Jürgen Ligi and proffesional army

Helena wrote:

Anyway, I'm sometimes really very happy that some idiots - sorry but thats the way it is - can't bring their reforms into life. For example, some time ago we had a Defence Minister Jürgen Ligi who was seriously talking about losing the time service in army and replacing it with payed army only. I don't know why people who don't know anything about their specialty go to politics?

What is the problem with professional army? Popular draft is totally insufficient. First of all citizens serve their country in the best way if they doing things that they have abilities to do. So, forcing somebody to spent a period of time in military if he has absolutely no will or ability to become good soldier is not only undemocratic but also economically unjustified. Professional soldier treat his duty as a job, he has everyday contact with military technologies and strategies. Most of "soldiers" from popular draft are pissed off that they are forced to be there. They don't treat their duty seriously, count only how many days left to the end. What is the outcome? They will hardly learn something and after short break forget much. If you consider that technology is going forward all the time, they are behind the times even more. The state is supposed to pay for such farce?

In the times we are living in, most of armies in civilized countries are voluntary and they are the best. Lets name few, US , UK, Spain, Italy, France, Canada. They are doing this because this is sufficient solution. Below the list of all countries with voluntary army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_military

Exactly

Professional army is totally unpropitious for Estonia in many reasons.

If there would be a real aggression against Estonia, we'd need about 100 000 soldiers to defend our country. It must be mentioned that right now we have about 5000 soldiers, half of them are from time service.

That Jürgen Ligi said that our professional army would be in size ~13 200 soldiers - too much for the peacetime army and too few to stand against an enemy. This spectacle would cost us min 8,75 billion eek-s per year (according to our Department of Defence http://www.mod.gov.ee the defence budget of Estonia in 2007 is about 4 billon eek-s). We can therefore see that the professional army would be much more expensive than the popular draft.

This 8,75 billions were counted with expection that the salaries would remain the same as they are now. The salaries are very small. Already now the demography of the Defence Forces is negative. We would never get needed 13 200 soldiers in our army. Unless we didn't double the salaries - that would cost us another billions.

There has been an idea of bringing a bounden military studies into schools. The problem is that without intensive and continuing practicing it would be just production of cannon fodder. To give acceptable military training the students should have so much lessons that they would have no free time at all and education would suffer, too. They wouldn't get the needed discipline, either. I also don't think it's a good idea to give weapons to the children, especially not to those who don't like the subject. In my opinion schools should not be branch offices of an army.

You said that sending people to serve in defence forces would be against their democratic/human rights. But this is necessary if we want to be sure that our country is going to exist in the future, too. It's normal that if the one can enjoy all the benefits, he or she has some duties before the country, too.

You said that the modern war technology is changing so quickly that the unprofessional soldiers' knowledges will be out of date at once. Most things have remained the same, though. Let's take the war of Iraq, for example. Kalashnikovs, tanks and bombs are basically the same they were decades ago. The weapons are not changing as fast that they couldn't be recalled in the gatherings of the Reserve Army which are also going to be organized soon, at least that's what our new Head of Defence Forces is promising. So things are not going to be forgotten.

And last but not least - "In the times we are living in, most of armies in civilized countries are voluntary and they are the best. Lets name few, US, UK, Spain, Italy, France, Canada. They are doing this because this is sufficient solution."

How many historical and nowadays similarities do you see between Estonia and these countries? They're having their army for NATO missions and for everybody to see that they are big countries and it's better not to mess with them. They have no potentially dangerous elements at the neighborhood. Big countries really do better when having a professional army in both economical and effectual reasons.

Helena wrote:

If there would be a real aggression against Estonia, we'd need about 100 000 soldiers to defend our country. It must be mentioned that right now we have about 5000 soldiers, half of them are from time service.

You would really wish to keep almost a half of Polish military forces in small Estonia? This would keep you safe from Latvian possible invasion... Estonia must rely on NATO anyway if Russia would invade your territory.

You have 2500 soldiers and the rest are targets, this is a fact.

Quote :

That Jürgen Ligi said that our professional army would be in size ~13 200 soldiers - too much for the peacetime army and too few to stand against an enemy. This spectacle would cost us min 8,75 billion eek-s per year (according to our Department of Defence http://www.mod.gov.ee the defence budget of Estonia in 2007 is about 4 billon eek-s). We can therefore see that the professional army would be much more expensive than the popular draft.

This 8,75 billions were counted with expection that the salaries would remain the same as they are now. The salaries are very small. Already now the demography of the Defence Forces is negative. We would never get needed 13 200 soldiers in our army. Unless we didn't double the salaries - that would cost us another billions.

