Kirill Pankratov's new article "Perestroika-20: The Great De-Build-ing" -
The idea that Gorby's Politburo was thinking, "Oh, no, they are going to put lasers into space and shoot down all our missiles! We better give up and declare the end of Communism" is beyond preposterous. This could only occur to somebody completely ignorant of how the Soviet system worked. Since the Washington plutocracy was never short on ignorance, this is not particularly surprising.
Also, Gary Brecher (aka "War Nerd") knows how to use Okkam's Razor when dealing with Lebanon problems - "Lebanon II: Hezbollah Boom!"
It took the Israelis a while to realize what a disaster the invasion really was. Like us in Iraq, the first stage was such an easy victory that they thought they could do anything. Turned out that by booting the PLO out of Lebanon, they'd tilted the gang-bang balance in favor of the Shia, the newest, most ready-to-die gangbangers on the block. And the Shia didn't stop hitting the IDF until it abandoned its last "buffer zone" in South Lebanon in 2000.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Revolutionary Flora
"Rose Revolution" - Georgia
"Orange Revolution" - Ukraine
"Tulip Revolution" - Kyrgyzstan
Comming soon:
Uzbekistan - "Hemp Revolution"
Afganistan - "Poppy Revolution"
"Orange Revolution" - Ukraine
"Tulip Revolution" - Kyrgyzstan
Comming soon:
Uzbekistan - "Hemp Revolution"
Afganistan - "Poppy Revolution"
Who Poisoned Yushchenko? Part 2.
I already wrote a post about Yushchenko's mysterious poisoning. Now Telegraph (UK) published an article based on an interview with a senior doctor from the Vienna clinic where Yushchenko was treated. Dr Wicke claims that no trace of poisoning was found. Soon the doctor was ousted from the clinic and received death threats if he makes this information public.
Dr Wicke remains uncomfortable about the role played by the Rudolfinerhaus in the drama. "The first two times Mr Yushchenko was examined, there was no evidence of poisoning whatsoever," Dr Wicke, 64, said. Yet, to his dismay, persistent leaks from the clinic suggested that the politician had indeed been poisoned.
Dr Wicke told reporters that a "medically forged diagnosis" had been circulated by someone "not permanently employed in this clinic". This was taken to refer to Nikolai Korpan, a Ukrainian-born surgeon who had been treating the politician in Vienna.
Three days later, Dr Wicke received a written request from Dr Michael Zimpfer, the president of the clinic's supervisory board, to retract his remarks.
Dr Wicke marked the memo with the word "Acknowledged". It was after this that a man speaking accented English rang Dr Wicke and introduced himself as "a friend from the Ukraine". He said the man told him to "take care. Your life is in danger". Dr Wicke and his family were then put under 24-hour police guard.
So, who really poisoned Yushchenko and was he poisoned at all?
Dr Wicke remains uncomfortable about the role played by the Rudolfinerhaus in the drama. "The first two times Mr Yushchenko was examined, there was no evidence of poisoning whatsoever," Dr Wicke, 64, said. Yet, to his dismay, persistent leaks from the clinic suggested that the politician had indeed been poisoned.
Dr Wicke told reporters that a "medically forged diagnosis" had been circulated by someone "not permanently employed in this clinic". This was taken to refer to Nikolai Korpan, a Ukrainian-born surgeon who had been treating the politician in Vienna.
Three days later, Dr Wicke received a written request from Dr Michael Zimpfer, the president of the clinic's supervisory board, to retract his remarks.
Dr Wicke marked the memo with the word "Acknowledged". It was after this that a man speaking accented English rang Dr Wicke and introduced himself as "a friend from the Ukraine". He said the man told him to "take care. Your life is in danger". Dr Wicke and his family were then put under 24-hour police guard.
So, who really poisoned Yushchenko and was he poisoned at all?
Thursday, March 24, 2005
"Crying Wolf" by Vanora Bennett. Review.
