According to Boyarkin, the Baltic Nuclear Power Plant, the construction of which has started in the Kaliningrad Oblast, could supply the entire region with cheap electric power, and Lithuania could profit from the transit of Russian electricity to other countries.

If our country were not interested in such a proposal, Russia could export the excess electricity produced in Kaliningrad to Western Europe. It is considered for that purpose to construct an electric power cable to Germany next to the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea.

Killing two birds with one stone

The nuclear power plant in Kaliningrad is already being constructed. Why was it necessary to build the new power plant in the Russian region where the demand for electricity is relatively small?

The demand for electricity in the Kaliningrad Oblast is indeed significant. In the past we used to import electricity from the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant. Today, approximately 40 per cent of the electricity the region receives from a power plant in Smolensk via Belarus and Lithuania. Such a way of transmission is difficult in technological terms and is unreliable. Second, Kaliningrad is a rapidly-developing region.

There are many large construction projects; residential houses, commercial buildings are constructed and roads are built. Many investors, however, are forced to limit their capabilities, because there is not enough electric power. It is a real problem that hinders the development of Kaliningrad. Today in Russia we are building eight new nuclear power plants and are utilizing 10 power plants – 32 blocks in total. In the regions were the nuclear power plants are built, production is developed.

We are convinced that the first reactor of the Kaliningra! d nuclear power plant will fully satisfy the region’s demand for electricity. We intend to export the electricity produced by the second reactor.

I would like to note that currently three electric transmission links are active between Lithuania and Kaliningrad, which make it possible to transfer to Lithuania the amount of electricity produced by one reactor of the power plant. Lithuania could use part of this electricity and could supply the rest via transit to Latvia and Estonia or to Poland through a planned power link.

Power line under the Baltic Sea

Our country’s leaders, however, have repeatedly stated they are not considering the option of buying electricity from the Baltic Nuclear Power Plant, which is being built.

After the closure of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, Lithuania buys a lot of electric power. Any reasonable man buys where it is cheaper. We are convinced that our electricity will be cheaper than in that of other suppliers.

We also have alternative options of selling electric power – we can build a transmission cable to Germany under the Baltic Sea – Germany is very interested in cheap electricity. The Nord Stream natural gas pipeline will reach Germany at a spot where in the past a large electric power plant used to stand and which now is closed. The necessary infrastructure is still there. If next to the Nord Stream we constructed the electric power cable, due to the existing infrastructure these works would be cheaper.

We, however, think that it would be fairer to agree with Lithuania over the transit via the territory of your country and to build another line from Kaliningrad to Poland. We already proposed this to Poland.

The Lithuanian project has gotten stuck

Lithuania intends to build its own nuclear power plant. What do you think about this project?

I wish you the best. Unfortunately, I see that this project has been advancing very slowly for two years, even though the site of the new nuclear plant is suitable, infrastructure exists, and you have professional and experienced specialists.

In the best case scenario, from the time of selecting a project for building the nuclear plant until the beginning of the project’s implementation you will spend two to three years. Nuclear energy projects are strictly regulated. Therefore, it takes a long time to build a nuclear power plant. Even if you selected a project on 1 July, you would be able to start the construction only in 2012 and the construction would last at least five years. Therefore, according to the most optimistic scenario you will be able to launch your nuclear power plant in 2017.

We intend to build our nuclear power plant together with foreign investors. Are Russian companies interested in this project?

The Rosenergoatom Corporation builds nuclear power plants and manages them only in Russia. Atomstroyeksport, a specialized Russian company, however, builds nuclear power plants abroad.

As far as I know, a year ago Atomstroyeksport made a proposal to Lithuania that it was ready to participate in the construction of the power plant, to present technological solutions, and to consider the issues related to the project’s financing. We have not received a positive reply from Lithuania, but we are open and are ready to build the nuclear power plant and to participate in the financing of the project.

In building the Baltic Nuclear Power Plant in Kaliningrad, we invite European companies to join the project. We are prepared to sell 49 per cent of the power plant’s shares. We made proposals to energy companies of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland.

Interested in selling at a cheaper price

What do you think about the independent electric energy market, which exists for a few months in Lithuania?

EU directives provide for creation of uniform, transparent rules for selling electric power. We think it is a very fair initiative.