I have no time to calculate how much $ is worth your currency. But when you joined NATO you obligated yourself to spend 2% of GDP on defense. I'm not military specialist so I don't know how big military forces you are obligated to keep.

Ms. Kristiina Ojuland,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia wrote:

I feel confident that the work done by this Government will continue and the commitment to spend 2% of our GDP on defense will be honored and fulfilled by the new Government.
http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2003/s030326b.htm

1,6% (2004)
http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p050609.pdf

according to wikipedia even less later, 1,44% (2006)

Helena wrote:

You said that sending people to serve in defence forces would be against their democratic/human rights. But this is necessary if we want to be sure that our country is going to exist in the future, too. It's normal that if the one can enjoy all the benefits, he or she has some duties before the country, too.

People serve their countries the best when they do something that they have proper skills to do. Then they pay taxes. Those who want to be soldiers and have proper ability to become good soldiers should be allowed to serve in military.

Quote :

You said that the modern war technology is changing so quickly that the unprofessional soldiers' knowledges will be out of date at once. Most things have remained the same, though. Let's take the war of Iraq, for example. Kalashnikovs, tanks and bombs are basically the same they were decades ago. The weapons are not changing as fast that they couldn't be recalled in the gatherings of the Reserve Army which are also going to be organized soon, at least that's what our new Head of Defence Forces is promising. So things are not going to be forgotten.

At this point you are very wrong. This was Iraqi army those with kalashnikovs and outdated weapons and they lost despite that Saddam kept huge army. I don't know how modern weapons belong to Estonian military if some old Soviet then you must buy the new one.

Quote :

And last but not least - "In the times we are living in, most of armies in civilized countries are voluntary and they are the best. Lets name few, US, UK, Spain, Italy, France, Canada. They are doing this because this is sufficient solution."

How many historical and nowadays similarities do you see between Estonia and these countries? They're having their army for NATO missions and for everybody to see that they are big countries and it's better not to mess with them. They have no potentially dangerous elements at the neighborhood. Big countries really do better when having a professional army in both economical and effectual reasons.

On the list that I provided you can find also small states like Latvia, Malta, Slovenia, Belgium , Ireland, Slovakia, Hungary, Montenegro to name European only.

Touché?

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Helena wrote:

If there would be a real aggression against Estonia, we'd need about 100 000 soldiers to defend our country. It must be mentioned that right now we have about 5000 soldiers, half of them are from time service.

You would really wish to keep almost a half of Polish military forces in small Estonia? This would keep you safe from Latvian possible invasion... Estonia must rely on NATO anyway if Russia would invade your territory.

I'd wish to keep here about hundred thousand men who have had military training, yes. In the peace time they do what they can do best to serve their country. In war they are able to defend themselves and their country. Definitely I do not want couple of thousand soldiers who would be killed at the first minute, and hundreds of thousands of sheep who didn't knew anything about the subject.

As our land border with Russia is short (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/estonia_pol99.jpg), we have some advantages. 100 000 soldiers is a big force. The weak link is Latvia which has professional army with couple of thousands of soldiers. They don’t even have enough soldiers to cover their border. So we really have a reason to worry about invasion from Latvia.

When you were talking about NATO, you were right. Even if we could mobilize our maximum, 100 000 men, experts say we would be able to resist against Russia for about a month, maybe two. This is the time NATO needs to get its forces here.

Quote :

You have 2500 soldiers and the rest are targets, this is a fact.

As much as I know, our military training in popular draft is quite good. Therefore they wouldn’t. They would be motivated soldiers as they knew exactly what they were fighting for.

Quote :

I have no time to calculate how much $ is worth your currency.

1$=13eek

Quote :

But when you joined NATO you obligated yourself to spend 2% of GDP on defense.

Ms. Kristiina Ojuland,
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia wrote:

I feel confident that the work done by this Government will continue and the commitment to spend 2% of our GDP on defense will be honored and fulfilled by the new Government.
http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2003/s030326b.htm

1,6% (2004)
http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p050609.pdf
according to wikipedia even less later, 1,44% (2006)

Our spendings were about 1,8%. The investments have increased in last years, I don’t know where does wiki take such numbers. We have duties before NATO so we have to spend more every year.

Quote :

People serve their countries the best when they do something that they have proper skills to do. Then they pay taxes. Those who want to be soldiers and have proper ability to become good soldiers should be allowed to serve in military.

It’s not enough in Estonia if people do only things they do best. It's useless in case of real aggression.
You can talk to some officers of Estonian army and they can acknowledge that people are mainly same and everyone can become a soldier.

