all we know NATO could just ask them to bring the wine to the next military engagement. Just kidding.

[MindMover]

102. Yes, but it would be very good wine and cheese ....

[amandabeech]

104. France should just cater an entire NATO operation.

NATO men and women would not march on empty stomachs. They'd use Breton hard cider and Alsatian beer. Of course, the French would need to throw in their version of the dishes enjoyed by other NATO members. Kielbasa Polish sausage and sauerkraut a la France', anyone?

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. sounds like Estonia is spelled P-O-L-A-N-D.

Fortunately, I have seen this movie...we win, in the end.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. "I have seen this movie...we win, in the end."

The question is: Can we do it without killing 50 million people?

[fujiyama]

62. I'm not sure who "we" is...

The last time I saw the movie I think you're talking about, the we was also "them".

In the end, we will all lose if the sequel ever comes out.

[sofa king]

88. Heh. So do they.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Putin - International Concern Troll (nt)

[hrmjustin]

57. Duzy lol!

[MBS]

18. that is indeed the question. .

Last edited Wed Mar 19, 2014, 06:17 PM - Edit history (1)

One has to wonder if this is some kind of sophisticated provocation, or if Putin and his people are actually insane.

Possibly the latter- a particularly virulent and destructive form of male-midlife-crisis. I think Angela Merkel's comments about "not being in touch with reality" were not far off the mark.

on second thought: insanity AND provocation

[TwilightGardener]

20. Provocation.

[geardaddy]

28. Maybe the shirtless one will try to occupy

Condaleeza. Doesn't she speak Russian?

[Adam051188]

30. nope

blustering and saber rattling is all that will come of this.

i know because i'm a supervillian muahahaha

[happyslug]

38. So Putin, fears NATO will use Estonia as a base against Russia?

Remember, the Baltic countries of Latvia and Estonia was the base the Teutonic Knights used to attack Moscow between the 1200s and the 1500s. Sweden replaced the Knights in the 1600s. AS did the Danes in the same period (Through at least one time as an ally if Russia against Sweden).

Lithuania, was independent during the days of the Knights (through along with Poland often a target of the Knights). Poland and Lithuania also attacks Russia, but used themselves as the base as oppose to Latvia and Estonia. In fact the last time the Capital of Russia fell to an enemy, it was the Poles in 1610 (Yes, Napoleon took Moscow in 1812, but failed to hold it for more then a few months AND the capital of Russia at that time was St Petersburg, through in most ways Moscow was the more important of the two cities even under the Czars ruling from St Petersburg).

In 1610, the Poles took Moscow, in a Summer Campaign, but that Campaign was more of a take over of Moscow by pro-Polish Russian Nobility then a true Polish-Russian fight (The Poles seems to have wanted a Polish-Lithuanian-Russia joint kingdom, but the King of Poland proceeded to wreck that possibility by demand that the Russian all turn Catholic). A lot of in fighting between on both sides, as the nobility of both sides changed sides when it was advantageous to them).

Poland and Lithuania was also the base Napoleon used in 1812, and what Germany used to attack Russia in 1915 (After Taking Poland from Russia in 1914) and in 1941 (After Germany divided Poland with the Soviet Union in 1939).

The Crimea was the base for Roman Attacks on Sarmatians during the time of the Roman Empire The Sarmatians controlled what is not the Ukraine), the Byzantine Empire attack both Bulgarians in the 600s the Khazars in the 700, when both controlled the Ukraine and southern Russia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Khazars_and_Byzantium

The Arabs also attack the Khazars in the 700s.

The above people had all been headers, the Slavs slowly replaced them for they were farmers, becoming the dominate power in what is today the Ukraine and Russia in the 800s. This did not stop wars with the Greeks in Constantinople nor the Arabs (and then the Turks, as the Arabs hired Turks to do their actual fighting after about 750 AD):

As Asia Minor went from the Byzantine Empire to the growing Ottoman Empire after 1200s, it was the Ottomans that replaced both the earlier Seljuk Turks, Arabs and Greeks in attacks on the Ukraine and Southern Russia, attacks that continued till the 1700s when Russia achieved naval superiority over the Turks in the Black Sea (and that could be broken, as the British and French did during the Crimean War of the early 1850s).

Sorry, Russia sees a lot of enemies all around it. The Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States were NOT viewed as a threat, until NATO expanded into those areas. As NATO expanded into those areas, then they became potential bases to attack Russia. The most recent decision to expand NATO to include even the Ukraine is crossing a red line with Russia. The Ukraine as an independent State is NOT a threat to Moscow, but as a potential base to attack Russia it is a threat. The same with the Baltics and Poland (Finland could be added to that list, but since WWII it has refused to form any alliance with anyone hostile to Moscow and thus not a potential base for someone else to attack Russia).

Russia's idea situation is the Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and the Ukraine NOT be members of NATO. Moscow, could accept them being a member of NATO, but no NATO troops. The same go for Poland, but Poland join NATO while Russia was still going down hill in the 1990s and thus Russia could NOT do anything about it (and the same reason why Russia did not object to Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania joining NATO in the 1990s).

Sorry, Russia has concerns about the countries around Russia. NATO and the US needs to address those concerns. Instead we are telling Russia to accept it. Russia so dislikes what appears to be an attempt to set up a quick conquest of Russia that they will everything they can to prevent such a set up. It is to late to complain about NATO expansion, but it is not to late to undo the damage, given Putin is facing sanctions anyway for the Crimea.

This is NOT the act of some power hungry mad man, but the act of someone who sees his country being surrounded by potential enemies, all with aims to take over his country. I hate to say this, almost anyone in his same situation will do what he is doing, and if NATO did not expect it, they would never have expanded to include Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland into NATO in the 1990s.

