>

No it is not; a blockade would be, but this is merely to subject vessels in the corridor to inspection for instance when it suspected to participate in illegal activities (skipping sanctions, carrying saboteurs). A military vessel is (usually) not subject to searches under civil law and thus there is no issue. Statement could even be made that the terrorist state of Russia has already declared war by making nuclear threats and as such all its vessels are to be sunk on sight anyway.
Would I  be right in asuming that Estonians  fucking despise Russia and for good reasons  I  suspect. >

They've given Ukraine a higher percentage of their GDP than literally any other country >

And per capita they somehow make the US look like they're not a heavily militarized and warlike people. >

Not sure where you're getting this from, they're not even in the top 10 for per capita military spending. USA is at 3 with 2400$, Finland at 10 with 1000$. So even if Estonia is 11, the US is still 2.5 times as militarized. >

Did he mean ukranian aid per capita? >

Yes. >

Estonia, which is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), is considering the possibility of effectively blocking the passage of Russian ships through the Baltic Sea. Estonia's introduction of a so-called contiguous zone, which can be up to 12 nautical miles from the 12-mile territorial sea, allows the country to conduct searches in the Gulf of Finland on military ships and civilian vessels to monitor compliance with Estonian law.
This was reported by the Defense Express web portal with reference to the publication by ERR.
Currently, the Gulf of Finland within this zone is designed to leave a three-mile wide "corridor" for free navigation. And formally, Estonia will simply close this "corridor" by declaring it an adjacent zone. In fact, this simply means a sea blockade of one of the most powerful ports of the Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg, and all others in the Leningrad Oblast, as well as a blockade of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, the main thing in this matter is not so much the possibility of announcement, but the possibility of real control on the part of Estonia. It should be noted that the entire Estonian fleet consists of four ships - the EML Wambola (A433) Lindormen-class minelayer, and three Sandown-class minehunters. The Border Service also has 1 Kindral Kurvits multipurpose rescue ship and boats.
It should also be noted that in 2021, Estonia purchased Blue Spear anti-ship missiles from Israel, which are to be part of the coastal defense complex. Although the term of the contract is marked at the level of 2026.
That is, from the point of view of naval capabilities, the country is unlikely to be able to oppose the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Federation. But this is not so important when it comes to the fact that the country is a member of NATO and any aggression even against a boat with the country's flag will be an attack on a member of the Alliance. >


But this is not so important when it comes to the fact that the country is a member of NATO and any aggression even against a boat with the country's flag will be an attack on a member of the Alliance.

A naval blockage is an act of war so if it was initiated by Estonia, NATO would not have to defend it as it would a willing belligerent. >

It’s not legally a blockade. >

If it is not, then the Russian ship just won't stop so it will be posturing and nothing else. >

Forcing inspections is within their rights but it’s not a blockade. It just slows down Russian shipping a lot. 
You don’t seem to understand that. It’s how the U.S. blocked Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. >

The US navy can do a shitload of things the Estonian navy could only ever dream of. Stopping ships in the currently international water will be a though call for a navy composed of 1 mine layer and 3 mine hunters. >

It’s not about stopping everything besides they also have Coast Guard. It’s about making it costly for Russia and eating into their business. 
You don’t seem to have an actual understanding of what they are doing. >

Except you seem to forget the Russian ship can just keep going.  
Estonain ship : "Russian ship, you ave to stop for inspection."
Russian ship : "We are in international water, we will not stop."
Estonian ship : "Estonia as decreed those water are not Estonian, you need to stop."
Russian ship : "My map says you are wrong. If you have an issue with this, maybe you can try contacting the UN or other international entity to clarify it. In the meantime, we are not stopping." >

It’s within their right to inspect ships. If the ship doesn’t comply they can be boarded. 
It’s not meant to stop travel, simply slow it. >


If the ship doesn’t comply they can be boarded.

I think their point is that the Estonian Navy has very little ability to board a large cargo freighter that does not want to be boarded. >

First they want to give Ukraine all their weapons and then they want to mess mith the Russian navy. All that from a population of 1.3 million people in an area that's quite vulnerable. Even tho they are a NATO country and will certainly receive support from Finland, when shit hits the fan: Their boldness is impressive. >

I have a friend in the military whose significant other didn't understand opsec, so I heard second-hand that when Russia invaded Georgia to defend East Ossetia in 2008, NATO members including the U.S. sent nearly 80,000 troops to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, including special forces units like the one the friend was in. They dug in for six months. The significant other told us, tearfully, that war was likely, with Russian troop trucks routinely pulling up to within sight of the border as an intimidation tactic. 
Second-hand but not surprising. Russia wanted a reason for a disproportionate response and to challenge and belittle the Baltic States' governments. To Estonia, Russia is the asshole neighbor who waves his gun at your dog, throws beer cans in your yard and honks at you when you slow down at your own driveway. Invading Ukraine is like the neighbor shooting your dog. Playtime is over. >


