I’m glad that the 1969 anniversary Soviet attack on Afghanistan’s president is remembered. However, I must admit to being puzzled. Could someone on the RT staff please explain why the 1940 Soviet attack against the presidents of three other neighbouring countries, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are passed over in total silence? The Red Army forcibly took over the governments of all three countries, forcibly incorporated those nations into the Soviet Union, and deported their Presidents as prisoners to Russia, where they died, along with tens of thousands of their compatriots. Is there some logical reason or some definitive editorial policy that explains this inconsistency? Why is a Soviet assault against its north-western neighbours somehow less worthy of remembrance than Soviet aggression against a southern neighbour?

Marzipan, I admire your presistence. I hope the RT staff does not get piqued at me for jumping the gun, but I want to answer you. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had geopolitical consequences for the Middle East and the USSR - witness the growth of the US-funded Taliban, the demise of the USSR, and American occupation of Afghanistan. The Red Army's 1940 entry into the Baltic nations was not an "attack" since their entry was pursuant to an agreement with Stalin - unfair agreement, but still an agreement. Not a shot was fired as the Red Army marched into Tallinn to the cheers of people gathered at Freedom Square. Had the Estonians. Latvians and Lithuanians fought against the Red Army, as the Finns did, perhaps someone in the West would remember the date. But, they didn't, so no one recalls the occasion. Face it. The Russian army could march into Tallinn today, and neither America or NATO would lift a finger to help Estonia. I doubt whether the average staffer in the Obama White House even knows what and where Estonia is.

Well Marzipan6, it's getting time to prepare for our News Year's Eve party. That is one time when all my Estonian and Russian relatives get to celebrate together in a festive mood. I even am allowed to sing "Milenkij Ty Moj". My wife hates that song. We always assign one person as the Drink Master. Whatever booze is left in the bottles, he has to pay for. Typical Estonia-Russian party. So happy New Year to you Marzipan6, to all the great folks on this board and to the excellent staff at RT.

Kihnu, indeed you know somewhat about Estonia. But not enough. No one complains about Stalin’s 1939 bases agreement with Estonia. Like you say, it was an unfair agreement, and it was forced on Estonia, but in the end, it was still a valid agreement between the Estonian and Soviet governments, under whose terms Moscow was permitted to station 25,000 troops in certain specified locations in Estonia, while Moscow itself promised to respect Estonia’s sovereignty. The problem is not the agreement, but what Moscow did subsequently. Moscow greatly exceeded the permitted number of Soviet troops, unilaterally established bases in areas not sanctioned by the agreement, then crossed the border with a further 80,000 unauthorised troops (the Soviet military in Estonia now exceeded 10% of the country’s entire population), and used these forces not against Germany, but against Estonia, to take over the government, arrest its members along with the President, hold sham elections which conformed to no Estonian constitutional requirements and which only Communists were allowed to contest and whose “results” were mistakenly announced by Moscow a day before the election ended, and then unconstitutionally absorb Estonia into the Soviet Union. Then began the massacres and mass deportations of Estonian civilians. The Estonian President was transported to Russia, and imprisoned and died in a mental asylum in Kalinin (Tver) in 1956. The people, governments and presidents of Latvia and Lithuania faced similar fates. Which brings us back to the original question. Why does RT commendably remember the Soviet assault against the President of Afghanistan, but not the Presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? Of course the Russian army could march into Tallinn tomorrow if it wanted to – that has never been in doubt. The “want to” part is harder to determine, though, due in no small measure to Moscow’s ongoing anti-Baltic antagonism, of which the current article is symptomatic

And a happy new year to you, Kihnu – or to say it in the language of the land, “head uut aastat!” And a very happy New Year and Orthodox Christmas celebration to the thousands of Russian tourists currently celebrating these in Estonia. May Moscow’s anti-Baltic policies change over the course of this year, and may this change be reflected in an article that the RT might publish entitled “Soviet Assault on the Presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania Remembered.” A change of heart by official Moscow would make it possible for normal friendly relations between Estonians and Russians to develop without the constant aggravation which Moscow’s blasts currently cause. But then, one wonders whether the Kremlin judges that good relations between communities within Estonia, and good national relations between Estonia and Russia are really in its policy interests. One suspects that it suits Russia just fine to stir up inter-communal strife within the Baltics, and to have Baltic “enemies” whom it can loudly accuse and whom it can use to lever divisions within the EU, but who in reality pose absolutely no danger to it whatever. (And who, incidentally, provide a higher average standard of living to Russians living within their borders than Russia does to its own people at home.)

