Desnitsky joined the university after the war began. In May 2022, LRT published an analysis of his old publications, stating that before 2014 he had advocated a referendum on Crimea joining Russia. The researcher himself clarified to journalists at the time that he had never supported the annexation of Crimea in 2014, «did not consider that farce just,» and opposes Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The university's rector, Raimundas Balčiūnaitis, said that an investigation would be conducted because of these publications.
The 2012 Article
Today LRT published excerpts from the philologist's 2012 article on the website Pravmir about the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. According to the preview, the author discussed which word is more applicable to the events of 1940—occupation or annexation—and how this affects attitudes toward the Russian-speaking population of those states. LRT highlighted two paragraphs in which, in its opinion, the scholar «denied the occupation of the Baltic states»: «However absurd it may sound, tanks entered Riga, Tallinn, and Vilnius, recently handed to Lithuania <…> with the full consent of the local governments. Neither the troops nor the population offered any noticeable resistance; many joyfully welcomed the Red Army, considering it a liberator from a right-wing nationalist dictatorship. Then came staged elections and requests to join the USSR, but, again, however ridiculous it may sound, from a formal point of view there was more freedom under the Red Army, because before its arrival no elections were envisaged at all.»
Desnitsky's Reaction
Andrei Desnitsky commented on the new analysis on Facebook. «Naturally, I too was under the influence of Kremlin propaganda at the time; its favorite trick: 'yes, of course, Stalin was terrible, but look at…'—and in that 2012 article I was transmitting that, alas. And this is probably not the only example of how I did that, thinking I was independently reasoning about subtle and important matters. And then 2014 came. And then 2022. And it became completely clear where this rhetoric leads and how dangerous it is to succumb to it,» he wrote, partially agreeing with the criticisms.
«If I were writing on this topic today, I would limit myself to just one sentence: 'There is not the slightest doubt that the annexation was indeed violent and violated all conceivable norms of international law, and that repressions did indeed follow.' That is said there, and I still believe it. But everything else I wrote there then, I see completely differently 11 years later,» the philologist added.
1
