Estonia President Toomas Ilves seeks permanent Nato force

a reply to: bullcat

NATO's purpose was against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, neither of which exist today, yet NATO still lingers about and meddles in other affairs, that's called mission creep.

Unlike Drunk and Corrupt Russians, the westerners are more cautious and calculating. There was no agreement on dismantling of NATO. There was not even a written agreement on NATO's expansion towards east.

Just the same way, there was no agreement written or verbal, that Russians in all spheres of life will start looting their country and sending capital overseas into secret bank accounts. This capital could have been used to rebuild and diversify Russian economy and infrastructure.

Please don't cry that NATO leaders were and are wise and more patriotic than Yeltsin types who presided over the crimes on the Russian society and people. Even under Putin good $3-5B leaves Russia after being looted from the state's economic structures.

a reply to: intrptr

USSR / Russian occupation of Europe.


Now I wonder why those nations bolted for NATO.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: bullcat

NATO's purpose was against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, neither of which exist today, yet NATO still lingers about and meddles in other affairs, that's called mission creep.

Unlike Drunk and Corrupt Russians, the westerners are more cautious and calculating. There was no agreement on dismantling of NATO. There was not even a written agreement on NATO's expansion towards east.

Just the same way, there was no agreement written or verbal, that Russians in all spheres of life will start looting their country and sending capital overseas into secret bank accounts. This capital could have been used to rebuild and diversify Russian economy and infrastructure.

Now, can you see why Estonians and Ukrainans really really really really really do NOT want to go down the Russian model and want to be European?

Please don't cry that NATO leaders were and are wise and more patriotic than Yeltsin types who presided over the crimes on the Russian society and people.

They were. Poland has improved massively. Belarus is still in the dunghole.

Even under Putin good $3-5B leaves Russia after being looted from the state's economic structures.

And that's exactly why Ukrainians were so sick of the pro-Russian government (because it did exactly the same thing) and truly had an authentic, widespread desire to get out of Russia's influence and into EU's? For the future of their country? And it wasn't some kind of evil NATO plot. Ukraine was still screwed up and poor for 20 years after the end of the USSR.

The empirical evidence is all around them. If you don't have huge oil reserves, join up Europe and be normal country one again.

a reply to: mbkennel

Now, can you see why Estonians and Ukrainans really really really really really do NOT want to go down the Russian model and want to be European?

Baltics are totally different case and even when they joined NATO and EU, Russia did not say anything. Different people, different mindset. However, Baltics need not ratchet up tensions by deploying many NATO troops. Even if there are only 10 soldiers in Baltics militaries, it would not be wise for Russia to attack those nations and pick on a fight with NATO.

However, Ukraine is a totally different story. Would agree that highly corrupt Russian model does chase people away from making any common trade union. However, west saw the fragile terms in Kiev and played its "regime change" card and the events followed.

Yanukovich being a legally elected president had all right to join or not join the EU. The maidan sponsored by CIA and NGOs changed the scene completely and chain reactions followed. More legal way of doing things would have been to remove Yanukovich and his party from power via elections and then sign up with EU. Also, even when Yanukovich was removed, the new President could not join EU given the bad shape of Ukraine's economy and financial books. Even without the civil war it would have been many many years before any chance EU membership would have occurred.

Regarding Poland, one person told me that there was no mafia there and small to medium businesses thrived freely. There is no mafia in Belarus too but its economic model is Soviet type and that gives little chances of growth for small businesses which are the backbone of even US economy.

It amazes me there are some people that can't see Putin and his policies created this. In fact he could have prevented Ukraine from joining the EU if he had so chosen. Instead of investing in Ukraine and strengthening Victor his puppet he instead chose to undermine him. I saw it coming at the Olympics he allowed Ukraine to fall into chaos. He could have looked like the hero Russia could easily have come in and saved the day instead he put troops on their border and made threats to invade. Well I guess Russia has never been good at negotiating every time they try they end up screwed. Force is all they know and when they lost the ability to intimidate everything fell apart.

He has done something no one else has he's united Europe unfortunately for him it's against Russia.He's destroyed the Russian people and the economy on a dream he's had for a decade But the bright side is his show is coming to an end there are very powerful people in Russia who see the wrighting on the wall it's just a waiting game now.

