Linas Balsys, the president’s spokesperson, also stated to BNS that Putin had confirmed this. The phrase “Putin confirmed” is noteworthy, considering the fact that, according to available information, Putin is the only source of the announcement – he said it and he confirmed it.

Putin’s thoughts on the conditions for renewing oil supply to the Mažeikiai Company are even more interesting than that stylistic somersault. The talks that were mentioned will determine whether Russia will renew oil supply to Lithuania – Grybauskaitė retold this statement by Putin to Reuters. It is unclear why no one notices how sensational the Russian prime minister’s statement is. Russia stopped oil supply via the Druzhba oil pipeline more than two years ago, immediately after Lithuania dared selling Mažeikių Nafta to the buyer that was not acceptable to the Kremlin. However, Russia claimed the reasons were purely technical in nature – allegedly the old pipeline had many holes and a lot of money was needed to fix the pipeline.

This was probably the Lithuanian diplomacy’s failure too, because the issue has still has not been investigated till the end. It is good that Putin did this for us.

The Russian prime minister’s statements are important, because Russia publicly admitted it was using economic measures to achieve political goals and this way was punishing neighbouring countries for showing the slightest signs of independence. Such a behaviour by Russia shows the country is not prepared to adhere to the principle of reciprocity in relations with other countries. It is sad, if this seems like a natural, self-explanatory thing. It is sad that we accept such an announcement fatalistically, with our heads bowed, even forgetting that this is how Russia dictates the rules of its game not only to our country but also to the EU.

<…>

Spurga concludes his article saying, ‘during the meeting with Grybauskaite, Putin admitted that a partial energy blockade was being used against Lithuania. Even if he completely made up the fact of the talks on the sale of the company, he clearly implied that the Kremlin’s goal was to control the Mažeikiai Company. Such a manoeuvre revealed that this was a political interest of the Kremlin, not an economic interest of Russia.
————————————————————————
This commentary is published by courtesy of Mr Saulius Spurga.  The article was published by Lietuvos žinios daily on 17 February.

‘At the end of 2009, the influential daily The New York Times announced that Lithuanian Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius allegedly had accused the CIA of using “Soviet methods” in its work.  Kubilius expressed the quoted words while commenting on the Parliament’s committee report on possible CIA prisons in Lithuania. That was a misunderstanding: the prime minister had in mind the working methods of the Lithuanian State Security Department (VSD), not the CIA. To many readers, including politicians, in the US and the entire world Lithuania was presented in a completely wrong light, which is detrimental to our country. However, it would be unfair to put all blame on the journalist who was not careful enough in announcing this information.

I was unable to find exact information under what circumstances this mistake was made. Some things can be explained by the fact that the information was sent to The New York Times from Moscow. Looking at the daily’s website, one can notice the same journalist – Clifford J. Levy – that same day – 23 December 2009 – from Moscow also announced the news about the Kyrgyz president and Kiev’s zoo. One can guess who prepared the materials from another country so hastily. There were also other western media sources that painted fantasies while reporting on the Parliament committee’s parliamentary probe report.

For example, a journalist, who also resides in Moscow, on the BBC website announced the Seimas committee found even eight persons who were imprisoned in Lithuania. Well, from now on at least I will be much less inclined to trust even these praised media outlets, because it is obvious that even they violate the journalism standards. It is even more frustrating, because in this instance we are talking not about some local problem, but about an issue that interests the entire world. Misleading information can have huge unpredicted consequences. Moreover, these mistakes reveal how deep the informational hole is in which Lithuania still is today. In the eyes of the global media Lithuania is still a far-away periphery of the post-Soviet sphere. This can be especially painful someday, should an unexpected crisis arise.

However, the prime minister should accept at least some of the blame for the misleading information that was disseminated. After all, in this case the Lithuanian VSD played a merely supporting role. If something was happening in Lithuania, it was organized by the CIA. There are serious reports that in the neighbouring Poland in similar “black sites” inmates were tortured, and this was done not by Polish agencies. Having such a context, the American journalist simply was unable to connect all the dots: if he accepted the statement that the Lithuanian VSD used Soviet methods, what sort of words then ought to be used to describe the CIA’s actions?

Kubilius’s assessment of the VSD probably was related not just to the CIA prison issue. The prime minister’s position was emotionally affected by more than three years of scandals related to the VSD. This includes Dujotekana, influence of clans, and the problem of classified reports. However, when one is talking about the CIA prisons, which is a very important issue, when the whole world is listening attentively, one is advised to speak clearly and unequivocally, without giving in to emotions or the temptation to politicize things.

Foreign journalists can be accused of carelessness, but, above all, one should pay attention to the fact that Lithuania did not present available information in English and other languages. (The Prime Minister comment was translated into English next day, on the 23 December.  LTribune).  According to the data of the State Control, in four years Lithuania spent 63 million litas on its image. The situation today, however, is really unique: The Lithuanian Government does not announce any news in foreign languages and does not have its website in English; there is no link to any official Lithuanian websites in English. This cannot be justified with any arguments. The Seimas’ news in English is poor, incomprehensive. Alfa.lt, a private news portal, does the job of government institutions. Its unique English-language website should be publicized more. We live in the information age, in the era of images and simulations, under the constant glow of informational war. Often information is more valuable than money. Does the government not care about this at all? Let us simply open channels of information, and only then consider creating an expensive country brand.

LTribunte – the commentary is published by courtesy of Mr Saulius Spurga.  The article was published by Lietuvos žinios daily.