I don’t know your “primitive patriots, Peteris, “ who want to deny Russians their pelmeni and whatever else makes the Russian heart sing: all Latvians should be revolted by any attachment to a Russian-colonized Latvia, dreams of the restoration of the occupied and Russified Soviet Republic of the great U.S.S.R., and a longing for the old “glory” of Stalin and cultish support for Stalin’s KGB-Commie heir Putin.

Good God, woman. Get it through your thick head. The vast majority of people in Latvia – including pensioners – do not long for the glory of the Soviet Latvia. Nor do they see Putin as their Savior. Russia isn’t going to occupy the Baltics. 500,000 Russians in the Baltics are a drop in the bucket for the country that never cared for people in the first place. This kind of thinking tells me that you’re out of touch with reality. You fly up high in the sky, sulking in an ethnically pure Latvia that never was and never will be. And whoever your friends Russian and Latvian pensioners are, I suspect they’re merely products of your imagination.

Can’t wait until you move here, ambersun.

Edward Lucas, correspondent for The Economist, former Moscow Bureau Chief, and author of The New Cold War - directs readers at his blog (Edward Lucas) to the following review of his new book about Russia:
http://www.moreintelligentlife.com
Stephen Hugh-Jones, former writer and editor for The Economist
OF FACTS AND FAIRY-TALES

What fun it is to meet a book that doesn’t call a spade a bicipitally-powered materials-excavation mechanism but a bloody shovel. My former colleague Edward Lucas [2] has just written one. And if “The New Cold War [3]” (Bloomsbury £18.99; Macmillan $26.95) doesn’t leave you sharing his detestation of the Putin regime in Russia, the fault is not his.

There were two damnfool ideas going around near the end of the late lamentable century that promised us all a rosier future in the present one. The sillier one, and I mean that word, was to be found in Francis Fukuyama’s [4] “The End of History and the Last Man [5]”. With the cold war won by the West, the human race, it seemed, had seen the last of ideological conflict. From now on, with whatever marginal variations and disagreements, and occasional falling-back, we would all be the disciples of market forces and liberal democracy.

How anyone could take that fantasy seriously, I never knew. Even at the time, years before 9/11, it struck me as nonsense. Though Fukuyama briefly discussed the topic, one might have thought Islamic fundamentalism had barely been heard of inside the Beltway. By now, we know better.

The other notion was less obviously absurd. With the arms race won, the Soviet Union gone and shrunken Russia seemingly converted, albeit imperfectly, to Western values, we in the West could sit could back and spend the “peace dividend” on higher education, dancing girls and iced lollies. Most countries did indeed cut their military spending, and were probably right to.

Where most of public opinion went wrong was in assuming that what was true at the time would be equally true ten or 20 years later. High-tech military hardware, “toys for the boys”, as it was derided, would simply no longer be needed. Wars there might be, but they’d be low-level ones, to be sorted out by helicopters in Africa, not Eurofighters or Star Wars wizardry halfway to outer space.

That could yet be so. But it ignored two realities. One is that the point of weaponry is not just to fight but to be visibly ready to, and so, one hopes, avoid the need ever to use the weapons. The other is that a great nation that has just had its face rubbed in the mud does not usually sit around meekly washing itself clean. Germany had been humiliated in the 1920s by the Treaty of Versailles, and look what followed. The Russians suffered a similar humiliation, by the disintegration first of the Soviet empire and then of the Soviet Union itself.

The people of both countries--Germany and Russia--were ready to believe they had been stabbed in the back. Both were eager, and within 15 years able, to do something about it. Vladimir Putin, appointed prime minister in 1999 by Boris Yeltsin and elected president in 2000, has vigorously exploited and fed this wave of resurgent nationalism, and with great success. He’s determined, intelligent, able and popular. And, unlike Yeltsin, he’s not a drunk.

He has also had one huge fortuitous aid: a soaring oil price [6]. Thanks to it, Russia—and a great many Russians—is vastly better off than it was 15 years ago. It is still miles behind the United States in weaponry, but it can look the Americans in the face, with hostility if need be. And its wealth and energy resources are proving a more effective weapon in Europe than umpteen armoured divisions might be. Unlike tanks, it can use them.

As it does. Desperate for energy sources, some West European countries, notably Germany, have rushed to sign up for supplies of Russian gas. Major oil companies such as Shell and BP have made deals to develop Russian oilfields. When their deals were cynically disrupted by the Kremlin, these companies have meekly kowtowed on the theory, justifiable enough in commercial terms, that even half a barrel is better than no bread.

These energy supplies can be cut off at the drop of a hat, and indeed might be—the Russians have proved that with their nearer neighbours. Lenin reputedly said that the capitalists “will sell us the rope to hang them with”. Russia’s state-owned Gazprom has gone one better: it has sold the rope which the West is cheerfully putting round its own neck. The Kremlin may never open the trap, but then it may never need to: the prospect of being hanged does indeed concentrate a man’s mind wonderfully, and, more to the point, sap his determination.