"Crying Wolf: the Return of War to Chechnya" by Vanora Bennett.
Five months ago I found this book at an English/American Bookstore on Myasnitskaya. I read only a few pages from it at the store and was immediately swept away by its uncommonness. Unlike most books on Chechnya it was incredibly well-researched, sincere, detailed and not one-sided at all. Vanora covers 600 pages with descriptions of her life in Moscow and travels to the Caucasus: interviews and private talks, historic references, quotes from the classics, personal opinions and opinions of other people, newspaper clippings. Nothing is left behind. The best part is certainly Vanora’s epic-like personal accounts of her highly dangerous trips to war-torn regions in Armenia, Karabakh, Ingushetia and Chechnya. I read the whole book in two days.
But it also brought the sense of uncertainty, like it was not really completed. Something was missing – the moral, probably. If you skip Vanora’s personal opinions and just read her detailed accounts of what is going on, you would become a misanthrope. There’s this vicious cycle of infinitely growing racism, blind hate, madness, blood, death, suffering that carries away everyone: Russians, Chechens, Osetians, Armenians and Azeris alike. Nice and peaceful men are turning into blood-thirsty monsters. Loathing and thirst to revenge make otherwise rational people think like fanatical madmen. In Vanora’s book there are no good or bad guys in the war – almost all think and act like wild animals, gloating with joy when they win or whining maliciously when they lose. It’s impossible to take sides, to be pro-Russian or pro-Chechen, or anywhere in between. What’s the moral of the story? Is it the idea that when any stable social system is destroyed people loose all the humaneness they had? Is it the idea that any war, be it fair or not, irretrievably destroys the human soul? Is Vanora the follower of Leo Tolstoy’s theory of non-resistance to evil? Tolstoy illustrated his ideas with the story “Hadji Murat” that I already wrote about. Actually Tolstoy’s theory is not as idealistic as it sounds. Mahatma Ghandi, a passionate follower of Tolstoy, made India independent with the help of it. He was confident that once you resist evil by force or violence, your soul is damned. Isn’t Iraq or Chechnya a good proof that he was right?
Incredible, but Vanora is taking sides – she is definitely on the side of Chechens, Russophile turned Russophobe just in one day. That makes her book so weird. I simple couldn’t understand why. Her descriptions of Chechens gave absolutely no clue for her reasons.
Three days ago I took the book again and read several random pages from different parts. And I think I solved the mystery. Vanora is totally devoid of empathy, the human talent to feel what other people feel. She is emotionally handicapped like there are musically handicapped people. What is music for everyone, for them is simply noise made with a vast variety of instruments. Such people can try hard to understand what’s there in music that makes others dance, laugh or cry, why this kind of noise is so popular but another is called trashy. They can take great pains to decode music. They can actually go so far as to learn to play music but even then they couldn’t get it – why people listen to the noise I make. That’s what Vanora is trying really hard, driven by incredibly reckless curiosity, - to decipher the noise that other people call emotions. In this quest she rushes without doubt to any region where there’s war and eagerly interviews people who just undergone unbelievable sufferings.
Vanora is very observant. She covers pages with descriptions of people she met to the minutest detail: every wink, gesture, smile and change in voice. Nothing is left unnoticed. Sometimes I wanted to say, “Stop here, Vanora, I already got what you mean!” but she goes on and on and on. Like a musically handicapped person painstakingly dissects the noise to every single sign and note, then looks stupidly at them and says, “Hey, that was polka!” No, that was not polka. That was rock’n’roll. It doesn’t take so much pain for an ordinary person to see the difference. Vanora covers five pages with extraordinary vivid and detailed description of her bus ride to Karabakh with broken-hearted, crying, trying to be understood Armenian refugees and then unexpectedly she goes, “Hey, they were manipulative!” No, they were not.
