I do wonder sometimes about the flow of Estonian foreign policy, and the idea of the independent state in general. The idea of Estonia, going back to 1918, was to separate the country from the "rotten foundations" of the Russian Empire. Essentially, they decided their statelet was better off alone (and they were right). The story of each Baltic country's path to independence is different and involves different regional players. Consider that the first Lithuanian declaration of independence occurred under German occupation. The reemergence of the Lithuanian state on the map of Europe was a byproduct of First World War German foreign policy. One might see Lithuanian EU membership in a different light given that particular tidbit. Or that the headquarters of the Latvian Republic were for a time aboard a British vessel moored off the coast, at a moment of political upheaval at the end of the war when there were three governments in what became Latvia -- a pro-German and a pro-Russian one as well. Latvian independence owes a significant debt to the British navy. Estonia actually fought to remove foreign armies from its soil, which gives its independence a rather local, robust flavor. Yet, in 1917, when Estonian servicemen demonstrated in Petrograd, they were demanding autonomy within the Russian Empire -- the desire to manage their own affairs, not to be aligned in various military alliances. In the late 1980s, the country again demanded independence, encouraged by the example of Finland. And yet today it is Finland that remains "Finlandized," while Estonia is constructed to either the front line in the "New Cold War," or some kind of symbolic "West Berlin." As additional NATO backing arrives to this remote, forested place of 1.3 million souls, I do wonder how this all fits into the concept of Estonian independence. The people of this land just wanted to manage their own affairs. Somehow they keep getting caught up in problems many times larger than themselves.
reede, november 25, 2016
An ethical state does not play with its people. A self-confident people requires an ethical state. An ethical state supports choices made by Estonians. A self-confident Estonian makes themselves happy. An ethical state does not prescribe methods of becoming happy or definitions of this concept in general or for Estonians. A self-confident Estonian is free in their choices.This from the site of the president, Kersti Kaljulaid. It seems to touch on themes central to the Estonian mindset. The 'you don't touch me, I don't touch you ideal' is played out in the concept of the 'ethical state' that 'does not play with its people' (and would like to have as little to do with them as possible, other than that which is necessary). The ethical state, therefore, will shake your hand, but with its gloves on. It will embrace you, but stiffly and ethically. Do not expect any loving kiss. You will get a chapped peck on the cheek. Enter the Estonians, preoccupied with their important work of making themselves happy. The Estonian does not look to the aloof, gloved ethical state to assist. No! The Estonian is self-reliant and industrious in all pursuits. One day, they will all be happy. I am quite sure of it.
neljapäev, november 17, 2016
Came across this interesting old interview with George Kennan, then 94 years old, from August 1999. Here is what America's premier diplomat and architect of containment had to say about Baltic-Russian relations an an interview with Richard Ullman. It's interesting for me that so many of these old issues -- NATO expansion, the Kosovo War -- seem so ancient and done with. But the Russian leadership today is the same leadership that came to power in 1999. They are stuck in the past.
G.K.: We are now being pressed by some advocates of expansion to admit the Baltic countries. I think this would be highly unfortunate. I agree that NATO, as we now know it, has no intention of attacking Russia. But NATO remains, in concept and in much of its substance, a military alliance. If there is any country at all against which it is conceived as being directed, that is Russia. And that surely is the way the Poles and others in that part of the world perceive it.
These are sensitive borders—these borders between Russia and the Baltic countries. I will not go into the history of Russia’s relations with those Baltic peoples, other than to ask you to remember that they were included in the Russian empire for nearly two hundred years in the two centuries before World War I, and much of their advance into modern life was achieved during that time. And then, for a period of almost another two decades, they were quite independent, and this was accepted by the world community and, with the exception of the Communists, by most of the Russians themselves. It took Hitler to virtually compel the Russian government to take them over in 1939, and then to put an end to their independence in 1940. And the later entry of Russian forces onto their territory occurred (and this we should remember) in the process of pushing the German army out of that region—a process which had our most complete and enthusiastic approval.
In other words, the Russian relationship to the Baltic peoples has had many ups and downs. They have been a part of Russia longer than they have been a part of anything else. For a time they were fully independent. I never doubted or challenged the desirability of their independence. I never ceased to advocate it in the years when they didn’t have it. But I don’t think that it would be a good thing for NATO to try to complicate that historic relationship by taking these countries into what the Russians are bound to see as an anti-Russian military alliance.
R.U.: What do you think the relationship between Russia and the former Soviet republics will look like say a decade or so from now?
G.K.: Oh, I don’t think it will be too troubled. After all, the Russians, under Yeltsin, took the lead in pushing them into independence ten years ago. He left them no alternative but to accept it. Why should the present Russian government wish to reverse it? By and large, Russia has been better off without them.
Of course, there are the problems of Russian minorities in two or three of those countries. In the case of Ukraine, in particular, there was the thoughtless tossing into that country, upon the collapse of Russian communism, of the totally un-Ukrainian Crimean peninsula, together with one of the three greatest Russian naval bases. For that we, too, must accept a share of the blame. But even in this case, all the recent Russian aspirations have been limited to the alleviation of the effects of these blunders; they have not taken the form of any encroachments upon Ukrainian independence.
esmaspäev, november 14, 2016
Well here we are. Welcome to the cold, cynical new era. The Kremlin successfully influenced the outcome of the American presidential election in its favor. Went down a bit like this: Kremlin-backed Wikileaks divulged the information damaging the non-Kremlin candidate (Hillary Rodham Clinton). FOX and other sympathetic media turned the information into a national scandal supporting the Kremlin's favored candidate (Donald J. Trump) and other networks followed. The Kremlin candidate's past misgivings started to undermine his campaign (mid-October). The supporters of the Kremlin candidate in the FBI (Comey) reopened the investigation in a timely manner, damaging the non-Kremlin candidate by triggering another round of damaging disinformation from FOX, et al. This helped to depress support for the non-Kremlin candidate, pushing their selected candidate over the top. Thus the Republican Party became the United Russia of the United States. Terrifying.
laupäev, november 05, 2016
After going cold turkey for a while on social media I cannot go back the same way. What's more, all of the merry images and self promotion that occur there seem incredibly wasteful and vain. I can't take a person seriously anymore, he or she who prostitutes and flaunts his or her own image. It's as if the superstitious old-timers were actually right, that the camera could steal your soul. Never am I happier than when I am at Mandel in Tartu working or reading. This is a comforting cafe, with good coffee and good atmosphere, and lovely old-fashioned aprons and wallpaper. There, I have rekindled my friendship with F. Scott and his This Side of Paradise. The more I read of him, the more I recognize a similar bemused contempt for and delight with the stratum of the established and ambitious, the fiscally sound but morally hollow. And he enjoys it, you know. He does not preach disgust, but ridicules with superb fun. People ate it up.