About trust

Yesterday, February 2, it turned exactly 100 years of the Tartu Treaty of 1920 between the RSFSR and Estonia. However, the perception of this historical document in current countries is diametrically opposite. If in Estonia he is considered to be currently acting and officially celebrated the anniversary, then in Russia they say that this agreement “has long belongs to history” (speaker of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova).

What is the reason for such a contrasting attitude? The main one is that for Estonia this agreement has become a symbol of victory in its liberation war (1918-20) and an act of state recognition from the former metropolis. The key article of this document: “ Based on the right of all peoples proclaimed by the Russian Socialist Federal Republic, to free self -determination to the full separation from the state in which they are part of, Russia recognizes the independence and independence of the Estonian state and refuses voluntarily and for eternal times from all sovereign rights, which belonged to Russia in relation to the Estonian people and land.”

These formulations themselves for the political language of present -day Russia sound very inconvenient and even defiant. "Rights to free self -determination" today in Russian laws does not exist - on the contrary, President Putin criticizes historical Bolsheviks for "putting a bomb under Russian statehood." In the Tartu agreement, the Russian Empire is called the "former", but in today's Russia, on the contrary, they like to consider themselves to be its successors ...

In addition, modern Russian historiography continues Stalin's interpretations. According to the official point of view of the Kremlin, "the Tartu agreement has lost the force with the entry of Estonia into the USSR in 1940." However, from the standpoint of Estonia, there was no voluntary "entry" of the country into the USSR then, but there was an annexation, which was not recognized by many countries (USA, Great Britain). Therefore, modern Estonia, who considers himself the successor of the "First Republic" (1918-1940), continues to consider the Tartu treaty to the current. The paradox is that the current Russia, despite the high -profile statements of the “struggle for historical truth,” itself does not recognize the diplomatic decisions of its historical predecessors from the 1920 RSFSR.

Of course, one of the most important stumbling blocks is the question of the border that still interferes with the conclusion of an agreement on it between the two countries. The Tartu Treaty included in the independent Estonia, for example, Ivangorod, now administrative to the Leningrad region, and the current Pechora district of the Pskov region. But after the Second World War, these territories were transferred from the ESSR to the RSFSR. And in modern Estonia there are supporters of the return of these territories, sometimes very high -ranking - such as the speaker of the riegikogo Henn Polloas.

But still, the point of view of the country's president, Kersty Calylaid looks more diplomatic and wise. At the celebration of the anniversary of the Tartu Treaty, she said : " We restored our independence on the basis of legal continuity. At the same time, we must respect the international consensus on the fact that the post -war boundaries of Europe will no longer be redrawn. The opposite rhetoric creates unnecessary confusion."

The centenary of the Tartu treaty with Estonia resembles, first of all, the problem of trust between countries. And about the ability (or inability) to recognize their liability for violation of contractual obligations.

The value of the Tartu agreement cannot be reduced only to the issue of borders. In fact, it is much deeper - this is the question of values. If you dwell only on disputes around the territories, they will give rise to endless conflicts among the local population, as shown in the recent reporting of the North. Realiy.

For example, Finland after the Second World War lost much more territories than Estonia. The USSR annexed its second capital Vyborg and all the Ladoga cities (Sortavalu, Lahdenpoha, Pitkiaranta). But today, only individual public organizations advocate for their literal return, this issue is not raised at the parliamentary level. It’s just that calculating Finns are well aware of - today such happiness came to them in the form of the return of lost territories, this will mean a giant, almost exorbitant load on their budget. In order to bring the shelter “killed” in the Finnish order for the Soviet years, not to mention Vyborg, you will need to significantly raise taxes and abandon many progressive liberties like unconditional basic income. It is unlikely that Finnish citizens themselves will agree to exchange their current well -being for the slogan "Returning of the territories". Although historically it is certainly fair - but in the 21st century many already realized that it is more important not the number of lands, but their quality. Except Russia, unfortunately ...

By the way, it is interesting to recall that the first peace treaty between the RSFSR and Finland was signed in the same Estonian Tartu and in the same 1920, only in October. And there Soviet Russia also promised to respect the new boundaries of Finland. But then, turning into the USSR, she went to this country with a winter war ...

After the conclusion of the agreement with Estonia, the Bolshevik leader Lenin said a rather frightening phrase:! This concession is not forever done. "And his faithful student Stalin, armed enough, tore both contracts - both with the Finns and the Estonians.

And here we return to the question of the main, value value of contracts. The centenary of the Tartu treaty with Estonia resembles, first of all, the problem of trust between countries. And about the ability (or inability) to recognize their liability for violation of contractual obligations. But alas, the “uncomfortable” Tartu treaty in Russia seek and not to remember “like not the former” at all.

But by the way, another vivid example of such “oblivion” did not occur 100 years ago, but during the life of our generation. Was such a Budapest memorandum of 1994, where Russia, among other countries, pledged to "respect the existing boundaries of Ukraine"? But exactly 20 years later, Crimeanash happened. Many then recalled a quote from Bismarck: "Agreements with Russia are not worth the paper on which they are written"?

Vadim Stepa - editor -in -chief of the journal Region. Expert

The "Opinion" expressed in the heading of the point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial office