Searching for enemies of the Lithuanian nation

 "On election night, the most attention was not Gitanas Nausėda's impressive victory, but the fact that Eduardas Vaitkus collected more than 100,000 votes (7.32%). Before half of the votes were counted, politicians rushed to talk about the dangers facing Lithuania. 

 

Gabrielius Landsbergis the first said that he was surprised by the "significant turnout of particularly radical candidates" that people "are openly pro-Russia, anti-Ukraine, anti-our national security", and voted for Lithuania's "enemies". Landsbergis is not bothering to know the facts, he even  doesn't know from which constituencies these votes are coming.

 

However, G. Landsbergis' rhetorical excesses were surpassed by Saulius Skvernelis, who claimed on "Laisvės TV" that practically 30 percent of nation would be a good basis for the formation of the fifth column. S. Skvernelis included Ignas Vėgėlė and Remigijius Žemaitaitis as enemies of the nation, adding that due to political correctness and in 1940 there was no mention of a fifth column. G. Nausėda and Ingrida Šimonytė also mentioned threats to national security, but more moderately.

 

Not only the minorities and eastern Lithuania supported Vaitkus. In at least 35 of the 60 constituencies, five percent or more of the electorate voted for Vaitkus. About 57 thousand people voted for him, people in Vilnius, Klaipėda, Vilnius, Šalčininkai, Trakai and Švenčioni districts and Visaginas. He only got slightly less votes in areas where Lithuanians live almost exclusively.

 

More sober voices also spoke, giving context to the vote. This year, the election campaign of Lithuanian Poles did not nominate its candidate, so it is likely that a considerable part of its electorate voted for E. Vaitkus. There are always protest votes, most of which were probably collected by E. Vaitkus and R. Žemaitaitis.

 

G. Landsbergis testified that he did not think that the support of radical candidates could be related "to his own and the conservatives' sharp rhetoric in response to Russian threats." I don't have solid data, but I tend to think the opposite - namely, that a lot of people voted for E. Vaitkus, because they were fed up with the constant "sky is falling" and "Russians will attack" rhetoric of G. Landsbergis and other radicals.

 

Just as Lithuania cannot choose its neighbors, it cannot determine the ethnic origin and nationality of its residents. Lithuanian Russians will continue to live in Lithuania, they will not disappear. When relations with national minorities are strained, the government must first ask itself whether it has done everything it could to smooth over differences instead of blaming minorities. It has power, leverage, various tools of influence. Lithuania's policy towards minorities is not as reprehensible as that of Latvians and Estonians (after all, the Russians are not responsible for the fact that Latvian and Estonian families often have only one child), but it is also not without drawbacks.

 

In general, there are four types of communication: assimilation, integration, indifference or ignoring, and discrimination. For minorities, assimilation and discrimination are the worst options. Lithuania neither discriminated nor tried to assimilate its minorities. But Lithuania did not try to integrate them, to include them in political life, to convince them that they are an integral part of society. They were ignored. The fact that Russians are not integrated into the life of Lithuania, or only minimally, is shown by the fact that there are currently no such people in public life as Nikalojus Medvedevas and Vladimir Yarmolenko, who played a significant role in Lithuanian politics during the Sajūdis and the first years of independence. You would think that after 30 years of independence, there should be more of such politicians, but there are none, probably because the conditions are not created for Russians to participate in political life. The cases of many members of the Seimas show that the bar for becoming a candidate for the Seimas is not high. There is simply no effort to involve Russians or Poles in political life.

 

In Lithuania, as in other Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, the attitude towards national minorities is significantly different from that of Western European countries. CEE still cherished the hope that national minorities would die out or disappear, would not be actively involved in political life, and would not make greater demands. According to philosopher Will Kymlicka, national minorities are more trusted in the West. Crucially, minorities are not considered to constitute a potential fifth column willing to cooperate with foreign adversaries. With such fears, the security services feel the need to closely monitor minorities, prevent collaboration, and look for potential traitors. Under the conditions of securitization of ethnic relations, relations between states and minorities are no longer considered a matter of ordinary democratic politics, resolved through discussions and negotiations, but become a matter of state security, without excluding the possibility of providing the right to limit the democratic process under the pretext of ensuring security in order to protect the state.

 

Lithuania has not gone that far, but after the events in Ukraine, the attitude towards the Russians changed dramatically. Indifference has been replaced by openly expressed mistrust, the banning of Russian television programs, impunity for public incitement to hatred, and contempt for Russian culture. S. Skvernelis' remarks about the fifth column, G. Landsbergis' and others' about threats to national security show that voting is no longer considered an expression of political preferences, but also an indicator of potentially subversive intentions and support for Moscow's aggression. Emphasizing the results of Visaginas and Šalčininkai was a not-so-subtle reminder that E. Vaitkus won the most votes in areas where minorities form the majority.

 

I am an almost unconditional supporter of freedom of speech and expression, and therefore an enemy of censorship. The decisions to limit the rebroadcasting of Russian TV programs show that Lithuanian Russians are not trusted, that they are not capable of resisting Russia. Although it is explained that Moscow's ideas affect less educated Lithuanians, the ban on the rebroadcasting of Russian programs mostly applies to Russian speakers.

 

Censorship of Russian shows is futile and easy to bypass with the help of the internet, VPN and other means. In addition, the forbidden fruit is the most delicious, the most attractive, because it would not be forbidden if it were not special.

 

It is allowed to promote hatred of Russians. In public, they are constantly called fascists and orcs. Orcs are not human, but a lower blood creature. The Nazis spared no effort to portray Jews as inferior, and during World War II, US propaganda equated the Japanese with apes. The ground for genocide is often prepared by denying the humanity of the future victims.

 

There will be no genocide in Lithuania, neither Russians nor Poles will be killed. However, it is worrying that the authorities turn a blind eye to such dehumanizing rhetoric, while in other cases they go to great lengths to prevent petty insults, harassment and bullying. We are indignant when Lithuanians are presented as a nation of Jew-shooters, so it doesn't take much imagination to understand how talk about orcs affects Russians.

 

Russian culture is actively belittled, although its achievements in literature, music and science are truly impressive. A few weeks ago, during the presentation of the book translation, the literary scholar explained that in the 19th century the Russians cleverly sold their culture to the West as a Russian exotic. And the translator stated that basically all Russian culture is either theft (theft from the West) or "pokazucha" (empty show).

 

It is not surprising that there are people who are against the Russians, that there are also those who hate them, consider them the embodiment of evil and wish them evil. But it's disappointing that these attitudes are so widespread and that the authorities and the supposed elite support it."

 

It is very refreshing to see that Gabrielius Landsbergis is called a radical by a well known thinker and expert in the Western and Lithuanian political life. If Gabrielius Landsbergis walks like a chicken, and sounds like a chicken, he is a chicken.