Quote :

At this point you are very wrong. This was Iraqi army those with kalashnikovs and outdated weapons and they lost despite that Saddam kept huge army.

I’ve heard and read about the discipline and motivation of the army of Iraq (Leo Kunnas, an Estonian officer who has been in war of Iraq, wrote down his memories). If these two things are missing the country will fall even though the army may be big. It’s also hard to fight against America with its best equipment.

Quote :

I don't know how modern weapons belong to Estonian military if some old Soviet then you must buy the new one.

Right now we have bigger problems than old guns. Air and Sea forces basicly don’t exist. We have no tanks. And those other problems.
As about the modern war topic, I meant that basicly if you can use one automatic qun, it’s easy to learn how to use the others, too. Same about the other weapons.

Quote :

Quote :

And last but not least - "In the times we are living in, most of armies in civilized countries are voluntary and they are the best. Lets name few, US, UK, Spain, Italy, France, Canada. They are doing this because this is sufficient solution."

How many historical and nowadays similarities do you see between Estonia and these countries? They're having their army for NATO missions and for everybody to see that they are big countries and it's better not to mess with them. They have no potentially dangerous elements at the neighborhood. Big countries really do better when having a professional army in both economical and effectual reasons.

On the list that I provided you can find also small states like Latvia, Malta, Slovenia, Belgium, Ireland, Slovakia, Hungary, Montenegro to name European only.

They don’t have dangerous neighbors, either. Excepting Latvia which has sent away its last chance to be able to defend itself.

Helena wrote:

When you were talking about NATO, you were right. Even if we could mobilize our maximum, 100 000 men, experts say we would be able to resist against Russia for about a month, maybe two. This is the time NATO needs to get its forces here.

How many time Nazi Germany needed to conquer France? Denmark? Russian navy and air force would first lowered Estonian cities to the ground and then eventually enter.

Quote :

You can talk to some officers of Estonian army and they can acknowledge that people are mainly same and everyone can become a soldier.

If so, they should be fired. You are a girl, so you wont be drafted but if you could then you would quickly realize that people are very different and not everyone can became a soldier.

Quote :

I’ve heard and read about the discipline and motivation of the army of Iraq (Leo Kunnas, an Estonian officer who has been in war of Iraq, wrote down his memories). If these two things are missing the country will fall even though the army may be big. It’s also hard to fight against America with its best equipment.

Taliban in Afghanistan had good motivation and they still lost having kalashnikovs as well Best equipment, exactly.

Quote :

They don’t have dangerous neighbors, either. Excepting Latvia which has sent away its last chance to be able to defend itself.

I love your fighting spirit

Russia would run over us by sheer force, no matter if we'd have 1000 or 100 000 men. There are a million ways and tactics how. NATO is our only hope, really... I don't think we could keep back Russia for more than a week... And 5000 professional soldiers are better than 100 000 people who have had less than a year of military training, some of them against their will...

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

How many time Nazi Germany needed to conquer France? Denmark? Russian navy and air force would first lowered Estonian cities to the ground and then eventually enter.

Not that soon when we had a proper army.

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Helena wrote:

You can talk to some officers of Estonian army and they can acknowledge that people are mainly same and everyone can become a soldier.

If so, they should be fired. You are a girl, so you wont be drafted but if you could then you would quickly realize that people are very different and not everyone can became a soldier.

With few exceptions, they can.
Or if you don’t think so, a few examples and explanations would be welcome.
And though I’m a girl I can attend army and I have a serious plan to do that.

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Helena wrote:

I’ve heard and read about the discipline and motivation of the army of Iraq (Leo Kunnas, an Estonian officer who has been in war of Iraq, wrote down his memories). If these two things are missing the country will fall even though the army may be big. It’s also hard to fight against America with its best equipment.

Taliban in Afghanistan had good motivation and they still lost having kalashnikovs as well Best equipment, exactly.

Taliban isn’t won, it’s still resisting (thanks to the support of many Afghanistan’s people). Which shows exactly that conquering country isn’t easy if people are ready to fight for it. Same about Iraq.
And I don’t actually believe that America had attacked Afghanistan if it had an equal equipment with it. They are always choosing opponents who are weaker than themselves.

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Helena wrote:

They don’t have dangerous neighbors, either. Excepting Latvia which has sent away its last chance to be able to defend itself.

I love your fighting spirit

That’s great, but what about writing down your vision about how 5,864 professional soldiers and 11,646 volunteers would defend Latvia? What would be your strategy if you were the general? And I’m only half-sarcastic because I’d really like to read theories.

