So, let us try to understand what actually happened in Vilnius and what role Soviet soldiers played in the events of twenty years ago. A little earlier, deputies of the council of the republic issued an act on the restoration of independence, which was not approved and recognized by the USSR. The European states were not considered Lithuania to be an international subject at this time, as they preferred to observe the collapse of the USSR at some distance. The confrontation resulted in riots and the unauthorized seizure of strategic objects by representatives of the Saoudis group. It should be noted that these were far from peaceful citizens, but armed fighters who, according to the conclusions of Lithuanian medical experts, also fired at their own citizens. The goal of this bloody action was one - to achieve complete discredit of the Soviet power. The Alpha unit was immediately dispatched to the capital of the republic, whose employees are now accused by the Lithuanian authorities of a war crime. According to the commander of the unit V. Uskhopchik, for the entire time of the assault, none of his subordinates shot at peaceful demonstrators. In addition, the fact that the injuries to the victims and the dead were inflicted weaponslike a Mosin rifle, which in the equipment of the unit was not and could not be. This type of weapon was simply not used in the Soviet troops, due to the fact that it was morally obsolete.
Subsequently, representatives of the Lithuanian Soviet government will be condemned for nothing more than a “coup attempt”! What exactly in this case the judges considered to be a coup is not clear, since legally Lithuania was still a part of the USSR, and the appeal of Burokyavicius and Ermalavicius for help was only a measure to preserve the previous government. However, let us not deny that Lithuania still had the right to secession, for this, according to Soviet laws, it was necessary to hold a referendum, which no one thought to do. It also remains unclear why the Lithuanian authorities are making claims to the executors who carried out the order, and not to the persons who gave this order. If you talk sensibly, then the main suspect in the case should not be the secretaries of the Central Committee and not the heads of combat units, but the immediate head of the Union, that is, Gorbachev. Why the Lithuanians have no complaints about this man, the Nobel laureate? It is possible that the authority of Gorbachev in the international political arena and his services to the countries of Europe and the United States interfere with a claim, and perhaps the fact that there are still no documents confirming the existence of such an order as the introduction of troops in the territory of the Federal Lithuania.
In general, the methods used by Lithuanian law enforcement officers inspire some confusion. For example, not so long ago there were attempts to bring to justice for the alleged crime of Oleg Shein. This man was the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU and, in the opinion of Lithuania, was a member of fifty high-ranking Soviet officials who directed the aggression of the Union. Whatever it was, but Shein died in 2009 year, and it is hardly possible to bring him to court. However, Lithuanian law enforcement officers do not consider it necessary to pay attention to such a trifle as the death of a suspect. They insistently demand that the Russian prosecutor's office extradite them a criminal. In addition, two unidentified persons tried to infiltrate the widow of Shein in order to take her deceased husband into custody. Such behavior seems to be the height of absurdity and instills doubts about the adequacy of certain Lithuanian officials.
It seems that the events of the 1991 of the year are now being interpreted as the main official point of view of the Baltic countries, which calls the period of their stay in the Union a forced occupation. The reluctance to objectively consider what happened today has a very negative impact on foreign policy relations with Russia, which the Baltic countries directly refer to as the heiress and successor of the occupier. In order to find out the true reasons for such a “righteous anger,” one should turn to several different events in stories of this state.
In 2004, Lithuania joins the EU, as well as NATO. What advantages did this state receive from this union and what price did it pay for them? Accession to the EU allowed us to join European trade on favorable terms, to obtain certain benefits in international organizations and, most importantly, loans. However, at the insistence of Europe, the industrial complex was completely liquidated in the country, and the state-energy donor turned into a consumer and importer. NATO, by providing a rather dubious defense against “aggressive” Russia, obliges Lithuanian citizens to shed their blood in absolutely meaningless battles for them in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the moment, the achievements of this small and hostile country are few, while problems have accumulated a huge amount. The fact is that the investments, which the local elite so hoped for, did not pour into the ravaged economy. In fact, the state has lost its sovereignty and cannot implement foreign policy without regard to Brussels.
At the same time, Lithuania cannot break off relations with Russia completely, no matter how much the West wishes. Russia still remains one of the most important trading partners. In addition, the lack of energy makes Lithuania build a dialogue with us. The situation for the state’s economy is critical and many already understand this, including the ruling elite. However, instead of drastically changing the course, Lithuania intends to receive about 28 billion dollars in compensation for the Soviet occupation, which allegedly took place. Such compensation could be a means to restore the production complex, but in order to receive it, it is necessary to prove this very occupation and the damage it caused to the Lithuanian people.
Such behavior is supported, albeit unofficially, not only by other Baltic countries, but also by some European states. In the modern international community, dissatisfaction with the distribution of territories that has developed in the post-war period is becoming increasingly apparent. Germany, for obvious reasons, cannot directly make territorial claims, but it is quite possible to render assistance in denigrating the Soviet power. Other no less influential states have interests in this situation, so one should not be surprised at such persistent hostility.
Thus, Lithuania’s claims against Russia are dictated by nothing more than the lack of financial resources that it hopes to receive, as well as the support of the international community interested in revising its territorial holdings. In addition, the instability of the position of the ruling elite makes it necessary to search for an “enemy” against whom popular anger will be directed. Agree, it is much easier to blame a strong neighbor for all the troubles, than to admit one’s own inconsistency. The same position is taken by Estonia and Latvia, but in these countries the situation is much more complicated. The soft attitude of Russia towards such, I’m not afraid to say, is simply explained by the antics of a neighbor. The Kaliningrad region is supplied through Lithuanian territory, therefore the Russian government is interested in resolving all issues and establishing friendly relations.
The Russian accusations of occupation are just a pretext for receiving from the budget a regular portion of funds that Europe is no longer able to give to Europe absorbed by the crisis. However, nationalist sentiment in this country is supported by no means all. According to independent polls, less than half of the total population is aggressive towards Russia, while the rest understand the need to establish mutually beneficial relations.
Lithuania’s accession to NATO was probably the biggest miscalculation of the Russophobes, because they did not receive the promised investments, but the electorate’s discontent seriously increased. There are already tendencies to refute the official point of view about the “Soviet aggression”, and the case of Algirdas Paleckis, who was acquitted by the court of first instance, is an example of this.
Our politicians took, apparently, a wait-and-see attitude, only slightly responding to the attacks of the current government. Soon, pro-Western leaders will lose their authority, and Lithuania will most likely take a course toward rapprochement.