In Estonia, the revolution will be televised

According to Estonian TV station Channel 2, Russian speaking youths are planning an “uprising” in Estonia on May 9th:

According to the television channel, the youth intend to launch a protest on May 1 and begin a general strike the next day that will turn into a revolt on May 9.

The channel predicted that Estonian authorities could use the army to put down the revolt, which would lead to a sharp react from Russia.

Static TVMay 9th is, of course, victory day in Russia, which would offer the symmetry required by television media across the world.

The report follows days of protests and riots by Russian speakers in Estonia, who are aggreived by the Estonian government’s decision to tear down a Soviet war memorial in Talinn and to exhume a number of soldiers buried beneath the monument.

I have to say, I have a great deal of sympathy for the protestors. The Estonian government’s decision comes within the context of continued discrimination against the Russian minority in Estonia – discrimination to which the rest of the European Union seems happy to turn a blind eye.

But I can’t see this getting so out of hand that it goes beyond scattered riots.

You may also like...

41 Responses

  1. James says:

    I don’t disagree with your point here on unfair discrimination, but do you think there’s also an element of domestic politics playing on Russia’s behalf? The Economist posted the following summary analysis:

    “Several factors point to a strong Russian reaction in this case. First, Russia has a track record of criticising or threatening sanctions against Estonia over the treatment of Russian-speakers. Second, the country is now moving into election mode: a parliamentary election is due in December and the presidential vote is less than a year away. Estonia has customarily been an easy target for Russian politicians seeking to burnish their nationalist credentials. As one Estonian diplomat remarked, Estonia is like a small dog that is easy to kick. Third, the provocation in this case is serious: the exhumation of war dead and the removal of a monument commemorating Russia’s unparalleled loss of life in defeating Nazi Germany. Russian President Vladimir Putin has in the past reacted angrily to statements by Baltic politicians that Soviet troops were occupiers. This is not only an affront to Russian national honour; it would, if upheld, also justify Estonian and Latvian policies on citizenship and open the way for financial compensation and territorial claims against Russia.”

    Any thoughts or criticism of this portrayal?

  2. The EU has not turned a blind eye to alleged “discrimination” against ethnic Russians (Russophones, actually… and/or homines sovietici) in Estonia — Estonia and Latvia met all of the EU’s requirements before accession.

    See, for instance, Edward Lucas’ “Estonia is right and Amnesty is wrong.” As Vladimir Socor pointed out yesterday, “99% of local Russians stayed away from these protests despite instigation by Moscow’s television coverage and politicians.”

  3. Andy says:

    James – I can’t really fault the argument, and I don’t doubt that Russia will continue to harangue Estonia in much the way it has previously done.

    However, I don’t really think the Russian government will deliberately try to inflame the situation so that it leads to significant violence (beyond riots, I mean), and I suspect that Estonia’s EU partner states are expressing some serious concerns behind the scenes to encourage the Estonian government to tone down its stance somewhat.

    A significant conflict in Estonia wouldn’t be in the interests of either Russia, or the EU.

    Peteris – I appreciate the arguments, but disagree.

    Estonia found itself in an extremely awkward situation in 1991, to be sure, with two major languages spoken within its territory. It would, in my opinion, have been better to have accepted bilingualism, rather than imposed one language upon all who lived there (assuming they didn’t want to leave). Bilingualism isn’t exactly difficult in the modern world – look at countries like Wales for instance – and the effort would have done much to reconcile relations between Estonia’s Russian and Estonian speaking populations.

    The EU should have been advising Estonia on how best to deal with such a split population (drawing on years of experience – both good and bad – of many of its member states), rather than tacitly supporting Estonia’s current path.

  4. Mike Averko says:

    What was the Estonian government thinking? Polls had/have half its population against the move.

    On language rights, note how Trans-Dniester has the more enlightened policy when compared to Latvia and Estonia. Trans-Dniester is also more at peace when compared to those two.

    Estonia should’ve a more balanced policy on historic issues. The USSR did some not so nice things there. Likewise, some Estonians behaved badly during WW II. The majority of those serving the Red Army (Russians and non-Russians alike) weren’t Communists.

    BTW, Russian as a language has been evident in Estonia for centuries predating Communism.

