After Gabrielius Landsbergis' highly publicized visit to Tbilisi, there are mixed reviews

 

 

The Lithuanian government's incitement of unrest in surrounding countries harms the residents of those countries. They are dying, suffering from the economic collapse. It also harms us, Lithuanians. It is becoming uncomfortable with the constant riots and needless deaths and fighting around us. The Landsbergis family themselves are already buying permanent homes abroad, and they are still dragging us into the same quagmire. This also harms the entire state of Lithuania, which is already suffering from Landsbergiis family's rule:

 

"The situation in Georgia, which recently adopted the so-called "foreign agents" law, raises passions. The authorities say that this is necessary for transparency, but the public believes that this is how Georgian democracy is being strangled. The situation has also attracted attention in Lithuania. Should we support the protesters in Georgia? About it was discussed in the "Question of the Day" program of the Radio News.

 

We must support people who seek freedom

 

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, Gabrielius Landsbergis, on behalf of the country, expressed his support for the residents protesting in Georgia. Such a move by the minister received ambiguous assessments, so former foreign minister and ambassador Petras Vaitiekūnas also commented on it in the show.

 

"We don't have to take sides, just because there are our friends, because there are many Georgians who see their future in Europe, in European civilization, we must support them." Is it possible to imagine that Lithuania does not support pro-European forces somewhere in Belarus, Ukraine or Georgia? We must support, but we must send a clear signal together that the people decide. If the nation has already decided after five votes that they want to go the third way - neither with Russia nor with Europe, they will be smart calves that feed by two cows - someone must tell them that this way unequivocally leads to Russia," he said. .

 

Thus, the ambassador said that he supports Mr. Landsbergis' decision.

 

"I support Landsbergis and it is really necessary to do such things," P. Vaitiekūnas asserted.

 

In his opinion, this should not be considered as interference in the internal affairs of another country.

 

"This is not interference in the affairs of another country. This is the support of our friends. Just like America and Europe supported the movement in their time and said we want to be part of a democratic community - we want democratic elections, we want freedom of the press, we want human freedom. And what? Europe and America should have turned away from us and said: we will not interfere in the affairs of the Soviet Union? We must support those people, wherever they are, if they seek freedom, democracy and human rights", said P. Vaitiekūnas.

 

True, he emphasized once again that part of the decisions made in the state depend on the nation itself.

 

"If the Georgian people have already decided in five votes that Europe is not for them, they vote for the force that drags Georgia to Russia - that is the will of the Georgian people, a matter for the Georgian people and we will not interfere in it. We must recognize the election results, we must recognize what the Georgian people chose. They turn away from Europe. This signal must be sent very clearly", said the ambassador.

 

Sees clear politicking

 

Professor and political scientist Šarūnas Liekis also shared his insights on the show. According to him, it is important not to forget that we have both the United Nations Charter and established practices between countries and the principles of non-interference in internal affairs.

 

"Imagine if we transferred this situation to the United States of America - let's say, unrest in the Capitol, Trump supporters storm the Capitol and the respected Lithuanian foreign minister comes to support for or against. We can model enough of these and similar situations. March of families in Lithuania - the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus arrives, stands on a barrel and says: you know, you don't have democracy in Lithuania - 50 thousand. people have gathered, the police are following them everywhere, don't give up and keep fighting for your family's values," he said.

 

According to Liekis it remains valid that, if we do not want such a policy to be carried out towards us, such actions should not be justified elsewhere.

 

"Human rights formats, issues of democracy, the OSCE organization, the Council of Europe - there are many formats where those issues are solved through monitoring, observation, identification of real problems, but not through politicization. In this case, I see clear politicking, climbing on the barrel and then, if we already say that this is good, then we should not be offended and let one or another opposition party in Lithuania invite representatives of Belarus or Orban. Orban's foreign minister would come and start campaigning for something in Lithuania. How would we look at it?", asked the political scientist.

 

However, the views of the interlocutors differed on this point. According to former foreign minister P. Vaitiekūnas, the difference between Belarus and Lithuania is big.

 

"For now, formally, Georgia wants to become a member of the European Union and NATO members. We are members of the NATO and European Union club, and we have gone to talk to our partners, to whom we are sending a message that the path you have chosen now leads away from the goals you have declared. Your actions are clearly deviating from those goals. Landsbergis warned before leaving," he shared.

