well let's try again one more time re commonsenual wp or regardless of sui generis it has all the characteristics of belligerent occupation glantz et al commonsensual is not or occupation sensu stricto is something quite concrete and it is regulated by various international conventions for instance guggenheim lists three different forms of occupation and one of them refers to something quite unique therefore we can speak about the occupation sensu stricto and occupation following an armistice that is what i mean under commonsensual occupation and that is how a reader will understand it re belligerent occupation i do not deny the fact that some sources do describe it in this way however other sources majority of sources use different terminology therefore the reference to one more source that uses the terminology you like does not change a picture much i propose to present both viewpoints you reject the very opportunity that a second viewpoint exists therefore it is your arguments that do not hold water re malksoo please re read his works again and since both you and i can draw different conclusions from different pieces of malksoo's text below is a quote from his own explanation of his own position made specifically for us the baltic sattes were occupied in june and annexed incorporated by the ussr in august thus both occupation and annexation did happen the fact of annexation and that the ussr proceeded with its policies from the presumption that these territories were its own not occupied changed the nature of the occupation if not in terms of law than at least in terms of political realities for example when moscow olympic games took place the olympic regatta took place in tallinn this cannot be a typical occupation situation however it is important that the article would make clear that in the eyes of the predominant western opinion and post restored baltic states themselves the soviet annexation remained illegal in this sense illegal annexation equals extended occupation and the whole debate is a pseudo debate the annexation since it remained illegal did not create any extra rights to the annexing power the ussr if the article makes that aspect clear i would be perfectly fine with the title of the article being changed to occupation and annexation of the baltic states in fact i would recommend such change because it takes more precisely closer to the facts into account the complex nature of the soviet rule in the baltic states what else do you need malksoo clearly says that in the case of the baltic states both occupation and annexation took place and we can speak about continued occupation in this sense but not in others p s llegal annexation equals extended occupation in other words we can speak about occupation in a context of the state continuity of the baltic states and i never argued against that again what synthesis you accuse me in re there is no bridge between the baltic and soviet official russian positions there is no in between or continuum of scholarship it's one or the other wrong there is a baltic position position of different foreign states which was different from state to state and from time to time positions of scholars western baltic russian soviet positions different during s s and during perestroika and official russian position re from glantz to malksoo a belligerent occupation glantz is an authoritative expert in the military aspects of the wwii not in the legal aspects malskoo does not consider soviet intervention in as a military operation at all the only aggressive step according to him was a naval blockade re baltic citizens became a lower class as their homelands were colonized probably however other sources tell that the real economic and political situation in these republics were much better than in other parts of the ussr hence extensive influx of migrants was it possible if they had a colonial status i expect you to treat my arguments seriously