Dimitri Klensky: Estonian Russophobia Lessons: Chauvinism, Territorial Claims and Traitors
Estonia, which considers itself a European country and a democratic, legal state, is hopelessly plunging into Russophobia. Every day brings proof of this. But this is also taught. For school students held special seminars.One of them has just been held by the pro-government, well-funded organization of Russian-speaking students, the Open Republic, in Estonia. She is known for Russophobia and anti-Russian, and therefore she is entitled to hold her own events even in the building of the Estonian Parliament of the Riigikogu. A regular seminar of the "Open Republic" was recently held in its conference hall. The event was facilitated by the Ministry of Education and Science. The topic was declared - "Estonian-Russian relations". This time there was no simultaneous translation from Estonian into Russian and vice versa, since two-thirds of the hall was filled with pupils of gymnasiums with Estonian as the language of instruction. Mentors were represented solidly - the chairman of the parliamentary commission on foreign affairs, a member of the IRL nationalist party Marko Mihkelson (Marko Mihkelson), a member of the same commission, Social Democrat Jevgeni Ossinovski, head of the Estonian Institute of Human Rights Mart Nutt and researcher at the International Center for Defense Studies Kadri Liik. It is noteworthy that they did not invite a representative of the accused in Estonia to sympathize with Russia and the local Russian residents of the largest opposition party, the Center Party, at the seminar with such an agenda. Not to mention the fact that the presence of a Russian diplomat from the Russian embassy in the Republic of Estonia would also be appropriate. But as it turned out very quickly, there was no need for them. Because at the event that lasted for almost two hours (read: a briefing), I barely touched ... directly the relations between Estonia and Russia.
"Unwashed" Russia is no match for Estonia
Representatives of the Foreign Affairs Committee - Marko Mihkelson and Yevgeny Osinovsky, and Mart Nutt and Kadri Liyk, did not say anything that needs to be done or can be done to improve these relations. After all, the absence of a border treaty between the two countries cannot be considered natural. But the activity, and Kadri Liyk demonstrated even aggressiveness, all four expressed criticism of Russia. Needless to say, all these leaders of the workshop-instruction recalled the "Soviet occupation". The moderator also tried - student Ivan Lavrentiev, who played the role of a tuning fork - this is his typical question to youth mentors: "Are relations with a state in which human rights are not observed, and is the Stalin power attitude of society to society?" Kadri Liik surpassed everyone here! Here are her delights: "Russia cannot live without the image of the enemy, and this shows the vitality of Stalinism in Russia", "For Estonia, policies like" the parquet general, the opportunist Dmitry Rogozin, are dangerous, "Putin has less legitimacy, he is different in his own" anti-Americanism. "The last one is especially touching. After all, US specialist Nikolai Zlobin asserts on Russian TV channels that Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric not only has no hint of US condemnation, moreover, Russia’s relations with America under Putin can be considered quite acceptable Aznoglasii. That is, Kadri Liyk confuses the rhetoric of Russian politicians and the media with the official position of the Kremlin.
Mart Nutt talked about how for many years Russia did not agree with any of the compromises that were proposed by the Estonian side. And on the contrary, Estonia de did everything to normalize relations with Russia. On the question of visa-free travel from Russia to the European Union and in the opposite direction, the human rights activist noted that Russia is not able to control migration. The visa-free regime in Russia does not comply with the norms and specifications of Brussels. For example, it is mandatory and unacceptable for the European Union to register visitors, and, in contrast to the European Union, freedom of movement is restricted in Russia. As a result, students — participants of the seminar instead of a story about Russian-Estonian relations were hammered into simple Estonian “truth” —the eastern neighbor, although great, is not capable, by virtue of its civilizational backwardness and imperial thinking, to establish normal relations not only with the West, but also with its neighbors. The seminar also vividly discussed the issue of the initiative of a number of Estonian politicians (among them Marco Mihkelson), business people of culture and science, who offered to perpetuate the memory of Russian President Boris Yeltsin in Tallinn. In this regard, it was stated that Ronald Reagan deserves more of this, since he contributed to the collapse of the USSR - the "evil empire," on a global scale. The same, but within the Soviet Union, was contributed by Boris Yeltsin, opposing supporter of the preservation of the Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. That is, Reagan and Yeltsin played into the hands of the supporters of the independence of Estonia. And so, despite Yeltsin’s flaws - the shooting of the White House, the unleashing of the Chechen war, the appointment of Putin as his successor, the monopolization of power, in general, the advantages outweighed the disadvantages - Boris Nikolayevich did not meet European standards, but worked in the interests of Estonia. The principle worked: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
What Russia does not please Estonia?
Researcher Kadri Liyk believes that the constant threats of Russia (?!) To its neighbors and the creation of an image of the enemy stems from its internal policy - the need to mobilize the electorate and distract people from real problems. It is amazing, but such a policy, and widely, is practiced by Estonia, the entire Baltic, and others. But in Russia, all this comes from the fact that the Russian authorities are not able to legitimize themselves in the traditional way - by fair elections. And again behind the bracket it is worth noting: who would talk about their fraud in Russia? In Estonia, the public has long considered "their" (especially electronic) elections not credible. In short, Kadri Liik believes, the Russian authorities are satisfied with the pseudo-legitimization, which is ensured by rallying against the enemy. Most often it is the United States, NATO, the West. And the neighbors are convenient, as enemies, because they do not have to be particularly considered, there is enough emotion. And yet, the scholarly expert is glad: the current Putin anti-Western rhetoric has already discredited the anti-western itself, it has the opposite effect. For example, "if Putin says that Estonia is bad, then some young progressive intellectual thinks that Estonia is alright."
Further, Kadri Liik believes that the modern administration of Russia is permeated with the legacy of Stalinism. As proof, she refers to the outstanding Russian sociologist Yuri Levada. He believed that the liberation from this "atavism" is possible when the government and society really work for the benefit of the people, provide income growth for the population, do not resort to "emergency" and find a place in the world that eliminates the constant threats to neighbors. Do not understand what prevents Kadri Liik to see the same flaws in the management of just the Estonian state? But this is a separate topic. Her concern is touching and how long the Putin-Medvedev power will last? First: “Much depends on oil prices. If oil prices fall, Russia will be very difficult, because it has very large expenditure items of the budget, and many sociologists believe that then political and social protest can coincide, which will lead to major shocks. " And secondly: “All current politicians and political parties in Russia serve“ managed democracy ”, and the fragmented opposition can only make noise on the Internet, that is, create a serious political movement, and are not yet in a position to nominate a leader. But is it really so "Revolutions in North Africa have done without leaders. It will be interesting to follow developments in Russia." But it is interesting to observe the hypocrisy of the Estonian policy, which actively, constantly and purposefully, sets up the Russian and Estonian population of Estonia against Russia and at the same time seems to be an “objective” observer (but, alas, a layman).
And yet, territorial claims
Politician and human rights activist Mart Nutt continued to present bills to Russia. He sees two flaws in Russia's attitude to Estonia, both torpedoes any initiatives of Tallinn. Either the Kremlin insists that Estonia's joining the USSR in 1940 was voluntary, and rejects the Estonian side's assertion that Estonia's joining the USSR was the occupation of Estonia. Or he leaves under far-fetched pretexts from signing a border treaty with Estonia. But according to international law, there was no occupation, there was annexation (incorporation) - the incorporation of Estonia into the USSR. This does not give political and historical preferences to Tallinn. Hence the stranglehold when it comes to occupation.
Well, as for the Treaty on the Basics of Interstate Relations between the RSFSR and the Republic of Estonia signed between Estonia and Russia, which rushed to Tallinn on 12 January 1991, was signed on behalf of Russia by drunk Boris Yeltsin, this is an example of Estonia’s hypocrisy and deceit on the most important item differences of positions of Russia and Estonia. Article 3 of this treaty promises Estonian citizenship to all citizens of the USSR living in Estonia. But in the other, it is stated that citizenship is granted on the basis of the country's domestic legislation. As a result, even today we have massless statelessness in Estonia and the highest percentage of Russian citizens in the world among residents of a single country. This is annoying and the European Union. Behind this bundle - albeit well-powdered with formal democratic attributes, but banal segregation. And racism, in the modern, that is, expansive understanding of how the UN interprets it.
March Nutt skillfully throws a shadow on the fence, explaining why Russia withdrew the signature on the border treaty concluded in 2005 year, by the way, long ago ratified by the Estonian parliament. The problem is that Estonia backdating, already after the negotiations on the border treaty, entered into the preamble of the law on ratification (not the treaty itself) mention of the Tartu (Yuryev) peace treaty. They did it, ostensibly, because Russia in the same year 2005 made a statement in which it again denied the succession of the Estonian state. But the background was completely different, fascinated by Mart Nutt at the seminar, saying that "the contradictions in concluding the border treaty were due to the border" that Moscow established after World War II, pushing it westwards, in favor of the RSFSR. And she did it unilaterally, having received the consent of the Estonian SSR retroactively. That is why Mart Nutt broke, stating: "The question can be put like this: if the Tartu peace is in place, then there is a border treaty." This is the recognition of pre-war borders, that is, territorial claims. Until 1940, the territory of Estonia extended almost to the city of Kingisepp (Yamburg), and after the war it was returned to the Narova River (Ivangorod). That is, Narva remained in the structure of the Estonian SSR, although in tsarist times this city was within the borders of the Petersburg province.
How Estonia loves to argue with Russia
That is, the meaning of the preamble in the border treaty is not to uphold the continuity of Estonian statehood, but to preserve intrigue with the return in the future of a part of the territory that the Bolsheviks donated to Estonia in 1920 year. They made this gift to Estonia for the legitimacy of the formation of Soviet Russia, which turned out to be in international isolation. But recognition of the Republic of Estonia took place! By the way, the restoration of its full independence in 1991, Russia recognized the second, after Iceland. So it's not about bad and capricious Russia, but about the territorial claims of ambitious Estonia, which more and more often resembles an old woman from the Tale of a Goldfish. In order to hush up the true positions of the parties, Marco Mihkelson began to clarify how much Estonia is right and Russia is not right when it comes to the notorious preamble. He also rebuked the Estonian media, which do not understand that this reference does not apply to the border treaty itself, but is written into the law, which ratified this border treaty itself. And this is a purely internal matter of Estonia, its sovereign right!
To begin with, at the border negotiations, Moscow was not even notified about this. And, if the Estonian side insists that the preamble in the law on ratification has nothing to do with the treaty itself, then why concern it at all? Therefore, Estonia should be blamed for double-dealing - if she really wanted a border treaty, she would not cling to the preamble. But she is quite satisfied with the stalemate: “I don’t want to say that the border treaty isn’t needed at all, I just want to emphasize that you shouldn’t overestimate its influence on Estonian-Russian relations,” Mart Nutt concluded and gave an example of the absence, already 67 Year, the post-war peace treaty between Russia and Japan. And that is characteristic again, drawing parallels between Zanarov and Pechora with the Kuriles, he noted that this issue remains the subject of many years of disputes, which does not interfere with the cooperation of countries. He haughtily added that let Russia have a headache on this issue: "Estonia has nothing more to do with it, it ratified it, and there is no reason to start new negotiations, but for Russia it is a matter of honor: you don’t understand how to return the already withdrawn signature" .
Otherwise ... everything is good, everything is good
They killed half an hour at the seminar to review the history of the border treaty. And Marco Mihkelson, instead of rejecting the accusations of the Russian side and critically approaching the position of the Estonian side, and better suggesting how to normalize Estonian-Russian relations, also began to argue that there is nothing wrong with the absence of a border treaty. And he drew a parallel with the European Constitutional Treaty, the entry into force of which stalled referendums in France and the Netherlands.
Marko Mihkelson: “But today Europe does not have a Constitutional Treaty, an analogue of this document exists under a different name - the Lisbon Treaty, in which several commas are changed. Here you can see a similarity with the situation around the Estonian-Russian border treaty, which does not exclude the continuation of dialogue in the diplomatic and parliamentary levels that gradually happens. " As proof of the tolerance of interstate relations, extensive “landing” of Russian artists to Estonia, a powerful growth of tourism and even commodity circulation were brought. And this, despite the remembering "Bronze Soldier" Russian politicians and the "anti-Estonian" propaganda of the Russian media. Marko Mihkelson also noted that, on his initiative, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Riigikogu and the State Duma of the Russian Federation would resume cooperation, which had been interrupted as early as 2006.
Therefore, it is arrogant and humiliating for Russians in Estonia, for those who do not close their eyes to the plight of the population of the “Russian” north-east of Estonia (Ida-Virumaa county) and the discrimination of non-Estonians about the lack of a border treaty: “I think that those Narvites who cross the border do not have any problems due to the lack of a contract, they can do it completely freely. It would be even better if more cigarettes could be carried across the border. " It is unlikely that the politician does not know that ordinary Russian residents have to stand for several hours in lines at checkpoints under the open sky, in cold and rain, and all in order to make ends meet. And if not in the course, then what is he worth, as a parliamentarian - protecting the interests of his Russian voter?
Evgeny Osinovsky also touched upon the topic “with a beard” - the abolition of the allegedly discriminatory double taxation of goods by Russia. But it is also true that this is not about punishing Estonia, but about refusing to reduce ordinary tariffs by half, which is done to favor trade with countries that have friendly and normal relations with Russia. In the opinion of Yevgeny Osinovsky, Moscow does not accept such a decision due to the same reluctance of Estonia to begin new negotiations on signing a border treaty. But the parliamentarian elected from the "Russian" northeast of the country, although he rebuked both countries in this, was granted one fair remark - Estonia itself should, as less substituted, not give Moscow reasons to freeze Russian-Estonian relations.
Osinovsky gives advice to Putin
Yevgeny Osinovsky called the scandal with the desecration of the ashes of the Soviet soldiers, when transferring the monument he erected ("The Bronze Soldier") to 2007, as the most impressive base. But the trouble is that the socialist party Evgeny Osinovsky, whose party is in parliament in opposition, shortly before this, demonstrating the loyalty of the ethnocratic power that dominates Estonia, spoke in his article “What would I show to Putin in Estonia?” (newspaper "North Coast"), showing astonishing arrogance and swagger in relation to the Prime Minister of Russia, elected President of the Russian Federation. The Estonian parliamentarian, who sincerely advocates for improving relations with Russia (his father is known for transit business between Estonia and Russia), calls Vladimir Putin’s electoral articles “writings,” calls his point of view “primitive,” as does the Estonian government. " a person who is not yet thirty! Is this being taught in the UK, where he received two higher educations?
At the same time, he constantly contradicts himself. For example, reports that "Russia for years ... speaks about discrimination of national minorities in Estonia ... But the people of Estonia, in general, are able to adequately assess the accuracy of such statements, which, however, cannot be said of the inhabitants of Russia." But, without embarrassment, he continues: "Although we, undoubtedly, have serious problems with the integration of the Russian-speaking population." Or such a passage: “Putin announced that he would decisively demand protection of the rights of the Russian minority in Estonia. Russian rhetoric didn’t change in the 12 years of Putin’s tenure, but our society has undergone several important changes during this time. First, in 2000, there were 170000 stateless persons in Estonia ... By last year, that figure had dropped to the 100000 mark. " And right there: “The political opportunities of non-citizens are really limited in our country ... they cannot participate in the elections of the Riigikogu and influence the broader policy formation.”
A remark is appropriate here: the decrease in the number of non-citizens is not due to the adoption of Estonian citizenship, but due to the natural decline in the population, as well as an increase in the number, including young people, who choose the citizenship of the Russian Federation, and those who leave Estonia for good. Finally, such a pearl: “Conversations about social and economic discrimination are completely incompetent” and right there he writes: “This is the situation when residents of the Russian native language have, regardless of citizenship, the right to equal salary and education, in which they but in reality they are inferior to Estonians. " It is worth adding the Social Democrat Yevgeny Osinovsky - unemployment among Russians and Russian speakers today is several times higher than among Estonians, especially among young people. According to the level of higher education of young people, Estonians have a twofold advantage, while 20 years ago did not differ in this indicator.
The apotheosis of Yevgeny Osinovsky’s article is his charming instructions: “I can’t condemn Putin’s anxiety about Russians, but I advise him to come to Estonia and get acquainted with the facts before making statements. And I also advise our Russian-speaking residents instead to see Putin as a savior, to participate more actively in Estonian politics and thereby change the government. "
PS Is it possible, after such lessons of Russophobia, to believe in the sincerity of those who declare in Estonia the desire to normalize relations with Russia?
Information