Estonia's Desire to Become a Nordic Country?

[es333]

Politicians occasionally like to talk about the idea, but realistically it seems unlikely as it would require fooling convincing Brussels to provide crapload of money for it.

the tunnel will be definitely be built in the first half of the 21st century as the shipping route from Asia to Europe is way shorter if using the Arctic route and it has less ice on a yearly basis thus every year the shipping routes can be used for an even longer period of time. The issue at the Suez canal has strengthened the trend of using alternative shipping routes and bringing production closer to customers.

In the context of Rail Baltica and the tunnel which will be built before 2050: The North sea is not a good place for container ships because the conditions can be very rough so realistically the cargo from Asia will be offloaded in Northern Scandinavia and sent into Europe by rail using the future route through Finland, Estonia and the Baltic nations.

 

[Spelaren]

the tunnel will be definitely be built in the first half of the 21st century as the shipping route from Asia to Europe is way shorter if using the Arctic route and it has less ice on a yearly basis thus every year the shipping routes can be used for an even longer period of time. The issue at the Suez canal has strengthened the trend of using alternative shipping routes and bringing production closer to customers.

In the context of Rail Baltica and the tunnel which will be built before 2050: The North sea is not a good place for container ships because the conditions can be very rough so realistically the cargo from Asia will be offloaded in Northern Scandinavia and sent into Europe by rail using the future route through Finland, Estonia and the Baltic nations.

What's the point of Russia building up in the Arctic then if you can't ship stuff there?

 

[es333]

What's the point of Russia building up in the Arctic then if you can't ship stuff there?

What do you mean? The North sea is between the UK and Norway. The Arctic ocean is completely usable and not dangerous for container ships if there's no ice.

That's why container ships would be offloaded in Northern Scandinavia instead of taking a route through the North sea to the ports of Central-Europe.

Regarding Russia building up its military presence in the Arctic, that's related to the vast amount of resources (oil and gas) found in the Arctic region.

 

[Jopa79]

In the context of Rail Baltica and the tunnel which will be built before 2050: The North sea is not a good place for container ships because the conditions can be very rough so realistically the cargo from Asia will be offloaded in Northern Scandinavia and sent into Europe by rail using the future route through Finland, Estonia and the Baltic nations.

FinEst Bay Area Project - led by (Angry Birds) Peter Vesterbacka - is a privately funded project to establish and build a tunnel at the Gulf of Finland, between Helsinki-Tallinn. This project is currently the only tunnel project existing, but is also in a stopped state as facing serious opposition.

According to Vesterbacka's plan, the project would include two separate railroad tunnels and tracks - one for freight and one for passengers - with the European standard rail gauge. The project includes also one man-made island to be built on the Finnish territorial waters for 50 000 inhabitants and the tunnel mouths at the both sides of the gulf would be neighborhoods for 200 000 inhabitants. Currently, Helsinki has two options for the tunnel mouth, at Helsinki Railway Station or at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport.

In 2020, the Estonian Minister of Public Ownership announced doubts towards Vesterbacka's plan, invoking for security, environmental matters and economy. According to the Estonian minister, the tunnel project, if one is built, should be a joint-project between Finland and Estonia, and currently such a operation does not exist.

 

[es333]

FinEst Bay Area Project - led by (Angry Birds) Peter Vesterbacka - is a privately funded project to establish and build a tunnel at the Gulf of Finland, between Helsinki-Tallinn. This project is currently the only tunnel project existing, but is also in a stopped state as facing serious opposition.

According to Vesterbacka's plan, the project would include two separate railroad tunnels and tracks - one for freight and one for passengers - with the European standard rail gauge. The project includes also one man-made island to be built on the Finnish territorial waters for 50 000 inhabitants and the tunnel mouths at the both sides of the gulf would be neighborhoods for 200 000 inhabitants. Currently, Helsinki has two options for the tunnel mouth, at Helsinki Railway Station or at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport.

