Stukača, Tu atklāti melo, un esi pieķerts melošanā.  Ušakovs is a divisive figure in Latvian politics.  Your clinginess notwithstanding, it is not unreasonable to expect more moderate folks to be called upon.  Is it that difficult for you Russians to produce somebody who will not deny the occupation and offer coherent solutions to the current economic crisis?

I know I’m wasting my breath….Ušakovs is a divisive figure in Latvian politics. Evidence, please!

Is it that difficult for you Russians to produce somebody who will not deny the occupation.. I have evidence to the contrary. Kurs tad atklati melo, Bobby Little Boat?

Okupācija bez okupantiem.  Nice try.  Try again Aljoša Stukača.

Pag, laiviņ. The question was about the occupation, no? I’ve long maintained that the push to “admit” the occupation was just a mask. It has nothing to do with the actual occupation, but it has to do with all those people who came to Latvia during the Soviet times, most of whom have already naturalized. Factory workers and engineers who arrived to Latvia—having no choice of their own, mind you—you still maintain that those Latvian citizens are “occupiers”? Then, the question is not about the recognition of a historical event, but essentially a pay back, a way to humiliate Russians, a vengeance for all those people who have been deported, murdered under the Stalin regime. That’s no way to build “the national unity” you so crave, Bobby.

So, Aleks, the Russian/Soviet occupants occupied Latvia and Latvia was occupied.  That’s a start.  The people now in Latvia who look like Russian occupants, speak Russian like occupants, act like Russian May 9 occupation-celebrating occupants are not really occupants. They are not the children of the original occupants just because they look and act like those you would be led to believe are their parents.  This is mere coincidence because the original occupants blew all of their potency on the occupation or were sterile.  What we have in Latvia now are not the progeny of old occupants but the children of god?, the devil?, spontaneous combustion?, parthogenesis?, Germans?  I add Germans since that could explain why Ushakovs, who strongly resembles Russian occupants in so many ways, went instead to Germany, not Russia, for his medical treatment.  I might be mistaken that his ancestors were Red Army occupants of Latvia.  Maybe they were Nazi German occupants.

ambi,

My grandmother, whom I often mention here, and whose ancestors have lived in Latvia since the 17th century, goes to the May 9 events at the monument. Is she also celebrating the occupation even though she was born in Latvia in 1933? Her boyfriend—who comes from the same region as her—also participates. Both she and her boyfriend are citizens by descent. If you equate what happens on May 9 with being an occupier (not occupant), well, then that’s a shallow look at why people go there.

Pragmatically speaking, what do you propose we do with those who go to the monument? Ban it? Ship them to Siberia, even though they may not even be from Russia?

Also, watch your English definitions:

Definition of OCCUPANT

1
: one who acquires title by occupancy
2
: one who occupies a particular place; especially : resident

What you meant must have been an occupier, no? But that is a military term and the occupying force has long been gone from Latvia, no?

Definition of OCCUPIER

a : someone who takes or holds possession or control of <enemy troops occupied the ridge>

People whom you call occupiers don’t “control or possess” Latvia.

As to Ushakov, how is he an occupier when there’s no occupation any more—regardless of who his parents were? It is a tough sell, ambi. You cannot convince me that a man who learned the language, naturalized, takes part in his adoptive country’s political life is “an occupier.” I thought that was the point of naturalization, pushed incidentally, by Latvia’s Western partners.

for ambersun. Pēcvārds. Par tautību

Kā vēl viens arguments manu oponentu pusē bija norāde, ka, ņemot vērā Latvijas īpašo vēsturisko situāciju, tāds jautājuma traktējums par premjeru krievu ir adekvāts. Nepiekrītu. Piekrītu, ka ir adekvāti jautājumi par to, vai premjerministrs var būt cilvēks, kas apmeklē 9.maija mītiņus un nespēj sakarīgi paskaidrot, ko tad saprot ar notikumiem 1940.gadā. Ir vēl virkne citu jautājumu, par ko SC būtu publiski jāspēj atbildēt attiecībā uz vēsturi, valodas un citiem jautājumiem.