[totodeinhere]

42. The Baltic States and Poland have every right to ally their interests with the West

if they so choose. And Russia has no right under international law to dictate that they not join NATO. They are sovereign countries. And your suggestion that Russia's neighbors are attempting to accomplish a "quick conquest of Russia" is absolutely ludicrous. Oh yea right, I can just see it now when Estonian troops come marching into Moscow. What a joke.

[geek tragedy]

45. You forgot about Poland!

I've wanted to do that for years.

[happyslug]

61. Or you believe that US troops can NOT use the Baltic states as a base to attack Russia?

Remember, the fear of Russia is NOT from any of the Baltic States, but from them being used as bases to attack Russia (which they have been used to do for at various times over the last 1000 years). That fear is what is driving the Russians, and that fear is what lead the Russians to take over those countries from Sweden in the 1700s. Under the Czars those countries were basically left alone, as long as they knew who NOT to ally with.

Under the Communists, that changed for every one of those countries allied with Germany Against Russia during WWII (now the Soviet Union did occupy them first, but by 1940 it was clear that Hitler was going to attack Russia, the only question was when, thus the US objected to that Soviet move into the Baltics, but Britain refused to condemn Russia for it, the reason was simple, but 1940 Britain was already looking to Russia as an ally against Germany).

Now, Stalin's annexation of the Baltic States was based on the fact his troops were already all over them. Even today Russia claims the annexation was voluntary, the people of the Baltic deny this (with most observers backing the people of the Baltic States). Hitler used those same Baltic States as a base to attack St Petersburgh and Russia itself.

Thus Russia's concern is NOT with the Baltic States themselves, but who may use them to attack Russia. As long as those Baltic States were neutral, not a problem for Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the problem has occurred as those states not only allied with NATO, but let NATO troops from other NATO countries enter and train in their country. Russia can NOT tolerate such movement of troops, ships or planes from other NATO nations.

I have no problem with the Baltic nations allying with NATO, my problem is having NATO troops in those countries. It is the later that will upset Russia and will force Russia to do something about it, just as Stalin did in 1940 when he feared a German move into those same states.

Remember Putin is no Stalin, Putin has no desire to impose his concept of communism on the people of the Baltic States (Which is what Stalin did). Thus Putin will NOT do anything to the people of the Baltic states, except occupy their country to keep NATO forces out of them. It is for that reason, I do not blame the Baltic States for this problem, the problem is one of the making of the US and NATO. The US should NEVER have permitted NATO to violate the US and Russia understanding of 1994 that NATO will NOT expand into Poland or the Baltic States. Again, no problem being allied with NATO, but those countries militaries should NOT be part of the NATO military structure. Remember it is NOT the Baltic States that Russia fears but NATO.

[Adrahil]

77. I think that's bullshit...

The idea of NATO launching an unprovoked land invasion into Russia via the Baltic States is about as likely as monkeys flying out of my ass.

This is about about Putin trying to rebuild a Russian empire, with HIM as Czar. As usual, it's about money and power.

[happyslug]

79. Then why are we sending troops???

Russia has moved no troops in the border, yet we continue to send troops for "Training" purposes to Estonia. That is like telling a someone, that the loaded shotgun you are carrying is NOT aimed at him, when they is no one or thing anywhere else around. What is the other person suppose to think? Remember look through RUSSIAN eyes, why could the US send troops to Estonia? I know it is hard to do, for it is a lot easier to look through the eyes of people we agree with, but to understand someone, look at what he is seeing and that includes looking at what has happened to him and his family in the past.

The Famous observation of a white male and an African American male see a white police officer hit another African American with his nightstick. The White will often report that he saw the Police Officer use what force he thought necessary to make a valid arrest, while the African America will see police brutality. Why the difference? They past experience, Africa Americans have a much higher rate of violent interaction with police officers, then do most White Americans, and thus see such interaction through their own history (and history of the family members and friends). The same for the White American, but in case of the White American that past history is one of seeing the Officer arrest a violent criminal

I can put myself in the shoes of others, it is hard to do, but possible. Given the history of Russia, Russia will see US troops in the Baltic States as just another power using those States as bases to attack Russia. Finland knows this and makes sure it stays neutral, and did that even doing the Cold War.

Please note, I do NOT blame the Baltic States themselves, I blame the US. It is the US and NATO that Russia fears, not the Baltic States. thus the blame for any conflict lies with NATO and the US more then any other nation or group.

[amandabeech]

105. Do you also think that Putin and Russia MUST also try to see this situation

through the eyes of the west?

Perhaps I am misinterpreting your posts, but why must the west tiptoe around Russia, but Russia must not tiptoe around the west? Why not say that each side should try to look at the situation through the eyes of the other? That would be a fair argument.

People tiptoe around other people who are unstable or seem dangerous.

Are you saying that Putin and Russia are unstable and dangerous, just like people?

[happyslug]

114. Because we are the one nearing RUSSIA, not Russia forces nearing the US.

The US First Foreign Policy concerns, are Mexico, Canada and Cuba, for the same reason Russia is concerned about Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia, China and Korea. ALL BORDER RUSSIA. Many have large population of Ethnic Russians.

Yes, I did not mention the Caucasus states or Turkey, those have either a mountain range or the Black Sea between them and Russia, thus less of a concern for the border is more "Natural" then the rest of the borders of Russia. Afghanistan is another mountain area, a "foot hills" of the Himalayas. Thus a state with "Natural Borders" with its neighbors and Russia. China is complex, part of the border is Mountains, part of the border is rolling countryside. The "True" northern border of China is the Great Wall, but it is also well inside the legal borders of China, thus making the borders of Russia and China more of someone drawing a line in the sand.

