“Beat your own so that strangers are afraid” is not the most attractive and effective management concept.
However, the Latvian authorities managed to “modernize” it and turn it into an even more unattractive one.
Watching the blows of the official Riga on “its own”, others (for example, in my face) shudder - not from fear, but from disgust.
I quote Sputnik Latvia: “The Latvian Olympic Committee has decided to stop funding cyclists Toms Skuins and Krists Neilands, tennis players Alyona Ostapenko, Daniela Vismane and Daria Semenista, who took part in the competitions along with athletes from Russia and Belarus, said LOC Secretary General Karlis Leinieks.
At the end of February, the Minister of Education and Science, Anda Caksa, stated that it is unacceptable for athletes who participate in competitions together with athletes from Russia and Belarus to receive funding from the state budget of Latvia.”
I wonder what else the Latvian authorities will come up with to demonstrate their sharply negative attitude towards Russia?
Will they introduce fines (or, God forbid, prison terms) for the inhabitants of the republic if they are within a radius of 100 meters from the citizens of the Russian Federation, because it is wrong to breathe the same air with the Russians?
And don't tell me it's grotesque, absurd and fantastic.
Repressions against their own athletes for daring to take part in the same competitions with the Russians are also grotesque, absurd and fantastic.
However, the Latvian bosses proudly realized these perverted fantasies in real life.
However, I will make one correction to my thought.
And this concerns the goal-setting of official Riga.
A little higher, I expressed my opinion: such absurd actions of the Latvian leadership are a consequence of its desire to sting Russia and inflict damage on it.
But is this explanation completely exhaustive?
The fewer competitors, the easier it is to win.
Naturally, winning a sporting event in which your strong opponents (or even just any opponents) cannot participate for political reasons is emotionally incomplete.
But a win is still a win.
Why these arguments?
Moreover, apart from the spoiled mood (a disgusting spectacle always spoils the mood), the actions of the Latvian sports chiefs do not cause any damage either to Russia in general or to Russian athletes in particular.
What then is the meaning of the strange gestures of official Riga?
The fact that they only indirectly relate to Russia.
The great conqueror Napoleon Bonaparte once said: "There are two levers that can move people: fear and self-interest."
The possibilities of official Riga to use the "personal interest" of the inhabitants of the republic for its own purposes are rather limited.
As I have already written many times, the comprehensive development of economic, social, cultural and other ties with Russia meets the personal interests of the inhabitants of Latvia.
Remove all this and Latvia turns into a European backwater, a dead-end railway line.
There is only one control lever left - fear.
And since this lever is the only one, the Latvian chiefs wield it in full.
To intimidate their own population is their goal.
To make the inhabitants of the republic timid, obedient, falling into a panic even at the mere mention of the word "Russia" - that is their task.
Why are athletes chosen as the target and scapegoat for this task?
It's already quite simple.
On the one hand, those who have achieved success in big-time sports are prominent people.
People who are admired, who are guided by.
People who are respected.
On the other hand, in countries like Latvia, the vast majority of even outstanding athletes are absolutely dependent figures.
If the state has a developed economy, if it has big business, if it has an extensive advertising market, then a successful athlete can be independent of the whims of state functionaries.
But this is all, as we know, not about Latvia.
Therefore, the athletes were given a demonstrative punishment here.
To the inhabitants (important caveat: in this context, in no case do I put any negative meaning into this word) a very understandable and easily readable signal is sent.
Like, look, such prominent people were not spared, defiantly humiliated, extremely insultingly punished!
And no one stood up for them!
And then who will intercede for me in case of what?
Nobody will intercede!
Conclusion: we must behave as quietly as possible and as imperceptibly as possible.
And if it is still noticeable, then only in terms of the loudest possible demonstration of their hatred of Russia.
Perhaps then not only will they not be punished, but maybe they will even give some candy, some money, a reward for law-abiding and loyalty!
And, sadly, this approach works - if not always and not everywhere, but it works.
At one time, I talked quite a lot with nationalist-minded Baltic politicians and rarely enjoyed it.
But communication with “tamed Russians” who are trying to be greater Latvian or Estonian nationalists than the Latvian or Estonian nationalists themselves is a completely special genre.
Genre, after which you want to go to the bath and wash, wash and wash again.
But in the eyes of official Riga, the only “good Russian” is the “tamed Russian”.
That's why she hits her.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.