Estonians started. This is what they wrote in the Postimees newspaper on November 6:
“The Estonian and Latvian Defense Forces, which started from the same line twenty years ago, are now in a diametrically opposite position. The Latvian Defense Forces are completely unprepared to fight. They can neither defend their country nor cooperate internationally. Estonia's southern border is defenseless."
The Latvian soldiers who took part in the Spring Storm exercises in Estonia do not have uniforms suitable for field conditions, and it is very easy for the enemy to take them at gunpoint. (photo: Mihkel Maripuu, How did the Latvians go wrong? Here are Estonians - great fellows. Judge for yourself. Their country is the smallest in area in the Baltics. And in terms of population, too. But it can defend itself: after all, the Estonians themselves consider it a country with "independent defense capability."
“You shouldn't fall into euphoria, but basically it means that the Estonian army knows how to fight and defend the state. With some amendments, the same can be said about Lithuania, but definitely not about Latvia. “In terms of security, Latvia is an empty space,” says Kaarel Kaas, an expert at the International Center for Defense Research.
The Estonians were worried that in the event of an attack, they themselves would have to defend their southern border - the Latvian army, that is, an “empty space”, would not help them.
(Another question is who there from the south can invade independent Estonia through Latvia by roundabout ways, what are the citizens of Minsk and Pskov).
But to prove that the Estonian army is invincible, the newspaper mentioned above quotes the words of Karlis Neretnieks, a retired general of the Swedish army, who, by the way, has Latvian roots, so you cannot accuse him of bias.
He took and researched the defenses of the Baltic countries - and came to the conclusion that Estonia is head and shoulders above the rest. Moreover, in a few years the gap will become even wider. Brilliant.
Another article by Mikk Salu compares the armies of two neighboring republics in numbers.
If in Estonia today there are 5,000-6,000 servicemen in the ranks, and in wartime 30-40 thousand can be armed, then in Latvia - 1, 7 thousand and 12 thousand, respectively. Estonian defense budget 2009-2010 - 565 million euros while the Latvians have only 370 million euros. And if the valiant Estonians, if necessary, begin to fight with machine guns, machine guns, mortars, artillery, air defense, anti-tank weapons and sit on armored personnel carriers (maybe even go), then the Latvian fighters will be able to move on foot, running or crawling with machine guns and machine guns. Some lucky ones will get rare mortars.
Such comparisons increase the dissatisfaction with the idleness of Latvians in Estonia. Hence the seemingly absurd statements: "Latvia poses a threat to the security of Estonia." This is what the retired military Ants Laaneots and Leo Kunnas say. Or, say, such an authority as the head of the Joint Educational Institutions of the Defense Forces, Colonel Aarne Ermus. A couple of years ago, he quoted in the newspaper Diplomaatia a comparison of the armed forces of Latvia and Lithuania. Readers could enjoy the author's artistic style: in the event of war, the Latvian army, he wrote, would be able to guard sacks of flour in the rear.
The misfortune of Latvia, Mikk Salu admits, is that there is no conscript service in the army in Latvia - there are only professional soldiers, but in Estonia there are conscripts, reservists, and professional military personnel. In short, Estonia has everything. The author remembers to add:
"At the same time, Estonia surpasses Latvia in all respects, both quantitatively and qualitatively, we have more soldiers and they are better trained, we also have more equipment and it is of better quality."
And what can Latvian machine gunners do?
“The Latvian armed forces are, in fact, lightly armed infantrymen, which means the presence of assault rifles, machine guns and mortars. In Latvia, there are almost no armored vehicles, anti-tank equipment, artillery and air defense … Our warring soldiers move in armored vehicles, and Latvians run on foot."
General Ants Laaneots also makes fun of the Latvians. In his opinion, probably, in order to save money, the Latvians acquired "universal uniforms" for their soldiers, which is of no use:
“Everyone who has attended the exercises of the Estonian Defense Forces“Spring Storm”, where Latvian units take part every year, could see with their own eyes that Latvians in their funny beige and spotted uniforms are striking from afar, and conscripts of the Estonian army can beat Latvian professionals are like chickens”.
Salu knows what the problem of Latvians is - money. They have no money. Estonia spends 40-50% more on defense than Latvia. But this is only official. In fact, Latvians also spend their military budget in a very original way. For example, an official car for the president easily fits into the item of defense spending. The construction of sports grounds can also be included there. And what? Shouldn't warriors pump up their muscles?
And from such expenses, the generals in NATO, we will note, begin to think: yes, Latvians are spent on defense, this is good. And look - it's not military at all on the sports ground. And if you look closely, you come across not even citizens. Better to write together: non-citizens.
