“Is Russian dictator Vladimir Putin really mad to attack any NATO member state?” This question is on the minds of countless people in Europe. Statements from various ministers and military officials only seem to add fuel to the fire. BNN and former state secretary to the Ministry of Defence of Latvia Jānis Garisons discussed the current situation and the future.
High-ranking European politicians say more and more often: Russia’s attack on a NATO member state is possible in the next 5 – 8 years. This was mentioned by German Minister of Defence Boris Pistorius. Danish Minister of Defence Troels Lund Poulsen, on the other hand, mentioned a different term – three to four years. Moldova, Poland and Latvia are at the top of this list. How much are these concerns justified?
We should start with the core of Russia’s regime. We can see that in the past month and a half the regime has become stronger. Just recently Alexei Navalny was basically murdered. [Vladimir] Putin was preparing for the so-called Election Day and the regime felt very strong at some point. Russia’s economy and military industry were put on wartime rails. I believe we have to keep in mid that Putin has always made it his goal to change the existing world order, and he has always wanted to change the unfair, according to him, loss of the Soviet Union. We saw that in 2021, when he literally set an ultimatum for NATO. I believe his political goals haven’t changed since then.
The primary topic is how the situation in Ukraine will be resolved, because right now neither side can gain any tangible accomplishments. We can see Russia remains prepared to lose hundreds of thousands of is manpower to progress forward. And it is likely Russia will continue that. Putin needs a political lever to present these losses to Russian citizens. I would compare it with a fight between a refrigerator and a TV. We can clearly see the TV has been winning so far. But for the TV to win, it needs to be sacrificed something – Ukraine, some kind of successful conquest. I still remember how it was in the Soviet Union – I lived there in the 80s, and nothing has changed – they live in a world in which they are prepared to suffer for the idea of Russia’s power. This idea needs to be fed and promoted, and this can only be done with foreign policy successes or foreign conquests. More and more people understand this, especially in the West, because the situation in Ukraine is what it is, and initial forecasts and hopes that Russia would collapse because of sanctions did not come to pass. Russia has adapted.
Putin is an opportunist – where he sees an opportunity, he will strike. Planning is not something natural to him. This is why this period of time was given to us so that we can prepare.
Right now there are no military threats [for Latvia], but we still have to expect hybrid threats, in which Russia will try to use non-military methods to influence us. But if we don’t use this time to prepare, I believe, we will waste this opportunity and reveal our weak points. And this is even more important for the European Union than Latvia. Europe’s military capabilities were basically destroyed after the Cold War. On top of that, we can see internal processes in the US can potentially create additional risks.
But I want to stress again – there are no threats at the moment, we have time to prepare. I believe there are all pre-conditions for us to be able to defend ourselves. If we adopt the defensive capabilities we have ordered – long-range artillery, anti-ship missiles, air defence systems; if we reinforce the border and compose a bigger army, we have nothing to fear. We simply have to reinforce Europe’s and our own defensive capabilities to deter Russia.
No one really takes Dmitry Medvedev’s statements seriously anymore, and yet, if we look at some of his claims – if Russia is forced to relinquish territories claimed in Ukraine, then there will be nuclear attacks on Berlin, Washington, London, Kyiv… Is that just his own rhetoric or should these threats be taken seriously?
Mr. Medvedev has said so much over the years that he can be taken seriously only partially. I believe Crimea is the weakest link of Putin’s regime at the moment. Everything is centered around this regime’s stability rather than Russia. The moment Crimea is lost, it will mean the regime is in danger. This is why we cannot exclude the possibility of some extreme steps being taken.
During the Valdai Conference in October 2018 Putin said Russia is prepared to use nuclear arms. How would you comment that?
Since the 19th century there have been various theories about the superiority and exclusiveness of the Russian nation. There is no exclusive nation or world. This isn’t anything new. Like in any authoritarian regime – if the dictator is no more, the regime is at risk. The Soviet Union was based on ideology, and Hitler’s regime in Germany had some kind of ideological base. Russia doesn’t have one – it’s the oligocracy of money, basically the power of money.
People are justifiably scared of headlines like – NATO invites preparing for Russian missile attack on Europe. At the same time, there is an opinion that they are intended to motivate the US and European countries provide larger and faster aid to Ukraine.
The situation right now is not good, and God forbid Ukraine loses. If this happens, there is an 80% probability Russia will go further after some time. Looking back at 2012 and 2013 before Crimea’s annexation, there was a sort of permanent peace in Europe, and everyone believed it would stay this way forever.
Just two years ago not many in Europe believed a full-scale war was possible in Ukraine.
