| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Trip Wire - Will Estonia trigger WWIII? |
| 2025-05-27 |
| [Doomberg] "War does not determine who is right—only who is left."— Bertrand Russell For centuries, Estonia has alternated between brief periods of independence and long stretches of domination by foreign powers. With a land area smaller than West Virginia and a population of just 1.4 million, its vulnerability is amplified by geography. As a buffer state between Western Europe and Russia with strategic access to the Baltic Sea, the country has often been treated as a pawn between stronger warring parties. Estonia gained its independence when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and joined both the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 2004. The Gulf of Finland, a narrow corridor that separates Estonia and Finland, serves as a primary transit route for Russian cargo, including significant quantities of oil. At its narrowest, the Gulf of Finland spans just 32 miles, and a seven-mile-wide stretch near its center serves as an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The EEZ is governed as an international passage under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Under UNCLOS Article 37, Estonia and Finland cannot restrict ships from passing through or otherwise impede passage, except in very limited circumstances. The small fraction of the 335 million Americans who happen upon this article might be surprised to learn that they have an Article 5 obligation to defend Estonia militarily should it be attacked—and that the odds of such a scenario have climbed measurably in the past two weeks: "A tense maritime incident unfolded today off the Estonian coast when Estonian naval forces attempted to detain the M/T JAGUAR, a crude oil tanker allegedly part of Russia’s shadow fleet. Estonian forces deployed a helicopter, patrol aircraft, and patrol boat to intercept the vessel, which apparently refused to comply with orders to halt or alter course. The situation escalated when a Russian Su-35S fighter jet entered Estonian airspace over the Gulf of Finland in what appeared to be an attempt to deter Estonian forces." Despite Russia’s long-standing warnings that any interference with its trade through the Gulf of Finland would constitute an escalation justifying a military response, much of the Western media spun the story as Russia violating NATO airspace—as though this were not the response Estonia knowingly provoked. A few days after the incident, Russia sent another message: "Russia detained a Greek-owned oil tanker on Sunday after it left an Estonian port in the Gulf of Finland, the Estonian Foreign Ministry said, adding it had alerted NATO allies to the incident. The Liberia-flagged ship Green Admire was leaving Sillamae port using a designated navigation channel that crosses Russian territorial waters, the ministry said in a statement. ’This is definitely connected to the fact that we have started to harass Russia's shadow fleet,’ Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told Estonian broadcaster ERR." |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #5 When did that change? I'd say Bosnia. When the Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed, it was time for us to leave. It was Deep State/MIC that kept us there beyond the original intent and thus fueled the natural paranoia of the Russians. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2025-05-27 15:08 |
| #4 Provoking as in attempting a naval blockade which is what Poles and Estonians did when they attempted to stop the Jaguar. That is an act of war as defined by UNCLOS of which the United States is a signatory and so is the European Union. It doesn't matter if they say they were trying to enforce sanctions. It's still a blockade no matter what they call it or why they say they're doing it and it's still an act of war. If Russia detained a ship after that it was retaliation and Estonians are lucky if that's the only retaliation they get. It's a hell of a state of affairs if we have to rely on the Russians to be the ones who exercise restraint in the face of a provocation like that. Article 5 is bullshit if Poles and Estonians are the ones who initiate hostilities. NATO's original purpose was to be a defensive force, not offensive, not a vehicle for the imperialist ambitions of some of its members. When did that change? Let's just see how brave the Poles and Estonians are without Uncle Sugar standing behind them. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2025-05-27 12:08 |
| #3 Provoking as in oppressing Russian minority, attacking Russian shipping, etc... |
| Posted by: Grom the Affective 2025-05-27 11:38 |
| #2 "provoking" as in remaining sovereign? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2025-05-27 11:33 |
| #1 Even a D-POTUS won't be stupid enough to start a war with Russia over the Baltics - especially given the fact that these "countries" keep provoking Russia. |
| Posted by: Grom the Affective 2025-05-27 11:26 |