Much ado about a statue

History can be interpreted in different ways, but who today would dispute that the Red Army entered Estonia in 1940 as an occupier, following the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty between Stalin and Hitler, thereby "liberating" the country of its independence only? Or the fact that after driving the Germans out of Estonia at the end of the war, the Red Army marked this re-entry and liberation by staying put, according to the original plan, for the next 50 years?

For many, if not most Estonians, the statue in question represents memories of occupation, terror, mass deportations and summary executions rather than liberation. While not denying or downplaying the important role that the Soviet army had in the fall of Nazi rule in Europe and while respecting the related Russian losses and the pride they feel for their important contribution, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that Estonians do not necessarily celebrate an army that stripped them of their freedom and was thereafter used to enforce a tyrannical regime.

The strong Russian reactions, from people on the street to decision makers, represent a broader issue and potential threat to continued good and stable relations in Europe. There probably is no other country today more in need of a "truth commission" and of openly discussing and facing its past than Russia. This would benefit all parties alike. The fact that many Russians honestly don't understand why the statue in question could represent painful memories to Estonians or why everyone in Europe doesn't hail the Soviet-era Red Army is a disturbing symptom of this.

That the Estonian Ambassador to Russia is attacked by hooligans, or that a Duma delegation travels to Tallinn demanding the resignation of an Estonian government representative only show that old habits die hard. Russia has undergone tremendous changes since the fall of communism, but how much of it is only superficial?