Today marks the 65th anniversary when the Red Army re-occupied the Estonian capital. German forces had already evacuated some days before, a provisional free Estonian government had been inducted into office, and the national blue-black-white flag was again flying over the capital. For the second time in four years, the Red Army tore down the Estonian flag, destroyed Estonian sovereignty, re-imposed Stalinist mass terror over the civilian population, resumed arbitrary executions, arrests and mass deportations of thousands upon thousands of civilians to Siberia, and called it “liberation”. The Kremlin still calls it that.
In honor of the “liberation”, Russian Federation ambassador Nikolai Uspenski laid flowers at the foot of the Bronze Soldier monument, now re-located to a military cemetery a couple of kilometers from its old down-town site.
I wonder how Russians might feel if the German ambassador placed a wreath at the outskirts of St Petersburg or on the approaches of Moscow to commemorate the arrival of the “liberating” Wehrmacht? “Oh, but that would be an intolerable provocation,” I hear you say. And you are right.
As usual, the accusation is full of storm and fury, but factually quite inaccurate.
No one is “rehabilitating” anyone. The event which earns the ire of the Russian MFA is the annual commemoration of the most violent battles ever held on Estonian territory, with the greatest number of victims. For approximately 5 months in 1944 Estonians fighting in German uniform (there was no Estonian army, Moscow had already dismantled that in 1940) amazingly held back the Russian re-invasion of their country. The memory of the brutal Soviet occupation of 1940-41 was fresh in Estonians’ memory, and it was hoped that they could delay a Russians’ return until the war itself ended, and before the horrors of renewed Stalinist terror could be re-imposed.
Contrary to MFA bluster, there is no “criminal connivance” by anyone in this celebration, no “propagandizing the ideology of neo-Nazism,” no “xenophobia and racism,” no “blasphemous attempts to rehabilitate ex-SS men,” no “pathos of pseudo-patriotism as a cover,” and no “desecration of the memory of the millions of victims of fascism.” Only the commemoration of those who sacrificed their lives to prevent the return of Stalinist terror.
Sadly, Estonians were unable to finally prevent the return of that Stalinist horror to their land, nor to avoid another 50 years of Soviet occupation. The fact that post-Soviet Russia not only decries their attempt to resist the return of Soviet slavery, but criticises its commemoration as dishonestly as it does, is a disgrace. As is the fact that Moscow has never expressed even the least regret or condolence, let alone apologise for, the crimes that Russians under the Soviet flag wreaked on Estonia.
To USA’74: I have no problems with your posts at all, and am happy to read them. I merely highlight that they don’t reveal anything particularly about the Baltics, but only about their writer. Sweeping statements of accusation that are not joined with verifiable facts, and whose writer declines to provide details of relevant facts even when requested to do so, merely reveal that what their writer dislikes, he dislikes very, very much. And that’s all. I respect such people and I acknowledge that they have a right to their view. But I don’t respect unsubstantiated views that seek to be represented as realities on the strength of nothing more than their proponents’ bias.
Bias needn’t be limited to individuals – it can also be expressed collectively. For example, you write, “According to official media Estonia surely does mistreat them (the Russian minority), regardless what arguments you produce here on this forum.” Realities are not created by an “official media” opining something. They exist in their own right, and can be demonstrated by verifiable, cross-checkable reports. Such reports are entirely lacking in allegations from whatever source regarding supposed mistreatment of any minorities in Estonia. These kind of efforts reveal nothing about Estonia, only about the media that run them. And by co-incidence, only Russian "official media" seem to run them.
Wheter Marzipan likes it or not this is a forum where we can all answer to some comments made, and this particular comment I made was a simple response to your comment of 12/7 where you Yourself brought up this topic. Seemingly you don't like my answer and comparison I made, where those trucks waiting to pass into EU also have to wait for 1 week or a day less. This illustrates your inability to respect other opinions. I fear the future of Estonia if all Estonians should share your same reasoning. I advice you not to bring up any arguements, which may give you some unpleasant responds afterwards. It only uncovers your irritated and intolerant nature. By the way, since we can speak up frankly here, I totally understand why there isn't any line of trucks waiting to pass into Estonia? It simply isn't a business and trade route. About the title of this forum, wheter Russian minority groups are being mistreated in Baltic states? According to official media Estonia surely does mistreat them, regardless what arguements you produce here on this forum.
USA’74 writes, “Why don't you go and check out the lines at that particular border passing and find out the endless line of trucks waiting to enter the EU!” If USA’74 has a problem with those particular lines, then it is up to him/her to precisely detail that problem if it is relevant to the thread, and not ask us to do his/her homework for him/her. And after details of the vehicle lines at those border crossings have been detailed and brought to us by USA’74, he/she should also point out whether they are of a magnitude that requires a truck to wait in line for one week before being able to cross the border.
The title of this thread is, “Are Russian minority groups mistreated by the Baltic States.” I have detailed in many posts that while Russians’ colonial rights no longer pertain in the Baltics, and while this may displease some Russians, no minority group is being mistreated there. However, one may imagine the response of a truck driver lined up at Narva for one whole week, going nowhere, if asked whether people of all nationalities attempting to drive goods vehicles from Estonia to Russia are being mistreated by Russia.
