
Interviewed by an 'old friend', BBC journalist and Russophile Tim Whewell, and asked why he doesn't speak the language spoken by more than a quarter of Estonia's population, Ilves was quoted/misquoted/taken out of context as saying that speaking Russian would be like giving the nod to 50 years of brutal suppression. This inflammatory soundbite was quickly taken up by the local Russian press, with headlines along the lines of 'president refuses to speak language of occupiers', and also made it into the foreign media.
An opinion piece written by one Laur Viirand appeared on Delfi today in response to the controversy, extracts of which I have translated hereunder. Healthy debate of contentious issues is encouraged.
It's perfectly understandable that Ilves as an individual may not necessarily like the idea of studying and speaking Russian. To foreign Estonians the language perhaps symbolises their being forced to flee from occupation and the loss of their homeland. Unfortunately, things aren't quite so black and white when it's the president we're talking about. Such an inflexible position is not becoming of the office of president, whose primary role should be to mitigate conflict in society.
A foreign Estonian president taking up Russian lessons would be a magnanimous gesture, something the undercurrent of tension in the country needs. It would by no means be a sign of weakness, the imminent arrival of a second national language or some kind of white flag — rather it would be an indication of strength and the overcoming of complexes.
It would also be a sign of the maturity of the country. A decision by the president to learn Russian would not only be welcomed by the local Russian-speaking population, but it would also show solidarity with the majority of the Estonian-speaking population — most of whom were once forced to learn the language themselves.