One of the key factors in the Ukraine crisis has been the role of the sizeable ethnic Russian population in the country. David Smith writes on the implications the crisis might have for two other countries with significant Russian populations: Estonia and Latvia. He notes that while citizenship policies in both countries have been unpopular among ethnic Russian communities, the focus has largely been on increasing the rights of Russian speakers rather than questioning the existence of the Estonian or Latvian state. Nevertheless, he argues that nationalist forces on both sides of the debate may seek to exploit the situation in Ukraine in pursuit of their respective agendas.
Ukraine remains in a state of high tension, following the occupation of key installations in Crimea by Russian troops. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin claims that the despatch of military units was justified by the need to protect the interests and physical welfare of Russian citizens and so-called compatriots (ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers) living in Crimea and other southern and eastern parts of the country. The deepening of the Ukrainian crisis has prompted reflection on its potential wider implications, not least for Estonia and Latvia, where Russian-speakers make up around a third of the population.
While many Russian-speakers living in these countries can trace descent back to the period of inter-war Baltic independence and beyond, the majority are Soviet-era migrants and their descendants. Following the restoration of their statehood in 1991, Estonia and Latvia did not extend automatic citizenship to people in this category, arguing that they had arrived as a result of an illegal annexation and subsequent fifty-year occupation by the USSR. While many have since undergone naturalisation as citizens, more than half of Soviet migrants and their descendants still hold either local ‘alien’s passports’ or passports issued by the Russian Federation.
These citizenship policies have been unpopular amongst local Russian-speakers, and have been loudly condemned by Russia, which denies that the 1940 Soviet takeover of the Baltic States amounted to an occupation and accuses Estonia and Latvia of engaging in systematic ethnic discrimination. Domestic and international frictions have also arisen over language and education policy, as both states have sought to break with the bi-national Soviet legacy and give greater prominence to majority language and culture. Divergent interpretations of the Second World War, too, have come into play, as witnessed by the unrest that occurred in Estonia following the relocation of a Soviet-era war memorial in 2007. Ethnic divisions arising from the Soviet past thus continue to pose a challenge to social and political cohesion in both countries.
Estonia and Latvia: the next Ukraine?
Against this background, is there a danger that the current crisis in Ukraine might have a destabilising impact in the Baltic? Before addressing this question, some further observations are in order with regard to the situation in Ukraine. Firstly, developments prior to the Russian intervention suggest no credible basis for the claim that lives of local Russians were under threat. Rather, it would appear that – here, as elsewhere – the Russian government has simply instrumentalised the Russian minority issue in pursuit of broader geostrategic and domestic political objectives.
Secondly, much of the academic and media coverage of the Ukrainian crisis has resorted to use of over-simplified ethnic and geopolitical binaries that depict recent events as a conflict between a nationalist ethnic Ukrainian west and an east that leans naturally towards Russia. While there are undeniably strong regional divisions within Ukraine, such a portrayal vastly underestimates the country’s sociological ‘stateness’, while downplaying the growing disaffection felt by all segments of society in the face of Yanukovych’s corrupt and increasingly authoritarian rule. It also assumes that southern and eastern regions harbour a separatist agenda, rather than aspiring to greater autonomy as part of a reformed Ukrainian state.
A similarly complex reality exists in Estonia and Latvia, even though ethnic boundaries have – at least in the political sphere – often been more visible and state policies more ‘nationalising’ than in Ukraine. While the large migrant communities established under Soviet rule are often simplistically labelled as a diaspora of Russia, they have in fact developed a distinct Baltic Russian identity rooted in a strong territorially-based attachment to Estonia and Latvia.
In elections and referenda held during the collapse of the USSR in 1990-91, around a third of local Russian-speakers in both states voted for independence, helping to deliver strong overall majorities in favour. Of the remainder, only a minority lent active support to pro-Soviet Intermovements established in the Baltic at that time. Provisions on citizenship and other policies subsequently adopted in the 1990s came as a profound disappointment to most, though in terms of economic development and political stability, independent Estonia and Latvia were still seen as delivering far more than Russia and other former Soviet republics.
Political disaffection has been clearly apparent, but, with the exception of a small minority of radical nationalists, this has translated into demands for a greater voice and cultural recognition within the state rather than a challenge to the existence of the state per se. Moreover, in so far as Russian-speakers have sought external support for change, they have looked not to Russia but westwards to the European Union, with EU membership attracting broad cross-ethnic support during the run-up to Estonia and Latvia’s accession in 2004.
Pre-accession EU conditionality did indeed entail significant amendments to legislation previously adopted during the 1990s: while the Union did not question the legal continuity principle underlying Estonian and Latvian citizenship policy, it nevertheless insisted that citizenship be made freely available to anyone born in the two countries after 1992, regardless of the parents’ own citizenship status. This change means that access to citizenship will become increasingly moot with each new post-independence generation. At the same time, the EU advocated the long-term retention of Russian as a language of education alongside Estonian and Latvian, through continued state support for primary and secondary schools teaching either wholly or partly in the language.