This emotional backwardness is probably the reason behind so many contradictions in the book. For example, she describes a talk with her Russian “friend” and makes a conclusion – this man is a racist. That’s right. I agree. Then some fifty pages later she describes an almost identical talk with a Chechen and concludes – this man was hurt so much by Russians. No, Vanora. That man is also a racist. He’s as disgusting as his Russian counterpart. A truly pro-Chechen writer, like Politkovskaya, would simply omit such an interview from the book. She would certainly see that it doesn’t fit and breaks the integrity of the book but Vanora doesn’t get it. There are dozens and dozens of such contradictions throughout the story. They make the book so much misanthropic – all humans are beasts. Although Vanora leaves her opinions here and there – Russians are evil but Chechens are noble – but one simply doesn’t believe her. My recommendations – skip Vanora’s personal comments and you get the most detailed, well-researched and un-biased book about the war in Chechnya.
Five months ago I found this book at an English/American Bookstore on Myasnitskaya. I read only a few pages from it at the store and was immediately swept away by its uncommonness. Unlike most books on Chechnya it was incredibly well-researched, sincere, detailed and not one-sided at all. Vanora covers 600 pages with descriptions of her life in Moscow and travels to the Caucasus: interviews and private talks, historic references, quotes from the classics, personal opinions and opinions of other people, newspaper clippings. Nothing is left behind. The best part is certainly Vanora’s epic-like personal accounts of her highly dangerous trips to war-torn regions in Armenia, Karabakh, Ingushetia and Chechnya. I read the whole book in two days.
But it also brought the sense of uncertainty, like it was not really completed. Something was missing – the moral, probably. If you skip Vanora’s personal opinions and just read her detailed accounts of what is going on, you would become a misanthrope. There’s this vicious cycle of infinitely growing racism, blind hate, madness, blood, death, suffering that carries away everyone: Russians, Chechens, Osetians, Armenians and Azeris alike. Nice and peaceful men are turning into blood-thirsty monsters. Loathing and thirst to revenge make otherwise rational people think like fanatical madmen. In Vanora’s book there are no good or bad guys in the war – almost all think and act like wild animals, gloating with joy when they win or whining maliciously when they lose. It’s impossible to take sides, to be pro-Russian or pro-Chechen, or anywhere in between. What’s the moral of the story? Is it the idea that when any stable social system is destroyed people loose all the humaneness they had? Is it the idea that any war, be it fair or not, irretrievably destroys the human soul? Is Vanora the follower of Leo Tolstoy’s theory of non-resistance to evil? Tolstoy illustrated his ideas with the story “Hadji Murat” that I already wrote about. Actually Tolstoy’s theory is not as idealistic as it sounds. Mahatma Ghandi, a passionate follower of Tolstoy, made India independent with the help of it. He was confident that once you resist evil by force or violence, your soul is damned. Isn’t Iraq or Chechnya a good proof that he was right?
Incredible, but Vanora is taking sides – she is definitely on the side of Chechens, Russophile turned Russophobe just in one day. That makes her book so weird. I simple couldn’t understand why. Her descriptions of Chechens gave absolutely no clue for her reasons.
Three days ago I took the book again and read several random pages from different parts. And I think I solved the mystery. Vanora is totally devoid of empathy, the human talent to feel what other people feel. She is emotionally handicapped like there are musically handicapped people. What is music for everyone, for them is simply noise made with a vast variety of instruments. Such people can try hard to understand what’s there in music that makes others dance, laugh or cry, why this kind of noise is so popular but another is called trashy. They can take great pains to decode music. They can actually go so far as to learn to play music but even then they couldn’t get it – why people listen to the noise I make. That’s what Vanora is trying really hard, driven by incredibly reckless curiosity, - to decipher the noise that other people call emotions. In this quest she rushes without doubt to any region where there’s war and eagerly interviews people who just undergone unbelievable sufferings.
