
Estonia cribbing Ukraine's script for provoking Russia
On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princeps, a Bosnian-Serb radical, shot and killed Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg. Princeps did not act alone.
He was one of at least six principals in an organization called Young Bosnia, and his group and others were seeking independence from the Austro-Hungarian empire. He also received help from a secret organization, the Black Hand, that provided training and weapons, including bombs and pistols.
The assassination of the Austrian Archduke, the immediate successor to emperor Franz Joseph I, was a provocation that a month later caused the so-called July crisis that culminated in a July 23 ultimatum to Serbia. By then, Germany had pledged support for Austria, and Russia and France would mobilize in support of Serbian nationalism.
World War I could have been avoided, but it was not. The perpetrators of the crime in Bosnia were tried, some jailed (because they were too young for execution, including Princeps) and others executed. The Austrians vastly overestimated their military capabilities. For them, at the end of the war, the Austro-Hungarian empire would cease to exist.
Franc Ferdinand and Sophie in the car where they would be murdered. The archduke and his wife are seated in the back of the vehicle. Image: IWM
Are we in a similar situation today? There have been countless provocations by Ukraine and some of its supporters, including Joe Biden, who authorized long-range ATACMS strikes deep inside Russia, some aimed at Russia's early warning radars and nuclear bomber bases.
Not to be outdone, the Ukrainians on May 3, 2023, launched drone attacks on the Kremlin, targeting Russian President Vladimir Putin's office.
Such attacks are inconceivable without technical help from NATO, especially as long-range drones need satellites for communications and targeting. The White House has denied allegations it was involved recently in attacks.
At the same time, Ukraine and its supporters have promoted and carried out a cultural war against Russia. One of the top provocateurs is Estonia.
Estonia is the most northern of the Baltic states. It fronts on the Baltic Sea where its capital city, Tallinn, is located. Estonia's town of Narva is just next to the border with Russia. About half of Narva's population is Russian.
Estonia has a population of 1.37 million, based on data from 2023. Between 20-25% of Estonia's population are Russians, depending on how the count is made.
For a number of years, Estonia has been waging a cultural war against Russia while at the same time utterly depending on NATO for its security. The Estonian army has only 7,700 active duty personnel, of which 3,500 are conscripts.
It has a reserve force that is significantly larger, but it does not have the equipment to support its reserves, so it is largely a paper force. Estonia has no air force to speak of, only two Czech-made (Aero Vodochody) L-39 trainers and two small M-28 Polish transports.
One of two Estonian L-39s. Image: Supplied by author
One would think that Estonia would not want to create trouble for itself, but it seems that the reverse is true, largely deriving from the Estonian belief that NATO is there to back it up and that Russia would not attack a NATO state.
Provocations are not something new for the Estonians, whose hate for Russians borders on the extreme. By practically denying citizenship to their Russian inhabitants to attacking the Russian Orthodox Church in Estonia through legislation, Estonia has made it clear it will do whatever it can to humiliate its own Russian population and Russia itself.
Bronze soldier of Tallinn relocated after 2024 Victory Day Celebrations. Photo: Author supplied.
In April 2007, the Estonians decided to move the monument there known as the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. That monument also was the site of a number of graves of Soviet Russian soldiers who were killed fighting against the Nazis.
The graves were dug up, their families in Russia notified they could collect the remains or they would be relocated in the Tallinn military cemetery along with the monument.
Now, in 2025, we have another round of monument-busting, as the Estonians are tearing down Russian war memorials once again. This includes defiling Russian graves in the Tallinn military cemetery and damaging and destroying war memorials.
Employees of the Estonian Military Museum have destroyed monuments in honor of Soviet sailors, soldiers and officers who liberated the republic from Nazi invaders at the Tallinn Military Cemetery. Photo: Author supplied.
If there is one single unifying principle these days in Russia it is the great importance given to Russia's decisive role in the defeat of Nazi armies in World War II. Each year, on May 9, Russia holds its annual Victory Day celebration, which focuses on a show of military power.
It is followed by a more somber but clearly important citizen's march known as the Immortal Regiment. In this march, families proudly carry posters and photos of family members who perished in the Great Patriotic War (Russia's terminology for World War II.)
Estonia's show of contempt for Russia's World War II victory, along with its spotty, some would say, compromised behavior supporting the Nazis, is increasingly irksome to the Russians.
One can add attempts to keep Russians living in Estonia from achieving citizenship or even voting in elections. Estonia has now stepped that up by adding new legislation to make it even more difficult for Russian residents to be treated equally.
Estonia is also trying to block out any relationship between Russian Orthodox Churches in Estonia to the Moscow Patriarchate. It is not surprising that Estonia's actions parallel and were perhaps inspired by Ukraine, which is doing the same thing.
The Immortal Regiment March in Moscow. Picture: Author supplied.
The Estonian action against the Moscow-led church would create revulsion and horror elsewhere if, for example, European or American Catholics were not allowed to communicate with the Pope in Rome.
