On 30 Apr., 23:14, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[deletions]
> 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.
Sure, many find it a "good gesture." It's a gesture that's constantly
been made -- it's so "good" that it means Russians feel comfortable
using Russian with Latvian audiences. The time for that has passed, or
is passing. A lot of the complaints to the language inspectorate (and
complaints are way up) are about language in the workplace... and in a
lot of cases, there's little that can be done (because the language
law was weakened when we were trying to get into the EU/NATO).
Category requirements are being raised, though, and the inspectors are
more visibly active than in the past.
> 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=C3=BFm 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.
There are doubtless a lot of fluent captains. Ventspils, for example,
had a large number of Latvian seafarers and ****t workers even under
the Soviets, unlike R=C4=ABga, where those jobs were mostly Russian
(someone in Ventspils told me about how they would relax by beating up
the am=C4=AB=C5=A1i, heh). And in the 1990s, the language of training in
Lat=
via
switched to Latvian -- I've even run into young Latvian ****ps'
officers abroad, in New Orleans, for example. R=C4=ABga ****t, of course,
is
notoriously mafiya-run, like many a ****t.
Again, there's symbolism involved, and it matters. The language
inspectors can go hold talks with the bus terminal in Daugavpils again
and again, for example, but if the man in charge doesn't care about
what the drivers speak, they'll just pay the fines and nothing will
change. So the pressure will be kept on. The pressure will also
increase because fewer younger Latvians are learning Russian.
> Developing alternative energies and and adopting European values as
> soon as possible could help to develop a healthy distance from Russia.
Sure, but like he says -- Russian influence is increasing faster than
Latvia is becoming more European. We've been getting less European,
actually -- our rankings in political freedom slipped last year. The
main "alternative energy" we should be developing is nuclear power. It
looks like Estonia and Lithuania will do that on their own, and Russia
will do it in Kaliningrad.
It's partly just a matter of scale -- creating a hockey team paid for
by a Russian gas company wouldn't have a huge impact on a larger
country. Here, making a choice between burning coal or getting a new
Russian gas plant is a matter of big money in a few hands -- hands
that matter and aren't subject to much control.
Most of the people in government believe in European values about as
much as the sovoks at s.c.b. do. They would be quite happy with a
Putin-style managed democracy. They're quite happy with theocracy, too
-- the Minister of Integration gleefully struck gays from the
integration program after consulting with the Cardinal and the
Archbishop, for example. The guy who heads the human rights committee
in the Saeima has explicitly said that Russia preserves values against
the baleful influence decadent West (vide Black Monk), and he finds
comparisons of Latvia to Russia flattering.
There are a lot of people here who sup****t European values, and I
haven't given up on our eventual success.
> > 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?
The usual -- non-citizens.
> What would be a big difference for Latvians if Georgia becomes NATO's
> member?
Upholding the principle that the door is open to those who pursue
reforms is our moral responsibility, since we benefited from the same
sense of moral responsibility towards us. The cry that Georgia and
Ukraine are different, as "former Soviet republics," is the same cry
that was used against us not so long ago (in fact, some of the same
people indulge in it -- Anatol Lieven, who was staunchly opposed to
Baltic member****p, seems to focus on Ukraine and how bad NATO would be
and how bad Ukrainian language policies are, these days). Ukraine, of
course, is far more complex -- Georgia is actually quite similar, in
that it's small and a strong majority wants to be in NATO.
We provide assistance to Georgia (and Moldova), and it's unlikely to
be forgotten. That's a basis for a strong friend****p, just as it
should be with those who are closer to us (like our immediate
neighbors). ****fting the weight away from the Germans and the French
in NATO and the EU is in our interest -- Germany seems to be headed
for a slimy Ostpolitik, as was always its wont, and the French... are
the French.
You need only look at those who are so infuriated by Georgia and
Ukraine, whether in the Kremlin or at s.c.b. The "Russophobic dwarf
countries," etc. Well, the dwarfs -- who will be far more powerful,
economically and politically, sooner rather than later -- should stick
together. As Eggert wrote in that Kommersant article I linked to --
"More to the point, the new EU member-states are proud to belong to
the 'European community of values', as Prince Karel Schwarzenberg,
Czech Foreign Minister and one of the most ardent critics of
authoritarian regimes puts it."
I would go further to say that people here -- some, or many -- and
countries here know very well the differences that sovoks like
Topolski can't make out (and I could care less whether he's a fifth-
generation German shepherd or indigenous to Timbuktu -- he's still a
sovok). It's the bright side to Russophobia so-called.
> > 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.
You ignore them when they steal your lunch money and grab your girl in
front of you, and you end up in deep trouble, rather bereft, with your
balls cut off. Affects the psyche.
Latvia tried "absolute neutrality" so-called, from 1938. You know what
happened two years later. Neutrality is a crock and always has been.
The Wiki on Ellemann-Jensen included this line: "Anders Fogh Rasmussen
also became the first Danish prime minister to officially denounce the
Danish collaboration policy during the second world war as wrong,
arguing 'If every country had done as Denmark (i.e. given up without a
fight), the outcome of the war would have been clear.'"
> > 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.
But that's not going to happen, Dmitry. Even when we had Henry's
trophy as Russia's Public Enemy Number One, the gas kept flowing to
In=C4=8Dukalns. The drying out of the truba to Ventspils did nothing to
our
economy. The Duma wriggles around demanding sanctions against the
Baltic Nazis, but very little actually happens -- and the worse it
gets, the better for Latvia, in a lot of cases. Hurts sometimes, sure
-- but Georgia will sell its wine here instead of in Russia, and the
wine will get better and the dependency will be cut.
The main things we should be doing (and are doing, if slowly) are
quite simple -- integrating our energy grid with the Nordic countries
and Central Europe, pu****ng for a common energy policy for the EU, and
taking a clear stand.
Russia won't cut off the gas because it _can't_ -- it needs Europe as
much as Europe needs its energy. If it starts to play hardball harder,
the reaction will get harder, and though that might lead to some
turbulence -- in the long run, it's healthy. It's also better done
now, rather than later -- letting Russia take over Europe in terms of
energy whilst ignoring its tendency to use energy as a weapon only
adds to the efficacy of that weapon down the road. Making Europe
realize how dangerous, disgusting, anti-democratic and unreliable
Russia is -- as Lithuania is doing -- is extremely healthy, and we're
well qualified for the job.
Even in terms of your j=C4=81jamzirdzi=C5=86=C5=A1, alternative energies,
it=
's
beneficial -- sort of like in America; the gas/petrol prices are
painful and politicians want to offer a "tax holiday," but the fact is
that the more painful those pump prices are, the more likely Americans
will be forced to re*****s the _real_ costs of sucking down the
world's resources. Changing the psyche might be almost impossible, of
course -- "the American way of life," so integral to what America is,
is based on greed and waste. "The European way of life" is more
refined, but also not at all sustainable. Look at the differences,
though, from country to country, or even city to city -- look at how
Copenhagen gets and uses its energy and compare that to London or
R=C4=ABga.
Regards,
/P
http://lettonica.blogspot.com/
|