Once again I reply to you in an objective manner, simply making it clear to you that you picked up an *** arguement for again criticizing the Russians! Why don't you go and check out the lines at that particular border passing and find out the endless line of trucks waiting to enter the EU! Living in a Baltic country shouldn't make it too hard for you to take your car and check this matter out!! I remember some 12 years ago, travelling from Poland to Germany at the Swiecko-Frankfurt/Oder border crossing a lenght of trucks passing the 30 Km to enter the EU-Schengen at that time. The point is, these formalities are in both ways too exagerated. About visa-application waiting at EU-embassies, just go to Moscow, or Minsk and see how those people stand in a +/- 50m line only to apply for a visa paying at least 65 Euros in advance and very often being refused without any relevant reason. Applying for a Russian visa takes me approx. 100$ and 30 minutes of my time. That is the difference!
USA’74, since you bring up the matter of the Polish-Belarus border, perhaps you can tell us whether it also takes a week’s worth of waiting before trucks can cross the border there. I’ve no idea how long it takes, but I doubt that it reaches Russia’s high standards of obfuscation.
As for queues for visa applications, most places where I have ever had to apply for a visa to anywhere have involved waiting. Yet neither I nor anyone I know has had to literally stand in line for a week. I doubt that they wait for a week outside EU consulates in Russia, either. My guess is that what might irk some Russians about access to the Baltics is not the queue at the counter, but the fact that they have to apply for a visa at all. Some have still not got over mentality that the Baltics are Russia’s, for Russians to come and go as they please.
Border controls to prevent contraband or dangerous items being brought into a country, and immigration controls to prevent potentially dangerous or indigent people from entering are entirely legitimate. This is all the more so in regard to the EU, since once a foreigner has passed the initial checkpoint, his movement throughout the internal Schengen region of the EU will thereafter be completely unhindered. Misusing border formalities as a punitive measure is childish at best, and damaging to the political and economic interests of the offending country at worst. Russian border formalities are either hopelessly incompetent or deliberately malevolent – you decide which, and which you think is better.
Why don't you critizise the lenght of queues of people waiting in front of the Estonian or any other EU embassy in Russia, simply to apply for a visa? Is only the EU entitled to the use of many formalities which result in monstreous queues of people at embassies or traffic at border checkpoints? Besides of that considering your arguement, go and check the length of trucks at the Belarus-Polish border, and see how long it takes to enter Poland.
To illustrate the ongoing petty hostility that Russia continues to show towards Estonia, the border crossing point at Narva has always been an important gateway for commerce between the two countries. It has also always been a choke point where the Russian side chooses to give tangible expression to its hostility towards Estonia by deliberately delaying customs formalities to road traffic. Over the years, there have been monstrous queues of trucks waiting on the mercies of the Russian border controls. As I write, the line of trucks waiting on the Estonian side numbers 500, and the waiting time for crossing the border is one week!
To USA’74: I have explained elsewhere why some Estonians, just like Finns, chose to fight alongside Germans – Russian aggression against Finland and Estonia in 1939-40, at a time when they were at peace, drove them to resist the Red Army in any way they could. For Finland, it was a decision of their government; for Estonia, which had no government and was under German occupation, it was a decision of individual men. Neither fought for, or had any interest in, German war aims.
Most Estonians fought honourably and with valour against the Red Army. A few – very few – to Estonia’s everlasting shame, did participate in German war crimes. An action in Belarus involved German atrocities against civilians, and it is known that Estonian troops were part of that German unit and were at the least present there. No formal accusations have been made against particular Estonians, but it is reasonable to assume that some did participate. This was, and remains, absolutely inexcusable. Estonia has apologised numerous times for these kind of isolated incidents, even though, in contrast to German and Russian crimes these were never an expression any Estonian government action or policy. And for what it’s worth, I do too, if I knew who to apologise to.
It remains for Russia to apologise for its overwhelming crimes which its people, under the Soviet flag, committed against Estonia, not just during the War, but throughout 50 years of illegal occupation. Such apologies, no matter from whom, unfortunately make not even one thing better in the past. But they can help make a very much better future for everyone. It’s a pity that Russia and most Russians don’t see it that way.
I got my research materials from the source : Belarusian families who lost their loved ones by the hands from Estonian nazi collaborateurs. And you, from the Estonian nazi collaborateurs I suppose?
To USA’74: What you write unfortunately shows a complete – and I mean a complete – ignorance of pre-war Estonia. If you do even the merest research you will discover the following:
(1) Estonia was strictly neutral throughout the 1930s. At no time did it ever enter into any alliance with Nazi Germany. This was in sharp contrast to the Soviet Union, which allied itself with the Third Reich through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, and then immediately, hand-in hand with Germany set about attacking and partitioning Poland in accordance with the terms of that Pact. World War 2 followed.
