Experts and public figures connected to that development met on Friday, one day before its 30th anniversary, for some reflection.

Jüri Luik, who at the age of 28 was Estonia's foreign minister at the time and a member of the delegation which went to Moscow, said: "Taking into consideration the circumstances, I believe the July agreements achieved what was maximally possible."

"I don't believe I would have done anything radically different," Luik went on, stressing that Russia itself remained reluctant to withdraw its troops from Estonia and the other two Baltic states.

The feat was made possible largely due to pressure from Western countries, he noted.

Luik also recalled that while the Boris Yeltsin government is often regarded as one of the most democratic in Russian history to date, this did could not be applied to its foreign policy, at least not in relation to Estonia. "Bearing in mind that we were dealing with a country that had ill intentions toward us, we fared pretty well," Luik said.

Retired General Riho Ühtegi, a former Defense League commander, worked in military counterintelligence with the the Estonian Defense Forces (EDF) at the time

He, too, credited Estonian diplomats, particularly President Meri, with the withdrawal of Russian troops.

"It was purely a victory for our diplomacy," he said, acknowledging that the actions of others, including the EDF, were in effect what the diplomats had achieved being implemented.

Ühtegi noted that Meri's actions in Moscow were exemplary of competent leadership in the military sense.

Meri was he said a leader who dared to make decisions yet without having all the background information or with consulting others, since the meeting in Moscow took place while the Estonian government was on summer vacation.

On this aspect, Luik said that as foreign minister at the time, he represented the government, and through him agreement between the government and the president was reached on the decisions made. "Though the decision itself was made on the spot," Luik added.

Diplomat Harri Tiido, working as a journalist at the time, also underscored Meri's role and his ability to seize the moment. "It was a rather bold move by Meri," Tiido said.

"But this also stemmed from his character, as he was not exactly what you would call an angel," Tiido noted. "It was a case of taking advantage of an opportunity and acting statesmanlike, on the part of the president," Tiido added.

Tiido stressed that the withdrawal of Russian troops on August 31, 1994, should be viewed as part and parcel of the same package as the July agreements. He noted that it could even be compared to the current actions of Ukrainian forces in Russia's Kursk region today, as that operation is unconventional too. "Sometimes, you have to act unconventionally," Tiido observed.

Kristi Raik, deputy director of the International Centre for Defense and Security (ICDS), said that with hindsight, it is hard to conceive of Estonia having reached a better agreement with Russia; more likely, she said, was a scenario where it wouldn't have been able to secure one at all, including even selling the agreement at home, as well as to the Russians.

Raik said: "This is also a textbook example of statesmanship—Lennart Meri made the decision knowing it was not domestically popular. But he took the risk, recognizing the crucial moment."

Raik also brought out that the July agreements, which formed the basis for the withdrawal of Russian troops, were only ratified by the Riigikogu the following year, in 1995, making Estonia the last country in Central and Eastern Europe to reach an agreement with Russia regarding troop withdrawal.

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were of course constituent parts of the Soviet Union, illegally occupied even as they had been, while the Warsaw Pact nations - Poland, East Germany etc. were not, in addition to having significantly larger populations.

Raik explained that while Moscow relatively easily gave up its military presence in Europe, during the Gorbachev era of Soviet rule, it was much more reluctant to leave the Baltic states a few years later.

This was also exacerbated by the sheer passage of time since western Europe had been affected by war.

"In the West, people no longer remember what we still experienced here. I remind my colleagues of this [today] when they claim we are prejudiced against Russia. I remind them that the Russians did not want to leave. It only took because Russia was weak at that moment, and completely dependent on Western support," Raik remarked.

Raik recalled that at the time, Estonia, along with the other two Baltic states, still carried the label of "post-Soviet," republics, in the eyes of the western countries, and there was a prevailing opinion that their path should be different from that of, for instance, Poland, or the Czech Republic – which in 1992 split relatively amicably from Slovakia.