Ja kādam ir šaubas par manām vēstures zināšanām vai nepietiekamo cieņu pret latviešu tautas ciešanām, tad varu paskaidrot, ka manā ģimenē vairāki cilvēki ir represēti tieši par to, ka bijuši latvieši. Mana vectēva, mātes tēva, vienīgais noziegums bija uzticība savai valstij un tautība. Es labi zinu, ka nāves spriedumos un deportāciju rīkojumos kā cilvēku noziegums tika minēta piederība latviešu nacionālistiem, buržujiem. Es to esmu zinājusi kopš manu apzinīgo gaitu sākuma un nekāda padomju skola vai vara man nav iemācījusi to apšaubīt.

Un tieši tādēļ, ka es zinu šīs un arī citas Latvijas XX gs. vēstures lappuses, kur cilvēkus šķiroja pēc tautībām, es uzskatu, ka jautājums par to, kādas tautības premjerministram Latvija ir gatava, ir nepieļaujams Latvijā XXI gadsimtā. Tā ir mana vēstures mācība, ka tauta, kura pati to izbaudījusi uz savas ādas, nedrīkst pieļaut, ka kaut kas tāds atkārtojas. Tieši tāpēc es arī uzskatu, ka žurnālistiem, kam ir ļoti lielas sabiedrības dotas pilnvaras, ir arī īpaša atbildība par to, kādā virzienā attīstās sabiedrība.

Well, regardless of the outcome ZRP is apparently pushing for a grand coalition of SC, V, and ZRP! Since none of the Latvian parties seem either able or willing to include the Russians, there seems to be no other choice than to invite SC to the table.  I have my doubts about the success of this coalition but I do sincerely hope I am proved wrong.

I have my reservations too. At the same time, I think Harmony should be allowed to fail, which they eventually will. It should allowed to spend its political capital rather than gain more support sitting on the sidelines in the parliament. Even if the government fails, perhaps, it will do more to consolidate the divided society in its short term. I also suspect the Rubiks’ crowd, the Latvian Socialist Party, will leave Harmony as the Civic Union will leave Unity. It would essentially consolidate the centrist forces. No doubt ZRP will lose popularity in the short-term. Their success in the next election will depend on whatever work they can accomplish in the government—such as job creation, joining the euro, budget deficit, etc. etc.

PS They talked for nine hours to decide on that…. wow.

I hope it works out as you describe, Aleksej, and unless there is string-pulling from SC’s sponsors or advisers (a possibility, but not necessarily the case), the good-government SC-ers do have a concrete motivation to distance themselves from the oligarch-loyal and Moscow-loyal groups, i.e. the desire to stay in the ruling coalition.

And if SC acts in a way that their opponents suspected they would when it comes to actual votes, then the coalition of 56 is a tangible possibility as it wasn’t before this election. Zatlers has both a carrot and a stick to offer, which the Vienotība government didn’t have thanks to ZZS’s crap (I saw an election-day blog, I think on the Diena or Ir site, titled something like “Glābi Latviju, noslepi Omas pasi!”).

Unless there are Latvian politicians who talk up national interests but then undermine them by corrupt dealings.  But that could never happen.

Ushakov is willing to sacrifice Rubiks on the altar of power. A member of the European Parliament from Harmony Center Mirskis (who is not a socialist) said on the Russian-language delfi site that Harmony is selling its own principles rushing to be in the government at all costs. The Russian-language comments on the Ushakov Facebook are also conflicting. Some say that Harmony is selling out to be a party of power while others cheer on Ushakov to become the next prime minister. With socialists leaving, it puts ZRP+SC at 50 seats in the new parliament. That gives more weight to Unity before it joins the government.

I’m finding myself in agreement with Iveta Kazoka’s analysis. The success of this potentially historic agreement will depend largely on how much of a viable player is Harmony Center.

There are of course risks that it could make the society even more extreme, but as the saying goes, “Those who don’t risk, do not get to drink the champaign.”

K. Streips tries to reason with Vienotība.

The russian “boogeyman” is a powerful symbol in the latvian psyche. Vienotībai should focus on the well-being of Latvia and its citizens instead of trying to frighten the ethnic latvians to no end.
Ka Ēlerte reiz teica Urbanovičam “beidz baidīt tos nabagus krievus” kadam arī jasaka to pašu atteicīgi uz latviešiem.

Aleksejs - 23 September 2011 10:40 PM

it has to do with all those people who came to Latvia during the Soviet times, most of whom have already naturalized. Factory workers and engineers who arrived to Latvia—having no choice of their own, mind you

Poor Automotans.  Here is a choice.  Start heading back East.  Do they need a compass to guide them?