Russia poses the greatest security threat to Estonia, driven by its geographical proximity, societal integration challenges with Estonia’s Russian minority, and rising cyber-attack threats. While these issues are not new, the 2022 invasion of Ukraine has sparked concern about Russia’s future goals. When evaluating possible next steps for the Kremlin, Estonia’s proximity, size, and history related to Russia are a key part of the discussion. The deep historical ties between the two countries have resulted in a volatile relationship characterized by instability and mistrust. Estonia, a former Soviet state, fears a return to Soviet-era circumstances where its people were silenced, controlled, and killed by Russian forces in the name of unity. This fear is critical to understand because it provides the backdrop for decades of vulnerability in the Baltic states. Consequently, Estonia and its neighbors immediately raised the alarm and expressed concern about being the next target as they observed Russia’s invasion. The circumstances in which Estonia finds itself today are of the utmost importance to greater European safety and stability. Addressing and analyzing these three weak points of Estonian security will dictate where economic, diplomatic, and military engagement must be directed to prevent future Russian aggression.

In the 23 years since the declaration of the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (the WPS Agenda), national and international implementations have had both successes and failures in upholding the agenda. By evaluating the progress that has been made, we can better understand how to move forward with better solutions for the future.

Following the unification of Germany in 1871, significant shifts have occurred in the landscape of censorship legislation. This begs the question, what has been the effect of Germany’s censorship laws since 1871 on Germany’s modern understanding of free speech? As the nation has changed in its physical borders, leading political figures and parties, and social-cultural norms, so have the laws and constitutional amendments that dictate what is considered free speech. Unification brought about instrumental reform in the way Germany allowed its citizens to express themselves. Before 1871, the best reference for how the smaller German states policed what material could be published was the 1819 Carlsbad Decrees which came about after the murder of August von Kotzebue, a conservative writer. Austria’s Foreign Minister at the time, Klemens von Metternich, used this murder as an excuse to severely crack down on the public. The Carlsbad Decrees included three laws which all served to restrict free speech in Germany. More specifically, free speech of faculty members was limited at universities, any newspaper piece “without the foreknowledge and prior approval of the state authorities” could not be published, all publications had to be labeled with the author, editor, and publisher’s name or those involved would be punished, and any publication could be suppressed if it broke “the maintenance of peace and quiet” in Germany. 1 The lack of specificity in these rules allowed German officials to use their discretion in matters such as determining what constitutes disturbing peace and quiet, and other vague aspects of the decree. The Carlsbad Decrees are widely known for their repressive nature and goal of minimizing political opposition. With this, when the unification of Germany occurred in 1871, the newly united nation had to greatly reform its censorship laws. This marked the beginning of a long debate in united Germany over the rights Germans have to express their thoughts and opinions publicly.