Europe just has to be patient and Russia will fall apart again. As far as Ukraine well they will need decades to recover from the Russian invasion. Unless the EU can come up with a plan to save them.

As an Estonian I do fully agree with such request. Considering the situation in Ukraine, as well the Georgian conflicts, and the history with Russia (over 200 years of slavery against the will of the locals) there is a reason why the nation needs to be cautious, especially considering there are vast resources (estimated to be worth more than 1 trillion dollars) in the Eastern part of the nation, which is mostly russian-speaking (the possibility of them wanting to be part of Russia is nearly inexistent). Most of these resources can not be mined yet due to environmental reasons, as the tech is not developed enough yet to mine these environmentally safely without damaging the ground water or the environment generally. Geopolitically this nation would also provide Russia easier access to Nordic markets and tradeways on the Baltic Sea.

The nation is part of NATO, as well as EU and both these organisations are supported by majority of people, especially be native estonians, who make around 70% of the population. Most of the russians are not native in the area, but the descendants of the russians who were brought in as part of the russianisation process of USSR. Tens of thousands of estonians were deported to Siberia in animal wagons without their consent, while even more russians where brought. Still there are many local russians who are not citizens yet. Personally, I have nothing against the local russian populisation, as long as they do support the independence and the rules/culture of this nation.

Estonia does take lots of steps for its security. The military service is mandatory for all boys, atlhough all the strategies are built on surviving Russian attack until NATO forces arrive. It has to be considered that this nation is really small, having 1.3 million people, which is over 100 times smaller than Russian population.

The living standards are the highest among the previous USSR nations, although these are far from Central Europe and financially this nation is not able to afford lots of military technology, especially air-force or vehicles. The full budget of the nation is a mere 7.5 billion euros (government debt is around 10% of GDP, which is low compared to other OECD nations)

The landscape does not give any significant advantages, as it is very flat, especially in the northern area and the climate is very similar (mild, slightly warmer) than Russian.

Taking into into account all these facts, this is a nation that is not able to survive on its own against full Russian force. Allies are a must for such a small nation, there are several cities in Russia with higher population... Currently the strategies are built on surviving Russian attacks for 48 hours until NATO forces arrive, although if Russia did decide to attack this nation with full force, the capital which is around 300 km (175 miles roughly) away from Russian border, would possibly be invaded within 4 hours. Considering the size of the nation, of course there might be certain scepticism whether other NATO nations would even consider going into war with Russia over this nation, although this would lose all the credibility of NATO as an organisation, so personally I find it hard to believe NATO would not help, if such scenario happened.

Personally I (and most people here) would agree with the words the president said about wanting permanent NATO forces in the area. I sincerely do hope that such war would never happen, but there is a reason to be cautious and this would this would make this nation feel more secure , as no one wants the history to repeat itself.

Perhaps the Estonian Presidents plan is to make money by renting out the Estonian women to the yanks.

A long time ago I went to Thailand and I meet a bloke from Sydney who had been there for a while.

He told me to make sure to let the locals know that I am not Americian because the locals absolutely hate the Americans for the corruption of their society and disrespect for the local customs, traditions and values.

Good luck mr Estonian president.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Rocker2013

It may have had something to do with qualifying then the desire .Deputed borders or civil wars are qualifiers for disqualification I think .

But the belief among many here is that Nato is an aggressive force desperately trying to circle Russia and then... do what? Nobody seems to know.

Obviously this is not the case, otherwise Nato would not be refusing to allow very strategically important countries to join. If their mission is solely to "threaten" an entirely peaceful Russia, then why even have such criteria for rejecting potential members?

originally posted by: bullcat
Let me put it bluntly, to the Americans.

It is a Euro-Russian problem, not an American problem.

1) Stay at home
2) Stay the F out of our business.

and

3) Quit saying "oh but you will come running to us" lines

Isn't that OUR problem?

Your noses and fingers are as large as yer gobs (and stomachs).

And let me make clear here that this is not a thread about America, this is a thread about Estonia wanting an increased permanent presence of Nato in their country for defensive capability against a potential Russian incursion.

Please go to one of the many other threads if you want to discuss American foreign policy with regard to Russia.

a reply to: intrptr

Neither does the thread title, right?