Among the pro-war advocates in Europe, Estonia is at the forefront. Its former Prime Minister, Kaja Kallas, is now the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
She is now a major voice in promoting a massive European defense expansion and sending troops to Ukraine. Of the six nations who have apparently pledged to send troops to Ukraine, Estonia is leading the list even though it does not have anyone to send.
The trouble with provocations is that they can cause wars. The hysteria now apparent in official channels in parts of Europe (for example, France, UK, Germany and Estonia) reflects huge anxiety that Ukraine will not survive the Russian onslaught.
Instead of helping US President Donald Trump find a peaceful solution to the conflict, the French and British, in particular, have done their best to undermine his efforts.
While some of this can be explained as a bailout for Europe's economic issues by substituting military production for civilian manufacturing, deficit spending of this kind will never be enough to salvage Europe's economic and industrial problems.
Meanwhile, small countries such as Estonia can cause big problems and an escalation leading to conflict in Europe.
Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared on his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


RTHK
an hour ago
- RTHK
Wang Yi off to seal 'anchor of stability' with Europe
Wang Yi off to seal 'anchor of stability' with Europe Wang Yi will meet his EU, German and French counterparts during his EU trip. File photo: AFP China's top diplomat heads to Europe on Monday for a visit that Beijing said will highlight ties as an "anchor of stability" in a world in turmoil. Wang Yi's tour will take him to the European Union's headquarters in Brussels as well as France and Germany as China seeks to improve relations with the bloc as a counterweight to the United States. But deep frictions remain over the economy – including a yawning trade deficit of US$357.1 billion between China and the European Union – and the Russian-Ukraine war. "The world is undergoing an accelerated evolution of a century-old change, with unilateralism, protectionism and bullying behaviour becoming rampant," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Guo Jiakun said on Friday. Guo said Beijing and the European bloc must "keep the world peaceful and stable, safeguard multilateralism, free trade, international rules, fairness and justice, and act firmly as anchors of stability and constructive forces in a volatile world". Wang will meet his EU counterpart, Kaja Kallas, at the bloc's headquarters in Brussels for "high-level strategic dialogue". In Germany, he will hold talks with Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul on diplomacy and security – his first visit since Berlin's new conservative-led government took power in May. And in France, Wang will meet minister for Europe and foreign affairs Jean-Noel Barrot, who visited China in March. (AFP)


AllAfrica
7 hours ago
- AllAfrica
What the Iran bombing shows about American power and its limits
Last week was a good week for American power and for Donald Trump. The attack he ordered on Iran, against most expectations, was a successful demonstration of that power especially as it intimidated Iran sufficiently to discourage immediate retaliation. The agreement by NATO to set a 5% target for defense spending in proportion to GDP counts as another political success for Trump, especially as NATO's Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, gave that success a ridiculous embellishment by describing him as 'Daddy. Celebratory hamburgers and Cokes would have been called for over the weekend at Mar-a-Lago. The success of Trump's bombing of Iran is not measured in terms of whether US 'bunker-busting' bombs have destroyed Iran's nuclear-weapons program. Trump says that they have, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khameini says they haven't – and we can be sure that both are lying. Almost certainly, based on satellite photos and reports from US and Israeli intelligence, the three big nuclear facilities the bombs struck have been crippled in the sense that it will take time and a great deal of money to rebuild and reopen them. Yet Israeli intelligence also believes that Iran still possesses an unknown quantity of enriched uranium and an unknown number of secret facilities. Whatever Trump and the US Department of Defense may say, the Israelis know that if Iran wished to resume its nuclear program, it could do so, albeit at great expense. The real question is not whether the nuclear program has been destroyed. The real questions concern whether Iran's political will to develop nuclear weapons has been destroyed by America's willingness to fight alongside Israel; and whether Israel's own political leadership is now prepared to wait and try to gauge Iranian intentions or whether instead it might seek to renew its own attacks in response to any indication, however minor, that the nuclear or missile programmes are being resumed. Certainly, Trump now has leverage over Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, since the American bombing did Netanyahu a big favor. However, the leverage works both ways: By persuading Trump that the bombing was worth the risk Netanyahu gave Trump a big political win, and in the aftermath of the (so far) 12-day war it is Israeli intelligence which will play a crucial role in reporting on Iran's behavior and intentions. So, for the time being, Trump and Netanyahu are in a relationship of mutual dependency. Trump might hope to be able to press Netanyahu to bring an end to his attacks on Gaza and to find a way to bring Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf Arab countries together again to find a long-term solution to that conflict. But if Netanyahu decides that a ceasefire in Gaza is not in his interests, he has tools in his hands with which he can resist American pressure. It is an old story: US military power is extraordinary, but America's ability to shape sustainable diplomatic and political outcomes in the aftermath even of successful military action has been shown many times to be limited. If this brief but effective bombing of Iran were to bring a sustainable and positive political outcome, it would be an extraordinary exception to the long-term rule. Much depends on what now happens inside Iran. The killings by Israel of a large swath of Iran's military and scientific leadership means that a new generation has suddenly been promoted. Wartime conditions have led to a tightening of control over the country by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the most ideological part of the armed forces. Executions of suspected Israeli spies are under way. The 86-year-old Ayatollah Khamenei remains in theoretical charge, but