For all of these reasons, there still remains much to be done in terms of building a more integrated political community. In Latvia, the 2008 economic crisis appeared in the short term to have brought about an attenuation of ethno-political cleavages, reducing the standing of ruling right-of-centre parties amongst ethnic Latvians and bolstering efforts by Harmony Centre (HC), the largest political grouping amongst Russian-speakers, to market itself as a Social Democratic Party and reach out to Latvian voters. Harmony Centre has held power in the capital Riga since 2009, and emerged as the largest party in the parliamentary elections of 2011 and 2012, a performance which thus far it has appeared on course to repeat in the next elections scheduled for 2015.
It has not, however, been admitted to the current ruling coalition of parties, which continue to portray Harmony as an overtly pro-Russian party that would open the door to greater external influence from an increasingly assertive Putin regime. Faced with new challenges to their power, more nationalistic elements within Latvia’s ruling coalition have intensified their efforts to securitise issues around ethnicity, tabling amongst other things revived proposals for a complete Latvianisation of education. Such moves have been mirrored by their counterparts within the Russian-speaking community, as seen for instance in the organisation of a politically divisive 2012 referendum on the question of whether Russian should be given a status of second official state language.
There are no signs of an imminent ethnic crisis in either Latvia or Estonia. Nor is there any suggestion that Russia would attempt a Ukraine-style intervention against states that are full members of both the EU and NATO. However, the lingering ethno-political divide in Estonia and Latvia means that nationalist forces on both sides will likely seek to exploit the current international situation in pursuit of their respective agendas. This underlines the need for renewed initiatives to promote greater societal integration, at a time when both countries face a range of other pressing social and economic challenges within the ongoing process of consolidating democratic nation-statehood.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1osjqXK
_________________________________
David Smith – University of Glasgow / Uppsala University
David Smith is Professor of Baltic History and Politics at the University of Glasgow and Visiting Researcher at the Uppsala Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Uppsala University. His latest book is The Challenge of Non-Territorial Autonomy: Theory and Practice (co-edited with Ephraim Nimni and Alexander Osipov).
No one disputes the need for integration. What is unclear, however, is the basis on this integration. What are the core values around which the particular societies could be integrated? Second, I remain confident that Professor Smith does not regard integration as a necessary and sufficient condition for retaining sovereignty of Latvia and Estonia. Gerogian and Ukrainian scenarios demonstrate how naive such supposition would be.
Thanks for the comment. On the latter point, you can indeed be confident: if Russia were intent on intervening in Latvia and Estonia, it would advance the minority issue as a pretext regardless of the level of integration. In his respect, one would hope that NATO and EU membership provides a sufficient safeguard against a Georgian or Ukrainian scenario. Nevertheless, I would see integration as something that is desirable and important for Estonia and Latvia in its own right. I also see it as something rooted in a shared commitment to statehood and democracy as well as mutual respect and recognition. In addition, it would seem to presuppose a basic minimum agreement within society over the events of June 1940 (of which recent events in Crimea appear disturbingly reminiscent)
Abosolutely, but also the minority communities need to come out and damn the annexation of Crimea and use of troops. See for instance the failure of Harmony Centre to do just that. More should be expected of both sides. Not just one. I believe that much of my research has pointed in that direction perhaps contrary to that of the author here.
Dear Sir I would be interested to know what fieldwork on the ground was conducted during “much of my research” to point to your conclusions there-off.
that nationalist forces on both sides – very strange opinion, who is a nationalist from the Russian-speaking community??????
Thanks for the comment, and please see my response to the previous one. I agree entirely with the point you make; more broadly, though I would argue that while the need for adaptation on the part of the Russian-speaking community has been a staple of much of the writings on this topic (my own included) since the 1990s, it is only more recently that integration has begun to be understood as a two-way process involving society as whole. One key problem here lies in the way that Russia’s behaviour contributes to a continued securitisation of ethnic issues that makes it more difficult for common ground to emerge.