No, because you may want to research the fact that Estonia has been a member of NATO since 2004...so again they aren't expanding.

But feel free to show us how and where NATO is expanding in countries that are already members?

a reply to: bullcat

NATO's purpose was against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, neither of which exist today,

And Russia is just the offshoot of the Soviet Union, so the name changes but the ideology didn't. As for the Warsaw Pact it was the fall of the Soviet Union that caused that demise.

They found a new existence, and wants more money, well funny how ISIS is expected to cost at LEAST $100 BILLION (that would make Dr. Evil proud). NATO is a money making machine.

NATO exists still because Russia has decided that it doesn't want to become part of the rest of the world, and has decided it want's to go back to the old Soviet Union ways while the world around them moves forward.

Russia decided when Putin became president that they would reunite the old Union which scares the former countries that want to get away from them and their repressive government. So that is why NATO is still around, and it doesn't have to do with them making money.

And exactly what does ISIS have to do with the topic of this thread?

America never left Europe after the WW2. Never will. Every chance they get to prevent Europe standing on it's own, America is meddling again.

In case you forgot the US was not involved in WWII until the end, and we left Europe to fend for themselves and we see how that went now don't we?

originally posted by: Forensick
I don't think they should play into Russia's hands, if Russia where to attack a member state it would be different to Crimea, that said, would be interesting to see what NATO has learned from Crimea, I mean, if a load of armed 'Estonians' (Russian soldiers on holiday) undermined the government with pro Russian attacks and protests etc. What their response would be if the police where overwhelmed?

I agree with you somewhat.
I do wonder though, how a country is supposed to respond to the threat. I mean, it's all very well and good saying they shouldn't play into Russian hands, but are they really doing that? If Russia is poking at them with mock bombing flights, amassing 40,000 troops on their border with drills and exercises, being directly provocative toward them, surely a nation has to do something about it?

It might all be nothing more than posturing, but should a country like Estonia take that chance and just hope that's all it is? If I were a citizen I would not feel comfortable with my government taking such a relaxed attitude, and I doubt the people there would appreciate their government not doing anything to prepare for the possibility.

It's easy to forget the internal politics of a country when looking at larger issues like this, but I can imagine there are a lot of loud voices in the country demanding their their government prepare for the worst. I think they should be doing exactly that too.

I'm also with you on wondering what Nato would do if "pro-Russian Rebels" appeared in a Nato country. I have a feeling they would probably offer support to the policing efforts initially, but the moment those "Rebels" crossed a line or were seen to have weapons from Russia, they would be confronted as an invading force and driven out.

The movements of Russian forces seem to be threatening all three nations up to the Baltic Sea. This could be a direct attempt to gain access to that coastline. Russia has Kaliningrad, there are reports of weaponry being moved there, and attempts to persuade Lithuanian journalists to work on propaganda for the Kremlin within the country.

It might seem a little predictable, but it certainly seems as though Putin is prodding at Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia simultaneously. Geographically it makes sense, but strategically it would make more sense to go for Belarus first. Taking all three would give them the coast of the Baltic Sea and connect Russia to Kaliningrad, but attacking a Nato country is risky business for Putin. Belarus is not a Nato member, and taking that would give Russia access to more of the border with both Lithuania and Latvia too.

I guess we'll see what happens.

originally posted by: Cabin
Taking into into account all these facts, this is a nation that is not able to survive on its own against full Russian force. Allies are a must for such a small nation, there are several cities in Russia with higher population... Currently the strategies are built on surviving Russian attacks for 48 hours until NATO forces arrive, although if Russia did decide to attack this nation with full force, the capital which is around 300 km (175 miles roughly) away from Russian border, would possibly be invaded within 4 hours. Considering the size of the nation, of course there might be certain scepticism whether other NATO nations would even consider going into war with Russia over this nation, although this would lose all the credibility of NATO as an organisation, so personally I find it hard to believe NATO would not help, if such scenario happened.

Thank you for your excellent post, it's great to hear from someone in the country, and with such depth too. I wish I could star your contribution ten times

I was thinking about this survival strategy last night and I have to say that I have little faith in the notion that Nato would be able to respond in 48 hours. This is an organization which seemed to be dragging its heels months into the occupation of Crimea, and it seemed to take weeks, or even months, before Nato actually started talking about any of it. I think a lot of people around the world were wondering just how long it would take before we saw a statement from Nato, and then when it did come it seemed confused and entirely non-committal.

