Lithuania today

 
Neo-Nazis marching in Vilnius during
Lithuania’s Independence Day, 11 March 2011.
Photo: http://holocaustinthebaltics.com

Intolerance, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and homophobia. These are words and terms we unfortunately have heard and seen far too often in Lithuanian media in recent years.

This country that for hundreds of years was a thriving cradle for co-existence between people from many nations, cultures and religions. Or, as the British historian Norman Davies puts it: “Lithuania was a haven of tolerance”. Davies was not the only one who took notice of this. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466 – 1536) is quoted as stating; “I congratulate this nation [Lithuania] which now, in sciences, jurisprudence, morals, and religion, and in all that separates us from barbarism, is so flourishing that it can rival the first and most glorious of nations.”

But no longer so. Today’s Lithuania faces several forms and manifestations of intolerance. According to B.O. Dittrich (2007), Lithuania is the most homophobic of all the EU countries. In 2000 a survey conducted by European Value Study Group showed that the level of xenophobia in Lithuania is one of the highest in Europe. For example, as much as 23% of Lithuanians would not like to be neighbours with Jews (with Russians – 14, Estonians – 11.2%, Latvians – 5.2%, Germans – 5.2%, Swedes – 2.1%).

Attitude towards immigrants is as bad – 22.7% of Lithuanians would not like to be neighbours with immigrants, 94.2% believe that they should get a job before the immigrants, 55.2% do not think that our country should accept refugees, and as much as 58% of Lithuanians do not trust foreign companies.

During the spring of this year we have seen neo-Nazis marching through Vilnius on Lithuania’s Independence Day, we have seen the neo-Nazis hoisting swastika flags on the nation’s official flag poles, and we have seen lawmakers in the country’s Committee on Legal Affairs vote to make even more stringent censorship legislation for homosexuals, saying that they should be able to fine people for the "propagation of homosexual relations" in public.

This has earned condemnation from EU groups, but the European commission scarcely dares to take action when member states disregard with what West Europe consider fundamental rights for its people. For example, when the law that bans the “promotion of homosexuality”, little was heard from the EU.

Reactions from Lithuanian leaders against this worrisome trend has unfortunately also been relatively vague, although there are signs that some finally begin to wake up. But there are still some politicians who seem to breed homophobia and racism in this country.

VilNews will for some time focus on the problem of intolerance, and we do hereby open up for serious posts, interviews and articles on this theme. We begin today with an interview with Professor Irena Veisaite (below) and we urge you, dear readers, to write to us with your own thoughts and reflections.

Maybe one day we will again be able call Lithuania ‘A Haven of Tolerance’…

QUOTE: Prophet Muhammad (570-632)

Without that I knew about it had my 4-year-old daughter made this drawing,
almost a month after she and I had seen on CNN how the planes crashed
into the twin towers in New York on 11 September 2001.

11 SEPTEMBER 2001: I had just come home to our apartment here in Vilnius after having brought my then 4-year-old daughter home from kindergarten. She was playing on the floor beside me while I sat down to watch the latest world news on CNN. What I saw on the screen in front of me was so unreal that I first could not believe that this was real news. My first thought was that CNN was showing fragments of a new film or the like. But it soon dawned on me that what I was seeing was the beginning of an unimaginable attack and a tragedy that would forever change our world's history and development.

11 September 2001 was the day when America was attacked on its own soil. The unthinkable had happened.

Today, 2 May 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan by US special troops.

The almost ten years that have followed since that September day in 2001, have brought enormous changes, not only in the U.S., but to the entire world. The war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the new Arab revolts, and countless suicide attacks across virtually the entire world have all become symbols of our time -- in a way few of us could have imagined when the new millennium had barely started.

Lithuania has been little influenced by the 'war on terror'. Admittedly, the country is participating with troops in Afghanistan and it also became an almost-scandal when it became known that the CIA had two prisons for suspected terrorists here since 2005.

But even if Lithuania is not so much directly affected by what has happened around the world after the attack on the twin towers in New York on 11 September 2001, this country is also a part of a global society that is both physically and mentally experiencing enormous repercussions.

I have often asked myself: "What kind of world is it our children have to grow up in post-9/11? The daily traumas inflicted to the children in the two countries that have been hardest hit, Iraq and Afghanistan, are naturally the worst and most long-term harmful, but our children in the so-called free world have undoubtedly also been influenced by what happened and they will for many years have to experience the consequences in many different ways.

I was not aware that my little daughter saw what took place on the TV screen this September day ten years ago, so I must admit I was slightly shocked and shaken when she suddenly, a month later, came to give me a drawing she had made. The image of 'a plane flying into the tall tower' had been instilled in the child brain, and here she came to me with her visualisation of what she had seen and experienced in her thoughts when I thought she was quietly playing, occupied in her own childish world.

It goes without saying that we, the adults, need to help children feel as safe as possible at a time when the world has become a more dangerous place. Parents and teachers in particular should help youngsters understand current events factually, how events do or do not impact their lives, and how to handle their emotional reactions. All children are likely to be affected in some way by ‘the age of terrorism’.

For many of our children, the guidance of caring adults will make the difference between being overwhelmed and developing life-long emotional and psychological coping skills. It is crucial to provide opportunity for children to discuss their concerns and to help them separate real from imagined fears.

The lessons of 11 September 2001 are many. Some ‘contribute’ by burning the Quran. Others work for reconciliation and understanding between the people of our fragile little planet.

Hopefully the lesson of 2 May 2011 will be a peaceful one.

Aage Myhre
Editor

Lithuania's business people and government officials are yet to learn the necessity of good communications. Without a two way communication there is no possibility for further contacts. One of the most frustrating experiences I had was in e-mail (before that it was in regular "snail mail") communications. I would write and write but receive no reply (with only a few exceptions).

When I was working, our management had a rule - "answer all letters received in not more than three days. If there is no answer to be given, then at least acknowledge the receipt".

One of my American colleagues, who was sincerely trying to help Lithuania, said "Sending e-mail to Lithuania is like sending it to the black hole of the universe. Everything goes one way and nothing comes back". No wander he is now disenchanted and helping others.

