Value judgment

The comparisons between Nord Stream and the 'Ribbentrop-Molotov' pact is 'emotive' language. The need for oil energy in 1939/40 led to disaster. The idea of having 'multiple tariffs' charges based on political 'relations' with individual countries within the E.U. seem gross.

The Russian energy revoloution is one they are winning...and no one is admitting....

--> Jiri Hubacek

Thank you for your consideration!

Have a nice day!

--> Karel Bures Mar 24, 2010 9:50 am CET

I was just kidding yesterday when I referred to you as "Comrade". :) I did not think it would infuriate you so much.

Yes, my "essay" was rather lengthy, but it was necessary, so as to include all the relevant aspects so that a reader understands what I mean. I am sorry you did not read it, but who am I to command you around. See for yourself.

"Bes do prdele vole!" - Are you getting rude again, pal? Why would that be? 8)

"And, while suggestion like this in regard of Jews would initiate an immediate outcry anywhere in the civilized world, the similar statement in regard to Latvians is not regarded as anything out of normal and was even made by President of Russia Vladimir Putin on TV."

Well,Putin would say such a things,wouldn't he?(probably a member of "Jabloko")
After all he is a former officer of KGB,the organization that succeeded NKVD-the instrument of bolshevism that were involved in large purges in USSR.
It is sort of funny that Nazis would criticize Russians in this manner when they themselves were involved in such attrocities against mankind.
Two peas in the peapod you could say.

Boy, talk about stirring up a hornet's nest! Touch, touchy.

Just remember, you are the one, Janis Berzins, who introduced communism into this. It was, of course, perfectly legit for you to say to me, " Behave yourself, Comrade. Or else You will blow your cover" as a response to my comment to you of yesterday. Very economical with words there, weren't you? Now, you come up with a short essay, which I can't be bothered reading.

You can dish it out, but you can't take it, can you?

Bes do prdele vole!

-> Karel Bures, Mar 23, 2010 11:53 pm CET

"The success of the Russian Revolution owed a lot to Latvian Bolsheviks who made up a key portion of the Red Guards who defended the Bolsheviks at a crucial time in their early existence. Well done, son."

No, seriously! You MUST be a Russian! You are voicing their clichés one after the other.

Regarding Red Latvian Riflemen, as they were called.

Yes, part(!) of the Latvian Riflemen, who fought for the Russian Empire during WWI supported Bolsheviks (they had their reasons) and became known as the Red Latvian Riflemen.

They remained well organized and disciplined in the time when essentially all the Russia sunk into chaos and, indeed, played important role in Bolshevik Coup.

What normally is left out of the picture is that they were subjects of the Russian Empire, and, basically, had nothing to do with the Republic of Latvia which came to existence only later.

Also, there were the other Latvian Riflemen, the ones who fought Bolsheviks on the side of the White Guard (fact ignored by modern Russian propaganda). These mostly were evacuated via Far East and went to the newly established democratic Republic of Latvia.
After the Bolsheviks gained success in their struggle, the aforementioned Red Latvian Riflemen, using Russia as the home base, invaded the territory of Latvia and established a short lived Socialist Republic and did what the Commies normally do - started a Reign of Terror, executing people and imprisoning them in concentration camps.

The democratic Republic of Latvia, along with its friends (Estonians, Poles, British, others) did beat the Reds (something that Russians themselves failed at) and they had to run and return back to their home base, the Soviet Russia.

In the Soviet Russia these Red Riflemen took important administrative positions and, basically, actively participated in building the USSR - the object of pride of modern Russians. Though at the end of thirties many of them perished in Stalin's purge campaigns, when these people, essentially, were executed just for being Latvians.

So, dear friend, in your comment you somehow are suggesting that the Latvians, as a people, bear a collective guilt for actions of a bunch of subjects of the Russian Empire just for a reason that they shared the same language? Despite the fact that it was just a small group acting purely on its own, not even to mention that it happened before the Latvian nation state was established and even despite the fact that they fought against it in favor of Russia?