  5. Andy says:

    Sorry Peteris – I forgot to say – I do agree that the recent riots aren’t fully supported by the majority of the Russian speaking population in Estonia. Although I suspect that the sentiments that they represent (outrage and frustration) probably are supported by the majority.

  6. What was the Estonian government thinking? Polls had/have half its population against the move.

    I think we can say that they were only thinking about one half of the population. The same half that the Estonian government has been favoring for some time now.

    The whole situation could have been handled much better. For example, the government could have announced that they were going to move the statue to the memorial park respectfully (as they did in the end) rather than announcing that it had no place in Estonia.

  7. Mike Averko says:

    As for 99% of Russians in Estonia supposedly not protesting: so what! It doesn’t mean that they’re happy about the situation. When Yankel Rosenbaum was beaten to death in New York City for being a Jew, 99% of New York Jews didn’t go out and protest en masse.

  8. Dear Andy,

    You wrote: “It would, in my opinion, have been better to have accepted bilingualism, rather than imposed one language upon all who lived there (assuming they didn’t want to leave).”

    The majority of Latvians and Estonians don’t share that opinion, precisely because of bitter experience with asymmetrical bilingualism. One language was imposed upon the other — Russian. I live in Daugavpils, Latvia’s second largest city, which is majority Russophone. It is more difficult to be a Lettophone here than it is to be a Russophone, even now. No one is asking the Russophones in Estonia or Latvia to forget Russian. The policies we’ve pursued are working — 15 years ago, only ca. 15% of the Russians in Latvia spoke Latvian (whilst almost all Latvians were fluent in Russian). That leads to language death, something that happens more frequently than “functioning” bilingualism. Today, more than half of the Russians know some Latvian. Over 100 000 have taken the supposedly difficult test and naturalized. Latvian and Estonian are minor languages spoken in no other country — Russian is spoken from here to Chukhotsk and is a second language in many another country. The state languages in Estonia and Latvia are Estonian and Latvian — that doesn’t mean that we don’t have multilingualism. In Latvia, public education is available in six languages, for example. One rarely hears any complaints from any minority other than the imperial one.

    Dear Mike Averko,

    The leader of Stalinist Transnistria’s Cheka is a wanted criminal because of his activities here in the bloody January of 1991. P?ters J?nis Vecrumba comments on Transnistria in text at my blog.

    As to the language situation in the so-called “PMR,” see, for instance, “The policy of linguistic cleansing in Transnistria” (.pdf).

    Regards,
    /P?teris

  9. Michael Averko says:

    Dear P?teris Cedri?š

    That’s not true what you post about Trans-Dniester.

    The three main languages are very much respected in that republic.

    For fact based info on this, see:

    http://tiraspoltimes.com and http://www.bhhrg.org

  10. copydude says:

    The removal of the ‘Soldier’ is part of a deliberate process of cultural cleansing of anything Soviet in Estonia. No one can pretend otherwise.

    Last year, a bill was introduced in Estonia to criminalise the display or possession of anything ‘Soviet’. The removal of just about every other public Russian artefact is testimony to the programme.

    Following cultural cleansing, there is now a form of ethnic cleansing of the minority Russian speakers by the Language Directorate. No one denies this.

    And it’s also a fact that it is against the EU Charter of Human Rights and the EU’s own Treaty of Amsterdam. Which is why Amnesty International has espoused the cause of the marginalised Russian minority.

    No one disputes that Estonians have their grievances. But as members of the EU they have laws and obligations, while desecrating a war grave can hardly be described as anything but a delibierately provocative act. Consider the timing – just before Victory Day. It still remains to be seen whether it will be open to the public on that day.

    Estonia chose to pick a fight with Russia and it’s more than likely it was encouraged in this. The missile bases in Poland are also part of ‘baiting the Bear’ – as is the programme in Latvia to push for occupation reparations – a neo-con initiative. All of it is turning the clock back and not helpful to Europeans living together.

  11. Aleks says:

    “Estonia and Latvia met all of the EU’s requirements before accession.”

    Indeed, but as we have seen, the EC is somewhat flexible on the level of implementation of not just the acquis communautaire (as we have seen recently with Bulgaria which suffers from large scale corruption). Slovenia was also admitted, despite an estimated 10,000 ‘erased’ people (AI, amongst others, has also documented this), so don’t worry, the Balts didn’t set the precedent…

    The EU was built on compromises, exists on compromises and will continue to exist by compromises.