 

And here is Sh. Liekis continued to raise really important and attention-worthy questions.

 

"Can an unauthorized minister of foreign affairs of some country go around and campaign in the presence of internal political tension, calling names, calling him pro-Russian and the like, for which, by the way, there is no basis?", the political scientist wondered.

 

He also evaluated the so-called "foreign agents" law.

 

"This law also stops Russian influence. It highlights everyone. In that sense, if you receive foreign funding, you are, for example, a media owner, and media owners influence the local market, influence elections, influence politics - this happens in all countries. Now in the United States there is a similar situation - everyone has to declare and the media that is controlled from abroad is highlighted. Where is the problem here if it is not a problem in the United States? We only see a problem due to the fact that those who are supported by the United States of America and the European Union will need to stand out",-  Liekis shared his insights.

 

There is a risk of damaging bilateral relations

 

According to the political scientist Liekis of course, every law can have its own imperfections, but it is important to remember that they are adopted by the government, which is elected by the people themselves.

 

"Here we are transferring ideological conflicts into bilateral relations and potentially damaging bilateral relations because we support one or the other ideological position. As Peter rightly said, this is the choice of the Georgian people. There were previous elections, there will be new elections - they will choose one option or another. We cooperate with the authorities that exist. This is the essence of bilateral relations," he said.

 

P. Vaitiekūnas also assessed the risk of spoiling bilateral relations. According to him, such fears are certainly justified, but it is also necessary to talk about certain threats.

 

"There are many indications that Georgia is turning in the direction of Russia - Saakashvili in prison, the law on foreign agents is passed, many votes are for Ivanishvili candidates, that is, for pro-Russian candidates, the offshore of sanctioned goods, dual-use goods, weapons technology, practically Russian offshore, which became Georgia - this is also an argument", the ambassador mentioned.

 

Thus, according to the interlocutor, the repetition of the fundamental values of European civilization, which the ministers of the Baltic states and the ministers of Iceland have now done, is very necessary and timely.

 

"The Georgian people are deprived of a large part of the opportunity to get acquainted with another opinion, with another approach to what is happening in Georgia now," said P. Vaitiekūnas.

 

He also identified the specific risks for the Georgian people when the "foreign agents" law comes into force.

 

"There will be less opposition, there will be less opposing thoughts and there will be less understanding in the nation of what is really happening and in what direction Georgia itself is turning." Georgians will not get the message that they are being turned in the direction where they will have to share their fate not with France, Germany and Poland or Lithuania, but with Yakuts, Buryats, Bashkirs, Chukchi and so on. Do they really want to share their fate with the Yakuts and Buryats, or do they want to share their fate with the Italians and the French?", the former foreign minister wondered.

 

Problems are proposed to be solved in other ways

 

Threats to the people of Georgia Liekis did not deny, however, in his opinion, these problems should and should be solved in other ways, not by "stepping on the barrel".

 

"There are formats of the Council of Europe, there are formats of the OSCE, after all, the United Nations - generally, those issues are resolved in those formats. After all, we don't go to the United States and stand on the barrel just because there, for example, they are chasing refugees at the Mexican border or because Trump was building a wall or something else. We don't do that," said the political scientist.

 

In general, in his opinion, it is important to evaluate the possible consequences of one's actions.

 

"I see that we are underestimating those consequences. I see that long-term trend that we do not appreciate the consequences of our actions, do not feel responsible, do not feel sovereign with our decisions. Here I see such a long-term problem in various situations where our politicians behave exactly like this. Since I, and the expert himself, have been in the same Council of Europe for many years, I can see in what formats those matters are actually resolved, if they are resolved. Sometimes it is impossible to solve them because of a whole series of circumstances, and not because something is Russian or non-Russian," said Liekis."