I must point out that this is a purely opportunistic racist statement. It is just like similarly suggesting that every single Jew on the planet and all of them collectively together shall be held responsible for criminal acts of the Bolsheviks of Jewish origin during establishing of the Soviet Communist rule in Russia - the position advocated, amongst others, by Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg.

And, while suggestion like this in regard of Jews would initiate an immediate outcry anywhere in the civilized world, the similar statement in regard to Latvians is not regarded as anything out of normal and was even made by President of Russia Vladimir Putin on TV.

I am sorry that I have to say that, but in this respect modern Russia and its supporters (like you) are sharing some of the most disgusting traits with the Nazis. (Well, comparing your opponent to a NAZI is commonplace in political debates, but here I do not mean it as an insult, I *actually* mean that there are similarities.)

And, once again, you have just enforced my suspicion that you are either a Russian or are under a heavy Russian influence. Your Russia-centric world view and sharing the most loathsome myths of Russian propaganda seem to prove that.

"Yo hablo Espanol-pocito,amigo.Yo necessito ayuda,aura.Dos cervezas por favor.Carlo."

Que? Shto? Ya nyeponyemayu po Shpanyelsky.

Does "aura" = money?

I know "cerveza" means beer, so you are asking me for a beer."

It means:
I speak Spanish-very little,my friend.I need help,now(aura).Two beer please,Karel.

"Yo hablo Espanol-pocito,amigo.Yo necessito ayuda,aura.Dos cervezas por favor.Carlo."

Que? Shto? Ya nyeponyemayu po Shpanyelsky.

Does "aura" = money?

I know "cerveza" means beer, so you are asking me for a beer.

"That could be actually correct,just like many European countries already have a large minority of Arabic speaking people.The countries will retain their names but the population in twenty years will be radically different than it is even now."

These days what happens in Europe is very important, but what happens in the US is critical. On Monday night I watched a tv program about the drugs war in Mexico along its border with the US which has led to a state of semi-anarchy. Last night I watched a program about the explosion in the Latino population in the US. Of course, I have been reading about these matters for some years. It appears the US may be heading for catastrophe, or if not that, then certainly a major decline by mid-century. Not good for the West.

Yo hablo Espanol-pocito,amigo.Yo necessito ayuda,aura.Dos cervezas por favor.Carlo.

"The won't have to lift a finger, Jiri. With the large demographic shift toward a Latino majority occurring in the US states bordering Mexico, Texas, and California, will fall in their lap like a ripe apple falls to the ground."

That could be actually correct,just like many European countries already have a large minority of Arabic speaking people.The countries will retain their names but the population in twenty years will be radically different than it is even now.

By the way,if you paid any attention to some of my comments you would see that I am surely not hundred percent against Russians-especially since they got rid of their communist government.I have some concern about their foreign policy but I do not condemn them,at least until they try some underhanded trick with their neighbors.Sorry,I just can't see them as a victims.

"Texas was a part of Mexico.Is Mexico going to take Texas back from USA?"

The won't have to lift a finger, Jiri. With the large demographic shift toward a Latino majority occurring in the US states bordering Mexico, Texas, and California, will fall in their lap like a ripe apple falls to the ground.

I'm thinking of learning Mandarin.

How's your Spanish, Jiri?

Hasta la vista, baby!

"he problem is, the Russians aren't going to slip away quietly into the night for you or anyone else. They have considered the eastward expansion of NATO and the attempt to bring Ukraine into the West as an act of war. Knowing their history vis-a-vis the West, I can't say I blame them. You obviously would."

Nonsense,Karel.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton press the 'reset' button in regard to relations with Russia, but not Jiri Hubacek.

Why thank you, Janis Berzins. The success of the Russian Revolution owed a lot to Latvian Bolsheviks who made up a key portion of the Red Guards who defended the Bolsheviks at a crucial time in their early existence. Well done, son.

