Key insights:
In December, pro-Kremlin disinformation actors in Estonia focused on amplifying cultural grievances, exploiting security-related incidents, and framing state policies as discriminatory or repressive. Key narratives included:
- Russophobia as state policy — Education reforms, court rulings, and cultural debates were portrayed as systematic persecution of Russian speakers and “cultural genocide.”
- Censorship and political repression — High-profile court cases and decisions involving public institutions were framed as attacks on freedom of speech and dissent.
- Discrediting national defence measures — Debates around military conscription and language requirements were used to question Estonia’s security policies and portray them as discriminatory.
- Exploiting public security incidents — Isolated criminal acts and hoax threats were reframed as evidence of state concealment, incompetence, or ethnic bias.
- Normalizing anti-Ukrainian sentiment — Speculation and blame directed at Ukrainian refugees resurfaced in discussions around crime and public safety.
These narratives aimed to deepen mistrust toward state institutions, reinforce identity-based divisions, and normalize Kremlin-aligned interpretations among parts of the Russian-speaking population.
Overview of the Main Findings:
Throughout December, disinformation activity in Estonia was shaped by a combination of domestic governance debates and heightened sensitivity around security and identity issues. Education and language policy remained a central trigger. The dismissal of the director of a Russian-language school undergoing transition to Estonian-language instruction was widely framed in Russian-language social media as discrimination or “cultural genocide,” reinforcing long-standing Kremlin narratives about the alleged marginalization of Russian speakers.
National security topics were another focal point. The government’s decision to move toward a uniform 12-month conscription period from 2027, as well as debates around language requirements in military service, were used by pro-Kremlin commentators to question the legitimacy and fairness of Estonia’s defence policy. These discussions were often coupled with calls to redirect resources away from defence and toward social spending, echoing broader anti-defence messaging.
Several incidents related to public safety were quickly absorbed into disinformation frameworks. The explosion at the Ülemiste shopping centre, which authorities classified as a non-terrorist criminal act, sparked widespread speculation online. Commentators questioned the official explanation, mocked law enforcement responses, or attempted to assign ethnic or national blame — including unfounded claims targeting Ukrainian refugees. Similarly, hoax bomb threats against schools were exploited to portray Estonia as unprepared and its institutions as unreliable.
Toward the end of the month, fabricated and satirical content was successfully weaponized. Viral claims that Estonia planned to ban the traditional Olivier salad circulated widely in Russian-language social media groups. Although later debunked, the story was treated as plausible by many users and used to ridicule Estonia and reinforce perceptions of excessive regulation and cultural repression.
Overall, December’s disinformation landscape relied less on major geopolitical events and more on the accumulation of everyday grievances, symbolic incidents, and emotional narratives. These tactics proved effective in sustaining distrust, polarizing public debate, and embedding Kremlin-aligned interpretations into routine discussions within Estonian social media spaces.
Story of the Month
In December 2025, online commentators and political actors critical of the Estonian government revived the long-standing “Russophobia” narrative in response to a proposed legal amendment that would require a minimum B1 level of Estonian language proficiency for certain roles within the conscription-based Estonian Defence Forces. Critics, particularly in Russian-language and pro-Kremlin online spaces, have framed the proposal as discriminatory toward Russian-speaking citizens, arguing that it could limit equal access to military service and civic participation.
Supporters of the measure, including government representatives, have emphasized operational cohesion, safety, and effective command communication as key justifications, noting that the proposal does not bar service altogether but seeks to ensure functional language skills in specific roles. The debate has been amplified online as an example of broader tensions over integration, national security, and minority rights, with critics portraying the initiative as exclusionary while authorities frame it as a pragmatic and security-driven reform.