    If the EU was so rigid and exact, how is it that I can dutchman or a german can avoid paying penalties for any driving violations in Belgium (for example)? There are plenty of other examples.

    As ever, most of it comes down to ‘interpretation’ especially in regards to directives, so on the one hand the french government loosely interprets ‘difficult’ directives (and is hence one of the most(?) serious violator of EC directives), where as other governments are more
    strict. In the UK, Brussels gets a lot of stick where the real blame should lie in Westminster where the implenetation is draconian…

    Back to the original subject, why on earth did the government decide to push this? It rather undermines all the ‘efforts’ at integration and if anything alienates the russian minority further, destabliezes domestic and internaitonal politics by handing the Kremlin a stick to smack Tallin and damaging the governments own credibility with other EU member states.

    The statue should have been left as a reminder of the past so that people (estonians and russians) don’t forget and that the past will not be repeated. Hiding the statue away really doesn’t really bathe the goverment in a mature political light.. It’s a real pigs ear (though I’m sure the US is quite happy to continue its divide and rule in europe in a bid to retain its weakening global influence).

  12. Michael Averko says:

    Slovenia which has problems building a mosque in its capital which if I’m not mistaken has none.

  13. mina says:

    First of all I have to salute “rossiski gosudarstvennaja propaganda” for doing good work. As we all know here (at least I hope) Russian media is less than free – so believing any of their statements on that topic ends up usually believing a lie. BBC did learn from their mistakes this time.

    The monument was never meant to be moved so fast nor removed conclusively! Main reason behind the decision to move the monument was its location – center of the capital. It was peaceful for 14 years until it was started to be used for propaganda and ideological purposes by some Russian-speaking groups, financed by Kremlin.

    The lies that spred trough Russian state controlled media were louder than phlegmatic explanations. Everyone can use news.google. to see how much false information have the ITAR-TASS, RIA novosti, Pravda … have distributed .

    The statue is still here and many local Russians – including some of my friends, like the new place (military cemetery 2 km from former location) even more.

    So fewer emotions and more thinking.

    The statue was removed only after the riots around it started – not before. And the dead person was not killed by Estonian police but he died in the hands of another vandal – and had pockets full of stolen stuff.

    Many of the local Russians believed it and some still believe (“thanks to the Russian media”) – that the statue was somehow desecrated or was to be demolished, etc.

    When someone starts talking about Estonians not understanding the history then I have to object. One of my grand-uncles was in the German army and other in the soviet army (and they were brothers). Both of my grand(grand)fathers ended up in Siberia. And many of my relatives never returned – but no hatred, history has shown the wide difference between individual and the state ( russki i rossiiski – if you know what I mean). Eastern Europe was the place where history revealed her “ambivalent face” much more clearly – there is neither good occupation nor better killer.

    In the Russian extremist eyes the statue was not “unknown soldier” but “the liberator”. Most of Russians here understand the problem that lies here. How can you, with any decency, call it a liberator – and this is where Russia played his propaganda card – it still insists that it didn’t occupy Estonia. Can you imagine statue of “German Liberator” in France?

    But for most of the people – even most of the Estonians the “unknown soldier is also sacred. About 50 000 men were involuntarily in Soviet and other ca 50 000 men involuntarily in German army.

    The statue was moved to cemetery to as this is the place for unknown soldier an there those Russian chauvinists wouldn’t be able to abuse it as a propaganda-tool on still fresh wound of the nation whose culture and language were about to be erased. Like “Mari” nation in Russia”.

    Russian media was very eager to display the riots as clash between Estonians and Russians – but it didn’t work out. There were no Estonians on the streets. And those who were stealing and vandalizing were not Russians but thieves and vandals – they have no nationality. Most of the Russians here feel really sad and ashamed. And me too – but the Russian reaction has been extremely repugnant. And shameful.

    For the Russophile:
    “government could have announced that they were going to move the statue to the memorial park respectfully (as they did in the end) rather than announcing that it had no place in Estonia”

    It did, announce it, many times – no further comments.