-> Karel Bures Mar 23, 2010 2:35 pm CET

"Janis Berzins, you're writing like someone who's got his head up his arse!" - Behave yourself, Comrade. Or else You will blow your cover. ;)

"Baltic Republics? Well they too were part of (Tsarist) Russia for a long time."

Texas was a part of Mexico.Is Mexico going to take Texas back from USA?
Slovakia was part of Hungarian Empire.Is Hungary going to take Slovakia back?(some in Slovakia worry about that)
There is fairly large area of France that was German prior to WWI.Are Germans going to take it back?
How many examples you need Karel?

"he problem is, the Russians aren't going to slip away quietly into the night for you or anyone else. They have considered the eastward expansion of NATO and the attempt to bring Ukraine into the West as an act of war. Knowing their history vis-a-vis the West, I can't say I blame them. You obviously would."

Nonsense,Karel.

The countries have a right to decide to which military group they belong without the interference from their big neighbors.
In the case of Baltic Republics/States, NATO in its turn has an obligation to stand for its members otherwise why bother.If any member feels somewhat insecure,the NATO must respond to it.
That is the reason the politicians of many new NATO countries challenged NATO to issue the statement confirming this commitment.

By the way the Austria has no chance at all to get any part of Czech Republic back,after all Austro-Hungarian Empire is gone for a century.
Even Czechs would be able to easily defeat Austrians if they were ever foolish to try something.Nobody is really suggesting that they would however, save for few silly people.

"First, I am neither a Russian nor am I under some sort of Russian influence. "

You are at least part Russian Karel.You said that yourself when I said that my mother was Russian.

I think that Janin Berzins is writing in reasoned,logical manner and I do concur with him/her(no genre is possible for me to establish from the name.)

I,myself do not have a problem with Russian people but I do have questions for the megalomaniacs who come from their midsts.
Do you feel that you are threatened by the west?
Then do not threaten anybody.

Janis Berzins, you're writing like someone who's got his head up his arse!

First, I am neither a Russian nor am I under some sort of Russian influence.

Second, I am no supporter of any mythical or historical claims Russia might have in regard to Latvia or the others. But, if a section of Russian opinion does have such claims, then that is something you need to factor in to how you deal with Russia.

Third, I have no wish to see your country, or Lithuania or Estonia re-incorporated into the Russian state. I also understand the problems ethnic Latvians, and Lithuanians, have with the high number of ethnic Russians remaining in their states after the pull back of the Red Army and the dissolution of communism. These people, like the pre-war Sudetendeutsch, may also come in very handy for Moscow one day as some sort of pretext for annexation.

In short, I think Latvia and the others, being very aware of the Russian mindset, particularly toward them and Ukraine, made a big mistake signing up to NATO. The independent existence of these states was always going to be fraught, even tenuous without NATO membership. NATO jets patrolling the border with Russia now is bound to infuriate, Moscow. This was not part of 'the deal' they would be thinking. And do you really believe, deep down, that NATO would spring to Latvia's defence were Russia to look like invading? Because I don't.

Finally, you write, " ... Czechoslovakia used to be part of Austria-Hungary. Do you believe that it gives any right to Austria to claim Czech lands as its own, due to some mythical "right" or "tradition"?"

No, of course I don't, but there are plenty of Austrians who see things that way, still, even if it's not reflected in government policy.

"You could read it even in this blog -by some Zhirinovsky like Russian Yahoos.
"We can target couple of our nuclear weapons your way and you cease to exist.So better conform to us.""

Jiri, I don't know what you're talking about here. Maybe you're referring to a person or persons who posted comments before I signed up.

"No,I don't,unless it comes from within."

So, Jiri, a leopard never changes his spots, right! Well, you're going to have to watch out for the Germans as well!