re: baltic russophone communities
no one in titular governing elites in estonia, latvia or (as concerns poles at least) lithiania understands integration as two-way street
minorities are always viewed as invariably (passively) belonging and (actively) loyal to their respective _mainland_
as such they’re ranged as less or more dangerous (e.g. poles in latvia and russians in lithuania and the other way round in latvia) and therefore a subject of priority or slow neutralization (usually via assimilation, mainly via education system)
btw all the cackle of _the bravest and the most even-handed_ western media outlets about rightist nationalistic ultras sitting in new ukrainian government makes me laugh, however gloomily
ideological brethren of the right sector were integral part of virtually every governing coalition in latvia for the quarter of century;
now no visible difference on ethnolinguistic&citizenship issues between supposedly more liberal and most conservative ethnic latvian political parties could be found
those in doubt are highly recommended to closely follow forthcoming show in riga, when serving ministers and mps will participate in commemoration of lettische ss-Freiwilligen units on march 16th
we deal with self-replicating process: governing nationalists in the name of defusing existential threat exert pressure on minority russophones, in effect pushing them towards russia and provoking ever loud kremlin’s bark
that in turn heighten the feeling of the threat, forcing nationalists to crank up the pressure and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on
until one day the whole cycle breaks and the lid flies off
we’re close
the prophecy became self-fulfilling
kremlin already _owns_ russophone communities
btw these still feel betrayed by the west (if you want suitable arrangement, you’ll need a version of lake ohrid agreements, and to get this, you’ll need to blackmail _europe_ by the threat of bloodletting; otherwise nobody will move a finger — good behavior doesn’t pays up)
and lastly, on western betrayal
does anybody here seriously believe that nato will go to a shooting war if (god forbids) russia will replay crimean exercise in daugavpils or narva?
Dear Professor Smith, I saw your article on Delfi.lv. As an ethnic Russian Latvian I find your analysis rather depressing. Who is supposed to be integrating and into what? Most young ethnic Russians of my generation are equally fluent in Russian, Latvian and English and function really rather well in modern Latvian society. What I suspect you mean by integration here is that we should buy into the various bizarre ideological dogmas thought up by the ethnocratic elites who have been ruling the three states since 1991. This I am afraid we will not do. Neither I nor most other ethnic Russians I know are prepared to accept that the reason we were stripped of nationality, marginalised, excluded from political life and vilified as fifth columnists for 23 years is because of events which took place 70 years ago which none of us had anything to do with.
The situation in the Baltic states is really very simple and does not, in my view, require academic analysis. What happenned in 1991 was a banal power grab along ethnic lines, justified by dubious interpretations of history.
As somebody who left Latvia in 1992 and currently residing in the United States, I can only say this:
I wish I could be this eloquent in either Russian, English or Latvian (which I used to be fluent in those 20 years ago).
🙂
-> chung.hmong
There certainly are some disagreements regarding history of Latvia. Most Russian-speaking population here don’t agree it was occupation what happened here in 1940, even when countered by facts (Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, terror, illegitimity of referendum in presence of enemy forces, etc.). Also, they insist that their rights are violated although it is possible to get citizenship and participate in political life – only obstacle for them is to learn Latvian thus showing some respect to the country where they live. One of the reasons is that successful integration is opposed by propaganda in Russian-owned mass media. It is not about opinions or political stances, it is about facts, they live in different reality (sometimes it is not even clear how it is possible to make it so far without critical thinking whatsoever). Same happens right now in Ukraine, many Russians prefer lies to not take responsibility about bad deeds of USSR and now Russia. These are the main obstacles of integration in Latvia.
You have a very low opinion of your neighbours, Pauls. Our “integration” (in other words, assimilation) is not impeded by the dominance of Russian media, contrary to what right-wing Latvian politicians keep saying. The biggest obstacle to any integration programme is that the very expectation that the Baltic Russians should integrate is unfounded and offensive. Russian communities have lived in the Baltic States since time immemorial and in any event considerably longer than the Latvian state has been in existence. It would be unthinkable to demand of the English living in Wales to somehow integrate into Welsh society. How many of them speak Welsh? I doubt that it is more than a small fraction.
As for your assertion that our mass deprivation of citizenship is somehow justified by the fact that “it is possible to get citizenship”, this is akin to spitting in someone’s face and justifying it by the fact that they can wipe it off. As Hannah Arendt put it, taking someone’s citizenship away is possibly the most degrading act which a state can commit in relation to a person. By perpetrating the citizenship fraud on the ethnic Russians in the 1990s, the Baltic states put a poison pill in their own statehood.
Why should Latvia give citizenship to persons who are here illegally, more over, en-masse? Those Russians, who were living here before 1940. were given Latvian citizenship automatically after we regained independence – those persons are part of Latvia; lets remember sect “staroveri” who fled from persecutions in Russia – no one persecuted or tried to expel them from here. These were 10% of population before WW2.
Those, who came to live here during occupation, are colonists according to international law, not matter if they like it or not. State of Latvia is very kind of them, giving possibility to integrate by means of learning Latvian and getting passport – in fact, laws are mild here, if we compare to other states, also Russia. Note, that Latvian laws complies with EU standards. Now we have 28% Russians in Latvia, most of them don’t have any relation to history or culture of Latvia.
