I’m back to throw out another interesting topic - hopefully.

Martin Sixsmith’s new book “Russia: A 1,000 Year chronicle of the Wild East” presents an interesting observation in the introduction. He thought, like many, that 1991 marked the end of an autocratic system in Russia - to be replaced by democracy and related freedoms. He then states that he and anyone who believed that were foolish and had ignored Russia’s history.

Sixsmith discusses “silnaya ruka” - the iron fist of centralized power & refers to polling of Russians - over a 20 yr. period. 40-45% of Russians consistently believe that Russia must be ruled by silnaya ruka and another 20-30% claim that this is indeed necessary at times.

The desire or need for an iron fist of centralized power need not be debated here. That’s not the point.

The question that I pose - from a theoretical standpoint - relates to Russian ethic minorities in Latvia and the question of citizenship. If the underlying premise is right - that Russians believe in autocratic rule - then how does this impact bringing Russians into the Latvian political system and should it?

Latvia has generally looked to the West at democratic states. Of course, there was the Ulmanis issue - which might simply fall into the category of post-depression nationalism (that occurred throughout Western Europe).

So, do you leave the ethnic minority disenfranchised, but with individual freedom of speech in tact? I realize that this solution would not be a move towards conciliation, but…

Also, is this something that must be emphasized in discussions with the West re the ethnic minority issue?

Does Latvia need an active voice for silnaya ruka or should it be precluded? I understand that there may be Latvians who hold this position as well.

Looking forward to reading your comments.

citizens of Latvia need to mind the others roots…....................

but seriously, long question…........................i’m wondering if
“the hand of Kremlin” is a big cheezy myth?
maybe they affect Urblakov, but it doesn’t matter.
We are so cool about the frac…........what’s a few
more years.
Politruk has been saying that the differences in
real life are not that drastic.
I need to polish up my russian, anywhoo….............
My wife gave me a russian chocolate roll recipe
to translate.
It took me a while to recon it was in polish…..............

after a break….........

Not all Russians long for a strong hand any more than all Latvians long for a return to benevolent dictatorship.

Considering that Russia has been torn between Europe and Asia throughout its history and any Czar the Reformer was followed by Czar the Reactionary, Russians in the Baltics have a good chance to embrace European values of democracy, rather than the Byzantine rule by one strong man. I see the wretched language referendum as an example. Heard from several people that this referendum was expected to fail, but it somehow mobilized the Russians in Latvia, made them believe that through a democratic process they can make a difference. Compare this to the reaction of Russians in Russia to parliamentary and presidential elections.

Unfortunately, the elites are all too eager to change the rules of the game to preserve the status quo, to keep Russians from exercising their political rights, even though the language referendum was bound to fail from the beginning.

Russians in Russia see Russians here in the Baltics as Europeans. I attended a Russian book fair five years ago. I remember local Russians from the audience complaining to the writers of Russia proper about the discrimination against the Russians here. The answer was: this is Europe. You should embrace this, something that intellectual Russians have longed for for their country. To tap into this, the European Commission in Latvia is spending money on a 30-minute show promoting Europe and the European Union that will run on the Pirmais Baltijas Kanals.

Also you must consider that Latvians too have people who subscribe to the strong hand. There’s a whole party that is based on this issue: Par Prezidentalu Republiku. People like Grutups often harp on Latvia needing a saimnieks, a strong leader for people to look up to. One could discard this as a simple relic of the Soviet era, but I’m afraid it’s a bit deeper than that. The Ulmanis regime has been discussed here on this forum. I see it more than “post-depression nationalism (that occurred throughout Western Europe).”

So essentially I see a lot of similarities in the mindset between Russians and Latvians.

I understand and already stated that there are likely Latvians who believe in an autocratic system and that not all Russians in Latvia do.

I would like to pose an additional question - and this is wholly dependent on actual voting statistics. Harmony Centre received the most votes of any party in the last Saeima’s election. What was the ethnic breakdown for the various parties, including HC. Western media portrayed HC as the “Russian block” voting in a unified manner.

Latvians clearly exercised their democratic prerogative by splitting their votes between many different parties. If a majority of Russians voted for HC (& I by no means mean 100%) - were they voting for the policies of HC OR were they voting for HC b/c it has some relationship to the Russian ethnic minority. Perhaps these can’t be distinguished, but it poses an interesting question that might relate to the the topic.