Vytautas Sliupas, P.E.
www.aukfoundation.org
Burlingame, California

Easier to obtain an audience with the pope, than with a minister for foreign affairs of Lithuania

Dear Mr. Myhre,

I enjoy your positive articles about Lithuania and send them to some 70 friends around the world. The less positive, I keep to myself.

You have lived long enough in Lithuania and must realize that many of the problems of the present day Lithuania are due to their reluctance to learn from the Western countries or accept advice from Lithuanians who lived and studied in the West. The relative success of Lithuania after World War I was largely due to the replacement of Russian educated officials by those who got their degrees in the West. My own father was the first Lithuanian with a degree in forestry from a Western university and introduced major reforms in the forest management, which survived even during the Communist occupation.

Alas, after 20 years of restoration of independence to paraphrase Kipling "The East is East, the West is West and the twain shall never (so far) meet". I spoke to a number of Lithuanians with degrees from top Western universities, who don't want to return to Lithuania - according to them, the "natives" know everything better.

I might add that for me it was easier to obtain an audience with the Pope, than with a Minister for Foreign Affairs of Lithuania.

Yours sincerely,
Ambassador Algirdas Zemaitis
Vilnius – Rome

The Christian world celebrates Jesus' noble entry into Jerusalem on the last Sunday before Easter. In Lithuania this day is called Verbų Sekmadienis – Palm Sunday. When Christianity came to Lithuania, plants which sprouted earliest were honoured during spring feasts. Even now, willows, osiers and weeping willows are consecrated on Palm Sunday. Mythological folklore relates that one of the willows, called Blindė, had been a very fertile woman, bearing numerous children. Earth, the most fertile mother was jealous of her. When Blindė walked through a wetfield, her feet sank into the mud. Blindė turned into a willow tree out of great sadness.

The osier, with male spores was regarded as an unusual tree. Folklore tells that the osier grew out of a secretly murdered man. A fife made of osier wood, speaks in a man's voice. Evil spirits avoid it because of its red color.

Palms of Vilnius (Verbos)

These decorative, dried plant bouquets had no ritual purpose earlier. However now with the addition of juniper and osier branches they have become Palm Sunday tokens. The Vilnius' palm is today produced in fifteen villages in the Vilnius region.

Painters were among the first to show interest in palms. In 1847 K.Ruseckas painted a young girl with a bunch of palms in her hands and in 1913 he presented palms in colorful folk art and trade show posters. The origin of Palms of Vilnius has not been determined. It is thought that they could have been ancient Vilnius trade guilds' processional adornments, manufactured mimicking Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Vilnius' Palms are created using dried wild plants, forest and garden blossoms and other plant parts. About thirty different plants are used, among them are mosses, berry greens, timothy grass, St. John's worth, tansy, yarrow and many others.

The making of palms begins the day after Shrove Tuesday and continues till Palm Sunday. This is a project that involves the entire family, however most often it is women's work. The most popular palms are roller shaped. Now there are wreath and whip shaped, flat and puffed out.

http://www.visitlithuania.net

PALM SUNDAY PALMS [ a.k.a. VERBOS ] The Christian world celebrates Jesus' noble entry into Jerusalem on the last Sunday befor Easter. In Lithuania this day is called Verbø Sekmadienis – Palm Sunday. When Christianity came to Lithuania, plants which sprouted earliest were honored during spring feasts. Even now, willows, osiers and weeping willows are consecrated on Palm Sunday. Mythological folklore relates that one of the willows, called Blindë, had been a very fertile woman, bearing numerous children. Earth, the most fertile mother was jealous of her. When Blindë walked through a wetfield, her feet sank into the mud. Blindë turned into a willow tree out of great sadness. The osier, with male spores was regarded as an unusual tree. Folklore tells that the osier grew out of a secretly murdered man. A fife made of osier wood, speaks in a man's voice. Evil spirits avoid it because of its red color. Most palm bunches have a branch of juniper in them. Juniper is green year round, with late ripening berries and with a peculiar odor. All these plants are principal components of palms, however cranberry, mistletoe, filbert and oak branches together with dried baby's breath and ferns are among the odd numbered pieces in the palm. Pussy willows, hepaticas and some indoor plants are added to give color to the palms. When Christianity was established in Lithuania, palms were consecrated in church. The ancient tradition of whipping each other with palms, still exists, takes place on Palm Sunday or on Easter Sunday. Having returned home with consecrated palms, one whips the head, back shoulders of those who stayed home, repeating all the time, " illness out, health return". The following words were spoken or sung, when striking with the palm: I am not the one striking The Palm is striking You are not in pain The Palm is in pain Soon it will be Easter OR It is not I who is thrashing, but the rod It will thrash until it breaks The great day is in a week It will entertain everyone Remain the same as you have been Be healthy as a fish. The first lines of these charm words are the same throughout Lithuania, the rest changes. Ancient writings of 1573 say that to protect from devils and thunder, crosses were made from the consecrated palms and were thrust behind doors, windows and gated. Most often the palms were placed behind pictures of saints until the junipers dried and began shedding. The juniper branches are burned and together with juniper sheddings are placed in attics to protect roofs from storms. As thunder knocks, a palm is placed on the windowsill, on the side of the storm. The smoke of a burning palm, scents all corners of the house and protects from thunder. Palms were nailed to beehives so that bees would swarm in great numbers. Palms were tied with colored, wooly yarns. This yarn was used to bind women's wrists, to keep away pain. That was the most popular healing method during harvest work. Before animals were let out of barns in the spring, they were incensed with a burning palm. It was also said that if a palm was planted near water and it began to sprout, there would be no water shortage. Here are several interesting beliefs: 1 – he who goes to church on Palm Sunday without a palm in his hands, the devil will shove his tail into the hands. 2 – collecting branches to make palms, select those with many buds. The more buds, the longer will be your life. 3 – if you plant consecrated palms on both river banks, when it is the end of the world and all waters vanish, there will be drinking water where the palms are growing. 4 – one should not comb hair on Palm Sunday, because fleas will grow to the size of the palm, or buds on the branches. 5 – if the palm lasts three years, then when black clouds cover the skies, take the palm and cross the clouds with it. 6 – old palms should be burned and their ashes sprinkled over cabbages, to protect them from worms. PALMS of VILNIUS [ a.k.a. VILNIAUS VERBOS ] These decorative, dried plant bouquets had no ritual purpose earlier. However now with the addition of juniper and osier branches they have become Palm Sunday tokens. Now Vilnius' palm production takes place in fifteen villages of Vilnius region. Painters were among the first to show interest in palms. In 1847 K.Ruseckas painted a young girl with a bunch of palms held in her hands and in 1913 he represented palms in colorful folk art and trade show posters. The origin of Palms of Vilnius has not been determined. It is thought that they could have been ancient Vilnius trade guilds' processional adornments, manufactured mimicking Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Vilnius' Palms are created using dried wild plants, forest and garden blossoms and other plant parts. About thirty different plants are used, among them are mosses, berry greens, timothy grass, St. John's worth, tansy, yarrow and many others. The making of palms begins the day after Shrove Tuesday and continues till Palm Sunday. This is a project that involves the entire family, however most often it is women's work. The most popular palms are roller shaped. Now there are wreath and whip shaped, flat and puffed out. The palms are made this way: take a straight nut tree branch, 30-40 cm.[ 12-16 in.] long, begin tying from the top with thread, to hold the numerous plants. The top is usually composed of bent grasses and reeds. Some use oat wisps, rye or barley ears. Twisting the palm to the right, different plants are added and arrangements made. Small wreaths, of various sizes are added at different levels. The shape of flat palms, a reminder of bird feathers, is tied of timothy grass and grain ears, took shape in 1970. Later, in 1979, in the village of Kriauèiunai, huge 2 meter/ 80 inch long palms were created, using a paper cylinder filled with dried plant scraps, with a wide crown of reeds and a continuous wreath with blossoms between. Ancient traditional palms are not long, they measure 30-40 cm.[ 12-16 inches ] . (Information taken from VILNIUS' PALMS by J.Kudirka)

