Latvian authorities continue to fight against people who are the basis of the State. They invent new financial and political mechanisms aimed to worsen the living and working standards of those who directly influence the future of young generation. The “war” against teachers has already led to protests and tensity in Latvian society.

Thus, Latvian Education and Science Workers’ Trade Union (LIZDA) organized a major protest march in the capital of Riga on 24 April and went on a three-day strike until 27 April. The strike forced the coalition government to increase their wages. More than 26 000 Latvian teachers have signed up for the protest procession and three-day strike.

The government approved amendments suggested by the Ministry of Education and Science, allocating an additional amount towards the increase of teachers’ wages in order to satisfy demands of the teachers on strike. However, according to LIZDA, the decision for allocation of additional funding towards an increase of teachers’ wages have not completely fulfilled the union’s demands presented in the recent strike.

The new political compaign that will move teachers to despair and job loss is Latvian language proficiency tests. Authorities call it “the natural process of sorting”. And it has begun.

According to Kurzeme Television, since teachers in Latvia have had to pass the official  Latvian language proficiency tests, 15 teachers have lost their jobs permanently or temporarily in Liepāja.

At Liepāja 3rd Secondary School, in which learning is bilingual, the official language tests launched by the State Education Content Center proved to be an insurmountable obstacle for seven teachers. The three teachers have been suspended from work right now, until July 5, they have been given time to improve Latvian language skills.

Unfortunately, the fact is that four more teachers themselves stopped their employment relationship on April 28, because they decided independently that they were better off not working at school than to learn. Four more teachers have also chosen the same way at Liepaja 7th High School. Another educator has lost her job in Liepāja’s pre-school education institution “Liesmiņa” because of the official language test.

According to Pāvels Jurs, principal of Liepāja 7th High School, working legal relations have already been stopped with teachers who were not able to pass the exam.

Three teachers at the 7th High School have not yet passed official language proficiency tests. Two of them have been on sick leave for a long time. They have chosen a path called “the sick leave” being in despair. The long-standing absence of staff was suspicious to the principal, so he asked the Health Inspectorate to assess the validity of the issuing of sick leaves. Teachers are even accused of abusing the law.

Health Inspectorate spokeswoman Iveta Balode informed that at the beginning of April, the Inspectorate requested medical documents from the family doctors of these educators and three separate tests have been launched, the results of which could be known in early June. During tests, inspection doctors and experts will see records of patient visits, health complaints, referrals to investigations, and their results.

Unfortunately, the absence of teachers has affected the learning process.

Thus, Liepājas 3rd Secondary School principal acknowledged that a tragic situation is with a math teacher: “It is sudden, especially now, in May, when there are exams, state tests, finding a math teacher who is willing to work full-time is almost impossible.”

Liepāja City Education Board pointed out that the shortage of 15 teachers in the population of approximately 800 teachers was not a large number, so there is no reason to consider the situation as extreme. But it is really extreme and absurd and even catastrophic for children who will lose time and knowledge only because Russian speaking teachers are persecuted in the state and can not carry out their key duties and to educate children.

Key Points

The war in Ukraine is more of standoff attacks with hardly any major ground offensive in recent past.

While Russia can choose its moment for its offensive/counteroffensive, NATO will like to see Zelensky delivering ‘Bang for the Buck’, having met his 98 percent requirements of military hardware.

Backdrop

Despite Bakhmut facing one of the most intense battles, Russian claim of its siege and control and Ukraine’s assertion of pockets holding out, the war in Ukraine has seen more of standoff attacks by missiles, drones and artillery shelling, with hardly any major ground offensive in recent past. Russian cruise missile barrage and Ukrainian drone attack on Crimean Oil Depot are part of this design. Both Russia as well as US led NATO fighting proxy war through Ukraine, are feeling fatigue of war, but don’t find negotiation as an attractive enough option, due to unfinished agendas. 

While the kinetic, contact, hybrid war between Russia and Ukraine was heading towards stalemate with sporadic standoff strikes, offensive actions are happening in the US-led NATO’s undeclared, non-kinetic, non-contact war against Russia in the economic, information, diplomatic, and political spheres, such as renewed push of G7 for more sanctions (Hypocritically keeping nuclear fuel, fertilisers, critical minerals out of it), the threat to extend Black Sea grain deal beyond 18 May 23.  Efforts are on to keep NATO together amidst signs of internal frictions and mitigating impact of the Pentagon intelligence leaks, which took some steam away from much publicised propaganda of West lauding Ukraine’s capability to launch Spring Offensive to recapture entire lost territory, exposing some its glaring weaknesses. Under such circumstances it remains to be seen which side could launch next major ground offensive?