Today’s Russia doesn’t need, as the Soviet Union did, to have toadying communist parties in the West, or to use arrogant traitors like Kim Philby (or sundry hired British parliamentarians) to do its dirty work. It has plenty of western businessmen, Lucas says, especially in Germany, whose mere self-interest inspires them to argue Russia’s case.

(cont’d)

(cont’d)
All this Lucas recounts, and with no small venom. It might seem overmuch if he did not also recount just how venomous the regime he is writing about is. Putin is not a thug, as Stalin was. He is not paranoid, he hasn’t sent millions to the gulag, he’s not a mass murderer. But he has destroyed the freedom of the media and the beginnings of parliamentary democracy, which Yeltsin, with all his faults, allowed to flourish. Having overthrown the oligarchy of corrupt capitalists who also flourished under Yeltsin--not least by deploying the tax system as an instrument of arbitrary theft--he has replaced them with an oligarchy of state capitalism. The law, which had begun to take on the functions that liberal countries ascribe to it, is back to being a tool of state oppression when it suits the state to use it as such.

And though Putin may not personally be a thug, his Kremlin employs plenty of them, happy to silence critics with police and secret-service threats, “psychiatric” imprisonment, violence and, when useful, murder. The result is still light-years short of Stalinist terror, but the direction is the same.

Not so far short of Stalin’s days is the way Russia’s army, under Putin as—let’s be fair—before, has savaged the Chechen rebels and a great many other Chechens, all of them, cheerfully or not, fellow-citizens. Russians, by and large, have approved. And next? The new Russia has not set out, and maybe never will, to emulate the Soviet Union’s long occupation of eastern Europe, or its ruthless war in Afghanistan, one that could make NATO’s troops now there “stand astonished”, like Clive of India, “at [their] own moderation”. But already it stations troops in bits of Georgia and Moldova, not without excuses but against both those countries’ wishes. If I were a citizen of any of the three Baltic republics, for half the late century incorporated by force into the USSR—well, these days I’d keep my fingers crossed and an air ticket westward permanently open. And, living in Britain, I wouldn’t bet my fiver against your 50 on all three staying independent for the half-century to come [my bold].

Aleksei took the Minsk bus to Dvinsk and is standing right here—we’ve been enjoying this song (check out that multicultural manga and the Ambersun-like sentiments at the beginning!). Neither of us—nor Ingūna, no malas—can understand your focus, Ambersun. This is ostensibly a thread about multiculturalism (or “multiculturalism") in Latvia. But here is Ed Lucas and the New Cold War again—that’s the answer to everything, I guess, even if it has nothing to do with anything?

Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, of the right wing, in a recent article on his view of “democratic nationalism”:

Demokrātiskais patriotisms ir apliecinošs. Tas spēcina latviešu valodu un pozitīvu pašapziņu, veicina sava novada, zemes, valsts, tradīciju un vēstures pazīšanu. Tas ir PAR Latviju, nevis PRET citādo. Tas nebiedē ar “Krievi nāk!”, bet lepni saka “Latvieši nāk!” Tas nenorobežojas izmisīgā aizsardzībā, bet ir pārliecināts par nācijas spēku un vērtībām. Demokrātiskais patriotisms ir iesakņots. Tas ciena un veicina ikviena Latvijas novada un kopienas savpatību. Tas ir suitu un latgaliešu, līvu un ventiņu, vecticībnieku un Grīziņkalna pagalmu patriotisms.

“Demokrātiskie patrioti: Latvijai un nākotnei”

What you write, Ambersun, is usually against the other and dangles that “Krievi nāk!” no matter what is being discussed. Here we are, people of various stock, quite different interests, and radically differing views—Old Believer, Latvian-American, Soviet Latvian, Latvian-Latvian, Daugavpilian, Christian, pagan, visual, verbal, etc.—speaking Latvian most of the eve and finding much common ground.

Aleksei spent most of the day in Lithuania. Our car wouldn’t start, so we called our friend Dima. He’s a Russian. He left work to come get the car going so Aleksei wouldn’t miss his interviews. His wife is a Latgallian who is fluent in Lithuanian. You claim to spend considerable time in Latgola—I find that very hard to imagine, sorry. If you did, you’d have to be pretty elaborately blinkered to come up with some of what you come up with. Like Aleks—I can’t wait till you live here!

Vysu lobu,
/P

Does anyone actulally need to read Lucas in order to recognize Putins intentions of rebuilding the empire? Other than the post fall “discovered wealth” ,little has changed in the ethnocentrism of the populace (which Juris K. has determined is gene based). Also,Russian still needs a warm water port for the growing economy.

Unfortunately, at times of national stress , reason surrenders to the power of ethnocentrism.