Verbos made by Leokadija Šalkovska. Photo by Gediminas Svitojus

Lithuania’s Good/Evil

The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy,
the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you.
Time Magazine, March 2007

Lithuanians are probably among the world’s most contrast-embossed peoples.

On the one hand, this nation brought forth very prominent humanists, thinkers and skilled professionals in many fields; scientists, politicians, businessmen, church leaders and leaders within culture, science and many other areas.

On the other hand, Lithuania is overrepresented among Europe's criminal gangs, and also internally in this country there are many individuals and groups that have given Lithuania an international disgrace spot that will be difficult to wash away, at least in the short term.

I spoke a few days ago with a friend from my home county far up in northern Norway. He told me that five years ago he had become aware of a Lithuanian who had moved to the town where my friend lives. This Lithuanian, my friend told, got a job in a carpentry workshop which had never distinguished themselves with particularly high quality of the products they delivered. But in less than a year all became very different, when the Lithuanian proved to be a very capable carpenter. Not only were the products now supplied of much higher quality and all delivered according to agreed time and price, but also the company itself seemed to undergo a change for the better, all because of a skilled Lithuania that so clearly showed what real quality and work ethics mean for a company.

In the same area in Northern Norway a leading police chief in an interview with a local newspaper asked people to report to the police if they saw cars with Lithuanian number plates, and in another Norwegian district, people have already through several years made it a rule that they alert the police as soon as they see a car with Lithuanian registration plates.

Norwegian and other European prisons are packed full of Lithuanian criminals, and many have asked themselves whether the price of the Schengen Agreement for open borders in Europe is already becoming too high. It is also constantly asked why Lithuania itself does not do much more to crack down on criminal bands in the towns and districts where they originate.

Increased punishment and restriction of freedom does of course not solve a serious problem like this, and I am of the opinion that the authorities, communities and neighbourhoods must be far more actively working in teaching and integrating children and youth from families with potential problems. The many fine people who value honesty and justice high should no longer sit still, but take immediate action to help Lithuania's future generations follow in the footsteps of the good.

My guide was Monsignor Kazimieras

One of the first things I experienced when I came to Lithuania 21 years ago, was a private tour of the cellars under the Vilnius Cathedral. My guide was Monsignor Kazimieras Vasiliauskas, who in a truly remarkable manner managed to make alive Lithuania’s proud history while we walked among the graves of the country’s former dukes and others who so greatly helped to make Lithuania a world leading country for hundreds of years. The Monsignor told me about his years in, respectively, German and Russian captivity, and I left the Cathedral with a deep sense of respect and admiration for this great country and a cleric who had been forced to so much suffering because he always kept his faith and humanity high. I felt I had been very close to this nation's historical and contemporary pride and goodness for a few minutes, represented by the graves of the country's prominent leaders through the centuries and a man who so clearly had preserved his faith in good, even throughout many years of imposed suffering.

I have never personally met Henrikas Daktaras, the man often referred to as Lithuania’s leading criminal authority, but I have through many years seen the results of his and his like-minders’ destructive activities both here in Lithuania and also far beyond Lithuania’s borders. The admiration and respect I got for Lithuania after the tour with Monsignor Vasiliauskas felt almost like a distant dream as I in the early 1990s started discovering what was going on in this country; with regards to corruption in the corridors of power, of public 'theft' from its own people, as well as acts committed by criminals and half criminals with greed and lack of respect for their fellow man as their leading motives.

Wikipedia states that evil are the acts that are regarded as morally bad, intrinsically corrupt, wantonly destructive, inhumane, selfish, or wicked.
As per another definition, evil is that which is the reverse of good, whatever is censurable, mischievous, or undesirable, morally depraved, bad, wicked, vicious; doing or tending to do harm, hurtful, mischievous, prejudicial, depraved intention or purpose, desire for another's harm, causing discomfort, pain, or trouble, unpleasant, offensive, disagreeable, troublesome, painful.

Lithuania's good people should not let the destructive and selfish powers rule or continue to influence fine people’s lives here and abroad. Those who want the best for this nation should as soon as possible start discussing what could be done to take control over and neutralise the nation's destructive forces, no matter where and at what level these now reside.

