Estonia is a parcel of land which can potentially control the passage in the Gulf of Finland in the same way as Iran’s controls the world’s most important oil artery — the Strait of Hormuz. Until today two factors restricted this control — 12 nautical mile territorial limit and lack of armed forces of any significant strength on Estonian territory.

In case of Russia’s excessive response, both limitations could easily be removed, the Gulf of Finland will then be divided between Estonia and Finland, and in case if Russia attempts to forcefully resist the measure, as a member of the NATO alliance Estonia would get a justification to invoke the NATO charter and ask for help, and there can be no doubt that the help would be forthcoming immediately.

This could lead to two possible scenarios: either a full scale world war or Russia’s return to the times of the Peace of Stolbovo of 1617 under which terms Russia lost all access to the Baltic sea.

Estonia’s provocation and Russia’s strategy

Public indignation in Russia provoked by the actions of Estonian authorities bent on demolishing the soldier memorial and remaking results of the Second World War are understandable. Those actions can only cause indignation.

But I cannot consider Russian public and politicians' reaction appropriate in the context of this particular situation as the debacle is way more serious than what it seems. The graveness of it becomes obvious when one tries to pose a simple question — Why did Estonia do it? Why did Estonia intentionally choose to worsen its relations with Russia at this moment? It was obvious from the beginning that Russia would eventually be forced to respond to these actions in one way or the other.

There can only be one logical response to the question: Estonian authorities need Russia’s reaction. For Russia the sacrilegious blasphemy of this act was such that to anyone here it was obvious: the whole purpose of the exercise was to provoke Russia’s strongest reaction

Then the second question arises -why did Estonia need Russia’s strongest reaction. In order to answer it you’d have to take a look at the map.

Estonia is a parcel of land which can potentially control the passage in the Gulf of Finland in the same way as Iran’s controls the world’s most important oil artery — the Strait of Hormuz. Until today two factors restricted this control — 12 nautical mile territorial limit and lack of armed forces of any significant strength on Estonian territory.

In case of Russia’s excessive response, both limitations could easily be removed, the Gulf of Finland will then be divided between Estonia and Finland, and in case if Russia attempts to forcefully resist the measure, as a member of the NATO alliance Estonia would get a justification to invoke the NATO charter and ask for help, and there can be no doubt that the help would be forthcoming and forthcoming immediately.

This could lead to two possible scenarios: either a full scale world war or Russia’s return to the times of the Peace of Stolbovo of 1617 under which terms Russia lost all access to the Baltic sea.

A signatory of that Treaty was Gustaf Adolf, King of Sweden, who speaking in the Riksdag said:

«One of the greatest blessings that God gave Sweden is the way how Russians, with whom from old days we’ve been in more than questionable relations, were forced to give up these dreary badlands from where they used to bother us so often. Russia is a dangerous neighbor. From now on Russians had lost their access to the Baltic sea, and it won’t be easy for them to step over that little creek.»

Russia needed 93 years and Peter the First to step over «that little creek».

To put it differently, Estonia and those who are behind it — and in 1617 England stood behind the Swedes, are trying to employ the Bronze Soldier provocation to board up tight the proverbial Window to Europe that Peter the First cut through 300 years ago.

For Russia of 2007, the Gulf of Finland shut off by Estonia would not only mean the loss of the Northern gas pipeline project but also render existence of her Kaliningrad enclave and development of ports in Eastern Baltic totally meaningless while further survival of the Baltic Fleet will be impossible.

One should understand clearly that with Estonia’s hands Russia is being pushed toward the war or Russia will be presented with a stark choice: either a major war or total historical defeat.

This is the price of Gorbachev’s and Yeltsin’s madness — or treason. After Estonian events this became clearer than it was ever before.

When contemplating countermeasures against Estonia, Russia should first try to comprehend this bleak reality.

While on its quest for a solution to the Baltic and Black Sea challenges, Russia should also attempt to factor in the Weimar Germany’s experience, whom the West subjected to no lesser number of indignities. Because historic counterpart to the Baltic situation that is being formed around Russia exists: this is the problem of Danzig corridor — the one Germany stumbled upon after Versailles, which eventually led to Hitler’s accession to power and to the outbreak of the Second World War, and in this context I consider the reaction of Duma, of the Federation Council, and of the Foreign Ministry — psychologically understandable, but gravely erroneous from the strategic and tactical perspective.

It is apparent that Estonia is awaiting exactly this kind of reaction, so it can present Russia in the role of aggressor, the role that the West will be more than happy to accept — as one could have seen from the experience with Ukraine gas conflict or Georgia’s detention of Russian military personnel. Estonia is desperate for Russian sanctions against it because it desperate for NATO forces to be stationed on its soil.

We should not give it this opportunity. Russia is being offered a war. So be it — but wars are not won by yelling.

In my opinion, Russia should stop crying but instead should start working calmly and methodically toward victory in the inevitable war that is being foisted upon her, and not toward momentary satisfaction of general public or of politicians’ fleeting ambitions.

It goes without saying that while this particular outrage should not be denied further attention; Russia’s reaction to it must be both balanced and universally applicable.

Now it is the time for Russia to pass a law under which any attempt at rewriting Second World War’s results, as solidified in the course of and defined by the Nuremberg tribunal, including any Holocaust denial, but not limited to it, are to be treated as felony.

In the framework of this law Russia should reserve the ultimate right to deny diplomatic immunity to those who are suspected in committing the above described crime and persecute them as felons in Russian courts of law regardless of their residence, citizenship or official rank.

The passage of this law will not be directed expressly against Estonia or any other specific state. However such a law, if passed, will enable criminal persecution of specific personalities who are already guilty of committing this crime.

Obviously, Russia’s real moves should not be limited to the passage and implementation of this law. There are other and more substantial measures to be undertaken toward accomplishment of specific strategic goals, which are be planned and carried through regardless of whether emergencies like the one that happened in Estonia occur — or they do not.

Because not Russia’s ambitions and not even ambitions of some United Russia Party are at stake.

What is at stake is our nation’s existence.

End of article:

Author’s notes

The Author wrote this before upheaval in Tallinn and says:

PS: I haven’t finished writing the text yet when the direct confirmation of what I had written came in: 

And that’s what I had to prove. Of perhaps I had not -as this is so obvious.

-

And as follow up consider the following piece from a Baltic site
http://pribalt.net/modules.php?name=Pages&go=page&pid=96 :

«Finally, Estonian experts came up with a killer of an idea for the gas pipe line. It consists in moving Estonian sea border to the central line agreed upon with Finland in 1996. In that way, Estonian territorial waters will be extended by 3 miles and willreach 12 miles now set by the UN Maritime convention. This is Estonia’s legal right. Why hasn’t it been done before? Firstly, because Finland and Estonia soundly enough decided not to make trouble for other states and voluntarily moved the border back by 3 miles. Secondly, because no one planned to build the gas pipeline and the current plans are to built it on the bottom of the sea within this six mile wide international passage. Now Estonia has different considerations, if it merges its territorial waters with Finland Russia would only be able to construct a pipeline with permission from these two states. Thirdly, and most importantly, Estonia was yet not a NATO member.»

-

Translator’s notes — since the article was written a number of anti-Russian states in New Europe and the NATO Secretary General expressed support for Estonia’s (official) barbarity as well as condemnation of (public) protests

Russian original: