Friction between Russia and Estonia
Eugene Holman
RFE/RL daily report.
The background to the problem in question is the territorial dispute which
arose when Russia unilaterally redrew what was then the administrative
boundary between the RSFSR and the ESSR after WWII to its advantage. The
Estonians found themselves having lost, among other things, Petseri, one of
their culturally most important landscapes.
The Estonians argue:
1) Russia recognized Petseri as part of Estonia in the 1920 Tartu Treaty
which defined the borders of the pre-war Estonian Republic, the
independence of wich has been re-established;
2) The redefinition of the border was a unilateral action by Russia;
3) The Estonian citizens in Petseri are being subjected to bureaucratic
harassment.
The Russians argue:
1) What's done is done;
2) The protests that Estonia is making about Petseri are against its best
interests.
The Russian stance can be stood as consistent with the view expressed more
than once by its representatives that the independence of the pre-war
Estonian Republic was not re-established, but rather the present Estonian
Republic is essentially a continuation of the ESSR.
****************************************************************
rfl28: ESTONIANS IN RUSSIA. On 26 January Reet Tobre, the leader of the
Petserimaa association, a group lobbying for the reunification of
the Petseri/Pechory region with Estonia, told a press conference
that Russian authorities are "putting pressure" on an increasing
number of people in the area who have acquired Estonian
citizenship, BNS reports. Tobre said that the Russians are
demanding that the inhabitants of the Petseri/Pechory region,
which Russia recognized as part of Estonia by the Tartu Treaty of
2 February 1920 but annexed after World War II, who have taken out
Estonian citizenship, give up their Russian citizenship, an act
that would deprive them of the right to own real estate and
require them to apply for a special permit to enter the border
zone. She also said Russia is making it more difficult for these
people to cross the border to Estonia. Saulius Girnius, RFE/RL,
Inc.
rfl28: CHURKIN: RUSSIA NO THREAT TO THE BALTIC STATES. Russia's Deputy
Foreign Minister Vitalii Churkin told Interfax on 27 January that
his country is "absolutely no threat to the Baltic countries," and
added that representatives from Russia and the Baltic States
"simply have to come together and constructively resolve problems
inherited from their common past." Churkin said Russia "has the
impression that some Baltic politicians believe that they can
ensure their national interests by means of confrontation with
Russia." Churkin called this "a great delusion," and said the
Baltic states "can protect their sovereignty in real terms only by
building relations of partnership with Russia. Russia acts in
precisely this way, and it hopes that this kind of approach will
triumph," he said. Churkin also stated that Russia has already
pulled out 85% of its troops, insisting that Russia "never linked
the issue of troop withdrawal to changes in the situation of
Russian speakers." Dzintra Bungs, RFE/RL, Inc.
rfl31: MORE ON CHURKIN'S VIEWS ON THE BALTICS. At a press conference on
27 January in Moscow, according to Interfax and Western agencies,
Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Vitalii Churkin said that "we
have major problems with the Baltic States" but that "we want to
solve our problems without the use of force." While admitting that
the Soviet takeover of the Baltic States in 1940 "was, of course,
a mistake," Churkin claimed that "from the legal aspect, the 1940
events cannot be interpreted as an invasion or occupation" and
added that "today's international law does not apply to the
situation before. . . ." World War II. Accusing Estonia and
Latvia of violating the rights of ethnic Russians living there, he
insisted that the Baltic States, rather than Russia, had been
linking the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Baltics to the
situation of Russians living there. Regarding Estonia's
territorial claims to several areas in Russia's Pskov Region,
Churkin noted that "there is no need to create additional
irritants, which, as a matter of fact, will bring no practical
results. We can take retaliatory measures, and our Estonian
partners will not like it." He felt that "the territorial issue is
clear. This is Russian territory, it is controlled by Russia, and
our present border with Estonia has the status of state frontier."
Dzintra Bungs, RFE/RL, Inc.
rfl31: ESTONIA RESPONDS TO CHURKIN'S VEILED THREAT. The Estonian Foreign
Ministry, in a first response on 28 January, expressed hope that
Churkin's statements "do not represent a new, even more
confrontational and threatening line in Russian foreign policy."
The ministry said Estonia would like to view Russia as a normal
state but that this would require Russia to "refrain from making
statements which make its smaller neighbors nervous about Russia's
true geopolitical intentions." The statement also disputed
Churkin's interpretation of the 1940 Soviet takeover of the Baltic
States, stressing that "international law did not, as Mr. Churkin
claims, have its origins in 1945." Dzintra Bungs, RFE/RL, Inc.
----
With best regards
Eugene Holman
University of Helsinki
vad...@vms.huji.ac.il
> For readers of these two newsgroups I repost three articles from today's
> RFE/RL daily report.
> The background to the problem in question is the territorial dispute which
> arose when Russia unilaterally redrew what was then the administrative
> boundary between the RSFSR and the ESSR after WWII to its advantage. The
> Estonians found themselves having lost, among other things, Petseri, one of
> their culturally most important landscapes.
>
> The Estonians argue:
> 1) Russia recognized Petseri as part of Estonia in the 1920 Tartu Treaty
> which defined the borders of the pre-war Estonian Republic, the
> independence of wich has been re-established;
> 2) The redefinition of the border was a unilateral action by Russia;
> 3) The Estonian citizens in Petseri are being subjected to bureaucratic
> harassment.
> The Russians argue:
> 1) What's done is done;
> 2) The protests that Estonia is making about Petseri are against its best
> interests.
>
> The Russian stance can be stood as consistent with the view expressed more
> than once by its representatives that the independence of the pre-war
> Estonian Republic was not re-established, but rather the present Estonian
> Republic is essentially a continuation of the ESSR.
I recollect being involved in the lenthy discussion with Tapani and Gustav on
the issue of Estonia being or not being the same state as occupied by Soviet
I'd be grateful to colleagues for elaborating on the issue.
Best wishes
Army in 1940.
yesterday I heard on (imperialistic chauvinistic) Russian TV the info that
CSCEexperts working in Estonia got into the same sort of conflict with local
administration.
I'd like to clear out the points:
1. Is the info confirmed?
2. If yes, what should we expect:
a) tapani ceasing mentioning CSCE as a source of highest authority in
Baltics discussable issues?
b) redefining status and (retroactively) laws adopted in assumption of Eesti
Republic continuity according to CSCE experts opinion.
c) issuing a decree claiming the obedience to CSCE opinions the exclusive
duty of Russians and releasing Estonian republic from CSCE "moral
Best wishes,
Vadim
P.S.: Anyway, I hope I'll get a right to enjoy the CNN showing the victorious
Estonian Landwehr marching to liberate the occupied Pechory in a manner as
Tapani used to enjoy seeing Russians shooting at each other in lastr October.
jurisdiction" area.
--