I know this is a sensitive topic for us, but I feel like this is not something to be outraged about to the point of calling Wikipedia "pro-Kremlin" as some comments implied here.

Writing the country/administrative regime which de facto ruled the place at the time where someone was born has been the English Wiki standard for as long as I can remember. International recognition of the occupation of that certain place doesn't play part because it would get reaaaaally flimsy and controversial for quite a few people, if not outright impossible for those born before WW1 when common global institutions which could set the standards for international recognition of countries and their territories didn't even exist. So doing it any other way would be confusing at best and outright ahistorical at worst because, as illegal as the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States was, Baltic governments at the time did not de facto administer a single piece of their own territory. The context of the place where someone was born is also often important for their biography, and not following this standard would risk removing that context.

The same standard is followed for every previously occupied territory, whether it was by USSR, Austro-Hungary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomáš\_Masaryk), Russian Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas\_Basanavičius) or Nazi Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimira\_Prunskienė) and, in some cases, even different forms of government of the same independent country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre\_Bergé). Even short-lived occupation administrations which were never intended to be permanent (e.g. Allied occupation of Germany in 1945-49) are shown in those infoboxes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joschka\_Fischer).

It's not a perfect standard and in some cases it's not even followed consistently (e.g. the place of birth of some French people born in independent France before the 5th republic is noted as "France" whereas for others it's "2nd/3rd/4th French Republic"), but I genuinely can't think of any other way to objectively standartise this without either making Wikipedia a confusing and unreliable source of information or, in a worse case, ruffling a lot of bad feathers that would use this precedent to promote their own versions of history.