I’d publicly asked at a conference in Germany – do you understand who Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad are intended for? They’re not meant for us, but for Germany, because we are covered from the other side. This is why it is good that European politicians are starting to admit the situation and that it is necessary to seriously work on growing military capabilities. We are in an era where western dominance is in decline, and if you don’t have military power to defend yourself with and interests, then we’re witnessing the dusk of Europe.
The world is worried about the US presidential elections in November. There’s been the opinion that Donald Trump’s victory could further reinforce Vladimir Putin’s regime.
Historically the US has always struggled between isolationism and international cooperation. We’re living in a world in which order is largely based on America’s leading role. Like it or not, but if this country disappeared from the international environment, chaos would follow. We can already see that such international organisations like, for example, the United Nations, have become completely powerless.
As for Mr. Trump, on the one hand the question is what will happen and what will his administration be like, on the other hand – Putin does fear him.
Why?
Let’s not forget how much Russian propagandists celebrated when Trump was elected US President. However, when looking at the outcome, we can see that it was Trump who imposed the biggest sanctions on Russia.
As a businessman, Donald Trump focuses on his goal. However, we can also see that he is unpredictable. While with Joe Biden we can imagine his policy and ideology, no one can say the same about Trump. I’m not saying we should start distancing ourselves from the US, no. the US is and will remain the strongest partner. American presence is important to us. We also have to keep in mind that these isolationism tendencies do exist. We have to form our own policy with these risks in mind, but we remain very clearly interested in America’s leadership and it should be supported.
In his interview to Tucker Carlson, Putin said that, opposite to western officials’ warnings, Russia has no interest in attacking NATO’s eastern flank and it has no interest in taking Poland, Latvia or some other country. Unfortunately, experience shows Putin’s Russia cannot be trusted. What was that? Lulling attention?
I believe so. Putin would be the last person whose statements I would trust. We should look at the objective of this interview, and I believe the objective was to show to America and the Western audience that Putin is a rational man and will not wage war on the West. So to speak, here I am ready to agree on ending the Ukrainian war on my conditions, I’m not someone who will wage war on you. All this in part of this interview’s overall context.
Will Alexei Navalny’s death in prison start changing something in Russia?
I believe nothing will and can change. Most people who disagree [with Russia’s political course] have left for foreign countries, whereas the remaining Russian society is mostly zombified. There is no protest potential there. “Screws” were tightened all the time and, I believe, they will be tightened further.
Protests and changes are possible if society is given some freedom. The more freedoms are cut in Russia, the less people will be able to exchange opinions and voice a protest. I believe we have overestimated Russia’s development in the past dozen years. We saw St. Petersburg and Moscow, but no one looked at Russian villages, smaller cities, which have not changed much not just since the Soviet Era but from the Tsarist Era. The only exception will be if the army stages an uprising against the regime, like it was in 1917, but there are no leaders in Russia prepared for an armed uprising.
A couple of years ago, in a study on values ordered by the Ministry of Defence, academician Maija Kūle said we [and Russians] have different value models. Latvia has gone into that Western, consumer society model where we get pleasure through the fact that we go shopping, buy more than we need, have a good car and an apartment. Russia, on the other hand, has developed a model of the pleasure of power, where power shares this pleasure of grandeur and society gains satisfaction through the fact that Russia is powerful – we will go there anyway, and so – to there. Society is fed this and they aren’t interested what happens down there. As I’ve said – TV vs. refrigerator. They get pleasure from demonstrating their power.
Russia manufactures ten times more artillery shells – between four to five million a year – than Europe. Does this mean Europe needs to rapidly develop it’s military industry? What can we do in Latvia?
We have to secure military-industrial capacity, especially in positions in which we need large volumes. I’ve been saying this all the time and I’ve tried working in this direction. It’s clear that some complicated systems we rarely use did not pay off. But we need munitions, vehicles and many more things to maintain our armed forces. This is why it’s important for us to develop our own military industry in Latvia. History shows that in 1940 we had ordered arms prior to the Soviet invasion, and no one supplied them afterwards. The moment a war starts, all supply chains are disrupted.
It’s clear Latvia needs to manufacture arms, munitions or other things to enhance the country’s defensive capabilities. But where should we get the money and how should we attract investors?
It’s not something impossible, but it does require time, technologies and considerable state support. We have many good, small companies, so-called startups. However, the problem is that a transition to mass production requires a completely different vision. It’s not enough to be a good engineer – you need to be a good administrator, financier. This is why the idea to use state capital associations model and create a joint company for munitions manufacturing is worth supporting. This would also reduce the risk of a company being unable to fulfil contracts.