In 2020, the Estonian Minister of Public Ownership announced doubts towards Vesterbacka's plan, invoking for security, environmental matters and economy. According to the Estonian minister, the tunnel project, if one is built, should be a joint-project between Finland and Estonia, and currently such a operation does not exist.

As I said, that tunnel will get built before 2050, it doesn't matter if building starts in 2025, 2030 or 2035. We are in 2021 right now and you are posting news from 2020. Meanwhile Estonia has gotten a new government.

1 month old article: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/...et_up_research_centre_in_metals_mine/11799073

The topic of the firm's tunnel effort could even be raised during Estonian Prime MInister Kaja Kallas' visit to Finland on Friday, he added, noting that creating a tunnel linking the Baltic and Nordic countries is included in the Estonian's government programme.

Meanwhile, Valtonen said that an environmental impact study is underway in Finland and a similar one is being carried out in Estonia.

 

[Jopa79]

As I said, that tunnel will get built before 2050, it doesn't matter if building starts in 2025, 2030 or 2035. We are in 2021 right now and you are posting news from 2020. Meanwhile Estonia has gotten a new government.

1 month old article: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/...et_up_research_centre_in_metals_mine/11799073

I do not oppose the project, but support it actually. And I would love to see the tunnel ready and surely, I would use it. I rather find its benefits than its disadvantages.

Thanks for refreshing the news.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Larger region is Northern-Europe, more specific term is North-Eastern Europe/Eastern Baltic. Before the 1950's, the term "Baltic states" was used for the 4 Baltic states of Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on the eastern shores of the Baltic sea. "Baltic" was short for "Eastern Baltic states".

Nobody uses the geographic term anymore as it is just confusing if you include non-Balts in it like Finns/Estonians. Even in 2021, many Europeans think that Estonians are culturally related to Lithuanians and speak Latvian/Lithuanian because they're "Baltic".

About that statement "nobody uses the term 'Baltic states' any more"

About whom exactly are you speaking? Across Europe and the world at large, "Baltic states" totally is the term in use for the three nations Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Who except locals and linguists really appreciates the differences?

The common term in Germany is "Baltikum", as in, "I'm doing a caravan tour of the Baltikum for summer vacations". The three peoples are "the Baltic nations". I think it's pretty much the same in Britain and France too

 

[Sleepyhead]

People in general aren't exactly aware just how different Finnish is to the Nordic languages either. I've typically have had to tell e.g. Spaniards and French people that it is just as similar as their languages are to Basque. For anything east thereof whatever they speak and Hungarian. Baltic languages are super peculiar on their own even before Estonian gets thrown into the mix.

 

[es333]

About that statement "nobody uses the term 'Baltic states' any more"

About whom exactly are you speaking? Across Europe and the world at large, "Baltic states" totally is the term in use for the three nations Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Who except locals and linguists really appreciates the differences?

The common term in Germany is "Baltikum", as in, "I'm doing a caravan tour of the Baltikum for summer vacations". The three peoples are "the Baltic nations". I think it's pretty much the same in Britain and France too

You completely misunderstood me. Nobody uses the term "Baltic states" in a geographic meaning anymore. If it doesn't include Finland then it is not the geographic term like it was before WW2.

Nowadays "Baltic states" is a geopolitical grouping but people think that the 3 countries in that geopolitical are also strongly related and extremely similar to each other which is completely false if it includes Estonia.

Also, you could call Estonia a "Baltic country" as it is a geopolitical term but you definitely cannot call Estonia a "Baltic nation".

Definition of "nation" from Wikipedia: A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, history, ethnicity, or a common culture

According to that definition, Estonia is either a Nordic or/and Finnic nation because of the shared culture, language, history and ethnicity.

TL;DR If somebody uses the term "Baltic states" then it is not a geographic term since 1950s as its original meaning was "countries on the eastern shore of the Baltic sea" and it included Finland in all political documents written in the interwar era. Finland not being included in the new term and Estonia being included just makes 90% of Europeans think that Estonians are ethnically Balts who are extremely similar to "other" Balts based on culture, mentality and identity. While in reality the culture, mentality and identity of Estonia is closer to Iceland than to Lithuania (I should know this as I lived in Lithuania for half a year and I spent a summer in Iceland).