So far about facts. Now about attitudes. Do you really like Latvia? Assuming yes, if you live here (note, that it is easy to choose other country where you won’t get assimilated). Then why so much negative emotions? Even single Latvian living in your neighborhood poses danger of assimilation in Latvian culture, isn’t it? Why do you live in country which language you don’t want to learn, which culture you don’t respect? What state asks of you is not to be Latvian, just respect local population, culture, customs and language, as it is done by all here. Instead you pretend to represent an ethnic minority, which should be protected according to international laws, although it takes a little to look on globe or map to see who is really endangered here. And, rest assured, not only me says that Russian mass media is obstructing normal process of integration; just check Gebels style lies in Russian TV about Ukraine and Crimea. That is happening here all the times, real informational war. We are called “fascists” just because we like our culture and don’t give up to real fascists from Russia. That’s how it is here.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
During the events of 1991 a lot (including me) of Russian people were on barricades
shoulder to shoulder with Latvians and if needed most of them would risk
their lives for Baltic states independence. Who cares when those Russians were born in Latvia before or
after 1940. They more than proved their loyalty to Latvia but the way Latvia slapped them in the
face was disgraceful insult and not nice no matter what you say. Most countries ( including the one I am living now)
would grant citizenship to those people with no questions asked. And the way those people were treated does
not speak highly about Latvia and as previous commentator said you put a poison pill in your own statehood.
Now regarding the language issue. I hear a lot that Russians refuse to learn the whatever language etc.
But that is not true. Have you seen the comments on the forums like this one. Did you
realize how many Russians speak English or German?. I was born and lived in Latvia for 26 years
before I immigrated to USA. I failed to learn Latvian well(shame on me) despite that I hold Latvian passport because
my father was born here before 1940. But I always was interested in English. Why ? Opportunity my friend, opportunity.
It amazes me that Latvians think that others have to learn Latvian just because. The human nature is different and that
is by the way why USSR failed because the idea of communism is utopia. In USA for example nobody cares if you speak English or not
there are communities where people do not speak a word in English but the issue is they
severely limit themselves in the job opportunities. I got a very good education thanks by the way to soviet educational system
( and if You are old enough, I am sure, so did you) and was not willing to waste it thus i was English “hungry” and learned the language within 6 – 12 month
well enough to get engineering job. And note nobody required me to take exam and bring a proof that I took it :)). I just spoke as well as I could and that was sufficient.
So my point is that instead of concentrating on “making” Russians to learn it concentrate on the economy and make Latvia strong with a
lot of opportunities to get high paid salaries which Latvia does not have or the number of such jobs are limited and already taken. And of cause the spoken Language
should be Latvian in such places. So in this case that would make Russians and not only Russians to want to learn the language.
But to get there you and people like you should step over the past and be over with who did what and when did somebody come to Latvia.
By the way the funny part of getting the citizenship was the fact that despite my father was born here before 1940 he did not speak a word in Latvian.
I do not speak and my mom who was born in Latvia after 1940 in a Russian family speaks perfect Latvian and she did not get the
citizenship. That just shows how well and “fair” the system works :)))
I see this analytical article quite precise in describing actual situation in Latvia (and Estonia).
Would like to highlight as well the author’s mentioned , that not many Russian-speaking people in Latvia would support idea of Latvia’s becoming a part of Russia, despite the fact, that lots of them (especially those, who live in borderland) uses a chance to earn money in Latvia by reselling some comparatively cheaper goods from Russia.
I, personally, being Russian-speaking citizen of Latvia, would NOT like Latvia or any particular part of Latvia to be a part of Russia.
i’m native russian-speaker as well and i too have no even the slightest inclination to see latvia as a part of russia
but i can trace the roots of my family in latvia back to late 1600s and i don’t understand why pauls usurps the whole country for the only one ethic\linguistic group
russian always was a language of the land, along several others, including, of course, lettish and latgolan (western and eastern latvian respectively)
native-speakers of these languages equally consider latvia to be _their_ state and there is nothing wrong when people want _their_ state to serve _their_ interests, including linguistic & cultural ones
latvia is not owned by ethnic latvians
it is owned by all its citizens
and as long as pauls and his kin will insist that only ethnic latvians have the exclusive right to call the shots here, there will be no integration
this is a sure-fire way to make already serious problems even more serious
people whose legitimate interests are trumpled upon quite naturally sooner or later begin to seek solution everywhere
and then as i’ve already stated, the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling
ps re: historical disagreements
i beleive that a necessary first step for any discussion is to define the meaning of the words to be used later, especially when dealing with complex legalese issues
i would kindly invite pauls to present here for example internationally codified definition of the term _occupation_ (making, if necessary, a distinction between benevolent and belligerent one) and then to check this definition with well-established matrix of facts on the ground
btw same is true for any discussion on lettische freiwilligen SS
you stick to nuremburg and UN GA or you’re in the same boat with north korea
1. Latvians usurps whole country in the same way as Russians usurps Russia or Germans usurps Germany. If you check surnames of Latvians you will see many descendants of Russians, Poles, Germans, etc. There is not a single discrimination in our laws towards different ethnic groups, both socially and politically; fact that you can live totally without knowledge of Latvian in, for example, Riga, speaks for itself. Looks like you want to have some special rights for your group, which – as I already have shown – mostly consists of persons unrelated to Latvia. No one forbids your language, ethnicity or culture, still, state language is single one and that’s it. What is the hard point in understanding / accepting that?