KQED FM radio, San Francisco:  FORUM, host Michael Krasny, Mon, Mar 3, 2008—9:00 AM

Russian Election
In Sunday’s Russian presidential election, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev—president Putin’s hand-picked successor—is running unchallenged. Putin, meanwhile, will now become the next prime minister. On today’s Forum we discuss the current state of Russian politics and what it means for the West.
Host: Michael Krasny
Guests:
Clifford Levy, Moscow bureau chief for the New York Times
Edward Lucas, Central and Eastern Europe correspondent and former Moscow bureau chief for The Economist, and author of “The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces Both Russia and the West”
Michael McFaul, professor of political science and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution
More Info:
About the book “The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces Both Russia and the West”: at Amazon.com
New York Times Article: “Putin’s Iron Grip on Russia Suffocates Opponents” by Clifford Levy

PS
Aleksejs: Did you “[g]et it through your thick head” yet to “...keep [your Latvian] fingers crossed and an air ticket westward permanently open?”

Tell me, ambersun, who has been in charge of the Latvian government in the last 17 years? You conveniently quote Edward Lucas extensively ignoring that the same Lucas says the same new Cold War has been lost in several places including Latvia, which he calls a Russian proxy in the EU. And, you may also notice, that no tanks were needed, no seemingly Russian parties joined in government. In fact, in the last three years, the government led by Tautas Partija, espoused the Latvian nationalist ideology, and negotiated deals with Russia. The government even included and still includes the Fatherlanders. So if anyone did any selling of Latvia, it was Latvians themselves.

Incidentally, do you have any thoughts of your own other than cut and paste?

Aleksejs,
Posting some intelligent viewpoints from credible Russia, Baltics, and Europe watchers, - journalists and historians - who have taken the time to research the subjects and are recognized experts is my attempt to add some light to the darkeness of your LOL ideological lectures about the “multiculturalist” (read Russian) Latvia you are working to create.  Here’s another one:

Europe.view
Independence days
Feb 28th 2008
From Economist.com
What can émigrés do this time?
DURING the four dismal decades of the last cold war, in places like New Jersey, Toronto, west London and Melbourne, communities distinguished by strange-sounding surnames and distinctive cuisine took root.

In the early years, many hoped they would be going “home” soon. But memories of their captive homelands became faded and rosy. The cause seemed all but hopeless: folk-dancing dentists against the evil empire.

But that changed as communism weakened. Dusty embassies, forlorn governments-in-exile, and powerless pressure groups, which for years had survived only to squabble, suddenly had real jobs to do. Strange men with bad teeth and shaggy beards—freedom fighters from “home”—had to be polished up and used to win over western public opinion, still bemused by the strange news from the east. Thousands of volunteers went back to help. When victory was won, some stayed, as businessmen, journalists, charity workers, officials—and politicians.

http://www.president.lt

Recognition for the BaronessLife may be duller now, but it can still be fun. A lively party at the Estonian House in New York last weekend toasted the 90th anniversary of the first Estonian republic. That is no historical footnote: it is a crucial political point for the Baltic states that they did not “gain” independence from the Kremlin in 1991, but “regained” what the Soviet occupation took from them.

Earlier, hundreds of Lithuanians celebrated their national birthday at a gala dinner in London, where speakers included Baroness Thatcher (frail of foot, but still in fine, fluent form on her favourite subject of freedom) and their own President Valdas Adamkus (who spent most of his adult life in America).

The former British prime minister received Lithuania’s highest honour, the Order of Vytautas (with a huge cream and crimson sash), and a thunderous ovation. Not her last hurrah, perhaps, but certainly a memorable one.

The third speaker was Lithuania’s hot-shot ambassador to Britain, Vygaudas Usackas. Some think he may be in the running for Mr Adamkus’s job next year. With more than 150,000 Lithuanians living in Britain, the new diaspora would be a useful pool of votes should he choose to seek them.

Some younger members of his audience have similar ideas. A few years’ hard work in the City of London sets an ambitious east European up for life. That could mean a badly needed new political class, of financially independent politicians and public figures with a clear idea of what still needs to change back home.

It would be nice to think that all ex-communist countries see the value of their diasporas. But all too often, they are shunned. If you are a corrupt and incompetent politician, it may suit you quite well if the most impatient people go abroad and don’t come back.

The big worry among the most seasoned émigrés is that the cold wind from the east has started before eastern Europe is ready. Politics is too close to business, and business too close to Russia. The public—at least the part of it that hasn’t emigrated—is disillusioned. Disgraced or dodgy politicians seem troublingly resilient, even when ties to organised crime and foreign secret services seem alarmingly clear.

“We needed another ten years”, says an old Baltic hand in Washington, DC. More time would foster a new generation of politicians and officials, stronger public institutions, and greater confidence among voters that the European and Atlantic option was really working.