Remember 1962, the US almost went to war over MISSILES IN CUBA. Why? Those missiles were located in an area NEXT TO THE USA. Thus Russia, in the Ukraine, is acting much like the US did in Mexico and Cuba since the 1800s. We want FRIENDLY Governments in both, Hostile Government are not liked, but tolerable (Cuba since the 1960s), Hostile Government WITH Troops or other military force from over seas powers UNACCEPTABLE (The Cuban Missile Crisis).

Russia is the same, in those countries near to it, it wants friendly governments, will accept hostile governments, but will oppose foreign forces in those countries (Afghanistan was an exception, but given 9-11 Putin was NOT going to oppose US movements into Afghanistan).

[LiberalEsto]

121. Why would the US or NATO want to attack Russia except to defend members?

If Russia minds its own business and keeps its greedy claws out of other countries, they would have nothing to worry about.

[LiberalEsto]

125. As far as I know Russia does have troops doing military exercises

near the Baltics' borders.

[LiberalEsto]

117. Excuse me, but Stalin forcibly deported many Baltic citizens to Siberia

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Many died along the way, or in labor camps. Few returned. My own mother and grandmother barely escaped capture by Stalin's brutal troops in Estonia. Had they been caught, I would not exist. What the Soviets did to the people of the Baltics is horrible.

Wikipedia: "More than 200,000 people are estimated to have been deported from the Baltic in 1940–1953.[citation needed] In addition, at least 75,000 were sent to Gulag.[citation needed] More than 10% of the entire adult Baltic population was deported or sent to Soviet labour camps.[78] In response to the continuing insurgency against Soviet rule,[79] more than 20,000 Estonians were forcibly deported either to labour camps or Siberia (see Gulag).[80]"

Estonians want to remain a free, democratic society, not ruled by the Russians or any other nation.

AND they have a lot of PAST EXPERIENCE of suffering under the boots of the Russians

[happyslug]

122. Is any one advocating that today?

Stalin was a bastard, he killed Russians as fast as Estonians. If we want to talk about what Stalin did, how about the Estonians who joined the Germans in WWII? Another Irrelevant group to this discussion.

Until the Ukraine situation, Russia was happy with Estonia being independent (Russia would like Estonia as part of Russia, but Russia is NOT willing to take Estonia by force UNLESS Estonia is being used as a base to attack Russia, Russia knows Estonia can NOT attack Russia, but it can be a base for NATO to attack Russia). Prior to the Ukraine, Putin did nothing to threatens Estonia. Putin mentioned Estonia right after NATO increased it air patrols to and around Estonia and the rest of the Baltic after the coup in the Ukraine.

I suspect the Pentagon has finally told Obama the sad facts of life, Russia right now has retreated so much from what it controlled during the Cold War,that Russia is basically out of reach of most US Conventional forces at the present time. To build up those forces for any attack on Russia the US would need massive bases in the Baltic States, and once those bases were built, Russia would attack to prevent those Bases to be used to attack Russia.

Thus Putin's verbal jab at Estonia appears to have been a warning to the US, that Russia can come up with an excuse to attack if the US build up bases in the Baltic states. In simple terms the comment on Estonia was NOT aimed at Estonia but the US.

For that reason, Obama seems to have embraced diplomatic solution based on those military limitations. Remember the Russian Army of today is no where near the Soviet Army of the 1980s, but it is strong enough launch a preemptive attack to prevent any build up of US Forces in any of the Baltic States. Russia will NOT do so UNLESS that build up becomes clearer, but the increased Air Patrols is a concern to Russia and Putin decided to see if the Pentagon is willing to go to War over RUSSIA denying the Pentagon the ability to build bases in the Baltic States to "Better" to contain Russia. No one in the Pentagon wanted to go to war over bases in the Baltic States, so Obama switched to diplomacy.

[LiberalEsto]

124. The German forcibly drafted Estonians in WW2.

I hardly think there were many volunteers. Estonians and the rest of the Baltics would have loved to remain neutral like Switzerland, but unfortunately Hitler and Stalin had other ideas. My own father had to flee from the Nazis because he was a socialist and had a politically connected job when they invaded.

Russia being "happy" that Estonia is independent is an absolute fiction. Russia has been bitching about anything the Estonians do, such as asking the Russian population in its borders to learn a little basic Estonian in order to vote -- after all, the Russians forced their language on the Estonians during the decades they lorded it over the Estonians. The Russians bitched when Estonia set up a museum to honor the victims of Stalinism. They bitched when Estonia wanted to move a Russian soldier statue to the Russian cemetery in Tallinn, where the statue belongs. Any little thing, any excuse to piss and moan. They're always accusing the Estonians of "abusing" the poor suffering Russians living in Estonia.

But if Estonia's Russian population is so miserable and oppressed, why don't they move back to Russia? Why? Because they know they're far better off in Estonia.

[go west young man]

142. Careful...with your incredibly sensible posts...

they obviously don't fit the anti-Russia theme here. You need to to be more in line with Americans perception of Russia, circa 1960's and your US corporate propaganda intake should obviously be increased. Have you tried draping yourself with a flag to dampen your common sense? It works particularly well when the president is darker in skin tone. Your far too iintelligent for this thread. I recommend you purchase some red,white and blue pom poms, drink more budweiser and eat at a Cracker Barrel. Oh yeah and watch more CNN...lots of it..especially when they have a shiny general on. Oh and the next AEI meeting is down at Sea Island, Georgia soon...head on down and I'm sure they can find time to brainwash you away from your realistic thinking and put you more in line for these future endeavors.

[geek tragedy]

44. Is this snark are are you seriously suggesting that the Teutonic Knights' exploits

give Russia reason to fear fucking Estonia?

And talking about attacks from the Roman empire?



Nobody is trying "to set up a quick conquest of Russia."

That's the dumbest shit I've read all day, and there's been an unusual amount of stupid shit posted here today.

[hrmjustin]

58. .

