I have recently returned from a lap of the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea; the Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Sweden, Åland Islands and Finland, plus the former USSR Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (and the Baltic coast of Poland, for good measure).

Perhaps surprisingly, most of these countries I had never visited before, but I had learned quite a bit about them in various contexts over the years. I had developed the impression that these were countries we could, indeed should all learn more from, but was keen to visit and witness life there to challenge my views and see how valid they are.

The lessons to be learned are many and varied, so I am dividing them into 2 blog pieces; the first one was on socioeconomic lessons, especially those pertinent to the Welsh Independence campaign, and this one is on the historical and political lessons especially pertinent to the political situation we are all living in right now.

I will focus this one primarily on the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, although their stories are intertwined with those of their Scandinavian/Nordic neighbours.

A BRIEF HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS

As with most nations today, the emergence of their identity goes back to the Middle Ages when tribal groups began to coalesce and settle down in recognisable territories. Thus, the Finno-Ugrians settled in what would become Finland and Estonia; The Livs settled in what is now northern Latvia; and the Samogitians and Aukstaiciai settled in what is most of present-day Lithuania.

 They all shared a collection of Pagan beliefs, worshipping the forces of nature personified as divinities. Their religious and cultural life centred on a large body of folk song, known as the dainos, many of which have survived. They encompass the whole of human life’s connectedness with nature and incorporate a strong sense of ethics.

From the 9^th century, the area saw a series of Scandinavian Viking incursions, along with Slavic incursions from the south and east that saw the first attempts to bring Roman Christianity into the region. Around the turn of the 13^th Century, the Danes conquered much of Estonia while Germans took the rest along with Latvia and Lithuanian.

Lithuania re-asserted itself successfully in the latter-13^th and 14^th centuries and became something of an imperial power itself, rejecting Christianity in the process, and taking land that is now Belarus and north-western Ukraine, and reached east as far as Moscow, under Great Prince Algirdas (whose name is prominent around Vilnius and beyond to this day).

One of the consequences of this expansion was the strategic intermarrying with neighbouring nobility that led to the reassertion of Christianity across the region. It led eventually to political union between Lithuania and Poland in the 16^th century. Meanwhile Latvia and southern Estonia succumbed to Russian tsar Ivan IV (‘the Terrible’ one) and Sweden took northern Estonia and Finland.

The 17^th century saw the region succumb to Russian expansionism, taking Estonia, Finland, Latvia and eating into the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, which saw itself partitioned between Russia and Germany and disappearing off the map completely as the result of three partitions in the 18^th century.

This situation persisted throughout the 19^th century, with attempted Polish and Lithuanian uprisings quashed and met with the intense russification of all the Baltic lands.

The Russian Revolution of 1905 and the arrival of Marxist values led to the peoples of the Baltics regaining confidence to reassert themselves. The three nations started by demanding national autonomy and Lithuania went so far as to demanding an autonomous Lithuanian state based on ethnic boundaries. Russia conceded that Baltic peoples could elect their representatives to the imperial parliament (the Duma) and allowed the consolidation of the national societies and use of the indigenous language in public life and schools again.

The collapse of the German and Russian empires during WWI allowed the Baltic peoples to finally establish independent states in 1918. It was far from plain sailing though. There was a power vacuum that led to fractured politics, the rise of extremism and political violence. Within 10 years all three countries had developed authoritarian systems. Lithuania saw a violently repressive nationalist regime, led by Smetona, eliminate all opposition to become a one-party state. Estonia and Latvia meanwhile were destabilised by exactly the opposite; a multiplicity of parties forming a ceaselessly changing series of weak coalitions.

Thus, when the Russian occupation arrived in 1940, the countries were in no shape to resist at all. There was probably some initial relief in Lithuania when Smetona fled to Germany. But any such relief would soon disappear as the region found itself in the violent grip of Stalin’s sovietisation of the three countries. The Soviet regime imposed manipulated elections that ensured the countries ‘voted’ to join the U.S.S.R.

By the 1970s the Baltic area had emerged as a hotbed of anti-Soviet dissent, with demonstrations and riots beginning to occur. The writing was on the wall (literally at times) and Mikhail Gorbachev understood the zeitgeist. He allowed increasing autonomy, which was especially relished in the Baltic states as they had never reconciled themselves to the loss of their independence, even though it had been politically difficult. It was driven by the strong sense of cultural identity among the indigenous populations. Diplomatic pressure was strong too, as virtually no country in ‘the West’ had ever recognised the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the U.S.S.R.

Elections in early 1990 clearly established pro-independence majorities in all three countries. Lithuania declared U.D.I. in March, followed by Estonia in April and Latvia in May. Moscow declared these illegal and asserted pressure in terms of economic sanctions designed to weaken the resolve of the people. There were sporadic outbreaks of violence where Soviet military tried to interfere with or control infrastructure. However, tensions within the corridors of power in Moscow culminated in the disintegration of the U.S.S.R in August 1991, facilitating the acknowledged implementation of the independence of the three Baltic States. By November, the Russians acknowledged the illegality of Stalin’s incorporation of the Baltic states in 1940.

