Why do russia need baltic states? Name at least one reason. It seems that's just baltic horror. I can see only few microscopic countries without resources of strategic significance but with dead economies and most of young population in other EU countries. But yeah "Russia really wants to conquer us"
First, historic precedence. Russia has attacked & occupied the baltics multiple times. Imperial Russia occupied Estonia during 18th - 20th century, and Soviet Russia once again occupied for half of the 20th century. During this time they sent the natives to Siberia, while importing Russians here and imposing other forms of russification [1] to obliterate our culture. It's more than just about land, it's about the survival of our culture which has been under systematic attack by Russia for the overwhelming majority of the last 300 years. The current Russian regime isn't much different and holds a strongly anti-Estonian view, so of course self-preservation is the #1 political issue for us.
Second, there is both strategic significance and resources here. We're talking about the previously western border of the Soviet union here. Uranium mining, nuclear submarine bases, missile silos. Better access to the Baltic sea, and closer reinforcement to Kaliningrad.
Well, there's another historic precedence - Baltic Germans. Do you afraid that they maybe coming due to historic precedence too? Ask Czech Republic about them and "obliteration of culture". Do Czechs afraid of Germany coming back?
Again, I'm not trying to say that "big scary bear" is actually teddy bear. I just cannot imagine Russia being able to invade any country in EU. It's like saying there's a chance Russia would invade USA. Is it worth uranium and some bases? Doubt so. Does Russia have any resources or technical capabilities to confront EU? Doubt they ever will.
Also, about self-preservation - look at your emigration proportions [2] (shame they don't show trends - just pie charts :( ). Only this year trend is positive, but still estonians flee the country.
Good question and I would say the difference is the current regime and their actions.
Germans have been very cautious after WW2. They haven't been acting aggressively, they haven't been holding parades to celebrate Nazis as heroes, they don't have statues of Hitler in the middle of their cities.
Meanwhile Russia still celebrates everything Soviet as the biggest heroes that have ever lived, and have an amazing number of Stalin statues/paintings everywhere. Then they fund & organize attacks on Georgia [1], and annex Crimea [2]. Then, as recently as 2014, the FSB came into Estonia and abducted one of our intelligence agents. [3] This agent was denied contact with anyone, and was given premission to only use a Russian appointed lawyer. In a charade of a trial he was quickly sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was later exchanged for a FSB agent who was sitting in our prison. [4]
So you see, it's not only about precedence, but it's also about the continuation of the theme and actual real events that keep happening.
Crimea? Sebastopol port has always been part of Russia and the center of their fleet because it does not get frozen in Winter like other ports.
Having ships under frozen water is the same as not having ships at all.
Easter Ukraine? It is were the industry of Ukraine is. It is very near Russia and as most of Russia is plain, it is very easy to invade the country(Russia) from it.
Russia wants to have a buffer around their country in the same way the US does not let anybody to have military bases and missiles near the country, like in Cuba.
Russia needs Crimea to secure it's excess to the Black see. Losing Crimea to NATO (or losing it at all) would be a huge problem. As long as you have Crimea - you basically control most of the Black Sea.
As for the Eastern Ukraine - best case scenario - securing a terrain pass to Crimea. Worst case scenario - destabilisation of the the country and more 'ground' during negotiations over any deal. Almost like taking hostages.
Military base is not stronghold anymore. You don't need to protect it from siege. Kaliningrad is just a place of location of strategic missiles of medium range. It single-use weapon. You don't need ground path to Kalinigrad.
Crimea - it's were russian navi is. The former soviet military harbors for Black sea were rented by Russia. When power changed in the Ukraine to be USA/NATO oriented Russia did everything to keep it's military presence.
As for Eastern Ukraine - I feel like Russia doesn't need it per se - just as distraction and zone of destabilization in order to protect Crimea.
Russia never "took" Eastern Ukraine, even today. It mostly sat on the sidelines whilst a civil war between pro-EU and pro-Russian forces played itself out, at most sending weapons and special forces just like the West did.
Because Baltic states were part of Russian empire once and USSR later. Putin would be forever glorified in Russia and could rule till the end of days if he'd manage to "restore the glorious Russian Empire". Another reason is that Baltic countries stand as a gate to (old) Europe for Russia in both economical and military meaning.
RE: "restore the glorious Russian Empire" - his latest customs/economic union with Kazakhstan and Belarus is a joke. And there's two most pro-russian regimes as of now. CIS is also as good as dead. USSR is gone and won't be restored.
How Baltic countries gate from Russia in "economical meaning"?
