Former Latvian President Valdis Zatlers is calling on the public for calm and fair judgment regarding one of the most talked-about figures in recent years – businessman Pyotr Aven, reports “Diena”. “Right now, we’ve chosen to make Avens a symbol, while forgetting to look at the actual facts and the person’s real-life actions,” Zatlers said in an interview with the magazine “Ir”, as quoted by “Diena”.
“We’ve taken a symbolic stance that Aven is to blame for everything,” says Zatlers. He urges society not to fall for simplistic conclusions but to assess actual behaviour instead of assumptions. “His business partner Friedman lives in Moscow. Has Aven been in Moscow during this time? No, he hasn’t. So I recommend approaching this issue with a cool head, because sooner or later, the issue of lifting sanctions will have to be resolved.”
A question that must be answered
Zatlers points out that he sees no evidence or action by Aven that supports Russia’s aggression. “If he doesn’t, then the question is – how long will we continue to subject him to sanctions? But that opens another issue: as soon as we stand up for one individual, we risk opening Pandora’s box,” Zatlers told “Ir”.
“Aven lives in Latvia. Does he really support Russia’s war while living here? Some of our own entrepreneurs doing business in Russia support it more,” he added. “Sooner or later, we’ll need to answer the question – what is our attitude toward a Latvian citizen under sanctions?”
Asked whether he sees a moral dilemma, given that bombs continue to fall in Ukraine, Zatlers replied: “You should ask him directly what his attitude toward the war is.” He also raised a rhetorical question: how has Aven influenced the war in Ukraine over the last three years, and does he have any power to end it?
On opening and closing diplomatic windows
Zatlers, who served as President of Latvia from 2007 to 2011, also acknowledged that Aven may have played a role in organizing Zatlers’ official state visit to Russia in 2010. “It’s possible Aven is the person to thank for making that visit happen and for preparing the agreements,” he said.
At the time, Latvia had no regular contact with Russia, and the window of opportunity to launch a dialogue was narrow. According to Diena, Aven helped open that window.
Asked why Russia later “closed” the window, Zatlers pointed to the country’s far-reaching geopolitical goals, citing Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Titov, who said it was a political decision. “With Russia, it’s always the same – a step may be made toward you, but don’t fall into euphoric belief that you won’t be betrayed. That goes for every area – including business,” said Zatlers.
Aven’s involvement in organizing the 2010 state visit was not the only way he helped Latvia on Russia-related matters. In the investigative documentary “The Withdrawal of the Russian Army: The Unknown Chapters” by journalist Ansis Pūpols, former Saeima Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Aleksandrs Kiršteins recalls that Aven was part of a group of liberal economists who understood global market economics.
“He was the one who approached Yeltsin and argued that the faster the Russian army withdraws from the Baltics, the better,” said Kiršteins.
This fact was also mentioned in Forbes, which wrote: “As a result of his efforts, Russia began a free currency exchange system, improved external trade mechanisms, and committed to withdrawing its troops from Latvia.”
If someone has done good for you…
“If someone has done good for you, you shouldn’t turn your back and call them a scoundrel,” Zatlers remarked.
Similar sentiments were expressed by Tamāra Gončoronoka, head of the St. Thomas Church congregation in Jaunpiebalga, who said in 2023 regarding Aven’s support for church restoration:
“We would never say anything bad about him, because frankly, most of the donation came from him. People are deeply grateful. I treat him with respect, because he has given my children and grandchildren the chance to attend this church.”
Latvian Academy of Sciences (LZA) President Ivars Kalviņš noted last year that Aven’s foundation had awarded scholarships for excellence and science grants.
“Pyotr Aven was one of the largest donors to science, culture, and education in Latvia at the time, including to the Academy. After the EU imposed sanctions, we have had no cooperation with him. But if we now want to pretend his contributions to Latvian science never happened, then the recipients should return the money to Aven. LZA does not have that money.”
Kalviņš stressed that we shouldn’t ignore the political climate of that era in Latvia and the EU. After Russia’s first support of separatists in 2008, many in the West wagged a finger, but no real action followed. High-ranking officials continued to shake hands, talk, and meet – “all was beautiful,” he said.
As “Diena” points out, unlike many other Russian-rooted businessmen, Aven has chosen to stay in Latvia, not Moscow or London. He is a Latvian citizen, and as Zatlers emphasizes, “he has never broken Latvian law – not in the past, not now.” His decision to remain here during wartime is not self-evident. It is a conscious stance.