(2) Despite its neutrality Soviet Moscow invaded and occupied it in 1940, to be replaced by German occupants in 1941, and with Soviets again in 1944 who this time stayed until 1991. Over all that time Estonia had no government of its own which could establish policies or enter alliances. At no time was Estonia ever in any alliance with Nazi Germany. Estonia has never trusted Nazis, but to its great cost it did trust Soviet Russia before Russia savaged it in 1940.
(3) Estonia has no anti-Russian policies today, whether dumb or otherwise. In fact, it has no anti-anyone policies. All its policies are pro-Estonian, as its responsibility.
No, Estonia's big mistake in the inter-war period was assuming that siding with nazi's , the at that time strongest military power, they could have their piece of ruling over the SU, and that backfired heavily losing the war side by side with the fascists. You don't seem to trust the Russians, but fascists you trusted very well welcoming them into your 'independent' Estonia not firing a single shot. Having been under Soviet control is therfor a logical result for being the little helpers of killers of millions of innocent Russian and Belarusian people. Now, instead of providing the Estonian people with dumb irrelevant anti-Russian policies, they'd better start to improve the countries' economic and financial situation, because this is what the Estonian people actual more need!!
To 007: While history never quite repeats itself, certain historical traits do have a habit of coming to the fore again even after cosmetic changes may have tried to cover them. Russian chauvinism, which was on such naked display for fifty years in the Soviet framework, has not disappeared simply because the framework crumbled. Nor was it something that Soviet Russia invented. Before Soviet times it was expressed within the framework of Imperial Russia, and now it is expressed within the framework of Russian nationalism. While this does cause history to repeat, it does evoke a similar kind of dynamic between Russia and its neighbours.
Regarding Estonia historically being “caught flat-footed,” Estonia’s huge mistake in the inter-War period was that it trusted Russia. Because of its experience as part of the previous Tsarist Empire, Estonia was oriented to the way that Russia used to be. So when Russia signed treaties with it in 1920 and later, it at least believed that Soviet Russia was honourable to the same degree as Tsarist Russia had been, and would keep its word. Estonia could not conceive of the perfidy and horror of a Stalinist Russia. Based on its misplaced belief in Russia, Estonia sought a policy of strict neutrality in the years leading up to WW2. All this achieved was an invasion and occupation by Moscow, followed by a further invasion and occupation by Germany, followed by an even more savage repeat occupation by Moscow, lasting for another fifty years.
Estonia will not make that same mistake again. It will not base its security on Russian promises, but on broadly-based alliances. It has also learned that when one makes concessions to Russia, it is never enough – the first is followed by demands for another and another and another. Russia might talk about co-existence and mutual respect, but actions are something else again.
I agree, it is good to treat each other well. But it is vital to also treat each other realistically.
This is a fantastic forum and the Estonian posts both for and against provide wonderful background information on issues. Isn’t it amazing how much damage a world war does, 60 years later and the wounds are still raw and for some it only ended 20 years ago. My feeling on the whole thing is that change doesn’t always mean the grass is greener, one should be cautious, and any smaller country would be wise in taking as neutral a position as possible. I believe one should expect unexpected shifts in power structures. I think those sudden swings in power during the war caught Estonia flat footed every time, and it was always on the losing side. Why I mention it, is because it seems history is repeating itself. Neutral and accommodating is good, because just what are you going to do, if Europe and Russia decide they best friends, or the USA, Russia and China decide they best friends. Lets hope this time our leaders are all a lot wiser, reading the blogs, it doesn’t seem so, they cant see the forest for the tree’s. It really is a good idea to treat everyone well.
For an astonishing glimpse of Russia’s determination to keep historical archive material about Stalin’s crimes against the Baltics, Poland and Finland and Eastern Europe unavailable to researchers, see the article by Vladimir Rzyhkov entitled “History Under Lock and Key” in the current web edition of The St Petersburg times ( http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=29239 ). Kind of makes a mockery of Medvedev’s commission against the falsification of history. (Marzipan6)
Here’s a general indicator of the kind of the kind of attitude Russia maintains towards even Lithuania, the one Baltic country with whom it has no dispute over citizenship issues. Gorbachov has just given an interview to the Lithuanian newspaper, Lietuvos Rytas. When asked how he assesses current Russian-Lithuanian relations, Gorbachov answered, “In time all should go well.” But when the reporter then asked why did Lithuania have to experience the events of 13 January 1991, Gorbachov abruptly terminated the interview. On the night of January 13, 1991 Soviet troops under Gorbachov’s command killed fourteen Lithuanians. Whether it is fourteen unarmed Lithuanians killed by Soviet troops in their own capital, some under the treads of Red Army tanks in 1991, or whether it’s the multiple thousands of Baltic civilians killed and multiple tens of thousands transported into Siberian Slavery over the preceding fifty years, the Russian response is precisely the same: a tense, stony silence. Including on each June 14, which is the day of mourning in all three Baltic countries on the anniversary of the first mass Soviet deportations in 1941. (Marzipan6)
"Unfortunately in Estonia, the government had a different agenda, to practice collective punishment against ethnic Russians and others."