Thus, we enter the short history of these proud nation’s growth as independent nations in the modern world. The 1990s saw the development of new constitutions, new currencies, and new foreign markets for each of the Baltic states. The immediate post-Soviet period, however, was marked by economic instability, and in 1998 a financial crisis in Russia had repercussions throughout the region. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the 21st century, the Baltic states experienced sustained economic growth and closer integration with the nations of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—two groups that all three countries joined in 2004. Their socio-economic success in this period is examined in Part 1 of this two-part blog.

The success of these newly independent nations

Compared to the chaotic nations that had independence in the 1920s and 30s, the Baltic states of today have been shining examples of what can be achieved by small nations gaining freedom and complete independence from much bigger oppressive neighbours. They should inspire and give confidence to nations like Wales, Scotland, Catalonia etc.

One of the keys to their current and ongoing success has been them learning lessons from their Nordic neighbours from the outset of gaining their independence. They set up their constitutions and legislatures along similar lines to them to try and ensure a strong and stable democracy and an economy that could develop mutually beneficial trade links with them and the rest of Western Europe, facilitating entry into the EU and the Eurozone.

There was therefore a strong desire to foster and build upon strategic links between the Nordic and Baltic states, both economically and politically. It has become known as the NB8 and is, in effect, a pact of co-operation between the Baltic Council, that was created by the three Baltic countries in the immediate aftermath of gaining independence on 1990, and the Nordic Council that has existed since 1952. A similar confederation was proposed in the 1920s during the previous period of independence for the three Baltic states, but political instability prevented it happening then. Lithuania was a prime mover for this new pact in the 1990s, recognising the importance of strength in numbers before securing membership of the EU and NATO.

As tensions within the EU (the U.K. has left and others may well follow) and NATO (with Trumpian USA not committed and many others, including me, unhappy with its destabilising expansionism and interventionist approach), it makes sense for nations to foster even greater co-operation, trade and sharing of resources and expertise elsewhere and closer to home.

Thus, the NB8 has developed and become a stronger entity since its inception in 1992. Indeed, a meeting of all the Ministers of Foreign Affairs met in Middelfart in 2000 to reassert the strength of the co-operation programmes (as well as formally adopting the NB8 moniker). A programme of regular conferences for a range of ministers was put in place:

This is backed up with a comprehensive and cohesive network of cooperation activities in political, military, economic, environmental, cultural, and other aspects. Landmark achievements include the 2004 establishment of the ‘NB8 Task Force Against Trafficking in Human Beings’, the 2010 ‘Cross-border Financial Stability Agreement’, and the 2012 ‘NB8 Wise Men Report’ that strengthened co-operation in foreign policy, cyber security, joint energy ventures, and defence.

Were it not for the spectre of Putin’s growing imperialism, the future would look secure and bright for all these countries. But however this pans out, there is a lot of inspiration to be had for other small nations aspiring to independence.

WHAT CAN WALES LEARN?

• First and foremost, small nations can and do thrive when achieving independence.

• Once achieved, independence becomes precious and worth fighting to retain. Indeed, countries that achieve independence very rarely ever want to reverse it.

• On gaining independence, ensure you set up your constitution and legislature properly in order to preserve democracy and maintain stability.

• It is important to have good friends and neighbours, preferably that you have things in common with.

The dissolution of the U.K. should not be acrimonious and there should be no reason for friendship and co-operation with England to not continue in most things. The Baltic States didn’t have this; it was gaining independence from a violently oppressive entity. It should therefore be easier for Wales and Scotland to make a success of independence.

Even if relations with England were to deteriorate, there is plenty of scope for other alliances, akin to the Nordic Council and Baltic Assembly.

The Celtic League already exists (founded in 1961) to promote and foster a modern Celtic identity and culture across the 6 Celtic Nations of Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Isle of Man, Cornwall, and Brittany. It is primarily focussed on promoting the Celtic languages, buy does also advocate for further self-governance in these nations and ultimately for each to become an independent state it its own right.

The common design features of the Orkney and Shetland flags serves to illustrate the overlapping histories they share with the Nordic countries. Given the fact that Orcadians and Shetlanders are fully aware of this history and have even been agitating about seeing a brighter future in realigning themselves with their Nordic neighbours (Lerwick is much nearer Oslo (@425 miles) than London (@600 miles) after all), it is entirely possible that we could see further overlaps develop in the diagram above.

The overwhelmingly strong message that I have received from both studying and visiting these nations is that there is so much potential to improve our lives in Wales by pursuing independence than from sticking with the status quo. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is madness (are you still voting Labour in the Assembly elections?).

I may have only spent a very short time in each country on my recent trip, but the places and the people all presented a sense of calm assurance and self-confidence that, despite the challenges of the modern world, they are on the right track.

I saw nobody homeless on the streets, no mindless vandalism, very little litter (other than that created by seagulls), no fly-tipping. You can’t say any of that around our cities, especially Cardiff. I spoke to people paying high taxes but not moaning about it because they feel they are getting good services for their money. Paying a lot doesn’t guarantee quality, but you can’t get quality in the bargain basement.

I spoke to polite, articulate, confident, multi-lingual young people everywhere I went. They are few and far between in Bridgend.

The people of these nations are proudly independent people in proudly independent nations, working together for a better future for everyone.

We can be the same, can’t we?