In this type of discussion - one can never say “all” and one must admit that there will be some overlap or aberrations. But, I think that a discussion can be had re “generalities”.

I neither propose, not support any specific action. Sixsmith’s discussion simply raised an interesting issue that I placed within the Latvian context.

“would like to pose an additional question - and this is wholly dependent on actual voting statistics. Harmony Centre received the most votes of any party in the last Saeima’s election. What was the ethnic breakdown for the various parties, including HC. Western media portrayed HC as the “Russian block” voting in a unified manner.”

http://www.cvk.lv

http://www.saskanascentrs.lv/

The language referendum was a jump of the cliff event.
Russians could do better if they all naturalized, but the
Harmony Centre doesn’t want them to do it, because
they are back in the USSR.  LOL

I haven’t seen the analisys of the vote, but merely looking at voting precincts where Harmony Centre won, it is mostly in the Russian pockets of Riga, and Latvia as a whole. And, Harmony Centre is essentially the only party who is trying to get the Russian vote especially after PCTVL went political bankrupt. (Zatlers) Reform Party made an attempt to reach out to the Russian voters, but clearly two months is a short period (between Rikojums Numurs 2 and the election) to form any kind of strategic approach to reach out to the Latvian citizens of Russian descent.

And this will be the answer to the question why Russians voted for Harmony Centre: 1. different SC-friendly media sphere; 2. no other party vying for the Russian vote. (In the US, it seems even Romney spoke Spanish to the Hispanics, but Latvian parties, except for ZRP, couldn’t even bother create a political party Web site in Russian (and English). In Estonia, for example, the ruling Reform Party of Prime Minister Ansip has its Web page in three languages and it doesn’t seem to take away from Estonian being the only state language in the country.

Incidentally, are there more Latvians in Harmony Centre than there are Russians in all Latvian parties combined? That ought to tell you a lot about the Russian/Latvian vote and the so-called integration.

PB, I think Harmony is interested in more people naturalizing. The more people naturalize the wider their voter base will be. If anything, the National Alliance is interested in slowing down naturalization, which they do.

P.S. I don’t think all Russians voted for Harmony. But we’re talking about generalities. Ushakov’s own estimation that they received even 15 percent of the Latvian vote (pre-referendum, mind you).

vinde et al.,
“Sixsmith discusses “silnaya ruka” - the iron fist of centralized power & refers to polling of Russians - over a 20 yr. period. 40-45% of Russians consistently believe that Russia must be ruled by silnaya ruka and another 20-30% claim that this is indeed necessary at times.

The desire or need for an iron fist of centralized power need not be debated here. That’s not the point.

The question that I pose - from a theoretical standpoint - relates to Russian ethic minorities in Latvia and the question of citizenship. If the underlying premise is right - that Russians believe in autocratic rule - then how does this impact bringing Russians into the Latvian political system and should it?”

One has to keep in mind that the author is trying to sell a book.  Taking the results of a poll on which to build a case is subjective.  In this case,l the poll could also reflect nothing more than nostalgia for the extinct pre-communist monarchy. ( the english are high on their monarchy)

Claiming that russians in Latvia believe in autocratic rule—sounds too much like ethnic profiling.

Visu labu,

A few quick points.

I guess the major issue I have with the question is that I don’t necessarily buy the premise. I don’t think you can definitively say that Latvia’s Russians believe more in autocratic rule than Latvia’s Latvians so the short answer is that there is no impact.
As to Latvians splitting their votes between many different parties, again not sure if that proves anything as far as the desire, or lack of, for autocratic rule goes. Some years back there was a study about the breakdown of the political parties as far as their political platforms are concerned and they were all pretty much close. Most Latvian parties seem to be driven by personalities rather than any real ideological differences. So the short answer there might be that Latvians wouldn’t mind an autocrat any less than the Russians would. They just can’t agree on which one.

Andrejs

This is interesting.

The most distressing information that has been shared is that Latvian politicians are making a minimal effort, if any, to engage ethnic minorities. This truly needs to change if there is a desire to break down some of the barriers that exist.

With respect to the author’s premise - he goes through 1,000 yrs of Russian history to show that whenever there was an opportunity to move to a more liberal political system, the iron fist has always won and has been accepted by the people (sometimes by force). But the author’s basic message relates to the last an explanation of what has happened in Russia in the last 20 years. There potential move to a democratic society with freedoms has given way to Putin’s autocracy. And the people seem to support it.