Lithuania deserves to again be counted among the world's great nations, but it is up to the Lithuanians themselves to fight the evil and the negative forces that still have far too free scope to continue their misdeeds. As long as these forces find fertile ground in the Lithuanian society, this country will remain on a stage of development that should have been left behind long ago.

Aage Myhre,
Editor

Monsignor Kazimieras Vasiliauskas (1922 – 2001) Catholic priest, monsignor. Spent years as a prisoner in Germany and later in Stalin's concentration camps and at the coal mines of Komi, Siberia. The Soviet authorities only permitted him to return to Lithuania in 1969.

Mafialord Henrikas Daktaras (1957 - ) Dr. Henry (alias – Henytė) – one of the most famous criminals of all times in this country. Local media often refer to him as Lithuania’s main criminal authority.

What happened to Lithuania's identity? This country that for hundreds of years was characterized by tolerance, openness and multiculturalism? This country that 20 years ago arose from decades of Soviet occupation and oppression in a very dignified, admirable way that resonated throughout the world? What happened to the ideals of the Middle Ages, the years between the world wars and the popular movement that triggered the nation’s new declaration of independence in 1990?

Lithuania’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs may have found a way to restore the country’s identity by pioneering a new type of symbol to convey the character of this nation in a ‘fragrant way’ – with a bottle of perfume. The ministry has already sent bottles of the new fragrance to Lithuania’s embassies around the globe. The project with olfactory appeal is "a good example of how to communicate Lithuania to the public in an innovative way", according to a foreign ministry statement. "We wanted to create something special, representing Lithuania and the Lithuanian character," Mindaugas Stongvilas, an expert in emotional communication behind the project told the newspaper Vilniaus diena earlier this year.

In Scandinavia and the British Isles, it is probably the word crime, which will be first mentioned if one is asked to say something about Lithuania’s identity of today, though most people know very little about Lithuania whatsoever.

The few times Lithuania is 'honoured' with headlines in Western media, it involves, unfortunately, all too often stories about crime or about the nation's homophobia and the neo-Nazis’ parades and newfound popularity in a country that above all others should have learned from the sad and serious mistakes to its own Jewish population during the years of Holocaust.

Identity is much more than new slogans, logos, or perfume-stunts – although they also are of important elements in creating a new country profile.

My suggestion is that this nation looks back to the times when tolerance, dignity and widely recognized respect for other nations, religions and cultures was this country's hallmark and identity.

Because that’s what this fine country deserves...

Russia’s nuclear projects:

A deadly threat to energy independence

of the Baltic States

Text: Dr. Stan Backaitis

P.E., SAE Fellow, USCBSC Consortium, member of CEEC

Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant on the shore of Druksiu lake

 Russia can turn the lights out on Lithuania and the other two Baltic states any time it pleases. And they can't turn them back on without Russia’s permission.

Not only does this small, central European nation, as well as its neighbors Latvia and Estonia, not have access to the Russian owned-switch, but, to a large extent, it also depends on energy supplies from Russia to power its electricity generating plants; power that is needed for energy and economic independence.  Lithuania as well as the other Baltic countries, being poor in energy resources, are facing a tough future and are seeking solutions.

What would you do?

Background

Lithuania’s Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (INPP), a Soviet Union built installation with two RBMK-1500 reactors, was finally shut down on December 31, 2009.  Closing down INPP was one of the conditions of Lithuania’s accession to membership in the European Union (EU).  Overnight, the shut down changed Lithuania from a country exporting large amounts of electricity to a huge electricity importer, mainly from Russia, which is seen as an unreliable, and driven by political motives, supplier.  Unfortunately, most of the remaining Lithuania’s power plants, that produce electricity, are fired by natural gas.  Russia is its only accessible supplier. 

To escape from dependency on Russia’s energy resources, Lithuania’s government, upon shut-down of the first INPP reactor in 2004, (Fig. 1) has made occasional statements of building a new nuclear power plant (NPP) in partnership with Latvia and Estonia.  However, beyond rhetoric, nothing concrete was accomplished for the following four years.  Only in June 2009, Andrius Kubilius, upon forming a new Lithuanian government, indicated that a new NPP, serving all three Baltic countries - Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, as well as Poland , would be built and put into operation in the 2018-20 timeframe.

In December 2009, the newly formed Lithuania’s Energy ministry (ENMIN) announced a tender offer for the development, design, construction, and management of a new NPP at Visaginas (VNPP).    Review of some 20 responses indicated that only five of the proposals were worthy of further consideration.  In September 2010, the ENMIN asked the five respondents to propose committing bids.  Of the two responding parties in November 2010, only South Korea’s “Korea Electric Power Corporation” (KEPCO) was found to be in full compliance with the terms of the tender offer.  However, two weeks later on December 10, 2010, KEPCO announced withdrawing its proposed bid.

The news media in Lithuania and the other Baltic countries are busy speculating about reasons for failing to home-in on an investor for the new NPP.  The stories range from Russia’s pressure on all bidders to withdraw from the bidding process and its announcements to build two separate NPPs on the eastern and southwestern borders of Lithuania to KEPCO’s withdrawal because of possible armed conflict between North and South Koreas.

This mini study recognizes several factors that appear to have been predominant causes for the failure of the tender offer.  They are: political, economic, financial, and indecisions partly due to Russia’s controlling influence on the existing electricity system and partly due to insufficient appreciation by Lithuania’s politicians and energy planners of how large international corporations and financial institutions operate as well as interact with their respective countries’ governments in such large financial commitments.

Political factors

Although Lithuania and the other two Baltic states have attained political independence, they still belong by virtue of electricity and gas imports to Russia's sphere of influence (Fig. 2.).  Apparently, Russia has no intention to strong-arm the Baltic states over energy issues, since the sale of energy to them provides Russia substantially better margin of profits than sales, for example, to western Europe.  Being the sole supplier of energy resources, Russia has a tremendous amount of leverage over the three countries in terms of their price and delivery.  To break away from this dependence, Lithuania and its partners Latvia and Estonia announced their intention in 2004 to build a new nuclear plant that would provide them the needed electric power and thus free them of imports from Russia.  However, for nearly four years, while the second reactor of INPP was still operating, Lithuania showed little initiative in firming up the plans to build the new NPP.