  14. mina says:

    Sorry , the text is full of slip-ups. I guess I need to sleep a bit. 🙂

  15. Michael Averko says:

    “The monument was never meant to be moved so fast nor removed conclusively! Main reason behind the decision to move the monument was its location – center of the capital. It was peaceful for 14 years until it was started to be used for propaganda and ideological purposes by some Russian-speaking groups, financed by Kremlin.

    The lies that spred trough Russian state controlled media were louder than phlegmatic explanations. Everyone can use news.google. to see how much false information have the ITAR-TASS, RIA novosti, Pravda … have distributed .”

    ****

    The above isn’t a fair accounting. The BBC noted how Estonian nationalists used the mentioned statue site as a meeting ground for their activity.

    Regardless, the level of displayed animosity was nowhere near the level of what the world has recently seen with the move to dismantle the statue.

    The Estonian government is the one in error. Blaming others is an attempt to smoke screen that move.

  16. mina says:

    Estonian nationalist have never ever used the statue as a meeting ground. The problem was that the monument was used as a meeting ground for Russian nationalists who were carrying red flags and they once attacked one man who had Estonian flag. As anyone here can clearly understand the red flag on Estonian soil is the same as nazi flag on French.

    To prevent further provocations the statue was moved – the new location was announced. But Russian media refused to impart the messages – sadly big part of Estonian-Russians rely on Russian channels.

    For what do you blame Estonian government for? For trying to deescalate the situation or for moving the statue to decent location and identifying the remains and giving them proper reburials (which Russia was unable to do for 60 years). Although I also disagree with the government I find that under those circumstances they had no other choice.

    And do not try to make the marauder to represent Estonian-Russian speakers – don’t.

    But who I blame at the moment is Russian government who is using controlled media to spread plain lies. Russia – who doesn’t comply with Vienna convention. I also watch Russian TV channels and their reflection of them situation is propagandistic – reminds me the methods of nazi-germany’s to mobilize the masses and create the “enemy figure”.

  17. Michael Averko says:

    I don’t consider the BBC to be generally sympathetic to mainstream Russian views. One of many examples was when during the worldwide attended May 9, Victory Day commemoration in Moscow, an Estonian official was given carte blanche at the BBC to express views denigrating that event.

    In several instances, the BBC noted that the statue’s former placement was a meeting ground for what were described as Estonian and Russian nationalists.

    The provocation comes from the Estonian government. It’s understandable why many Russians take offence to the dismantling. This doesn’t excuse any violence made in the name of protesting the action.

  18. mina says:

    “meeting ground for what were described as Estonian and Russian nationalists.”

    Now we are getting somewhere. Not Estonian nationalists but Russian and Estonian nationalists. And this was the main reason – as slow as Estonians are, handful of Estonian nationalists (some ex political prisoners in USSR and some young hotheads) started to “pick up” the provocations. They stood at the bus-stop next to the statue with Estonian flags and were attacked.

    And this is the main reason it was moved from the middle of the city to cemetery. I really respect BBC – but even they are prone to mistake or be biased sometime. Because even BBC reflected it as a removal or the statue “that caused riots”. The real course of events was, as we all know, somewhat different. And the statue was never meant to be “removed” but “relocated”.

    But Russia’s actions are most lamentable.

    I added some photos:
    New location of the statue – military cemetery:
    http://www.postimees.ee/foto/1/8/94981463620cea819a_3.jpg
    http://www.epl.ee/pic.php?suurus=s&file=164643

  19. mina says:

    ** “Because even BBC reflected it as a removal of the statue “that caused riots” **

  20. Dear Mike Averko,

    I’m afraid I don’t consider The Tiraspol Times or the BHHRG to be purveyors of “fact-based info.” The BHHRG, always a shady outfit that used the “Helsinki” to deceive, became downright notorious during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. See, for example, David Aaronovitch’s article, “PR man to Europe’s nastiest regimes.” Their views on Latvia may as well have been composed by the Kremlin — or by Rubiks, the criminal leader of the dregs of the hardline Communist Party, who would have led the bloodbath here had the August Putsch succeeded.

