Both of the above posts make good points.

The ascerbic rhetoric spilling out of the Kremlin SHOULD worry those in the 'near abroad.' Much of can be dismissed as elctioneering, however, nothing that is said by Russian politicians should ever be ignored.

On a slight aside: why are Estonians in the West not lobbying their respective governments -especially in the US-to bring up the gross human rights violations in Chechnya? The west has completely forgotten these people and I believe that it would do much to tame the general rehtoric if the west poured a wee bit of salt on this issue. Or maybe, Russia is such a good partner in the 'war on terror' that their actions in Chechnya can be justifiably ignored?

It is just plain nonsense to suggest that the near abroad is not concerned with Russia's overtures. But as it stands, the rest of the world outside Europe doesn't seem to be able to grasp the fact that when comes crunch time, Russia ALWAYS gets off lightly, and doesn't get the kind of treatment she deserves. The US doesn't seem treat Russia any differently-why don't you lobby your government as to why they always prefer the go easy approach towards Russia. However, there are a lot of trading interests at stake, and that is why the political side of things will always lag seriously behind other agendas. Seems as though economic interests will always be more palatable, just the way sport is more acceptable than other forms of leisure.

True.

As Europe -and the west-continue to increase their dependence on Russian energy, Baltic issues will receive less attention than what little they already receive. Without any real political or economic power, what can Estonia do to change this?

The sad fact is that there is precious little Estonia can do, and there are absolutely no lessons from history to learn how to deal with the issue. Most Estonians take the Russian question as ultimately one of fate. We have had 15 lucky years of freedom-let's hope it doesn't end too soon. Anything is possible; I would say that if alternate fuels come into existence in the foreseeable future, it will be one sure way of sidestepping Russia. But first of all there is a need for oil producers to agree that their day is over. That will put pressure on Russia for sure! ass for Chechnya, then unfortunately Estonia has had to learn the miserably question that on your own, it is virtually impossible to save Chechnya from bleeding to death. The same is currently true in the case of the Kurds. At least we haven't slid as far as they have, and let's hope that we can at least hold our own together.

Most people who have read Anna Politovskaya's book on Putin (myself included) cannot but help wonder why there is a similar pattern of corruption existing in our so-called democratic Estonia. Our country is presently suffering from a backlash of corrupt power pockets in every conceivable industry and every imaginable political faction existing today. Absorbing total power into the hands of a few is what will ultimately lead to Estonia's capitulation as a once-emerging free and healthy nation-state.

I've read the Politskovskaya book and I'm not getting the Estonia connection. The book has more to do with the military, Chechnya and regional governors.
How is it possible that Estonian politicians or business men are as corrupt as those in Russia?

If you lived in Estonia, you would witness the perversity of individuals whose only desire is to accumulate personal power, which takes of the form of personal put-downs, outright lying and forming distorted opinions and images of colleagues who may be a threat to them personally. It has a distinctively heightened expression in Estonia, because most such people agonize the loss of career opportunity at the breakup of the Soviet Union, and are hungry to make any possible material gain at anyone's else's expense. Sure, it happens elsewhere, but it is particularly pronounced in Estonia.

Perhaps extremely partisan, however I don't think this behaviour - even by your own definition - could be termed exclusively corrupt. Does Estonia not frequently appear at the top of a respected int'l NGO's 'least-corrupt states' list?

With regards to the Pronksodur as a polarizing symbol in Estonian politics: why can it's meaning not be transformed so as to make it a unifying object? Admittedly, I am somewhat naive on the political arguments, but philisophically, could the statue not represent, for the ethnic Estonian population, the morbid realities of the Soviet occupation and the will by a tiny nation to overcome the monumental (no pun intended) opression imposed on them by a self-serving, brutal superpower?

The monument, in its representation of the 'victorious Soviet forces' is repulsive, yet powerful if left as a morose reminder of our dark history, so that future generations, to borrow from a very clever ethnic group, "will never forget."

This is of course a very good point, and one which has been raised in the media of late. I personally think it will be the preferred way of the President himself, and it is the tidiest and most self-respecting solution to the problem-except of course if you happen to be a marurahvuslane, and they shout the loudest, thereby usually getting heard the most frequently; thus not a help really in finding an adequate answer to this thorny problem.

There will always exist extremist factions on both sides. I think that given a proper push, middle gound could be found between the cracks of animosity. . . . or maybe not.