It wasn't collective punishment. It was realpolitik. A political force determined that to meet their objectives -- mainly, at that time, radical economic reforms and complete divorce from the sinking Soviet state -- they would have to not extend franchise to a portion of the population. They had no leverage over that population which was, and still is to a large extent, dependent on Russian state TV. Part of that population was also hostile to independence. Had they won, the very leaders that were steering the Estonian state might have been arrested or worse. Probably worse. The restored state didn't *disenfranchise* anybody as this part of the population was never Estonian citizens to begin with. And seeing as that a large chunk of those who were not enfranchised were actually born in Russia, and something like 150,000 people left Estonia for Russia in the early 1990s, they were correct in some ways. Only now that the tap of new workers from Russia has been turned off and most of them naturalized can we lament the political decisions of the early 1990s. Still, even today, half of the stateless were born in Russia. Even if you gave Estonian citizenship to everyone born on the territory of Estonia, there would still be 50,000 stateless persons.
"Its not only 100,000, its about 1 in 3, that is not a small number."
That is the figure from the Amnesty Report and it is based on two things: a) the 2000 census, which states that 32 percent of the population were not native Estonian speakers and b) the existence of the Language Inspectorate to enforce the Language Law. The citizenship issue does not affect one third of the population, as only 7.6 percent of the population are stateless. Russian citizens are Russian citizens. Just as American citizens in Estonia remain American citizens, even if they were born here, even if they have lived here for years.
Now, Amnesty and the UN have taken issue with the Language Inspectorate. Most agree that there should be *some* school reform so that these kids can function in the majority language without the stresses of older generations. But there is also an issue of how that is carried out. One thing is certain, the Soviet legacy of segregated schools has to come to an end. You wind up with classes of kids who are still monolingual,can't find work, and suspicious of the state whenever it steps in and tries to change anything.
They are more likely to be unemployed anyway because they live in cities that were hit hardest by the fall of the Soviet economy. Narva and Kohtla-Järve were dormitory-style Soviet cities. Of course, since most of Estonia's Russians live there, and since they were hit hardest by the economic collapse, there is a higher unemployment rate among Estonian Russians. Then again, the poorest regions in the country continue to be in rural southeastern Estonia.
Still, there are actually a litany of international laws and regulations that Estonia has been urged to adopt, such as the Convention on Stateless Persons or the European Charter on Minority and Regional Languages. Basically, every European country fails to adequately protect some of its minorities according to various NGOs and interest groups. I read the same reports on Russians in Finland and, wouldn't you know, they also complain of discrimination. never mind the Roma in Slovakia or Hungary but, then again, there is no gigantic, nuclear-armed Roma state on their border. I won't bring up Russia's human rights situation though. Let's keep this forum PG.
I personally am not opposed to Estonia adopting any of these laws or suggestions because none of them say that Estonia has to become an officially bilingual state. I oppose that because I think its unfair. Russians can count on a neighboring country to produce a ridiculous amount of media for them to consume. They have all the possibility to lose their language of an Anglophone in Montreal. Estonian is a language spoken by only a million people in the world. Of course, the state needs to protect that language.
None of these official recommendations press Estonia to renounce its legal continuity and pretend that it came into existence in 1991, not 1918, either. I strongly disagree with the Russian Federation that Estonia is a "new state." I think that opinion is the outcome of a self serving version of history, whereby they are not responsible for anything done by Moscow prior to 1991 (except, of course, territorial gains and treaties in their favor).
It is very clear to me that Estonian statehood began in 1918. By the way, Estonia became an autonomous province with its own government and army under Prince Lvov and Alexander Kerensky. Its statehood is not only a legacy of the Bolsheviks. One could argue that, had the Whites more foresight, they might have accepted Estonian and Finnish statehood and been able to count on their support in retaking Petrograd.
"The Russian community as whole, that includes citizens, have themselves consistently said they are being denied their rights and discriminated against."
Well, that is what Russian state media says all the time, isn't it? If my state continuously told me I was repressed, I might also believe it.
"The top of the leadership of Soviet Estonia were always in the hands of ethnic Estonians."
They were ethnic Estonians raised in Russia. Nikolai Karotamm, Ivan Käbin, and Kirill Vaino were all raised in Russia. It would be the relative equivalent of if the United States took over Russia and imported some second-generation Russian-American leaders who grew up in Brooklyn or Chicago and could barely speak Russian properly, to run the state. I am sure the Russians under occupation would see such leadership as being comprised of foreigners.
22 September, 2009, 11:47
Today marks the 65th anniversary when the Red Army re-occupied the Estonian capital. German forces had already evacuated some days before, a provisional free Estonian government had been inducted into office, and the national blue-black-white flag was again flying over the capital. For the second time in four years, the Red Army tore down the Estonian flag, destroyed Estonian sovereignty, re-imposed Stalinist mass terror over the civilian population, resumed arbitrary executions, arrests and mass deportations of thousands upon thousands of civilians to Siberia, and called it “liberation”. The Kremlin still calls it that.