 

Po plačiai nuskambėjusio Landsbergio vizito Tbilisyje – nevienareikšmiai vertinimai

 

Lietuvos valdžios vykdomas, neramumų kurstymas aplinkinėse šalyse kenkia tų šalių gyventojams. Jie žūsta, nukenčia nuo pairusios ekonomikos. Jis kenkia ir mums, lietuviams. Darosi nejauku nuo nuolatinių riaušių ir bereikalingų mirčių bei kovų aplink mus. Jau ir patys Landsbergiai užsienyje perka pastovius namus, o vis dar smukdo mus į tą pačią pelkę. Tai kenkia ir visai Lietuvos valstybei, kuri ir taip Landsbergių valdymo nustekenta:

"Situacija Sakartvele, kuris neseniai priėmė vadinamą „užsienio agentų“ įstatymą, kelia aistras. Valdžia sako, kad šis reikalingas dėl skaidrumo, tačiau visuomenėje yra manoma, kad taip smaugiama Gruzijos demokratija. Situacija sulaukė dėmesio ir Lietuvoje. Ar turime palaikyti protestuojančius Sakartvele? Apie tai buvo diskutuojama Žinių radijo laidoje „Dienos klausimas“.

Privalome palaikyti žmones, kurie siekia laisvės

Lietuvos užsienio reikalų ministras Gabrielius Landsbergis šalies vardu išreiškė palaikymą Sakartvele mitinguojantiems gyventojams. Toks ministro žingsnis sulaukė nevienareikšmiškų vertinimų, tad jį laidoje pakomentavo ir buvęs užsienio reikalų ministras, ambasadorius Petras Vaitiekūnas.

„Mes neturime stoti nei į vieną, nei kitą pusę, tiesiog, kadangi yra mūsų draugų, kadangi yra daug gruzinų, kurie mato savo ateitį Europoje, Europos civilizacijoje, tai mes privalome paremti. Įmanoma įsivaizduoti, kad Lietuva neparemia proeuropietiškų jėgų kur nors Baltarusijoje, Ukrainoje ar Gruzijoje? Mes privalome paremti, tačiau mes turime aiškiai kartu pasiųsti signalą, kad sprendžia tauta. Jeigu tauta jau per kokius penkis balsavimus apsisprendė, kad jie nori eiti trečiuoju keliu – nei su Rusija, nei su Europa, bus protingi veršiukai, kurie žinda dvi karves – kažkas jiems turi pasakyti, kad šitas kelias vienareikšmiškai veda į Rusiją“, – teigė jis.

Taigi, G. Landsbergio sprendimą ambasadorius teigė palaikantis.

„Landsbergį aš palaikau ir tikrai reikia tokius dalykus daryti“, – tvirtino P. Vaitiekūnas.

Jo manymu, tai neturėtų būti laikoma kišimusi į kitos šalies vidaus reikalus.

„Tai nėra kišimasis į kitos šalies reikalus. Tai yra parama mūsų draugų. Lygiai taip pat, kaip Amerika ir Europa rėmė sąjūdį savo laiku, ir pasakė, kad mes norime priklausyti demokratinei bendrijai – norime demokratinių rinkimų, norime spaudos laisvės, norime žmogaus laisvės. Ir ką? Europa ir Amerika turėjo nuo mūsų nusisukti, ir sakyti: mes nesikišime į Tarybų Sąjungos reikalus? Mes privalome paremti tuos žmones, kur jie bebūtų, jeigu jie siekia laisvės, demokratijos ir žmogaus teisių“, – teigė P. Vaitiekūnas.

Tiesa, jis dar kartą pabrėžė, kad dalis valstybėje priimamų sprendimų priklauso nuo pačios tautos.

„Jeigu gruzinų tauta jau per kokius penkis balsavimus nusprendė, kad Europa – ne jiems, jie balsuoja už jėgą, kuri tempia Gruziją į Rusiją – tai yra gruzinų tautos valia, gruzinų tautos reikalas ir mes į tai nesikišime. Mes privalome pripažinti rinkimų rezultatus, privalome pripažinti tai, ką pasirinko gruzinų tauta. Jie nusisuka nuo Europos. Šitas signalas turi būti pasiųstas labai aiškiai“, – teigė ambasadorius.

Mato aiškų politikavimą

Įžvalgomis laidoje pasidalijo ir profesorius, politologas Šarūnas Liekis. Anot jo, svarbu nepamiršti, kad mes turime ir Jungtinių Tautų chartiją, ir tarp šalių nusistovėjusias praktikas bei nesikišimo į vidaus reikalus principus.

