tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post2697141852169386542..comments2023-11-05T09:55:13.077+02:00Comments on Itching for Eestimaa: mõjupiirkonnadGiustinohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04756707910693785516noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-73342416324456867672008-11-02T16:41:00.000+02:002008-11-02T16:41:00.000+02:00Well, things are certainly interesting in Europe r...Well, things are certainly interesting in Europe right now. I wonder if Iceland will really join the EU in the end, and I wonder what will become of Britain's government, and I wonder what will become of Merkel's government. We'll see over the next few years how Europe adjusts to all these factors.Giustinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756707910693785516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-5995242051946594732008-11-01T09:25:00.000+02:002008-11-01T09:25:00.000+02:00Last time Great Britain tried to act as balancer, ...Last time Great Britain tried to act as balancer, it resulted in World War I. I doubt today's Germany alone can do any better. <BR/><BR/>Remember that France is trying to act as a "balancer" as well -- who did come to Moscow first to act as a peace negotiator about South-Ossetian conflict? Which countries in Europe were against military invasion to Iraq back in 2001? France, among others, which was a big scandal back then, since France was also a member of NATO. <BR/><BR/>As for Georgia... Well, their current political power has no much choice here -- USA, Israel and Turkey are their only good allies. <BR/><BR/>Not Iran, no. Allying with Iran for any country that has any hope to have good relations with Europe would be a suicide for any politician now. Not that I support that position myself personally, but that's the reality. The fear of a coming war with Iran was pretty real some time ago -- so much anti-Ahmadinejad propaganda has been around last few years, it was almost like an Iraq scenario. <BR/><BR/>And it has to be noted, that in that case Russia was acting as a "balancer" there. They initially opposed Western actions against Iran and thus hampered their attempts to gain international support. Otherwise, I think, the war would be inevitable. Right now simply it won't happen for at least 4-5 years to come, I think.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07658315434668184753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-18157647055398558992008-10-31T20:52:00.000+02:002008-10-31T20:52:00.000+02:00The idea of real multipolarity in Europe has not e...The idea of real multipolarity in Europe has not existed since 1914, and emerged from the Napoleonic wars.<BR/><BR/>But here I would note the behavior of Germany. Germany is not playing for any bloc, east or west. It is playing the role of the balancer, a role that the UK used to play in the 19th century.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes Germany seems more pro-West. Other times it appears to be pro-Moscow. So its behavior is indicative that Europe has again reverted to a balance of powers model.<BR/><BR/>I would assume that the Baltic countries would therefore fall under its influence, and one could see Germany, or the wider EU, as the emergence of a Franco-German dominated "great" power.<BR/><BR/>External powers, like the US or Russia, therefore compete to influence the center of this new power by concocting ad-hoc alliances with countries. <BR/><BR/>The US, for example, would create an alliance with the UK, Sweden, and Poland -- depending on the governments. Russia would have one with Germany, Italy, and Hungary. And so on, each using different constellations of countries to negate the sway the European power to act in the US or Russia's interests.<BR/><BR/>Georgia is indeed far removed from this game. The Georgians would be wise to look not only to the US but to other regional powers, like Turkey and, gulp, Iran, to help them realize their interests. Who says small states can't have their own realpolitik?Giustinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756707910693785516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-17958879113225021772008-10-31T10:32:00.000+02:002008-10-31T10:32:00.000+02:00There you go, a conflict of interests, just what y...There you go, a conflict of interests, just what you need... for a war?<BR/><BR/>Well, I don't remember any "special zone of interest" that has ever been formalized on paper besides Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. <BR/><BR/>Correct me if I'm wrong, but all zones of interest that have been there so far since the time of European colonial expansion have been just a matter of political will of a country and in order to maintain its "zone of interest" in a region, the country should just have had enough political, economical or military influence there. It has rarely been a matter of formal mutual agreements, unless these zones formed as a result of a war, wasn't it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07658315434668184753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-65591077725072047672008-10-31T05:11:00.000+02:002008-10-31T05:11:00.000+02:00Perhaps in Moscow's own mind it should have the la...Perhaps in Moscow's own mind it should have the last word, but I don't think most countries see it in their interest to regress to that kind of arrangement. <BR/><BR/>I actually am not sure if such an arrangement has ever held up. Great powers are always pushing at each others frontiers. Austria-Hungary and Russia never had a real agreement about "spheres of interest" in the Balkans.Giustinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756707910693785516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-38259779762947436432008-10-28T17:45:00.000+02:002008-10-28T17:45:00.000+02:00Moscow should speak on behalf of Tbilisi before Tb...