The sharpest baltic politician
How can you know he is the sharpest if you know nothing of all the others? You're quick with your insults but not with your wits.
He's definitely sharper than you. Which arguably doesn't take much judging by your activity on this forum.
The idea that Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia are "post-Soviet" states is not
offensive but
idiotic. Maldeikis is a Lithuanian so he's offender. I'm a Pole so to me it's just stupid. Read below to understand why.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were independent countries emerging from the collapse of Russian Empire and were formally recognized by USSR. Then in 1939 they were invaded, occupied and later illegally annexed into the Soviet Union.
If they are "post-Soviet" then China is "post-Mongol" as historical maps show a clear shift that occurred under the Yuan dynasty which was as pivotal for China's history as Qin was. And arguably Mongols had
greater impact on China than Soviet and Russia occupation had on Baltic states.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia predate modern Russia.
"Modern Russia" refers here to Peter the Great's
Russian Empire - an imperial state emerging from Grand Duchy of Moscow and Tsardom of Russia and not the contemporary post-Soviet Russian Federation.
Incidentally it is correct to refer to Russian Federation as "post-Soviet" since
Russian Federation is fundamentally different from Russian Republic/Empire because of administrative and legal reforms in the Soviet Union which didn't occur in the Baltic States.
Specifically
Estonia and Latvia are post-Germanic cultures in the
historical region of Livonia which evolved from the
trading cities of Hanseatic League which was a medieval association of German-founded cities that facilitated trade in the Baltic region.
Both Estonia and Latvia are highly urbanised countries with majority of population concentrated in historical Hanseatic cities - Tallin (Revel), Narva, Tartu (Darpat), Parnu (Parnau), Riga, Ventspilis (Windau) and Liepaia (Lipau).

Throughout the medieval era it was Germanic and Nordic and later primarily Swedish influence until the Great Northern War in which Russia pushed out Swedish Empire across the Baltic and
took over the territory in 1710 and acquired it by treaty of Nystad in 1721.
Because Russian Empire (formerly Tsardom of Russia) was a primitive culture and Peter I was looking for western influences the region was mostly left alone until mid-19th century when Russia began to fear Prussian/German influence and began to settle Russian population to increase political control.
Lithuania is somewhat of a backwater culturally because it was the largest Baltic tribe that resisted colonisation and the Northern Crusades (see: Teutonic Knights) and ultimately accepted Christianity and personal union with the Kingdom of Poland which over time led to creation of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Baltic states are Baltic cultures with Germanic influences. They have nothing in common with Russia or Slavic cultures, with the exception of Lithuania which has minor Polish influences. For example at no point in their history was the Cyrillic alphabet adopted for the languages- it was always Latin.
It is possible to argue about the influence of the Soviet period on the borders because there were adjustments of the borders during WW2 but they were relatively minor and the countries exist in largely unchanged form since 1921. Specifically for Lithuania, the main border change involves territories of Poland and Germany, and not Russia.
It is acceptable to refer to Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan as "post-Soviet states" because they were created through series of administrative changes as was Kazakhstan and the central Asian states if I recall correctly. You can argue that Ukraine is a post-Soviet state but
not the Baltic states.These three are absolutely not "post-Soviet" in any meaningful sense of the term.
Now that being said there's an interesting relationship between Lithuania and Taiwan which in my view explains why this particular country is so susceptible to American influence in that matter as well as why it is so annoyingly active about it.
Lithuania is a country with very pronounced inferiority complex acquired through misunderstanding and mythologising its own history.
Lithuanian nationalists build their identity on the notion of Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was a feudal state in medieval eastern Europe emerging from the collapse of Kiyvan Rus after the Mongol invasion era. Mongols devastated the region and caused the collapse of Kiyvan Rus. When the Mongol Empire fell apart local warlords began to consolidate power. Two Lithuanian rulers - Gedyminas and Algierdas were responsible for the creation of territorially extensive Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Specifically Gedyminas allegedly defeated Principality of Kiyv in the Battle of Irpin river in the 1320s. which is likely a symbolic story explaining Lithuanian aggressive expansion into the former sphere of Kiyvan influence. The reason why this happened was because Mongols were like Vikings rather than Romans. They raided and plundered and took tribute but never established their own state structures because they had none to offer. That meant that Mongol vassals were worse off in all aspects after the Mongol empire withdrew. That power vacuum was exploited by Lithuanians who were geographically shielded from Mongol raids and emerged relatively stronger compared to devastated Russian principalities.
That however was short-lived because Russian principalities had superior Orthodox culture and pagan Lithuanians were pressured by Northern Crusades led by Catholic militant orders. By late 14th century their state was threatened which is why they sought alliance with Kingdom of Poland which provided legitimacy and military power.
And this is where Lithuanian nationalists' version of history begins to diverge from reality. For them this was
Lithuanian golden age.
In reality "Lithuania" was a Ruthenian/Russian Orthodox state ruled by a Lithuanian family backed by Polish power and Polish/Catholic culture due to personal union which established the Jagiellon dynasty in Poland. "Lithuania" had territory, Poland had population. Rulers made a trade.
As the dynasty ended a legal union (Union of Lublin in 1569) was created to continue what the Polish nobility saw as advantageous. But the act creating "Republic of Both Nations" for example recognized two official languages besides Latin: Polish and Ruthenian. The "Lithuanian" nobility was also Ruthenian while the important Lithuanian nobility like the Radziwill family were Polonised by then. Grand Duchy of "Lithuania" was Ruthenia in all but name. But the name is all what matters for the nationalists/conservatives. When Russian Empire took over during the Partitions actual Lithuania was relegated to the small country that it always was. But not only that - the Poles have by then successfully projected the influence into core areas of the historical Lithuanian state including the historical capital of Vilnius which became a Polish and Jewish city with the surrounding area populated by Poles.
Poland and Lithuania had a war after 1918 because the Lithuanian nationalists backed by Germany (we calll them "Litvaks") refused to accept ethnic composition as well as refused confederation with Poland which was offered largely in good faith. Poland had always a more positive attitude toward Lithuania, while modern Lithuania is driven by aggressive insecurity and inferiority complex vs Poland.
And this is where the similarity with Taiwan strikes me as pertinent.
Lithuanian identity is based on a country that historically never existed. Taiwan is also a country that
historically never existed. Both substitute fantasy for histor for political purposes..
There is a political structure operating on Taiwan but it isn't "Taiwan" but "Republic of China", which is something like the "Grand Duchy of Lithuania". The "Taiwanese nationalists" based their identity on Japanese imperial period just like the Litvaks were inspired by Prussian influences. Both Lithuania and Taiwan are torn between the grandiosity of foundational myth (imperial) and the political reality of what drives them (foreign). Their identity is the void inbetween those two.
I think this is why you see so many Lithuanians taking such an active role as American lackeys w.r. to Taiwan as opposed to Latvia and Estonia who speak up when pressured then keep quiet.
To Lithuania Taiwanese claims to identity and legitimacy make sense because that's what they do to their own history.
And to drive home the argument about Lithuanian stupidity: because of Kaliningrad the cooperation between Poland and Lithuania is the most logical and necessary for mutual security. And yet it wasn't after 2014
when Americans pressured Lithuania that it slowly began to happen. Lithuanians expected NATO to defend them but refused to do their part because it required recognising Poland's (10+ x LIT population ) role in it
LIT defense spending:
But that's not the best bit... With everything that you know about Poland and Russia can you imagine Poles and Russians working together for a common political cause somewhere? No? Ask both minorities in Lithuania. It's a Grand Duchy Miracle.