„Įsivaizduokite, jeigu mes šitą situaciją perkeltume į Jungtines Amerikos Valstijas – sakykime, neramumai Kapitolijuje, Trumpo šalininkai štrumuoja Kapitolijų ir atvažiuoja gerbiamas Lietuvos užsienio reikalų ministras remti už arba prieš. Tokių ir panašių situacijų mes galime modeliuoti pakankamai daug. Šeimų maršas Lietuvoje – atvažiuoja Baltarusijos užsienio reikalų ministras, stoja ant bačkos ir sako: žinote, Lietuvoje pas jus nėra demokratijos – 50 tūkst. žmonių susirinko, policija juos visur sekioja, jūs nepasiduokite ir kovokite toliau už savo šeimos vertybes“, – kalbėjo jis.

Pasak Š. Lieko, jeigu mes nenorime, kad tokia politika būtų vykdoma mūsų atžvilgiu, tokių veiksmų nereikėtų pateisinti ir kitur.

„Žmogaus teisių formatai, demokratijos klausimai, ESBO organizacija, Europos Taryba – yra daugybė formatų, kur tie klausimai per monitorinimą, per stebėjimą, realių problemų įvardijimą sprendžiami, bet ne per politikavimą. Šiuo atveju, aš matau aiškų politikavimą, lipimą ant bačkos ir tada, jeigu mes jau sakome, kad tai yra gerai, tai mes tada nesipiktinkime ir leiskime vienokiai ar kitokiai opozicinei partijai Lietuvoje pasikviesti ar Baltarusijos, ar Orbano atstovus. Orbano užsienio reikalų ministras atvažiuotų ir pradėtų agituoti už kažką Lietuvoje. Kaip mes į tai žiūrėtume?“, – kėlė klausimą politologas.

Vis dėlto, pašnekovų požiūriai šioje vietoje išsiskyrė. Pasak buvusio užsienio reikalų ministro P. Vaitiekūno, skirtumas tarp Baltarusijos ir Lietuvos – didelis.

„Kol kas, formaliai, Gruzija nori tapti Europos Sąjungos ir NATO nariais. Mes esame NATO ir Europos Sąjungos klubo nariai, ir mes nuvažiavome kalbėti su savo partneriais, kuriems siunčiame žinutę, kad tas kelias, kurį jūs dabar išsirinkote, veda tolyn nuo tų tikslų, kuriuos jūs esate deklaravę. Jūsų veiksmai – jūs aiškiai sukate į šoną nuo tų tikslų. Landsbergis nuvažiavęs įspėjo“, – dalijosi jis.

O štai Š. Liekis ir toliau kėlė išties svarbius bei dėmesio vertus klausimus.

„Ar gali nieko neįgaliotas, kažkurios valstybės užsienio reikalų ministras važinėti ir agituoti, esant vidinei politinei įtampai, apvardžiuojant, vadinant prorusiškais ir panašiais, kam, beje nėra jokio pagrindo?“, – svarstė politologas.

 

Jis taip pat įvertino ir vadinamąjį „užsienio agentų“ įstatymą.

„Tuo įstatymu yra stabdoma ir rusiška įtaka. Tame yra išryškinami visi. Ta prasme, jeigu tu gauni užsienio finansavimą, tu esi, pavyzdžiui, žiniasklaidos savininkas, o žiniasklaidos savininkai įtakoja vietinę rinką, įtakoja rinkimus, politiką įtakoja – tai visose šalyse vyksta. Dabar Jungtinėse Valstijose yra panaši situacija – visi turi užsideklaruoti ir yra išryškinama ta žiniasklaida, kuri yra valdoma iš užsienio. Kur čia yra problema, jeigu Jungtinėse Valstijose tame nėra problemos? Pas mus matoma problema tik dėl to, kad reikės išsiryškinti tiems, kurie yra remiami iš Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų ir Europos Sąjungos“, – savo įžvalgomis dalijosi Š. Liekis.

Yra rizika sugadinti dvišalius santykius

Pasak politologo Š. Liekio, kiekvienas įstatymas gali turėti savų netobulumų, tačiau esą svarbu nepamiršti, kad juos priima valdžia, kurią išrenka patys žmonės.