Russia's Controlled Eletricity Infrastructure in the Baltics

 While Russia until 2008 had no apparent intentions to build a new NPP in the Baltic region, realizing that Lithuania’s plans for a new NPP are in disarray, Moscow took the bull by the horns and announced in early 2009 its decision to construct  a two reactor NPP in the Kaliningrad region – the Baltiiskaya nuclear power plant (BNPP).  Inasmuch as the first BNPP reactor is aimed to begin operations in 2016 and the second one in 2020, the need for power from a significantly more expensive to fund reactor in Lithuania was put into question.  By deciding to build the BNPP, Russia gained a strategic advantage.  It reinforced its position as an overpowering electricity supplier to the Baltic region and eventually to Western Europe.  This situation has become even more complex by Belarus announcement in 2009 of its intention to build a new NPP in Ostroviec in the Grodno region, in close proximity to the Lithuanian border.  Russia’s Putin and Belarus’s Lukashenka (Fig. 3) signed a financial agreement on March 16, 2011, securing Russia’s financial backing in the amount of 9 bln. USD and technical assistance for the Ostroviec project.  In return, Russia will own 50 percent share in the future NPP and is likely to offer its share of energy output to the European market.

Putin and Lukashenka agreeing on financing the Astraviec NPP

 It appears that Lithuania’s desire to free itself from dependence on Russia’s energy supplies, by building the VNPP, might be a very desirable and valiant goal, but not very realistic in the current energy politics environment.  Of course, this might change if the EU agreed to provide substantial funds for this project.  However, there are no current signs for this kind of support apart from some vague statements by EU commissioners about the importance of energy independence. 

Upon closure of the first INPP reactor in 2004, several Lithuania’s government officials talked on a few occasions, of the need to build a new NPP in partnership with Latvia and Estonia.  In 2007 Lithuania invited Poland to join as an additional partner.  However, even to date the partnership statements about the new NPP remain more rhetoric than formal commitments and contractual obligations.  Normally, such massive projects require published consensus by all parties defining the need and scope of the undertaking, identifying principal elements, time schedules, financial contributions, sharing work and responsibilities by each participant, etc.  Of further concern is apparent lack of commitment by both Latvia and Estonia to sever their ties from Russia's NorthWest (BRELL) power grid, which is essential for the Baltic states to achieve complete electrical independence.

The only accomplishments by Lithuania’s government during the first four years, from closure of the first INPP reactor in 2004, was to create in 2008 a semipublic utility corporation - the LEO.LT and the VNPP project office, with the intention of giving the NPP project some momentum.  However, since then, in nearly two years, the rhetoric continued without any visible results. 

The ENMIN, upon its establishment by the Kubilius government, dissolved the LEO.LT in September 2010 for its ineffectiveness.  Subsequently, the ENMIN issued a tender offer for building the VNPP.  However, the ENMIN failed to include its partners in the preparation of the tender offer and thereafter, in the review of the responses.  Such exclusion of partners, significantly reduced the integrity and credibility of the project and its importance in the eyes of the bidders, particularly that Latvia, Estonia and Poland are supposed to be financial participants and customers for electricity.  To make matters worse, the partners by now were also openly discussing the possibility of going alone with the acquisition of nuclear power plants for own electricity needs.  

Economic factors

Shortly after closing INPP’s first reactor in 2004, Lithuania had a relatively easy opportunity to resolve its energy problems by building a new NPP.  Its economy was strong and growing, raising the needed finances was relatively easy, and its neighbors, Latvia and Estonia, were very interested in participating in the project as receivers of their share of electricity.  Construction of NPPs in the world was until 2007 in relative stagnation, and numerous NPP construction companies were eager to compete for new construction jobs.  However, in the latter part of 2007 and in later years, the emerging economic crisis in the Western World and escalating energy demands have begun to radically increase the number of NPP constructions, particularly in China and India.  It is to be noted that over 60 new NPP constructions have been started in the past several years throughout the world and many more are planned.  Such rapid escalation of construction activity. coupled with less than a dozen companies capable of building NPPs, resulted in large increases of NPP construction costs.  Lead times needed to manufacture major reactor and power plant components are now well over five years.

Regrettably, Lithuania's delay for almost four years to come to a decision undermined a relatively easy opportunity to become a nuclear based power producer again.  Current environment for the construction of a new NPP is particularly unfavorable to small, highly indebted countries, compared to those having reasonably large initial down payments including capabilities of guaranteeing repayment of loans.  Accordingly, it is not surprising to see low level of interest by large investors to participate in the project, because VNPP’s competitive viability became highly questionable in view of Russia’s intention to construct competing NPPs in the Kaliningrad enclave and in Belorussia. 

Russia’s skills to use various opportunities to its advantage should be considered normal commercial practice but with added political overtones.  By being a major and an aggressive player in the nuclear field, Russia is capable of offering a variety of economic and financial enticements to attract business.  For example, a late news item in the energy news media indicates that Russia offered to provide a long term low interest loan to the Czech Republic if it was awarded the contract to build a two reactor power plant.  As a sweetener, the Czech industry would be invited to build a number of large NPP components not only for the Czech plant, but also for other NPPs that Russia is constructing in different parts of the world. 

Russia, being keenly aware of the attempts of the Baltic countries to break away from their electric energy dependence, saw upon closure of the INPP, a considerable power shortage developing in the region.  It also foresaw, that Lithuania, by delaying its resolve to replace the INPP with a new NPP, would allow Russia to fill the energy void with a two reactor power plant in the Kaliningrad region with expressed aim to sell its output in the Baltic and the Western European markets.  

Russia knew that if its new plant NPP was built and put into operation ahead of the VNPP, it would have a significant price advantage over the price of electricity that any future Lithuanian NPP could offer.  Such information would be a considerable deterrent to investments in any future NPP venture in Lithuania.  It reasoned that since BNPP would be built with non-returnable state funds, Lithuania’s planned NPP, constructed with borrowed private funds, would have to impose hefty surcharges to consumers of its electricity to pay off the debts.  Accordingly, VNPP would have great difficulty competing based on the price of electricity that did not carry such charges.  Understandably, knowledge of such financial burdens would cast in doubt the financial viability of the VAE in the eyes of any potential investor.