Nobody is saying that the picture is hopeless. And it’s much worse if you are, say, Belarussian and are not sure your country is going to survive at all, let alone be free or well-governed. But among some hard-bitten veterans of the last cold war, the mood is surprisingly sombre.

PS More reasons to not argue with you.  1) Your internationalist ideology does not serve Latvia and is not even truly “internationalist” or “multicultural.” It’s exclusively a promotion of your attachment to only a Russian culture and viewpoint. I see nothing from you that shows a concern for the traditional and real Latvian “minoritites,” like the the Latgalian-Latvians and Jewish-Latvians, who don’t seem to exist in your “multiculturalist” Russian-culture world since you have yet to advocate for anyone other than Russians as a “minority” in Latvia.  My position is generally just as stated by Ms. Demakova: nacionala valsts, latvietibas nostiprinasana, un okupacijas atzisana. 2)It’s easier to insult me than Edward Lucas.

Ambersun, and still you don’t get it. You cannot imagine that Russian culture has as much right to exist in Latvia as the Latvian one, the Lithuanian one, the Polish one, and the Jewish one. If Russian culture doesn’t have any reason to exist in Latvia, why not get rid of Polish culture as well. The more I travel our tiny country, the more I realize how different is Dvinsk from Liepaja, Aluksne from Rezekne, Riga from Balvi. The makeup of the population is different, the history is different and yet, all parts make up the Republic of Latvia.

I do not see a multicultural Latvia under the helm of the Russian culture and the Russian language. I never said that. I never advocated that. That would be completely and utterly wrong. I see Latvia as a multicultural place with Latvian as the only official state language without infringing on the rights of people like myself (who go back 300 years—not that it matters) also have a right to their own culture and language and always have. Old Believers for example have lived in Latgale for centuries. Do they not deserve a right to exercise their religion merely because this is Latvia and Latvians are Lutherans? Of course not.

You suggest that I never advocated for other national minorities. An utter lie. Less than a month ago, I wrote that Russians are as much as a minority as Poles and Lithuanians.

The citizenship laws are fine in Latvia, but ethnically Russians, who are Latvian citizens, they are the national minority and they ought to get protection under the EU laws on national minorities together with Lithuanians, Poles and Ukrainians, who find their home in Latvia.

But you must have stopped reading after I said that I don’t like tautasdziesmas, right?

I can read Lucas for myself. But in your extensive quoting, you fail to understand one simple thing. Russians in Latvia are not under the influence of the Kremlin. They are not the same as Russia’s Russians. You want to discuss the Kremlin politics, fine, do it elsewhere. I only care about the Kremlin politics inasmuch as it concerns Latvia.

And this is why I brought up other things that Lucas wrote that pertains directly to the Republic of Latvia. But you ignored that. The right nationalist parties would never sell their country, would they? And yet....

So, instead of pointing fingers at what’s going on in another country, why don’t we develop an order in our own house, wouldn’t you agree?

Far too much to plow through at the moment! Nevertheless, some thoughts based on my reading of Prof. Hiden’s excellent biography of Paul Schiemann....

If by multiculturalism one means preservation and celebration of one’s nation-people culture while participating in a nation-state of predominantly another nation-people and working together to build a common future, that would be the multiculturalism of Latvia’s first independence.

If by “multiculturalism” one means requesting official affirmation that one does not need to learn the official “pig language” of the nation-state one finds oneself residing in, that would appear to be what is generally demanded by self-annointed “rights” agitators. That is not multiculturalism.

As I’ve often said, I’ve met Latvians and Russians who make great citizens of Latvia (multiculturalism in action) and Latvians and Russians that Latvia could do well without (what’s mine is mine what’s yours is mine culturalism).

P.S.

I’m no expert on politics in the EU, but, when you have the Greens allied with Ždanoka et al. in the EU parliament, how is Latvia not a proxy for Russia? Have you seen what is being published and circulated about Latvia in the EU under the “umbrella” of the EU? Have you read some of the virulent anti-Estonian and anti-Latvian comments EU politicians have made? Anyone who thinks Russia isn’t exerting power and influence in the EU through Latvia has their head buried in the sand.

My definition of multiculturalism, stolen from my own review of Hiden’s bio of Schiemann:

“Schiemann quickly realized that only freedom from both the competing powers of Germany and Russia would preserve the rights of all Latvia’s inhabitants. The story of Latvian independence unfolds not from the perspective of Russian, Baltic German, or Latvian nationalism, but from Schiemann’s intrinsically a-nationalistic viewpoint: securing freedom and future success for the Latvian state rested on acknowledging its multicultural past and on manifesting that multiculturalism as a strength: diversity of background and opinion, open discourse, and common interest in actively advancing the circumstances of the Latvian state were essential to defining the Latvian identity and laying the framework for future achievements which the Latvian peoples could call their own.”