„Mes čia perkeliame ideologinius konfliktus į dvišalius santykius ir potencialiai susigadiname dvišalius santykius, kadangi paremiame vieną arba kitą ideologinę poziciją. Kaip Petras teisingai šnekėjo, tai yra gruzinų tautos pasirinkimas. Buvo ankstesni rinkimai, bus nauji rinkimai – jie pasirinks vieną ar kitą variantą. Mes bendradarbiaujame su ta valdžia, kuri yra. Čia yra dvišalių santykių esmė“, – teigė jis.

Riziką susigadinti dvišalius santykius įvertino ir P. Vaitiekūnas. Pasak jo, tokie nuogąstavimai – tikrai pagrįsti, tačiau kalbėti apie tam tikras grėsmes – taip pat privalu.

„Yra daug indikacijų, rodančių, kad Gruzija suka Rusijos kryptimi – Saakašvilis kalėjime, užsienio agentų įstatymas priimamas, daugelis balsavimų yra už Ivanišvilio kandidatus, tai yra už prorusiškus kandidatus, sankcionuotų prekių, dvigubos paskirties prekių, ginklų technologijų ofšoras, praktiškai rusiškas ofšoras, kuriuo tapo Gruzija – tai irgi argumentas“, – vardijo ambasadorius.

Taigi, anot pašnekovo, esminių Europos civilizacijos vertybių pakartojimas, kurį dabar padarė Baltijos valstybių ministrai ir Islandijos ministrai, yra labai reikalingas ir savalaikis.

„Iš gruzinų tautos yra atimama didelė dalis galimybių susipažinti su kita nuomone, su kitu požiūriu į tai, kas dabar vyksta Gruzijoje“, – teigė P. Vaitiekūnas.

Jis taip pat įvardijo, kokios konkrečios rizikos kyla gruzinų tautai, įsigaliojant „užsienio agentų“ įstatymui.

„Bus mažiau opozicijos, bus mažiau oponuojančių minčių ir bus mažiau tautoje supratimo, kas iš tikrųjų darosi ir kokia kryptimi suka pati Gruzija. Gruzinai nesužinos tos žinutės, kad juos suka ta kryptimi, kur jie turės dalintis savo likimu ne su Prancūzija, Vokietija ir Lenkija ar Lietuva, bet su jakutais, buriatais, baškirais, čiukčiais ir taip toliau. Ar tikrai jie nori dalintis savo likimu su jakutais ir buriatais, ar jie nori dalintis likimu su italais ir prancūzais?“, – svarstė buvęs užsienio reikalų ministras.

Problemas siūlo spręsti kitais būdais

Sakartvelo tautai kylančių grėsmių Š. Liekis neneigė, tačiau, jo manymu, šias problemas reikėtų ir vertėtų spręsti kitais būdais, o ne „užsilipus ant bačkos“.

„Yra Europos Tarybos formatai, yra ESBO formatai, Jungtinės Tautos galų gale – paprastai, tuose formatuose tie klausimai ir sprendžiami. Juk mes nevažiuojame į Jungtines Valstijas ir nestojame ant bačkos tik dėl to, kad ten, pavyzdžiui, persekioja pabėgėlius prie Meksikos sienos arba, kad Trumpas statė sieną ar dar kažką darė. To nedarome“, – teigė politologas.

Apskritai, jo manymu, svarbu įvertinti ir savo veiksmų galimas pasekmes.

„Aš matau, kad tų pasekmių neįvertiname. Matau tą ilgalaikę tendenciją, kad pas mus neįvertina pasekmių savo veiksmų, nesijaučia atsakingi, nesijaučia suverenūs su savo sprendimais. Čia aš matau tokią ilgalaikę problemą įvairiausiose situacijose, kur pas mus politikai būtent taip elgiasi. Kadangi aš ir pats ekspertas esu tos pačios Europos Tarybos daugybę metų, matau, kokiuose formatuose tie reikalai realiai, jeigu jie yra sprendžiami, yra sprendžiami. Kartais jų neįmanoma išspręsti dėl visos eilės aplinkybių, o ne dėl to, kad kažkas rusiškas ar nerusiškas“, – teigė Š. Liekis".

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.