Yves here. A few months back, John Mearsheimer pointed out (IIRC on Judge Napolitano), that even when Russia won the war in Ukraine, the war in a broader sense would be far from over. The sore losers in the Collective West would be sure to keep trying to mix things up with Russia in places like Kaliningrad, Transnistria, Central Asia, the Baltics, and of course by terrorism.
Here we see the very much diminished UK try to use the geographic position and rabidness of Estonia to its advantage. But as a Japanese colleague once said, “Marrying two sick dogs does not produce a healthy cat.”
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
The possible deployment of nuclear-capable F-35As there, which could be equipped with US air-to-ground nukes since the UK no longer has its own, would give London a leading role in managing the joint Arctic-Baltic front against Russia that’s expected to remain even after the Ukrainian Conflict ends.
Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur told the Postimees newspaper after last month’s NATO Summit that his country is interested in hosting nuclear-capable F-35As from its allies, with the outlet suggesting that the UK could deploy some of the 12 that it plans to purchase after they’re transferred. The UK’s other announcementthat it’ll join NATO’s dual-capable nuclear aircraft mission raises the chance that these jets could be equipped with US nukes since the UK no longer has its own air-to-ground ones.
The Wall Street Journal explained how “U.K. Shifts Nuclear Doctrine With Purchase of U.S. Jets”, which could lead to it obtaining the aforesaid nukes from the US, while Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declared that Estonia’s readiness to host nuclear-capable jets from any NATO country poses an “immediate danger” to Russia. All this follows Russia’s Foreign Spy Service warning in mid-June that the Brits and Ukrainians are cooking up two false flag provocations in the Baltic to rope Trump into the war.
Seeing as how it was assessed in late April that “Estonia Might Become Europe’s Next Trouble Spot”, it’s therefore likely that they’ll let the UK deploy nuclear-capable F-35As at Tapa Army Base, where it already has some troops as part of its largest overseas deployment. Putting everything together, it can therefore be concluded that the UK is actively expanding its sphere of influence in the Baltic on anti-Russian pretexts and via associated means, with Estonia playing a leading role by hosting its regional forces.
The Baltic front of the New Cold War is connected to the Arctic one due to Finland joining the alliance in 2023 and Russia responding by building up its forces along their border to deter NATO-emanating threats from there. This joint front, which is expected to remain tense even after the Ukrainian Conflict ends, will also see the construction of the “EU Defense Line” that’ll stretch along Finland’s, the Baltic States’, and Poland’s eastern borders with Russia and Belarus as a 21st-century Iron Curtain.
It’s within this context that Trump reportedly plans to pull some US troops out of Central & Eastern Europe (CEE), perhaps in exchange for Russia reducing its own presence in Belarus (possibly including its tactical nukes), as part of their plans to build a new European security architecture. Be that as it may, the “EU Defense Line” – which includes new border fortifications and the deployment of extra-regional countries’ forces like the UK’s and Germany’s – ensures that the EU-Russian security dilemma will persist.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently said that the EU is becoming an extension of NATO, which is confirmed by these countries’ role in the “EU Defense Line”, their reaffirmed commitment to Ukraine during the latest NATO Summit, and the EU’s €800 billion “ReArm Europe Plan”. Therefore, the abovementioned security dilemma is also a NATO-Russian one, which might dramatically worsen even if there’s a mutual Russia-US pullback of forces in CEE should Trump give air-to-ground nukes to the UK.
The risk of World War III breaking out by miscalculation would remain sky-high in that event due to the ambiguity about whether every British-piloted F-35A that takes off from Estonia (even just for training) is equipped with American nukes as part of a first strike sneak attack. This dark scenario can only be averted by Trump refusing to give the UK air-to-ground nukes, but even if he declines, NATO-Russian tensions will still remain even after peace in Ukraine due to the increasingly British-led Arctic-Baltic front.
Our fate truly seems to be in the hands of the mentally ill, isn’t? I guess that using American F35s and nukes are the only practical way for the British to feel important especially as the California National Guard seems almost a peer military power to the UK.