You are obviously an old Cold War warrior and will not rest easy until Russia is reduced to the size of ancient Muscovy, and then only as a theme park, so that democracy and liberty can be writ large across the whole Eurasian landmass from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Yay, the victory of democracy! Good old President Wilson; he was right all along.
The problem is, the Russians aren't going to slip away quietly into the night for you or anyone else. They have considered the eastward expansion of NATO and the attempt to bring Ukraine into the West as an act of war. Knowing their history vis-a-vis the West, I can't say I blame them. You obviously would.

-> Karel Bures Mar 23, 2010 3:57 am CET

"Baltic Republics? Well they too were part of (Tsarist) Russia for a long time."

Dear Karel.

I have to point it out that the idea which you are expressing here (basically, that Russia has some mythical "rights" for the Baltic states), the one so popular amongst the "Russophiles", is of a dubious value for at least these reasons:

Modern Russia is NOT a successor of the Imperial Russia. It is successor of the USSR. But USSR was, basically, a new state, established in the territory of the Russian Empire which it destroyed in the process. Thus, Russia has no more rights for any territory of Latvia or Estonia, than Latvia or Estonia (the other parts of the former Empire) has rights for any territory of Russia.

Poland was a part of Russian Empire for approximately the same time as was Latvia. Do you believe that this fact gives Russia any right to claim that Poland belongs to it or should be in its sphere of influence?

Finland was in Russian Empire for more than a century, only several decades less than Latvia. Do you think that due to this reason Russia has any right to ask Finland to cede its land or obey Moscow?

Well, another example, for comparison - Czechoslovakia used to be part of Austria-Hungary. Do you believe that it gives any right to Austria to claim Czech lands as its own, due to some mythical "right" or "tradition"?

I hardly believe you would publicly insist on such nonsense. Though for some reason you do find it acceptable to suggest it in respect of the Baltic states.

The only ingredient which would make such claims plausible, at least for some, it is the ingredient which normally is left out of the picture because of its political incorrectness. This ingredient is the resurgent Russian Nationalism and Imperialism. If we add this component to your claims, then they start to make perfect sense, though in a menacing way: "Those lands used to belong to us, The Great Russians, and what we lay our hands on once remains ours till the end of time, so we have Holy Rights to these lands". This perfectly fits the mindset of the average Russian, I must add.

Also I can not let it pass unnoticed, that the "Baltic *Republics*" is a Russian term. Everybody else in the West uses the term "Baltic *States*". Which makes me think, Dear "Karel", that you are either a Russian or are under a strong Russian influence.

"This has nothing to do with the behaviour of Germany, France and Britain, the current EU Holy Trinity, toward Russia for the past two hundred years. "

Why not?We were talking about imperialism-mainly.

"... and they like evrybody to know about it."

You could read it even in this blog -by some Zhirinovsky like Russian Yahoos.
"We can target couple of our nuclear weapons your way and you cease to exist.So better conform to us."

Tell me, Jiri, can you at all envisage a scenario in our time where Russia might justifiably feel threatened?

No,I don't,unless it comes from within.

There is some serious misrepresentation going on here: "[Putin]has expressed his admiration for Stalin and his regret of "the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century": the fall of the Soviet Union"

Here's a report on Putin's visit to the memorial for Stalin's victims at Butovo. Do you see any "admiration of Stalin" in his words?

"Putin honors Stalin victims 70 years after terror":

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL3072723020071030

Or how about Putin's evaluation of communism as a whole, from a speech he made in 2000:

"Communism and the power of Soviets did not make Russia a prosperous country with a dynamically developing society and free people. Communism vividly demonstrated its inaptitude for sound self-development, dooming our country to a steady lag behind economically advanced countries."

Finally, it is somewhat ironic that Ms. Kalniete praises Germany's de-Nazification as a model only one day after the remnants of Latvia's SS division staged a demonstration in the capital of her own country.

"Tell that to: Kazachs,Uzbeks,Tadjiks,Georgians,Armenians,Azerbajanis,Moldovans,Ukrainians,White Russians,Lotvians and Latvians,Estonians,Finns-not to speak of natives of Siberia.Kamchatka and Sachalin."