Aleksejs wrote:

I can read Lucas for myself. But with your quoting, you fail to understand one simple thing. Russians in Latvia are not under the influence of the Kremlin. They are not the same as Russia’s Russians. You want to discuss the Kremlin politics, fine, do it elsewhere. I only care about the Kremlin politics inasmuch as it concerns Latvia.

Aleksejs,
YOU fail to understand (more than) one simple thing:  This is a big world!  How it would make sense to discuss Latvia in isolation from big world dynamics, politics, economics, and influences, especially those from Russia, seems a real question only to you.

If you “only care about the Kremlin politics inasmuch as it concerns Latvia,” well then, by gosh, let’s start caring.  Just where to start? Kremlin politics are intertwined with politics and outcomes in Latvia, but if that’s not obvious to you or you won’t take my word for it, then maybe consider reading from some of the other sources I dared mention. Not a one of them is an ethnic Latvian whose views you can discredit as knee-jerk anti-Rooskie for bringing you some news from Russia.  Do I need to say that Russia is very much in the news these days and Latvia is not, except “inasmuch as it concerns [Russia].” The unacceptable influence, pressure, and control Moscow directs towards Latvia is shockingly bold and open, and it’s just not Edward Lucas saying so.  Let’s start with just a few reasons we should be discussing “the Kremlin;” - and Putin’s KGB-brotherhood of political and business power elite; and the dictatorship of Putin in the faux Russian democracy where Medvedev, the appointed rather than elected, will lead the Russian people through their abject darkness because other Russians think that the Russian people can’t make their own decisons; and the absence of the rule of law in Russia because the government and the Mafia doesn’t need it; and censorship of the Russian press since then the Russians in Russia (and Latvia) who read “Russian news” may really know what’s going on; and intimidation and even murder of government oppositon; and stifling and squelching of any open and necessary debate inside Russia about the past, the present, and the future in relation to anyone and anything, including the czarist-imperialist mentality, Soviet past and occupation of the Baltics and “revival” of Stalin, economic and energy intimidation of Europe and neighbors (like today, Ukraine); and so much more.  How about discussing Latvia AND - GAZPROM in Latvia and in the new multicultural, multi-greedy-Schroederish Europe; Baltic Sea oil pipeline and Latvian “traditional, cultural” environmental values; Latvia’s gas and energy needs with an “unfriendly” energy-rich neighbor; non-recognition of the Russian/Soviet occupation of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia since “it never happened,” and if it did, “it wan’t us anyway - but we still get Abrene;” buying and bribing of Latvia’s “multicultural” politicians and biznesmeni; Russian propaganda er press in the Baltics; Russia’s “big-brother concern” for Latvia’s Russian “minority” in Latvia; etc.  Jeez, I’m not sure where condemnation of Ulmanis fits it but I’m sure you will find a way to fit it in.  Why write about Russians in Russia when instead it’s the evil and corrupt and incompetent “Latvians” in the Latvian government who deserve your singular scrutiny.  Maybe once you could mention instead the multicultural fifth-column “others” in govt., the role of the Russian Mafia in Latvian business, preponderance of corrupt Russians among Latvia’s millionaires, preponderance of Russians in Latvian business making deals with Russia, the cross-cultural Russian/Latvian alliance of the greedy and corrupt, etc.  I would think you would care about the well-being of Russians in Russian at least a fraction as much as you care about the Russians in Latvia.  I know you don’t believe me no matter what I say, but I very much care about the future for all Russians in Russia and Latvia.  They deserve the same human rights and decent life I espouse for all people, and I don’t think Russians in Russia need to be held captive in the 21st century by failed ideologies of leadership and Soviet-mentality-crippled, but-filthy-rich-no-matter-what leaders. I sincerely think the future well-being of Russians in and out of Latvia begins and ends with the politics in Russia.  It’s not just my opinion. 

PS Who is denying Latvia’s Old Believers their right to worship in Latvia?  Who’s saying “Russian culture” should not exist in Latvia?  It has for years but there’s a big difference between “foreigners” unnaturally flooding Latvia with a “foreign” culture intent on eliminating the existing culture under the inhuman arrangements of the Soviet Union - and having native, cultural variety evolve naturally.  Again, in harmony with Demakova, it’s obvious that after the Soviet/Russian human-engineeering that flooded Latvia with a foreign population of primarily Russians from Russia who disregarded and disrespected the rights of any “native” Latvians, including Latvian-independence-era Russians, “latvietibas nostiprinasana” is a healthy critical step that I invite “native” Russians in Latvia to support.  If you are advocating the cultural rights of an aggressive “occupier” Russian culture that feels deprived of their Russianness in acquiring Latvianness and sees little benefit and value in the evolved-Latvian culture and Latvian language of the “pamat” tautas in Latvia, then you need to ‘fess up.  Are you telling me that your Old Believers in Latvia during Latvian independence did not become loyal “Latvians?” How am I to believe you that “Russians in Latvia are not under the influence of the Kremlin” when I’m not deaf, dumb, and blind.  Beside, I actually read all that stuff I pasted and posted.