Vanora is very observant. She covers pages with descriptions of people she met to the minutest detail: every wink, gesture, smile and change in voice. Nothing is left unnoticed. Sometimes I wanted to say, “Stop here, Vanora, I already got what you mean!” but she goes on and on and on. Like a musically handicapped person painstakingly dissects the noise to every single sign and note, then looks stupidly at them and says, “Hey, that was polka!” No, that was not polka. That was rock’n’roll. It doesn’t take so much pain for an ordinary person to see the difference. Vanora covers five pages with extraordinary vivid and detailed description of her bus ride to Karabakh with broken-hearted, crying, trying to be understood Armenian refugees and then unexpectedly she goes, “Hey, they were manipulative!” No, they were not.
This emotional backwardness is probably the reason behind so many contradictions in the book. For example, she describes a talk with her Russian “friend” and makes a conclusion – this man is a racist. That’s right. I agree. Then some fifty pages later she describes an almost identical talk with a Chechen and concludes – this man was hurt so much by Russians. No, Vanora. That man is also a racist. He’s as disgusting as his Russian counterpart. A truly pro-Chechen writer, like Politkovskaya, would simply omit such an interview from the book. She would certainly see that it doesn’t fit and breaks the integrity of the book but Vanora doesn’t get it. There are dozens and dozens of such contradictions throughout the story. They make the book so much misanthropic – all humans are beasts. Although Vanora leaves her opinions here and there – Russians are evil but Chechens are noble – but one simply doesn’t believe her. My recommendations – skip Vanora’s personal comments and you get the most detailed, well-researched and un-biased book about the war in Chechnya.
Chechnya and Logic
Robert Bruce Ware does something that no other expert on Chechnya seems to do - using formal logic to answer the question if Illyas Akhmadov, who is recognized as political refugee in the US, is a terrorist or not. His article "Chechnya, Logic and Confronting the "Conventional Wisdom" is published at Untimely Thoughts.
Those who want to go straight to the point can skip three initial passages of the article.
Those who want to go straight to the point can skip three initial passages of the article.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
My Answer to Brzezinski
Izvestia today published an interview with Zbignew Brzezinski (in Russian). He says: “If I were a Russian, I would ask myself a question, “Why the majority of my neighbors either fears Russia or shows its contempt towards Russia?” Well, I asked myself this question and so far I have as many answers to it as many neighbors Russia has. First of all, the question is incorrect. One doesn’t ask questions, “Why all neighbors of Georgia, namely Abkhazia, South Osetia, Russia, Armenia, either fear Georgia or show their contempt?” Without doubt a Georgian could say – because (1) they are afraid of democracy, (2) they themselves are contemptible, (3) they are blinded by Russian propaganda, (4) they fear rightful revenge for all atrocities they did to Georgians, (5) they are paranoid, etc. I didn’t make these answers up. Anyone can find them in numerous articles, interviews or op-ed columns on the topic “democratic Georgia”. They all sound sincere, natural, politically correct and if somewhat excessive then only because Russians (Osetians, Abkhazians, Armenians, etc) did so much wrong to Georgians in the last three hundred years. Russians cannot respond to Brzezinki’s question in that way. I cannot say, “Because they fear democracy” or “Because they are paranoid”, and I wouldn’t – not because I fear that such answers would reveal my imperialistic or racist nature. I wouldn’t do so simply because such answers are unworthy of an honest person. Such answers are typical of a person who believes in his or her guiltlessness and blames all evil enemies on all of the problems. Does anyone expect a Georgian to say, “Abkhazians despise us because in 1991 we trusted our nationalistic president Ghamsakhurdia, we denied Abkhazians any form of ethnic identity and autonomy, we started a cruel war with them and we lost it.”