2. No one have taken away you rights to “shout”, as you call it. As for myself, I am providing facts.
3. “this is a sure-fire way to make already serious problems even more serious” – what do you mean by this? Please, elaborate.
4. Occupation – check http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm
Please, special attention to quote: “The rules of international humanitarian law relevant to occupied territori es become applicable whenever territory comes under the effective control of hostile foreign armed forces, even if the occupation meets no armed resistance and there is no fighting.”
If not clear – occupation is what Nazi Germany did to Czechoslovakia, for example, or what USSR did to Baltic states and part of Poland (and tried to do to Finland).
I think this debate may by now be prompting Professor Smith to re-consider his chosen area of specialism! As I said before, from my modest experience, I don’t think ethnic conflicts are a particularly suitable area for academic study in any event. Too mucky. It also involves picking sides, which is tricky for an academic. Particularly if one picks the side of the state and joins it in kicking the underdog. Gets very unseemly very quickly.
For what it’s worth, as an outsider with only a small knowledge of this situation, I don’t see a huge deal that’s objectionable in Professor Smith’s account. It actually seems quite balanced to me and intentionally not trying to take a side.
The problem with these subjects is that it’s impossible to approach them from ‘outside’ without being criticised for taking sides. Yet I think solving problems like this probably requires an outside perspective. They say that a good compromise is one where both sides are unhappy, so it’s never going to be popular, but academic accounts of situations like this are very important in my opinion.The great thing about academics is that unlike politicians they *don’t* have to be popular, they just have to tell it as they see it.
David, on the other hand, as an insider (an ethnic Russian from Latvia) I have found David Smith’s account fairly objectionable. Its references to the “Soviet migrants” for instances are deeply offensive. This is the term right-wing ethnic Latvian parties typically use to conjure up images of the great unwashed Mongolian tribes pouring into a pretty little Latvia in a vaguely menacing and uncontrolled manner. This is comically far from the reality. These “Soviet migrants” included my parents, who came to Latvia as medical doctors during a shortage of doctors in the 1960s. They moved within the same country, perfectly legally, just as many English people do when they relocate to work in Scotland or vice versa. There are no “Soviet migrant communities” to which David Smith also refers. This is another, subtly racist stereotype which our domestic ethnocracy resorts to in order to present the Russian community in terms understandable to Western Europeans, as some form of a disorderly ethnic ghetto in an inner city. We are not a ghetto. We are a diverse, economically active and highly educated ethnic group which has a lot to offer our country.
I don’t know enough to disagree/agree with you there so I will take your word for it. As an honest question, what would be a better term to refer to this group? I guess the parallel with say Scottish/English people is not 100% because we all speak the same language and are not really distinct peoples beyond a superficial cultural level.
Mr. David Walker, please, pay attention that Nikolay ignores simple fact that before occupation there were 10% Russians here, after occupation they are 28%, most don’t have any cultural ties to Latvia. They are colonists; is it worth to not offend their feelings by simple TRUTH? It is just another attempt to justify occupation, which occured here. It was horrible thing for Latvian nation, but after reading Nikolay sentences it looks that Russians are victims. More over, I really think that Russians themselves deserve truth instead of “defense” from it, as it is done by Nikolay and Russian-state propaganda machine.
Trust me, we (and other Eastern europeans) know well how far they can go in lies and cruelty. If you want objective look on it, just check objective historical sources, statistics, or better visit Latvia and talk to the people. Check Museum of Occupation. You will see no hate towards Russians here. Split between people is arranged from outside, from Russia; same thing they are doing right now in Ukraine.
David, you see I think the Scottish/English parallel is a very close one. The reality is that apart from the 20 years of independence in the 1920s and 30s which was fraught with dictatorship and supression of political opposition, Latvia was squarely in the Russian cultural sphere for 300 years. And beneath this fairly new artificial conflict created and maintained by the political circles for their own ends, Latvians and Russians are culturally very similar. There is no geographical segregation – people of both communities live side by side, go to the same shops, restaurants and theatres, have the same problems and aspirations. The vast majority are bilungual.
“Latvians and Russians are culturally very similar”
Well, this is another example of lies. Have you been in Latvia?… Not only our languages are different, but also life style and values. Latvians promote non-violence, love to nature and work (check our national poetry). They are introvert, in this regard more closer to, for example, Japanese, than to extrovert Russians. They are much more solitary than Russians; our predecessors have lived in separate houses, not villages. They talk less than Russians. They dress differently. Etc.