In honor of the “liberation”, Russian Federation ambassador Nikolai Uspenski laid flowers at the foot of the Bronze Soldier monument, now re-located to a military cemetery a couple of kilometers from its old down-town site.
I wonder how Russians might feel if the German ambassador placed a wreath at the outskirts of St Petersburg or on the approaches of Moscow to commemorate the arrival of the “liberating” Wehrmacht? “Oh, but that would be an intolerable provocation,” I hear you say. And you are right.
29 July, 2009, 14:37
Here's the part of my preceding post which for some reason didn't make it to the Forum:
"Another day, another outrageous accusation against Estonia by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. You may read it in full on its website.
*****
29 July, 2009, 11:41
As usual, the accusation is full of storm and fury, but factually quite inaccurate.
No one is “rehabilitating” anyone. The event which earns the ire of the Russian MFA is the annual commemoration of the most violent battles ever held on Estonian territory, with the greatest number of victims. For approximately 5 months in 1944 Estonians fighting in German uniform (there was no Estonian army, Moscow had already dismantled that in 1940) amazingly held back the Russian re-invasion of their country. The memory of the brutal Soviet occupation of 1940-41 was fresh in Estonians’ memory, and it was hoped that they could delay a Russians’ return until the war itself ended, and before the horrors of renewed Stalinist terror could be re-imposed.
Contrary to MFA bluster, there is no “criminal connivance” by anyone in this celebration, no “propagandizing the ideology of neo-Nazism,” no “xenophobia and racism,” no “blasphemous attempts to rehabilitate ex-SS men,” no “pathos of pseudo-patriotism as a cover,” and no “desecration of the memory of the millions of victims of fascism.” Only the commemoration of those who sacrificed their lives to prevent the return of Stalinist terror.
Sadly, Estonians were unable to finally prevent the return of that Stalinist horror to their land, nor to avoid another 50 years of Soviet occupation. The fact that post-Soviet Russia not only decries their attempt to resist the return of Soviet slavery, but criticises its commemoration as dishonestly as it does, is a disgrace. As is the fact that Moscow has never expressed even the least regret or condolence, let alone apologise for, the crimes that Russians under the Soviet flag wreaked on Estonia.
16 July, 2009, 09:50
To USA’74: I have no problems with your posts at all, and am happy to read them. I merely highlight that they don’t reveal anything particularly about the Baltics, but only about their writer. Sweeping statements of accusation that are not joined with verifiable facts, and whose writer declines to provide details of relevant facts even when requested to do so, merely reveal that what their writer dislikes, he dislikes very, very much. And that’s all. I respect such people and I acknowledge that they have a right to their view. But I don’t respect unsubstantiated views that seek to be represented as realities on the strength of nothing more than their proponents’ bias.
Bias needn’t be limited to individuals – it can also be expressed collectively. For example, you write, “According to official media Estonia surely does mistreat them (the Russian minority), regardless what arguments you produce here on this forum.” Realities are not created by an “official media” opining something. They exist in their own right, and can be demonstrated by verifiable, cross-checkable reports. Such reports are entirely lacking in allegations from whatever source regarding supposed mistreatment of any minorities in Estonia. These kind of efforts reveal nothing about Estonia, only about the media that run them. And by co-incidence, only Russian "official media" seem to run them.
15 July, 2009, 14:26
Wheter Marzipan likes it or not this is a forum where we can all answer to some comments made, and this particular comment I made was a simple response to your comment of 12/7 where you Yourself brought up this topic. Seemingly you don't like my answer and comparison I made, where those trucks waiting to pass into EU also have to wait for 1 week or a day less. This illustrates your inability to respect other opinions. I fear the future of Estonia if all Estonians should share your same reasoning.
I advice you not to bring up any arguements, which may give you some unpleasant responds afterwards. It only uncovers your irritated and intolerant nature.
By the way, since we can speak up frankly here, I totally understand why there isn't any line of trucks waiting to pass into Estonia? It simply isn't a business and trade route.
About the title of this forum, wheter Russian minority groups are being mistreated in Baltic states? According to official media Estonia surely does mistreat them, regardless what arguements you produce here on this forum.
15 July, 2009, 10:55
USA’74 writes, “Why don't you go and check out the lines at that particular border passing and find out the endless line of trucks waiting to enter the EU!” If USA’74 has a problem with those particular lines, then it is up to him/her to precisely detail that problem if it is relevant to the thread, and not ask us to do his/her homework for him/her. And after details of the vehicle lines at those border crossings have been detailed and brought to us by USA’74, he/she should also point out whether they are of a magnitude that requires a truck to wait in line for one week before being able to cross the border.
The title of this thread is, “Are Russian minority groups mistreated by the Baltic States.” I have detailed in many posts that while Russians’ colonial rights no longer pertain in the Baltics, and while this may displease some Russians, no minority group is being mistreated there. However, one may imagine the response of a truck driver lined up at Narva for one whole week, going nowhere, if asked whether people of all nationalities attempting to drive goods vehicles from Estonia to Russia are being mistreated by Russia.