Hypno wrote:

Russia would run over us by sheer force, no matter if we'd have 1000 or 100 000 men. There are a million ways and tactics how. NATO is our only hope, really... I don't think we could keep back Russia for more than a week... And 5000 professional soldiers are better than 100 000 people who have had less than a year of military training, some of them against their will...

So desperate:) I agree that we have few chances to remain free without NATO and I really hope we will still have them as allies if a need should come. But I think that if mobilization would success we could resist for more than a week.

If we had only 5000 professional soldiers and nobody else could use a gun there would be no matter if we gave in or fought back. We could send one man to stand on a border after every 1 km but I doubt if this would even be considered a battle.

And I don’t consider 8 months of time to be too few. Even now many soldiers complain that they learn everything in first 3 months and other 5 or 11 months (for younger officers and experts) are pointless. Probably it’s the trainers’ fault as well but it shows that 8 months is enough to get an acceptable military training.

Helena wrote:

With few exceptions, they can.
Or if you don’t think so, a few examples and explanations would be welcome.

For example Poland sent recently a division to Afghanistan and right at the beginning of their mission 11 soldiers wanted to go home because of some cheap excuse. They are professionals, passed all psychological and physical tests and were trained to serve in such exotic conditions.

Quote :

Taliban isn’t won, it’s still resisting (thanks to the support of many Afghanistan’s people). Which shows exactly that conquering country isn’t easy if people are ready to fight for it. Same about Iraq.

Conquering country was easy, occupation is not. Taliban is in mountains and they can cause a lot of problem but they cannot take control over country anymore. They lost and they are unhappy with this outcome.

Quote :

And I don’t actually believe that America had attacked Afghanistan if it had an equal equipment with it. They are always choosing opponents who are weaker than themselves.

Like every attacker.

Quote :

That’s great, but what about writing down your vision about how 5,864 professional soldiers and 11,646 volunteers would defend Latvia? What would be your strategy if you were the general? And I’m only half-sarcastic because I’d really like to read theories.

Estonia cannot defend itself against Russia effectively, must rely on NATO. If I would be Estonian general I would lobby in NATO to create a plan of defense against possible invasion.

As a citizen of NATO country I would wish Estonia or any other small country rather have about 12000 professional soldiers than 5000. I will write once again that I don't know what is your obligation towards NATO on this issue.

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Helena wrote:

With few exceptions, they can.
Or if you don’t think so, a few examples and explanations would be welcome.

For example Poland sent recently a division to Afghanistan and right at the beginning of their mission 11 soldiers wanted to go home because of some cheap excuse. They are professionals, passed all psychological and physical tests and were trained to serve in such exotic conditions.

Why did they come back? As much as I know, going there is unforced. Before they decide to go to war for America they should be sure that this is what they want.

And if it's not unforced - well, I understand well why they don't want to take lives or give their own lives for America.

But I think that for excistance of their homeland everyone should be ready to put up with some discomforts.

Quote :

Helena wrote:

Taliban isn’t won, it’s still resisting (thanks to the support of many Afghanistan’s people). Which shows exactly that conquering country isn’t easy if people are ready to fight for it. Same about Iraq.

Conquering country was easy, occupation is not. Taliban is in mountains and they can cause a lot of problem but they cannot take control over country anymore. They lost and they are unhappy with this outcome.

Why do you think they can't? As much as I know the war has gone even more furious there in last months.

And about conquer/occupation - I think getting rid of occupation is about as good as winning war.

Quote :

Helena wrote:

That’s great, but what about writing down your vision about how 5,864 professional soldiers and 11,646 volunteers would defend Latvia? What would be your strategy if you were the general? And I’m only half-sarcastic because I’d really like to read theories.

Estonia cannot defend itself against Russia effectively, must rely on NATO. If I would be Estonian general I would lobby in NATO to create a plan of defense against possible invasion.

As a citizen of NATO country I would wish Estonia or any other small country rather have about 12000 professional soldiers than 5000. I will write once again that I don't know what is your obligation towards NATO on this issue.

Our obligation, as much as I know, is to be able to defend ourselves for at least a month (maybe it was two). And this is more realistic when we have popular draft.

By the way, we don't have 5000 professional soldiers but 2500. Other 2500 are present time servants.

And as I understand your defence strategics would be taking our last defence and starting to rely only to NATO? We already have hopes about that organization but I don't think it would be right to take any chance of defence and to pay for it thrice as much as we have done since now.

Helena wrote:

Why did they come back?

They suddenly realized that armored cars are not safe enough.