The Maximal of War in Ukraine

Certain stark realities decide the maximum limits of the war, which both sides are hesitating to accept. Firstly, Russia with largest arsenal of nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles under Putin will not get annihilated/decisively defeated without using any of these major weapons. Secondly, US will not risk annihilation of Washington/New York to save Zelensky/Poland. Thirdly Russia will not be able to annihilate Ukraine supported by NATOs without a serious break down internally. Fourthly Europe will have to follow American dictat, as it knowingly fell prey to American design of cutting off its dependency on Russia and ignored its own security and Russian security concerns for too long.  Fifthly Ukraine can’t recapture entire lost territory without NATO getting fully involved, meaning Third World War and Nuclear ‘Armageddon’ Risk. The war is therefore likely to be prosecuted within these maximal limits.

NATO would like the war to be confined to Ukraine, for which it has little choice but to support it ‘for as long as it takes’. It can’t afford any spillover of war to any NATO country, which implies posing existential threat to Russia, forcing it to make the unpleasant decision of nuclear catastrophe or forcing USA to selectively shying away from NATO’s security obligations to affected member to save Washington and New York.  NATO therefore echoes that Putin must not win; hence, boosting Ukraine’s will to fight by creating a hope of winning an unwinnable war seems to be its effort with a willing Zelensky to do so. During NATO’s meet at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany besides discussing further assistance to Ukraine, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg extended an olive branch to Ukraine by reaffirming that Kyiv will eventually join NATO, as Zelensky reiterated his demand of fast-tracked admission into NATO of Ukraine, fully knowing that it’s a dream with many practical difficulties.

Possibilities of Ukraine’s Spring Offensive

While the Russians are downplaying the drone attack in Crimea having put oil depot on fire, by announcing no casualties, Ukrainians without owning it publicly, have hailed long lasting punishments to Russians for cruise missile strikes claiming 25 lives, going ahead advising civilians in Crimea to remain away from military installations, indicating an offensive design. 

NATO claims to have met 98 percent of Ukraine’s need to launch counteroffensive, provided 1,550 armoured vehicles and 230 tanks to form units, trained and equipped more than nine new Ukrainian armoured brigades. Some aircrafts, anti-aircraft weapons & systems, and ammunition has been given by NATO allies. NATO’s Secretary General asserted that it will put Ukraine in a strong position to continue to retake occupied territory, thereby encouraging it to launch offensive, although Zelensky’s wish list demands better air defence and aircrafts. 

Notwithstanding boost in military arsenal, professionals know that collection of hardware doesn’t necessarily means a battle winning force! During Ukraine Defense Contact Group Meeting at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, General Mark Milley remarks indicate that additional weapons issued by NATO can help Ukraine defend itself longer, but it’s not a silver bullet to defeat Russia. Speaking aside Lloyd Austin, it’s not the first time he has cautioned NATO to be realistic on its expectations; hence, his words need serious consideration.

President Zelensky, has been primed to believe in the mission’s (counteroffensive’s) success and that “we will be able to de-occupy our territories.” With the cumulative aid over $100 billion poured into Ukraine Zelensky has no choice, but to continue fighting, as any compromise will jeopardize his survival; hence he is overly obligated to carry out Washington’s plan into action of prolonging the conflict, short of pushing them into nuclear war or inviting attack on NATO, till last Ukrainian standing, despite having displaced more than 6 million people internally, sent nearly 8 million refugees outside, suffering significant casualties and having destroyed half of its infrastructure.

Will Russia Launch Major Offensive?

Russia still finds itself well short of achieving its overall strategic aim of annexing entire Donbass Region, capturing entire southern corridor to link it to Crimea and extend it to Transnistria to ultimately landlock Ukraine to secure Black Sea for its maritime movements. With heavy burden of economic cost and casualties, Russia is struggling with its desired end state for conflict termination. Currently Russians residual combat capability is quite limited to make significant gains in any ground offensive towards its strategic aim. It has adopted to standoff attack options to minimize casualties of men and material. It needs time to build its combat power to regain initiative.

