> “At the moment, I don’t think a Russian attack is likely,” Pistorius told Tagesspiegel in an interview last year. “Our experts estimate that it could be possible within a period of five to eight years.”
They will have plausible deniability so that if NATO responds, Russia can disavow them. If NATO doesn’t invoke Article 5 and forcefully respond (e.g. if only Estonia sends troops) Russia can exploit the opening and invade further. Why Narva? Look at where it sits relative to Russia. Also this from Wikipedia:
>The population was 83,000 in 1992.[33] 95.7% of the population of Narva are native Russian speakers,[34] and 87.7% are ethnic Russians.[3] Most non-Estonians are ethnically Russian, Belarusian, or Ukrainian immigrants or the children of immigrants, though 69% of Narva residents in the early 1990s had been born in Narva or had lived there for more than 30 years.[14] Ethnic Estonians account for 5.2% of total population.
If this is true, it seems it’s definitely not priced into the market yet
ixvst01 on
I’ve always thought the whole “Ukraine isn’t NATO” as an excuse not to defend Ukraine to be a cop out. Even in the Biden admin, all that talk about wanting to avoid escalation and WWIII, yet at the same time Russia is supposed to be believe the U.S. is prepared to start WWIII over Estonia? Doesn’t make sense. Putin is fully prepared to test NATO’s Article 5 commitment in the Baltics because the reason for U.S. not helping Ukraine could also be applied to the Eastern European countries in NATO. I wrote a whole [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/s/5HQLR25ksC) a while back on the geopolitics sub about this very contradiction in U.S. policy.
6 Comments
oh good thing we have solid leadership in the US who will handle this beautifully
[“By showing weakness, we provoked Putin”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLAzeHnNgR8)
> “At the moment, I don’t think a Russian attack is likely,” Pistorius told Tagesspiegel in an interview last year. “Our experts estimate that it could be possible within a period of five to eight years.”
We Gucci
Putin (or whoever replaces him) will send some “[little green men](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War))” to Narva.
They will have plausible deniability so that if NATO responds, Russia can disavow them. If NATO doesn’t invoke Article 5 and forcefully respond (e.g. if only Estonia sends troops) Russia can exploit the opening and invade further. Why Narva? Look at where it sits relative to Russia. Also this from Wikipedia:
>The population was 83,000 in 1992.[33] 95.7% of the population of Narva are native Russian speakers,[34] and 87.7% are ethnic Russians.[3] Most non-Estonians are ethnically Russian, Belarusian, or Ukrainian immigrants or the children of immigrants, though 69% of Narva residents in the early 1990s had been born in Narva or had lived there for more than 30 years.[14] Ethnic Estonians account for 5.2% of total population.
https://preview.redd.it/k9nbn31m486f1.jpeg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a4ea36eab1a36b2eeb74253f3b1335cc79e046ed
If this is true, it seems it’s definitely not priced into the market yet
I’ve always thought the whole “Ukraine isn’t NATO” as an excuse not to defend Ukraine to be a cop out. Even in the Biden admin, all that talk about wanting to avoid escalation and WWIII, yet at the same time Russia is supposed to be believe the U.S. is prepared to start WWIII over Estonia? Doesn’t make sense. Putin is fully prepared to test NATO’s Article 5 commitment in the Baltics because the reason for U.S. not helping Ukraine could also be applied to the Eastern European countries in NATO. I wrote a whole [post](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/s/5HQLR25ksC) a while back on the geopolitics sub about this very contradiction in U.S. policy.