[happyslug]

59. You have to look from the RUSSIANS point of view, not from the US

Remember the Cuban Missile crises? The US has hated Cuba since the Cuban Revolution do to the fact that Cuba is the best base to take New Orleans. It was the base from which the British attacked New Orleans in 1815, it was the base the US used in 1862 during the Civil war (Technically no US Ship went to Cuba, but support ships, including ships used to move the food for the Sailors and troops did). Cuba was where the Spanish sent their troops to New Orleans in 1763 when France turned New Orleans over to the Spanish (There was some preparations made to oppose the Spanish, but the Spanish showed up with enough force to prevent any such action). Some historians maintain the Shawnee where a Cuban Tribe that under pressure from the Spanish left Cuba for Southern Louisiana (and then made they way up the Mississippi and Ohio so by the 1600s were in Pennsylvania).


Whoever holds Cuba is a threat to New Orleans and given that the Mississippi drains 2/3rds of the US, whoever holds New Orleans holds the US by the throat. Thus the US will NEVER accept a hostile force in Cuba. Cuba can have a strong defense force for the US fear is a STRONG OFFENSIVE force not a Cuban Defense force. Thus when the Russian put missiles in Cuba the US almost went to war. When the Russians decided to pull out the missiles, the push for War ended for Cuba without Russian troops was not capable of threatening New Orleans. The US was still Hostile to Cuba under Castro, but the US was NOT going to go to war over Cuba without Russian troops.

That is all a matter of geography. For example, for some heavy bulky cargoes, it is cheaper and easier to ship such cargoes down the Ohio and Mississippi from Pittsburgh Pa, then put them on an inter-coastal barge to Philadelphia. Fuel for Pittsburgh comes up the Mississippi River, for it is cheaper then shipping it over land from Philadelphia. In terms of Value, Los Angles is the biggest US Port, but in terms of TONNAGE, that is South Louisiana. Houston is #2, New Orleans (a Separate port from South Louisiana) is #5, Long Beach is #4. Long beach has less then a 1/3 of the tonnage that passes through South Louisiana OR Houston, that is how massive the Mississippi river tonnage is even today. Los Angles is even further down the list when it comes to tonnage.

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_57.html

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/americas_freight_transportation_gateways/2009/introduction_and_overview/html/figure_02_table.html

The main difference is the Mississippi ports ship oil and grain, while Los Angles and Long Beach pull in shipments of finished goods from China and the rest of the Far East.

While, Los Angles brings in more money, do to the tonnage shipped through the Mississippi river port. Mississippi is by far the most important of the two. Remember during the American Revolution the US lost both of its two largest cities at that time, Philadelphia and New York, but since the US still controlled its internal lines the US survived. During the American Revolution the US did not yet control the Mississippi, the US did within 20 years of the Revolution and since that time the Mississippi-Ohio river has been the main interior lines of the US, the US will nuke the world of that interior line is threatened.

The same with Russia, what Putin is doing is driven more by Geography then anything else. From the Plains of Poland to the Pacific Ocean, you have the largest single flat piece of land in the world. It is intersected by Rivers (and the people of that land, center themselves on those rivers, the Poles along the Vistula, the Ukrainians around the Dnieper, south of thePripet Marshes, the Russian along the Volga. The Belarusians along the Dnieper, but in or north of the Pripet Marshes.

Pripet Marshes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinsk_Marshes

While the people of that vast flat land do call themselves separate nationalities and speak variation of Slavic Languages (some so different as to be translated from one to another), when one people end and another begin is often some arbitrary line drawn in the dirt. It is not unusable for people who grew up in these border areas to switch from one language to another for their friends in their area they grew up in were often of spoke both languages interchangeability. Poles would speak Ukrainian where those two people mixed, Ukrainians would speak Russian, where those two people mixed. While the "Borders" often had guards and stations that restricted movement, but like the US-Canadian border west of Ontario, walk 100 feet away, no one will come out and say don't do that. In that area of the US and Canada, citizens of both countries do it all the time.

This is NOT like the border between Germany and France. Yes, both are members of the EU and no longer need passports to cross to the other country, but often you have mountain ranges (and sometimes rivers) that divide those two people, thus mixing across the borders as children playing with their friends in their neighborhood is much harder and thus rarer between Germany and France, then it is between any of the people living between Poland and the Pacific Ocean.

I bring this up, for Russian knows the above and also knows it is weakest in winter. When Russia was conquered by the Mongols, it was in a Winter attack, for then the rivers and Marshes freeze up and it is quick movement throughout that flat land. When attacked in Summer, Russia has fought off most of its enemies, but in winter, if the invader is prepared for a winter attack (like the Mongols were), Russia can be easily and quickly conquered. The poles in 1610 attacked in Summer, but they had moved they border eastward during the previous winters to set up that summer attack (as did the Teutonic Knights, who were defeated by the Poles when their decided to attack in Summer, something the Grand Master of the Knights told his knights NOT to do, but they attacks and were defeated in the battle of Tannenberg in 1410).

More on the Battle of Grunwald or First Battle of Tannenberg or Battle of Žalgiris (Like many battles has more then one name, Grunwald is the Polish name, Tannnerberg is the German Name, Žalgiris is the Lithuanian name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald

Thus Russia fears strong enemies on its borders, not so much counties like Estonia or Latvia, but countries that can provide the forces to attack Russia, i.e. Germany, France, Britain and the US, all members of NATO. Russia will oppose any forces from those countries on its borders, even if those troops are in Poland, Latvia, Lithuanian and Estonia. Just like the US will NOT tolerate troops from a country that can attack New Orleans being in Cuba, Russia will have that same attitude to Latvia, Lithuanian and Estonia (Poland the Russians will accept, for Poland was the second largest army in the old Warsaw Pact, thus Poland, while not right now able to attack Russia, could by itself in some future date).