The withdrawal of Russian troops which resulted from the July agreements also paved the way for Estonia to receive initial invitations, and later the opportunity to begin accession talks, with not only the EU, but eventually join NATO. In the latter case a would-be member state cannot be in a state of conflict with another country when joining; part of the reason why Russia is making all-out war on Ukraine and, 16 years ago, on Georgia.

Back in 1994, Raik noted that then-German Chancellor Helmut Kohl was not yet ready to agree to the Baltic states being able to join NATO in particular, and also the EU.

Former minister Luik also noted that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were often categorized, especially by Russia, as different from other CEE nations, leave alone western European ones, with the corollary being this would give Russia greater "rights" over them.

Sometimes, the Russians were able to hoodwink some people in the West on this.

He said: "For us, this was completely unacceptable, but there were some in the West who perhaps thought that there might be something to it."

"We had to work hard to keep ourselves on the same track as the CEE nations in moving towards integration with the West," Luik went on.

Luik also noted that if Russian troops had lingered in Estonia any longer, the country might have ended up being excluded from NATO and EU enlargement.

He recalled that in 1995, the decision was made to open the door to NATO for Central and Eastern European countries. That same year, Estonia applied for EU membership, followed by the EU deciding to start accession talks in 1997.

Both EU and NATO membership for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became a reality in 2004.

Luik highlighted Russian President Vladimir Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, which marked the beginning of a new confrontation between Russia and the West and after which, likely, we would not have been able to join NATO or the European Union

Ühtegi: We obtained intel from Soviet military veterans who stayed in Estonia

Retired General Riho Ühtegi recalled how Estonian intelligence agencies gained valuable information in the wake of the Russian troops' withdrawal.

He also outlined how, even after the departure of the Russian military personnel, many of their families or spouses stayed behind to live in Estonia.

On the one hand, Estonia had to take care of these individuals, but on the other, they were also placed under surveillance. This precaution ended up working in Estonia's favor in some ways, too.

Ühtegi said: "We kept an eye on them as they communicated with their families in Russia."

"This allowed us to gain insight into what was happening in Russia, and the general mood there. Thanks to one grandmother, for instance, we learned about what was being planned in Russia with regard Estonia," he added.

Although the departing Russian forces managed to take most of their military equipment with them, some documentation left behind in the headquarters of various units permitted Estonian military intelligence to study these, too.

Ühtegi said: "When they left, some documents got left behind, which gave us a fairly comprehensive understanding of the capabilities of the Russian forces."

At the same time, he acknowledged that it was a two way street in that Russian intelligence agencies attempted to recruit, for instance, military veterans.

Tiido: A good thing there was no social media in those days

Harri Tiido reflected on the criticism at home of the Estonia-Russia July 1994 bilateral agreements.

Part of this revolved around the concerns that between Estonia becoming independent for the first time in 1920, followed by nearly half a century of Soviet occupation, then the restoration of independence in 1991, the country lost territory to the Soviet Union and thus its successor state, the Russian Federation.

This process also happened to Latvia and, while it was never a part of the Soviet Union, Finland too - after several years' fighting in the Winter and Continuation wars.

A nationalist narrative in politics in the mid-1990s advocated for the restoration of the pre-war Republic of Estonia's borders, which would have included Jaanilinn, on the east bank of the Narva River, and Petseri, now Pechory, in the Pskov oblast, and its environs.

On this, Tiido said: "My concern was that there might be attempts to scupper the agreement. Considering how things have gone with the Estonian-Russian border treaty, it wouldn't have been impossible."

No final border treaty has been agreed with Russia, thanks to intransigence on the part of the latter.

"Thank God there was no internet and social media at that time, so there was none of the kind of echo chamber we see today," Tiido added.

The panel discussion (see gallery) took place Friday at the President's Office in Kadriorg, and was moderated by Postimees journalist Evelyn Kaldoja.

President Alar Karis also delivered a brief speech ahead of the discussion.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!