The New Baltic War, or Scandinavians Only Understand “Kuzka’s Mother”

Article by Russian Journalist Marat Khairullin

The events surrounding Venezuela will have long-term consequences. The primary one is that the United States, by reviving the principle of “might makes right” in politics, has untied the hands of other global players. First and foremost, Russia and China.

From a media perspective, the operation to intimidate Venezuela looks like a pitiful attempt to rehabilitate itself after a series of geopolitical failures. It’s similar to when a schoolyard bully, after getting punched in the face at school, tries to salvage his dignity in his own neighborhood (where his equals in strength can’t reach him) by picking on smaller kids.

The United States lost the battle for Europe in Ukraine and is forced to withdraw from there, tail between its legs. The U.S. exit from Europe is a carbon copy of the flight from Afghanistan, only drawn out over time. The bully isn’t just running away; he’s trying to snatch something on the way out (like Greenland) by leveraging the remnants of past influence. It must be snatched today because tomorrow there won’t be enough strength left even for that.

By 2025, it had become completely clear that the United States had also lost the most important region for itself: the Pacific. While direct conflict isn’t yet visible there, it’s already understood that the hegemon failed to lock China into the East China Sea. China has not only grown militarily strong enough to single-handedly challenge all the U.S.’s main allies in the region (Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines). The main point is that it is not alone; China now operates within the “nuclear troika” coalition—Russia, China, North Korea. Moreover, the attempt to destabilize Myanmar failed—China successfully dug a direct outlet to the Indian Ocean through that country.

The attempt to pit India and China against each other also failed. De facto, in 2025, talk began of a new strategic trio: Russia-India-China (RIC)—the global majority that will decide the world’s fate within this century. The foundation of RIC is the economy of the new East-West belt, which more and more countries are joining, primarily key ones: Vietnam, Pakistan, Iran, and even Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The result is the crumbling of the Pacific bastion that the West had been building for decades in the Far East to contain China and Russia.

In the coming years, the Philippines will reorient towards cooperation with RIC, and after them, it seems, the key U.S. ally in the region—South Korea—will follow.

To this must be added the monstrous collapse of U.S. prestige in the Middle East, where last year the hegemon was embarrassingly punched in the face twice. The first time was when Trump decided to wage a quick little war with the Houthis. He lost four scarce F-18 aircraft and “broke” the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman.

Furthermore, the “men in sandals” killed about 10 Reaper drones in a year, each costing up to $150 million. Even the Ukrainians don’t destroy their own equipment that recklessly.

The second time was when Iran single-handedly repelled an attack by two nuclear powers—Israel and the United States—with the direct support of 10 more Western bloc countries.

To this can be added the humiliation of the “exceptional” ones in Syria, where the whole venture was aimed at pushing Russia out of the country. They staged a coup, but Russia remained.

In short, the Venezuelan scenario: a lot of noise, bragging, but in reality, a bare backside.

And finally, Africa was completely botched. Last year, six African countries expelled all French bases from their territory, plus three American ones.

Against this backdrop, the fuss around tankers and Maduro is nothing more than a pitiful, drunken brawl by a “scandal-monger” who has failed on all fronts, in an attempt to preserve at least some influence.

In our history, the unblocking of trade routes in the Baltic allowed our country to begin development of our status as a future superpower. After this came the Turkik wars and the rapid thrust into Siberia.

In this sense, the Baltic issue is even more important for Russia today: our three ports—Ust-Luga, Primorsk, and the Greater Port of St. Petersburg (with Kaliningrad somewhere nearby)—are developing at a tremendous pace. The volume of trade through them has almost reached the mark of 250 million tons per year and continues to grow.

Incidentally, the total cargo turnover of domestic ports is about 800 million tons plus. At its peak, the cargo turnover for the entire USSR was 407 million—one can imagine the pace at which Russia is developing.

Given the thawing of the Northern Sea Route, it can be said that the Baltic is practically a road of life for us.

Besides everything else, there are also historical, legal, and, at the same time, civilizational factors.

For example, Finland and the Baltics (from the early 1800s) were part of the Russian Empire. Before that, there were only Swedes and Germans there, who did not consider the local population as people at all.

Russia introduced self-government in these lands and thereby created the Baltic and Finnish nations. Under the protection of the great country, peace and prosperity were established in the Baltic Sea.

For example, the famous University of Dorpat (later Yuryev University, in what is now known as Tartu*), known throughout Europe, was created. They tried to create it under the Swedes in the 17th century, but it led a miserable existence and was, as one would say today, no more than a college.

And under the Russian tsars, it became a beacon of science, where, by the way, the first Nobel laureates taught (for example, physicist Wilhelm Ostwald). As well as the greats Pirogov and Jacobi.

