A thought exercise, if you'll indulge me by participating.
Imagine that you are invited by the Estonian government (assume you are an Estonian resident and citizen) to participate in a survey. The purpose of this survey is to gauge the opinion of a small, but broadly representative, vertical slice of the population to a potential course of action in case of an impending crisis. The scenario is this: Russia is massing forces just across Lake Peipus, regularly violating our airspace, making loud noises about the treatment of Russian-speakers in Narva and Paldiski, and based on recent events it seems that an invasion and occupation is extremely likely. Our brave soldiers are in high spirits, but hopelessly outnumbered, even with their fourty-four used Dutch light tanks. NATO is grumbling, but the people who matter are not convinced that Estonia won't be sacrificed for a few months' further appeasement.
As a last-ditch effort, a loophole has been found in the Constitution, whereby with the concerted efforts of the President, cabinet, parliament and Supreme Court, Estonia can legitimately petition His Royal Highness Carl XVI Gustaf to become a province of Sweden. Assume for the purposes of the exercise that Sweden is prepared to accept this petition and incorporate Estland; their government and military high command are both convinced that they will have to fight Russia anyway, and would rather do it on our soil than theirs. Finland's leaders have been quietly notified and will most likely provide assistance. With the concerted efforts of what is starting to be called the Nu Kalmar Union, there is a respectable chance that while Russia may not be defeated outright, Estonia will at least become a sufficiently tough pill to swallow to force the Kremlin to look for easier prey elsewhere, a la Winter War. The cost, beyond the immediate hardships of a probable pitched battle between two modern mechanized armies, is the loss of Estonian sovereignty and incorporation into a united Scandinavia for the foreseeable future (the piece of high-grade paper with places for signatures on it includes the words "in perpetuity").
You are not a person of formal authority, but a representative of the population called in quietly to give some kind of veil of democracy to the proceedings while maintaining the vital element of secrecy and surprise. Your opinion genuinely matters, and has a weight that is far, far in above of what one person's vote would be in a referendum.
What do you say? Yeah or nay?
PS. For bonus points: replace Sweden with Germany.
Imagine that you are invited by the Estonian government (assume you are an Estonian resident and citizen) to participate in a survey. The purpose of this survey is to gauge the opinion of a small, but broadly representative, vertical slice of the population to a potential course of action in case of an impending crisis. The scenario is this: Russia is massing forces just across Lake Peipus, regularly violating our airspace, making loud noises about the treatment of Russian-speakers in Narva and Paldiski, and based on recent events it seems that an invasion and occupation is extremely likely. Our brave soldiers are in high spirits, but hopelessly outnumbered, even with their fourty-four used Dutch light tanks. NATO is grumbling, but the people who matter are not convinced that Estonia won't be sacrificed for a few months' further appeasement.
As a last-ditch effort, a loophole has been found in the Constitution, whereby with the concerted efforts of the President, cabinet, parliament and Supreme Court, Estonia can legitimately petition His Royal Highness Carl XVI Gustaf to become a province of Sweden. Assume for the purposes of the exercise that Sweden is prepared to accept this petition and incorporate Estland; their government and military high command are both convinced that they will have to fight Russia anyway, and would rather do it on our soil than theirs. Finland's leaders have been quietly notified and will most likely provide assistance. With the concerted efforts of what is starting to be called the Nu Kalmar Union, there is a respectable chance that while Russia may not be defeated outright, Estonia will at least become a sufficiently tough pill to swallow to force the Kremlin to look for easier prey elsewhere, a la Winter War. The cost, beyond the immediate hardships of a probable pitched battle between two modern mechanized armies, is the loss of Estonian sovereignty and incorporation into a united Scandinavia for the foreseeable future (the piece of high-grade paper with places for signatures on it includes the words "in perpetuity").
You are not a person of formal authority, but a representative of the population called in quietly to give some kind of veil of democracy to the proceedings while maintaining the vital element of secrecy and surprise. Your opinion genuinely matters, and has a weight that is far, far in above of what one person's vote would be in a referendum.
What do you say? Yeah or nay?
PS. For bonus points: replace Sweden with Germany.
1 comment:
Yay. Arguments follow:
- Estonia would be something like Greenland is to Denmark, distant and largely autonomous.
- Sweden is one of the most PC nations in the world, in addition to being the most successful welfare state - Estonia would experience a tremendous influx of money and a probable economic boom.
- there is a greater probability that despite the "for perpetuity" Estonia will at some point regain independence (if such a wish even presents itself following the points above) than it is with Russia.
- Bonus: Swedes will welcome us, because relative to the current muslim minority, we have very similar values and culture.
- Bonus 2: we've always considered ourselves to be more part of Scandinavia than one of the Baltic states.
Post a Comment