Journal on Baltic Security

Baltic States mattered in the relationship between Russia and the West. The general consensus for the

following 20 years was that the Baltic States matter considerably, especially following their inclusion in

both the EU and NATO in 2004. However, in the past few years two trends have emerged which begin to

call this accepted knowledge into question. First, the relationship between Russia and the West has turned

more hostile following nearly 20 years of detente. The West insists (especially NATO) insists that it is within

its right to protect states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union/Russia’s “near abroad”. Russia, on

the other hand, insists that NATO incursion into the “shared neighborhood” is a violation of trust and

overstepping normal geopolitical bounds.

Second, the Baltic States who once presented something of a united front for the West against Russia,

no longer appear to have a common approach to foreign policy. While Estonia leans toward Scandinavia,

and Lithuania leans toward Poland and Ukraine, Latvia is a bit of an odd man out with nowhere to turn.

Furthermore, even other states in the Shared Neighborhood no longer seem to see Latvia as a valuable ally within the West. Considering this state of affairs, this paper

on the one hand and safety and security on the other. In the context of rupture – sudden, unprecedented asylum flows as well as the historical context of the fear and experience of losing the state’s freedom, we pose the following research question: Where do insecurities and fear come from and how are spaces of security and safety carved out through public discourses? We argue that, instead of singling out political discourses in Eastern European as filled with hatred towards other ethnicities and races or an inability to show solidarity with human suffering, we have to open up a far more deep reaching debate on the interplay of fear and the willingness to create safer, more secure futures. We illustrate this with examples from media debates in Latvia, in late 2015.

member states. An unusually large number of refugees are passing through the EU with the purpose of going to countries that attract refugees with better economic and social conditions. Nevertheless, in the present case the criticism at the European Union level has been targeted towards the Eastern European countries for not eagerly enough accepting the proposed refugee strategy and quotas. Estonia’s opposition to the EU-wide permanent relocation system of refugees has its roots in the conservative line that the country has followed in the national refugee policy for more than

twenty years. However in 2016 the positions among the Estonian governmental coalition differ significantly in terms of long term refugee strategy. The current article will focus on the arguments why Estonia has opted for the conservative refugee policy so far

and whether it has been in accordance with the country’s capabilities and resources. The development of Estonian refugee policy will be analysed, from regaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 to the present day. The article will also focus on security risks that might occur due to the pressure from the EU on the member states to impose decisions that do not have broad support at the national level.