But just what are the strategic goals of the European Union and NATO? They don’t have the ability to threaten Russia aside from using nukes and Russia, despite its military advantages, simply can’t conquer the whole of Europe. Are the politicians suffering from insufficient ego gratification, or do the European corporations need to raise their dividends, using an arms buildup to do so, despite the growing economic strain?
Re: Mental illness. Had an interesting discussion with someone over the weekend who was lamenting that the root of great malaise of modernity lies in child rearing, the wealthy relying on nannies (with a high turn over), the less well off having both parents working and even when they can afford child care, those sectors having a high over and very young children at that crucial stage simply not getting the right kind of early development attention to allow true empathy to develop. It struck a chord regarding the bizarre behaviour of the current generation of western leaders who seem to have something missing.
As for the strategic aim for the EU, there doesn’t appear to be one, the only good that seems to come from it these days are small consumer victories like demanding standardised phone chargers and stopping airline overcharging for carry on luggage, the kind of wilful belligerence they have reminds me of the small guy in packs of drunk male teenagers who would nip forward to give someone from another pack a sneaky dig before retreating back to their larger friends.
The wealthy always relied on nannies to raise their kids, and then when older sent them to private schools, so this is not a fundamental reason.
Mental illness? I think it is another kind of trouble. We have had a succession of Prime Ministers recently and the most obvious conclusion is that all and any or them have been utterly incompetent and proven very unpopular in the UK soon after they became named or elected. I believe that UK moves in Ukraine or Estonia are the only ways this bunch was able to believe they were doing something, let’s say… useful (in their minds). These people have left any pretense they have any decent idea of what to do in the UK (a problem extended to Germany, France…) so then they focus in the geostrategic realm. Domestic policies have no other attraction for them except as the way to assure themselves and their relatives and friends better positions when they leave office.
I would attribute nastier goals, but then paranoia is wrong until proven right. The total ignorance of domestic needs is a sign, to me, that these problems have no solution on the national front, as global capital has reshaped the national agenda in every instance. So, between the banks, the venture-and-equity boys, and wallet-open “politicians”, I posit that the decision was made to push the domestic population into a pincer of inflation, degraded health care, and constant terror from crime, foreign agents, etc. A scared population is just so manipulable. A plan? Not so much one grand scheme as a meeting of opportunists with converging interests and shared abilities to succeed.
Unfortunately, the populations, as a whole, do not see this development with any clarity (thanks, education and media!). In history, most successful revolutions have been supported by other “enemy” nations or wealthy backers willing to take a chance on popular disturbance to gain power. The sheeple have shown they need a leader to accomplish these tasks, and self-generation of class forces alone succeed only briefly in local circumstances, hence little chance of democracy. Whither then?
I wonder what is the reality behind the “UK sphere of influence”. After all:
1) The article states that the UK obtains its entire airborne nuclear armament from the USA (both F-35 airplanes and the atomic bombs they can carry). Which means that the USA will ultimately have decision power regarding their deployment and utilization, and even whether the UK is allowed to acquire them at all.
2) Actual forces being deployed on the border with Russia are German (Baltic states) and French (Romania). The UK is nothing much in Europe without NATO.
3) It is the EU that is planning, and has the weight, to set up a €800G fund for rearmament, while the UK is scraping the bottom of the barrel to send 5G pounds to Ukraine.
4) Diplomatically, the UK no longer counts. And economically, now that it is outside the EU, it is reduced to play a subaltern role (see the trade agreement with the USA).
I tend to think that the supposed British clout is entirely derivative — British power (or what remains of it) being a front for the USA, NATO, or even the EU. I suspect that Estonia (and probably thus far Ukraine as well) views it in exactly those terms — the British presence is only worthwhile as the whole of NATO is presumed to stand behind it.
This piece is highly speculative.
Don’t take it too seriously.
Starmer committing to buying US warplanes to brown tongue Trump and considerably expand UK nuclear capabilities was done without any prior political discussion let alone scrutiny, and leaving the materiel under US control to avoid compromising the NPT is entirely performative.
Apparently SKS’s own cabinet didn’t know he was going to play this card.
The political fallout from this has not even begun to settle.
I lived in East Anglia when we had US nuclear planes some 45-50 years ago, and even then the Yanks were only tolerated / welcomed for the local employment and spending they brought.