The Kaliningrad Oblast will be interested in joining such a market. Without a doubt, we will adhere to all set conditions and will propose electricity under conditions that will be similar to those proposed by others.

Today average electric power price in Europe ranges between 40 and 60 Euros for 1 MW. The price of our electricity is two or three times lower.

We welcome Lithuania’s ties with Europe, but we think that we are competitive as well. We are interested in selling electricity at lower prices and in making money in this market.

Former chairman of the Supreme Council of Lithuania, currently Member of the European Parliament, Vytautas Landsbergis said, “Lithuania has the right to have friendly, legal (ruled by law – LTribune) and European states be it to the East or West of its borders, the right to not be threatened by either offensive military manoeuvres nor Iskanders, Mistrals or entirely new fleets placed in the Baltic Sea to protect some captive pipeline.”

Recently Lithuania was feasted with French pasta, so as if that ship or ships will ostensibly be sold to Russia without armament – like ferries, which could be used to transport the cows to the pastures on the islands. The function of these ships is indeed offensive operations from sea to the shore, and the fact if they will carry French or Russian helicopters or not is not a paramount issue. The paramount issues are the speed and offensive and airborne power, and even more important issue is the role of these ships as means for intimidation, for carrying out psychological warfare. It is an old Stalinist tradition for establishing „friendly relations“ by military intimidation (even though it is forbidden by international conventions).

When using these ships, Russia will more quickly recapture the Baltic and Black Seas, which since long time ago lawfully belonged to it, or will anew start its domination there. France seemingly approves to such a standpoint of its partner. The President of the Russian Federation who had arrived to Paris “for an exclusive deal” stated that this will be a symbol of the confidence between the two countries. At the same time for some EU and NATO states this would also be a symbol for mistrust and disappointment towards France, but for Paris this is less important.

By the way, the French President has acknowledged that he is going to a better “Gazprom” and military union with Russia due to the latter’s promises to think about the sanctions on Iran. For some reason this reminds the joke of the US General Norman Schwarzkopf after the First Gulf War (for Kuwait), according which to go to the battle with the French is the same as to bring an accordion to the hunting. What in the NATO system will replace the sold accordion?

The plans to build the gas pipe in the Baltic Sea and to “protect” it, while using the power of the Russian military fleet (that was already tested aside our borders during the autumn military exercises) are known to everyone. It will be possible to deploy the “Mistral” permanently. If somebody took this into consideration, this would seem to be an inconceivable naivety – let‘s scarify Georgia, but maybe we will remain untouched. Of course, this is an indecency as well. Previously big wars emanated out of it.

The opinion of some “Lithuanian war experts” that “Mistral” is not causing a threat for the many-sided security of our country is inconceivable. A cute ship does not make any difference. If in summer, as it was suggested, we would build on the beach a big aircraft-carrier-shaped tin toilet with an inscription of „MИСРAЛ“ on it, it would be even useful.

The text was published in Alfa.lt on 3 March

One could get such an impression last Monday (February the 8th) when it was announced that France is possibly going to sell to Russia a military ship of “Mistral” class, which is of amphibian type and is capable to bring to urgent operations several battalions of soldiers, tanks and other combatant cargo, helicopters (thus, it is being planned to sell a ship, which anywhere in the “near neighbourhood” could be used as a platform for any several-hours-long special operation of an offensive character). The criteria, confirmed by the European Union for the export of weapons, makes one to dream this French dream, because according to this criteria weaponry can be sold only for those states that comply to the principle of non-use of force, does not cause a threat for the neighbours and the EU member states, does not violate human rights. It could seem that the decision of France shows, that France considers Russia as exactly a state, complying with these criteria or would like to consider it as such at least in a dream.

Unfortunately, the reality seems to be completely different than that one of the French dream. On the 8th of December 2008, in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the Council of the European Union adopted a Common position 2008/944/CFSP by which the general rules for the control of military technology and equipment were defined. This Common position replaced the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Export (adopted in 1998), which was in action till the adoption of the new Position, and which had essentially an identical content. The 2nd article of the Common position defines the criteria, resting upon which decisions, concerning exports of weaponry, should be made. In total eight criteria that should be taken into consideration are indicated and revealed. While selling a ship of „Mistral“ class for Russia, France is seemingly disregarding even four of these criteria.