Naturally, Mr. Brzezinski is expecting that Russians, upon contemplating on his question, will repent of their Motherland’s sins and ask their neighbors for forgiveness. The irony of this request is that Russia already publicly and officially recanted in its sins in 1991-1993. “Blame Russia first” was and still is the main slogan of Russian liberals and democrats. Every FSU state is a successor of the USSR, not just Russia. As far as I know (correct me if I’m wrong) Russia is the only state that, not being occupied by foreign troops, voluntarily repented for historic sins of the country it isn’t a sole successor of. It was a sincere feeling – not the expression of Russian “natural” inferiority complex and not the Russian “genetic” masochistic love for self-abasement. Just two weeks ago in Russia we celebrated the Forgiven Sunday (Прощенное Воскресенье) – the last Sunday before the Lent. On this day everyone should ask all relatives, friends and even people one doesn’t like, to forgive all the bad things one did to them in the last year. People kiss each other, embrace, forgive and forget. Now, Russians expect mutuality. When someone on the Forgiven Sunday asks you for forgiveness, you don’t say, “Ok, give me 100 rubles for a start and later I tell you if you’re worthy of my forgiveness.”
I don’t want to speak for all Russians but I personally 14 years ago was one of those young pro-Western idealists who regarded Russia’s agreement to take all Soviet debts upon itself as a sign of repentance and generosity, a noble impulse. The Soviet Union was a union of 15 republics after all and ethnic Russians suffered most under the Soviet rule. The crush of the USSR was not about minor republics “leaving” Russia. Russia was the first to leave the USSR. Then other followed. Gorbachev resigned and the Evil Empire disappeared. All international agreements, conventions and obligations of the Soviet Union were confirmed by every FSU state. Wasn’t it fair that every republic took its share of the Soviet debts? I didn’t expect a year later to see millions of ethnic Russian refugees flooding from almost every “friendly” republic. Anti-Russian pogroms were everyday affair in the FSU states. I couldn’t imagine that “civilized” Latvians and Estonians would declare ethnic Russians ‘civil occupants’ who have no right to vote. That in Ukraine Russian would officially become a “foreign” language. Yeltsin’s concessions were regarded as unconditional surrender. Huge discounts on prices for oil and gas exports to “friendly” republics were treated as reparations and indemnities. In 1993 I had a talk with an old Soviet ex-diplomat who was outraged at one-sided concessions Yeltsin and Kosyrev made. “In the international affairs all concessions must be mutual, albeit not always equal. If you don’t bargain you’re treated as a dweeb. You’ll never get anything in return but your partners will become more and more vulgar. One day when you stop and ask for mutuality you’ll hear such indignant and spiteful howls from you “friends” you couldn’t imagine”. Seems like he was right.
Naturally, Mr. Brzezinski is expecting that Russians, upon contemplating on his question, will repent of their Motherland’s sins and ask their neighbors for forgiveness. The irony of this request is that Russia already publicly and officially recanted in its sins in 1991-1993. “Blame Russia first” was and still is the main slogan of Russian liberals and democrats. Every FSU state is a successor of the USSR, not just Russia. As far as I know (correct me if I’m wrong) Russia is the only state that, not being occupied by foreign troops, voluntarily repented for historic sins of the country it isn’t a sole successor of. It was a sincere feeling – not the expression of Russian “natural” inferiority complex and not the Russian “genetic” masochistic love for self-abasement. Just two weeks ago in Russia we celebrated the Forgiven Sunday (Прощенное Воскресенье) – the last Sunday before the Lent. On this day everyone should ask all relatives, friends and even people one doesn’t like, to forgive all the bad things one did to them in the last year. People kiss each other, embrace, forgive and forget. Now, Russians expect mutuality. When someone on the Forgiven Sunday asks you for forgiveness, you don’t say, “Ok, give me 100 rubles for a start and later I tell you if you’re worthy of my forgiveness.”