<I>Moscow should speak on behalf of Tbilisi before Tbilisi does, according to this way of thinking.</I><BR/><BR/>Moscow should have "the last word", that is, should be able to say "yea" or "nay" in any Georgia's relationships that matter to Russia. They don't question Georgia's independence, but they definitely want to have a lot of influence in the region.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07658315434668184753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-91789974096050313002008-10-19T01:04:00.000+02:002008-10-19T01:04:00.000+02:00News from kodukant. Makes me homesick. Not! htt...News from kodukant. Makes me homesick. Not! <BR/><BR/>http://www.reporter.ee/2008/10/18/isegi-kiirabiauto-on-puruks-pekstud-vaikekulas-laamendatakse/<BR/><BR/><BR/>:-)LPRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09397977705898254598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-49991433084433180762008-10-17T07:24:00.000+02:002008-10-17T07:24:00.000+02:00The split in Ukraine is mostly geographic. The ea...The split in Ukraine is mostly geographic. The east and Crimean and mostly devoid of ethnic Ukrainians and heavily Russian. I remember visiting Sevastopol a couple of years back where the Russian (and Ukrainian) fleets are based. There were some visiting Turkish ships in port and protesters carrying signs saying "Nato Go Home" on them.AndresShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16923952410154441315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-13903766005357133892008-10-16T17:31:00.000+02:002008-10-16T17:31:00.000+02:00It's interesting how Ukraine is always portraited ...It's interesting how Ukraine is always portraited as a vastly split country, where one half of it is made up of Russians and one half of Ukrainians. While in reality Wikipedia informs us that "ethnic Ukrainians make up 77.8% of the population. Other significant ethnic groups are Russians (17.3%), Belarusians (0.6%),". Remember, in Estonia the percentages are 68,8 and 25,6 respectively. So where's the division? Mindsets?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17076822279861048442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-27635566780569968372008-10-16T17:28:00.000+02:002008-10-16T17:28:00.000+02:00"How is it that membership in a security alliance ..."How is it that membership in a security alliance founded in 1949 is seen as the only way a state bordering the Russian Federation can survive?"<BR/><BR/>Because NATO is a codification of the military component of a Western alliance. The world is no longer separated into the spheres of superpowers, but it certainly is separated into spheres of value systems, and for all the differences that Provence might have with Alabama, the democratic West (involving Australia and Japan) would far rather stick together than take their chances with China, Russia or Iran. As the US continues its misguided imperialist adventures, Europe continues its 60-year policy of avoiding war at all costs, bar the surrender of its values (which is why there are German troops in Afghanistan and Swedish troops in Kosovo). Global diplomacy is a dance around the elephant of war, not talking about it outright, but letting the other guys know you're carrying a ten-gauge. In this situation, NATO is not so much an alliance as a statement of intent. NATO membership is an indication that the country has chosen a side, should an all-out conflict erupt. History may not be completely cyclical, but the war in Georgia has proven empirically that Russia is willing and able to attack, with military force, a country within its imagined sphere of influence. That the country in question poses no credible threat to Russia is irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>"Why should those pesky Estonians continue to poke the Russians in the eye, when they can just be good boys like Pekka up north?"<BR/><BR/>Because Pekka was in bed with Adolph. Yes, anyone who's studied history understands that it was a forced measure after the West abandoned Finland in the Winter War, and yes, the Finnish section of the siege of Leningrad was the one that let vital supplies through. But the independence of Finland is no proof whatsoever of Russia's ability to play nice with its neighbours. The Soviet Union did invade Finland, and it did win that war, albeit with a massive loss of life and resource! After the peace treaty, the Finns were under no illusion whatsoever that Stalin had a continued intention to fold Finland back into the Russian Empire, and only delayed this project because he had bigger problems to deal with, down south. Which is why they turned for assistance to the only force that seemed capable of stopping Russia - no matter how evil that force was. Just because Finland broke her alliance with the Third Reich at the first sign of Allied competence, early enough to be claimed by the West in return for abandoning most of the Austro-Hungarian empire, does not excuse the exceptional Norsemen's behaviour.