Raimundas Lopata: Russians are catching up with the Baltic states during the coronavirus crisis

“Russia is sinking into a situation where aggression against the Baltic states will not help Putin’s rating. The Russians are now turning their backs on survival, and if such aggression occurred, they would have justified dissatisfaction and the question : What’s going on here in general? ”, Comments a political scientist in an interview with Delfi.

Furthermore, during their propaganda debates on pandemic management, the Russians, according to Lopata, equate themselves to the Baltic states as examples of good practice.

The interlocutor also points out that the West generally supports that Russian leader who does not allow chaos to prevail in this state. “It was like in the times of Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, it may be so now. Under these circumstances, Putin is unlikely to be involved in the military conflict,” Lopata said.

– Why did you resort to politics?

– Of course, I was able to continue my academic and social activities. Recently, several liberal discussions on the issues of personal liberties in Lithuania have had to start. Sometimes it is good to be just an observer, a critic, perhaps a participant in various public actions. But I felt that that was not enough. Thus was born the decision to participate in political activities.

Naturally looking at parties that consider themselves liberal, I naturally chose the Liberal Movement. Once upon a time, after a well known story, I was skeptical about this party. However, with the arrival of Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen in the position of the party leader, I think that the idea of ​​gathering liberal views in Lithuania can be implemented.

This item on the liberal agenda is important and does not depend on the upcoming Seimas elections. There are many liberal forces that want to defend individual freedom from excessive government interference.

When it comes to government intervention, we have had an atmosphere of fear, a political culture of signs, irresponsible speeches, and prohibitions for an entire decade. In the face of a pandemic today, these problems have been exacerbated.

– You said 15 years ago that there was no politics left in Lithuanian politics. What does this saying mean and what is the situation now?

– When I said that there was no politics left in Lithuania, I was talking about the fact that everything became a public administration: technological bureaucratic procedures. Apparently, the lack of visionary ideas led to such a routine life. At the time, it seemed like we had already accomplished everything by joining the EU and NATO.

It is true that we still had another idea of ​​foreign policy, for example, the idea of ​​Lithuania as a regional center. It was ambitious, but on the other hand, the fundamentals of policy improvement were implemented and taught.

We were really quite strong in Eastern politics, and no one in the EU denied it. And the dominance of foreign policy, in turn, also affected the internal political situation. This domain was later exhausted.

– The domain and ideas you are talking about existed during Valdas Adamkus’ presidency. Was Dalia Grybauskaitė’s presidency de-politicized, routine?

– In terms of internal politics, there were good ideas: the fight against corruption, the overcoming of certain bureaucratic mechanisms. The ideas were good, but their implementation led to the spread of that fight so widely that it was not clear why it was being fought.

It all turned to fear and mistrust of law enforcement at first glance out of control, but it turns out it’s like controlled interference. There were also constitutional problems. There have been some uncertainties in the country’s development, which have hampered many other possible initiatives.

And foreign policy became a shock. It is true that we are now talking about the president’s foreign policy doctrine. But if those doctrines existed, let’s see, at what cost. How much has been lost by distracting the Eastern Partnership from the back to major strategic partners.

– And what were the constitutional problems that you mentioned during the Grybauskaitė presidency?

I mean personal liberties and things like that.

– “Controlled”, as you said, police interference?

– Exactly

– In twelve years, three governments have changed: there was a conservative majority of cricket, socdem and peasant in the Seimas. Were they all administrators rather than politicians?

– All the authorities he mentioned were not afraid of promises to cut back and make the bureaucracy more efficient. But the focus was only on the process itself. In Estonia, it is different: the public administration process is results-oriented, and the people involved know what incentives and punishments await them. There is a moral incentive to perform your tasks in an orderly manner, not just to be part of the process.

Among other things, all of our governments were characterized by the distribution of key positions to their own, which, in turn, caused more problems than they solved.

– Today, when the state’s promised support for companies affected by coronavir has difficulty reaching its intended audience, the bureaucracy is blamed for everything. Whose fault is really greater: the bureaucracy or the ruling politicians?

– They are to blame, and they are. Political power must also control the processes that take place in the bureaucratic apparatus. But it happened that in Lithuania the bureaucratic apparatus signs its own rules and the political government that “ignores” its decisions does not show priorities or accent.

Then they both start covering each other in Brussels, talking about the fact that some recommendations, harmonization of rules, etc. are still needed. This is fueling internal tensions (with companies, their own citizens) and a wave of dissatisfaction with Brussels and distrust of the EU.