It can be agreed with ENMIN claims that the direct expense to produce electricity at VNPP would be relatively low.  However, it needs to be pointed out that the cost to the consumer would be significantly higher upon inclusion of expense to maintain reserve power plants at capacities similar to that of the new NPP, outlays associated with treatment and storage of nuclear waste, profits to the foreign plant operator, payments covering the return on borrowed capital and corresponding interest, and very extensive interior and exterior safety provisions.  Published comparisons of average costs for labor and nuclear fuels to produce 1 kWh of electricity at a U.S. NPP are around 2.2 cents USD, and about seven Lithuanian (lt) cents (about 2.7 cents USD) at INPP.  The addition of all other expenses, such as operating and maintenance costs at the NPP, plant and equipment amortization, and transmission and distribution of electricity expenses result in an average delivery price between 8 and 9 cents (USD) for 1kWh to the U.S. consumer, while comparable cost of 1 kWh electricity produced by INPP was approx 30 cents (lt) (12 cents USD) to the Lithuanian consumer.  After closure of INPP, the price of 1kWh of electricity rose to 45 cents (lt).

Future costs to produce a kilowatt hour of electricity at the future VNPP are unknown. Lithuania’s ENMIN estimates indicate 34 cents (lt).  Recently, Turkey signed a nuclear power plant construction contract with Russia.  It guaranteed Russia for building and operating the NPP, a purchase price of 35 cents (lt) per kWh for some 15 years.  Inasmuch as Lithuania proposed in the tender offer similar funding and operating conditions as those between Turkey and Russia, it would be reasonable to assume that 35 cents (lt) per kWh would be the minimum price of electricity sold by the operator of the future VNPP facility  Accordingly, it might be difficult to convince any buyer at the BaltPool or NordPool exchanges to purchase electricity at such a price if Baltiiskaya NPP can offer the same for 10 cents (lt) less or even lower, since it would not be burdened with the return on capital and interest payments.  The only way VNPP could compete on price would be by the government subsidizing the price difference.

The price of electricity to the consumer is also dependent on amortization of the plant and the power grid, losses within the transmission and distribution systems, and theft of power from the network.  Unfortunately, repayments of interest on the loan will need to start before the first watt of electricity is generated. Inasmuch as Lithuania is already highly indebted, any large loans for the NPP would fall in the high risk category, ranging from 10 to 12 percent interest rates.  Assuming that the construction of the VAE would require some 18 to 20 bln. litas (7-8 bln. USD), expected interest payments would keep escalating as the construction is progressing, and would amount to approx. 2 bln. litas (800 mln. USD) annually just before the plant produces the first watt of electricity.  Inasmuch as the government does not have any funds to make such payments, this money would have to be collected as additional fees to the consumers of electricity.  Such payments would be expected to add approx. 15 to 20 cents (lt) to the normal price of electricity that is either imported or generated by conventional power plants.  It would be extremely difficult for anyone to justify a price escalation of this magnitude when the same electricity can be imported or bought from BNPP for substantially less. 

While the current Lithuanian government is attempting to remedy this unfortunate course of events, regrettably, the four year delay and the arrival on the scene of other large scale power generating capabilities, might have killed or greatly impeded the opportunity to build a competitive NPP.  As a result, Lithuania’s people are now burdened by very high electricity prices, and will have to face not only their further escalation, but also uncertainty in continuous supply of electricity and natural gas in future years. 

Financing Considerations

Lithuania’s politicians regarded the statements by Russian and Belarus leaders of intention to construct the BNPP and the Ostrovets NPPs, as bluffs, even as late as mid 2010.  Moscow was quite clear that the BNPP would generate electricity mainly for export to Western European and the Baltic countries and not for internal needs.  This was confirmed in March 2011 agreement between BNPP and Lietuvos InterRAO to import to Lithuania 1000 MW of electric power.  By deciding to build a new NPP in the Kaliningrad region, Russia assured that Lithuania’s new NPP, if it was to be built, could not compete on price of electricity generated by the BNPP.  As a result, once Russia’s plans for the BNPP were made public, it became extremely difficult for Lithuania to attract investors to finance the VAE project, unless the EU would guarantee the loans.  Furthermore, most recently Russia invited both Poland and Latvia to participate as partners in the construction of BNPP in an attempt to wean them away from participating in Lithuania’s NPP project.  In addition, Poland was offered not only low electricity prices by the BNPP, but also the opportunity to earn money for the transmission of electricity to Western Europe through Poland's existing power transmission network.

Lithuania’s government created in 2008 a semi-public LEO.LT energy corporation for the purpose of taking care of Lithuania’s energy needs, and by working together with its Latvian and Estonian partners to raise sufficient finances for the construction of a new nuclear power plant at Visaginas.  However, upon establishment of LEO.LT, it became apparent that its two shareholders – the government and a private “NDX Energija” corporation – had totally different interests. The government interest was to ensure energy security through construction of a nuclear power plant, while the private investor’s interest was to maximize profits primarily by importing electricity.  Such diverse interests were not inducive to good dialogue either in determining on what needs to be done or to conduct constructive discussions with their other partners.  To make matters worse, while NDX Energija was to lead and guide the technical effort to build the NPP, its representatives acknowledged that they did not have the needed technical expertise either to plan and organize the building of a nuclear power plant or to raise the needed finances.

Large-scale investors in the western world showed over the years very little interest in Lithuania's energy problems and particularly, its nuclear initiatives.  Significant international investors view Lithuania’s and the Baltic states’ commercial energy viability as highly risky, unattractive due to relatively isolated geographic location, small internal and difficult access to large markets, and poor in natural resources.  Discussions with a vice president of one of the largest NPP construction company and with several operators of nuclear power plants revealed that they see “the Baltic countries as too small of a market in the region, bordered by a powerful and unpredictable neighbor who is also a significant size low cost energy producer and is ready to undermine any competition using price and other economic as well as political measures.  Lithuania, even partnering with its neighbors, could not assure a return of investment of nearly 10 bln. USD, unless the EU would guarantee the needed loans.  Considering that the EU had most recently to rescue a number of euro zone member countries from bankruptcy, it would be extremely difficult to find banks willing and capable of providing high risk loans to additional EU countries that are drowning in debts and for projects that might not be financially viable.