Marzipan6, I accept your New Year's wishes. However, I notice that you can not post without some negative comments about Russia and Russians. Your soul seems to have been badly wounded by Matt Rodina. Try to relax a bit, and accept what has happened has happened and time to move on.

I’m quite relaxed, thanks, Kihnu, and certainly have no problems accepting anything that has happened, and moving on. I would suggest you direct your advice to Russia, though, and not because I am “unrelaxed” but because your advice is very appropriate to it. Why do I say this? (1) Russia has not yet accepted what happened 70 years ago, and still clings, quite ridiculously, and very offensively, to Stalin’s interpretation of events (ask Putin if there ever was a Soviet occupation of the Baltics). (2) Russia has not even fully accepted what happened 19 years ago and still claims special privileges for its nationals in the former Soviet space, and gets extremely upset if the same rules apply to them as to everyone else. (3) Russia does not accept what happens today in the former Soviet space, and thinks it has some kind of veto on alliances which nations there can or cannot make, and on the territorial integrity of its neighbours. (4) Based on its deep non-acceptance of past and present realities, one is justified in suspecting that Russia might want to also bend the future to its distorted grasp of reality, and that is the real problem, the only one that can still be solved, and the one that motivates me. Indeed it would be illogical to think that Russia does not hold views of the future that are conditioned by its distorted views of the past and present. Those who are oriented to Russia’s viewpoints may not think that is a particular problem because they do not clearly analyze Russia’s failure to accept the past and to move on from it. I did not and do not cause Russia’s behaviour, Kihnu. But I reject the notion that if Russia behaves as it does, others are not meant to comment on it very, very clearly. PS – who is Matt Rodina?

Happy New Year All! To Marzipan6. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania was former of Russia Empire before 1917 (after Communist revolution they announce independence) thus Stalin want to retake them in 1940. Afghan is not. This is a big difference. Some facts of Estonia and Latvia. They supported Hitler and Nazi in WWII. There was not attack to them but taking under control as part of Hitler-Stalin negotiations (with very West Ukraine also) without assault. Estonia and Latvia accepted soviet ultimatum without military resistance.. This was a part of Stalins' policy - make a temporary negotiations with Hitler to divide some countries (Stalin was not ready to defeat Hitler in that time), then let Hitler to conquer all Europe and then to free Europe from evil (nazism and Hitler) to make Europe a communism state. Soviet Union supported DRA and Afghan socialistic revolution of 1978 and fought against mujahadeens (now Taliban) supported by USA goverment and CIA.

Marzipan6 "Matt Rodina" is Russian for "Mother Russia" and dwells in the soul of all true Russians. I notice that you use the term "Soviet space" instead of Soviet Union or USSR - interesting. What you described in your last post also fits the United States of America. Historically, powerful nations have determined the fate of weaker neighbors. Russia is not an exception. Look what America did to Mexico, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc; or, consider the expansion of the British Empire over the globe. Compared to USA, Russia has been a calm beacon of hope to the world in the 21st century. Don't you agree? I still suggest that you take the old bloody bandages off your head and see the new bright world that is out there. They 20th century was bloody awful for us all. No need to become a prisoner of those days gone by. My Estonian wife lives under the same anti-Russian burden as you do and I know it torments her to see me post something positive about Russia. She also thinks my website glorifies the Red Army too much - but, she has gotten used to it.