It got to the point that the Latvians, emboldened by their own postmodernism, included the budget of the security team of the Bank of Latvia, as well as spending on organizing song festivals, in defense spending.
Latvians rub glasses on NATO members and promise to increase the country's defense budget to 2%. Probably, we will add on our own, they will start to support orphanages with this money and build cinemas. Latvia is a very peaceful country.
And then there was a Latvian military airfield somewhere. He was in the plans, but in reality he is not.
“Estonia recently announced that it would like to see NATO planes at our airbase in Amari in the future - they could alternately be deployed in Lithuania and Estonia. For some reason, this plan was opposed by Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks - in his opinion, NATO aircraft could continue to remain only in Lithuania.
Perhaps these are only rumors, but at least two sources claim that the reason for the opposition from the Latvians is the fear that Latvian voters will be interested in why NATO planes do not appear in our area, what we did wrong.
“In fact, NATO has allocated funds for Latvia so that they too can equip their airfield,” said one Estonian official. "Why they didn't do it is unknown."
Then the time has come to say my weighty word to the Minister of Defense of Latvia. He said.
Sleep well, brothers-Estonians - approximately in these words Artis Pabriks expressed confidence that the southern border of the Estonian state is safe. As for the various articles in "Postimees", they are biased and heat up the atmosphere. And there is no analysis there. And in general - if necessary, the Latvian Ministry of Defense will offer "Postimees" several articles about its army.
Following the Minister of Defense, the President of Latvia Andris Berzins and Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis addressed the Estonian brothers. The President stressed that Latvia has proved its defense capability by participating in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, and said that “we are doing well in this industry”.
And Dombrovskis criticized the ability of Estonians to write analytical articles:
“If a particular newspaper has found one expert with such an opinion, this is the choice of a particular newspaper. I am sure that you can find other experts with a more balanced opinion."
You can definitely find them in Latvia.
On November 23, Postimees published a long article by Raimonds Rublovskis, a researcher at the Latvian Institute of International Relations. He believes that Estonia has no reason to consider Latvia a threat to its security, since both republics are members of NATO. Latvia only needs to increase its defense spending.
And since Latvia has planned to increase them - gradually, slowly, by 2020, let us add on our behalf, there seems to be no problem.
This is approximately what the Latvian expert thinks. Why do some Estonian politicians, experts and state security officials consider Latvia to be a weak link in NATO's Baltic security and defense region? he asks.
It turns out that his home country lacks not only money, but also political will.
“We can say that the lack of political will to achieve the goal - two percent of GDP for defense spending - is the most serious problem that affects both the internal situation in Latvia, and especially the further development of the Latvian armed forces, as well as external relations with the United States., our neighbors and the entire North Atlantic Alliance."
That is, the big question is whether the plan will be fulfilled: there is a crisis in the country. Even one percent of the GDP is difficult for Latvia to pull out.
And then there's the personnel issue. Where can you find good warriors if you don't have enough money for them? All true professionals retired back in 2008.
In addition, judging by Rublovskis's article, living in Latvia is tough:
"And if we take into account the current problems of Latvia with the population, including emigration, which is still at a high level, it is difficult to believe that the armed forces are able to keep a sufficient number of educated and motivated people in the service."
International military operations are also a problem for Latvia. Since there is no money, there are not enough people - what kind of operations are there?
The expert suggests that the Latvian Armed Forces find a suitable way to participate in international operations. For some reason, he points to the period after 2014, when NATO will end its mission in Afghanistan. Probably, because he gives this date, that after the blowjob of 2014, Latvians could engage in, say, heroic processing of information in offices.
As for the small number of Latvian troops, it is not a problem, the analyst said. Now they are fighting not by number, but by skill.
"In the 21st century, there is no need for a large number of military personnel, since technical equipment is increasingly important in ensuring security, which requires well-educated and motivated people, which the conscription system simply cannot offer."
That's all right. Yes, only these most motivated people are just not in the Latvian army, as Rublovskis himself said earlier. They were, but they left in 2008. There were only demotivated ones left - in small numbers and without skill.
Here, it seems, the expert himself drove himself into a dead end.
He had to continue to talk about what kind of army Finland has and how it influenced the army of Estonia, and that Estonia itself, by the way, no matter how it boasts of its army, still needs “the collective security and defense that NATO offers and strategic partnership with the United States”.
After talking about the concept of "smart defense" and hinting at "the strength of historical and geographical reasons", Rublovskis called on Estonia to "cooperate closely", and therefore "to stop the ongoing debate in the country."
Well, come on, cooperate, otherwise Comrade Lukashenka has recently recognized himself as a dictator …
