Border treaty in pipeline despite escalating Baltic-Russian tensions

Argo Ideon
, poliitika- ja majandus­analüütik
Copy
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
Photo: Oliver Matkur

On October 7th, the final formal Russian hurdle was removed from border treaty being signed with Estonia, as President Vladimir Putin approved proposal by government to sign Estonian-Russian state border treaty and sea boundary agreement. That took place a mere couple of days after Estonian and Russian foreign ministers Urmas Paet and Sergei Lavrov met in  New York, at the UN General Assembly lobbies, talking about border treaty only.

The talk was brief; neither day nor place of signature were agreed – final say by Kremlin still not given, at the time. These still being unknown, with a week having passed from the decision by Mr Putin. According to experts contacted by Postimees it is not likely that the parties would announce signing before end of Estonian local elections campaign. Estonia has Election Day on October 20th.

While Estonia awaits agreement on date of signing the border treaties, which may mean a visit to Tallinn by Russian foreign minister Lavrov, this year, one of the Baltic States – Lithuanian, holder of current EU presidency – has fallen out severely with Russia.

For quite a while, Lithuanian trucks were disturbed by all-out inspections on Russian border, causing great damage to Lithuania’s transport companies. The checks stopped only recently. Russia has imposed limits to Lithuanian daily products imports and by yesterday there were no signs these would be lifted any time soon. On the contrary, rather: Russian chief sanitarian and consumer protection chief Gennadi Onichtchenko yesterday warned Lithuania not to try to solve the conflict on WTO level, as that might lead to considerable lengthening thereof.

The latest Lithuanian-Russian conflicts stems from media: a leading Russian TV channel showing an interpretation unacceptable to Lithuania of the bloody January events of 1991 in Vilnius, laying the responsibility on the Lithuanian side – not the Soviet Union. In response, a Lithuanian court temporarily suspended airing the channel on Lithuanian territory, the local manager of the channel stepped down.

With Estonia, Russia has not had notable differences, although there have been the occasional critical notes: for instance, Estonia has kept a close eye on Russian-Byelorussian military exercises Zapad-2013. In July and August, Estonia was stirred by a remark by Mikhail Aleksandrov, head of Baltic department of Moscow Institute for  CIS Studies, a former diplomat, that should NATO states attack Syria, Russia would need to take its troops into the Baltic States.

Mr Aleksandrov is not a state official of Russian Federation. The CIS Institute where he works is an institution linked to the state, as Estonia’s Centre for Defence Studies or Foreign Policy Institute.

This summer, traditionally, Estonian and Russian foreign ministries exchanged critical statements regarding the get-together of war veterans at Sinimäed. A yearly occurrence, Russia being rather subdued this time.

The situation where Russia is openly at odds with one of the Baltic States while relating peacefully to another, is nothing new. According to numerous experts, the current Russia-Lithuania tensions are linked to Lithuanian actively working towards Eastern Partnership programme by EU, as holder of its presidency – the endeavour aiming at turning former CIS states westward.

Recently, EU got a backlash in Armenia, which waived a treaty with EU, a long time in the making. Meanwhile EU and Ukraine look headed towards association agreement probably to be signed in Vilnius, this November.

The decision by Mr Putin to sign border treaty with Estonia contains a remarkable clause, pursuant to which Russian foreign ministry is permitted to holds talks with Estonia regarding the signing of the treaties, including making minor amendments in the texts not changing principles thereof. According to an informed source, this does not mean an option to open talks again over the text once agreed; rather, mere technicalities are meant like such as would involve maps – there having been no discussions, last year and this year, over the course of the border line.

Comments
Copy
Top