Fearing Russian invasion Estonia's civilians heed their country's call to arms

EU member Estonia feels threatened by neighbour Russia. This year, the small NATO country will invest over 3% of its GDP to beef up its defence capabilities. It has also been hosting NATO exercises and training civilians in trench warfare, as EuronewsWitness reporter Hans von der Brelie discovered.

Indrek Jurtšenko is a trained opera singer. But today he takes me to a military manoeuvre in the Estonian forests. Armed civilians, part of the “Estonian Defence League” (EDL), are war-gaming together with professional soldiers: “In our exercise there are 500 people from Estonia, Lithuania and France participating”, he says.

The drill is called “Northern Frog” and takes place around a former soviet military airfield. Close to the landing strip, infantry troops from NATO-partner France fortify trenches. In the nearby forest, Baltic volunteers are gathering. They are armed civilians with professional military skills. It's quite an intriguing setting; Estonian milita forces and professional NATO-troops are mutually testing and upgrading their combat skills for trench warfare.

Local knowledge, local strength From a French professional perspective, what is the advantage of such a militia force, I ask Captain Hubert. “They are operating in their own zone of living, in the region they belong to”, he tells me. “And that’s why they can react at once exactly when and where they are needed.”

Some 30,000 members signed up with the EDL. Workers, clerks, students or farmers spending their time off in military exercises; they receive no pay for this patriotic service. Many of them have their own weapon at home and they know how to handle it when things become serious.

To never ever again live under foreign rule, that’s Reet Saari motivation for joining. She’s a mother and sales manager at a hardware store. Today she leads a reconnaissance patrol – a heavily armed all-female combat unit. "Estonia is a small country, so everybody has to contribute to the defence efforts in one way or another. Some can fight at the frontline in the forest, like me. Others can help with support tasks and logistics.” In manoeuvres like this one Reet learnt shooting, battlefield medecin, infantry tactics and close combat.

Spend to defend In the Estonian capital Tallinn I meet defence minister Hanno Pevkur. Estonia urges its NATO partners to increase their defence spending. Two percent of GDP is not enough, Pevkur insists: “The main threat will remain Russia. The dictatorship will grow”, he says on record.

In this context the Estonian Parliament voted to keep defence expenditure at three percent of GDP. This year it could be even more. What are the priorities for 2024-2027, I ask the Defence Minister. Pevkur: “We are buying self-propelled howitzers on wheels, new medium range air defence, a lot of anti-tank systems and a lot of new ammunitions. In the last two years we have bought more ammunition as we have bought in the past 30 years in total!”

Estonia is exposed to Russian destabilisation efforts through airspace violations, fake-news-campaigns, cyber-attacks and GPS signal jammings. Is Estonia really at risk, I ask former EDL commander Riho Ühtegi, who has also a background with Estonian special forces and intelligence. NATO membership is a solid safeguard, he knows, but “this empire feeling, it's not gone from Russia, they still have it. So, because of that, we must be ready”, Ühtegi warns.

All for one, one for all NATO officers are full of praise for the fully-trained civilians in the Baltics. The militia fighters are able to improvise and to find solutions for bad surprises even in the midst of stressful combat situations, they say. Chains of command are working well, reconnaissance and communication flows are professional, I get told in a few background details on the ground.

Some voices from Ukraine are sending alarming signals: The Baltic States could be next on Putin's list, they say. However, article 5 of the NATO treaty guarantees to come to the aid of any member if it is attacked; one for all, all for one. An evocation shared by Indrek Jurtšenko, Reet Saari, Hanno Pevkur, Riho Ühtegi, Captain Hubert and many other people living in the western defence alliance.

Why are you suddenly so fond of commie propaganda.

From your earlier post:

The right side of the image you posted is an Independence Day celebration organized by one of the 2 and half conservative parties in Estonia. This particular one is a Trump-style conservative party. Shrill libs like to call them Nazis.

The left side is an Estonian man Harald Nugiseks. When he was 19 the Soviet Union (still allied with the Nazis) invaded Estonia. They burned down his village and murdered a lot of his friends and relatives including his cousin and aunt’s husband in a brutal and torturous way.

He had gotten away and hid in a forest and since he was at the age where the Red Army conscripted from stayed hidden.

When the Nazis invaded later and drove the commies out he signed up with the Germans to kill commies. Killing commies is a noble goal and given what had happened in the past a very understandable desire.

Why have you turned into a commie cheerleader and where do you even get these propaganda images and texts?

So, if NATO is such a paper Tiger, why does Russia fear it? (to paraphrase what proponents of Russia say about Russia)
Both are silly non-arguments.

My #30 to MeganC to which you nominally make believe you are responding had nothing to do with Russia fearing NATO.

I first cited the Estonia defense budget of 3% GDP as amounting to just over $1B.

The rest of my post was quoting Articles 5 and 6, and quoting NATO about member responsibilities under Articles 5 and 6.

If you believe Articles 5 & 6 and the NATO statement about Articles 5 & 6 make NATO a paper tiger, take it up with NATO. I only linked and quoted what NATO itself said.

The thread article claims,

Some voices from Ukraine are sending alarming signals: The Baltic States could be next on Putin's list, they say. However, article 5 of the NATO treaty guarantees to come to the aid of any member if it is attacked; one for all, all for one.

NATO has invoked Article 5 once in its history, directly after 9/11. The NATO reality, as stated by NATO, insists:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

Collective Defence and Article 5

NATO
Last updated 04 Jul 2023 11:47

[Excerpt]

A cornerstone of the Alliance
Article 5
In 1949, the primary aim of the North Atlantic Treaty – NATO’s founding treaty – was to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent.
Every participating country agreed that this form of solidarity was at the heart of the Treaty, effectively making Article 5 on collective defence a key component of the Alliance.
Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
This article is complemented by Article 6, which stipulates:
Article 6¹
“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France², on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”
The principle of providing assistance
With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.
This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.

Do you disagree with NATO explaining NATO Article 5?

What is your point?

To enlighten the world about what NATO itself says about Article 5.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

The principle of providing assistance
With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.
This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.

What is your point?

Yeah, those "shrill libs" over at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, what were they thinking? 🧐

August 25, 2004

WIESENTHAL CENTER PROTESTS ERECTION OF MONUMENT COMMEMORATING ESTONIAN SS-DIVISION WHICH FOUGHT WITH NAZIS IN WORLD WAR II

The Simon Wiesenthal Center today issued an official protest against the erection in the Estonian town of Lihula of a monument commemorating the members of the 20th Estonian SS Division, which fought for Nazi Germany during World War II.

In a statement issued today in Jerusalem by the Centers chief Nazi-hunter Dr. Efraim Zuroff, the Wiesenthal Center condemned the erection of the monument which glorifies those who were willing to sacrifice their lives to help achieve the victory of Nazi Germany and the Third Reich in World War II.

Zuroff added that the inscription on the monument which attempts to portray the members of the units as fighters for Estonian independence in 1940-1944 is a misguided attempt to rewrite history and to turn Nazi collaborators into Estonian heroes. This is hardly surprising in a country which has hereto failed to prosecute a single Estonian Nazi war criminal and in which a public opinion poll revealed that 93% of the public oppose the establishment of a memorial day for the victims of the Holocaust, said Zuroff.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.