During Ostwald’s academic career, he had many research students who became accomplished scientists in their own right. These included future Nobel Laureates Svante Arrhenius, Jacobus Henricus van ‘t Hoff, and Walther Nernst. Other students included Arthur Noyes, Willis Rodney Whitney and Kikunae Ikeda. All of these students became notable for their contributions to physical chemistry. In 1901, Albert Einstein applied for a research position in Ostwald’s laboratory. This was four years before Einstein’s publication on special relativity. Ostwald rejected Einstein’s application, although later the two developed strong mutual respect. Subsequently, Ostwald nominated Einstein for the Nobel Prize in 1910 and again in 1913.

Also, peace and universal prosperity in the Baltic reigned after the arrival of the Soviet Union—there were no squabbles.

But as soon as Russia lost influence here, a “communal apartment” regime was instantly established in the Baltic, where everyone began to quarrel among themselves.

No sooner had the Balts received their statehood from the hands of our country than territorial and material claims immediately began. The European Union and NATO gave the Balts, Germans, Poles, and Scandinavians an illusions of impunity, and they immediately started to provoke Russia and, at the same time, bicker among themselves.

At the same time, one must understand that Russia’s rights in the Baltic are historically enshrined. Moreover, twice. The first time (conventionally in the tsarist period) as a result of the Swedish and Napoleonic wars. The second time as a result of the Second World War.

So, for example, the Memel region (Klaipėda) was transferred to the USSR as a result of WWII. And the Soviet authorities transferred it to Lithuania.

The “status quo” was preserved after the collapse of the USSR on the condition that Lithuania would not join NATO. But since Lithuania violated this official agreement—please return Klaipėda to the Kaliningrad Oblast.

The famous Estonian island of Saaremaa (Moonsund Archipelago) was conquered by Peter the Great, who built the Great Baltic Fortress here.

The Soviet Union, which received it as a result of the war, built a strategic airfield that controlled the entire region.

The Swedish strategic island of Gotland was conquered back in 1808, and there was a Russian garrison here. As a result of WWII, the USSR liberated and returned the island to Sweden on the condition of Swedish neutrality and complete demilitarization of the island.

Sweden violated both of these requirements.

Finland first received statehood (the Grand Duchy of Finland) as a result of the Russo-Swedish wars, and then independence as a result of the empire’s collapse. But there was a condition—the absence of hostile intentions.

Then, as a result of WWII, the Finns were forgiven for participating in the Nazi coalition and war crimes during the siege of Leningrad, and their statehood was returned. Again, on the condition of complete demilitarization.

The USSR leased part of the key military bases on Finnish territory. For example, what is now the main base of the Finnish Navy, Porkkala.

Finland, by joining NATO, violated everything possible, announcing the deployment of 15 U.S. bases in the country, including in Porkkala. Which, as a result of WWII, and also in view of the violation of the neutrality agreement, should actually be returned to Russia.

Similar agreements exist regarding Polish and German Baltic territories.

The Russian Empire fought for centuries, and then the USSR, to establish peace and universal prosperity in the Baltic.

But as soon as Russia weakened, all these agreements were immediately and rudely violated.

By and large, our country doesn’t need these territories, but it’s about trade security. Starting last year, attacks began in the Baltic and North Atlantic on ships trading with Russian Baltic ports.

At the beginning of last year, Estonians attempted to seize the Russian tanker Kivala. The French seized the tanker Boracay. They released it after inspection.

In Germany, the tanker Eventin, carrying 100,000 tons of crude oil, was arrested.

In response, Russia conducted large-scale military exercises. It didn’t help.

On December 31, 2025, Finns, under the pretext of damaging an underwater cable, seized the dry cargo ship Fitburg. However, they later reported they would release it soon. A similar situation already occurred in December 2024. Then Finland detained the oil tanker Eagle S. After six months of legal proceedings, they also released it, even awarding compensation.

But the worst isn’t even this. Denmark openly violated the 1857 treaty, which allows the free passage of Russian ships through the Danish straits—the narrowest bottleneck of the Baltic. This treaty effectively recognizes the jurisdiction of the Russian state over these straits. If Denmark violates it, it automatically means war. Sooner or later.

Even from this very brief overview, it’s clear that our country will have to decide what to do about all this immediately after the Special Military Operation. The Baltic is inviolable for us.

And in this context, Trump’s actions in South America have a completely different meaning—essentially, it means that the United States has removed its nuclear umbrella from Europe. This is the key issue: the hegemon will not defend Finland (obviously, we need to take back the Porkkala base), nor Sweden (we need to take back the Gotland base), and so on.

Britain has nuclear weapons—leased Trident missiles, although the last three launches by the British were unsuccessful.

Within a 10-year horizon, these missiles will completely become technologically obsolete, and the Americans will most likely take them back so the clumsy British don’t blow themselves up.