    Dear Copydude,

    I think it rather annoying that you’ve copied the same text into comments at different blogs, for instance at mine. It shows that what other people say doesn’t really matter, which is part of why this brouhaha is so tragic — for instance, as Mina pointed out, the Estonian government did announce and discuss the relocation (rather than the destruction, never planned) of the monument repeatedly. It’s quite difficult to communicate if one side is determined to cling to false beliefs. My response to your comment is at my blog, and I won’t repost it here.

  21. Michael Averko says:

    The statue should’ve either stayed put or moved to a respectable location after there was a general consensus with those among Estonia’s population who have sympathty with it. A figure which has been put in the 50% range.

    I really don’t see so much room for disagreement on this thought. This is why the Estoninan government made a poor decision.

    I was pleased to see Clinton’s last ambassador to Russia make a diplomatically worded comment in support of this view.

  22. Michael Averko says:

    Dear P?teris Cedri?š

    With all due respect, I consider such characterizations of TTT and the BHRGG to be propagandistically false.

    I prefer sticking with fact based commentary. This is why I frequent those venues.

  23. Governments make ill-advised decisions all of the time, Mike. Most countries (excepting perhaps Switzerland) don’t hold a referendum for every decision — we’re republics, and we leave governance to professionals, for good or ill. If Estonia did hold a referendum, it’s not the population but the citizens who could vote, and that is as it should be. Polls are just polls. If a referendum were held prior to the horrors of this past week, my guess is that the vote would be “move it” — that’s just a guess, and it is to spite the surveys, with which I’m familiar — but it’s based on my experience with actual referenda (not everybody votes, etc.). Estonians being pragmatic and facing what they face, I suspect the vote would be “leave it alone” if held today.

    Parliamentary democracy of the type we have is a pretty strange animal. The fact that Estonia’s “Russian parties” have fizzled and gone splat against the threshold, to the point where voting isn’t ethnic anymore, says… something. It’s not so here in Latvia, not yet.

    So we are talking about highly charged symbols, and that’s probably obvious to everybody by now.

    Estonia has one of the freest presses in the world and a democracy that is almost miraculously advanced if you take into account the hell it came from, and I think anybody who knows Estonia would agree with that except for those who are hung up on the citizenship issue (in other words, I think even they can appreciate what a remarkably free and smoothly functioning republic Estonia is, if they are fair [they’re often not, IMO]).

    The freely elected government of Estonia made a decision. You know, the UK is an august democracy, but “Bush’s lap dog” went to war for Washington, etc., etc., yet silver-tongued Tony is still PM, despite massive opposition to that decision. That’s how political systems work.

    I suggested previously that the lack of communication disturbs me — but I am familiar with this type of situation. We had a similar thing here in Latvia, regarding education reform. Some of the same people who helped bring about dangerous tension in Latvia are involved with the violence in Estonia (see, for instance,
    this. How was the communication? Introduce a reform that helps Russophones integrate, let schools choose between five tracks of differing types, let maniacal Russophiles develop whatever tracks they can if the five are not good enough, make 60% of schooling in Latvian from tenth grade… Response of Shtab: “They are closing Russian schools!” Better (my personal favorite) — “Russian schools — our Stalingrad!”

  24. Michael Averko says:

    P?teris

    For you, one side is lunatic unlike the other.

    I can’t agree with that seeing what has transpired over the course of time.

    Are you denying that about 50% of the population opposed the satue dismantling?

    Are you denying that it was foolhardy to take it down and provoke this response?

    Sorry, I can’t agree with the decision for the previously stated reasons. I’m not the only one.

  25. mina says:

    “Are you denying that about 50% of the population opposed the satue dismantling”

    Relocating is the right word. And yes, even most of the Estonians opposed it – including me. But the circus around the statue didn’t leave any choice. And believe me – the cemetery is better place for it.

    They way Russia has acted is not civilized. Real abomination.

  26. Michael Averko says:

    So, you disagree with moving it in the way it was done.

    I can understand why Russia, many Russians and others look negatively at the move.

    “Not civilized” and “abomination” are a bit loaded. The same has been said of the Estonian government move.

  27. “Are you denying that about 50% of the population opposed the satue dismantling”

    Where did I deny that? Sorry, but much of any population opposes many a thing. Those of us to the west of Russia have free elections, rule of law, and all that good stuff. A freely elected government moved some unmarked Soviet graves to a cemetery. The reaction has been… well, amazing.