This has nothing to do with the behaviour of Germany, France and Britain, the current EU Holy Trinity, toward Russia for the past two hundred years.

"They just have far more of nuclear armaments and they like evrybody to know about it."

I am sure Britain and France have enough between them as well. Germany? Well, maybe they don't trust themselves with such weapons. Would you?

"... and they like evrybody to know about it."

What do you mean by this?

Tell me, Jiri, can you at all envisage a scenario in our time where Russia might justifiably feel threatened?

"The fact is, Russia has been content to play the bully boy in its own back yard."

Tell that to: Kazachs,Uzbeks,Tadjiks,Georgians,Armenians,Azerbajanis,Moldovans,Ukrainians,White Russians,Lotvians and Latvians,Estonians,Finns-not to speak of natives of Siberia.Kamchatka and Sachalin.
Traditional territory of Russia was in European area of its today's empire.

Nevertheless,I am not saying that Russia was or is any worse(or better) than France,Britain or Germany.They just have far more of nuclear armaments and they like evrybody to know about it.

No,there was no kettle on my stove.

"The kettle is boiling slowly but it is supersaturated in supressed steam.It may explode at any time."

Is this a reference to the current world situation, or did you have the kettle on the stove as you were typing your comment?

The reasons behind those invasions of Russia during the past two hundred years by the armed forces variously of Germany, France and Britain, the EU Trinity, are neither here nor there. The FACT is that THEY HAPPENED. I could dredge up the invasion by the Teutonic Knights of Novgorod and their defeat by Alexander Nevsky from the thirteenth century, as well. The fact is, Russia has been content to play the bully boy in its own back yard. Not so for Germany, France and Britain; this was never enough fun, as the history of the last two hundred years illustrates.

"Oh, really? Take those glasses off, Jiri! "

Karel,I don't have any on.
Russia contributed to its attack by Germany by forging a pact with them.Of course,Germans having no desire to play fair promptly attacked Russia to its ultimate regret.
If you look on politics and history of last 200 years(as you seem to want to)you will find that Germany started many wars and ultimatelly it lost all of them.So now they are going to be stuck in the present border for ever.
As far as Russia goes sure they were invaded(and defeated any invading country in its turn)but you want to see them as a victims?With all the areas of Asia and other countries conguered?They had taken as much as they were taken from.In fact they are well ahead of their European rivals in that respect.

And yes,I do get disturbed by any mentioning of dividing Poland between Germany and Russia.Don't you know that it already happened?
There are always megalomaniacs that would like to turn the world back.And now we have a new ones in extreme Islam.
The kettle is boiling slowly but it is supersaturated in supressed steam.It may explode at any time.

"There is no victimized Russia"

Oh, really? Take those glasses off, Jiri!

"There is,however,victimized Poland,Ukraina,former Czechoslovakia,Hungaria,Romania,Baltic Republics and numerous others."

Ukraine was joined to Russia at the hip for centuries. Russia meddled in Poland - sure - no gainsaying that. Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania - why did they become Russian victims? Why did Russia enter central Europe for the first time? What was prior? A German invasion of Russia, that's what! Baltic Republics? Well they too were part of (Tsarist) Russia for a long time.

"Don't you know why did it happen?That border is going to stay as it is!!!As far as Russia goes the present border(at least in Europe is also going to stay!!!"

I'm not trying to make fun of you, Jiri, and am conscious of sounding condescending, but I'm not at all sure what you mean here. You sound a bit upset with all those emphatic exclamation marks.

"It's difficult to imagine the Czech Republic having an independent voice in world affairs."

Well Peggy,
For you there is many things that you can't imagine,but they exist nevertheless.

Well Karel,

There is no victimized Russia.There is no victimized Germany.There is no victimized Britain.There is no victimized France.(they all are fairy tale kingdoms right?)
There is,however,victimized Poland,Ukraina,former Czechoslovakia,Hungaria,Romania,Baltic Republics and numerous others.