The author is essentially saying that Westerners have certain values and because we hold these values, we believe, given the opportunity, every group of people will choose freedom. (I am short-handing by using freedom instead of a more sophisticated analysis.) But Russia hasn’t. We don’t really understand Iraq, Afghanistan, and what the people there really want. We seem to impose our values. That is our mistake - that we believe that everyone’s underlying values are similar.

So, the poll that the author discusses simply reflects the reality of Russia - it is not a true democracy and most Russians seem to accept that.

Are there differences between Latvians and ethnic Russians in Latvia? Of course. The locale does not trump the ethnicity. (This by no means is intended to state that Russians in Latvia and Russia are identical - they are not - use like American Latvians are different from Latvia’s Latvians. - But has growing up in America wiped out my ethnicity - no - I am a Latvian - although perhaps not to all of Latvia’s Latvians.) 

I live in a border town near Mexico with 80% of the pop. made up of Mex. Am. & 20% Anglos. The cultural differences are great. These cultural differences play out in the town’s politics. If there is a Hispanic and an Anglo running for one office - the Hispanic inevitably wins. Is it b/c he is the best candidate, the brightest, with the most experience, etc. The honest answer is no. He wins b/c of race.

Race or ethnicity does make a difference in politics. To ignore it seems like one is burying one’s head in the sand. Of course, this position does not fit within the neat Western ideal of we are all equal, we will all make independent decisions that will not be influenced by race, ethnicity, religion, etc. That is simply naive.

The original question relates to the historic tendency of Russians looking towards autocratic rule. When Latvians have been given the opportunity - they have looked to the West - democratic rule. My assumption is that the Latvian govt. was well aware and concerned that ethnic differences will have a tendency to outweigh “what is best for the nation.”

Vilis

Latvia today is being ruled by the “iron fist”. I do not mean to say that it is the fist of either Hitler, Stalin, or Obama and his imperialist and military cohorts. I am speaking of the iron fist of neo-liberal capitalism, which I explain as a reworking of “liberalism” into something that benefits the corporate elite alone.

Thus, when I hear anyone speak of the “iron fist”, I seek for its beginnings. There are many books in which to look. Of all the books that attempt to explain the iron or mailed fist, the books that deal with the history of the forest come closest. One of my favorites is Landscape And Memory by Simon Schama. The book at hand at the moment, however, is “Traces of the Rhodian Shore” by Clarence Glacken. I suggest that anyone who wishes to discuss the geopolitical situation of Latvia in situ, at least read these two books. While these books, in and of themselves may not bring the answer, they will at least help in the process of seeking it and perhaps discover a misperception or two in their present reading of the problems.

My conclusion is that democracy, as an egalitarian phenomenon, begins in the forest. It certainly does not begin in ancient Athens, by which time it already is an unfathomable utopian dream. The forest democracy is in a manner of speaking a cruel democracy. As the recent escape of mother Bear from her enclosure in a private zoo, shows, when men repress nature, it does all it can to escape the “iron bars”. And what men did in response to the bears natural urge to share in democracy with humans, the humans soon found an excuse to kill her. The Latvian Minister of Environment also threatened to castrate the two remaining male bears. The threat has not been recalled to this moment.

Thus, my arguments (somewhat along the lines of the Russian mathematician-historian Anatoly Fomenko) take into consideration that not so long ago all of Europe, from the shores of the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains and beyond, were covered by forests. Men and beasts lived and shared in this environment. Because the forest does not offer nicely cleared land for the clash of men encased in metal, it nevertheless offers trees behind which to hide, and from behind which to thrust a spear into a mailed knights armor where it has to bend. Thus the Balts won the battle at Saule (Shauliai) swamp and forest and the Germans over three Roman legions at Teutuburg Forest. At the time of these battles, there was no “iron fist” over proto-Russians, proto-Latvians, or proto-Germans. The general rule for governance was “democracy”.

