Quote Originally Posted by LXNDR View Post
Finland luckily escaped the grim prospect of becoming another republic of the USSR through annexation, therefore with different background they can afford a more relaxed attitude
I don't see the logic in this reasoning. It is not Russian, but Swedish that is the second language. Sweden occupied Finland for quite a long time and did its best to switch languages in the country during this period. After that, Finland was again occupied, by Russia until 1917. Yet, the Finns can put their history aside and look at the present, not the past, and the benefits of being a bilingual country. I don't think the Winter War or the proximity to the ex USSR has anything to do with their choice when it comes to language policy. Just common sense!

but in the Baltic states Russian population predominantly consists of occupiers and their descendants

I think that is highly debatable!

From what I read, the Russians who moved to the Baltic states were workers who were told "There is a new factory, institute... whatever.... in Latvia (or wherever). You'll get this/that pay and a nice new flat - are you interested?" Understandably, some were.

And for all that they were aware, the USSR had liberated the Baltic states, nothing else. From their perspective, I doubt that they felt they were participating in any occupation.

I suppose some (a minority) were indeed occupiers, in that they were in the military. Most such people left there as soon as they could. I met a guy from this type of background in Belarus - his family essentially left everything behind and just cleared off to Minsk because they felt they were not welcome anymore. He felt a bit nostalgic about his lost childhood in Ventspils.

And finally - when I was in Daugavpils, I saw something that really p-d me off:
There was a huge EU sponsored project to restore an old fortress, which frankly seemed like nothing special to me. But right next to this fortress, in some apalling conditions, lived a pretty large community of ex Soviet military people. It was clear that they were totally impoverished, and likewise that the houses they lived in had not had any maintenance at all for the past 20 years. It was disgraceful! There is talk about how Belarus is a dictatorship and has no money - etc, etc - but I certainly saw nothing close to this in Belarus.

I feel strongly that the EU money should be used to renovate these people's houses, rather than rebuild a stupid fortress - surely that is a lower priority! Those children could catch dangerous illnesses living in such squalor.

And if Latvia or the EU won't step up to help these people, then frankly I think Russia has an obligation to do something - fix up their houses or offer them some kind of repatriation deal.

Again in Liepaja, I saw a similar situation - an ex-Soviet military town (called Karosta) which was in terrible state of repair. It was as if these people were simply abandoned by everyone and unable to sort something out themselves. To add to the farce, the whole place was touted as a tourist attraction to Germans and Scandis, on the grounds of having been a famous naval base of the USSR. But it was a complete dump, apart from a very quaint orthodox church.

Summary: The Russian speaking people in the Baltics, to a large extent are and were the lower strata of society - not conscious occupiers. IMHO!

Nevertheless you are right that the situations are not identical, and Latvia did at least go to the trouble of having a referendum about the matter (even if the outcome was rather predictable, in light of the balance between the groups).

But maybe a referendum might be something for the Ukraine to try, or what do you think?