Commentary: History Is Not a Fairness Contest, and Small States Must Matter to Great Powers
A commentary in the Latvian daily Diena argues that history is won neither by the morally superior nor always by the strongest, but by those who exploit the contradictions of their era. It says small states, Latvia included, must find ways to become part of other countries' strategic calculations.
A commentary in the Latvian daily Diena, prompted by discussion of a possible new great-power deal modelled on the 1945 Yalta conference, calls for a more sober view of such scenarios. The piece is an opinion article, and its conclusions belong to its author.
Historical examples
The author notes that many commentators on social media and in traditional media picture a new Yalta as a betrayal of democratic values and a triumph for dictators. In his view, Yalta was not the first time great powers drew borders and divided spheres of influence. He cites the 1919 Paris Peace Conference after the First World War and the 1814–1815 Congress of Vienna, which redrew Europe's political map after the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte.
The commentary adds that the final victory of liberal democracy predicted by Francis Fukuyama has not arrived. The author objects to the idea that justice can be achieved only through stirring speeches or hopes of court verdicts against those who start wars.
What decides outcomes
His central thesis is that history is not a fairness contest won by the morally superior, nor a contest of force always won by the strongest. What matters, he argues, is the ability to understand the contradictions of an era, use available resources and turn them into lasting political results. He points to the success of India's independence movement against the British Empire and to Polish trade union resistance to the Soviet system.
He also stresses that defending values does not rule out pragmatic compromise, citing Winston Churchill's cooperation with Joseph Stalin against Nazi Germany and Henry Kissinger's opening to China.
Conclusions for Latvia
The author holds that a small state's influence depends less on its strength than on its ability to become important in the pursuit of other states' interests. Membership of NATO and the European Union, he writes, is the result of a geopolitical choice and does not remove the need to think strategically. His main worry is not a new Yalta but the risk that Latvia becomes a passive observer of events.