From my point of view, the terror of Stalin, though surely brutal and bloody and to be condemned, was in its way a long simmering revenge of the forest democrats and egalitarians. The fate of the Latvian forest was every so much more horrible than for the fate of forests covering proto-Russia and Russia. The last time the Latvian forests played an important role in defense of the interests of Latvians was during and immediately post-WW2. Since that time, especially during the last twenty-two years of Independence Recovery, Latvians have been ruled by Riga urbanites, where one Andris Berzins plays the role of Bishop Alberts over such Latvians who would far prefer the rule of King Visvaldis of Jersika, or King Videvuda over Kurland and ancient Prussia and more. Whatever one may say about a subsistence economy recovered from slash and burn techniques by the forest people, despite the fact that they were forced from their habitat, they all were brave warriors in defense of their habitat. Their “holy spirit” lived on in spite of the violent compulsion that forced them into becoming peasants, and smirked at their Krīve of krīviem (‘Chronica Terre Prussie’, People of Johns (Pa-yans), the forest peoples’’ Pope over Popes, into becoming seen among the public today as an illiterate pagan.

In other words, let us look for the “mailed fist” in our own midst, our own mindset, our own prejudices, our own inner oligarchs, our own Latvian State Forest Monopoly keeps Latvians from accessing the speakers’ platform, so as to monopolize and keep “free” speech for themselves. The pro-LSFM prejudice has long excluded the interests of Latvians as Latvians who are a long-historied people.

I would not be surprised to hear the Bolshevik sister of the Latvian poet Rainis laugh loudly over the invitation “Then Speak! [if you have something to say.”], by the journalist Reders of “Sastrēgumstunda” [(Jammed Hour (of bs)], because populists and the people of the forest are perceived as aggressive “bears” deserving of the “mailed fist” of censorship (by all means by utilizing oblique techniques).—Jaņdžs

“This truly needs to change if there is a desire to break down some of the barriers that exist. “

I agree ... but will it happen? I can’t see it happening maybe for another generation or two (providing there are no more wars). At present there are too many memories / experiences of the occupation; and the present occupiers that still view russia as the motherland.
The West, or the EU, has had no direct experience of what the Baltics (and others) went through.
It is inevitable that hatred / mistrust still exists.
Whilst the occupiers view russia as their homeland, the problem will continue.

“So, the poll that the author discusses simply reflects the reality of Russia - it is not a true democracy and most Russians seem to accept that”

The russians don’t have a choice but to accept that. Czar Putrid has always planted his ‘iron fist’  ... even when he took to the road with the bikies .. on a three wheeler. Didn’t want to fall off, did he!
Any serious opposition / criticitism still ends up dead or in prison… eg journalists, Kasparov, and that billionaire.
The youtube scenes of russian populace protests in the streets for a transparent / fair election was a wonderful sight. Some of them will stand up for a truer democracy.

When Latvians have been given the opportunity - they have looked to the West - democratic rule.

Have they? It seems to me Latvians emphesize the “Latvianness” of the state, rather than its democratic values. It means that Latvians would rather have a pure Latvian state regardless of what kind of state it is: be it democratic or totalitarian. And anyone who may challenge that even through democratic means is ultimately the enemy of the state. The key issue for many Latvians is that the state is Latvian in its nature. It is not a surprise then that the Nationalist Alliance often poses as anti-democratic. (I already mentioned a criminal probe launched against a Russian TV channel over the controversial March 16 coverage.)

I recall reading about a series of polls conducted in Russia in the early 1990s and in the early 2010s. Both polls showed that the number of Russian citizens who support the so-called European values of democracy and freedom remained unchanged at about 24 percent.

I’d also be curious to know how the following sentence expresses itself: “Whilst the occupiers view russia as their homeland, the problem will continue.” Recently, a Latvian Russian journalist Mamykin did a series of programs about Russia. Provocative that he is, the gist of the series was that if anyone in Latvia romanticizes about Russia, he should go live there to see it with his own eyes that Russia ain’t what the Kremlin TV portrays it to be.

“The russians don’t have a choice but to accept that.” Not entirely true. The alternative to accepting Putin as the next Czar is essentially a revolution. Russians still remember the wild capitalism days of the 1990s. They are aware of the 1917 Revolution. Instead of revolution, the aclectic opposition prefers evolution of Russian political elite. And for that evolution to take place, unfortunately, Putin (who is still relatively popular among the Russians) must reign.