 

[JodelDiplom]

You completely misunderstood me. Nobody uses the term "Baltic states" in a geographic meaning anymore. If it doesn't include Finland then it is not the geographic term like it was before WW2.

Nowadays "Baltic states" is a geopolitical grouping but people think that the 3 countries in that geopolitical are also strongly related and extremely similar to each other which is completely false if it includes Estonia.

Also, you could call Estonia a "Baltic country" as it is a geopolitical term but you definitely cannot call Estonia a "Baltic nation".

Definition of "nation" from Wikipedia: A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, history, ethnicity, or a common culture

According to that definition, Estonia is either a Nordic or/and Finnic nation because of the shared culture, language, history and ethnicity.

TL;DR If somebody uses the term "Baltic states" then it is not a geographic term since 1950s as its original meaning was "countries on the eastern shore of the Baltic sea" and it included Finland in all political documents written in the interwar era. Finland not being included in the new term and Estonia being included just makes 90% of Europeans think that Estonians are ethnically Balts who are extremely similar to "other" Balts based on culture, mentality and identity. While in reality the culture, mentality and identity of Estonia is closer to Iceland than to Lithuania (I should know this as I lived in Lithuania for half a year and I spent a summer in Iceland).

I'm not quite sure I understand the subtle difference between "Baltic states" being a geographic term denoting the three former SSRs plus Kaliningrad exclave, or it being a geopolitical term denoting the three former SSRs plus Kaliningrad exclave. Seems very subtle to me

The German term "Baltikum" certainly includes Kaliningrad exclave.

As for the three states being totally different from each other... As always truth is what you see in things. But I think it is fair to say that they have more similarities than most other trios of neighboring nations that I can think of.

They have similar climate, geography and landscape - flat, forested, lots of lakes, thinly populated, lots of castles, maritime climate. The histories are also largely parallel or similar - pagans vs crusaders (with different winners), foreign domination in the early modern age (Polish/Danish/Swedish/German/Russian) and long term aristocratic social systems, then in late 18th century incorporation into Russian empire, then WW1, revolution/counterrevolution, interwar independence, soviet annexation and oppression, Nazi occupation and oppression / collaboration, soviet reoccupation, SSRs again, independence, EU accession.

I think it's fair to say that the three nations (minus Kaliningrad exclave) are the most similar trio of nations you can find on the planet, if you overlook their lack of common language(s). And I would find it odd if the locals weren't aware of that.

 

[bz249]

the tunnel will be definitely be built in the first half of the 21st century as the shipping route from Asia to Europe is way shorter if using the Arctic route and it has less ice on a yearly basis thus every year the shipping routes can be used for an even longer period of time. The issue at the Suez canal has strengthened the trend of using alternative shipping routes and bringing production closer to customers.

In the context of Rail Baltica and the tunnel which will be built before 2050: The North sea is not a good place for container ships because the conditions can be very rough so realistically the cargo from Asia will be offloaded in Northern Scandinavia and sent into Europe by rail using the future route through Finland, Estonia and the Baltic nations.

What is the gain from shipping the stuff if you have to change anyway to rail somewhere in the frozen tundra? If you bring your cargo to Hamburg you are where your market and you have a short land route.

 

[JodelDiplom]

What is the gain from shipping the stuff if you have to change anyway to rail somewhere in the frozen tundra? If you bring your cargo to Hamburg you are where your market and you have a short land route.

Maybe he's thinking of a hypothetical future where ships from Asia sail the north route through the Russian arctic? That would see them reach Scandinavia first, before they reach the ports of continental Europe.

I don't see ships offloading cargo in northern Scandinavia though, the rail links from Scandinavia to mainland Europe are not up to large scale cargo movement. And there is zero chance that north German and Danish citizens will agree to a huge construction of new cargo rail lines across their nations, just to help the ports of Trondheim or Stavanger take business from the way better located ports of Hamburg, Antwerp and Rotterdam. Zero chance.