Almost everyone was fearful of the everyday Cold War hazards in those days, as we were living in the main target zone under Reaganism on Airstrip One.
These days local MPs would lose their seats for endorsing such nuclear expansion, and there is already pushback. Labour are highly vulnerable with key marginals here, and electoral politics will be part of the eventual equation – some five to ten years down the road.
Nor should you underestimate continuing residual British influence. The UK still sits in the Security Council, (acknowledgedly a risible edifice) and occupies 6th place in terms of world economies, despite the self immolation of leaving the EU, and 15 years of destructive financialisation of the economy, continued adherence to neoliberal macroeconomics and persistent dire levels of investment.
The post colonial era still exists, though much is soft power outside the US sphere of influence, and will be further eroded by Labour government foreign aid cuts.
As far as NATO goes, there is not a single member in Europe who now trusts the USA to observe Article 5, so there is no option diplomatically but to expand conventional armed forces, in case the expected forthcoming declaration of a US state of emergency really does instal 47 as 48,49 and possibly even 50 if his internal organs hold out.
Over reliance on US largesse and their massive weapons industry is declining, and will be over within a decade.
Incidentally the ECB’s strict neoliberal monetarism has meant that, as well as the UK, Eurozone countries also are in increasing deficit in terms of infrastructure investment, hence services and productivity growth, and the reinstatement of the Stability and Growth Pact will continue to damage national growth, including in Germany, and create additional unemployment across these 20 countries, which includes Estonia and the Baltics currently with unemployment between 6.5-8%, so not too good domestically. The Eurozone is moribund economically.
The politics of unemployment tends to encourage the rise of right wing populist parties, (possibly excepting Iberia) so is high risk for the EU liberal elite, but neoliberalism is currently rock solid and embedded in the Euro and its supporting institutions. Banksters don’t tend to recognise democracy or relinquish power easily either. Crises are usually good for quick profits.
Those banksters in the Baltics are well known as a route for efficient money laundering for the Russian oligarchy, so sustaining the status quo has some merit for Putin.
There is a widespread misunderstanding of Article 5 meaning (highlight of mine):
“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 recognised 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.”
In short, a military response is not required by Article 5
All 3 of the Baltic yapping chihuahuas have sizeable multinational NATO troops, each led by a particular member:
NATO Enhanced Forward Presence WIKI
And Estonia isn’t the only one clamoring for nukes. Of course Russia has nuclear capable aircraft in Belarus and Kaliningrad is well armed.
Lithuania may need to amend constitution for nuclear weapon deployment – MoD LRT
To be clear, the Minister of Defense was pointing out, in response to some dumb comment Macron made, that our constitution does not permit deployment of WMD on our soil. That’s hardly “clamoring for nukes”…
Looking this from Baltic-Arctic perspective, UK and Estonian elites are a match made in hell: one still desperately needs to feel like being of importance and the other was so totally caught in the -let’s-crush-Russia-hubris and made so many [family blog] moves towards Russia it’s scared out of it’s mind for the coming retribution (once Russia’s hand are free from the Ukraine mess).
As for the rest, namely Norway and Finland (yeah, nobody really cares about Sweden), it’s been long known that UK’s “arctic capabilities” are an embarrassment and more than likely a total hindrance for the rest of the “NATO’s arctic front” – even the British officers admit this.
I’d say it’s more likely in the medium-term future for the Estonians to “join” the Russian Federation than anyone enduring a nuclear war for their behalf.
Meanwhile, I’ve seen statements by politicians from Spain, Italy and Slovenia that maybe NATO is not the security solution these countries need or are willing to pay for. Something one did not see only a year ago.
The last time the UK did Arctic warfare was in Norway in 1940. Needless to say, it was a fiasco which led to the fall of the government. A good many casualties were caused by lack of adequate equipment for winter conditions, or the Royal Navy inadvertently firing on expeditionary forces, amongst many other mishaps.
The UK did fight against Russia in the Baltic in 1854 (not unsuccessfully) and in 1918-19 (rather less successfully – sections of the fleet ended up mutinying). The UK was also first out of the block in recognising the three Baltic states in 1918, and assisted each of them with their wars of independence in 1918-19, taking control of Baltic German forces and fusing them with the armies of the nascent republics, especially in Latvia.