Here you go, what Putin wants, Ždanoka endorses, here’s your proxy…

Putin endorsement seen as key

A certain amount of doubt about the transparency of the election was voiced by Finnish Socialist MEP Reino Paasilinna who told us that “competing candidates were prevented from participating or otherwise discriminated”. Tellingly perhaps, the vice-chair of parliament’s delegation to Russia concedes that “traditional democratic elections” would probably had led to a similar high score for a Medvedev candidature (he took 70.2% in the election). Anna Jensen, a Danish Liberal Member told us that regarding the elections she regrets that “the conditions...were not freer”.

For some MEPs the crucial aspect of the election was the fact that President Putin had picked Dmitry Medvedev as his chosen successor to continue his policies of a strong state and a growing economy. For Greek MEP Emmanouil Angelakas (EPP-ED) the result “underlines the trust of the Russian people to the choices of the outgoing President”. Lithuanian MEP Justas Paleckis shares this view telling us that “before and during the campaign, the legacy and image of Mr Putin were printed all over Mr Medvedev’s face”.

Other Members of the delegation were more critical of the whole process. Polish MEP Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka of the UEN group said she hesitated to describe them as elections “as there were no opposition candidates, no real debate nor any media coverage of Mr. Medvedev’s opponents”.

Latvia’s Tatjana Ždanoka (Greens/EFA) was one of the few who were willing to completely endorse the new candidate. She called the election of President Medvedev “a unique chance for building EU-Russia relations on a new basis”. She noted that the only question is how the European Union responds.

Excerpted from: European Parliament Report

Wake up, folks!

I originally posted this in the “Vai kads saprot ari latviski” thread, but I guess you can ignore what you don’t “saprot.”
(Posted: 24 February 2008 01:59 PM [ # 11 ] )

Sekojosais DELFI raksts izsauca vairak ka 800 DELFI lasitaju komentarus. 

Vladimirs Čepurovs: Krievu vienotā fronte? Kāpēc ne?
http://www.DELFI.lv
22. februāris 2008

Kamēr tā saucamajā nacionālajā flangā “vārdu lauzēji, nodevēji un zagļi” (pēc Jaunā Laika definīcijas) aktīvi šķeļas un pārgrupējas, bet būtībā brūk čupiņā, krievu pārstāvēto partiju vadoņi klusītiņām uzsākuši procesu, kas varētu vainagoties ar vienotas frontes izveidi.

