Opinion: Who is the occupier, and where do religious freedom limits lie in Estonia?

Estonian commentator Teet Korsten examines who qualifies as an 'occupant' in today's Estonia and questions the limits of religious freedom. The piece connects the ongoing war in Ukraine, which officially began on February 24, 2022, to unresolved historical tensions from earlier conflicts. Korsten challenges readers to reconsider familiar concepts in a new geopolitical context.

February 24, 2022 is officially recorded as the start of the great war in Europe. Yet in everyday life, many Estonians carry a persistent sense that even the previous great war never truly ended — its echoes still shape institutions, identities, and loyalties within Estonian society today.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: in contemporary Estonia, who is the occupant? The word carries enormous legal and moral weight. It is not simply a historical label applied to foreign soldiers of decades past, but a living concept with real implications for institutions, communities, and individuals operating on Estonian soil today.

Commentator Teet Korsten argues that the question cannot be separated from the broader debate over religious freedom. Certain religious organizations with documented ties to foreign state actors continue to operate within Estonia's borders, shielding themselves behind protections intended for genuine spiritual communities. The question Korsten poses is blunt: at what point do those protections become a liability for a democratic state under existential pressure?

The tension is not theoretical. Estonia has already moved to restrict the activities of the Estonian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, citing national security concerns. Defenders of these institutions invoke religious freedom as an inviolable right. Critics counter that freedom of religion was never designed to protect structures that function as instruments of foreign political influence — especially when that foreign power is actively waging war against a neighboring country.

Korsten's provocation is ultimately a call for clarity. A society that cannot name its occupants — historical or contemporary — cannot effectively defend itself. Estonia, he suggests, must find the courage to ask hard questions about which institutions serve its people and which serve others, regardless of the spiritual language used to obscure that distinction.