Quote :

And if it's not unforced - well, I understand well why they don't want to take lives or give their own lives for America.
But I think that for excistance of their homeland everyone should be ready to put up with some discomforts.

I would not count on them too much and never make them responsible for any important task anymore. Of course their carrier in military is over.

Quote :

Why do you think they can't? As much as I know the war has gone even more furious there in last months.

And about conquer/occupation - I think getting rid of occupation is about as good as winning war.

Partisan war close to the mountain areas and terrorist activity on flat territories, this is all what Taliban can do. If they would leave the mountains, they are dead. So they will never control the country anymore.

Quote :

Our obligation, as much as I know, is to be able to defend ourselves for at least a month (maybe it was two). And this is more realistic when we have popular draft.

If so, this is impossible. One month is enough not only to conquer Estonia but also to destroy all important object in your country.

Before the WWII Poland had signed two similar pacts with France and the UK and we all know how they behaved... NATO should be ready to help almost immediately otherwise in your case opposition is pointless. If you must then fight the wars that you can win (if you know that invaders want to control your country rather to destroy your nation itself).

If you stand up against Russia alone, you need to be aware that they would destroy much of infrastructure and kill plenty of your people. Such outcome would be a real threat to existence of such small nation, plus economic catastrophe. So either NATO doing something quickly or you should abandon costly resistance.

Quote :

They suddenly realized that armored cars are not safe enough

They had nose, the day before yesterday there was accident - mine trap.
Major danger in f.e. Irak are mine traps so im not suprised that soldiers complain about poorly armored hummers. Ofiicers think in other way (maybe becouse they seat in base) - one of them said that Americans had have patrol with better armored vehicle and it didn' t helped them. This is "great" approach to the matter.

I cannot talk about details because I have no idea about these things. However before they voluntary decided to go there, they knew everything about situation over there and what hummers will be used. However I have heard some comments that American hummers are not safe as well, because this is hardly possible to achieve.

Helena wrote:

And I don’t consider 8 months of time to be too few. Even now many soldiers complain that they learn everything in first 3 months and other 5 or 11 months (for younger officers and experts) are pointless. Probably it’s the trainers’ fault as well but it shows that 8 months is enough to get an acceptable military training.

If they learn everything in first 3 months, then IMO, the time there should be reduced to 4 months max. I don't want to spend 8 months of my life for a hopeless cause (face it, if Russia would want to conquer us in three days, they would be able to do it really easily. They could remove most of our resistance without even launching a ground assault).

-

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

One month is enough not only to conquer Estonia but also to destroy all important object in your country.

Before the WWII Poland had signed two similar pacts with France and the UK and we all know how they behaved... NATO should be ready to help almost immediately otherwise in your case opposition is pointless. If you must then fight the wars that you can win (if you know that invaders want to control your country rather to destroy your nation itself).

If you stand up against Russia alone, you need to be aware that they would destroy much of infrastructure and kill plenty of your people. Such outcome would be a real threat to existence of such small nation, plus economic catastrophe. So either NATO doing something quickly or you should abandon costly resistance.

As I understand, you recommend us not to defend ourselves. Therefore sorry, but your suggestions about professional army can't be taken seriously. In your opinion, as much as I understand, there is no difference if we have it or not.

Destroying our nation would take place one way or another. Or maybe you have forgot the deportations and mass murders that took place in 40s?
This time they would be even worse because Estonians have shown (first when becoming independent and secondly in the April 2007 and after that) that they can cause trouble. This time Russia would end up our existence entirely.

Economic catastrophe would also come - look what state we had before Soviet occupation and after that.

But I agree about the soldiers who wanted to come back. They can't be trusted in anything important any more - what if they "changed their mind" about how important their task was, too?
They new they were going to war. How can they complain about safety? War is never safe.

Hypno wrote:

I don't want to spend 8 months of my life for a hopeless cause (face it, if Russia would want to conquer us in three days, they would be able to do it really easily. They could remove most of our resistance without even launching a ground assault).

Face it, Russia has never got us in some days when we have resisted. Examples: Vabadussõda ~1918 (we won that one), WWII (true, we fought together with Germans).

Air forces alone don't take anything. They can destroy and cause damage but the land forces are those that take a land. Besides, planes and helicopters can be shot down.

Of course, if we have a loser's mentality, there are few things that can help us.

International Hate wrote:

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

IHowever I have heard some comments that American hummers are not safe as well, because this is hardly possible to achieve.

btw has the rosomak seen any action in Afghanistan? It has probably more armor than hummer. although an IED can blow up even a MBT if it's big enough as seen in Iraq

Rosomaks are there but I don't know any details. I'm not very much interested in Iraq/Afghanistan adventures.

