Following publications about the possibility of a "hybrid" Russian attack on Estonia or other Baltic countries, serious discussions have begun in both Ukraine and the West regarding the possibility of conflict between Russia and NATO, and even the political bankruptcy of the Alliance as a result of an insufficiently serious reaction to such an invasion. But most importantly, people are starting to realize that the very possibility of such a conflict, which creates a real risk of the start of World War III, is linked to the inadequate reaction of Western countries to the events in Ukraine in 2014.   

Back then, for the first time since World War II, the Russian President not only proceeded with an occupation but also with the annexation of part of the territory of another state. But the world's leading countries—the very signatories of the Budapest Memorandum—tried to pretend that nothing extraordinary had happened in Crimea. If we recall the sanctions imposed against Russia by the administration of President Barack Obama and the European Union, it's easy to understand why the Kremlin did not heed calls from Washington to keep out of the mainland and instead began a war in the Donbas.   

What is striking is that almost no one wanted to consider this war for what it was — a war and occupation. They began speaking of Donbas "separatism," trying to ignore the presence of Russian troops and special services in the region. And this is despite the fact that before the Russian invasion, neither in Crimea nor in the Donbas were there political forces, or even authoritative public organizations, that advocated for the regions' independence or their accession to Russia. And indeed, where would such organizations come from when until 2014, the country's president, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, the Prime Minister, and nearly all ministers were... natives of the Donetsk region, and the parliamentary faction of the ruling Party of Regions was led by a native of the Luhansk region. What kind of separatism could there be under those circumstances?   

However, this myth helped both the West and Ukrainians live in a fictional reality where the conflict could be resolved simply by negotiating with fictional separatists. It got to the point where not only Western diplomats spoke about seeking a dialogue with representatives of the "separatist" (but in reality, occupational) administrations, but even ordinary people spoke of "separs." This is the answer to the famous Russian question: "What have you been doing for eight years?" What? We were lying to ourselves that your occupation didn't exist, and thus facilitating your lies and preparations for a big war during which it was no longer necessary to play "separs," so the Luhansk and Donetsk regions were banally annexed—just like Crimea!   And now the question arises: Why can't Putin use this same mechanism in Estonian Narva? After all, if Western capitals face the dilemma of believing in the "separatism" of Narva's Russian population or fighting Russia, what will they choose in Washington or Brussels? It seems we know the answer. We know it from the reaction to the events in Ukraine.   

So let's place this on record today, so no one can say tomorrow that they weren't warned. There are no separatist sentiments in the Ida-Virumaa region, which includes the border town of Narva—just as there were none in Crimea or the Donbas. If these sentiments begin to manifest, it will mean that a Russian creeping occupation has begun. If this creeping occupation is perceived as a complex regional and national conflict, if the local collaborators — who will inevitably appear, because this is an indispensable attribute of occupation—are perceived as separatists and not as collaborators, this will not appease but only inspire Putin, and eventually, a big war will begin in Europe itself. A war from which the United States will no longer be able to evade, no matter what they think in the White House today. There you have it—an approximate forecast of World War III with an Estonian — no, wait, with a Ukrainian accent.   

And all because political and security conclusions must be made in a timely manner, my friends. And really — what have we all been doing for eight years?