13 July, 2009, 14:43
Once again I reply to you in an objective manner, simply making it clear to you that you picked up an *** arguement for again criticizing the Russians!
Why don't you go and check out the lines at that particular border passing and find out the endless line of trucks waiting to enter the EU! Living in a
Baltic country shouldn't make it too hard for you to take your car and check this matter out!!
I remember some 12 years ago, travelling from Poland to Germany at the Swiecko-Frankfurt/Oder border crossing a lenght of trucks passing the 30 Km
to enter the EU-Schengen at that time. The point is, these formalities are in both ways too exagerated.
About visa-application waiting at EU-embassies, just go to Moscow, or Minsk and see how those people stand in a +/- 50m line only to apply for a visa
paying at least 65 Euros in advance and very often being refused without any relevant reason.
Applying for a Russian visa takes me approx. 100$ and 30 minutes of my time. That is the difference!
13 July, 2009, 10:06
USA’74, since you bring up the matter of the Polish-Belarus border, perhaps you can tell us whether it also takes a week’s worth of waiting before trucks can cross the border there. I’ve no idea how long it takes, but I doubt that it reaches Russia’s high standards of obfuscation.
As for queues for visa applications, most places where I have ever had to apply for a visa to anywhere have involved waiting. Yet neither I nor anyone I know has had to literally stand in line for a week. I doubt that they wait for a week outside EU consulates in Russia, either. My guess is that what might irk some Russians about access to the Baltics is not the queue at the counter, but the fact that they have to apply for a visa at all. Some have still not got over mentality that the Baltics are Russia’s, for Russians to come and go as they please.
Border controls to prevent contraband or dangerous items being brought into a country, and immigration controls to prevent potentially dangerous or indigent people from entering are entirely legitimate. This is all the more so in regard to the EU, since once a foreigner has passed the initial checkpoint, his movement throughout the internal Schengen region of the EU will thereafter be completely unhindered. Misusing border formalities as a punitive measure is childish at best, and damaging to the political and economic interests of the offending country at worst. Russian border formalities are either hopelessly incompetent or deliberately malevolent – you decide which, and which you think is better.
12 July, 2009, 18:39
Why don't you critizise the lenght of queues of people waiting in front of the Estonian or any other EU embassy in Russia, simply to apply for a visa?
Is only the EU entitled to the use of many formalities which result in monstreous queues of people at embassies or traffic at border checkpoints?
Besides of that considering your arguement, go and check the length of trucks at the Belarus-Polish border, and see how long it takes to enter Poland.
12 July, 2009, 02:00
To illustrate the ongoing petty hostility that Russia continues to show towards Estonia, the border crossing point at Narva has always been an important gateway for commerce between the two countries. It has also always been a choke point where the Russian side chooses to give tangible expression to its hostility towards Estonia by deliberately delaying customs formalities to road traffic. Over the years, there have been monstrous queues of trucks waiting on the mercies of the Russian border controls. As I write, the line of trucks waiting on the Estonian side numbers 500, and the waiting time for crossing the border is one week!
Kind of hard to love a neighbour like that.
07 July, 2009, 12:50
To USA’74: I have explained elsewhere why some Estonians, just like Finns, chose to fight alongside Germans – Russian aggression against Finland and Estonia in 1939-40, at a time when they were at peace, drove them to resist the Red Army in any way they could. For Finland, it was a decision of their government; for Estonia, which had no government and was under German occupation, it was a decision of individual men. Neither fought for, or had any interest in, German war aims.
Most Estonians fought honourably and with valour against the Red Army. A few – very few – to Estonia’s everlasting shame, did participate in German war crimes. An action in Belarus involved German atrocities against civilians, and it is known that Estonian troops were part of that German unit and were at the least present there. No formal accusations have been made against particular Estonians, but it is reasonable to assume that some did participate. This was, and remains, absolutely inexcusable. Estonia has apologised numerous times for these kind of isolated incidents, even though, in contrast to German and Russian crimes these were never an expression any Estonian government action or policy. And for what it’s worth, I do too, if I knew who to apologise to.
It remains for Russia to apologise for its overwhelming crimes which its people, under the Soviet flag, committed against Estonia, not just during the War, but throughout 50 years of illegal occupation. Such apologies, no matter from whom, unfortunately make not even one thing better in the past. But they can help make a very much better future for everyone. It’s a pity that Russia and most Russians don’t see it that way.
06 July, 2009, 17:35
I got my research materials from the source : Belarusian families who lost their loved ones by the hands from Estonian nazi collaborateurs.
And you, from the Estonian nazi collaborateurs I suppose?
05 July, 2009, 12:47
To USA’74: What you write unfortunately shows a complete – and I mean a complete – ignorance of pre-war Estonia. If you do even the merest research you will discover the following:
(1) Estonia was strictly neutral throughout the 1930s. At no time did it ever enter into any alliance with Nazi Germany. This was in sharp contrast to the Soviet Union, which allied itself with the Third Reich through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, and then immediately, hand-in hand with Germany set about attacking and partitioning Poland in accordance with the terms of that Pact. World War 2 followed.