<BR/><BR/>So we can either deny the Finnish model, and throw our lot in with America and Britain, and hope that there will be an Admiral Cowan around for the next blowout; or we can adopt the Finnish model, and open up a class at the Tartu Flight College dedicated to plowing Sukhoi Superjets into the Gazprom tower.antyxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06567309109757565293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-52958011500342649192008-10-16T15:04:00.000+02:002008-10-16T15:04:00.000+02:00Many other political buzzwords fail to hold waters...Many other political buzzwords fail to hold waters, too. At the end of the day, international politics is all about maintaining the face of brotherly collaboration on items of common interests, while discretely defending items on which there is a difference of opinion in the wings of power or, if you're one of the bigger powers, to blatantly do as you damn well please in everyone's face while still showing up at meetings of international organizations. If someone protests, you bring buzzwords like "sphere of influence" out of your magic hat to confuse everyone while you shamelessly move ahead with your grandiose plans and chirp "Try to stop me if you can! Na! Na! Na!"Martin-Érichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00394315280689943764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-80256792945347674462008-10-16T10:30:00.000+02:002008-10-16T10:30:00.000+02:00It seems to me that Ukraine creates a kind of a mi...It seems to me that Ukraine creates a kind of a misunderstanding for many people in the West. What is this Ukraine? Isn't it something like part of Russia? Don't they speak Russian there, or at least dialect? If so then why don't they ally with Russia? Could it be actually trusted? Etc.<BR/><BR/>Yes, they are similar, but contrary to the popular opinion it is Ukraine, where this culture was born, while Moscow and other northern territories were nothing but "colonies" in what was then wild taiga populated with different Finnish peoples. Maybe little bit like UK and USA, except that in Slavic interpretation there could be no other relationship but total submission.<BR/><BR/>As a result, in much of Western Ukraine general feelings toward Russians are such that they make our Jüri Liim look like a raving Russophile. Sure, the fact that liberating Red Army in 1945 commited enough atrocities to create quite bit of a nostalgy for "civilized" Germans did not exactly help to forge a firm friendship between Slavic brothers.<BR/><BR/>Ukraine is a split country. East of Dnepr is pretty much Russian. West of Dnepr, especially ex-Polish territories are only relatively recent additions to Russian empire and very much a different story. Unfortunately this makes it all to easy for Russians to keep them off-balance, constantly quarrelling internally. Most probably West will have no patience to work that mess. No optimism from my part.Wahurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15861003012357572291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-60153213825493380722008-10-16T10:03:00.000+02:002008-10-16T10:03:00.000+02:00Gavin, as for geography you are pretty much wrong....Gavin, as for geography you are pretty much wrong. Especially in 39 huge Finnish land border north of Ladoga was mostly roadless forest, with only 3-4 more or less decent attack vectors available. Which is exactly why Finnish war ended like it did.<BR/>On the contrary, even if Narva river with its surrounding bogs was well defendable, Estonian south-east border had the edge of Haanja hills as the only natural obstacle to defend, plus, in case of simultaneous attack against all Baltic countries weak Latvian army being probably knocked out of our right flank (in Civil War Latvian eastern border was actually defended by Estonians and Polish for a while).<BR/><BR/>Today Peipsi and Narva river cannot be considered much of an obstacle from military point of view.Wahurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15861003012357572291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-59517663433159467992008-10-16T09:07:00.000+02:002008-10-16T09:07:00.000+02:00Estonia has had no such luck. Size and geography h...<I>Estonia has had no such luck. Size and geography have cursed them.</I> <BR/><BR/>Yet I recall something about how Estonians outfoxed and outgunned a bunch of Bolsheviks in 1918-1920. Something about Estonian armoured trains, was it...?<BR/><BR/>Of course there were relatively few Bolsheviks (was it 35,000) and they were pretty ragged, but then again, Russian conscripts are still probably starving today.<BR/><BR/>As to geography going head-to-head with Finland, Estonia is pretty blessed when it comes to the Peipsi, while on the other hand Finland has a huge land border with Russia.<BR/><BR/>I believe the conventional wisdom of many is that Estonia had lousy quisling leaders in the late 1930s. <BR/><BR/>Another aspect is the "white ship", i.e. assistance from the West. Better not to believe in it.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03609613961511659924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-39770346575429999602008-10-16T04:55:00.000+02:002008-10-16T04:55:00.000+02:00Estonia won the only war it ever fought collective...Estonia won the only war it ever fought collectively -- its war of independence in 1918-1920. In 1940, the country caved into a military ultimatum.<BR/><BR/>I would add that in the same month in 1940, both Poland and France were under military occupation and Germany was preparing for its blitz of Britain. <BR/><BR/>In fact, the only times that Estonia has ever been engaged in military conflict occured during a general collapse of security infrastructure in Europe as a whole.<BR/><BR/>Estonian security is just a small piece of the larger patchwork known as European security. This is perhaps the strongest argument for its inclusion in NATO.Giustinohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756707910693785516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13406351.post-91324594956297029982008-10-16T03:57:00.000+02:002008-10-16T03:57:00.000+02:00Most of those concepts seem to be baggage from 18t...Most of those concepts seem to be baggage from 18th and 19th military realities, reflecting the difficulties of logistics of mass armies then. ICBM's seem to make this kind of quaint.<BR/>Finns can boast with confidence the survival of two wars with the soviets. Estonia has had no such luck. Size and geography have cursed them. Any help keeping the dream of independence alive should be welcome.<BR/>Ukraine? No Ukraine?Jim Hasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09827035709880926814noreply@blogger.com