“Italy trusts the Russian Federation and its government, but it needs to spread knowledge about Russia to promote confidence and trust , believes Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini …” If Italy was a country literally a hundred times smaller in population and immediately adjacent to Russia in what Moscow ominously calls its Near Abroad, if Russia in one or another of its political incarnations had occupied it for the best part of 300 years, if Russia still denies its most recent bout of occupation, if Russia continues to interfere where it could in its internal affairs and misses no chance to criticise it in international venues, perhaps Signor Frattini might feel differently. Russia’s neighbours have a much, much greater store of knowledge about and experience of Russia than Italy does. Unfortunately spreading this knowledge is the very last thing that would be efficacious for promoting confidence and trust to which Frattini alludes. Trust is a wonderful and desirable thing. But it cannot simply be decreed or mandated. To be trusted, one needs to be trustworthy.

Marzipan6, What you failed to realise is that the Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini is living in the present; he is not living in the past. His words reflect the amazing historical healing which took place between Italy and Russia. Compare that to how the Eastern Europe bloc countries have not failed to make constructive relations with Russia. Italy, along with Germany and France, are leading the way to build a new constructive relationship between Western Europe and Russia. Let us wait and see how long Poland, Georgia and Ukraine remain hostage to history and to selfish American geopolitical aims and objectives.

Italy trusts the Russian Federation and its government, but it needs to spread knowledge about Russia to promote confidence and trust, believes Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini: Now, if Italy needs to spread knowledge to promote confidence and trust, on what basis and for whos benefit is Italy spreading trust ?. “I do not consider the proposal or treaty put on the table by the President of Russian Federation as an alternative to NATO, which remains a pillar for Euro-Atlantic security and cooperation,” Frattini noted. Clearly the potential is omnipotent. "Responding to the requests of the US and NATO there is no contradiction. On the contrary, there will be integration between NATO and the future European Army operating with NATO.” Is it contrary to chop and suck spagghetti? He also said that it is in Russia’s interest to deal with a fully integrated Europe. This is oversight and tone looking for integrated realisation. Pity.

Sarah, you don’t know the lengths Estonia has gone to, to establish good relations with Russia. Because Russia demanded it, since 1991, Estonia has yielded around 6% of its land territory to Russia, and made it legal in a border treaty which it signed with Russia and which the Estonian parliament ratified. For many years Estonia continued to supply water services to the Russian town of Ivangorod despite Russia failing to pay for those services. At the current time Estonian air traffic controllers are continuing to provide air traffic control to Russian military aircraft flying between St Petersburg and Kaliningrad through Estonian-controlled air space despite the fact that Russia has fallen seriously behind in payments of air traffic control fees. Did you know any of that? Russia makes many demands of Estonia. When Estonia yields, improved relations have not resulted, only more demands. Russia has repeatedly promised to return some important cultural treasures to Estonia which were looted to Russia in Soviet times, but has consistently failed to actually return them. Did you know that? Estonia, yet has throughout nearly 20 years invited the Russian President many times to visit the country, but Russia has never accepted the invitation. Did you know that? Russia does not want good relations with Estonia, and refuses to establish these, despite Estonian efforts. For instance, the line of trucks waiting at Estonian border crossings to pass into Russia extends literally for kilometers. It takes from two days to more than a week for drivers to wait in line before they can cross. Did you know that? Estonia gives its residents of Russian origin a much higher standard of living and quality of life than they would have in Russia. That’s why hardly any want to leave. Did you know that? Estonia is not living in the past, but in the present and for the future. But it must deal with Russian behavior as it is, not as you imagine it to be.

Marzipan6, You are correct to point out that I am not an expert in the history of the relationship between Russia and Estonia. Also, I do not deny that Russia might, and indeed, it uses both carrots and sticks to expand its sphere of influence. All great powers do this. Now, have you by any chance seen a brilliant doc Blood and Oil? The doc is posted on RT home page. What this doc so brilliantly show is that not moral principles democracy and human rights but the need to access cheap ME oils that shape the U.S military posture and foreign policy objectives in the Middle East. Also it is interesting to note that during the siege of Leningrad by combined forces of The Third Reich and those from Finland, that gov/military leaders in Finland refused to go beyond the territory thet considered as their own and into Russia proper- in the support of the military objectives of the Third Reich. What this important historical act suggests is that the government of Finland knew that Russia is next door to their country.. As you know Estonia is tiny country that acts toward Russia ways which often annoy Russia and that means Russia may act ways to establish relations of power. Estonia treats Russian minorities badly and this is shame. Estonia has become a willing satellite state of the United States.Estonia has reconciled with Germany- I cannot see why similar relation cannot be forged between Estonia and Russia. I am strongly convinced that Russia wants friendly relationship with nations of the former eastern bloc and that include Estonia.

To Sarah Part 2: Estonian does not want to annoy Russia, but to defend its own interests. You claim “Estonia treats Russian minorities badly.” No it does not. It provides full citizenship by standard naturalization whose requirements are the same as apply in any country. So far about 110,000 people have acquired citizenship by this means. About 94,000 Russian citizens also live in Estonia, and about 104,000 people who have applied for no citizenship at all. Exactly the same social services and benefits are available to all, and non-citizens can even vote in local elections. What bothers Moscow is, that the hundreds of thousands of colonists it brought in during the Soviet era for the purpose of Russifying the country, turning the native population into a minority in their own land thus guaranteeing the permanent destruction of the Estonian nation, are not granted automatic citizenship. This is because it implies that Soviet rule in the country and Russian colonization of it was not legitimate. Estonia could not afford to give automatic citizenship to foreigners comprising nearly 40% of the population who frankly cared nothing about the country, knew almost nothing about it, did not speak the language, and considered themselves the colonial master race in what they thought of as a province of Russia. Estonia’s aim has been to integrate them within the country, and on balance it has done this very well. The alternative would be for Estonia to culturally and eventually politically literally become a province of Russia, and this is not an option. Moscow’s actions are inconsistent with a supposed wish on its part to establish good relations with Estonia. It seems to suit Russia to have a contrived, yet entirely non-dangerous enemy on its border to divert attention from domestic issues, to sow discord in European institutions and to use as a bit of a punching bag.

To Sarah, Part 1: I’m unsure why you emphasize to me the political immorality of the West. In doing so, I assure you that you’re preaching to the converted. I simply point out that Russia’s record is even worse. You compare Finland and Estonia in the context of WW2. The comparison is invalid because (1) Finland was not attacked by Russia for the purpose of extinguishing it from the list of sovereign nations, like Estonia was. Russia “merely” wanted some Finnish territory. Nor did Russia instigate an indiscriminate terror campaign against Finish civilians, as it did in Estonia. These factors would immediately, and legitimately, inspire a different attitude towards Russia in Estonia than in Finland. (2) Because Finland is geographically amongst the largest of European nations, it can afford to absorb an invasion, regroup, and push hopefully push it back. Estonia’s small size and lack of natural barriers makes this very much harder. Therefore it is in Estonia’s interest to try to keep enemy front lines as far away from its borders as possible. (3) At no time did Estonians fight for Hitler’s war aims. Hitler promised to destroy the Estonian nation no less than the Soviets. Estonians knew that Germany would lose the war, and the sooner the better. Their aim was to try to keep Soviet forces as far from Estonia’s borders as possible when the inevitable German defeat came, so as to avoid Moscow re-establishing its murderous occupation of 1940-41. That hope was disappointed, Soviet occupation was re-imposed, and continued for almost 50 more years. I’ll continue my response to your post in Part 2.