Let’s look at the issue of reinforcing Latvia’s eastern border. The project for the eastern border infrastructure was ready around the start of the year 2000, but it was ultimately halted by Einars Repše’s government. We started building the fence in 2018, whereas Poland completed its 180 km long and 5.5 m high steel fence on the border with Belarus in half a year (!). Who is to blame? Are there really corrupt people everywhere, thinking only about ways to monetize “a piece of the fence”?
I’ve thought about this a lot. We need to present the country with added value, but instead we deal with attempts to divide what little we have and call each other corrupt. If one business doesn’t like something, he calls his competitor corrupt. An investigation starts and progress is halted. But if there are these big scandals, someone should be convicted! But there is no such thing. And so we have to ask – either have a problem with our investigative institutions, these loud claims had no basis, or the process itself was incorrect. Working in public administration you can clearly see that no one wants to take responsibility for new cases. Papers are thrown around to and from the Cabinet of Ministers.
This, I believe, is one of the biggest problems of our country, because without the government’s want to take responsibility, we basically slow the entire country’s development. But it’s not because the government is powerless – it can take initiative and take responsibility. But if officials are called scoundrels all the time, nothing will happen.
Does this mean people who intermix with “the grey mass” and refuse to raise their head above their holes feel the most comfortable and the safest in public government?
This would be my conclusion after working as state secretary to the Ministry of Defence for nine years. Had I spent my time pushing papers around and doing nothing, it would have been the easiest way to stay [in the post] for several years more (laughs).
Going back to the issue of the state border – it is mentioned that because mines are highly important to reinforce Latvia’s border with Russia, Latvia should exit the Ottawa Treaty, which prohibits their use. At the same time, on Mana balss website there are two conflicting initiatives – one in favour of exiting from the treaty, and the other in favour of staying in it. What do you think?
I would look at this issue from two sides. It’s important for us to hold the border, because, if we let our enemy across the border, it will become harder to defend the country. This is why our only option to prevent enemies from crossing the border. If we look at it from this side, I personally don’t see any way to do this without using mines.
The US did not join this treaty because they use mines on the demarcation line separating North and South Korea. The assumption is that North Korea, like Russia, have a large number of infantrymen, whereas Sough Korea has a small operational depth, similarly to us, because Seoul is located a mere 30 km away from the border. Aside from that, since the 90s, Americans have been looking for an alternative for anti-personnel mines, and still haven’t found it.
Anti-tank mines are used alongside anti-personnel mines in Ukraine. This makes any kind of movement forward difficult. An infantryman cannot simply approach and disable anti-tank mines. This, I believe, is a very serious and cheap defensive measure.
Modern, remote mines use either sensors or some national guardsman needs to sit in the bushes with a remote. As for sensors, Russia has very powerful electronic warfare systems, and they can disable electronics. In the other case, imagine a national guardsman sitting in the bushes with drones circling around – how long, do you think, he’ll last?
My personal opinion is that in this UAV era, when efforts are put into reinforcing the border, we have to make it clear – yes, like the Korean peninsula, we will use these mines. No one sets up minefields during peace time. It’s not like there will be minefields all the time there. It’s important to prepare areas, consider where mines are needed. There have to be warehouses and trained staff that would lay down mines. This is not something that can be done in a single day. The moment we see some escalation, we deploy the mines.
What will be the signals that will indicate the time has come to set up mines?
There is nothing new on this front. If we look back at the invasion of Ukraine, we will see that in October, November of 2021 Russia started concentrating forces on the Ukrainian border. I would say that once such activity starts, this will be the moment to start setting up mines on the border. This would work as a deterrence measure.
Maybe in addition to mandatory military service we should also make it mandatory for all men that are Latvian citizens to join the National Guard?
We’ve discussed this a lot with national guardsmen of my age. For example, my motivation to join the National Guard was that I would rather defend my children than let eighteen or nineteen year old youngsters die in the event of an invasion. But society, it seems, does not share this opinion. This is why the national defence service is a very important and basically the only way. The moment we have most youngsters enter the national defence service and we have a normal reservist system, we will end up in a situation when thirty-year-olds and forty-year-olds are involved.
Perhaps we should introduce military studies in universities?
Such a programme already exists and youngsters can sign up. National defence studies will be added to general schools as well.
It’s important to discuss and reach an agreement in society that we need extensive armed forces. There are two factors to consider here. One is the command structure: officers, instructors, corporals and sergeants, without whom nothing will happen even if we “produce” troops. The other is arms, munitions and everything else. If both factors are met, then it will be possible to train infantrymen in three weeks under a timely mobilisation.
Also read: BNN INTERVIEW | Aleksejs Grigorjevs: Navalny’s murder proves – Russia is completely a fascist country
Follow us on Facebook and X!