I don’t want to speak for all Russians but I personally 14 years ago was one of those young pro-Western idealists who regarded Russia’s agreement to take all Soviet debts upon itself as a sign of repentance and generosity, a noble impulse. The Soviet Union was a union of 15 republics after all and ethnic Russians suffered most under the Soviet rule. The crush of the USSR was not about minor republics “leaving” Russia. Russia was the first to leave the USSR. Then other followed. Gorbachev resigned and the Evil Empire disappeared. All international agreements, conventions and obligations of the Soviet Union were confirmed by every FSU state. Wasn’t it fair that every republic took its share of the Soviet debts? I didn’t expect a year later to see millions of ethnic Russian refugees flooding from almost every “friendly” republic. Anti-Russian pogroms were everyday affair in the FSU states. I couldn’t imagine that “civilized” Latvians and Estonians would declare ethnic Russians ‘civil occupants’ who have no right to vote. That in Ukraine Russian would officially become a “foreign” language. Yeltsin’s concessions were regarded as unconditional surrender. Huge discounts on prices for oil and gas exports to “friendly” republics were treated as reparations and indemnities. In 1993 I had a talk with an old Soviet ex-diplomat who was outraged at one-sided concessions Yeltsin and Kosyrev made. “In the international affairs all concessions must be mutual, albeit not always equal. If you don’t bargain you’re treated as a dweeb. You’ll never get anything in return but your partners will become more and more vulgar. One day when you stop and ask for mutuality you’ll hear such indignant and spiteful howls from you “friends” you couldn’t imagine”. Seems like he was right.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Baltic Real Threats
A column “Still Not Sorry for Soviet Crimes” by Vladimir Kovalyev was published today in The Moscow Times:
The reason why ethnic Russians and Ukrainians are ‘non-citizens’ is because they are ‘civil occupants’ even if they were born in Latvia or Estonia and lived all their life there. Being exemplary European democracies Latvia and Estonia let ‘non-citizens’ gain full citizenship if they learn the language and pass a constitution and a history exam. The history exam means accepting the official version of history. For example, some people can believe that Latvian SS-men were not really Nazis but freedom fighters; some can believe they committed war crimes killing Jews at Salaspils concentration camp. When it comes to getting Latvian citizenship only the first answer is correct and of course Salaspils was a reformatory. But that’s not the main point. The main point is the knowledge of the language – the perfect knowledge of the language is required. For example, I study English for more than 30 years but if I knew Latvian as well as I know English I wouldn’t pass the exam because I still make mistakes and my grammar is rather shaky.
What are legal grounds that make ‘non-citizens’ legitimate in the eyes of European human rights watchers? The Geneve Convention. According to the convention an invading state and an occupant is not allowed to settle its civilians on the territory of the occupied nation. This way ‘non-citizens’ are somewhat very close in status to Jewish settlers on the West Bank. Thus the “reconciliation” actually means not just shaking hands, forgiving and forgetting. It also means that Russia recognizes the fact that Latvia and Estonia were occupied territories with all the consequences.
So why is this hysteria NOW? Why is it necessary to make Russia blame Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact TODAY? The Baltic Republics are safely in NATO and EU. Isn’t it time to settle down, think about good home-keeping and put the Book of Baltic Grudges somewhere into the dusty corner? The problem is young ‘non-citizens’. Before 1991 for ethnic Russians or Ukrainians the knowledge of the language in the Baltic Republics was not a problem of survival. But since 1991 it is. Almost all teenage ‘non-citizens’ are bilingual, they speak perfect Latvian or Estonian – they had to learn it and for young people it’s always much easier. Three or four years more and Latvian/Estionian officials would have no formal reasons to flunk ‘non-citizens’ at language and history exams. Young ‘non-citizens’ have their own Big Book of Grudges – they remember well all the humiliations that had to pass throughout their childhood in the 90s. When you are only five and kids at a kindergarten bully you and call you 'dirty Soviet occupant' you don't forget it easily. This young generation is a real threat to the present political elites in Latvia and Estonia. At the same time young ethnic Latvians and Estionians don't remember the "horrors" of the Soviet occupation. They are not such Russophobes as their parents and they don't see their ethnic Russian contemporaties as a threat to national sovereignty. Not that long ago at the parliamentary elections in Lithuania a "Russian" party got most of votes even though ethnic Russians make less than 9% of Lithuanian population. Unless Latvian/Estionian political elites restrain their nationalistic ardor they could loose power pretty soon.