  28. Michael Averko says:

    Russia has “free elections” as well. Putin could’ve been voted out of office in the last prez election. At the more local levels, numerous parties are represented.

    The mentioned reaction is quite understandable with a portion of it being extreme.

    The action of dismantling can be called “amazing”.

  29. mina says:

    “The action of dismantling can be called “amazing”.”

    Not under previousely described circumstances. But the actions of Russia can be called abominable and totally shameful.

  30. Scott says:

    Michael Averko: Are you kidding? Putin could have been voted out? Without anything resembling a free press? Without a candidate that hadn’t been denigrated by the Kremlin propaganda machine from the get-go? Please. And Saddam could have lost in HIS last election.

    As for the Bronze Soldier, it needed to be moved. It was a magnet for trouble in the heart of the city.

    There were graves buried under the trolleybus stop (so honored, no one is really sure who they were or under what circumstances they were killed). They are going to be identified, and moved to the military cemetery in the city.

    Oh, the cemetery. I went there on May 1 to see the Bronze dude. Without that ugly wall and the hammer and sickle emblem making a halo over his head, I thought that it was actually a pretty decent work of art. It’s in a much better place, IMO. And riots aren’t going to start in the midst of the honored dead.

  31. Claus says:

    Scott

    Nothing was stopping the Russian population from voting for any other candidates running in the last presidential election. Nothing kept Yavlinsky and Kasparov from entering that presidential race. All of those who ran in it had plenty of media and travel time.

    You miss the point on the statue’s dismantling. They way it was done ignited a perfectly understandable outrage.

  32. Michael Averko says:

    As stated before, this in no way okays behavior like the roughing up of diplomatic personnel.

  33. copydude says:

    Michael wrote:

    “this in no way okays behavior like the roughing up of diplomatic personnel.”

    Oh come on.

    I’ve been on demos outside American embassies since I was a kid – from Vietnam to Iraq.

    Demonstrating outside an Embassy is a legitimate protest in every other country. Why not in Moscow?

    By the way, the British Ambassador has been needled by Nashi kids for months – ever since he went to an anti-Putin rally during the G8.

    He hasn’t chickened out or made ridiculous claims. They haven’t even scratched his Jag.

    I suppose you also believe the Estonian stories that their computers were hacked by ‘people with Kremlin IP addresses” and that “Russia has attacked the whole of the EU”.

  34. Michael Averko says:

    Points well taken CD if true. The very last part of the sentence reflects my not being as up to snuff on that particular. It’s wrong to damage their property and physically attack them. If this hasn’t happened, then I’m in full agreement with you.

    I’m generally not one to accept claims at face value. I respectfully note your knowledge and interest in the Baltic region.

  35. Giustino says:

    The removal of the ‘Soldier’ is part of a deliberate process of cultural cleansing of anything Soviet in Estonia. No one can pretend otherwise.

    So what? Soviet isn’t a nationality, it’s a political system that was cast off years ago.
    Was the post-1776 “cultural cleansing” of anything supporting the British monarchy in the US incorrect? I don’t think so.

    Last year, a bill was introduced in Estonia to criminalise the display or possession of anything ‘Soviet’. The removal of just about every other public Russian artefact is testimony to the programme.

    No. They don’t remove Russian artifacts. In fact this country is dotted with markers to the many Russian intellectuals that called Estonia home during periods of their life.

    They did criminalize the display of Soviet and Nazi symbols if they are used to incite violence. This past week there were many Red flags at cemeteries and memorials in Estonia. No one was arrested.

    Following cultural cleansing, there is now a form of ethnic cleansing of the minority Russian speakers by the Language Directorate. No one denies this.

    The language directorate might be too harsh. But nobody denies that unilingualism among Russian speakers is a disservice to the Estonian speaking majority. In certain professions, the directorate makes sure that professionals — ie taxi drivers — can speak the language that most people speak.

    I am not sure that that is their job. I’d prefer to file a complaint with a firm if I got a cab driver that didn’t speak Estonian. But I’d hardly call it “ethnic cleansing,” joker.