Following the publication of a tender offer for the construction of VNPP, Lithuania, as far it is known, has still failed to engage its potential partners in constructive discussions and developing obligatory agreements on the scope and extent of the new NPP, including their projected power needs and their financial contributions.  Without such documentary evidence, it would be very difficult to attract serious investors.  In spite of these shortcomings, the press reported several ENMIN hints of some 20 companies responding to the tender offer of which only five were found worthy of further consideration.  Upon request of the five to submit binding bids, only two responded. Of the two, only KEPCO was found to be fully responsive to all technical specifications, building deadlines and raising the needed financial resources.  At this point, the ENMIN vice minister Romas Svedas noted, that Lithuania was ready to inform its regional partners in Latvia, Estonia and Poland about the agreement with KEPCO.  However, after two weeks of submitting the final bid, KEPCO notified the ENMIN on December 16, 2010, of its withdrawal from the project.

The withdrawal from the contest of the last candidate, forced the ENMIN to consider a new phase of negotiations with parties that might be interested in the NPP project based on a different set of conditions.  With no time to waste, the ENMIN announced that direct negotiations with potential investors would start in January 2010 with a decision to be made as early as June 2010.  Obviously, the new conditions would have to be considerably more favorable to attract potential investors.  Knowing of the failure of the tender offer, all potential bidders will be at considerable advantage to extract for them much more favorable financial rewards.  Any such agreement would be disadvantageous to Lithuania and its partners.  At this point, with the government’s prestige on the line, the government either would have to agree with the best offer it receives, or find some excuse to gracefully withdraw its offer.

Indecisions: a detriment to the future

Lithuania, upon attaining independence, has inherited a number of large industrial enterprises such as INPP, electric power and gas facilities, an oil refinery, a large fishing fleet, sizeable electronics industry, etc. Unfortunately, a number of them were mismanaged and not developed to their full potential.  Numerous others were either privatized, sold as junk property or went into bankruptcy and disappeared as functioning entities. Similarly, looking at the government delays to plan and take timely action in constructing the new NPP, keeping the public and the partner countries at a distance, continuously revamping the organization and management of the project, suggests that these actions were not in the best interest of the country and its people.  It appears that the opportunity was shattered by competing interests between political parties, personal ambitions, disregard of partners' interests, and manipulation by powerful and resourceful interests of the neighboring country to gain strategic advantage.  Apart from commitment to the EU to close the INPP, it is not clear what rationale guided the planning or the absence of planning of Lithuania's energy future upon closure of the INPP first reactor in 2004.  It can be inferred from some newspaper reports of public officials’ comments that one line  of thought was that Lithuania has a reliable natural gas and fuel supplier as well as sufficient power generating capacity of its own to produce adequate amounts of electricity to satisfy all Lithuania’s needs well into mid 2030-s.  With gas and oil available in abundance from Russia, there is no urgency to build a replacement nuclear plant for the INPP.  Another line of thought was that, shortly before the final closure of the INPP, EU’s authorities in Brussels would be approached with a story that the closure of the second nuclear reactor would create for Lithuania and its population very serious economic hardships. Since it would take nearly a decade to build a new nuclear plant, the EU would be asked to allow the INPP to continue the production of electricity several more years beyond 2010.  Unfortunately, Lithuania’s people, who are paying the electricity bills, were never asked of what might be the best approach and/or solution in their judgment.

This line of wishful thinking or self deception prevailed for nearly four years until the arrival of the Kubilius government in late 2008.  Although the preceding Kirkilas government announced as early as 2006 informal agreements with Latvia and Estonia to build a new nuclear power plant in Lithuania, surprisingly, the "National Energy Strategy 2007" (NES 2007) document covered the new NPP topic by only one sentence.  It stated "that upon closure of the Ignalina NPP and until construction of a new nuclear power plant, the primary source for electricity will be “Lietuvos Elektrine” (Lithuania’s primary power plant)”.  In contrast, the same document described in considerable length the development of Lithuania's energy in future years by diversification of energy sources in line with EU directives, such as competitiveness in energy generation, expanded use of natural gas, energy security, and preparation of proposals for a common EU energy policy dialogue with Russia.  Of significance is also a discussion of expanded electricity generation using combined cycle gas turbines at “Lietuvos Elektrine”, whose operation is based on imports of natural gas from Russia.

It is not clear why the Government of Lithuania in spring 2007 did not consult its Latvian and Estonian partners by unilaterally including Poland into the partnership. This greatly alarmed both Latvians and Estonians.  As a result, in energy conferences in Tallinn and later in Washington, D.C., both in 2007, Latvian and Estonian speakers were publically discussing consideration of smaller nuclear power plants for their future power needs.  Latvia did not hide its frustration with Lithuania’s indecision and fogginess regarding the plans to build a new nuclear power plant.  "Of course, we are now, as before, very skeptical about this project. From time to time, us, the Estonians, and the Poles wrote letters to Lithuania’s government, delivered appropriate demarches, hoping to somehow move the Lithuanians into action”, said Artis Camphors the Latvian Minister of Economic Affairs.

After Andrius Kubilius takeover of the government in late 2008 and upon establishment of the ENMIN, an extensive review was initiated to determine Lithuania’s current state of affairs of the energy sector and its future needs with particular concern on steps to be taken to attain energy independence.  The ENMIN published on October 6, 2010 a new document the “National Energy Strategy 2010” (NES 2010).  A couple months later, the ENMIN dissolved the LEO.LT and separated Lithuania’s electrical grid into East and West sectors, which just a year ago were merged into one conglomerate.  However, in both cases, the government employed similar bulldozer tactics as used by the previous government. It did not consult either the public or private sector organizations including industrial and commercial users on how the future might be best served and the desired objectives achieved.