 

[bz249]

Maybe he's thinking of a hypothetical future where ships from Asia sail the north route through the Russian arctic? That would see them reach Scandinavia first, before they reach the ports of continental Europe.

I don't see ships offloading cargo in northern Scandinavia though, the rail links from Scandinavia to mainland Europe are not up to large scale cargo movement. And there is zero chance that north German and Danish citizens will agree to a huge construction of new cargo rail lines across their nations, just to help the ports of Trondheim or Stavanger take business from the way better located ports of Hamburg, Antwerp and Rotterdam. Zero chance.

I mean we can see that ports in the Med gained importance in the last decade due to the increased import from China... but at least Italy and Greece had pre-existing infrastructure and they are not that far away from the potential markets.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I mean we can see that ports in the Med gained importance in the last decade due to the increased import from China... but at least Italy and Greece had pre-existing infrastructure and they are not that far away from the potential markets.

Hey, Italy is a big market herself.

As for rail baltica, I looked it up on the internet. The route goes from the north sea ports to Finland through the Baltic states (ah that term again...).

Hypothetically, if the Finnish are willing to build 1000 miles of railways from the gulf of Finland to Russian Murmansk or Norwegian Kirkenes, Chinese ships taking the arctic route could offload cargo there and railways could deliver it straight into Germany, Poland, and beyond. But to my knowledge such a rail way to the arctic does not exist, nor is it planned.

 

[es333]

I'm not quite sure I understand the subtle difference between "Baltic states" being a geographic term denoting the three former SSRs plus Kaliningrad exclave, or it being a geopolitical term denoting the three former SSRs plus Kaliningrad exclave. Seems very subtle to me

The German term "Baltikum" certainly includes Kaliningrad exclave.

The geographic term for "Baltic states" originally includes Finland, if it would still include it then 90% of people would not think that "Baltic state" = Balts, same culture, mentality, identity etc. Right now with the exclusion of Finland, most people (falsely) see as Estonians somehow having the same culture/mentality/identity as the Balts, which is quite far from the truth.

As for the three states being totally different from each other... As always truth is what you see in things. But I think it is fair to say that they have more similarities than most other trios of neighboring nations that I can think of.

They have similar climate, geography and landscape - flat, forested, lots of lakes, thinly populated, lots of castles, maritime climate. The histories are also largely parallel or similar - pagans vs crusaders (with different winners), foreign domination in the early modern age (Polish/Danish/Swedish/German/Russian) and long term aristocratic social systems, then in late 18th century incorporation into Russian empire, then WW1, revolution/counterrevolution, interwar independence, soviet annexation and oppression, Nazi occupation and oppression / collaboration, soviet reoccupation, SSRs again, independence, EU accession.

The geography between those 3 areas is actually surprisingly different. Estonia has over 2000 islands and a coastline with a length of 3800km. It's one of the reasons why Estonians have had a completely different way of life from the Balts for a long time. For example the Lithuanian coastline is 200km (90km if you ignore the curonian split) long.
There are many differences but not going to count all of them. Climate and different pressure zones move faster on the sea so the Estonian climate cannot be more similar to an area 600km south of it. The absolute majority of Estonians and Finns live in an identical climate as they live within 250km of each other. Estonian landscape being similar to the Baltic areas also sounds quite funny as it's heavily influenced by glacial activity and is the country in the world with the 2nd most bogs in the world (behind Finland). I mean, several statements are funny. "Lots of lakes" - That is not true. Estonia has a few very big lakes but not many lakes. I could go one for a long time pointing out everything but it seems there is no point as you didn't even use Google.

Anyway, regarding history. Estonian history is very different from the Balts and you're making massive generalizations here which are utterly false. Estonia being originally a maritime culture and an integral part of the Norse world is one of the reasons why the viking activities of the Estonians made the Christian Swedes and Danes invade Estonia in the 13th century. Centuries of Danish and Swedish rule and Estonian history being different from the Balts is one the reasons why the culture, mentality and identity of the Balts has more to do with Central-Europe while Estonians are historically fully Lutheran and Nordic. For this reason Estonia, Sweden, Denmark and Norway are in the top 5 least religious countries in the world.