in reality a new generation of militants is now in day-to-day control. They will certainly have been intimidated by the American attack and will not feel strong enough to wish to provoke further attacks. Some form of negotiation will likely get going with the Americans about the nuclear program, though it is also possible that the new militant leaders may simply try to keep their heads low for a while, to give them time to consolidate their power. One big thing that has happened as a result of Trump's bombing decision is that the idea that the US president is averse to risk and simply likes doing deals has been shown to be incomplete. He does like deals and doesn't like risk, but plainly is willing to use military action when he sees an opportunity or a necessity. It is unlikely that China ever felt confident that Trump would not intervene if they were to attempt to invade or blockade Taiwan, but certainly they now know to take the threat of US military intervention during the Trump presidency seriously. An optimistic view would be that Trump's success in Iran might now encourage him to make a bold intervention on the side of Ukraine and against Vladimir Putin's Russia. This is evidently what European members of NATO are hoping for, and it is what Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was pushing for when he spoke with Trump at the NATO summit on June 25, and again asked to be allowed to buy more US missile defense systems and other weapons. Yet just as American power to shape political outcomes has been shown in the long term to be limited, during the seven months so far of Trump's presidency we have seen that his attention span and commitment to specific causes are also limited. However often Europeans debase themselves by calling him 'Daddy,' it will not change the reality that European countries cannot rely on America and that they need to protect themselves. The importance of NATO's new 5% spending target is not the target itself, which is largely meaningless: Even America currently spends only 3.5% of GDP and is unlikely to achieve 5% given the size of its fiscal deficit and public debt. The importance lies in the fact that a wide range of European governments, led by Germany, France and the UK, have committed themselves to build their defenses up to a level at which they no longer need to depend on America. Under Trump, America will often be hostile, especially over trade, and so will need to be resisted by a confident and resolute Europe. However much success American power might have found last week, the US cannot be relied upon – and its long-term influence is, anyway, limited. Europe is not on its own, but it needs to be self-reliant. Formerly editor-in-chief of The Economist, Bill Emmott is currently chairman of the Japan Society of the UK, the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the International Trade Institute. A version of this article has been published in Italian by La Stampa and can be found in English on the substack Bill Emmott's Global View. It is republished here with kind permission.


AllAfrica
8 hours ago
- AllAfrica
US loath to drop 'economic bunker buster' on China, India, Russia
US Senator Lindsey Graham recently said that his bill to impose 500% tariffs on every country that imports Russian resources is 'an economic bunker buster against China, India, and Russia' – yet, for all his tough talk, the US is still reluctant to drop it. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump Administration is 'quietly pressuring' the Senate to water down the legislation by turning 'the word 'shall' into 'may' wherever it appears in the bill's text, removing the mandatory nature of the prescribed reprimands.' The Journal's report was lent credence when Graham himself proposed an exemption for countries that aid Ukraine, thus averting an unprecedented US-EU trade war in the event that his bill passes into law. Trump's remark to Politico in mid-June about how 'sanctions cost us a lot of money' suggest that he's not interested in going this route, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio later adding that sanctions could derail the Ukrainian peace process, although he also didn't rule them out in the future. These are sensible explanations for the United States' reluctance to drop its 'economic bunker buster' on Russia but they don't account for its reluctance to drop it on China and India, which have served as invaluable valves for Russia from the West's sanctions pressure due to their large-scale import of its oil. Graham expects that they'll cut off their purchases if the US threatens them with 500% tariffs but they're unlikely to comply since they know that the US would also harm its own economy through such means. Not only that, but the trade deal that US and China recently agreed to would be jeopardized, as would the ongoing talks with India over a similar such agreement. Trump is pleased with both and doesn't want to rock the boat right now. While he might revert back to his previous tariff pressure if things don't go his way, he could just unilaterally impose more tariffs against either in that scenario, and they probably wouldn't be anywhere near the counterproductive level that Graham's legislation demands. Seeing as how the US is once again trying to 'subordinate India,' which is part of his administration's efforts to reshape South Asian geopolitics, he's more prone to imposing higher tariffs against it instead of China but it's premature to predict that he ultimately will. In any case, the pretext probably wouldn't be energy-related given that he has surprisingly posted that 'China can continue to purchase Oil from Iran' in spite of early February's Executive Order that explicitly aims to 'drive Iran's export of oil to zero.' It would therefore be utterly bizarre for Trump to impose tariffs of any level on India or whoever else for purchasing Russian resources when he now no longer cares about the United States' systemic rival China purchasing oil from none other than Iran, which he just bombed, in defiance of his own decree. The aforementioned calculations make it very unlikely that Trump will drop Graham's 'bunker buster' on either of those two. If his bill should become law, it's likely that a loophole would be found to avoid complying with it. This prediction brings the analysis back around to the future of Graham's 'economic bunker buster.' Quite clearly, the Trump Administration doesn't want him to move it through Congress. He may respect the administration's wishes, thus leading to his bill becoming nothing but bluster. This is especially likely if his team signals that it's already found a loophole to get around it unless he changes the language as reportedly requested. China, India, and Russia, therefore, almost certainly have nothing to worry about.