  36. Roobit says:

    More on language discrimination – just a typical real estate ad from Estonia (I’ve got menues, signs, newspaper clippings and so). Note that nothing similar – no discrimination against speakers of Estonian or Esthonian was ever practiced. Discrimination is not just linguistic, it is a combination of racial discrimination (Russians are not a race, but Estonian ethno-Nazi upbringing has a strong racial element) and of cultural persecution.

    Anyway, look at it – this is the face of Estonia and of EU. More to come.

    http://www.timely-thoughts.com/discrimination/2007/05/06/equal_housing_opportunity_under_eu_and_nato_protection/

  37. Roobit says:

    “As anyone here can clearly understand the red flag on Estonian soil is the same as nazi flag on French.”

    No – Etho-Nazi that’s not true. The Red Flag flew over Nuremberg tribunal building, and under this flag spiritual ancestors of those who now destroyed the soldier’s grave in Tallinn, were condemned. Estonian ethno-Nazis had murdered their entire Russian and Jewish population with most killings done BEFORE Nazis arrived. In Iuriev (Tartu) 12500 people were killed because of who they are. After war, Soviet authorities deported 57 000 Estonian collaborators, saboteurs Nazis, and their family members. They apparently did not kill or deport enough as all the Nazis back in Estonian “parliament.” 57 000 deported and killed Nazis and Estonian “patriots” is not a big number. In Pskov and Novgorod and Northwestern region Estonian SS members murdered over 200 000 civilians. Now, the descendants of these SS butchers are participation in occupation of Iraq, where perhaps as many as one million civilians died (700 000 according to the Lancet magazine estimates) – that’s as many as victims as there are LIVE Estonian today. So let’s put things in a perspective here – a mildly oppressive authoritatian regime (Red Flag) versus SAVAGE BARBARITY (Nazi flag, Estonian flag). And no – I am not watching Russian propaganda (I don’t have Russian TV!).

  38. Roobit says:

    “mina said: Not under previousely described circumstances. But the actions of Russia can be called abominable and totally shameful.”

    I agree, Russia should have denounced the “recognition” of rogue ethno-Nazi statelet’s “independence” from 1991 (the so-called Tartu Peace Treaty is a sham, so we won;’t touch the stinking thing for the time being), break off relations, announce that Estonia consists of two provinces of Russia (no need for visas, even ethno-Nazis can come visa-free though I guess the most vicious ones should be imprisoned unfortunately Russia has no death penalty now) and as of embassy they should have kicked the stupid thing out of the country. It is incomrehensible how meek, sheepish and toothless is today’s Russia.

  39. Roobit says:

    Scott said:
    Are you kidding? Putin could have been voted out? Without anything resembling a free press? Without a candidate that hadn’t been denigrated by the Kremlin propaganda machine from the get-go?”

    Scott – if you are believing propaganda and are repeating it as a parrot (or are you one, did you get your DNA examined by a reputable lab), then we have to stop right there.

    There is an absolutely free press in Russia. You don’t need to have a license to operate a publishing house. You CAN LISTEN TO CIA-funded Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty on FM broadcasted locally – in your car. Euronews is in Russian available through over the air TV. Putin has genuine approval rating of over 70% (he is an amiable man, he is unfortunately sheepish, for example he is reluctant to offend his buddies ethno-Nazis).

    By the way, here is an example of how “unfree” is Russian press. It’s an article from St. Petersburg’s Fontanka in translation which indirectly accuses Putin in having own business interests in Estonia and does it in a very ironic manner.

    http://timely-thoughts.com/russia/2007/05/05/_president_discovers_truth_about_ports_and_russian_business_in_estonia/

    People are upset with Putin because he did not punish Estonia. It hurt him a lot.

    Finally, Soviet war monuments and wartime graves are all over – everywhere where Nazis were fought – there is one in Berlin and one Vienna. Sorry, Germans and Austrians are not destroying war graves (and Germans had their DDR experience) – why – because Germans are human, and Estonian ethno-Nazis are not.

  1. May 2, 2007

    […] Day in Russia will be marked by yet more violent riots by spoiled brat Russians in Estonia, angry the monuments to their imperialism and murder are being […]

  2. May 2, 2007

    […] Day in Russia will be marked by yet more violent riots by spoiled brat Russians in Estonia, angry the monuments to their imperialism and murder are being […]