Yesterday I saw an article on Rail Baltica in an early-April issue of The Baltic Times. The article was called something like “Private interest in the way of the Rail Baltica project” (no vouching for the title). My first reaction was, hey they know more than most of us, and I read it. There were no particular meat proving the headline, apart from that Transport Mininster Augulis was to meet Minister Levitin of Russia later same month to talk more on the project – Rail Moscovia of course. Then the article quoted Dombrovskis saying he had no personal opnion as to which one of the two is the one to build, that both need a thorough economic analysis and that building a European-gauge rail link through Latvia was clearly out of question, way beyond our budget.
Right. Does the lack of personal opinion mean that Dombrovskis as a citizen couldn’t care less about what’s good for his country, and what’s bad? I mean “his”, not in terms, a country he’s in charge of, a country he’s running, but a country he lives in, a country whose language he speaks (Latvia is about the language, isn’t it?). I really do wonder how is it possible? How can someone who doens’t give a sh*t about things ever amount to decide on these things and rule a country? Isn’t a prime minister supposed to care? I’m puzzled.
Need an analysis? I can say that, I may afford to be ignorant and miss all about this kind of projects the EU is promoting. The prime minister of Latvia must know Rail Baltica has been scrutinsed, analysed and vivisected. Was he joking? Then he knew his part on saying no money guys. That’s fine – no money today, maybe something better than this tomorrow. No prob here. Well, he knew at least something. Cared about the gauges, for instance. Thanks for that.
Besides, what does the lack of an opinion mean? That his party has no opinion? Actually, this is not only a no-excuse, this is an aggravating circumstance. Or does it mean that he prefers not to get involved until the culprits reveal their true intentions with the Moscow-link scam? Then they should thank Mr Dombrovskis for his apathy. Isn’t it too much comfort for Mr Augulis and his friends?
Isn’t it a bit of incompetence on the prime minister’s part? I’d expect a democratic country’s prime minister could do better than that. He does share some views in his New Year Eve speeches, doesn’t he? Why can’t he talk about things once in a while in between? He may well appear in the media explaining budget cuts, but these are not views, these are not his opinions.
That’s it, Mr Dombrovskis is not a visionary. In fact, however qualified he is in tidying up after the thieves who ruled the country for most of the past 20 years, he doesn’t seem to be a political leader brave, strong and competent enough to call a spade a spade, teach the nation right from wrong, and champion the national interests. The latter is not limited to sacking performing bureaucrats and closing hospitals and embassies we can’t afford. I’m now chanting this mantra with thousands of other voices. What is it then? Well, I’ve said enough. What are Latvia’s national interests, Mr Prime Minister?