Max: "Some facts of Estonia and Latvia. They supported Hitler and Nazi in WWII" What makes you think that? There is absolutely no evidence that Estonians and Latvians admired and supported Hitler and the Nazis in WW II - none whatsoever. However, there is a lot of propaganda to brainwash the naive and uninformed to believe such nonsense! Please provide me with some concrete evidence that the Estonians and Latvians supported Hitler and the Nazis during WW II. I just want your response for my own peace of mind so I would not consider you a "naive and uninformed person". The Estonian and Latvian units who fought with the Germans did so on their own soil to keep the Red Army out. Now, you might make a case that the Danes, Norwegians, Flemish, French, Dutch, etc "supported Hitler and Nazis" during WW II because they left their own country to fight on foreign soil for the Germans, but this is not the case with the Estonians and Latvians. I am awaiting your response with great anticipation.

Kihnu, in the context of the Baltics’ Soviet connections I prefer to use the term, “Soviet space” instead of “USSR” advisedly, because “USSR” implies a sense of legitimacy that was not there in reality. “Union” implies a negotiated, willing and legal association which was entirely absent in the case of the Baltics. They were invaded, captured and forcibly subjected to Moscow’s illegal domination entirely against their will. “Soviet” implies local councils which actually had some say in local affairs. Such was not the case in the Baltics or anywhere else, as the USSR was a sheer dictatorship with local wishes counting for nothing. “Socialist” implies a just sharing of wealth and resources, but in the USSR, farms, houses, properties, businesses and resources were unjustly stolen from their rightful owners by the state and wasted in the service of Marxist dogma, while all that was distributed equally was poverty and misery (the nomenklatura excepted). “Republic” suggests a grand form of government in which the people actually have a say – they had none in the USSR. The very name, “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” was a four-fold lie. However the entity existed, and has to be called something. “Soviet space” or “Soviet entity” seems appropriate, but even then the technical meaning of “soviet” is compromised. Regarding the USA, while it is far from an angel in disguise, I don’t know of it being in denial about any aspect of its history. In any case, deflecting the focus to some other country does not solve problems in regard to Russia. Soviet Russia’s involvement with its neighbours was horrifically barbaric, and today’s Russia refuses to acknowledge this and thus brings no closure to wounds that Russians under the Soviet flag struck against their neighbours. Consequently these wounds fester, make it impossible for its neighbours to consider Russia a normal country, and frustrate contemporary Russia’s policies at every turn.

Max: yes, the Baltics were part of the Tsarist Empire. Estonia fought its victorious 1918-1920 War of Independence against both Russian and German forces, and this ended with Moscow signing the Tartu Peace Treaty with Estonia on 2 February 1920 by which it “recognises the independence of Estonia and revokes forever every sovereign right Russia has ever had on the Estonian land and people.” Treaties either mean something, or they do not. Amongst civilized people, they do. But Moscow took a different approach. Already in December 1924 it sent covert invaders across the border to organise an armed coup in Estonia against its government. The attempt was put down, but with loss of life. Moscow saw its next opportunity to extinguish Estonian sovereignty in 1940. With world attention diverted to Britain fighting for its life and to France having just fallen to the Nazis, and with the US determinedly neutral, Russia occupied Estonia and destroyed it, despite numerous treaties of friendship it had with it. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were the only three countries in the world that were independent nations at the start of WW2, and that failed to emerge as independent nations at the end of it. Max, I’d also like to add a little to the response Kihnu already gave. The thrust of his response was absolutely correct. Estonians abhorred any form of totalitarianism, whether right wing or left wing, and they had no love of Hitler. Because Russia had already dismantled Estonia’s military in 1940, the only way Estonians could now fight against the returning Soviet invaders was within the German military. They fought not only on Estonian territory, but also in Russia itself, to try to hinder the Red Army’s advance back into their country in the hope that the war would end before Estonia was re-occupied by the Soviets. They failed in this attempt, and suffered almost another 50 years of Soviet oppression. For them, WW2 ended in 1991.

