Russian-Baltic relations are by no means a neglected topic in nationalism studies, history, political science, or international relations. Yet, the topic has witnessed some paradigmatic changes in the past decade or two. The 22 authors of the present volume (most of them in their thirties) are young enough not to be inhibited by the traditional perspective charged with ideological anti-communism, belief in the righteousness of national liberation, and more often than not, anti-Russian sentiment. At the same time, they are experienced enough as researchers to have witnessed the initial wave of studies of the early 1990s on national identity and state building in the Baltic region based on the theories of the Gellner-Anderson-Hobsbawm triumvirate. Conversely, a large part of studies on the Baltic region published in the Russian Federation after the demise of the USSR tended to reflect partisan positions on the fate of the new Russian diaspora. Thus, a volume with contributions by younger researchers from Russia, the US, Germany, Latvia, Estonia, and the UK is uniquely placed to define a new research agenda. The authors have made a determined effort to counter the predominantly negative perception of Russian-Baltic relations today.
The fact that most articles are either in Russian or English and some in German (without summaries) may be a consequence of the quasi-samizdat character of the book. Thus, some articles may be inaccessible to some readers, but at least the authors themselves have used a wide variety of sources – ranging from Estonian and Russian archives to academic literature in a dozen languages. It is, however, puzzling why neither the Russian and English titles nor the introductions in both languages are identical. Or why it is “social thought” in the title, “obshchestvennaia mysl’” in the Russian and “political thought” in the English table of contents. Quite remarkably, however, the authors’ collective managed to publish the book in 2001, only a few months after the conference “Political and cultural relations between Russia and the countries of the Baltic region, 1700 – 2000.”
The articles in the first half of the book deal with the political and military relations between states, between entities within the Russian Empire, and between ethnic groups. Karsten Brьggemans dissects the complexities of Estonian-White Army collaboration against the Bolshevik regime in the Russian Civil War around Petrograd. His measuring stick, however, is not a one-dimensional contrast between a movement for national liberation and the imperialistic strategy of the White generals. The intricacies of the regional and local level put both movements and their objectives into a different perspective. The analysis moves beyond generic conclusions on “the Estonians” or “the Whites” and also includes insights on the political thinking of the leaders involved. Plans to lure the Estonians into joining the White attack on Petrograd as well as the White forces serving as Estonia’s “border guards” both upset typical narratives of national history.
Bradley Woodworth’s contribution on the monument for Peter the Great erected in Tallinn in 1910 and torn down in 1922 is typical for the volume. The topic may be highly specific, but it acquires a broader relevance as it demonstrates and differentiates attitudes of Baltic Germans, Russian officialdom, and Estonians toward the tsarist empire. The Ritterschaft, the Estonian-dominated Tallinn city council and the tsarist administration all joined forces in this project, but for a wide variety of (opposite) reasons. The author not only identifies typical motives such as restating the privileges granted by the famous tsar (Baltic Germans), the alliance with Petersburg as a counterweight to Baltic German dominance (the Estonians), and Russia’s role in Baltic history (local Russian officials), but also dissects more subtle divergences and shifts within these groups. Thus, this example indicates that the process of nation building in these regions was neither premeditated nor unequivocal.
Unlike most other chapters, Lea Lennik’s contribution on the role of the Governor General in three centuries of Baltic history is rather descriptive. This may be due to her contention that the Governor General is obligatorily mentioned in history textbooks, but hardly ever studied in much detail. At the very least, her hypothesis that this position was, on the one hand, a transition belt for all-Russian trends towards centralization, uniformity and Russification in administration, education, justice and taxation, but an advocate of Baltic interests in St. Petersburg, on the other hand, deserves closer scrutiny. The focus on a multifaceted process of modernization puts the usual philippics against Russification in a broader perspective, without the obligatory overtones of moral or national indignation.
The odd one out in the volume is the contribution by Susanne Nies from Berlin. This brief and superficial chapter on 20th century Baltic-Russian relations mainly features rhetoric on “caesuras and continuities”, “bridges and barriers.” The chapter actually underlines the quality of the other contributions, mostly based on thorough knowledge of the relevant historiography in different languages, the broader historical context, and specific archival research. Unlike the others, Nies refers to “north-south and east-west lines of confrontation” cutting through the Baltic region – “a civilizational contact-zone like the Balkans.” This terminology not only reveals Huntingtonian views, but also serves as a basis for national and moral judgements, e.g., concerning the Council of Europe’s (actually: the OSCE’s) continuous pressure for a modification of Latvian and Estonian laws “seemingly inimical to Russian-speaking minorities.” One may debate the political motives and historical background of the post-communist laws, but that they were not – nor intended to be – minority-friendly is an undisputable fact. Denis Trapido argues this very point in the same volume: although there is no legal discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion for citizens of Estonia, the rights of non-citizens are limited. He thus identifies a far more interesting question – why did opposite parties on the issue of the Russophones’ rights in Estonia – by Estonians favouring segregation and by those sceptical of the methods of integration – meet in their rejection of the 1998 integration program? Those criticizing the potential outcome of integration intend to uphold the ethnic concept of the Estonian state, nation, and democracy and fear the successful completion of integration. Those criticizing the current process of integration, however, accept the objective of integration, but object to the dominant, paternalistic role ascribed to the state (rather than the respective segments of civil society) in achieving it.
Overall, the book has some of the typical qualities and drawbacks of samizdat: most topics are too specific and the composition is too arbitrary to be easily accessible for the general reader. Yet, for those involved in the field the volume offers quite a number of interesting insights, stimulating further research in the field; we are bound to meet some of the volume’s authors again in future academic debates.