Estonia has launched an operation to protect the Estlink 1 undersea cable. The Navy has deployed a patrol ship to secure the area around the cable.

Before World War II, the Soviet Union used various propagandistic and political pretexts to pressure Estonia and other Baltic states. One specific incident that the USSR leveraged to demonstrate Estonia’s alleged lack of defense capabilities involved the German steamship Franziscka in 1939.

Description of the Incident:

In early 1939, the German cargo ship Franziscka reportedly encountered trouble in Estonian territorial waters near the Gulf of Narva. The ship allegedly faced difficulties, and Estonian authorities were unable to resolve the situation swiftly or ensure the vessel’s safe departure. Soviet propaganda presented this as evidence that Estonia was incapable of independently defending its territorial waters or ensuring its security.

The Soviet Argument:

• The Soviet Union claimed that Estonia was defenseless against both foreign threats and potential military dangers.
• The USSR emphasized that if Estonia could not handle a minor maritime incident, it would be unable to cope with larger military threats, such as an attack by Germany or other great powers.

Broader Context:
This incident was part of the USSR’s broader strategy to pressure the Baltic states into signing mutual assistance pacts (concluded in 1939). These agreements granted the Soviet Union the right to establish military bases on Baltic territory, paving the way for the eventual occupation of these states.

The USSR employed similar tactics in Latvia and Lithuania, highlighting these countries’ alleged weaknesses and their supposed need for Soviet “protection.” The true objective, however, was the gradual elimination of these nations’ independence.

History has shown that geopolitical power dynamics and alliances can shift over time. While the West and the USSR once represented opposing ideologies and goals, today, their roles seem to have reversed in certain respects.

The question remains whether the current incident—whether related to military actions, political provocations, or economic tensions—might become part of a larger chain of military escalation. Much depends on how the parties involved handle the situation and what steps they take. History teaches us that small conflicts and misinterpreted events can escalate into major crises.

In today’s tense international climate, any provocation or military action could serve as a catalyst. However, it is also possible that this incident will remain a localized episode, with its impact confined to the immediate region.

Only time will tell whether this becomes a flashpoint for escalation or is resolved diplomatically. It is crucial to remain vigilant and mindful of historical lessons to avoid repeating past mistakes.