Izskatās, ka apvienības “Par cilvēka tiesībām vienotā Latvijā” (PCTVL), Tautas saskaņas partijas (TSP), A.Rubika Sociālistiskās partijas un A.Vidavska Daugavpils pilsētas partijas būvēts konglomerāts iecerēts nevis nākamgad gaidāmajai cīņai par varu pašvaldībās (tur visdrīzāk Vidavskis piesliesies Šlesera komandai), bet Eiroparlamenta vēlēšanām. Ja tas tiešam izdosies, tad Latvijas krievus Eiropas Parlamentā pārstāves divi deputāti – T.Ždanoka un B.Ciļevičs. Pirmo signālu devusi tagadēja EP deputāte Ždanoka. Motīvi šeit ir skaidri – viņa jau ir nogaršojusi Briseles maizīti (kā stāsta, pusi no savas algas viņa ziedo PCTVL uzturēšanai), viņai izdevās izveidot Eiropas mērogā darbojošās sabiedriskas organizācijas, kur apvienojušies Rietumeiropas krievi un no Padomju Savienības un Krievijas izbraukuši dažādu tautību pārstāvji, no EP tribīnes viņa vēsti par Latvijas krievu problēmām, un vispār viņa sagādāja daudz nepatīkamo mirkļu nacionāli noskaņotiem no Latvijas ievēlētiem deputātiem (kuri, starp citu, izrādījušies ļoti vāji). Pēc šiem signāliem krieviski rakstošas avīzēs tiek drukāti piesardzīgie raksti, kur varbūtības formā izskatīts jautājums par iespējamo PCTVL atkārtoto apvienošanos ar TSP “nodevējiem”. Atgādināšu, ka iepriekšējo apvienību PCTVL veidoja T.Ždanokas “Līdztiesība”, J.Jurkāna TSP un A.Rubika Socpartija. Tas bija spēcīgs bloks, kuru atbalstīja teju ceturta daļa iedzīvotāju. Bet 2003.gadā, stipri gribot tikt valdībā, Jurkāns ar tik pat stipri varas kāriem līdzbiedriem nolēma izstāties no PCTVL (ar ko izpelnījas nodevēja iesauku). Drīz pēc Jurkāna apvienību pameta arī Rubiks. Un kaut lai saglabātu zīmolu, steidzīgi bija sastiķēta partija “BITE” ar J.Plineru priekšgala, kopš tā laika PCTVL dziesma un kaujiniecisks lozungs “Krievi nāk!” skan gaužām klusi. Savukārt Jurkānu sagaidīja liels abloms – valdībā viņu nepaņēma, bet “paņēma un uzmeta”. Turklāt, sagādājis lielas galvassāpes savas partijas sponsoriem, Jurkāns zaudējis atbalstu arī no viņu puses. Skaidrs arī, ka šādā situācijā bija jāglābj, kas glābjams, un sponsori izvēlējušies piesardzīgo S.Dolgopolovu ar viņa “Citu politiku”. Uz “Citas politikas” bāzes tika izveidots politisks spēks ar nevisai veiksmīgu nosaukumu Saskaņas Centrs, kuru priekšgalā bija ielikts simpātisks, bet nepieredzējis N.Ušakovs. Punktu šķiršanas procesam pielika PCTVL draudzība ar radikālo uzskatu paudēju barkašovieti J.Osipovu. Ar to ieskatu nesenajā vēsturē beidzam. EP deputātu vēlēšanas ir ārkārtīgi svarīgs moments krievu partiju darba. Kaut viņu ekonomiskas nostādnes praktiski neatšķiras no nacionālo partiju programmām, politiskie lozungi un prasības, tā teikt, humanitārajā jomā būtiski atšķiras. Tas arī vieno gan PCTVL, gan Saskaņas Centra savstarpēji naidīgi noskaņotus politiķus. Arī izpratne, ka bez Briseles palīdzības neizdosies realizēt pamatmērķus, liks viņiem pārvarēt nepatiku un apvienoties, izveidojot kopējo sarakstu. Visticamāk, pievienojot vēl kādu sabiedrisko organizāciju, tas būs nepartejisks saraksts ar lozungu ķipa “Vienlīdzīgas tiesības vienotā Eiropā” vai “Eiropa bez apatrīdiem”. Latvijas kvota ir 8 deputāti – tātad pretendentu sarakstā ieraudzīsim 16 kandidātus. To vidu obligāti būs Ždanokas, Ciļeviča un Rubika uzvārdi. Dabisks jautājums – ko Eiropā darīs Rubiks? – praktiski neprasa atbildes. Un ņemot vērā, ka vienam kandidātam jāsavāc ap 12% vēlētāju balsis (vienots krievu bloks var nodrošināt 25-26%), Latvijas krievus Eiropas Parlamentā pārstāves vismaz divi deputāti. Neoficiāla informācija liecina, ka sarunas jau ir sākušas.

ambersun, take heart.  If the adults of Latvia are generally disiniterested in your concerns, at least the children are speaking out:

(Latvijas Avize, but this story also appeared in Diena)
Neģēlīgām rupjībām klasesbiedru nogānīta meitene spiesta pamest Rīgas Ziemeļvalstu ģimnāziju un doties atpakaļ uz laukiem.

Rīgā Ziemeļvalstu ģimnāzijas 6.b klases vecāku sapulce notika vēlā vakarā aiz slēgtām durvīm. Pirms tam, par ko īsti spriedīs vecāki skolotājas Ārijas Akurateres audzināmajā klasē, tika runāts tikai pusčukstus, dziļā slepenībā. Ka tik kaut ko neizdzird «LA» žurnālists, kurš jau stundu grozās skolas gaiteņos! Klases audzinātāja līdz pat sapulces sākumam bija ieslēgusies klasē, bet ieeja sapulcē man tika liegta. Skolas direktora vietniece mācību un ārpusklases audzināšanas darbā Daiga Želve attaisnojas — skolas psiholoģe uzskatot: žurnālista piedalīšanās varot traumēt bērnu vecākus! Un vispār — notikušais esot dziļi privāta lieta, par ko nebūt tūdaļ nevajagot kladzināt presē.

Tomēr manā rīcībā nonākušie fakti ir tādi, kurus, manuprāt, nevajadzētu noklusēt. Skolā sākusi plaukt emocionāla vardarbība, visatļautība. Un tas notiek pieaugušo aizsegā, kuriem, šķiet, vairāk rūp skolas gods un savi amati, nevis bērnu nākotne. Ko gan citu lai domā, ja šīs skolas bērni savus vienaudžus no laukiem publiski uzskata par mēsliem un jau tagad — divpadsmit trīspadsmit gadu vecumā — vārdos pauž gatavību izvarot, izdurt acis, izmest pa trīspadsmitā stāva logu un nogalināt?! Tā tas notiek, līdz upuris salūst un pamet skolu.

