Key insights:
In February, the following issues attracted public attention and some information manipulation by pro-Kremlin commentators on social media:
- Estonia’s desynchronization from the BRELL energy circle
- Harsh statements and bold steps of the new Trump administration
- Situation of the Russian Orthodox Church in Estonia
- Estonia’s foreign policy and support for Ukraine
Overview of the Main Findings:
Pro-Kremlin commentators on social media seized the opportunity to ridicule the country’s geopolitical position, emphasizing its vulnerability to external influences, particularly shifts in U.S. policy. Another major point of contention was Estonia’s extensive military and financial support for Ukraine, one of the largest contributions relative to GDP. Pro-Kremlin voices criticized the Estonian government for committing such significant resources to Ukraine without securing any direct benefits in return, particularly in terms of diplomatic leverage or strengthened security assurances.
These commentators also expressed approval of the Trump administration’s evolving stance toward Russia and celebrated what they perceived as a shift in U.S. rhetoric, particularly after the widely publicized Oval Office meeting between Trump, Vance, and Zelensky. They applauded discussions about the potential for direct U.S.-Russia engagement, interpreting this as a sign that Europe’s ability to shape security policy is weakening. This narrative was further reinforced by suggestions that NATO’s role as a security guarantor might diminish if the U.S. takes a less committed stance.
Through these discussions, pro-Kremlin commentators sought to sow doubt about Estonia’s strategic choices, amplify fears of Western abandonment, and promote a narrative that portrays Estonia as politically insignificant and diplomatically isolated. Their broader aim appeared to be undermining trust in Western alliances while reinforcing the idea that Estonia’s security and stability are ultimately at the mercy of larger geopolitical forces beyond its control.
The Estonian government has stepped up its efforts to limit the influence of the Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, citing security concerns and the risk of Russian interference. This initiative is part of Estonia’s broader strategy to counter Russian soft power amid ongoing geopolitical tensions. New legislative measures have been introduced to restrict the reach of the Moscow-affiliated church, with authorities warning that religious institutions tied to Moscow could be used to spread Kremlin propaganda or contribute to political instability. Given Russia’s history of leveraging religious and cultural organizations to maintain influence over neighboring countries, Estonia sees this as a potential threat. In response to the mounting pressure, the Russian Orthodox Church in Estonia has attempted to rename and reposition itself, possibly as a way to detach from direct Kremlin control and circumvent government-imposed limitations. However, these actions have triggered a strong reaction from pro-Kremlin voices, who claim that Estonia’s policies violate religious freedoms and constitute excessive government interference. They argue that restricting the Moscow-linked church is a form of political repression, aimed at silencing religious communities with deep-rooted historical and cultural connections to Russia.
As Estonia moved forward with its plan to disconnect from the BRELL electricity grid, which had previously linked the Baltic states with Russia and Belarus, pro-Kremlin commentators intensified their criticism and spread disinformation to weaken public confidence in the transition. The desynchronization process, a crucial step toward Estonia’s energy independence, became a target for narratives aimed at creating fear and uncertainty. Detractors argued that Estonia was recklessly compromising its energy security by cutting ties with BRELL before ensuring fully reliable alternatives were in place. A major point of concern was the reliance on the Suwałki Corridor, a narrow land strip between Poland and Lithuania, which was considered a strategically vulnerable connection to the European grid. Pro-Kremlin voices claimed that if tensions escalated, this corridor could be disrupted, potentially jeopardizing Estonia’s electricity supply. Additionally, critics accused the Estonian government of prioritizing desynchronization at the expense of affordability, alleging that the shift to the European grid would lead to soaring electricity costs and increased financial burdens on citizens. Another frequently repeated claim was that desynchronization would cause power shortages and blackouts due to insufficient infrastructure. However, Estonian officials dismissed these assertions, assuring the public that necessary upgrades, such as synchronous capacitors and other stabilizing measures, were progressing as planned to ensure a secure and stable transition.
Story of the Month
In February 2025, the most prominent disinformation narrative in Estonia centered on the country’s strategic move to disconnect from the BRELL power grid, which historically connected the Baltic states to Russia and Belarus. Pro-Kremlin commentators made several misleading claims to undermine public confidence in this transition. They suggested that Estonia’s infrastructure was unprepared to synchronize with the European grid, implying that the move would jeopardize national energy security. However, Estonian officials reassured the public that the necessary infrastructure upgrades were on track to ensure a stable transition. Critics also claimed that prioritizing desynchronization would lead to higher electricity costs for consumers, exacerbating economic hardship. This claim was part of a broader narrative accusing the government of pushing an expensive green agenda that was detrimental to national interests. There were warnings of potential blackouts and energy shortages following desynchronization, suggesting that Estonia’s energy infrastructure would be vulnerable after the transition. The Estonian authorities dismissed these concerns, insisting that measures were in place to maintain grid stability. These disinformation efforts were part of a broader Russian strategy to influence Estonian public opinion and discourage it from reducing its reliance on Russian-controlled energy systems.