– Why do you think business representatives and especially associated business structures in Lithuania tended to blame bureaucrats rather than politicians for stagnating support this spring?

– Respecting associated business structures, however, it must be recognized that they often do not act as an independent voice. They are trying to be a government addict, not an independent player. We also see a certain increase in their structures with government structures. I understand that there must be a dialogue, but what happens between them often becomes a platform for requests to the government.

It is also surprising that, when the rational proposals of business representatives are stagnant, this is often shaken by hand, avoiding criticism of the government.

– How do you evaluate the achievements or mistakes of the current government in the fight against the coronavirus?

– The nation is fine and the government is talking a lot. Sometimes it seems that not only does he talk a lot, but he also lies.

– What are you lying about?

– There are many examples. About having a well-functioning infrastructure to counter the pandemic, enough reagents for the test, about having enough safeguards in place before a pandemic is declared.

– How would you explain the fact that public opinion is favorable to the rulers?

– An atmosphere of fear has been created. Self defense instincts flare up. The need for care arises. When such an atmosphere prevails, there is often a desire to seek help from the authorities.

But, in principle, we have a situation in which the government does not carry out its functions. For example, most Seimas deliberately handed over the reins of power to the government. And so, once again, he committed Seimas himself. There are many questions about the constitutionality of this process; I mean the circumstances of the emergency. Perhaps these are political games before the Seimas elections, using a difficult situation.

Sometimes I think: after all, we were talking, roughly speaking, clinging to the lapels of the Russians. What if we face even more serious threats than the virus? What would we look like if something happened at the Astravo nuclear power plant? After all, we see that all of the state’s political governance is exhausted. Public authorities declare that they are transparent and ready to face all challenges. But is not.

– Economist Raimondas Kuodis says that promising 200 euros to pensioners in power is a waste before the elections. Political scientist Mažvydas Jastramskis, for his part, claims that this cannot be called voter bribery. What you think?

– Respecting people of retirement age, however, I would like to point out that they receive pensions. Why is it unbalanced and divided into castes? I would be more inclined to agree with Kuodis.

Of course, we can talk about the fact that the Retiree Support Package is just another planned support package and has not yet been implemented. However, there would be no such languages ​​if all packages were advertised at once. And now the impression is that society is divided into castes. This is surprising and suggests that electoral dividends are being sought.

– But this is frustrating for those who have been forced to close businesses due to quarantine, loss of income.

– Simply doing this is simpler, and simplicity is the easiest way in politics. You don’t want to think much, use traditional instruments.

Great pressure from the authorities is needed for political justice. After all, we still live in a democracy, which means that such decisions require longer discussions. But time is pressing, and under the guise of an emergency, the rulers are making decisions that they believe will help them win the elections.

– Can farmers win the next elections by distributing support in this way?

– Hard to say. The situation is still unstable. The benefits have been promised, but we don’t know what the situation will be like in a couple of months. In the past, there were continuous processes that could be used to predict various scenarios. And now we are talking about an emotional state of people that changes dramatically and constantly changes and complicates predictions.

– Does the Homeland Union have real opportunities to form a majority in the future Seimas? Polls don’t really show you a breakthrough, party leaders have disappeared somewhere during the quarantine.

– In such situations, the question is: where are those leaders, and when they begin to show themselves more actively, then the question is: why are there so many of them everywhere? Some citizens are happy to see and hear the Minister of Health or Prime Minister on a daily basis, but others are upset. The same is true for conservative cricket politicians: too many, too few.

– Frustrated voters of ruling politics would probably like to hear more often what the leaders of the largest opposition party are offering in times of crisis.

– I think whoever wants to listen hears it. Another question is whether there has been a period of frustration for all political actors and for politics itself. Voters may begin to feel that power is not political, but administrators.

– But also frustrated politicians that voters will vote for something. Why will they vote?

– Who can tell? We will see. Much will depend on the actions of the government. You are right, a lot will depend on the actions of the opposition, the speech, the proposed solutions. Furthermore, looking at the current work of the Seimas, we must recognize that the functioning of democracy and the responsibility of politicians have been interrupted.

– Do not hear from our authorities a clear approach to the debate that is taking place today in the EU. For example, Germany and the Netherlands are discussing with the countries most affected by the coronavirus in southern Europe about the financial support model. What is the position of Lithuania?

