Such parades are anachronisms in the West, for all the right reasons. Russia still tries to remind the world selectively of its past. The Kremlin takes every advantage given; thus the emphasis on "Victory Day", the vanquishing of evil, the role of Russians in defeating a totalitarian regime whose crimes have not been forgotten. However, in so doing, Moscow is attempting to deflect attention from the fact that with Victory Day oppression, murder and carnage did not end in Europe - it just took another name and that was to be found in the brutal imposition of communism on those countries that after May 9, 1945 found themselves behind the Iron Curtain.
Vladimir Putin has invited heads of states from all over the world to attend events focussing on the Soviet Union's contribution to the Allied military effort. The absence of a Baltic president - or three - will not halt these Potemkin ceremonies. Putin, however, is dangling a carrot in front of our heads of state, suggesting that over 13 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia might just be ready to sign way overdue border treaties with Estonia and Latvia. The Lithuanians already have such a treaty. Historical treaties often carry little weight in a changed world, and borders, like locks never keep the undesirables out. Who is to say that after 13 years a treaty would change relations overnight?
Estonians are divided on the issue. The majority seems to feel that Arnold Rüütel's acceptance of the Kremlin's invite would be a tacit acceptance not only of the Kremlin's continuing power, but an error of continuing appeasement. By turning down the invite, Rüütel would send a clear message to Putin. One that demands that today's Russia own up to its historical crimes; compensate for losses as the democratic Germans who inherited the Nazi past have done.
The Baltic Times took a strong and commendable stance on the issue last week. Their editorial of January 6th, "The choice is clear enough" emphasized that Baltic presidents accepting their invites to Moscow in May, in hopes of getting border issues resolved, would be doing so for the single worst reason. The Times points out that the war did not end in 1945: "it continued in the forests - and on the cattle cars to Siberia- for many years." But the Kremlin is not interested in that truth - their Victory Day is to suggest that human loss in Europe only lasted for the six years of WW II.
The Times rightly argues that by attending commemorative events in the Red Square the Baltic presidents would essentially acknowledge Russia's occupation and illegal annexation of their countries. "No spin control, be it from the Kremlin [or Baltic presidential palaces] can refute this."
It would serve to legitimize the Soviet occupation of the Baltics. To sign a border agreement during such commemorations will do no honor to the hundreds of thousands of Balts who suffered under that occupation. The Times concluded that the Baltics have every right to demand that Russia recognize the occupation, or “at the very least the extreme victimization of the Baltic peoples" before giving any official recognition to Victory Day. The choice facing our presidents is "unenviable, but it is also quite clear."
Vike-Freiberga bluntly stated that this is not Hobson's choice. By stating the historical truth - that Stalin was equally responsible with Hitler for the outbreak of WW II, she is forcing the world to look into the mirror of truth.
"Postimees" recognizes the intellectual validity of this stance. Their editorial this Thursday emphasized that the Baltic leaders have the opportunity to state that they belong in the West, where historical crimes are not to be brushed under a carpet. European and Western leaders must be made to see what historian Niall Ferguson outlined in the Daily Telegraph on January 1st - that Putin's Russia greatly resembles Weimar Germany that led to Hitler's excesses, and that recent events in Russia indicate an "authoritarian warm-up act" possibly creating a “fully fledged Russian führer.”
Vike-Freiberga's bold grasp of the opportunity has not been welcomed by all. Many see this as forcing the hand, showing disunity in the Baltic diplomatic policy ranks. However, what’s done is done. It means that Rüütel - and Lithuania's president Valdas Adamkus - are faced with an historical choice. Would a boycott be noticed in the West? Or, following Vike-Freiberga’s lead, to use the events to publicize Soviet lies, demand accountability? Such opportunities to turn Russian propaganda head-on-heels do not come up often. The Baltic presidents have a few months to work together on a diplomatic strategy that would expose Russia's celebrations for the sham that they indeed are.