Another potential flashpoint is the so-called shadow fleet of tankers carrying Russian oil through the Baltic. Obviously they cannot get insurance from the west, hence the west considers them ‘uninsured’. And the oil is subject to western, not UN, sanctions, and therefore of dubious merit, to say the least. Sweden, Germany and the Baltic states are puffing up their chests and threatening to seize ‘uninsured’ vessels, that are ‘sanction-breaking’. Something the Russian navy and airforce are unlikely to allow to happen. All it will take is some British hothead to tell the Swedes to ‘do it’, or in Starmer speak, ‘don’t you dare get cold feet’, as he warned Swedish prosecutors over the Assange ‘rape’ case. Perfidious Albion, as ever.
Well, let’s see, in the first two paragraphs, we have successively “possible,” “could,” “expected,” “interested, ” “could,” “plans,” “chance,” “suggesting” and “could,” all finishing with speculation by an Estonian newspaper about what the governments of the UK and Estonia might conceivably do. Somehow this all becomes “likely” a couple of paragraphs later, and then turns into a Hollywood film scenario.
At least the article is right to say that the UK no longer has free-fall battlefield nuclear weapons of its own: the WE177 of the Cold War was scrapped long ago. The Tornado aircraft that carried it has been replaced by the Typhoon, which could be adapted to carry nuclear weapons, but as far as I know hasn’t been. The F35A was designed from the start to be able to do so, so buying a few–though it doesn’t make much sense operationally–would be a move in the intra-NATO power and influence struggles that will certainly follow defeat in Ukraine. It would probably give the UK more influence in the Nuclear Planning group, for example.
Under the NATO nuclear sharing scheme nations do not “obtain” and are not “given” nuclear weapons from the US: they remain under NATO (and US) control and are deployed in various countries under hosting arrangements. They require the agreement of the NPG, and in practice to the US, not just to be used but to be moved. Constructing a nuclear weapons storage site is a massive undertaking and completely impossible to hide. If any weapons were deployed to Estonia (which would require a political decision at the highest level in NATO) it would be public knowledge and the Russians would no doubt keep an eye on them on a daily basis. Bit more research needed here.
In general, Korybko is typical of a certain stand of analyst who sees the future only as an endless repetition of the present, and can’t think beyond that to the very different world we’ll be in in a coup;e of years time, whatever the bleatings of the Estonians and others.
If US as much as hinted on deploying nuclear weapons in Estonia (or Finland, for that matter) I’d venture a guess Russia would protest in the strongest form possible, if not even outright declare that should such a gross deterioration of the regional security proceed, there would be immediate “kinetic consequences”.
You mean that the Russians would tell the Americans that any nuclear attack coming from Estonia would be regarded as a nuclear attack coming from the US bringing about those “kinetic consequences” that you talked about? And as an aside, Estonia would become the only car park in the world that glows of a night time.
I think it’s stronger than that. One of the “root causes” of the Russia/Ukraine conflict is the prospect of Ukraine hosting NATO nuclear weaponry which could reach Moscow quickly. The scenario painted in this piece would appear to be a provocation at that level, and would presumably trigger a similar reaction, another Special Military Operation to pre-empt future deterioration of the security conditions on Russia’s Western borders.
Thank you. While it seems impossible to know what is going on with the mercurial Trump I’ve read that he wants to restart nuclear disarmament and prefers to use trade and sanctions to bully other nations. So perhaps this is yet another instance of the poodles may bark but the caravan carries on.
Meanwhile the declining competency theory has to to butt up against historical examples such as Churchill who fostered many disasters in his long career but whose plan for winning WW2–get the United States involved–did succeed (if his plan for then taking down Stalin did not).
If a country’s Foreign Minister is reported to have made a statement to a newspaper after a Summit of an international military organisation the prime objective of which is to f*ck your country over, it behoves your Foreign Minister, intelligence services, President and military to take it seriously and to plan how to deal with the situation prior to the event, including false flags, and to develop and implement communication plans to make it clear what action will be taken to your country against needless aggression, including the high probability of preemptive strikes, blockades and other sanctions.