(2) Despite its neutrality Soviet Moscow invaded and occupied it in 1940, to be replaced by German occupants in 1941, and with Soviets again in 1944 who this time stayed until 1991. Over all that time Estonia had no government of its own which could establish policies or enter alliances. At no time was Estonia ever in any alliance with Nazi Germany. Estonia has never trusted Nazis, but to its great cost it did trust Soviet Russia before Russia savaged it in 1940.
(3) Estonia has no anti-Russian policies today, whether dumb or otherwise. In fact, it has no anti-anyone policies. All its policies are pro-Estonian, as its responsibility.
04 July, 2009, 10:21
No, Estonia's big mistake in the inter-war period was assuming that siding with nazi's , the at that time strongest military power, they could have their piece of ruling over the SU, and that backfired heavily losing the war side by side with the fascists. You don't seem to trust the Russians, but fascists you trusted very well welcoming them into your 'independent' Estonia not firing a single shot. Having been under Soviet control is therfor a logical result for being the little helpers of killers of millions of innocent Russian and Belarusian people.
Now, instead of providing the Estonian people with dumb irrelevant anti-Russian policies, they'd better start to improve the countries' economic and financial situation, because this is what the Estonian people actual more need!!
02 July, 2009, 10:50
To 007: While history never quite repeats itself, certain historical traits do have a habit of coming to the fore again even after cosmetic changes may have tried to cover them. Russian chauvinism, which was on such naked display for fifty years in the Soviet framework, has not disappeared simply because the framework crumbled. Nor was it something that Soviet Russia invented. Before Soviet times it was expressed within the framework of Imperial Russia, and now it is expressed within the framework of Russian nationalism. While this does cause history to repeat, it does evoke a similar kind of dynamic between Russia and its neighbours.
Regarding Estonia historically being “caught flat-footed,” Estonia’s huge mistake in the inter-War period was that it trusted Russia. Because of its experience as part of the previous Tsarist Empire, Estonia was oriented to the way that Russia used to be. So when Russia signed treaties with it in 1920 and later, it at least believed that Soviet Russia was honourable to the same degree as Tsarist Russia had been, and would keep its word. Estonia could not conceive of the perfidy and horror of a Stalinist Russia. Based on its misplaced belief in Russia, Estonia sought a policy of strict neutrality in the years leading up to WW2. All this achieved was an invasion and occupation by Moscow, followed by a further invasion and occupation by Germany, followed by an even more savage repeat occupation by Moscow, lasting for another fifty years.
Estonia will not make that same mistake again. It will not base its security on Russian promises, but on broadly-based alliances. It has also learned that when one makes concessions to Russia, it is never enough – the first is followed by demands for another and another and another. Russia might talk about co-existence and mutual respect, but actions are something else again.
I agree, it is good to treat each other well. But it is vital to also treat each other realistically.
02 July, 2009, 08:53
Err......yes
17 June, 2009, 23:21
This is a fantastic forum and the Estonian posts both for and against provide wonderful background information on issues.
Isn’t it amazing how much damage a world war does, 60 years later and the wounds are still raw and for some it only ended 20 years ago.
My feeling on the whole thing is that change doesn’t always mean the grass is greener, one should be cautious, and any smaller country would be wise in taking as neutral a position as possible.
I believe one should expect unexpected shifts in power structures.
I think those sudden swings in power during the war caught Estonia flat footed every time, and it was always on the losing side.
Why I mention it, is because it seems history is repeating itself.
Neutral and accommodating is good, because just what are you going to do, if Europe and Russia decide they best friends, or the USA, Russia and China decide they best friends. Lets hope this time our leaders are all a lot wiser, reading the blogs, it doesn’t seem so, they cant see the forest for the tree’s.
It really is a good idea to treat everyone well.
15 June, 2009, 12:12
For an astonishing glimpse of Russia’s determination to keep historical archive material about Stalin’s crimes against the Baltics, Poland and Finland and Eastern Europe unavailable to researchers, see the article by Vladimir Rzyhkov entitled “History Under Lock and Key” in the current web edition of The St Petersburg times ( http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=29239 ). Kind of makes a mockery of Medvedev’s commission against the falsification of history. (Marzipan6)
14 June, 2009, 13:30
Here’s a general indicator of the kind of the kind of attitude Russia maintains towards even Lithuania, the one Baltic country with whom it has no dispute over citizenship issues. Gorbachov has just given an interview to the Lithuanian newspaper, Lietuvos Rytas. When asked how he assesses current Russian-Lithuanian relations, Gorbachov answered, “In time all should go well.” But when the reporter then asked why did Lithuania have to experience the events of 13 January 1991, Gorbachov abruptly terminated the interview. On the night of January 13, 1991 Soviet troops under Gorbachov’s command killed fourteen Lithuanians. Whether it is fourteen unarmed Lithuanians killed by Soviet troops in their own capital, some under the treads of Red Army tanks in 1991, or whether it’s the multiple thousands of Baltic civilians killed and multiple tens of thousands transported into Siberian Slavery over the preceding fifty years, the Russian response is precisely the same: a tense, stony silence. Including on each June 14, which is the day of mourning in all three Baltic countries on the anniversary of the first mass Soviet deportations in 1941. (Marzipan6)
07 June, 2009, 08:56
"Unfortunately in Estonia, the government had a different agenda, to practice collective punishment against ethnic Russians and others."