Geography often determines who fights what war not only who and where but often how and when and why. Latvia, Lithuanian and Estonia along with the Ukraine are red lines for Russia, I do not care who is in charge of Russia, such a ruler can NOT afford such countries to be used as spring board of an attack on Russia. That also includes the ABILITY to be used, as oppose to be actually used. Finland knows this, and since WWII has agreed NEVER to put foreign troops in Finland AND not to enter into an alliance with a country that COULD attack Russia. Thus Finland since WWII, did NOT have to turn Communist under Stalin but remained a western Style democracy right on the borders of the Soviet Union, within 210 kilometers of the second largest city in Russia, St Petersburgh. The reason was simple, Finland refused to be a threat to Russia after it agreed to a peace treaty in 1944.

Thus from the Russians point of view the alliance between NATO and the sending of Troops to the Baltics nations of Latvia, Lithuanian and Estonia is a threat to Russia. Russia has made to threat to any of those nations, thus those nations working with NATO is showing they are willing to be a NATO base to attack Russia.

Remember the Russia of today is not the Soviet Union of the Cold War, Russia is much weaker compared to NATO then the Soviet Union was (The Soviet Army in 1985 held its largest war game, going the distance from Berlin to Lisbon in three days in a fighting formation bringing its own supplies, including food and fuel, with it on that maneuver, the Russian Army of today can NOT do anything like that). On the other hand, Russia can NOT sit back and let its potential enemies surround it so that Russia loses any ability to defend itself. Thus the the recent moves by Putin, it is NOT something he wants to do, but instead feels he has to do it to defend mother Russia. What the West and NATO should be doing is working to relieve that threat, instead the US wants to increase that threat, and when Putin reacts complain that he is the person being unreasonable.

Yes, reminds me of the scene from Dr Strangelove, where George C, Scott with the map of Russia behind him showing US B-52s with Nukes heading for various targets in the Soviet Union, telling the President of the US, that the US should follow up that attack for the Russians would react to the initial attack and launch their own attack and thus to defend America we should launch an all out attack on Russia. i.e since the US had already attacked Russia, the US needed to attack them again so they could not defend themselves by attacking the country that attacked them.

In many ways, the expansion of NATO is an attack on Russia. NATO is NOT only an alliance of mutual defense, it is also an united attack force under US command. I.e. it is NOT only a promise that we will defend other members of NATO, but the forces of those countries and the rest of NATO, including US Troops, are to be integrated as one large force to attack the only country that NATO has refused admission to NATO, i.e. Russia (Khrushchev had offered to join NATO in 1954, but was refused, then he formed the Warsaw pact).

How else can a Ruler of Russia view NATO, NATO has extensive OFFENSIVE capacities, but aimed more and more at Russia then any other single country. Putin is reacting to this reality more then anything else, and so should the US.

Sidenote: In 1890 Admiral Mahan of the US Navy wrote a Book about Naval superiority and that Naval power would defeat land based power. He did admit to one exception to this rule, when the center of Asia was under the control of one Country that could figure out a way to move massive amount of supplies over land. This was his explanation for the Mongol Empire and the Russian Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Influence_of_Sea_Power_upon_History

It also brought up a conflict among people who followed his teaching, that the leading Naval power greatest enemy if often not another Naval power but a land based power and that such a land based power must be destroyed to preserve the power of the fleet. Thus the US and Britain's leading nature enemy was NOT France, Japan or Germany, but Russia. Russia divided among various land locked nations makes it almost impossible for Russia to unite AND to get the needed supplies for its armies. A united Russia, on the other hand could set up such a supply system, and such a supply system would make who ever had naval superiority useless. i.e. if an army can be supplied by land based supply lines, thus the main role of the Navy to prevent supplies from getting to such armies just can NOT be done.

Russia, late in 2013 was able to show it can ship supplies from China to Europe in two weeks by rail. Remember we are talking about freight, by ship such supplies take about a month.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/us-kazakhstan-railway-idUSBRE9590GH20130610

http://www.examinechina.com/blog/import-from-china-cargo-train-connections-europe-china/

While, shipping by Ship may still be cheaper, most Chinese goods are made on the coast of China, rail promises the ability to get goods to market faster at just a slight increase in costs (Aircraft is even faster, but much more expensive). I bring it up for this new "Silk Road" promises to provide Russia the ability to operate and get supplies from China without have to worry about who controls the seas (and it also operate in the opposite way also, Russian supplies to China, or even European supplies to China if Europe decides NOT to support a US blockage or embargo of China).

During the Cold war, the above was hard to do, Russia kept its 5 foot Railroad gauge (More often called 1524mm, but after WWII the Russian rounded it down to 1420 mm, the 4 mm difference is within the error rate of both 1520mm and 1524mm gauges so the trains set for 1524mm and 1520 gauges can operate on tracks built for either Gauge). China and Poland kept their existing 4 foot 8 1/2 inch gauge (more often called 1435 mm). The difference of 85 mm or 3 1/2 inches between 1520mm gauge and 1435mm gauge exceed the error rate between those gauges and thus you can NOT run cars built for 1435 mm Gauge in tracks built for 1520mm gauge (and vica versa).

What the Russian had done is built three transfer points, one in Kazakhstan, one in Manchuria and another in Poland. The first two takes train shipments and move the containers onto 1520mm gauge cars, and the later transfers them to 1435mm gauge cars.

I bring this up, for I find it interesting that this problem of the Ukraine, started within six months of the successful implementation of freight shipments by rail from China to Germany (Through other shipments were made as early as 2006). Are they people in the US Government afraid that the Russians have found a way to make the US Navy irrelevant? i.e who cares who controls the sea, Russia and China and still ship things to and from Europe (and that thought may just be hatred in the State Department and the Pentagon).