Upon KEPCO’s withdrawal from further discussions, the next round of negotiations with potential contractors might be very difficult and could involve significant additional expenses for NPP construction that might be more than Lithuania and its partners could bear.  For this reason, it would be prudent for the ENMIN to lay out to the nation the true status of the nation’s energy, realistic projections of future needs, and an array of alternative measures that could be taken to attain sufficient generating capacity and the best means to achieve energy independence.  In follow-on nation-wide hearings, rather than self-serving statistical poles, Lithuania’s taxpayers and energy users should be given the responsibility to decide if they would choose to remain a nuclear country and whether other alternatives should be pursued.  Lithuania is in dire need of such public discussions during which the public should have the opportunity to listen not only to government declarations of a brighter vision of the future, which is actually very vague, but also to hear independent energy experts’ views and the positions of different user categories.  Such discussions would not only bring for consideration additional relevant data and studies, but also facilitate the search for better solutions.

Recent nuclear plant disasters in Japan, necessitate an in -depth safety review of nuclear technologies for generation of electric power and their internal and external safety provisions.  It is essential to reexamine the need for and safety of nuclear power plants not only for use in Lithuania, but also the two NPPs that Russia intends to build in the immediate proximity of Lithuania’s major population centers and at locations with marginal water resources.  The of water sufficiency resources to fight NPP fires, potential meltdowns and radiation effects must be considered for all extreme climate conditions and other types destructive events.  Lithuania needs to request at the highest international levels for an assessment by an independent international team of all safety provisions that Baltiiskaya and Ostroviec NPPs (Fig. 4) will be equipped with.  Self certifications by the building and operating countries of the NPPs are just not sufficient when the lives of the entire nation and its habitat are involved.  Furthermore, inasmuch as a nuclear disaster can have devastating effects on neighboring countries, the reactor owning country should establish financial insurance deposits at the World Bank or a similar institution to cover losses, should they occur.

Future Russian Nuclear plants on both sides of Lithuania 

In the writer’s view, which is also supported by independent academic studies, the government in general and ENMIN in particular is over relying on studies produced by foreign consultants while disregarding analysis and recommendations of qualified experts in the country.  It is known, that in many instances external consultants tend to produce studies supporting the purchaser’s desired outcome, knowing that a satisfied customer, would give them a much better chance to win subsequent studies.  According to the ENMIN, the consultant projected a bright future and very profitable financial outcome for Lithuania if the new NPP was to be built.  It noted that after a dozen years, the new NPP would be like a “hen laying golden eggs”.  Unsaid was that Lithuania would have to wait for the first golden egg at least thirty years and hoping that the hen does not die in the meantime because of either old age or in the face of advancement of new technologies and other developments.  Indeed, when all costs are taken into account, such as repayment of the NPP construction loan and interest, holding in ready reserve conventional power plant(s), storage of spent nuclear fuel, internal and external safety provisions, etc, very different conclusions could be reached.  Furthermore. it is known, but not well publicized, that none of the world's existing nuclear power plants can survive without financial support of their respective governments. While large-scale nuclear power plant might be the most logical and cost-effective solution for energy resources poor Lithuania to assure energy independence, such comparative studies have not been made available to the public.  It is the author’s professional and considered opinion that Lithuania should evaluate and make public all available options for its citizens to decide the alternatives they would be willing to support rather than being bulldozed into a financial quagmire by a bureaucratic decree.

Concluding remarks

Although it is difficult to pin down precisely the causes for creating the current energy dilemma, one can observe that Lithuania's foreign and domestic policy imbalances have greatly contributed to the country’s self-inflicted isolation and energy crisis.  It creates the impression that diatribe on these issues by political parties, failure to recognize the critical energy situation by the Parliament, quest for quick personal gains, lack of attention to potential partners’ energy concerns, insufficient attention to international political and energy interests and associated manipulations, and failure to conclude with their partners binding agreements, pushed Lithuania's energy independence in the foreseeable future into serious doubt.

Energy availability in the future requires long term (30-50 years) strategic planning that is independent and isolated from interference by political parties or special interest groups who are primarily interested in short term gains.  Currently proposed solutions by ENMIN appear to be mostly tactical decisions to initiate activities that would address short term problems, but not to resolve complex and long term issues.  It is of utmost importance for vitally important long term energy problems to engage all parties interested in finding solutions in order to assure the object, on which consensus has been reached, the best possible environment to survive, as Russia is doing for the Kaliningrad and Belarusian NPPs.

For success, the decision maker needs to have a thorough and in depth understanding of all technical issues, because knowledge of just business or financial management is not sufficient to address all of the complexities and intricacies of the energy systems.  Diminution of views of energy experts in important energy decisions and in many instances their replacement during reorganizations by individuals based on political party or family connections, threatens to reduce the competence needed to manage technical issues at many power generating and distribution facilities.  Furthermore, management and distribution of financial resources without thorough appreciation of their effects either on the system or the various subsystems, exposes their functioning to severe disruptions and possible total collapse.

Shortly after closing the INPP first reactor, Lithuania had a relatively easy opportunity to resolve the energy problem in its favor.  However, the delay for nearly four years to come to a decision helped Russia to turn around an unfavorable energy situation to its advantage.  Current attempts to help remedy this unfortunate course of events are commendable, but might be too late, and most likely will lead to serious long term energy and economic consequences.  Lithuania’s people are now burdened by very high electricity prices and will have to face not only their further escalation, but also uncertainty in continuous supply of electricity and natural gas unless alternative energy measures are vigorously pursued and implemented.  If the nuclear option is to be selected, consensus by the people is essential, and Latvian and Estonian participation need to be assured by documented agreements.  Assistance of EU would be of great value in persuading all of the neighbors that the new NPP would be a win-win situation for all in the long run.  To overcome the small market dilemma of the Baltic countries and to maximize their power generation efficiency, it would be of substantial benefit to create a joint Baltic Energy Authority, similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority.  Its responsibility, under an oversight committee of the tri-country governments, would be to negotiate the purchase and import of gas and electricity, provide advice on most efficient power generating methods and equipment for future needs, raise the needed financing, and to facilitate planning and organizing the construction of power plants at the regional level, including coordination of their operations and power distribution.  Such joint activity would motivate the EU to support the quest of the Baltic States for energy security and reduce, if not nullify, their current vulnerability to Russia’s energy political power plays and price manipulations.