The brutal reality is that the UK (not to mention France and Germany) is already in a state of war with Russia and it is merely a matter for Russia to decide whether or not to formally recognise this fact now or at some point in the future and take whatever action it determines is necessary.
I think that, for the most part, if the past is anything to go by, the future is like a sixties jukebox filled with the popular music of the day in that the same routine four or five or chord progressions will occur time and time again, regardless of lyrics, melody, rhythm, instruments or tempo. By and large, the instruments, including the recording studio, will change but nothing else will. That is the way of human nature. We have an endless capacity and a driving force to do stupid over and over again, endlessly banging our heads against the wall, stopping long enough for the pain to recede, and then we start all over again because we believe that our will is stronger than bricks and mortar and that there will be a second, third, fourth and more chapters to the story of an ever advancing, all-powerful European civilisation, failing to recognise that we’re not even halfway through the prologue and the rest of the pages are missing.
Ron Unz has flippantly suggested that the Russians should tell Nato to clear all personnel out of Nato headquarters and then send it crashing to the ground with a hypersonic missile as a slap in the face for Europe to “snap out of it” re who has the military power here.
Perhaps the only reason the Russians continue to cultivate Trump is that our Don is preoccupied with his own egomania and seems uninterested in the ancient quarrels of the European leaders. Not a bad plan, if deadly for the Gazans?
All the military capabilities that Russia is building now, hazelnuts, tanks, ships, subs, other misiles and nukes as well as manpower, are against a potential confrontation with NATO.
For Ukraine, so far, drones, geran drones, ATVs, motorbike cavalcades, EW, arti and FABs seem to do the trick.
Mearsheimer previously spoke of the US leading Ukraine “down the primrose path”.
IMO the UK is now leading Estonia in the same way. Also, the UK population.
It is truly frightening that most people in the UK have no objection to the “let’s fight Russia” drumbeat. Evidence – any time comments are allowed, they are overwhelmingly anti-Russia and anti-Putin.
In March the BBC had an article about Prince William in Estonia. Headline “Prince William sends strong message from tank near Russian border”. Photo of Prince William in a Challenger 2 tank. I guess the establishment is completely signed up to Estonia fighting Russia – with UK “advisors” like in Krinky.
Most people in the UK have no knowledge of the true state of the UK military. Martyanov (unkind but piquant) likens it to a chihuahua – lots of barking but no actual threat.
The young definitely don’t want to fight in any war. IMO if the government calls for conscription there will be an exodus of everyone who has money to leave – and “disorderly behaviour” by everyone who doesn’t.
The UK has no money for anything – maybe money to buy F-35s doesn’t have to actually exist in any form. If money is created to instantly disappear into the military-industrial complex, will there be any economic/financial impact?
So maybe we should all be reassured that the relentless warmongering propaganda is just a story, keeping the story-tellers busy.
Or maybe the establishment is busily working at its centuries-long “let’s fight Russia” goal, and they need to hear and see evidence of their work in the papers.
The ultimate protection of the UK civilian population is that it isn’t worth anyone’s time or money to destroy it. Instead, the Empire will just withdraw more and more and this island will return to being a distant outpost.
‘Most people in the UK have no knowledge of the true state of the UK military.’
I was reading how the Russians are preparing an op and have about 111,000 men ready to go – which is twice the manpower of the British army. So all they can do is to get proxy nations ready to go fight the Russian bear which is all very well but Estonia should remember that if anything goes wrong, that the UK is about 1600 miles away and sits behind a moat called the English channel.
RW,
re: “a chihuahua – lots of barking but no actual threat”
Only time I got bit while installing cabinets, it was a chihuahua. Nasty female dog. We used to require “large” dogs to be confined. Now we require ALL dogs to be confined.
Mrs. Socialist has told me that the most common reason for an early demise of chihuahuas is their enormous ego and lack of any filters, so they tend to aggravate much bigger dogs and yet refuse to back down with often sad results for them and their owners.
https://www.rt.com/news/621142-uk-water-rationing/
UK official reveals shocking state of water supplies