Helena wrote:

As I understand, you recommend us not to defend ourselves. Therefore sorry, but your suggestions about professional army can't be taken seriously. In your opinion, as much as I understand, there is no difference if we have it or not.

Estonian army have sense only if they are professionals and have good agreement with NATO. The only purpose of existence of this organization is to protect member countries. So military help should be provided very quickly, a month or two sounds like bad joke. One would think that they have no real strategy planned for such occasion.

Quote :

Destroying our nation would take place one way or another. Or maybe you have forgot the deportations and mass murders that took place in 40s?

S..t happens sometimes and there is little you can do with this. The goal is to survive and continue Estonian national culture not heroically perish on the battlefield. So if you cannot stand alone against Russia you need to be smart rather than aggressive. If you would resist military in Soviet Union then they would totally destroy you at all. Estonia would not be independent today.

For example during WWII, people of Warsaw raised against German occupation because leaders of Polish underground bought Soviet promise of quick help. Soviets could do this but preferred to wait till Germans wipe us out and completely raze the city to the ground. Outcome? 250.000 of Poles in Warsaw perished, because leaders made wrong decision. If this would happen in Tallinn, how many Estonians would left? And this is only one city.

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Helena wrote:

As I understand, you recommend us not to defend ourselves. Therefore sorry, but your suggestions about professional army can't be taken seriously. In your opinion, as much as I understand, there is no difference if we have it or not.

Estonian army have sense only if they are professionals and have good agreement with NATO. The only purpose of existence of this organization is to protect member countries. So military help should be provided very quickly, a month or two sounds like bad joke. One would think that they have no real strategy planned for such occasion.

Well that explained a lot when you said our army's only reason to exist is to protect another countries. We have it for different purpose and we are trying to create an army that would work.
We need to have first defence. NATO could never bring a big army here in 48 hours - this is the time in which Russia could invade all country if there would be no fight like you suggest. If they were well-organized they could do it faster. If they had already settled themselves down on the coast, they would destroy all possible help coming from the air or over the sea. Even if there were any battles later, much more people would die in them.

And as next time you are probably going to say:

a) we don't need our own country and we should become one with Russia volunteerly because otherwise there might be a military problem with it in the future;
b) we should assimilate with Russians because otherwise much people would die;

- well, I'm sorry but I must refuse.

Quote :

S..t happens sometimes and there is little you can do with this. The goal is to survive and continue Estonian national culture not heroically perish on the battlefield.

What kind of natural culture can people have if it has a slave's mentality? National culture is based on national dignity. The self pride and culture Estonians have now is based on the fact that we have always tried to fight. What kind of dignity would we have after giving in volunteerly? We and our culture would just die out: like Votes, like Ingerians, like Livonians who didn't resist. How many peoples have died out because of war? As much as I know, Armenians, Chechens and Abkhazians still live and their culture is as strong as it can be.

Sorry but you really make me angry with your suggestions about how we should be like stupid sheep taken to the slaughter house. It's hard to believe that there is a Polish who, as can be seen, would give in anyone who'd try to invade and let his people be slaughtered without even trying to stop it.

Helena wrote:

Well that explained a lot when you said our army's only reason to exist is to protect another countries.

I did not write anything like this. You have some obligations toward NATO and this is all. Estonian troops would not rescue any country anyway.

Quote :

We need to have first defence. NATO could never bring a big army here in 48 hours - this is the time in which Russia could invade all country if there would be no fight like you suggest. If they were well-organized they could do it faster. If they had already settled themselves down on the coast, they would destroy all possible help coming from the air or over the sea. Even if there were any battles later, much more people would die in them.

If NATO countries are engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Balkans, Africa and God only know where else then indeed they are unable to react quickly (don't need to be exactly 48 hours). This is why I don't really believe to NATO and their willingness to fight Russia because of some small Eastern European countries. NATO should concentrate on strictly defensive activity and have plans to react on all probable eventualities.

Quote :

What kind of natural culture can people have if it has a slave's mentality? National culture is based on national dignity. The self pride and culture Estonians have now is based on the fact that we have always tried to fight. What kind of dignity would we have after giving in volunteerly? We and our culture would just die out: like Votes, like Ingerians, like Livonians who didn't resist. How many peoples have died out because of war? As much as I know, Armenians, Chechens and Abkhazians still live and their culture is as strong as it can be.