Russia wanted a reason for a disproportionate response

Yeah, that's the main reason we have to gradually increase the weapons we send into Ukraine. It sucks but I'm glad our politicians understand that this is Russians intention. It's not that we do not want to send in people and material and kick the Russians out once and for all but literally none of the people in that area want to see the consequences of that. >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot)


HELP UKRAINIAN NEWS. Estonia, which is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is considering the possibility of effectively blocking the passage of Russian ships through the Baltic Sea.
Estonia's introduction of a so-called contiguous zone, which can be up to 12 nautical miles from the 12-mile territorial sea, allows the country to conduct searches in the Gulf of Finland on military ships and civilian vessels to monitor compliance with Estonian law.
This simply means a sea blockade of one of the most powerful ports of the Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg, and all others in the Leningrad Oblast, as well as a blockade of the Baltic Fleet of the Russian Federation.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Estonia^#1 Russian^#2 ship^#3 country^#4 member^#5 >

It makes more sense to close the railway access to Kaliningrad first.  You don't even need to close the rail lines just take them down for maintenance. >

Looks like oeselian raids are back on the menu, boys.
Though I think someone already mentioned that this is taken out of context >

All the Baltics should do this... besides, attack one n NATO gonna have to say what's up buddy[Russia] >

Article makes it sound like they are going to “block it for Russia” lol >

I....... don't know about this maneuver.  This action will have the effect of isolating the Kaliningrad territory from mainland russia.  If Kaliningrad cannot receive goods via rail or water, their only option is air.  And I am also getting the vibe that this last option will soon be shut also.
Creating an embargo on this enclave could force russia into taking drastic action.  NATO would essentially be tasked with enforcing a blockade against the short route for russia, forcing russia to ship all Kaliningrad bound goods via very long routes (arctic ports, likely).
I.... don't know how I feel about this one. >

Russia needs to lose Kaliningrad either way. >

Nobody wants it... >

Well, it could be rather nice without the Russians in it.It's a port, after all. >

Peak reddit casually suggest ethnic cleansing. >

Suggesting a place would be nicer without Russians in it is not even close to advocating ethnic cleansing, drama queen. >

It's pretty dang close to say a place would be nicer if an ethnicity of people are removed from it... >

Perfect! >

The only way to enforce a naval blockade is by sinking ships, which is a really bad idea - same reason why NATO could never establish a no-fly zone over ukraine >

If Russia assists their cargo ships with military ships then it's up to a NATO country to force the blockade. I don't think that will happens. USA has shown zero interest in direct escalation. >

This sounds like nonsense >

well, if they make the water eastonia territory, then their coastguard got authority to stop any vessel for inspection. >

Strategically, it widens tension between NATO and Russia and has a low chance of being effective. Will Estonia open fire on Russian naval ships? Unlikely >

Will Russia open fire on a NATO vessel though? Also unlikely. >

When you try to blockade someone, you have to be willing to shoot. The other side just has to be willing to not stop. There are absolutely no obligation for NATO to defend Estonia if it commit an act of war first. >

I think it’s important to note that, even if being attacked, nato member responsibilities are vague. 
“Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.” 
If Estonia was to go for some sort of blockade, having some reassurance that the major NATO partners would support it is a must. It can go wrong very easily. >

can't find any info on this. seems like non-news >

Then fucking do it >

This many people don’t realize enforcing a blockade is impossible without military support and it would be an act to increase tension. Russia would either backdown or shoot stuff down Estonia will not take that risk or the U.S for example. >

This is a terrible idea. If gives Russia an excusr for direct conflict with NATO while not actually helping the situation in Ukraine. >

They don't need an excuse for conflict. They can't handle such a conflict. If it magically started, it would destroy Russia's ability to send anything to Ukraine. >

Don't believe this. They are not going to try to blockade the Baltic. They want to do inspections to enforce sanctions, but I doubt they'll get away with that. Even if they tried, the first Russian ship that gets hit by the Blue Spears noted in this article will result in Estonia getting flattened and the likely the rest of the world right after. I don't mean this as an insult on Estonia, they have heart and appreciable desire to stick it to the Russians. It's just an absurdly stupid idea.
I know Russia sure stepped on its dick in Ukraine, but it's rockets are real and there's plenty of them. If St. Petersburg was blockaded, they would assume it's WWIII and they would act accordingly. Would be like Mexico credibly trying to blockade LA/Long Beach. >

Game over russia and please don't cry for me ar...russia ! >

It doesn’t work like that it isn’t gameover unless the blockade or Estonia’s claim is accepted and it has to be enforced too, meaning military has to back it up. Sorry, but Estonia alone will not be enough to enforce this if the US and other Nato Members don’t support it then this is meaningless and won’t harm Russia it would just be a useless thing of diplomacy. >

That's an act of war.