Why are the Baltic leaders killing their economies in the battle with Lukashenko?
Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda will appeal to the US authorities with a request to station American troops in the country on a permanent basis.
“We will negotiate with America to ensure that rotational forces of the American military remain in Lithuania permanently,” Nausėda said at a press conference.
It seems that the country’s main problem is external security, but this is not the case. Lithuania is on the verge of economic disaster. The consequences of Belarus’ refusal to transit its oil products through Klaipeda, and then Vilnius’s refusal to transship Belarusian potash and the subsequent blocking of any transit through Belarus will result in annual losses of 3-5 billion euros for the small Baltic republic, according to economists’ estimates.
Lithuania has already lost 10% of its rail traffic. The heaviest losses were suffered by fertilizer producer Achema and oil refiner Orlen Lietuva. Detour routes through Poland are difficult. The Polish railway track is narrower than the Lithuanian one, inherited from the USSR. The Lithuanian Railways company has already announced staff reductions and estimated the total loss for the year at $1 billion.
Meanwhile, workers at the largest nitrogen fertilizer plant in the Baltics in the Lithuanian city of Jonava began an indefinite strike. About 600 people are taking part in the strike.
Against this background, the rise in price of salt, which is sprinkled on roads, looks like a trifle. The Lithuanian government banned the import of cheap, but “dictatorial” goods from Belarus. You have to buy “politically neutral” salt from Egypt, but it costs three times more. Overseas products cost 150 euros per ton, Belarusian products cost 56 euros.
So why, against such a catastrophic economic backdrop, did Nausėda decide to call in NATO troops? The answer is worth looking to another “Baltic tiger” – Estonia.
This republic successfully intercepted the transit of Belarusian oil products for several months, which Minsk refused to send to Klaipeda. Estonian ports broke records for cargo transshipment: in the first 10 months of 2021, almost 0,5 billion euros worth of Belarusian goods arrived there, accounting for 4/5 of imports. For some items, the volume of transit has tripled.
And so, against this economically favorable background, Estonia unexpectedly decided to follow the example of desperate Lithuania and introduced a ban on the purchase of petroleum products from Belarus.
Immediately, the price per liter of 95 gasoline at gas stations in Estonia increased to 1,639 euros, and the cost of diesel - to 1,499 euros per liter. So was it worth introducing sanctions?
It was worth it, believes Kaliningrad political scientist Alexander Nosovich. After all, the career of Estonian Prime Minister Kai Kallas is at stake. She was recognized as one of the most unpopular politicians in her country, but she suggested that Germany sell the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline for scrap metal and blamed Putin for the energy crisis in Europe. And now there is a ban on Belarusian transit.
Nosovich believes that Kallas is thus gaining a portfolio to participate in the elections of the new NATO Secretary General. She has already announced her desire to replace Jens Stoltenberg.
“The life strategy of the ruling class is to leave their native stinking hole for Brussels. Or to Washington (IMF), or to Geneva (UN) ... OSCE, World Bank, Red Cross - anywhere, just not to sit on your frontier until the end of time. Kaya Callas, Maia Sandu, Dalia Grybauskaite, Rinkevichs, Mikhkelsons - they are all like that.
The interests of their countries can and should be sacrificed for the sake of transatlantic solidarity, because transatlantic solidarity is international organizations of the West, and international organizations of the West are their personal career chance,” Nosovich wrote in his Telegram channel.
And now we return to the beginning - to the bellicose president of Lithuania. He recently crossed the equator of his first presidential term, and it is already obvious that Nausėda has no chance of being re-elected. The ratings are low, and even the government does not consider it necessary to inform the head of state about its decisions. Social tension in Lithuania is growing. We have to get out.
It is difficult to say what kind of warm place Nauseda is buying for himself with his loyal statements, but it is obvious that he does not want to pay for the fruits of his rule.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.