It really felt as though Nato had been on holiday, out of touch and not realizing the ramifications for those members in the region.

If Putin did make a similar move on your country I can imagine he would use the same strategy used in Ukraine, sending in "Rebels" and attempting to create a breakaway movement against the government. This causes problems with Nato, because it blurs the lines of when you should respond. You cant militarily respond to an internal revolt in the same way you can respond to tanks rolling over the border, so the Nato leadership would have to spend time convincing members that intervention is needed. There would likely be members of Nato saying this was not an invasion (because they don't want to go to war with Russia and be in the firing line, perhaps).

I think that 48 hour response is wishful thinking and very outdated. It was designed based on the notion that any attack would be sudden, violent and obvious. It's a response to planes, ships and tanks attacking a country, not to thousands of "Rebels" creeping in. In a way, it would probably be better for you and us if Putin did suddenly invade with clear intent, because Nato would not then have the opportunity to bicker amongst itself. Bureaucracy will slow things down if Putin uses the same tactics again, whereas a direct military invasion would not allow Nato to sit back and debate for weeks or months about how to word any statement to satisfy every member too scared of being next on Russia's list.

I guess Putin has changed the Nato plan with his little green men. It now needs to consider how it would respond, and in what time frame, to the same thing happening in a member nation. For that reason alone I think your President is absolutely right to want a permanent force.

a reply to: Rocker2013

I am not an idealist, I do only agree with my post somewhat too as it was my idealist side, my other side is that of national pride and what would I do if Russia was exercising 40,000 troops.

During the first Cold War and since the end of WW2, in the UK we had the BAOR - British Army of the Rhine. Our troops were stationed in Germany (amongst many other Nations troops) but in reality, if Russia full on attacked, all we were was a speed bump as Russia ran deep into Europe. Could they take Germany, France, UK, Spain, Poland....on the size of the Military, yes.

But here is the depth of NATO - I quote Robin Hood Prince of Thieves :-)

One Volunteer is worth Ten Pressed Men

NATO doesn't need to have forces on the front line, if Russia were daft enough to invade a NATO member, they are going to get relentless asymmetric warfare, think Iraq, Afghanistan, a NATO country invaded by anyone will have almost endless guerrilla warfare, this will bog down the aggressor allowing relentless strategic warfare (sanctions!).

Russia doesn't have enough fuel and logistics to run their own country let alone invade a member state.

I get Estonia calling it out, but from a NATO perspective, (and unless Russia was stupid), it would be the beginning of the end.

People in the Eastern European countries don't really want NATO, it reminds them of 1) Occupation and 2) Kosovo.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Well I didn't make their rules and would think that they may have been made a long time ago . When you think about the NPT treaty for nuclear capability and what Iran has had to go through you can get that sometimes the rules get in the way of what a country might want .

NATO and it's roll in the world leave me with a somewhat bad taste . They had a clear mandate to establish a no fly zone over Libya but took on a bombing roll of destroying much infrastructure . I am not sure if they even shot down one plane but am sure they bombed the crap out of the place .Their involvement in Afghanistan is another one that raises many questions . They seem to be more of a high teck military mercenary group if you ask me .

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: intrptr

USSR / Russian occupation of Europe.

Now I wonder why those nations bolted for NATO.

Because all they are familiar with is the slave state. Slave to the Nazis, the Soviets, and now NATO.

Its Europa, occupied and warred over throughout history. Is that your justification for military expansion, everyone does it?

Entangling alliances, bah.. More American blood and treasure for some piss ant European country that still worships dead Nazis'.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

But feel free to show us how and where NATO is expanding in countries that are already members?

Puppet regimes bought and paid for by their occupiers. "Sellouts" eager to paint a target on their country men for empty promises and a few paper dollars.

a reply to: Forensick

NATO has already stated if a situation arises in a NATO nation like that of Crimea it would be considered an attack on a NATO member and article V applies.

originally posted by: bullcat
People in the Eastern European countries don't really want NATO, it reminds them of 1) Occupation and 2) Kosovo.

Yet they joined NATO and have not left it so your claim is faulty.