NATO forces in Estonia

Question: Many people in Estonia don’t like that NATO forces are in Estonia. Are there some hidden motives associated with the presence of NATO forces in Estonia? Many people think that it’s cause for a new war, or that it is a power play between the West and Russia. What can we do to ease this tension?

Kim:  It’s my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, that the government of Estonia asked NATO to station these troops here, right? But, of course, they didn’t ask the people what they wanted. Do you have an idea of how many people are against this? [Discussion following indicating that there might be more people who are for than against the troops’ presence, and what might be their motives.]

Answer by Ascended Master Saint Germain through Kim Michaels, given at a conference in Estonia 2017.

Well, my beloved, you could say that any time military forces are used, there is a power game behind it. But, of course, a power game is never one-sided, so obviously you see that the Russian actions on Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine have been one aspect of the power game. It then forced NATO to feel that they had to respond to this, and also that they felt they had to respond to the requests of several governments (both in the Baltics and elsewhere) for some reassurance that Russia could not start doing what they had done in Ukraine, in their countries.

Is there a bigger power game behind this? Well, in a sense there is always the power game that the fallen beings are seeking to create conflicts. They will use whomever is vulnerable to their control and manipulation, who then becomes the human being who makes the decisions that creates this kind of conflict. We have before spoken about the situation in Ukraine and that we do not support the actions of Russia because it would be to a much greater benefit of the Russian people to create much better cooperation between Russia and the West, and avoid this kind of conflict that sees Russia isolating itself more and more in the minds of the Russian people, and in practical matters as well, from the West.

Of course, this is not to say that the West has entirely pure motives because there are people in the West who are vulnerable to the fallen beings and who are vulnerable to various power games. But it is fair to say in this situation that, had Russia not done what they did in Ukraine, then those troops would not have been stationed here.

It is, I think, fair to say that, for example, the Baltic nations have a desire to evolve without any interference from Russia as they have had in the past. That is why they have elected to join NATO and the EU. Of course, NATO is based on the founding principle that if one nation is attacked, all the others will come to their defense. What happened after the Russian incursion was that some nations in Eastern Europe began to question whether NATO would actually live up to that principle, the Musketeer Oath, as it is called. The leaders of NATO felt obligated to respond to kind of calm those fears.

It really is up to the people to ask themselves what they want. It is not that this necessarily increases the risk of war. It most likely decreases the risk of war because it does demonstrate that NATO is willing to respond and that it can make, whether it is Vladimir Putin or other people in Russia that make that decision, make them realize that this is not something they want to go further with. So it is better sometimes to stop a problem at an early stage before it has escalated too far.

Naturally, Estonia is a democratic nation and a government that is elected by the people has a right to make such a decision. If there is a sizeable minority that is against it, then they have the democratic tools to make their voice heard. If they can gain support from a sufficient number of people, then obviously they can make their nation respond. So that is up to the people. But as in terms of increasing the risk for war, I would say that it decreases it, although, of course, it can also be used by Russia as a validation for why Russia needs to defend itself, and why the West is aggressive. You have already heard the rhetoric. But still, by drawing a clear line and saying: “We are willing to respond,” it is decreasing the risk of war at the present level.


Copyright © 2017 Kim Michaels