For the last couple of months, I have been wondering what is wrong with theUnlike Mr. Kovalev I don’t find any reason to wonder. This irrational from the first sight behavior has very sound explanations – this kind of “recognition” of Stalin’s crimes will have very dire consequences for ethnic Russians and Ukrainians who live in Latvia and Estonia. About 30% of Latvian population and 15% of Estonian population are so called ‘non-citizens’. They pay all taxes but are not allowed to participate in elections including municipal elections at small towns and villages where sometimes ‘non-citizens’ make up to 90% of population. That’s right – in some towns officials elected by a very small minority decide how to use taxes collected from the majority. If I’m not mistaken at the end of the 18th century taxation without representation was one of the main reasons for the American Revolution. At the same time any EU citizen can vote at municipal elections in Latvia if he or she lives for more than 3 months at one place.
Russian political elite. Its members are behaving like obstinate donkeys and
stupidly dragging their heels on any reconciliation with the Baltic states.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have one simple request: that Russia recognize
that Josef Stalin committed crimes against their citizens. In other words, they
are asking the Kremlin to do exactly what Germany did decades ago in relation to
Adolf Hitler.
The reason why ethnic Russians and Ukrainians are ‘non-citizens’ is because they are ‘civil occupants’ even if they were born in Latvia or Estonia and lived all their life there. Being exemplary European democracies Latvia and Estonia let ‘non-citizens’ gain full citizenship if they learn the language and pass a constitution and a history exam. The history exam means accepting the official version of history. For example, some people can believe that Latvian SS-men were not really Nazis but freedom fighters; some can believe they committed war crimes killing Jews at Salaspils concentration camp. When it comes to getting Latvian citizenship only the first answer is correct and of course Salaspils was a reformatory. But that’s not the main point. The main point is the knowledge of the language – the perfect knowledge of the language is required. For example, I study English for more than 30 years but if I knew Latvian as well as I know English I wouldn’t pass the exam because I still make mistakes and my grammar is rather shaky.
What are legal grounds that make ‘non-citizens’ legitimate in the eyes of European human rights watchers? The Geneve Convention. According to the convention an invading state and an occupant is not allowed to settle its civilians on the territory of the occupied nation. This way ‘non-citizens’ are somewhat very close in status to Jewish settlers on the West Bank. Thus the “reconciliation” actually means not just shaking hands, forgiving and forgetting. It also means that Russia recognizes the fact that Latvia and Estonia were occupied territories with all the consequences.
So why is this hysteria NOW? Why is it necessary to make Russia blame Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact TODAY? The Baltic Republics are safely in NATO and EU. Isn’t it time to settle down, think about good home-keeping and put the Book of Baltic Grudges somewhere into the dusty corner? The problem is young ‘non-citizens’. Before 1991 for ethnic Russians or Ukrainians the knowledge of the language in the Baltic Republics was not a problem of survival. But since 1991 it is. Almost all teenage ‘non-citizens’ are bilingual, they speak perfect Latvian or Estonian – they had to learn it and for young people it’s always much easier. Three or four years more and Latvian/Estionian officials would have no formal reasons to flunk ‘non-citizens’ at language and history exams. Young ‘non-citizens’ have their own Big Book of Grudges – they remember well all the humiliations that had to pass throughout their childhood in the 90s. When you are only five and kids at a kindergarten bully you and call you 'dirty Soviet occupant' you don't forget it easily. This young generation is a real threat to the present political elites in Latvia and Estonia. At the same time young ethnic Latvians and Estionians don't remember the "horrors" of the Soviet occupation. They are not such Russophobes as their parents and they don't see their ethnic Russian contemporaties as a threat to national sovereignty. Not that long ago at the parliamentary elections in Lithuania a "Russian" party got most of votes even though ethnic Russians make less than 9% of Lithuanian population. Unless Latvian/Estionian political elites restrain their nationalistic ardor they could loose power pretty soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