First, the first criterion would be disregarded, which indicates that while making a decision on the sale of weaponry, respect for human rights and humanitarian law in the purchasing state should be taken into consideration.

Especially such severe violations of human rights as tournaments and inhuman treatment of other kind, non-judicial executions, forced disappearances should be taken into consideration.

The European Court of Human Rights has so far investigated more than 40 cases of violations of human rights in Chechnya, in these cases it is stipulated that Russia is responsible for the mass massacres of civic people, executed by her military forces (non-judicial executions, i.e., immediately in the street shooting at women and children, burning their corpses, attacking the caravans of war refugees), for their torments in the places of unauthorized detainment (in such concentration camps like

Chernokozov), for disappearance of many people (herewith, the Court stressed that the forced disappearances is a mass phenomenon in Chechnya).

The decision of France on the “Mistral” ship could demonstrate that all the EU countries are on equality with each other and solidary with, however some of them enjoy more equality than others, and solidarity, according to the French point of view, should only mean an approval to her aforementioned sweet dream about the trustworthy democratic partner Russia. Out of these cases one can make conclusions about crimes against humanity and war crimes, committed by Russia, however, one still has not heard about effective investigations of these crimes and the punishment of the guilty (the European Court of Human Rights has just noticed that Russia is not fulfilling her duty to investigate the violations if human rights). It is not even worth to write about other violations of human rights, executed in different regions of Russia. It’s just possible to remind that most of the petitions, submitted to the European Court of Human Rights are directed against Russia.

Second, one of the most important and relevant criterion, defined in the 2 nd article of the Common position is the third criterion, which notes that it is necessary to take into consideration the interests of regional peace, security and stability. In other words, weaponry should not be sold, if it can be used for aggression against the other country and satisfaction of territorial pretensions.

It is obvious that the decision of France to sell the “Mistral” ship to Russia is contradicting to the aforementioned criterion, as the representatives of Russian armed forces have declared that by purchasing this kind of a ship, Russia would compensate present deficiencies of her capacities and would be more effective in the sea while reacting to the actions of Georgian forces, while “defending Abkhazia and South Ossetia”. So, an intent to use, in case of a need, a ship, which is planned to be purchased, for aggressive actions against Georgia, for the continuation of the occupation of the parts of her territory (Abkhazia and South Ossetia).

Third, the decision of France would obviously contradict to the fifth criterion, which demands to take into consideration the security interests of the other EU countries, as well as the ally countries (i.e., those of the other NATO countries), as well as of the other friendly states (though Georgia’s). One *inter alia*, should take into consideration the risks of using the purchased weaponry against the armed forces of the other EU or NATO members. The appearance of the ship, purchased by Russia, in the Baltic Sea would cause a reasoned concern of the Baltic states about Russia’s soar away military potential, and, what is most important, in a critical case, this ship could be used for announced and simulated in the war games Russia’s plans to prevent the backup, provided by the other NATO members to the Baltic states across the Baltic Sea and to block the entrance for the military ships of the NATO countries to the Baltic Sea.

Fourth, the decision of France would also be incompatible with the sixth criterion which *inter alia* indicates to take into consideration the way, how the purchasing state is regarding international law, especially the commitments of non-use of force. It seems that the most eloquent indicator of Russia’s point of view to the international commitments of non-use of force is the continuing occupation of the parts of Georgia’s territory (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and the fact that the six-clause plan, which was undersigned in August 2008, under the intermediation of the French president, and according to which Russia committed herself to withdraw her forces to those positions that she had before the commencement of military actions against Georgia, was not implemented.

On the contrary, international law is being violated further on and more severely while Russia is recognizing the puppet “state” bodies of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In such a context the fact that while conflicting to the international law and commitments under the bilateral Treaty of interstate relations, Russia is denying the restoration of Lithuania’s independence on the 11 March, 1990 and is making an attempt to the very basement of Lithuania’s statehood, looks like a tiny thing.