This have nothing to do with slave mentality, because you continue to cultivate your culture and there is no love to occupiers. This is motivated by pure calculation, because death people have neither pride or dignity. Also you don't give up your independence voluntary but because you are forced to do so.

Armenians still exist because they gave up their independence to Russia, this is a fact. Before they were regularly slaughtered by Muslims. In longer run their calculation was profitable because they still exist and they are even independent.

About Abhazs, this is hard to talk about one culture if some are Muslims and some are Orthodox. This is very small nation with consisted minority (to Georgians with are also small nation after all). even in Abkhazia itself

Chechen population was drastically reduced during the wars. The country was destroyed, economy ruined, poverty is common. Finally they are still under Moscow and are ruled by Chechen pro-Kremlin thug Ahkmed Kadyrov. If they would won they would be ruled by some Islamic fanatics. What exactly do you wish to transfer to Estonia from their fate?

Quote :

Sorry but you really make me angry with your suggestions about how we should be like stupid sheep taken to the slaughter house. It's hard to believe that there is a Polish who, as can be seen, would give in anyone who'd try to invade and let his people be slaughtered without even trying to stop it.

I don't know why you constantly claim that Russia would wish to wipe out all Estonians. The most probably the reason would be to control transportation of all kind of Russian goods to the west via Baltic sea or because they would consider extension of their Baltic coast strategically necessary from military point of view.

Rzeczpospolita wrote:

Helena wrote:

Well that explained a lot when you said our army's only reason to exist is to protect another countries.

I did not write anything like this. You have some obligations toward NATO and this is all. Estonian troops would not rescue any country anyway.

That's your opinion. It was opinion of many people before we won the Freedom War in 1918-1920. If everybody would have thought about like "we will never beat great Russia and it's netter not to try and have our own country" we wouldn't be free. If people don't have their own country, they and their culture are going to fade.

Quote :

If NATO countries are engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Balkans, Africa and God only know where else then indeed they are unable to react quickly (don't need to be exactly 48 hours). This is why I don't really believe to NATO and their willingness to fight Russia because of some small Eastern European countries. NATO should concentrate on strictly defensive activity and have plans to react on all probable eventualities.

I agree with the last point. At the moment we luckily don't have clear and present danger.

Quote :

This have nothing to do with slave mentality, because you continue to cultivate your culture and there is no love to occupiers. This is motivated by pure calculation, because death people have neither pride or dignity. Also you don't give up your independence voluntary but because you are forced to do so.

We were not forced. It would be our own decision if we gave in or resisted. By the way, death is not worst thing ever.

Quote :

I don't know why you constantly claim that Russia would wish to wipe out all Estonians. The most probably the reason would be to control transportation of all kind of Russian goods to the west via Baltic sea or because they would consider extension of their Baltic coast strategically necessary from military point of view.

Wouldn't you wish too wipe us off if you were Putin? We have caused so much problems with our fractiousness that there is no point in saving such people. It would be much easier to deport some of us to Siberia, kill the ones who were left over and take in people from Russia. Russia could keep our land for ever and everyone would be happy.

Basicly, I think we should quit that argument because we are not about the topic any more (which one is better to defend Estonia, professional army or time service) but about if we should give up volunteerly which is absolutely ridicoulus and, to be truthful, makes me sick.

Helena wrote:

Face it, Russia has never got us in some days when we have resisted. Examples: Vabadussõda ~1918 (we won that one), WWII (true, we fought together with Germans).

The freedom war was at a time where Russia was weakened by civil war (reds against whites) and could not deploy much troops to bother with us. If not, they would have overrun us easily.

In WWII they fled before the Germans. If all Estonians would have sit in home and no men would have joined the nazis, they would have still fled.

Helen wrote:

Air forces alone don't take anything. They can destroy and cause damage but the land forces are those that take a land. Besides, planes and helicopters can be shot down.

We don't have enough ammunition to shoot down half the Russian air force, if most of the shots would hit the target. They could probably bomb half our atm active ground forces in the night before most of the privates would get up from their beds.

Helena wrote:

Of course, if we have a loser's mentality, there are few things that can help us.

You mean like when we accepted the 'Baaside Leping' (Base Contract, by which the Soviet forces were allowed to Estonian soil before WWII) without resistance? If yes, than imo thats the only reason there still are Estonians in the world.

Helena wrote:

As much as I know, Armenians, Chechens and Abkhazians still live and their culture is as strong as it can be.