The "vision" of Zhirinovsky is shared by many in Russia and on the opposing pole by many in Germany.
It was only few weeks ago that Angela Merkel said that it is not fair that part of Germany(the one that Germans think is their) become part of Poland.
Hello,Angela?

Don't you know why did it happen?That border is going to stay as it is!!!As far as Russia goes the present border(at least in Europe is also going to stay!!!

One statement of mine is overarching, "big picture", the other is "small picture", in regard to the Baltic states only, and speculative only.

What is your point, Jiri? Why are the two statements irreconcilable? What is your thinking behind your question?

And why did the Russians withdraw from the Baltic countries, as part of the dissolution of the USSR, in the first place, not even twenty years ago?

I do not wear rose coloured glasses when looking at Russia. However, you appear to be wearing glasses with a distinctly anti-Russian tint, along with Tomas.

"Germany, France and Britain, the Big Three of the EU, the principal drivers of any EU 'policy' toward the big ogre, Russia. All three during the past two hundred years have invaded Russia. During the same two hundred years Russia has invaded none of them (save Germany in 1944/5 as the Red Army was pushing the Germans back all the way to Berlin). This is an incontrovertible fact. And dare I include Italy to make it the Big Four of the EU? Probably not. In any case, the Italians were well represented at Stalingrad as well, and Russia has also never invaded Italy."

Karel,this is from your contribution.

"Anyone recall the Russian politician, Zhironovsky, from the 1990's and his saying that the best thing for a stable relationship between Russia and Germany would be to draw a line, starting in the middle of Poland, due north and due south, and make that line the border between Russia and Germany.

No wonder the Baltic states are a bit nervous."

This is also from your contribution.
How do you reconcile them?

Which point should we take?

"they revile 'foreigners' when they are in the Czech Republic, and forget that they are themselves foreigners when they are everywhere else on the planet."

I do not "revile" the foreigners.I have a big problem with those that have no idea of what they are writing about and who will offend the Czech people without even trying to put it in the context to the rest of the Europe.
And of course,as this is English written paper there are foreigners at large that will promote their conspiracy or neo-nazi or neo-bolshevik philosophy in this paper.
To those I address my rebutals.

A good contribution from Valdis Krastins who would know a thing or two about these
issues.

Former German chancellor, Schroeder, is working hand-in-glove with the Russians and Germany is Russia's biggest trading partner.

Anyone recall the Russian politician, Zhironovsky, from the 1990's and his saying that the best thing for a stable relationship between Russia and Germany would be to draw a line, starting in the middle of Poland, due north and due south, and make that line the border between Russia and Germany.

No wonder the Baltic states are a bit nervous.

Tomas, and to a lesser extent, Jiri:

Germany, France and Britain, the Big Three of the EU, the principal drivers of any EU 'policy' toward the big ogre, Russia. All three during the past two hundred years have invaded Russia. During the same two hundred years Russia has invaded none of them (save Germany in 1944/5 as the Red Army was pushing the Germans back all the way to Berlin). This is an incontrovertible fact. And dare I include Italy to make it the Big Four of the EU? Probably not. In any case, the Italians were well represented at Stalingrad as well, and Russia has also never invaded Italy.

So, my point is, on the basis of history, who has most to fear from whom? Simple really, I would have thought.

Karel,
You write as if Russia (i.e. Soviet Union) were God's gift to mankind. As Jiri pointed out... look at all of the territories that Russia (CCCP) occupied. Look up Soviet - Finish "winter war". The Soviets out right attacked Finland with no reason other than occupation. Fortunately for Finland, Stalin wiped out thousands of his best military officers so his army was highly inefficient and even though the Soviets had a HUGE military advantage, they could not beat the Fins. On top of that... look at what the Soviets did to Eastern Europe after the war. They pretty much colonized it and sent everyone's economy back a hundred years. And... during the cold war the Soviets (including their proxies the E. Europeans) sold arms to every thug and terrorist on the planet that opposed the US (or Israel).