While seeing that France is going to disregard the criteria for weaponry purchasing, established in the Common position, it is also necessary also to state, that in such a case France would not comply with the 29th article of the treaty of the European Union (until the Treaty of Lisbon it was named as the 15th article), which is committing the member states to ensure that their national policies are complying to the common positions of the EU.  And in general such a decision of France would be incompatible with the principle of solidarity between member states, which is established in the EU Treaty (i.e., the 3rd section of the 24th article of the Treaty stipulates that the member states should in the spirit of solidarity support Common Foreign and Security Policy, develop mutual political solidarity).

According to the EU criteria, for the exports of weaponry, weaponry can be sold only for those states that comply to the principle of the non-use of force, are not causing threat for the neighbouring countries and EU members, are not violating human rights.

Of course, France could start claiming that it is possible not to apply the Common position, because she will ostensibly sell the ship without weaponry, only as a platform and for civic purposes. However, only very naïve people or those who pretend to be like that could believe that in such a ship no modern weaponry will be placed and it will be used only for catching sprats, crabs and other seafood or for rescuing the fisherman. Moreover, one also has to be deaf and not to hear the dreams of the chief of the Russian military fleet about opening possibilities of quick operations against Georgia, when the “Mistral” ship will be purchased.

France also could support the formal attitude while claiming that the Common positions of the EU are the documentation that is more politically than legally binding, as there’re no effective legal means to force the states to regard this documentation (i.e., an analogical responsibility procedure for the violation of the legal acts of other areas while submitting a claim to the Court of Justice of the European Communities is impossible).  However, after having adopted this attitude, one should turn one’s back to the idea of solidarity and the EU, as union of countries, cherishing common values.

Solidarity is not and cannot be only a formal legal category that is allowing disregarding national security interests of the other EU states and international security interests in general.  The contents of the real solidarity is revealed, having in mind not so much legal, but its moral and political aspect, which presupposes not unilateralism, but regarding the interests of the club of other EU states, the search for common attitudes and common decisions. Usually France, while encouraging the deepening of integration, also used to advocate such a conception of the solidarity between the EU members.

Meanwhile now it seems that France’s decision on the “Mistral” ship would demonstrate, that all the EU countries are on a equality with each other and solidary with, however, some of them enjoy more equality than the others, and solidarity, according to the view of France, should only mean an approval for her aforementioned sweet dream about the trustworthy, democratic partner Russia. Similarly, solidarity should mean an approval for the dreams of Germany, according which the “Nord Stream” gas pipe is “nothing else than business and no politics” and will not cause any threat for the energetic security of the other EU states.

Thus, looking from the perspectives of Lithuania and other Central Europe countries, being solidary with and loyal soon can mean unconditional implementation of EU legal and common positions on foreign and security policy questions, when the great and old EU members (such as France) can afford themselves to ignore these positions, by raising, in cases of need, some formal arguments or simply pretending that the reality is such as they would like it to be. Namely, “Mistral” can create such a French precedent of solidarity.

—————————————————————————-
The commentary is published by courtesy of Prof. Dainius Žalimas.  The author is an Associate Professor at Vilnius University, Faculty of Law.  The original article was published on delfi.lt

This wall was crossing not only Berlin, but also the whole Europe. It was separating the independent Western nations from the subjugated people of the East. Those, who were straining at the leash through the wall, had to pay by their blood. Those, who were trying to thrust to the other side through the other walls, had to suffer for years in gulags. And Germany got united in freedom and not in capitalism as it is sometimes claimed.

This line was drawn earlier than it appeared in Berlin. Stalin drew it in September 1939, who, by undersigning this act, certified, that this was his property.

Later on this line was corrected and pushed towards the West; however, corrections were done not for all the parts of the line. The strategic areas of Central Europe and nations living there were assigned to Stalin. After five years the Western democracies confirmed the line of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (MRP) in Yalta and Potsdam, and thus the Baltic States were given to the Stalin’s empire.

It seems that in this way the great leaders of the United Kingdom and the United States of America did homage to Joachim von Ribbentrop (this could be truth as Ribbentrop was hanged also for totally different crimes).

Moscow remained grateful and still respects J.von Ribbentrop, saying, that the Baltic States were a legitimate part of the Soviet Union. When Russia was trying to prevent our membership in the European Union (EU) and NATO, it was for a long time resting upon on these two arguments: the will of Stalin and Hitler, expressed in 1939-1941 and concrete wall in Kremlin. It was easier to destroy the wall though.

