A friend of mine from Finland who is rather an expert in these matters sent me the following just before this latest story broke:
Hi!
I am fine but busy, as things here bordering to Russia are getting all the more interesting about every week now. While the Moscow police was well geared to break up an attempted demonstration (a type of thought crime) by chess grandmaster Garri Kasparov and the other remaining liberals, arresting hundreds of passers-by, it seems to be impotent when faced with pro-Putin youth, the Nashi, blockading the Estonian embassy for several days. At the same time, Russian officials were shocked by the “brutality” of Estonian police arresting some vandalizing Russian youth in Tallinn. Although Russians themselves have removed statues of war heroes in several Russian towns, they prefer to call the decision by the Estonian government to move a statue and the bodies buried beneath it from hectic downtown to the old military cemetery (where all the other Soviet soldiers are buried), an act of fascism and a deliberate insult to ethnic Russians. According to the logic of non-chess playing Kremlin, the Soviet statue represent “mother Russia” who “liberated” Estonia during the Second World War, and Estonians should remain grateful and humble toward the “Russian liberators”. Yet, according to official Soviet history and Putin himself, Estonia was since 1940 a part of the larger Soviet Union, and its citizens were drafted to the common Red Army. Now, if that was so, then the “liberators” were not Russians but Soviets (including loyal Estonians themselves), and the whole statue issue should not concern other former Soviet republics (like the Russian Federation) at all! And if, on the contrary, the liberators were indeed ethnic Russians and the statue represents them only, why would Kremlin not draw the logical and correct conclusion, that Estonia was an independent country “liberated” unwillingly by a foreign power? But the issue is not actually about history, ethnicity, or statues (not any more than the cartoon conflict was about Islamic theology), but about Russia’s need to test the mutual solidarity of NATO members, to draw attention from domestic troubles to “enemies” abroad, and to build up the Russian national-socialistic Nashi movement.
Your Finnish friend has very keen insight relating Moscow's multi-threats against the West. I for one look forward to any of his future commentaries on the expanding dangers along the 'Russian Front'.
A friend of mine from Finland who is rather an expert in these matters sent me the following just before this latest story broke:==
Your expaert is just the russophobe. You may find such experts all over the internet.
the Soviet statue represent “mother Russia” who “liberated” Estonia during the Second World War, and Estonians should remain grateful and humble toward the “Russian liberators”. ==
Th esatue is the men fugure. It can then represent rather the “father Russia” not “mother”:))).
Now, if that was so, then the “liberators” were not Russians but Soviets (including loyal Estonians themselves), ===
That is true.
and the whole statue issue should not concern other former Soviet republics (like the Russian Federation) at all! ==
The wrong conclusion. All teh soviet soldier of WW2 was heroes. So Russia defends just those defendless heroes.
But the issue is not actually about history, ethnicity, or statues (not any more than the cartoon conflict was about Islamic theology), but about Russia’s need to test the mutual solidarity of NATO members, to draw attention from domestic troubles to “enemies” abroad, and to build up the Russian national-socialistic Nashi movement.==
That is BS. Russia needs no problems but wnats peace but she will stand for her values. One of them is the former hitlerite supporters (estonians) must shut up.
bttt
” Russia’s need to test the mutual solidarity of NATO members, to draw attention from domestic troubles to “enemies” abroad, and to build up the Russian national-socialistic Nashi movement.”