Bērns lūdz mainīt skolu

Ziemeļvalstu ģimnāzijas 6.b klases skolniece Valentīna (visu bērnu vārdi mainīti) pēc vairāku nedēļu slimošanas neparko nevēlējās atgriezties savā klasē, bet gan lūdza vecākus ļaut viņai turpināt mācības savā iepriekšējā dzīvesvietā Līvānos. Kad Rīgā dzīvojošā Iveta Juročkina, kurai Valentīna ir brāļameita, sāka meiteni sīkāk iztaujāt par šādas rīcības iemesliem, Valentīna viņai ieteica paskatīties, ko par viņu klasesbiedri raksta portālā http://www.draugiem.lv. Tur klasesbiedrene Baiba esot patvaļīgi ievietojusi viņas bildes.

«Portālā izlasītais mani burtiski šokēja! Mazgadīgi zēni un meitenes Valentīnu burtiski aplēja ar necenzētām lamām. Sākumā neticēju, ka tādas lamas ir rakstījuši 12 gadus veci zēni un meitenes, taču Valentīna man apstiprināja — tie visi ir viņas klasesbiedri. Kad taujāju par konflikta iemesliem, uzzināju, ka Valentīna par dažiem pāridarījumiem ir stāstījusi klases audzinātājai un pēc tam no audzēkņiem saņēmusi nievājošas replikas — «brauc atpakaļ uz savu stulbo Latgali, krievuška tāda!». Sākumā vēl mazo konfliktu atrisināt nav palīdzējusi arī klases audzinātāja, un tā tas pāraudzis vajāšanā. Šis ārkārtas gadījums pat vēl pēc mēneša klasē atklāti tā arī nav izskatīts! Pēc visa dzirdētā, konsultējoties ar Valentīnas vecākiem, vērsos Rīgas Bērnu tiesību aizsardzības centrā, bet meitenes vecāki — policijā.»

Piekauj un saķēpā somu

Valentīnas vecāki ir īsti latgaļi un par savu izcelšanos nekaunas. Vairākus gadus abi vecāki pavadījuši smagā darbā Īrijā, kur pelnīja atspēriena naudu tālākai dzīvei. Valentīna tikmēr mācījusies Līvānos un dzīvojusi pie vecāsmātes. Sekmes un uzvedība bijušas ļoti labas. Kad vecāki atgriezušies Latvijā un par nopelnīto naudu nopirkuši tehniku un nodibinājuši firmu Rīgā, pie vecākiem uz galvaspilsētu pārnākusi arī Valentīna.

Pirmais gads Ziemeļvalstu ģimnāzijā pagājis normāli, iejūtoties jaunajā kolektīvā. Meitenes sekmes bijušas labas, uzvedība, kā jau lauciniecei, priekšzīmīga, taču šogad pret viņu it kā prestižajā skolā sākts atklāts terors. Stāsta pati Valentīna: «Reiz starpbrīdī meitenes klasē izdzēsa gaismu un sāka trakot. Es tolaik rakstīju īsziņu, un no mana telefona telpā spīdēja gaisma. Tas pārējām meitenēm nepatika, un man lika to izslēgt. Kad to nedarīju, no Antras saņēmu vairākus sitienus. Tā kā kauties nevēlējos, atstāju klasi un devos uz mājām. Nākamajā dienā mana klasē atstātā soma bija saķēpāta ar skropstu tušu. Sapratu, ka to veikušas manas pāridarītājas, lai vēl vairāk pazemotu mani. Kad klases audzinātāja skolotāja Akuratere mani izsauca pie sevis un interesējās, kādēļ esmu neattaisnoti kavējusi stundas, pateicu patiesību. Cik zinu, meitenēm nekādu pārmetumu nebija, bet pēc tā tad arī sākās mana vajāšana skolā un vēlāk, kad saslimu ar gripu, sākās uzbrukumi arī internetā. Pēc tā es sapratu, ka nekādā gadījumā nepalikšu šajā skolā un nevienā citā Rīgas skolā. Tad labāk es braucu pie vecāsmammas un turpinu mācīties Latgalē. Tur man bija ļoti jauki klasesbiedri, un, lai bērni arī savstarpēji strīdas, neviens tur neuzskata sevi par labāku tikai tādēļ, ka viņš dzīvo pilsētā vai laukos, neaizskar vecāku tautības dēļ.»

Lamas un draudi

Tas, ko divpadsmit trīspadsmit gadus vecie klasesbiedri sarakstījuši http://www.draugiem.lv, ir neticami! Šīs sarunas brīvi parādījušās publiskajā telpā, un neviens no portāla īpašniekiem un amatpersonām tam nav pievērsis uzmanību. Šokā ir arī paši rupjības rakstījušo bērnu vecāki. Tas, ka šādi domā un ir spējīgi izteikties viņu bērni, daudziem bija pirmā dzirdēšana. Lai saprastu, par ko ir runa, citēšu dažus no Valentīnas klasesbiedru izteikumiem internetā, kur runāts gan par pašu Valentīnu, gan vienu viņas draudzeni no Latgales. Rupjākos vārdus «LA» redakcija nepublicē pilnībā, bet, kā paši saprotat, Valentīnai tie bija jālasa visā «krāšņumā»…