For this reason I am talking about the Berlin Wall as a symbol and metaphor. In the heads of some politicians this wall still exists, it exists at least as their dream. We just must to talk about this.

This is important; as for us MRP dividing line didn’t cease to exist even after 2004, when we joined the EU and NATO.

If the Russian military fleet will safeguard the ”Gazprom” pipe, which started respective exercises this autumn, a new Moscow-Berlin wall can arise again and it would range from Vyborg to Greifswald.

Thus the three Baltic States will be again left on Moscow side and the neutral maritime zones with the economic zones will be *de facto* annexed, Berlin will enjoy the new pact and benefits, and in Finland and Denmark we will see extra “ribbentrops” – those who agreed on the rise of this wall.

Poland expresses disagreement, Sweden capitulated after long considerations.

It is possible to add some “ancient wisdom”: those nations, who support the enslavement of other nations, are not free themselves.

Finland, who agrees that her ethnic brothers Estonians will be poisoned by the poisonous sediments from the bottom of the bay, is not free.

Germany and Denmark, as well as Sweden, who agree that the Balts will be left on the other side of the annexed waters on the Russian side, are not free.

Even the remote Spain, who is the only one state that currently blocks the simplified visa regime for the citizens of Georgia and thus is making Moscow happy, is not free.

Maybe France is also getting not free as now she is on the way to sell to Russia a modern air carrier, which will alleviate the future military operations, in the Black sea is getting not free.

Recently I’ve heard these words of Vaclav Havel: “Politics that appreciates the economic benefit and cheaper gas more than moral values is not only amoral, it is self-destructive”.

We don’t want suicidal Germany as well as suicidal Europe. We will support life; we will support the “pro-life” idea in all the senses. However, in Lithuania we can still observe the lack of understanding that life is stemming from soul and love.

Vilnius University, November the 5th, 2009

*Translated by Milda Bagdonaitė*

Alfa.lt, Lietuvos žinios

The Swedish Environment Minister Anders Carlgren said”We have thus concluded that a yes is the only available decision. The government is satisfied that the planned route is in accordance with Swedish responsibilities to protect and preserve the marine environment”.

In the Governmental press release the Minister stated, “The government has set high demands to ensure that the sensitive environment in the Baltic Sea is not threatened. The company has been required to provide a series of supplementary examinations and has satisfied each stage of the deliberation process.”

The Finnish Helsingin Sanomat informed that the Finnish Government is very likely to follow the Swedish move.  A final decision on Finnish approval for the pipeline project is to come by early next year from the Western Finland Environmental Permit Authority.

Denmark approved the Nord Stream at the end of October.

The Lithuanian President Grybauskaite, meanwhile in the Summit in Brussels on 30 October stated “The “Nord Stream” project is very sensitive, and it is sensitive not only environmentally, but politically also. And the phenomena when such kind of strategic projects are practically negotiated on a bilateral basis beyond the framework of the EU, of course, is a phenomena which, politically, for some member states is not easy to accept,” BNS informed.

The Lithuanian Prime Minister Kubilius stated at the beginning of Autumn to BNs “We’re certainly concerned and we’re against it, both for environmental issues that could ensue and for certain political consequences, and Russia’s openly-declared bid to dominate in the Baltic Sea and use its military force for alleged protection of the pipeline, and because of how this could change Gazprom’s attitude to supplying gas to countries outside the reach of the pipeline, including the Baltic States.”

Bernardinai.lt quoted BNS Mr Kubilius’ saying; “Hot debates are under way in Finland, there’s no unanimous stance.  Their discussions are gaining speed, becoming more topical and more ardent. One thing I know of is that the Finnish government in the end of September, beginning of October is planning to come with some decision. The prime minister didn’t reveal what tone the decision may take on. We certainly stand against it, and this I’ve also communicated to the Finnish prime minister”.

The Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Moller have confirmed that Denmark is leaning towards giving a permission to the project being build through its territory.

He said, “The final decision will be made in a couple of months. I guess it will be positive. It seems it will be positive.  We have told Nord Stream what things have to be changed to live up to the standards of environment when you pass through the Danish territorial waters. And they have met our demands. That means that environmentally it seems that it is OK with Denmark.”