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/freight/15-day-transit-for-china-%E2%80%93-germany-freight-train.html

[LiberalEsto]

123. Apparently you think the Russian point of view is the ONLY point of view

What about the points of view of nations that have suffered deeply at the hands of the Russians?

I think it's pretty amazing that when the Baltics gained their freedom, they didn't forcibly deport the unwanted Russians living among them. After all, the fucking Russians deported so many of them (at least 10% of the Baltics' adult population) to Siberia or to gulags.

During the Soviet era my relatives were not allowed to attend church, celebrate Christmas or Easter, have their kids taught Estonian in the schools. They weren't allowed to display the national flag, sing national songs. They lived in a state of constant fear of being arrested and sent to some hellhole in Siberia. We weren't allowed to visit them, and later when they were allowed US visitors, they were confined to a small area of Tallinn, the capital. My father never got to see his own father's and mother's graves because the rest of Estonia was off limits. And some parts of Estonia, like the big islands of Saaremaa and Hiiumaa, were completely cut off from the mainland, with no visitors allowed.

Why not make an attempt, if you can, to see things from the Baltics' point of view?

[tavernier]

135. As a Latvian

who saw the way the Russians ravaged my family during the war (relatives to Siberia, mothers being parted from children for years or life, homes and property confiscated... That's how I came to be after my mother and grandparents were run out of their home, trekked to Germany, where my mom met my dad in a DP camp).

I guess anyone can write reams of bullshit defending poor Russia, but reading it just makes me ill to my stomach.

And we haven't even mentioned the ravaged conditions these countries were left in after years of communism. They are just now starting to look cleaned up as they used to, instead of the pig stys and ugly projects that were built over that time.

And Putin isn't sane enough to be scared of anything.

On edit: Sveiks, masin!

[LiberalEsto]

138. Sveiks!

But what does masin mean? In Estonian it means machine.

My mother and grandmother trekked to Germany and wound up in a DP camp too. My parents met there.

There seem to be a number of pro-Putin posters who have appeared on DU recently, mostly with very low post counts. Hmmmmmm.

[tavernier]

143. Hmm is right. 😄

Maasina is sister , maasin sort of like sis.

I'm presently in Paris and both London and and Paris are buzzing over 'the monster' Putin.

[Adrahil]

74. I mean, why on EARTH Would the Baltic states feel the need

To fend themselves from Russia after the way Soviet Russia treated them so nicely?



It's freakin ridiculous that you the Franklin Teutonic Knights out of your ass, but completely ignore how the Soviets forcibly annexed the Baltic states and deported hundreds of thousands of people, and depopulated with Russians.

Intellectually dishonest much?

[happyslug]

81. I addressed the Soviet Occupation above

Remember the Soviet Union did not go into the Baltic States till 1940, after Hitler and Stalin divided up Eastern Europe. At the same time, Russia was looking at war with Hitler. The debate in the Soviet Union was would Hitler attack in 1941 or 1942. Stalin believed it would be 1942, for by then the Germans would have a much stronger army to attack Russia and this appears to be the Soviet Plan till Hitler unleashed his Troops in June 1941 (and even then it appears it took a few days for Stalin to understand Hitler had attacked, Moscow for the few days after the attack kept on issuing orders to its own troops NOT to cause any provocation against the Germans).

Once it was understood that Hitler would attack the Soviet Union, the Baltic States became pawns between the two and suffered accordingly. Stalin was paranoid, thus thought nothing of moving masses of people around if he suspected they were disloyal (he did this to the Crimean Tartars in addition to the People of the Baltic States). Stalin was as harsh on Russians that he THOUGHT may oppose him (in 1938, Stalin killed off his top generals and many of his better officers in the Russian Army for he thought they were plotting to over throw him).

Unlike Hitler (who was the classic demigod) Stalin was a modern technocrat. His participation in the Revolution of 1917 was behind the scene, he supplied the money to finance the revolution. Stalin was the type of person who walk into a plant and tell the people how to run the plant better AND BE RIGHT. So many people in the Communist party owned his favors dating back to pre WWI days that he had almost total control over the party, and those parts of the Party he did not controlled he wiped out in the purges of the late 1930s. Thus by 1940 Stalin had made the Communist Party of the Soviet Union what Mussolini called the most fascist of all states (More fascist then Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini).

Stalin's plan was always to destroy any internal opposition, and he did so any time he could. It was NOT Russia that caused the problem for the Baltic States, it was Stalin. To blame Russia for what happened to the Baltic States 1940-1980, is like Blaming Germany for the Holocaust. Germany did not do the Holocaust, it was the Nazis under Hitler. Hitler was the leader of Germany during the Holocaust, but he made it a policy to cover up what he was doing to the Jews. The same with Stalin, his tendency to kill off people always had some sort of cover, dis loyalty was always a favorite.

Please note, while the Soviet Union kept the Baltic States after the death of Stalin, most of the killing and other problems the people of those countries went through occurred under Stalin. Post Stalin death rates and harm to the people of those areas declined. Now the Soviet Union kept them as part of the Soviet Union, for the Soviet Union still saw them as potential bases for enemy to attack Russia (remember NATO), but they were treated no worse then Russia itself.

And remember, when these same States were part of IMPERIAL RUSSIA, the Tsars left them alone as long as they were not bases for attacks on Russia itself. The bad times were under Stalin, and that was bad for anyone who lived under Stalin, just asked the Ukrainians.

My point is, from a Russian Point of view, the Baltic States are NOT a threat to Russia in and by themselves. On the other hand, they can be bases for other powers to use to attack Russia, i.e NATO and the US. This ability to be used as bases is what Russia fears, and what Russia will object to and if Russia's fears grow to much, lead to a Russia invasion to prevent these countries from being used as bases to attack Russia.