It makes strategic sense for Russia, to consolidate occupied territories, create viable defence line and rebuild its economy and hardware to add to overall combat capability. Russia has already built up multiple layers of defense as seen in many satellite imageries, in parts of Donbass and southern Ukraine like layers of anti-tank ditches, obstacles, minefields and trenches. The superiority in air assets with Russia is also a significant factor.

Ukraine appreciates that Moscow wants “to bleed Ukraine dry through the risk of the war’s renewal that would scare off investors and prompt people to flee and then to attack again” which may well be true. Russia will therefore rely on standoff attacks to destroy maximum newly inducted arsenal to Ukraine and its critical infrastructure, instead of hard slogging ground offensive, unless inescapable. Preparation of absorbing the attack and responding with a strong counter offensive may be part of the plan, should Ukraine take the initiative of launching offensive. The option to use nuclear weapons, in case of existential threat will continue to be a powerful tool to prevent NATO entering into contact war with Russia in future too.

Conclusion

While Russia can choose its time and place for its offensive/counteroffensive, Ukraine is under pressure to launch its overhyped Spring Offensive. NATO will like to see Zelensky delivering ‘Bang for the Buck’, having met his 98 percent requirements of military hardware, and shaping the battlefield accordingly. It is interesting to note that Arms dealers of US, working like deep state will continue pushing US administration to continue with war, who in turn will push NATO & Ukraine to continue till last Ukrainian standing. 

Pentagon knows that ultimately Ukraine will have to make some compromises to its territorial integrity, as it’s not possible to fully evict Russians from there. However, Russia winning additional 15 percent of Ukraine after Crimea, is an unpalatable pill for  NATO, which can encourage Russia to grab more in future; hence it would like to give offensive a chance with willing Zelensky, overhyped to show Russians their weakness, more so when NATO carries no burden of body bags. President Zelensky has no choice but to continue the war, with western propaganda depicting him as the undisputed winner, overplaying poor morale of Russian military, having shaped the battlefield accordingly.

Apparently, Ukraine may be pushed into offensive soon and Russia and Ukraine will see some more destruction before coming to terms with reality of changed territorial alignment, after delaying it as long as it takes!

“Right now there are changes – the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years – and we are the ones driving these changes together,” Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president replied: “I agree.”

Shortly after Beijing launched a 12-point position paper calling for a ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Chinese President Xi Jinping traveled to Moscow on a “journey of friendship, cooperation, and peace.” Vladimir Putin, whom Xi has referred to as his “best friend,” would be present during the three days of his tour, which started on March 20. Both men had their 40th encounter at the summit in Moscow. There was a hope that a breakthrough in putting an end to the war in Ukraine will result from the visit by Xi, who was recently reappointed as China’s leader for an unprecedented third term and who is seeking a bigger position for Beijing on the international stage. The war, which is now in its second year, has resulted in tens of thousands of fatalities, displaced millions from their homes, and caused severe economic hardship, with global inflation soar and a shortage of supplies of goods like energy, grain, and fertilizer. Amidst this background, the visit may bring some positive outcome for the war since the recent history of China as mediator has taken the light of the world. But there are some realities also and those will be also examined with merits.

However, the two leaders urged “responsible dialogue” to end the Ukraine conflict, with Xi noting that Beijing and Moscow had signed a document ushering in a “new era” of cooperation in their relations. The discussions were meant to solidify the “no limits” alliance that the two leaders declared in February of last year, less than three weeks before the start of the Ukraine War. But the whole world is looking for the role as the mediator on the current Ukraine war

China has remained largely quiet regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine because it prefers to maintain its neutral stance. The Xi-Putin meeting has prompted inquiries about possible shifts in China’s position on the conflict. In this study, the focus is at the summit’s effects on the conflict in Ukraine and the larger geopolitical context.

What does it mean for the Ukraine War?

Putin hoped that Xi would support Russia in its conflict with Ukraine by arming its military with cutting-edge, functional weaponry, just as the West has done for Kiev. But neither leader mentioned it in their concluding comments or their lengthy joint statement, which was nine pages long. In reality, the joint statement only briefly mentioned the Ukraine war and only to ask for the restart of “peace talks” (with no additional information beyond Xi’s proposal from a month ago). Additionally, it reaffirmed the axiom that a nuclear conflict “cannot be won,” undermining Putin’s “red lines” regarding the nuclear danger. So no major armament from China will be experienced by the Russian regime which is a practical step toward the peace process.