I am not talking about pseudo-values, introduced by communists, into Russian and into (to lesser degree) Latvian cultures – non-critical thinking, ability to hate, violence towards those who are different.
eye-watering indeed
i find paul’s invocation of collective (group) responsibility endlessly touching 🙂
in the course of this discussion he made it at least twice
first trying to push me into some group (*you want to have some special rights for your group*)
then attempting to justify treatment of certain people (descendants of the citizens of interwar republic with russian as a fisrt tongue) by the behavior\qualities\number of some other people (paul calls them _colonists_) solely on the basis of ethnicity or mother’s tongue (*before occupation there were 10% Russians here, after occupation they are 28%*)
besides, i’d like to (very politely) note, that bringing this figures (28/10) into discussion without clarification is a tweak in itself
in early 1930s (later data collected under ulmanis dictatorship or under nazis or soviets are unreliable)
a quarter of latvian jews were natively russian-speaking (with another quarter being native-speakers of german), three thirds of latvian belarusians as well as a third of poles and some 5 per cent of latvians (especially those of orthodox christianity and resettlers from soviet russia)
btw, paul, according to that nice link of yours latvia was not occupied: in 1940 country was not _placed under authority of hostile army_ — all power was executed via and\or by civilian structures with everyone pliantly remaining on their places and the supreme leader, who assented to everything, remaining on his without any attempts to protest 😉
maybe it make sense to bring some better definition?
as of discrimination (i’d prefer term _marginalization_) for starters i advice to have a look at government’s rules on language proficiency
i honestly what reasons besides driving people to the margins were behind requiring language proficiency tests for occupations like grave-digger and butcher (at a slaughterhouse) or, for that matter for translators (from russian to english, for example)
btw i rather disagree with nikolay and rather agree with pauls re: cultural (dis)similarities
traditional latvian culture is based upon western christianity with massive element loaned from germans and some surviving pagan decorum
traditional russian culture is based upon eastern christianity with massive element loaned from germans and some surviving pagan decorum
essentially, we are all germans 🙂
Pauls’s outburst above is precisely what the Baltic Russians have had to contend with for the last 23 years. It illustrates my points very well.
You cannot ask others to respect your lies, Nikolay. If you feel it as an insult – how can I help you? Really, be a man and look on the facts…
Pauls, I am afraid you also must be a man and look at the facts. Russia has many nationalities. They all co-exist and it has been like that for a long time. The same with UK. UK supports communities and tries to gear them toward integration by demonstrating values and goals of British People. If those values and goals are not shared, people do not integrage or want to separate, like Scotland now. YEs, some Scotts and Irish still call Brits occupants. Well, if you share their views, I have nothing to add.
As for Latvia, why would not your wrath fell on Lithuania, whose ‘free shooters’ or volnie strelki were the ones to bring socialism by sword on Baltic states? OR Rech pospolita, agressively attacking Russia throughout almost its whole existence? In USSR people of different nationalities lived in all republics. Well, USSR leaders were not Russian apart from a couple of them, it was a multinational society. Take Baku – more than 20 nationalities co-existed. So the fact that Russian people moved for various reasons to Latvia should not be a surprise. They did not get preferencial treatement, so to call them occupants would be naff. As for Nazi occupation, sorry, you guys celebrate Nazi parades now! and you are the country with Salaspilsconcentration camp. There was no overwhelming support to fight nazi as it was in Belorussia. Alas, Baltic republics were on par with Western Ukraine, many welcoming NAzi and assiting genocide. As for nationalism, I first time in my life encountered it as 16 in Vilnus (Lithuania). I was ignored completely, shopkeepers pretended not to understand Russian. And in Riga we were refused to be served in a restaurant, our family friend threw a tantrum, she was Latvian and disgusted. I remember she said to the waitress, ” You were under Germans and would have been if not for the blood of Russian soldiers’. I was shocked. It was 1982! Nationalism was always there. And I have met Russian immigrants to UK who had their business expropriated (small business) by Latvians when Latvia joined EC. I have visited Riga this summer. I was with my 75 years old mother. I have asked two middle aged men where the railway station was and they told me in Russian – we do not understand your Russian Languge, go away! It was so rude. At the same time, all other people I met in Riga were polite, friendly and wonderful. This is why, Paul, think about the purpose of presenting Russian occupation. Why Russian? USSR was created on German money and run by jewish revolutionaries. Does it mean we must bomb Israel? No, of course. So why hatred towards Russians? You either become someone like those 2 rude men, or be a proud Latvian, treasuring his culture, with no need to look better by demeaning others and without victim mentality. Otherwise, instead of moving forward, it would be stagnation with obsession with ‘if only we … but evil so and so made it impossible”. I admire UK, who takes on a chin whatever imperial past critisism is thrown at them, a welcoming country which sets its rules and makes it attractive to others to chose to live and work here. Having said that, I would say UK became too lenient on immigration, bringing in people with not much respect to or wish to learn their culture.
How all this relates to topic of discussion (not talking about obvious historical inaccuracies, to say the least)? Also, do you really believe old communist propaganda? Just interesting.
