Main narratives:
- Russophobia in Estonia
- Anti-government sentiments
Overview:
The public debate over Estonia’s decision to restrict conscription to citizens with at least a B1 level of Estonian proficiency has become one of the most contentious defence policy issues of the year, attracting the attention of politicians, military leaders, constitutional lawyers, and integration experts. Supporters of the restriction argue that modern military service depends on fast, precise communication, and that inadequate language skills slow down training, increase safety risks and force the Estonian Defence Forces to invest time and resources in basic language instruction rather than military preparedness. However, critics call the measure discriminatory and counterproductive, noting that conscription is a constitutional obligation that should apply equally to all citizens, regardless of their linguistic background. President Alar Karis echoed these concerns when he refused to promulgate the law, warning that the amendment violated principles of equal treatment and risked preventing a group of young people from fulfilling their civic duty. Integration advocates argue that conscription has historically been one of Estonia’s most effective tools for uniting Estonian- and Russian-speaking young people, and that excluding non-Estonian speakers would exacerbate social divisions and undermine long-term cohesion. Some commentators also suggest that the new rule could unintentionally create a loophole for avoiding service by deliberately neglecting language studies, which could undermine the defence forces’ manpower requirements. Pro-Kremlin commentators also seized on the controversy, speculating that the planned restriction was a deliberate attempt to discriminate against Estonia’s Russian-speaking population and to push them further out of public life, framing the policy as part of a broader effort to segregate minorities – an interpretation widely rejected in mainstream media but amplified in hostile information channels on social media.
Another major story widely discussed on Russian-language social media last week was the dismissal of the director of one of Tallinn’s Russian-language schools, which is currently in its second year of transitioning to Estonian-language instruction. The Tallinn Education Department proposed removing Sergei Teplov, director of the Tallinn Kesklinna Russian Gymnasium, from his position. According to Tallinn Deputy Mayor Aleksei Jashin, the decision was based on Teplov’s obstruction of the transition to Estonian-medium education. Jashin stated that several staff members who were officially registered as laboratory assistants or specialists – and who therefore did not possess the required language qualifications – had nevertheless been conducting lessons. In response, Russian-language Facebook groups saw a surge of posts depicting the dismissal as yet another example of the “discrimination of the Russian-speaking minority” or even “cultural genocide” – narratives characteristic of Kremlin propaganda. Some users circulated a post allegedly written by a teacher defending the director and expressing emotional concern about the “erosion of Russian-language educational traditions.” Across these discussions, the overarching theme was clear: strong criticism of the ongoing transition to Estonian-language instruction in Russian-medium schools.
The reaction illustrates how any incident linked to education reform is quickly instrumentalised online to deepen ethnic polarisation and reinforce disinformation narratives aiming to fracture Estonian society along linguistic and cultural lines.