Likewise, China is not developing or opening a military partnership with Russia, according to Xi. The two countries will “forge a closer partnership” in a wide range of industries, including energy, civil aviation, automobile manufacturing, metallurgy, port traffic capacity, rail and sea cargo, and agriculture, to name a few. Hence, cooperation in other areas will ensure a friendly Russia. But still the arming will be missed by the Russian regime.

As already stated, China had characterized Xi’s visit as one of a peacemaker, particularly in light of the 12-point peace plan that had been unveiled a month ago. Like the Saudi-Iran case, China can be a prospective mediator here.

Moreover, Russia “welcomed China’s willingness to play an active role in resolving the Ukrainian crisis through political and diplomatic means,” according to the joint statement. Additionally, Russia valued the “constructive propositions” outlined in the paper from the Chinese foreign ministry. It shows that, though there is no defense purchase from China happening in a near future, but Russia still wants China as a friend amidst the global economic downturn.

On a peaceful note, from both the sides, the resolution of the Ukraine crisis, it was stated, “must respect the reasonable security concerns of every country and prevent the formation of confrontational blocs that feed the fires.” Hence, China hailed Russia’s reiteration that it was willing to resume peace talks.

But from the other part of the Atlantic, Washington responded with stern remarks. According to John Kirby, spokesman for the US Department of National Security, “If China wants to play a constructive role in this conflict, then it ought to pressure Russia to withdraw troops from Ukraine.” So, like many other cases, the USA wants a direct stance from China which may hamper the current state of stability of China in terms of policy making for Russian regime which can give Russia a leverage over the war situation.

CNN claims that Xi’s trip to Moscow “failed to move the needle” in terms of resolving the war in Ukraine. So according to them, the visit ended in a smoke.

Here, the other part of the war parties, Volodymyr Zelensky’s stance, the president of Ukraine, should be taken into account. He told reporters that he had asked China to participate in negotiations but had not yet received a response. According to him, China’s participation in the execution of the peace formula was suggested by Ukraine. The nation distributed the recipe through all media. They asked to converse with them. They are anticipating the response. He stated that although they are getting some signals, they are not yet specific. So, the Ukrainian side also fancies to get China as a mediator since it is the only feasible party to make the two war parties to seat against a single table.

But President Putin informed Chinese President Xi that many of the terms of the Chinese peace plan for Ukraine could serve as the foundation for a resolution when the West and Kyiv were ready for it. He also noted that no such readiness had been seen thus far, according to TASS, a state-run news service in Russia.

Putin stated that a peace settlement could be built on a Chinese plan to end the conflict, but Kyiv and the West were not yet prepared. However, China’s peace initiative has been dismissed by the United States, which asserts that a ceasefire would secure Russian territorial gains and allow Putin’s army more time to reorganize. Besides, Russia “welcomed China’s willingness to play an active role in resolving the Ukrainian crisis through political and diplomatic means,” according to the joint statement. Additionally, Russia valued the “constructive role” outlined in the paper from the Chinese foreign ministry.

There will be more ramifications. It’s critical to understand that the summit’s primary emphasis was not the conflict in Ukraine. The meeting’s stated goals included strengthening China and Russia’s strategic partnership and talking about a variety of political and economic problems. So, a comprehensive role from China through this meeting should not be expected.

The meeting also emphasized China and Russia’s expanding strategic alliance. The United States, which has been promoting the idea of a new Cold War between the West and China and Russia, is putting increasing pressure on both nations. China and Russia are letting the United States know that they won’t be confined or isolated by fortifying their alliance.

China and Russia’s expanding partnership, however, may offer Russia more negotiating power and diplomatic support with Ukraine and its allies in the West. This might make it harder for Ukraine to accomplish its objectives, like taking back control of Crimea and putting an end to the war in the Donbas.

Hence, little hope for a breakthrough on Ukraine mean that Xi and Putin’s substantive discussions will probably center on strengthening and expanding China and Russia’s strategic and economic relations. It has not yet been possible to organize a thorough discussion of the peace process.