We are talking about integration of Russian-speaking people in Latvia here. And I am saying that base of the problem is that Russian-state propaganda does all what it can to keep the split. Even inventing new history, denying obvious facts, mixing it all with half-truths for the effect. This way they provoke response, which is later called by them “fascism”, “russo-phobie”, “hatred to Russians”. Old style working of KGB, splitting nations, trying to start conflicts on ethnic base. Just check how nations were “befriended” for USSR, it is bloody nightmare, which was later masked as “free will of people”. Honestly, what can you expect of a state, whose leader (Putin) publicly spreads lies (just single example – he doesn’t know that Russian army is in Crimea)?… Now they are using this in Ukraine, but one cannot hide truth for long, and at some point these lies will come back to those, who invented them, no doubt. All world sees their true nature.
Right now you cannot stand the truth, instead talking various things just to move away from essential questions. As I already stated, and can state again – according to international law (not MY individual attitude, or hatred to Russians, as you call it) those, who came to Latvia during occupation and annexation, are colonists. Can we agree on that? Yes or no, please.
no we can’t until you provide
a) definition of occupation relevant to the factual circumstances in latvia in 1939-40 and codified by international law and not by wikipedia of political declaration (a hint — international legal documents are usually convention or charter or treaty or pact)
b) same for annexation
c) same for colony and colonist
then we may see whether facts on the ground corresponds to set of criteria in aforementioned definitions
please take into account that usually international
oops…
please take into account that usually international legal norms (though with few notable exceptions) are not applicable retroactively
Check wikipedia about factual truth what happened in Latvia and other Baltic states during occupation. Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_continuity_of_the_Baltic_states
—
Sequence of events, in short:
1) Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is signed in 1939, which contains secret protocols about division of “spheres of interest” in Eastern Europe between USSR and Nazy Germany; Baltic states, Finland and part of Poland goes to USSR. First, Poland is invaded by Nazi Germany, then by USSR.
2) Stalin gives ultimatum to Baltic states and Finland to allow USSR military bases in their territory; Baltic states agree, as they consider resistance is futile, Finland doesn’t agree, which leads to Winter war for them.
3) Next step for Baltic states is military invasion, after another ultimate from Stalin. Note, that people are killed, in Maslenniki border post, in Tallin, and other places, during this invasion.
4) governments of Baltic states have to resign; new elections are scheduled, only communist party is included in the list
5) representatives of puppet governments go to Moscow and ask about inclusion of Baltic states in USSR.
—
Note that puppet parliament, which was elected, didn’t had rights to cancel sovereignty of Latvia, as it requires referendum according to Constitution of Latvia. All this scenario looks surprisingly similar to that one which has happened in Crimea right now, and what is most likely prepared for Ukraine. As always: bad things have tendency to repeat until guilty one isn’t punished.
—
I already provided link where occupation is defined, will provide that once more:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/634kfc.htm
Here are few excerpts:
1) Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a ” territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. ”
2) The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.
Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).
3) Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
—
You are asking if statements about “occupation” and “colonization” are based in laws not just some political doctrines. Also, you would like to know if laws are applicable because Fourth Geneva convention was accepted in 1949. I am giving you historical facts and references to laws, you can find answers for yourself, according to your conscience. I cannot change you, that is not my task. I am interested in public opinion, most importantly, opinion of high-ranked international courts. In couple cases it has already agreed that occupation had occured, which implies all judicial consequences (annexation, colonization), check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_continuity_of_the_Baltic_states#European_Court_of_Human_Rights
—
This question was rather buried to not upset problematic Russian bear. Recent events in Crimea shows, that this country sees occupation scenario feasible for more land grabs. This should be stopped, and first step is clear, explicit recognition of fact of occupation of Baltic states by high-rank international court.
it’s getting comical, i’m sad to note
pauls, i’ve pointedly asked you not to refer me to wikipedia, and offered to anchor our discussion in codified norms of international law.
first thing you did? guess! right! two links to wiki…
then you paste a link to the same 1907 convention that, as i stated earlier, does not stand a test by well-established facts on the ground
a very simple question re: applicability of definition in question — was an army rule established in latvia (i.e. local authorities being disbanded and replaced by army commandants, police being fully retired and replaced by army patrols, civil courts fully abolished and replaced by army tribunals etc. etc. etc.)?
we both know, that this was _not_ the case. the fact is that overall civilian chain of governance was in place with soviet orders relayed directly to the very top levels of civilian structures and then passed down the ladder. moreover, it was soviet embassy who gave orders, not some brassass in red army uniform. lastly, latvia’s armed forces en mass were neither disbanded nor interned and later as a whole became a territorial corp — a full-fledged part of the red army. obviously, bringing here hague (1907) definition is counterproductive to your own cause. in strict accordance to it latvia was _not_ occupied and this is the reason i’ve already asked you to come up with better wordage from some another, more relevant document.
btw I must note that echr document you refer me to (via another wiki-link) uses the term _annexation_ not _occupation_ in the verdict in latvian case; as to estonian case is not a verdict but a procedural ruling on admissibility of the estonian case, simply restating the positions of parties (estonian government and former nkvd men)
if your interst is not my re-education, but public opinion, you do yourself a disservice by this
1. Guess, your problem is not with wikipedia, but with truth. Every fact there has a reference source. Up to you to ignore them.