– The position of Lithuania lately: sit down and wait. In the context of a pandemic, President Gitanas Nausėda is often criticized for revealing these issues more widely. I understand that external problems may not seem so important to people now. But they will continue to compare the way Lithuania handles the coronavirus with the way neighboring countries handle it, as the situation in the EU seems.

There is even a lack of basic information on Lithuania’s position on these issues. It is left to the experts to decide which path is fairer, whether it is German or not.

Much will depend on the determination of EU members towards the EU, on what the word ‘solidarity’ means to them.

We see that Brussels is currently in a losing position. Despite the fact that without the help of Brussels, we would hardly have broken the Polish ice, both in terms of our carriers and the return of people to Lithuania. Without pressure from Brussels, things would have been much more difficult in Warsaw.

Examining the EU mechanisms also raises questions about some constitutionality. We have these questions after the introduction of the state of emergency in Lithuania, but they also arise due to the unilateral withdrawal of the states from the Schengen Agreement.

– Is this not the beginning of the collapse of the EU?

– So far, we can only see trends that scare some of what he’s saying, while others seem to be only temporary. Although I think the situation is much more serious.

What is happening in the EU Member States under the guise of an emergency? It is unclear what European attitudes and solidarity will be towards the worldview: how relations with the United States and China will develop. There are also eloquent and interesting trends in this regard.

A year ago, the EU spoke of China as a partner but as a competitor and a strategic opponent, trying to incorporate three incompatible things into one formula. Economic pragmatism has been sought in relations with China, but the current crisis has opened the eyes to China’s economic and political impact not only in the world but also in Europe in particular.

Paradoxically, it has accelerated the opening of Europe and the faster provision of prospects for the Western Balkans. The Western Balkans are becoming more rapidly integrated into the EU. The debate on the functioning of the single free market has intensified: after removing the internal barriers of the EU, we have forgotten about the protection of third countries, mainly China. Now that debate is reborn.

– A public opinion poll in Italy has caused a great resonance, showing that China and Russia are seen almost as best friends than the United States and Germany. Is this a sign that Italians, and not only they, can follow the path of Brexito, or is it a more temporary phenomenon?

– I think more – a temporary phenomenon. We need to see how this particular situation arises. There was a lack of solidarity action by the EU when Italy asked for help in the wake of the coronavirus crisis.

The Chinese and Russians responded to those requests, but both demanded that their attendance be publicized. That aid has been used to develop a policy, and a positive attitude towards those requirements could have had the resonance that we are talking about.

However, this effect can only be a temporary phenomenon: much will depend on what you have said before: which model of crisis management and assistance to the most affected countries will the EU choose. The EU mechanisms, in turn, will not allow quick decisions to be made, even despite the gravity of the situation. In any case, this factor will be very important.

The entire world is now speculating on the international order after the pandemic. We live in a time of rebirth of theories: there will be a unipolar and multipolar world, or anarchy will spread.

– China’s influence in the EU has recently increased. Will the EU not be more favorable to China if the divisions between the United States and China intensify? Will Italian public sentiment not become the norm on EU agendas?

– No I dont think so. We were able to talk about the things you say before or just after the pandemic. But right now, what lies behind China’s aid and action is causing a fairly strong reaction from EU member states. China is now being treated with special caution.

Of course, some states may continue to play certain games. And before the crisis, Italy, Portugal tried to mediate in a game between China, the United States and Europe. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban tried to earn his dividends in the confrontation between the United States and China.

But current trends are just the opposite: Caution is growing with China and the new Silk Road it is promoting. It is no coincidence that some EU countries have taken steps to tighten the rules for the sale of companies. They even interfere with corporate gambling.

Not only that, we are increasingly hearing about European strategic autonomy. No one knows what this means, but there seems to be a tendency to be careful with third countries, especially China. Efforts are being made to maintain transatlantic ties, and efforts are being made to moderate those contradictions that arise in relations with the administration of President Donald Trump.

It seems to me that the concept of European strategic autonomy can express an effort to reflect on how Europe can become a full-fledged player in world politics.

Of course, this will depend not only on the EU strategy, but also on the determination of each Member State. EU relations between nation states is a separate issue. The role of nation states in relation to the role of EU structures may increase. It remains to be guessed what the nature of that new commitment would be and who would benefit from it.