At present there are too many memories / experiences of the occupation

Undoubtedly Latvians suffered under the Soviet occupation. Russians too suffered under the terror of the Stalin regime. Yet, it shouldn’t dictate outright the present policies, or even a mere outreach to the non-Latvians. I hear stories when Latvian officials turned down foreign help to improve the country’s governance and efficiency from foreigners, merely because it would be humilating to ask for help. The nation lacks self-esteem and self-worth. This is why it lets the past control the present and this is why it is unable to move forward, no matter how painful the history was. To quote one Old Believer Russian in an old IR article, Latvians have been in charge of this state for 20 years, it’s time to behave like saimnieki. But instead, we seek an outside enemy, we constantly worry that NATO allies and the European Union are not going to protect our security if the Bear next door attacks. Latvians cannot and should live in fear. They cannot use the alleged uniqueness of their historical experiences to control them.

It also appears any societal consolidation would diffuse any percieved Kremlin influence. It would make the rules of the political game more difficult. But then again, the Kremlin never discriminated on the ethnic principle. Moscow did a fine job using ethnic Latvians to its advantage. But as long as the ethnic divisions persist, Moscow is able and willing to use the weak spots in Latvia to its political gain domestically and on the European level.

.............The nation lacks self-esteem and self-worth. This is why it lets the past control the present and this is why it is unable to move forward, no matter how painful the history was. To quote one Old Believer Russian in an old IR article, Latvians have been in charge of this state for 20 years, it’s time to behave like saimnieki….............

The one’s who are not acting like “saimnieki” in Latvia (IR is the official site of the 2% Latvian middle class. The post-Soviet apparachicks who turned out to be Latvians by falling out of the wheelbarrow yesterday. That includes all too many descendants of Latvian “trimda”, because there is no in-depth understanding of Latvian culture. To surf history as ‘Aleksejs’ does with his pro-Western neo-liberal orientation is to occupy Latvia by way of foreign forces.

The present forces that occupy Latvia are NATO; the current Parliamentary Saeima; the compromised (actually non-existent) media that has turned positivism by way of exaggerations into negativism; the deportation of 400,000 Latvians and more as emigrants to foreign countries; the inevitable influx of foreign labor from White Russia, Moldavia, or whereever. Latvia is also being put on hold by most of the writers at this portal, so many of them suggesting that the anticipated REAWAKENING can wait for a generation or two, at which time neo-neoliberalites will seize Latvia and sell off what little remains of the country to whoever has the money. Realistically speaking, what awaits Latvians in the near and not so far future is a running up against the present demise not only of the European Union, but the whole of liberal corporate economic construct that the Latvian elite are using as an excuse to sell off the Latvia to their benefit.

While the hope of Russia and, indirectly, Latvia, may not be Putin, nevertheless, tsarist Russia was not nearly as cruel as England was, when adjusting to the ‘industrial age’. As I have argued in a tome several entries above, Latvians are not descendants of farmers, but come from a forest people forced into becoming peasants by deforestation of Latvia by foreign interests. Further deforesting the nation as is being done by the government arm, re Latvian State Forest Monopoly, an extremely wealthy (and dictatorial) state corporate structure is destroying any hope that Latvians will survive their Prussian brethren, now long gone and unremembered.

Most of the descendants of Latvians, who were birthed by way of the tipping wheelbarrow, are under the impression that there exists no long-term memory of the destruction of the original habitat of Latvians or, as the case may be, proto-Latvians. Their trend of thought leads to turning the Russians in Latvia into Palestinians in the state of Israel. Interestingly, Israel receives an enormous amount of U.S. military aid, while the Russians in Latvia have the emergent democracy of Russia to support them from experiencing Palestian-like repression.

Russia, while a repressor of Latvians (as a result of a number of factors, Latvians themselves playing a significant role in the turn of the circumstances), nevertheless, has the future potential—not shared by potential of Western Europe—of better reorienting its future away from the leadership that enforces and keeps in existence the current neo-liberal business and social order.

The demise of Latvia under Western umbrage was predicted by Iskolat, which is why a large number of Latvians went East, not West in the first decades of the 20th century. This is also one reason, why I argue for resistance to the failed system offered by the West , at least keeping it at arms length from our land.

” But as long as the ethnic divisions persist, Moscow is able and willing to use the weak spots in Latvia to its political gain domestically and on the European level.”

I totally agree. It proves the point that russia still wants to regain Latvia for itself.

“The nation lacks self-esteem and self-worth. This is why it lets the past control the present and this is why it is unable to move forward, no matter how painful the history was.”
... um ... don’t you think that 20 years is but a drop in the ocean when it comes to rebuilding a new democracy? Esp. when the occupiers still live there, and (some) getting a state pension, and demand ‘rights’, and scream ‘discrimination’.
Yes, Latvians are proud people. thus may reject some assistance (what previous post are you referring to?); vs ussr spying on the international west (and internally) to further its own development.