Jüri Liim (who is the Estonian equivalent of Russia's Vladimir Zirinovsky) for example has threatened to blow up the Pronkssõdur himself if there is no one else willing to do it! And this man speaks for the interests of Estonia-excuse me, but his kind is a timebomb waiting to detoniate Estonia back into the arms of Mother Russia.

Types like this Liim will always have a louder media voice than those who would choose reconciliation and push towards concensus.
What puzzles me is how these types and their followers, recklessly expose the country to charges of facism from abroad and worst of all Russia. Don't regular Estonians get it?

History has proven that our Eastern neighbours don't need much to be provoked; this monument and the fellow you mentioned must be a godsend to Russia's nationalsits including Putin.

The trouble is that Liim speaks half-truths which need to be heard (and read-he is a regular contributer to the journal Kultuur ja Elu) whilst behaving with the irresponsibility of a loose cannon at other times. Sure, I appreciate the difficulty in treading a tried a true political path, but we need to have more responsible spokesmen than the likes of Liim pushing for the so-called third way.

Is it this Liim who is leading resistance against a moderate solution?
Who then is working towards concensus and why isn't the message getting out?

so what are the `half truths` which Hr. Liim speaks ? .... and to compare him to Vladimir Zhirinovsky who has made headlines by threatening to take Alaska back from the United States, nuke Japan, flood Germany with radioactive waste and take away the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is just plain ridiculous !

Today in Moscow 2,000 protesters are gathering to express their anger over the Estonian Parliament's handling of the Pronkssõdur issue. If Liim puts a bomb under it today-and it seems all the more likely given that he is highly driven by emotional anger-then I hope you are willing to retract your own misplaced anger at me. I am merely reporting the facts on the ground, although it seems to me that anything short of Liim's motives leave you high and dry.

You state " The trouble is that Liim speaks half-truths...." . You did NOT answer the other commentators question. I too would like to know what "half truths" . Kas siin on tegemist laimuga ?

Liim appears to speak the language of the Estonian patriot, but why does he have to justify his ideals being achieved on the basis of aggression and sharp resistance to the ruling authority at the total expense of the rest of society's safety? He has some very interesting and honest things to say about Soviet occupation-then and now. If you see his motives differently, I would be very glad to know what you consider Liim to be all about.

Agree or disagree, I don't think that kicking at a rabid, angry dog, will help matters for Estonia.
I would be careful in presuming EU and NATO assistance if push were to really come to shove.
Perhaps it would be best to quiet the polarizing voices on the issue until it dies down in Russia. "Blowing up" the soldier would ammount to foreign policy suicide..

2,000 Muscovites and more than a handful of protesters in London for the Prime Minister's visit to the LSE should really make our leaders think a little harder about solving this issue with kid gloves. There is too much water that has passed under the bridge for Liim and his cohorts to simply think they can turn the clock back to 1944 and forget what's happened in between times. There is a solution to this problem, but it is not the one presented by our misguided and gung-ho mentality bearing marurahvuslased.

I'm not sure that I completely understand Liim's position.
I assume he's quite intellegent and has comitted some time to reflect on the issue. From my limited vantage, I just don't see the upside to destroying it.
What do the proponents of its destruction suggest is the advantage to its removal - other than the immediate gratification of destroying a symbol of Soviet occupation. Will conditions in Estonia improve as a result? Will Estonia find itself in a stronger int'l position? I can't believe that anyone would think that such an act would rehabilitate our identity and reconcile our history. What is the projected net outcome?

All true, and we're on the same side of the argument-but try telling that to the opposition!

Does anyone out there have the projected net outcome for the removal of the statue? I really do want to hear the argument for it other than the blatantly obvious.

you have yet to inform the EE readership of any one of Liim's `half truths`.
Hr. Liim probably is in fact thinking very much of what happened since 1944, i.e. the deportations and murders of Estonians in 1945 and 1949.
Estonians might have been willing to accept the pronkssõdur if in fact the liberators had left in 1945 after the war. When they did not leave, they became occupiers ! the

Maybe I didn't make myself clear: the previous response is what I meant by blatantly obvious.
Is there someone who could give a well reasoned outcome that is net positive for Estonia beyond the above?

With your contempt for Estonia and Estonians, one can't help but wonder why you moved there.

because he has a loving relationship with his buddy edgar