– Perhaps not only Hungary and Poland, which are the most frequently inclined, will try to strengthen the role of the nation state? Or perhaps the stricter provisions of these two states are just temporary tactical turns without deviating too far from the common course?

– Easy questions. It’s hard to say how things will end, but the desire to punish Orban so far has only been a wish. Much will depend on how the EU copes with its exit strategy from the coronavirus crisis.

But I find it very strange that there is a lack of knowledge about the position of our state and the chosen political directions. Somewhere, it is true, the contours of Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Finland, the great Baltic Entente, from the interwar period were blurred.

– Is it possible today to define briefly and clearly Lithuania’s foreign policy strategy?

– I doubt it. I think the strategy is this: sit back and wait.

– And during the Grybauskaitė presidency and now?

– President Grybauskaitė had a clear strategic orientation: Berlin. The strategy was to go in the direction indicated by Berlin. This was a rationally calculated position that gave Lithuania dividends. Unfortunately, the unconditional orientation to Berlin overshadowed Lithuania’s national interests. For example, it hindered our relations with Warsaw.

– And now there is a milestone?

– Hard to say. Historical decisions now occur when there is pressure. Stranger things are happening. Let’s say about the opening of the borders: those who come from Latvia and Estonia will not need quarantine, and the Germans do. Why do Germans need it and Latvians, Estonians and possibly Poles not? The answer is German blood, it is different.

– Who said that?

– There are those who have explained it this way.

– Who will win the US presidential elections. USA – Short or Joe Biden? More precisely, who would win if the elections took place now?

– Now the chances of Trump are likely to be higher.

– And which candidate would be best for Lithuania?

– For Lithuania, it is better not to have any administration, but America. During the coronavirus crisis, we organized an Italian support campaign with Italian tricolors. Why not hold the same campaign of support from the United States, especially given the difficult situation in the United States against the coronavirus?

– The fall in oil prices and the rampant coronavirus in Russia speculate on the future development of the country. Will Russian society suffer in silence and resist everything, will it rebel against the failed government, or will Vladimir Putin try to improve his declining grades by pursuing a new aggression?

– If the situation in Russia leads to regime change, the question would arise: what will be the transformation of that regime? Clearly, the transformation of the regime would not mean the victory of the democratic opposition forces with which we associate our hopes. Because democratic forces do not have a leader or a solid base.

It may happen that the essence of the regime does not change and Putin is replaced by another authoritarian leader. Incidentally, despite calling the Russian regime authoritarian, the state of emergency requested by the opposition has not been declared, and the authoritarian leader himself, awaiting a referendum on his political longevity, has gone into hiding. And sometimes it breaks up cosmic, unrealistic interviews.

The reins of crisis management have been handed over to the regions, giving them federal directives that go against the directives of those regions. We are seeing regions close to each other, and Moscow is trying to deal with the virus by introducing electronic passports and creating large queues when those passports are verified. Many paradoxical things are happening.

It goes without saying that Putin and his environment are unaware of the threat. Attempts are being made to maintain wages, to maintain the capacity of companies. As for the drop in oil prices to unprecedented levels, Russia’s reserve should not be forgotten. At current oil prices, Russia is expected to survive until 2021. end.

But let’s not forget another thing: the western world is hardly interested in regime change in Russia. Because nobody knows the possible consequences.

The general conclusion would be that all actors in international politics will emerge weak from the crisis. This paves the way for future configurations.

– American Business Institute Expert Leon Aron said immediately after the New Year interview with Delfi that Putin could try to improve his grades by organizing “limited” aggression in one of the Baltic states. Is this scenario now more realistic?

– I am sure this scenario has not become more realistic. Russia is sinking into a situation where aggression against the Baltic states will not help Putin’s rating. The Russians are now turning their heads towards survival, and if such an aggression occurred, they would have justified dissatisfaction and the question: What is going on here in general?

Not only that, by looking at the ideological and propaganda debate about pandemic management in Russia today, we see that it is being compared to the Baltic states, the situation is said to be being handled as in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. It is true that the numbers are manipulated, but the Baltic states are still presented as an example of good epidemic management practices.

– Is it now that we should fear more regime change in Russia than aggression? Can the new government be more terrible?

– Not necessarily scary: alone – the same as with another face. This is a possible scenario. The West, seeing the changes in Russia, generally supports that leader who does not allow chaos to prevail in that state. This was the case in the days of Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, and it may be so now. Putin is unlikely to be involved in a military conflict in this context.