During this "shared history with Balts", Estonians have had more to do with Swedes and Finns because of geographic proximity as travel by sea has always been more optimal and easier. That's why the Estonian coastline and islands were inhabited by Swedes for 700 years and one of my grandparents is a Swede from Estonia who moved to Sweden during WW2. Meanwhile Northern Estonia received waves of immigration from Finland, especially after the Northern War. If the Balts are geographically so close and similar to Estonia then why were the population movements between Estonia, Finland and Sweden? Why didn't Balts move to Estonia? A different culture and way of life plays a role in this.

I wrote too much, the massive false generalizations you did cannot be based on ignorance as even some Googling shows that they're false.

I think it's fair to say that the three nations (minus Kaliningrad exclave) are the most similar trio of nations you can find on the planet, if you overlook their lack of common language(s). And I would find it odd if the locals weren't aware of that.

Yeah... That is complete bullshit and bordering trolling. Lithuania is more similar to Slovakia than it is to Estonia. The locals are very aware of the fact that they don't share a culture, mentality nor history. Ask someone from the Baltics if Estonians are Baltic. You're either very ignorant or just trolling to get reactions.

 

[es333]

What is the gain from shipping the stuff if you have to change anyway to rail somewhere in the frozen tundra? If you bring your cargo to Hamburg you are where your market and you have a short land route.

The North sea is notably dangerous for container ships, using the Arctic route the cargo should offloaded in Northern Scandinavia.

 

[Jopa79]

Hypothetically, if the Finnish are willing to build 1000 miles of railways from the gulf of Finland to Russian Murmansk or Norwegian Kirkenes, Chinese ships taking the arctic route could offload cargo there and railways could deliver it straight into Germany, Poland, and beyond. But to my knowledge such a rail way to the arctic does not exist, nor is it planned.

Surprise! The Arctic Railway, in which Peter Vesterbacka is also involved in planning, is a project to construct the Finnish railway and connect it to Murmansk and/or Kirkenes.

This project is in connection to the shipping route of the Northeast Passage.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Surprise! The Arctic Railway, in which Peter Vesterbacka is also involved in planning, is a project to construct the Finnish railway and connect it to Murmansk and/or Kirkenes.

This project is in connection to the shipping route of the Northeast Passage.

Interesting. But doesn't look like a likely project

In early 2019, a Finnish-Norwegian working group assembled by Finland’s Ministry of Transport and Communications stated that the volume of cargo was too small to justify the project's costs.[7] After plans for the railway stalled, entrepreneur Peter Vesterbacka announced an alternative plan for the project in May 2019, claiming the railway could be built through private investments from China and the European Union, and with an underground route.

Government won't finance it - entrepreneur says private companies and the EU should finance it... Sounds like a daydream to be honest.

The Baltic countries have strategic reasons to want a railway connecting them to their NATO partners in Poland, Germany and the Benelux ports, without crossing Russian territory, but the need for a purely commercial line to the Norwegian Arctic ports is not nearly as obvious

 

[es333]

Interesting. But doesn't look like a likely project

I would bet you 2000€ that it will be built before 2050. If you talk about the next 5 years then yes, not likely is correct but that railroad will get built if construction on the tunnel is underway. Even if the world gets global warming under control then the influence on the Arctic will be quite big and it will be used for shipping.

With such massive infrastructure projects, we cannot look ahead just a few years, the time span is longer.

 

[bz249]

I would bet you 2000€ that it will be built before 2050. If you talk about the next 5 years then yes, not likely is correct but that railroad will get built if construction on the tunnel is underway. Even if the world gets global warming under control then the influence on the Arctic will be quite big and it will be used for shipping.

With such massive infrastructure projects, we cannot look ahead just a few years, the time span is longer.

Just look at an existing rail project, with much more obvious benefit and lower aim:

Main Line for Europe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This one is also crawls forward at the pace of a drunken sloth.