Main narratives:
- Russophobia in Estonia
- Censorship in Estonia
Overview:
The Harju County Court in Estonia convicted pro-Russian political figure Aivo Peterson, leader of the small Koos (Together) party, of treason in December 2025 and sentenced him to 14 years in prison for allegedly assisting the Russian Federation in influence activities aimed at undermining Estonia’s independence and security; his co-defendants Dmitri Rootsi and Andrei Andronov received prison terms of approximately 11 years each. The court ruled that Peterson and his associates knowingly cooperated with Russian actors and participated in influence efforts, including plans for political cooperation that could threaten Estonia’s constitutional order. Although all three denied wrongdoing and announced their intention to appeal, the court found that they had knowingly cooperated with Russian actors and participated in influence efforts. In response, pro-Kremlin online commentators and Russian-aligned media have widely criticized the verdict as politically motivated and unjust, portraying it not as a legitimate legal judgment but as part of a broader pattern of alleged suppression of dissent and “Russophobia” in Estonia. These narratives argue that Peterson’s conviction reflects hostility by Estonian authorities toward Russian-speaking communities and critics of NATO rather than concrete evidence of harm to the state, emphasizing claims of discrimination against Russian minorities and recasting Peterson and his associates as victims of political repression rather than genuine security threats. Within this framing, the case is presented as emblematic of Estonia’s purportedly repressive treatment of alternative political views and as part of a wider trend of targeting pro-Russian activists in the Baltic states.
Another controversial issue that gained traction in social networks was the decision by the Estonian Public Broadcasting Council (ERR Council) to remove its chair, Rein Veidemann, by a majority vote. The decision was opposed by representatives of opposition factions in the Riigikogu, as well as by Veidemann himself. Questions about Veidemann’s suitability for the role had emerged earlier in November, after the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia (EKRE) reacted angrily to a Father’s Day broadcast on ETV depicting a family in which two men were raising twins. In response, EKRE initiated a draft law in parliament calling for the dissolution of ERR. Shortly after the broadcast, Veidemann told Postimees that the content shown was “highly inappropriate for the value space in which the majority of Estonians live.”
Following his removal, representatives of the Centre Party, EKRE, and Isamaa attempted to frame the decision as an attack on freedom of speech and as evidence of a “liberal dictatorship imposing the LGBTQ+ agenda.” This narrative found resonance among Russian-speaking social media users, fitting neatly into a classic pro-Kremlin discourse portraying the West as morally decadent and authoritarian. For many Russian-speaking commentators, such framing also aligned with broader anti-government sentiment and dissatisfaction with Estonia’s liberal governing parties. As a result, a domestic governance dispute was reframed into a culture-war narrative that reinforced existing Kremlin-aligned talking points and deepened ideological polarization.
