Võib-olla Balti kett on parem mõtte.

When you live in the woods where there are bears around, you want to have some protection, and when it comes to protection from occupation, lots of small bunkers are an excellent idea.

However, Russia as a nation acts less erratically than single Russians. And a small country cannot make others respect its interest through strength. The best way for a small country to make others respect its interest is through public complications, that is by making others look bad when they act against its interest. In order to achieve this, a small country's policies should be fair and transparent. Larger countries will always make demands behind closed doors and it takes ideological superiority for a smaller country to be able to deny them.

If you tell your people that they have to be strong, when they are, as a matter of fact, not, you only pave the way for someone stronger in the back to demand from them that they do their part of a common duty. And you will not even be able to deny him to use your country as a staging ground for a war that you have no interest in, as happened to Nicholas II in World War I, not because he was weak, but because he was stupid and moved his troops towards Eastern Prussia when France asked him to. Such actions are usually answered and who doesn't think they would, will learn to regret them.

We've seen the play before: Naive Eastern European country is righteously infuriated and goes to arms. Well, I don't think that people in the Baltics will fall for that exactly, but their politicians may wake up one day and be informed that, unless they stage the biggest military exercise the world has ever seen, they'll lose a lot of favours they've become accustomed to. The only thing to protect you from that is public outcry, but there won't be any, when you don't hold steadfastly to the public understanding that pacifism serves you best.