[LiberalEsto]

128. Why would anyone want to attack Russia in the first place?

The only reason I can think of for fighting Russia would be fighting back in self-defense.

[LiberalEsto]

118. The Teutonic Knights were NOT Estonians, Latvians or Lithuanians. They were Germans

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

The Estonians and Latvians themselves fought bitterly against the pope's Teutonic Knights, and lost, resulting in several centuries of serfdom and virtual slavery.

Russia has NO FUCKING RIGHT to tell independent nations like Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania whether they can join NATO or not.

Noe of the Baltics have any intentions whatsoever to attack Russia -- for heavens' sake, Russia has 143.7 million people, while Estonia has a population of 1.3 million. Why on earth would they even think of attacking Russia? All they are interested in is:

1. remaining free and independent
2. defending themselves against the seemingly never-ending wishes of the Russians to conquer and rule over them. I wish the Russians would GET OVER this crap and just LEAVE the Baltics alone.

But as we Estonians say, the Russians are greedy and lazy; They want someone else (like Estonians) to do their work for them.

[sulphurdunn]

39. Putin plans to rebuild the empire.

Maybe, in retrospect, gobbling up Eastern Europe, the Baltic states and looting the the country using the IMF and the World Bank after the collapse of the Soviet Union was not such a good idea. Who knows? What is certain is that trying the same thing in Ukraine was a bad idea. Who in his right mind would have ever believed the Russians would stand still for that? Now, we have given the Russians the pretext they needed to assert themselves again, and we can't do a goddamn thing about it without starting a war. My God, this country is run by stupid, greedy sons-of-bitches. It's what happens when your country is owned by bankers.

[geek tragedy]

46. No, expanding NATO seems like a brilliant move now.

The countries in NATO are now safe from Russian aggression, as they should be,

The Russians will stand still for it in the Baltics and Poland because they have no choice but to stand still for it. They can rattle their claws all they want, but they are not the boss of the Baltics anymore and there ain't jack shit they can do about it.

He doesn't get his empire. He gets Crimea.

[Adrahil]

75. Absolutely. NT

[sofa king]

89. I bet a lot of them aren't all that Russian, anymore.

I've known a number of wonderful, brilliant, interesting Russian-Americans, some first generation and others descendants.

One of the few things they all have in common is no interest whatsoever in becoming Russian again. Our Russian-Americans are great Americans, and help make America great.

I'll bet a lot of Russian-Estonians are great Estonians, too. They, most likely, are just as bent out of shape about this as everyone else.

[avebury]

41. If I remember correctly, didn't Reagan

take us into Grenada out of concerns for the Americans there?

[amandabeech]

106. Actually, it was the political bent of the government there coupled with

an extremely long runway.

The stuff about the US med students dissolved very quickly and the real reasons became well known.

Not that anyone in the US paid any attention to the whole situation. They were too busy worrying about keeping up with the first wave of yuppies or debating which "hair band" was the best. Or trying to make their hair look like Jon Bon Jovi's circa 1986, which was nearly impossible for most people.

[TomClash]

43. 1st armored should go sightseeing in the Baltics

Take a stroll through Warsaw on the way. Bring a friend - 1st Stryker.

Maybe the USAF should take that new home in Amari this year instead of next. Hey, 1st armored, why don't you bring some screaming eagles too?

Crimea is one thing. Estonia means WW III.

Ok that might be a bit much. But this is a Putin test. Time for the President to show some resolve here with something more than small financial gestures.

[blackspade]

47. WTF?

[penultimate]

50. Why is Estonia warmongering?

[uncommonlink]

51. Sarcasm, right?

[penultimate]

54. No! I'm tried of Estonia throwing its weight around causing all sorts of problems....

They are almost as bad as the US these days.

[uncommonlink]

55. Estonia throwing it's weight around.

LOL.

[freshwest]

65. I know? 'What the heck you been reading?' PBO quote on question when he's gonna nuke Russia... n/t

[EmilyAnne]

64. I KNOW! Them and their whole "internet access is a basic human right" thing!

I mean, really!
Who do they think they are?

[LiberalEsto]

116. Are you serious?

Estonians are scared shitless about the threat of Russian invasion. They've had only about 53 years of freedom since the 14th Century. When the Russians ruled over them in the 18th-19th centuries, they were serfs, little better than slaves -- and they had been serfs ever since one of the popes forcibly Christianized them in the 1300s and sent German barons to rule over them. Don't you think it would be nice if they could keep their freedom and democracy this time?

Having close relatives in Estonia, and being Estonian-American myself, I don't understand how anyone can think Estonia is "throwing its weight around." It doesn't have any weight to throw. There are only 1.3 million people living there. They couldn't even begin to defend themselves if the Russians invaded, unless they had help from NATO.

Can you please explain to me what kind of "problems" you feel Estonia is causing? It seems to me that they are reacting in fear because of the situation in Ukraine, and only because they fear the same thing could happen to them.

[erglerbergler]

126. Sarcasm

It was sarcasm

[penultimate]

132. I got facebook friend requests from 10 random people from Estonia

I figure they must be up to no good, and they should be stopped before it's too late.

*I've been kidding

[Throd]

52. Estonia is a dagger pointed right at Moscow.

[uncommonlink]

53. More sarcasm?

[tarheelsunc]

60. I don't see how people keep defending him.

His recent actions should be deeply concerning to anyone with an elementary knowledge of European history. Add it all up: draconian anti-homosexuality law, promoting nationalism and using it towards his political motives, citing the "concerns" for members of their ethnic group in other countries as a means to annex bordering territory, and provoking other countries to create international tensions. It sounds way too familiar for comfort.

Maybe it's nothing and he really does suddenly have this deep concern for Russians everywhere. Or maybe it's actually possible there are other motives behind all of this. Or maybe I'm just a conspiracy theorist now, I don't know, but this man's recent actions are what "concern" me the most.