“But then again, the Kremlin never discriminated on the ethnic principle” ... so what .. we all know what it did discriminate against.

“Latvia is also being put on hold by most of the writers at this portal, so many of them suggesting that the anticipated REAWAKENING can wait for a generation or two, at which time neo-neoliberalites will seize Latvia and sell off what little remains of the country to whoever has the money.”

If that reference to ‘a generation or two’ refers to my statement, it is incorrect. It is not a case of putting Latvia on ‘hold’; it is a case of Latvia ‘letting go’ The russians too have to ‘let go’. I can’t see the latter ever happening, at the moment.

“while the Russians in Latvia have the emergent democracy of Russia to support them from experiencing Palestian-like repression.”

What crap. There are no 6m high concrete fences between russians and Latvians in Latvia; there are no rockets sent over from side to the other. Israel = nazis. Ok .. the russkies did dig tunnels of sorts .. to import russian homemade vodka.
Pity they didn’t make the pipes big enough for russians to export themselves ...  but then social security is much better in Latvia than in russia?

Aleks,
20 years of freedom vs 50 years of collective imperialism, and you want the finite results overnight, while the russkie oligargs have been playing their Krimeline games ? Keep dreaming.

I totally agree. It proves the point that russia still wants to regain Latvia for itself.

Define “regain,” please. Does Russia want Latvia to become another South Ossetia? How likely is that to happen with a NATO member? Is Russia interested in increasing its influence? Sure, much like any other empire. So, it would be helpful to know what you mean by “regain Latvia for itself.” 

don’t you think that 20 years is but a drop in the ocean when it comes to rebuilding a new democracy? Esp. when the occupiers still live there, and (some) getting a state pension, and demand ‘rights’, and scream ‘discrimination’.

When a human being turns 21 in the US, he or she has all the rights and privileges of a citizen. It’s time to grow up. Since Latvia is no longer occupied, I doubt we can talk about occupiers. There are consequences of the occupation, including people who have a right to live and work in Latvia, but have no political rights. To deal with those consequences, we have something that is called naturalization. Once a person (an ex-occupier or otherwise) becomes a citizen of Latvia, I think it’s legally unfair to discriminate him or her as far as the law is concerned. Meaning that those citizens who signed up to the language referendum, for example, have as many political rights, as the ethnic Latvians. I have always put more emphasis on the Republic aspect of this country, where citizenship is paramount and all citizens are treated equally. Many on this forum focus on the Latvian aspect of this country. Perhaps, this is the difference.

As to the state pension, it is regulated by agreements with Russia. Most recently, Latvia and Russia ratified an agreement under which years worked in Russia count toward the pension of non-citizens. So I don’t see how following signed international treaties and agreements is detrimental to Latvia’s young democracy.

Yes, Latvians are proud people. thus may reject some assistance

Pride comes before the fall. It doesn’t hurt for the Latvian state to learn from other countries’ examples and if needed to use foreigners to implement a better-run state. Even Americans “borrowed” the idea of the Interstate network from the Nazi Autobahn system.

“But then again, the Kremlin never discriminated on the ethnic principle” ... so what .. we all know what it did discriminate against.

Do we? I recall Kalvitis being greeted with open arms by Vladimir Putin. And this is actually what referred to. The Kremlin isn’t ideologically driven any more. They don’t have to cooperate with Harmony Center, a political party that has never been in the government. There are plenty of the so-called Latvian parties that would cooperate. To quote the mayor of Ventspils, “business is business.” Also, please note that even the Nationalist Alliance defended the “last dictator of Europe,” against economic sanctions in Belarus. As a political commentator Aivars Ozolins rhetorically asked, “Does VL stand for Visu Lukasenko?” 

20 years of freedom vs 50 years of collective imperialism, and you want the finite results overnight, while the russkie oligargs have been playing their Krimeline games ? Keep dreaming.

I’m not expecting finite results. I’m expecting a bit more democracy and a bit more of the rule of law, so that Latvia may prosper. And I keep going back to the example of Estonia. Same history, same 50 years of collective imperialism and yet, they managed to do much more in the same 20 years than Latvia. The question is: why?

And the oligarchs in Latvia aren’t russkies, by the way.

NYT on Putin’s private life