Translated by Ollie Richardson
Understanding their status of “expendable material”, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania ask their western allies to concentrate in the Baltic region as many troops as possible to somehow increase their worth, considers the President of the Center for System Analysis and Forecasting Rostislav Ishchenko.
In Paris the leaders of three Baltic countries met the President of France Emmanuel Macron on the 9th of April. In addition, Dalia Grybauskaitė was given a separate reception in the Élysée Palace.
Security issues were the main topic of all the meetings. Of course, problems with European unity and economic problems were also discussed, but security was in first place. A week earlier in Washington the Baltic States simply held Trump hostage with the demand to sharply increase the number of NATO and, in particular, American troops in the region, and also to cardinally strengthen the air defense system of the Baltic States.
In principle, the fact that questions of military security became the main topic of the meetings isn’t a surprise. What issues of economic cooperation can the US, France, and three limitrophes urgently resolve? And the unity of the EU doesn’t depend on them at all. It depends on Germany, France, Italy, Holland, even Poland, but not the Baltics at all.
But the Baltic States are a springboard for an attack on Russia.
They cut off the Kaliningrad region from the main territory of Russia. In the event of a military conflict with NATO, Russia will be simply obliged to punch through a corridor to Kaliningrad and block the possibility of additional contingents of troops of alliance disembarking in the Baltic ports. There is only one solution to this problem — the complete liquidation of the NATO grouping concentrated in the Baltics. According to NATO Generals, Russia is capable of completing this task within a week.
For NATO the loss of the Baltics is, alas, an acceptable expense. Any confrontation assumes risk. The Baltic States, like all of Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Georgia, are expendable material for America. Their loss isn’t critical in itself, it is important that this loss is effective.
But what is a fact is that for the US it is an admissible campaign expense, but for the Baltic States it is a matter of life and death. The prospect of being a battlefield doesn’t please them at all. Moreover, nationalist governments do not receive joy from the prospect of a quick and effective occupation. For them, then there definitely will be no place left for them in their Motherland.
The Baltic authorities see that the only opportunity to survive in the conditions of a global confrontation is to increase for the US and EU the price of losing their region so that they are compelled to protect it with all their power.
Since in the Baltics there isn’t anything extraordinary that the US and NATO can’t live without, it is possible to raise the costs for Washington only by forcing it to concentrate as many troops as possible in the Baltic countries. By defending their soldiers, Washington will also be defending the Baltic States.
Why besides Trump did they go to see Macron? Because Macron actively supported the US in Syria and even threatened to send French troops there. The President of France takes a much more aggressive stance concerning Russia than the same Merkel does. Thus, in addition to Washington and London (which is leaving the EU) Paris remains the most influential member of the European Union that supports the American-British policy of provoking Russia.
And these provocations have actually put the world on the brink of war.
The Baltic States heard, reflected on it, and then started to rush to Washington and Paris, eliciting military protection. I.e., the Baltic States don’t believe any more that the process can be stopped. Therefore they ask about American occupation — in order to avoid a Russian one.
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.