So what, according to you, caused this "fear and hatred" in Baltic States? And why exactly do you feel the need to downplay their legitimacy, saying they were "artificially created" ("artificially created" by who? and why would they be any more "artificial" than any other nation state?)?
What causes ethno-based nationalism, chauvinism, hatred between ethnic groups? I guess, the same what in other places. For instance, Balts participated in punitive actions against Russians in Civil War, in WW2 (where they were known for particular cruelty, btw). Russians I guess were known for the similar atrocities in Baltic States. As nations we weren't too nice to each other, like it often happens between neighbors. And in most cases, it is not the fault of one side, like you seem to present it here. Why I think this hatred is ethnic-based and not based on Soviet wrongdoings of XX century? Because Balts were treated just as any other people of USSR, not better and not worse. Repressions were not based on ethnicity, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs and all others were treated the same way as Balts.
"Artificially created" is not downplaying their legitimacy per se, it's a statement of fact and whether it affects their legitimacy is a matter of interpretation. They were created in parts of Russian Empire occupied by Germany, in coordination with German occupational administration. Originally, Germans planned to create buffer state there.
Definitions are important, but practical applications even more so. Crucially, communist leadership of the time sought to eliminate exploitation alongside with lots of people.
Do you understand why?
What's the difference between motives of Red or White terror in Russian Civil War, as well as Stalin's repressions, and motives of Nazis in Holocaust?
For instance, would you have preferred to live in Nazi-occupied France, or under Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? I, for one, wear glasses, so...
No, Khmer Rouge is not a practical application of a Communism. Just as Democratic Republic of North Korea is not a practical application of Democracy.
So you don't like to be "equally evil" and you don't like to be "slightly lesser evil".
No, I simply don't require your judgement here. Much less estimation of "evilness" in percentage. Keep your assessments for yourself.
I guess you are free to argue then exactly how, in Estonia's case, forcible annexation of a country, murdering thousands, deporting tens of thousands, forcing hundreds of thousands to flee and wrecking the place for decades makes you "good".
Depends on particular cases. Repressions and murdering innocent people doesn't make USSR or anyone else good. Repressions against members of nationalist parties, or criminals, may be a different case. Forcing people who collaborated with Nazis to flee from the country, imprisoning or deporting them, is ok in my book. As for annexation, its "goodness" or "badness" entirely depends on how many people in the region supported it. In Baltic States as far as I know, it was substantial part of population. Etc. I will not comment parts like "wrecking the place", it is something vaguely defined and subjective.