2. Yes, army wasn’t disbanded. You forget to mention that most officers were either shot or arrested / deported. And, of course, most had families. It is easy to get one to serve the occupation forces, when he or his family is pointed by gun; terror has already started at that moment, many people had disappeared or found tortured and killed. Also, when Nazi Germany started war with USSR, many of these soldiers revolted and started to attack retreating USSR forces (just check the facts, again and again).
Btw, Geneva convention forbids to conscript men from occupied countries, so good that you mention army of Latvia.
3. Yes, you are right, occupation is mentioned only in case for Estonia, but it won’t be hard to get same term to be used for events in Latvia and Lithuania as well. Just, as I stated, no one cared too much so far about sorting out this problem, but fascist Russia currently doesn’t leave a choice.
Btw, if occupation by army is such a nice thing, then why are you condemning Nazi Germany? They were liberators, not occupiers (just prove that I am wrong at this point!). Would you like to say “they killed many”? NO! They killed just communists and their servants. Did you know that around 2 MILLIONS of Russians have served Adolf Hitler in his army? And many did it voluntary, not like army of Latvia, which was simply renamed and reformed to be cannon-fodder.
In short, if a person tries to justify occupation by army of another country, then he inevitably justifies occupation by army of his own country.
Also, looks like you are not able to understand the facts you are presented. I will start in step-by-step manner, to get things working (it appears there are some serious problems with your education in field of history).
1) do you recognize existence of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and its secret protocols where spheres of interest are divided between Nazi Germany and USSR?
2) do you recognize that Nazi Germany invaded Poland, USSR tried to invade Finland, both invasions were done by army and met active resistance?
3) do you recognize that army of USSR entered sovereign territory of Poland and Baltic states (this one will be easiest for you, with purpose not using word “invasion”, to help you get on the track)?
4) do you recognize there was only single party in parliament elections, which was organized in presence of foreign armed forces, in all three Baltic states?
5) do you recognize fact that parliament of Latvia cannot cancel sovereignty of its country, it needs accept of people in referendum, according to Constitution of Latvia (Satversme)?
6) do you recognize fact of terror / killings / deportations during presence of USRR armed forces in territory of Latvia, done by special services of USSR?
Then we will proceed to international law.
Paul, I am living tonight for a business trip, so would not be able to answer later on. It depends on your definition of colonists. Colonist is either a person who settles on or explores virgin unoccupied lands, or a person who comes to ‘enslave’ native population. Obvioulsy, there was no enslavement. In USSR, if we can paraphraze the famous book, some animals were more equal than others, of course, but this did not apply to common people. On a contrary, you have chosen to ignore the statements in my post. USSR did not celebrate nationalities as such but tried to build ‘homo soveticus’, a soviet person. This is why in Russian, where I am from, and in former Republics where my friends are from, nationality was never celebrated, nobody was encouraged to wear national clothes apart from some school performances, we did nto have Russian festivals or the like. The soviet man/woman suppose to be ‘above nationality’. I was growing up in the 60s, so I know. And many were sent to other Republics to help locals, as in the example mentioned by someone in this trend, his parents came as doctors. Colonists have privileges. What privileges you are talking about? as for avoiding the topic of latvian shooters you are twisting the fact that Latvia was under ‘occupation’ of several nationalities during its existence. And that USSR as such was not Russian, but Soviet doctrine spread to many nations, with 90% leaders being of not of Russian descent. And that USSR is no longer here, Latvia has had independence for several decades and to blame ‘russians’ is ridiculous. I know that Latvian agencies heavily advertise Jurmala properties in Russia and some reps hunt Russian tourists (waiting when they get drunk :)) to sell properties in Riga. Then there is an outcry that Russians are buying off Riga! Well, sorry, I know how so much EC money has been stolen by those in position of power and that several millions were spent on the library which has not been completed yet (stolen money, inflated budgets). I did speak to many people in Latvia and realised that it is convenient to see yourself as a victim and have a common enemy, but it won’t bring your country forward. What would? honest government 🙂
Hi, all. I’m a russian speaking Latvian that lives a long time abroad. My father is an ethnic Latvian that does not speak a word of it’s own language instead he speaks russian. I used to speak latvian before I left but as it was over 12 years ago, I hardly remember the basics. And now.. me too speaking only russian and a few other foreign languages but the language of the country where I was born and raised not, it’s a shame.
Many of my friends went to both russian and for a few years to latvian school or reverse, those could speak both languages perfectly and still do.
I wish for Latvia to resolve the language situation finally in the wise and positive way plus as a professor D. Smith said not to seek to exploit the situation in the Ukraine between two nations in Latvia.. I wish to Latvia togetherness.