[Cha]

66. They're digging in and pushing more Putin is wonderful. It's all the USA's fault Putin's

Russia is so dead set against GAy People, and journalists who don't toe the line, Censoring their internet?.. Obama's fault.

Hillary had it right.

[mitchtv]

91. just a reminder

poland and the Baltics are hard core homophobic places as well. I wouldn't lift a finger to help them

[LiberalEsto]

127. fyi

Gay Life in Estonia
| Monday, March 19th, 2012

Establishing a “Gay Life in Estonia” is becoming an achievable reality through education, tolerance and government support. Estonia is a small country with hope in the air and in the streets that reaching a level of gay tolerance and presence will not take a decade more and not through bloodshed and social upheaval. First, both male and female same-sex sexual activity are legal in Estonia, having been decriminalized in 1992. Second, in 2006 only 21% of the population were willing to accept gay marriage; by 2009 the approval rate was up to 32%. Third, Gay Pride Parades have been organized since 2004 with much less opposition than in the other Baltic countries, Latvia and Lithuania. In 2011 the Pride event was attended by Estonian government officials as well as the British ambassador and EU representatives.


Compiled by Richard Ammon
GlobalGayz.com
March 2012

Link:http://www.globalgayz.com/gay-life-in-estonia/

[mitchtv]

139. I stand corrected, thanks

I suppose i was assuming Estonia was hand in glove with its neighbors, while indeed much progress has been made.It was like a landslide of hateful legislation being passed in eastern Europe this past several months. Estonia apparently did not participate . My apologies.

[Codeine]

80. I don't see any of his sycophants on this thread.

One assumes they're playing the same "If I ignore it then it'll go away" game that my kids play when it's time to clean their room.

[KamaAina]

83. Estonians have an expression "Vene vark!"

It means "Russian stuff!" and is commonly heard around flat tires, torn pantyhose and the like. They were never happy under Soviet rule.

[LiberalEsto]

86. Yes.

It's spelled Vene värk, with an umlaut over the a (sounds like the a in cat).

It's not difficult to spot the Russians living in Estonia. They are usually tackily dressed,
especially the women draped with fake gold jewelry and excessive, gaudy makeup. They run flea markets in Tallinn and other places, selling junk made in Russia. And I can honestly say it IS junk from having tried to shop at a couple of the flea markets.

I remember, during the Soviet era, how my cousin used to send me outlines of her children's feet so I could buy shoes for them. She couldn't find shoes in the poorly stocked stores. Likewise, when she had difficulty nursing her youngest child, she appealed to me to send baby bottles, rubber nipples and powdered baby formula. I mailed large packages of the items to her until the little girl was weaned.

Once Estonia gained its freedom in 1991, I learned that my relatives hadn't eaten meat for decades. They weren't allowed to celebrate Christmas or Easter, or attend churches. They couldn't display the Estonian flag without risking arrest. Even if I could have afforded to visit my relatives in the 1980s, I would not have been allowed to visit my parents' home towns or see my grandparents' graves, because most of Estonia was off-limits to Americans.

[amandabeech]

107. Do the younger Russian women have badly bleached hair?

I know that sounds weird, but I've followed figure skating closely since the '80s, and it seems that many Russian female skaters have had really bad bleach jobs and don't bother to touch up their roots. Tacky doesn't even come close.

Trivial and bitchy topic, but I'm "dyeing" to know.

[LiberalEsto]

113. Definitely

Lots of brassy colors from cheap Russian hair products.

[amandabeech]

115. Thanks for responding.

This confirmation will be a hot topic with my figure skating friends.

Thanks for posting here LiberalEsto. Your insights have really added to this discussion.

[seveneyes]

93. Gee, why don't we keep pushing their buttons

until they push some red buttons of their own and blow the shit out of some cities?

Our executive branch needs to just back off and let it be. As if the US has set any kind of good example of nation building and repair lately.

[uncommonlink]

96. So we just tell a NATO member that if attacked,

they're on their own?

Not a very smart move.

[seveneyes]

97. We tell a NATO member

to act like a NATO member.

[hack89]

98. Estonia is doing nothing wrong. Nt

[seveneyes]

99. My bad

I was thinking of the mess with the tire burning crowd.

[uncommonlink]

110. What's Estonia doing to not act like a NATO member?

[seveneyes]

111. Bad reading comprehension on my part

fingers before brain.

[uncommonlink]

112. No problem.

Done it many times myself.

[steve2470]

94. Estonia is nothing but a nest of vicious fascists

Moscow must swoop in and save the brave comrades from fascist rule !

[2naSalit]

101. Well then, maybe

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 02:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Putin should start making room for them so they can all move back to Russia since they were, basically, relocated there to make Estonia "more Russian" a few decades back. Same with all the other places he might have concern for Russians, they should just go home instead of continuing to make the indigenous folks suffer Russians in their homeland.

[amandabeech]

108. What a refreshing thought. n/t

[LiberalEsto]

129. The Russians in Estonia could move back to Russia at any time

Nobody would stop them.

They stay in Estonia because they know they are FAR better off there than they would be in Russia.

[EmilyAnne]

133. Absolutely. I LOVED visiting Tallinn when I lived in St. Petersburg.

It was like, "Ah!!!"
I could relax and just walk around aimlessly without worrying about witnessing something totally bizarre and horrible.
I could sit in a cafe and order some tea without worrying that I'd accidentally sat in the VIP section/ booth/ chair/ whatever.

[Oakenshield]

109. Not buying it.

If Putin lays a finger on Estonia, NATO squishes Russia both economically and militarily. He can't be that stupid.

[Bosonic]

144. uhoh

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/alaska-back-russia/SFG1ppfN