Please elaborate, I'm genuinely interested in why you consider them an, exception(?), or example, to your blanket rule that successful countries have power over others.

> While Estonia is successful considering its past , they are nowhere on the level of other developed Western countries.

So Estonia hasn't met your criteria for a 'successful' country (what is your criteria btw?). Is their relative success compared to neighbouring baltic states a result of them exerting force or power over their neighbours or others? Or something else?

> (yet)

Is the only thing stopping them from becoming successful, exerting force or demonstrating power over others, or are they currently suffering from an oppressive regime doing likewise to them (which is holding them back)?