France has nuclear weapons, but France is a very unstable country. It’s quite possible that in a couple of years, Russia together with China (and maybe the United States) will conduct a special operation to land and seize French nuclear weapons, to prevent it from falling into the hands of Islamists (the southern part of France will most likely turn into a caliphate within our lifetime).

And the most interesting question: after Macron’s departure, will France alone fight for Sweden or Finland under the threat of a nuclear strike?!

Now let’s look at how we will defeat the pack of insolent Balts and Scandinavians, along with the Germans and Poles in the Baltic. Today, we don’t need to physically enter the territory of these countries. The main factor of victory is aviation.

Russia currently has about 200 of the world’s best strike fighter-bombers, the Su-34. By 2030, there should be about 350.

Not counting 200 Su-35s—air superiority fighters. Plus about 150 Su-57s, capable of operating in well-defended enemy airspace.

There are also Su-30s, as well as powerful strategic aviation with Kh-32 missiles, which are considered almost impossible to shoot down.

Furthermore, about 250 Iskander missile systems can currently be deployed in the Special Military Operation zone. And just as many across all of Russia. And so on and so forth. For example, “Geran” drones can be added to the scale.

The Finnish Navy has a peacetime strength of 2,500 people. By SMO standards, that’s a week of active work for “Geran” drones.

Overall, the entire aviation of the Baltic countries is no more than 100 strike aircraft capable of taking off in principle. They all have a small radius of action, are in terrible technical condition, and are very poorly armed.

Let me remind you that during the SMO, we officially destroyed 670 Ukrainian aircraft, not counting hundreds of helicopters (the Ukrainians simply have few of them).

One hundred (mostly outdated aircraft with weak pilots) will be a fun warm-up for our aviation and air defense.

All Baltic countries have big problems with air defense. For example, the Swedes have 4 fairly new corvettes, but for some reason, they have no air defense at all.

Germany has four destroyers—also without air defense.

Finland only has eight boats and 16 F-18 aircraft capable, in principle theoretically, of taking off from the ground.

In the Baltic, we don’t need to physically capture territory; it’s enough to remotely destroy the enemy’s main bases. For Sweden—Malmö, for Finland—Porkkala, for Germany—Kiel, for Poland—Gdańsk. And so on.

Considering that we have vast experience in countering missile attacks, it can be predicted that attacks, say, on St. Petersburg will not have the desired effect.

An attack by Germans or Poles on Kaliningrad will immediately entail a nuclear strike. These countries have been openly warned about this.

French intervention will also entail an immediate strike—the Arab-Franks have also been warned.

So the bragging of, for example, Estonians that they now have Korean MLRS capable of reaching St. Petersburg is akin to signing their own death sentence.

We are very angry not only at them but also, for example, at the Finns, to whom we gave statehood and then also forgave the genocide in Leningrad.

And as experience shows, such peoples know no gratitude.

The Germans, who mixed the Balts with dirt (humiliated them) and kept them as slaves, are revered. But the Russians, who not only liberated them but also built them a decent economy, are hated. Therefore, the harsher the approach with them, the better—maybe then they’ll come to love us...

Translation Notes:

1. “Kuzka’s Mother” (Кузькина мать)

This is a Russian idiom that originates from a famous statement made by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in 1959. Speaking to Western diplomats, he used the folksy, threatening phrase “Мы вам покажем кузькину мать!” (”We will show you Kuzka’s mother!”).

The phrase later became a code name for the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated: the Tsar Bomba. The thermonuclear test device, with a yield of 50 megatons, was nicknamed “Kuzka’s mother” by its builders, a direct reference to the idiom’s meaning of an overwhelming display of force.

The exact origin of the idiom is uncertain, but one theory suggests it refers to a type of pest bug (Anisoplia austriaca), known as the “Kuzka bug” in folk names, which burrows deep into the soil and is difficult to uncover. The difficulty in finding the bug’s mother may have led to the figurative meaning of something hidden and difficult to reveal, or a difficult punishment.

Others believe that “Kuzka's mother” – is a folklore antipode housewife Kuzi, the evil mistress of the house, who brings misfortune instead of comfort.

2. Dorpat/Yuryev University

• 1632–1893: Academia Gustaviana / University of Dorpat (Latin: Academia Gustaviana, German: Universität Dorpat). Founded by Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus.

• 1802–1893: Imperial University of Dorpat (Russian: Дерптский императорский университет). Reopened by Emperor Alexander I of Russia after a period of closure.

• 1893–1918: Imperial University of Yuryev (Russian: Императорский Юрьевский университет). Renamed after the Russian name for the city (”Yuryev” instead of the German “Dorpat”).

• 1919–Present: University of Tartu (Estonian: Tartu Ülikool). After Estonia’s independence, the city’s Estonian name, Tartu, became official, and the university was re-established as the national university of Estonia.