> > Thanks. I don't know much about Pabriks, but from some snapshots I
> > read and heard he comes across as a politician who tries to find that
> > balance. It is not an easy task. I also remember him talking about
> > developing local energy sources (I quite leked that). I don't know
> > what you think of him, but I bet you didn't like this: "Es =F0eit
> > negribu aicin=E2t vair=E2k nerun=E2t ar masu sazi=F2as l=EEdzek=EFiem
kr=
ievu
> > valod=E2, k=E2 to dara da=FEs labs m=FBsu politi=EDis, jo dom=E2ju, ka
t=
as ir ne
> > tikai mu=EF=ED=EEgs populisms...etc.".
>
> You're right -- I didn't like that, because it is a cheap swipe at
> Kalniete's and Kristovskis' Civic Union, the new party competing
> against =D0tokenbergs' and Pabriks' new party. Furthermore, it's
> inaccurate -- Kalniete and Kristovskis said they wouldn't speak to
> _Latvian_ media in Russian anymore (e.g., Chas, Vesti, Telegraf,
> etc.), on principle; they're not saying they won't speak Russian to
> the Russian media (correspondents from Russia).
Speaking to Russian-Latvian media in Russian can be also seen as
populism. The pro****tion of Russophones is high in Latvia, and I'm
sure many of them would find it a good gesture.
>
> The second part of the sentence is remarkably absurd -- that their
> invitation not to use Russian with the media in Latvia is against the
> letter and spirit of the law, which gives minorities the right to use
> their languages. No, it's not against the spirit and certainly not
> against the letter of the law. Expecting resident Russophones to use
> Latvian at a press conference in Latvia doesn't impinge on anyone's
> minority rights.
Of course it doesn't. "Spirit of the law" can be interpreted in many
ways.
>
> Granted, Kalniete's and Kristovskis' announcement was also a cheap
> political ploy, to which he's responding... but I wouldn't call it
> "foolish populism." It's a symbolic act. Around the time Pabriks wrote
> this piece, the first new Latvian ****p to stay in Latvian waters was
> christened in Riga harbor. Grand ceremony, PM and others in
> attendance. Interview with the captain of the ****p -- in Russian. Can
> the captain not speak Latvian? Could the ****t not find a captain who
> can? What language will the captain use with the crew?
Were there subtitles? It looks as if the entire industry are
monolingual Russophones-)) The answers would be obvious: 1)no, 2)no,
3)Russian. But it could also be a move towards making Russian
speaking population more inclusive? (I=FFm sure there will be at least
one captain who can speak Latvian). Initially (1991), if all
Rusophones were fluent in Latvian there wouldn't be any issues with
somebody being interviewed in Russian today, majority of people in
Latvia know Russian anyway.
>
> Except for that last paragraph, I thought Pabriks' piece was very good
> and very troubling -- but it is in agreement with what I said, Dmitry,
> about needing to get as far away from Russia as possible.
Both, you and Pabriks, saying the same thing - this is convincing
enough for me-)
> Russian
> influence here is growing by leaps and bounds -- as he says, on the
> backs of Russian oil and gas and with the helping hand of Latvian
> politicians -- and Latvia is not ready for the challenge. Latvia's
> entry into the new hockey league is an example of this, as he says;
> it's Itera money, and Kalv=EEtis is a little Schr=F6der, as I suggested
in=
> another thread.
>
> Pabriks' diagnosis is correct: disappointment in our government and
> politics, combined with our not yet having adopted European values,
> leads to a situation in which USSR-1 is swathed in sentimentality
> whilst USSR-2 uses its black gold to attract and buy us.
Developing alternative energies and and adopting European values as
soon as possible could help to develop a healthy distance from Russia.
> I think any steps we take, with the possible exception of acts Russia
> finds extremely provocative (e.g., ****fting bronze Alyoshas, etc.) --
> things we don't do -- quite simply don't matter very much. Lavrov was
> spouting off about our supposed gross human rights violations the day
> after the Border Agreement was signed!
What was he on about?
>
> Keeping an OK relation****p with the bully next door would entail what,
> exactly?
> We already saw two warning signs last year -- the delay in
> sup****ting Estonia in Parliament, and the censor****p of the
> do***entary on Putin.
>
> These days, we're not talking about an OK relation****p (something
> we've tried for all along, actually -- it's Russia that's responsible
> for the bad relation****p) -- we're talking about selling out and
> becoming Russia's proxy in the EU. It hasn't happened yet, but when
> moderates like Pabriks sound a warning, you know it's time to worry.
>
> EU member****p won't keep Russia out -- on the contrary, it's
> attractive to Russia.
>
> On energy -- Latvia is slow and indecisive, much more so than our
> neighbors. The Ignalina project is stalled. Latvia has no clear
> position in Nord Stream. Prospects for energy include plans for
> _increasing_ our dependence on Russian gas.
>
> NATO is another matter -- so far, we strongly sup****t Ukraine's and
> Georgia's member****p, which is certainly not to Russia's liking.
> That's in our interest, and we should maintain that policy.
What would be a big difference for Latvians if Georgia becomes NATO's
member?
>
> Re the eternal issues: despite the Russian refrain re non-citizens,
> Lithuania -- which chose the zero option -- doesn't have a good
> relation****p with Russia, either. Like I said, what _we_ do to be warm
> and fuzzy really doesn't matter that much. If it's not one thing that
> gets the Kremlin's goat, it'll be another thing -- Russia's foreign
> policy is that of a bully, plain and simple. Everybody knows the
> schoolyard truth about caving in to bullies -- you just keep getting
> picked on.
If you ignore them, they usually loose interest, but that's not as
easy.
>
> Re Abrene: the issue of signing it away aside, one of the most
> troubling aspects of the deal was the lack of coordination of our
> approach with Estonia. I _don't_ see the Border Agreement as a foreign
> policy coup; it is more of a saga of changing positions and
> ineptitude. We needed to append a declaration, and then we decided we
> didn't need to append a declaration.
>
> Finally -- I definitely think keeping our distance would be the best
> course. To put it bluntly -- I don't _want_ a warm relation****p with
> Russia -- not with this Russia, USSR-2 as Pabriks calls it. A warmer
> relation****p means closer ties, especially economic ties. It's not
> just a problem of the sort of political baggage attached to such ties
> by the Russians -- it's a matter of the weakness of _our_ society and
> _our_ politicians. Not a few would sell their mothers for gas or
> hockey, without even a second thought.
But you can't just suddenly turn off the gas.
|