"I bet that foreigners on this blog have no idea."

Jiri: you are the foreigner on this forum.

This is something else that Czechs forget: they revile 'foreigners' when they are in the Czech Republic, and forget that they are themselves foreigners when they are everywhere else on the planet.

"During the last two hundred years, Russia has been invaded by France(1812), Britain(1853 - Crimea), Germany(1914), American, British, French, Greek, Czech and Japanese troops in the main(Civil War - 1918-20), and Germany(1941).""

Karel,it is too bad that you sort of stopped in 1920 in your list that Russia did not invade.
Where does it include the host of countries that Russia invaded and absorbed after this date?
Kazachstan,Uzbekistan,Tadjikistan,Armenia,Azerbaijan,Georgia,Moldovia,Latvia,Estonia,
Finland(that somewhat managed to stay independent)and Lotvia.
Going a bit back in history,how come that Siberia,the area larger that whole of Europe become part of Russia?
All in all, Russia rivaled Britain in its imperial foreign policy except that Russia still owns Siberia (although it sold Alaska to Americans,)and Britain is basically confined to its English Island roots.

"During the last two hundred years, Russia has been invaded by France(1812), Britain(1853 - Crimea), Germany(1914), American, British, French, Greek, Czech and Japanese troops in the main(Civil War - 1918-20), and Germany(1941)."

This is very good(and fact based) Karel.
In all of these (except the war with Japan1905)Russia beat(eventually) their enemies even if in 1918-1920 it ended in bolsheviks taking over)

I bet that foreigners on this blog have no idea.

During the last two hundred years, Russia has been invaded by France(1812), Britain(1853 - Crimea), Germany(1914), American, British, French, Greek, Czech and Japanese troops in the main(Civil War - 1918-20), and Germany(1941).

During the last two hundred years Russia has NOT invaded France, Russia has NOT invaded Britain, Russia has NOT invaded Germany(as a first strike), Russia has NOT invaded Greece, Russia HAS invaded Czechoslovakia(after it found itself in the middle of Europe after pushing back German invaders) Russia has NOT invaded America, and Russia has NOT invaded Japan(save the mostly uninhabited Kurile Islands north of Hokkaido).

"The EU still lacks a policy toward Russia".

Poppycock! The history of the last two hundred years tells us otherwise. The policy, and 'basic values', of the EU(read western Europe) has been to invade Russia whenever possible.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

"they will be just "provincial" adjuncts to these three countries"

It's difficult to imagine the Czech Republic having an independent voice in world affairs.

EU's policy will be only as good as deemed advantageous for France,Germany and Britain.You can bet your life on that.
It is time for the rest of EU members to exercize their interests or they will be just "provincial" adjuncts to these three countries.

My congratulations to Sandra Kalniete for a well-put, pragmatic analysis of the rather disturbing situation in German-Russian relations, as the language used and diplomatic actions taken are strangely familiar from the era of Ribbentrop-Molotov. Well, well, well! Shadows from the past...

Valdis Krastins, former ambassador to the Czech Republic

Even if the English were improved, the lack of serious content in this appalling article is a problem. A lack of democracy in Russia? Hello - Latvia is in the EU, not exactly a bastion of democracy or free-market capitalism. In Russia the rate of corporation tax is half what it is in most of the EU, and at least the top officials there are elected by the people rather than chosen by bureaucrats.

Russia's 'invasion' of Georgia was an obvious set-up which in any case has no bearing on the Baltic States.

This badly written paranoid diatribe written by a semi-literate whatever from Latvia is little more than a string of cliches. Are you seriously not able to find anyone in Prague who can write anything of more value?

If you can't afford to pay somebody 500Kc to write something worth reading, at least get somebody in the office who is a native speaker of English to re-write it coherently in decent English and correct a few of the more obvious mistakes.