Marzipan6 Your intense dislike of Russians and Russia does not surprise me because I have seen it in my Estonian friends and relatives by marriage. I am glad that I am not so obsessed with past Soviet crimes. My family also suffered in the WW II. Most of my mother's family and relatives died during the German siege of Leningrad, and I have never met any of them since none are alive. My father's relatives survived the gulags. However, I don't dwell on this suffering as you do. I sincerely advise you to let go of your extreme obsessiveness with past injustices against Estonia. Such feelings will not undo the past. And, you should not expend energy and emotions waiting for Russia to apologize to the Estonians for shipping 30,000 to the gulags when they themselves lost tens of millions at the hands of Hitler and Stalin.

Kihnu, thank you sincerely for your kind thoughts. But I wish that you would hear what I actually say, and not read into my words what I have never said and what I do not feel nor believe. I have no dislike of Russians, whether intense or otherwise. Absolutely none whatever. Never have had. Russians were often guests in my childhood home, and I enjoyed their comings and goings. My father was born in Russia, both my parents spoke Russian fluently, and did so even when they had no Russian guests, when they needed to discuss things that little ears weren’t meant to hear. Russian people and the Russian language have a comfortable, homey feel for me. I dislike Russia’s destructive government policies, past and present, and the actions of those individual people who choose to behave obnoxiously in concert with those policies. Secondly, I am not outraged by past Soviet Russian crimes but by the ongoing arrogance, lies and indifference of the Russian leadership in regard to them, because of what this bodes for the future. Their nation is complicit in almost unbelievable abuse of others, and they as it were simply shove their hands in their pockets, shrug their shoulders, mutter “nitshevo”, and saunter off as if nothing at all had happened. An attitude like this is extremely dangerous for the future as any Jewish person, for example, would attest if the equivalent attitude were held by Germany, but thankfully it is not. Thirdly, crimes against Russia do not begin to justify Russia’s crimes against others. In regard to Estonia, these involve far more that the deportation of some 30,000 people, but also the totalitarian oppression of the country for 50 years, crippling its development, and include Moscow continuing to do all it can to this day to hinder Estonia healing its Soviet-era damage. While Russia maintains such anti-Baltic attitudes and actions, I will try to reflect back to it the nature of what it is doing. Russia needs to know, and it needs to change

Marzipan6 I am glad that you clarified your views, because I assumed that you had a personal dislike of Russia and Russians which I thought was obsessive. A program like RT is a marvelous venue for introducing the marvels of Russia to the West, and permitting people of differing views to exchange opinions on matters that normally would not be discussed on other venues.

It could be, Kihnu, that some other Estonians who appear to you to be anti-Russian are also not so much anti-Russian as anti Russian politics. You seem to understand Estonians and know why their country is so important to them. You know that they are motivated not by some chauvinistic desire to lord it over others, much less some by feeling of superiority, but by a quietly desperate wish to survive as a people. Their long history tells them that they have always lived on the brink of national extinction at the hands of stronger neighbours. Their main defence has never been spears or swords or guns, but rather, their own culture and language, which has provided a defensive shield around them. Because of this, Estonians are extremely protective of their culture, and view any erosion of it with alarm. In the context of Moscow’s unfriendly policies, it is easy for Estonians to misinterpret any less than 100% perfection by local Russians as evidence of collusion with such politics, and a negative reaction becomes automatic. Just as it is automatic for local Russians, who are also overshadowed by Moscow’s politics, to misinterpret Estonians’ reactions as being evidence of hatred of Russians, when probably it is not that at all. Since Moscow isn’t about to change, I believe it is important for local Russians to clearly differentiate themselves from Moscow’s politics, so that they can be evaluated just as a person on their own merits, and not as an extension of the Kremlin. Rejoice with Estonians on February 24, mourn with them on June 14, never lose what is precious to you of your own Russian heritage, but also, never make it a secret exactly where you disagree with Moscow’s politics. If enough people of Russian heritage do this consistently enough, then mutual misunderstandings and unfair cross-communal judgments can gradually fall away. Estonians and Russians are fated to live together, and they owe it to their children to make their common home a happy one.

marzipan6, First of all, I absolutely support Eesti existence as an Estonian state and the home of the Kalev people. I am just concerned that some, if not most Estonians, are too emotional about Russia and Russians, and this bodes ill for Estonia.