As much as I know:
Armenia has GDP per capita 3 times smaller than we do (we are 42nd, 115th); They are 93rd in Corruption Preceptions Index (2006), while we were 24th; They are 80th in Human Development Index, while we are 40th. Tho they are improving, as far as I know.
Chechnya is not an independent country, is ravaged by war, unemployment and poverty and I don't know a thing about their culture. If they have any.
Abkhazia is independent only de facto, not recognized by any country or international organization. Most of it is basically under Russian control (Russia pays social moneys, supplies passports, etc, etc) and as far as I have heard, situation there is not better than chechnyans, only that they are in no armed conflict.

Looking at the notes above, only Armenia sounds like a place I'd want to live in rather than the SU.

Hypno wrote:

Helena wrote:

Face it, Russia has never got us in some days when we have resisted. Examples: Vabadussõda ~1918 (we won that one), WWII (true, we fought together with Germans).

The freedom war was at a time where Russia was weakened by civil war (reds against whites) and could not deploy much troops to bother with us. If not, they would have overrun us easily.

We were also much weaker than we are now, we had basicly nothing but some old guns and things we had taken from Russians. Their equipment was even better than ours and in numbers they could also defeat us.

Quote :

In WWII they fled before the Germans. If all Estonians would have sit in home and no men would have joined the nazis, they would have still fled.

But they couldn't defeat us in three days as you said.
If we could resist for that long period, NATO could get here easily.

Hypno wrote:

Helena wrote:

Air forces alone don't take anything. They can destroy and cause damage but the land forces are those that take a land. Besides, planes and helicopters can be shot down.

We don't have enough ammunition to shoot down half the Russian air force, if most of the shots would hit the target. They could probably bomb half our atm active ground forces in the night before most of the privates would get up from their beds.

You can't close an army because of lack of ammunition. It's to be bought.
That bombing is quite a serious problem. I think we should improve our radar system (we still have 4-5 holes in it), complete the Ämari military airport so NATO fighters could stay there and get some personal fighters, too. There should be more rackets of air defence and they should be settled closer to the boarder.

Hypno wrote:

Helena wrote:

Of course, if we have a loser's mentality, there are few things that can help us.

You mean like when we accepted the 'Baaside Leping' (Base Contract, by which the Soviet forces were allowed to Estonian soil before WWII) without resistance? If yes, than imo thats the only reason there still are Estonians in the world.

Who says so? As much as I've read, we had much better equipment before the 1939 than we have now. We had a decent army and acceptable fleet, included some submarines. There would have been a great chance to defend ourselves. Especially because Finnish people also fought for their freedom and it's hard for a country, even for Russia to have war with two enemies at the same time.

Helena wrote:

As much as I know, Armenians, Chechens and Abkhazians still live and their culture is as strong as it can be.

As much as I know:
Armenia has GDP per capita 3 times smaller than we do (we are 42nd, 115th); They are 93rd in Corruption Preceptions Index (2006), while we were 24th; They are 80th in Human Development Index, while we are 40th. Tho they are improving, as far as I know.
Chechnya is not an independent country, is ravaged by war, unemployment and poverty and I don't know a thing about their culture. If they have any.
Abkhazia is independent only de facto, not recognized by any country or international organization. Most of it is basically under Russian control (Russia pays social moneys, supplies passports, etc, etc) and as far as I have heard, situation there is not better than chechnyans, only that they are in no armed conflict.[/quote]
As I said, they haven't died out because of the war. I haven't say there's a good situation there.
Armenia. We had about as bad economic situation when we left the Soviet Union.
Chechnya would maybe still be free if they hadn't attacked Dagestan.
Abkhazians haven't died out, either. They are improving though I'm afraid of them because their only ally is Russia.

Helena wrote:

Wouldn't you wish too wipe us off if you were Putin? We have caused so much problems with our fractiousness that there is no point in saving such people. It would be much easier to deport some of us to Siberia, kill the ones who were left over and take in people from Russia. Russia could keep our land for ever and everyone would be happy.

No, I would not. Your perspective is very Eesti-centric.

Quote :

By the way, death is not worst thing ever.

You can do what you want with your own life but a leader is responsible for whole nation and must be coolheaded.

Quote :

Basicly, I think we should quit that argument because we are not about the topic any more (which one is better to defend Estonia, professional army or time service) but about if we should give up volunteerly which is absolutely ridicoulus and, to be truthful, makes me sick.

I have made all my arguments clear and have nothing to add. What I would like to know is the attitude of Estonian population in general to professional army. Do you know any surveys have been made on this issue?

3 months of tome service would be enough to give some backgrounds about weapons and using it I think it would be necessery nobody knows how future will be looking like. And along this well equiped, modern proffesional army. Both systems would be good i think.