The BBC reports:
I was irritated by his three-piece suit. I was irritated by his floppy bow tie. But if I am honest, what really irritated me about Toomas Ilves was the fact that he and I had started off in almost the same job and I had become “our own correspondent” while he had become a head of state. Do not get me wrong, I love what I do. But arriving at the pad he occupies as president of Estonia – a charming little salmon-and-cream-cheese-coloured mansion in a park built for Peter the Great – I could not help feeling a twinge of envy.
It was not the kind of home either of us could have imagined in the late 1980s when I was a talks writer in the Russian section of the BBC World Service, and he was something similar in the Estonian section of Radio Free Europe. And it was not the kind of house I ever got. So when I had nodded at – and been ignored by – the white-gloved ceremonial guards on my way in, I am afraid I was a little less courteous to him than he was to me.
Why, I asked, did he not speak Russian? It seemed a reasonable question because Russian is the language of more than a quarter of Estonia’s population. But for President Ilves it was not reasonable at all. Speaking Russian, he said firmly, would mean accepting 50 years of Soviet brutalisation because most Russian-speakers settled in Estonia only after it was occupied by the USSR towards the end of World War II. And when I pressed him, saying surely it would only mean being able to communicate with a large number of his fellow countrymen in their own language, he replied – as heads of state have every right to do: “This is a real dead end, I don’t want to discuss it.”
I moved on. And we had another cup of tea.
But Estonia’s relations with Russia have reached something of a dead end since a bitter row last year over the moving of a monument. For Russians, the bronze statue of a Soviet soldier was a symbol of sacrifice, commemorating Estonia’s liberation from Nazi Germany. For Estonians it was a symbol of slavery, reminding them of the Soviet domination that followed. Last April, when the Estonian government ordered it to be moved from a central square in the capital Tallinn to a military cemetery, protests by local Russians degenerated into riots. Russia accused Estonia of blasphemy and threatened “serious measures” in response.
What followed was a partial Russian trade blockade of Estonia and – far more chilling – an extraordinary cyber-attack. Millions of malicious messages were sent to Estonian websites and almost succeeded in disabling the country’s entire computer network. The messages were in Russian and mostly accused Estonians of being fascists. There is no proof the Kremlin was behind them or behind the riots.
But President Ilves believes Moscow loses no opportunity to meddle in the affairs of his tiny country. Indeed as a former radio journalist, he was keen to quote me a weighty think-tank report that suggests the Kremlin is trying to divide and rule the whole of Europe. As a former talks writer from a more Russophile background, I was more inclined to give the Kremlin the benefit of the doubt.
But my views changed a bit when I got to the Kremlin itself.
I found myself soon afterwards in a grand office behind its intimidating red-brick walls, looking out over the psychedelic onion domes of St Basil’s Cathedral and taking tea with President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy adviser, Sergei Prikhodko. He was so disgusted by the moving of the bronze soldier statue that he could not bring himself to say anything else at all about Estonia. But he would talk about relations with another neighbour, Georgia.
Georgia has also accused Russia of meddling. And it has also found itself the victim of swingeing trade sanctions. Why, I asked, were they necessary? “Georgia,” Mr Prikhodko growled back, “can’t always be like a little boy that takes a fork or a hammer and tries to whack its neighbour. Even a small child knows that if you spill tea or mess up your bed, you might be punished.”
Small child? Punishment?
I was quite taken aback, in such a lofty setting, to hear those sentiments expressed so crudely. And I was bound to assume that Estonia is also regarded as a small child that needs punishing. If that is Russia’s attitude, President Ilves’ desire to turn his back on it seems altogether easier to understand. Of course, I know he has always looked west when I have been looking east. From Radio Free Europe he went to Washington – as Estonian ambassador – while I had gone from the World Service to the BBC News bureau in Moscow. Whether or not that is the secret of his success, I do not know. But turning westwards certainly has not done Toomas Ilves, or his country, any harm.
And I think now I can get over him having such a nice little palace.
I find this piece almost outrageously patronising
Patronizing to (or is it of?) who (or is it whom?)?
Aw c’mon Ed. You of all people should know that’s the only way a British journalist can admit he was wrong: “Well, I may have been wrong about THAT, but I was right about his necktie… AND his butler treated me rudely.” All the rest is just the fluff needed to get to 700 words.
Isn’t this the same Toomas Hendrik Ilves who worked as a journalist for Radio “Free Europe”, and became involved in the counter-revolution in Estonia along side Stalinist bureaucrat Arnold Rüütel?
Do you know, dear bolshevik, that one of the most beloved artists in Estonia, Helgi Sallo, had a nomination of being a “celebrated soviet artist” … and she was supporting the singing revolution and re-establishing the Republic of Estonia alongside with other “celebrated soviet artists” and “heroes of communist labor”… sorry, but it has not been easy to survive under atotalitarian regime and cope with all these contradictions, manipulations, propaganda, lies and intrigues. It is not always so black and white. I’m not personally so fond of mr Ryytel, but he did lived his life and did his job as a bureaucrat of communist party and as a president of Estonia, so just give the old man his peace… i haven’t heard any massacres orginised by him..
Katrin, you’ve obviously not understood my point, my dear. I’m by no means a defender of Stalinist toalitarianism, in fact I’m a Trotskyist. I do however defend the Soviet Union and the other workers states from counter-revolution such as the “singing revolution” because they stood for eradication of the gains of the October Revolution that the Stalinist bureaucracy rested upon, that remained untouched; and capitalist restoration. The elements you’ve described could not be more true about Stalinism. Yes, Rüütel did his job as a Stalinist bureaucrat in leeching off the workers and the Soviet economy, and then he participated in selling it out to capitalism. Rüütel was just as involved in those elements you’ve named as well as the hardline Stalinists. He’s typical Stalinist if I may say so. No he didn’t organized massacres, but he brought back a nationalistic capitalist system so he wouldn’t lose his privelages. Sorry, but being a Communist doesn’t give me love of Stalinists who betrayed every part of it. I don’t care how liberal they are. So you’re right, its not black and white, my dear.