It wasn't collective punishment. It was realpolitik. A political force determined that to meet their objectives -- mainly, at that time, radical economic reforms and complete divorce from the sinking Soviet state -- they would have to not extend franchise to a portion of the population. They had no leverage over that population which was, and still is to a large extent, dependent on Russian state TV. Part of that population was also hostile to independence. Had they won, the very leaders that were steering the Estonian state might have been arrested or worse. Probably worse. The restored state didn't *disenfranchise* anybody as this part of the population was never Estonian citizens to begin with. And seeing as that a large chunk of those who were not enfranchised were actually born in Russia, and something like 150,000 people left Estonia for Russia in the early 1990s, they were correct in some ways. Only now that the tap of new workers from Russia has been turned off and most of them naturalized can we lament the political decisions of the early 1990s. Still, even today, half of the stateless were born in Russia. Even if you gave Estonian citizenship to everyone born on the territory of Estonia, there would still be 50,000 stateless persons.
"Its not only 100,000, its about 1 in 3, that is not a small number."
That is the figure from the Amnesty Report and it is based on two things: a) the 2000 census, which states that 32 percent of the population were not native Estonian speakers and b) the existence of the Language Inspectorate to enforce the Language Law. The citizenship issue does not affect one third of the population, as only 7.6 percent of the population are stateless. Russian citizens are Russian citizens. Just as American citizens in Estonia remain American citizens, even if they were born here, even if they have lived here for years.
Now, Amnesty and the UN have taken issue with the Language Inspectorate. Most agree that there should be *some* school reform so that these kids can function in the majority language without the stresses of older generations. But there is also an issue of how that is carried out. One thing is certain, the Soviet legacy of segregated schools has to come to an end. You wind up with classes of kids who are still monolingual,can't find work, and suspicious of the state whenever it steps in and tries to change anything.
They are more likely to be unemployed anyway because they live in cities that were hit hardest by the fall of the Soviet economy. Narva and Kohtla-Järve were dormitory-style Soviet cities. Of course, since most of Estonia's Russians live there, and since they were hit hardest by the economic collapse, there is a higher unemployment rate among Estonian Russians. Then again, the poorest regions in the country continue to be in rural southeastern Estonia.
Still, there are actually a litany of international laws and regulations that Estonia has been urged to adopt, such as the Convention on Stateless Persons or the European Charter on Minority and Regional Languages. Basically, every European country fails to adequately protect some of its minorities according to various NGOs and interest groups. I read the same reports on Russians in Finland and, wouldn't you know, they also complain of discrimination. never mind the Roma in Slovakia or Hungary but, then again, there is no gigantic, nuclear-armed Roma state on their border. I won't bring up Russia's human rights situation though. Let's keep this forum PG.
I personally am not opposed to Estonia adopting any of these laws or suggestions because none of them say that Estonia has to become an officially bilingual state. I oppose that because I think its unfair. Russians can count on a neighboring country to produce a ridiculous amount of media for them to consume. They have all the possibility to lose their language of an Anglophone in Montreal. Estonian is a language spoken by only a million people in the world. Of course, the state needs to protect that language.
None of these official recommendations press Estonia to renounce its legal continuity and pretend that it came into existence in 1991, not 1918, either. I strongly disagree with the Russian Federation that Estonia is a "new state." I think that opinion is the outcome of a self serving version of history, whereby they are not responsible for anything done by Moscow prior to 1991 (except, of course, territorial gains and treaties in their favor).
It is very clear to me that Estonian statehood began in 1918. By the way, Estonia became an autonomous province with its own government and army under Prince Lvov and Alexander Kerensky. Its statehood is not only a legacy of the Bolsheviks. One could argue that, had the Whites more foresight, they might have accepted Estonian and Finnish statehood and been able to count on their support in retaking Petrograd.
"The Russian community as whole, that includes citizens, have themselves consistently said they are being denied their rights and discriminated against."
Well, that is what Russian state media says all the time, isn't it? If my state continuously told me I was repressed, I might also believe it.
"The top of the leadership of Soviet Estonia were always in the hands of ethnic Estonians."
They were ethnic Estonians raised in Russia. Nikolai Karotamm, Ivan Käbin, and Kirill Vaino were all raised in Russia. It would be the relative equivalent of if the United States took over Russia and imported some second-generation Russian-American leaders who grew up in Brooklyn or Chicago and could barely speak Russian properly, to run the state. I am sure the Russians under occupation would see such leadership as being comprised of foreigners.
Post comment