Ilona Bērziņa
Is the world order really changing, so that what seemed self-evident yesterday no longer is today? What hopes can we link to the new US Ambassador to Latvia, Melissa Argyros, taking office, and what can we expect because of Rail Baltica’s excessive spending? About these and other issues, BNN speaks with the co-founder of the company “Mediju tilts” (Media Bridge) and political scientist Filips Rajevskis.
Lately we hear more and more often that the world order is changing and that we must learn to survive in a new reality. What does that actually mean?
The new reality is that a person is, to a very large extent, responsible for themselves, and many things are in their own hands. For decades, questions about whether we need an army, how large it should be, and how we will arm it were based on the answer: NATO’s Article 5 will protect us. Right now we have reached a situation where Article 5 still protects us, but for it to truly work in full, we also have to protect ourselves. In other words: “Protect yourself, and God will protect you.” That means that, first and foremost, we ourselves must take care of our security, because no one will do it in your place, and only then comes Article 5 and American support.
This is a major change not only for Latvia – it is the same for Europe, which itself needs both its own soldiers and its own armed forces. Yes, the United States has the most capable military in the world, and we are used to assuming that in the event of a military threat they will fight on our behalf. But in reality, the Americans are saying “no.” There is an objective reason: the Americans need to be in the Indo-Pacific region to ensure guaranteed security for their partners; they need to be in the Middle East, where everyone demands that they deal with Iran; they need to be in Europe. But American resources are not limitless – they, too, have boundaries. And what they say very directly is: if you want to count on us, please be with us and be strong yourselves. In that way you will also support us.
However, as has been said more than once, Europe does not have that much money and capacity to do even more for its defense alongside what has already been done.
That is the story of the so-called “peace dividends.” While the Americans invested in their armed forces, developed their army and military technologies, Europe slept in complete peace, believing that the Americans would protect them and nothing bad would happen. Even worse, instead of thinking about its own security, Europe fed America’s strategic opponent Russia with money, allowing it to strengthen and feel more powerful. But this country has never changed its doctrine: for Russia, America has always been a strategic adversary.
If we are talking about money, Europe is a very large economy – the European Union is one of the largest in the world. In terms of population, too, Europe has major human resources. Europe is a huge structure, not a single state. And saying “there is no money” or “there are no human resources” is exaggerated – Europe is incomparably larger and wealthier than many other parts of the world.
But where does this perception come from that America will defend us in every way – moreover, that it is America’s duty?
For a long time, that was Europe’s policy. Canada’s prime minister also spoke about it in his speech at the Davos forum: it was convenient to flatter America, to tell the United States – you are the biggest and the strongest – so that they would spend the money and keep protecting us. Meanwhile, we in Europe would live peacefully and not spend on armaments, the army, or soldiers. But if you look objectively at economic and demographic numbers, Europe is a strong and large player – in fact, one of the largest. Of course India and China are large, but if we look at economic indicators, Europe is still one of the world’s largest economies.
This month, the new US Ambassador to Latvia, Melissa Argyros, will arrive in Latvia. As the US Embassy has stated, this will further strengthen the close US–Latvia partnership. What will Latvia gain from the new ambassador’s personality?
I think we are lucky with this ambassador. The new ambassador is politically connected to the current US administration, and that is an advantage for Latvia. It means a direct link to Donald Trump’s administration – not indirectly, not through the bureaucracy at the diplomatic level, but directly at the political level. Of course, she will also be more direct – and, I assume, as a representative of this administration, also much more demanding. Still, an ambassador with such political weight is an advantage for Latvia.
Melissa Argyros is also known in the US as a philanthropist. Together with her sister, she runs the family charitable foundation, whose mission is focused on children, education, healthcare, scholarships and the arts. Could this in some way encourage the development of these fields in Latvia as well – if we have such an example in front of us?
The fact that she also represents a wealthy family is an unambiguous advantage. Whether her foundation will operate in Latvia’s territory, we do not yet know, but overall I think it is a benefit for the state to have such an ambassador.
Latvia is currently being hit loudly and unpleasantly by the echoes of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. In the Epstein files published in the US, Latvia’s name is mentioned in the context of recruiting underage girls. The State Police have initiated criminal proceedings in connection with this – only, isn’t it a bit late? Scandals about recruiting underage girls and sending them to various countries for sexual exploitation have existed before as well…
Latvia has changed since the mid-2000s, and I think this also aligns with the Istanbul Convention. If we argue so much about the Istanbul Convention and other things, then in the spirit of this convention we must do everything to investigate such crimes, and those who were engaged in this horrific business must be punished.
Several high-profile names have been mentioned, but at the same time it has also been acknowledged that there may be forgeries among them. How do we distinguish the guilty from the innocent, so as to protect the reputations and lives of the latter from collapse?
This is nevertheless a professional matter for law-enforcement agencies: to investigate so they can untangle it and separate the guilty from the innocent, those who have been slandered from those who truly participated in that business. Those who harmed their victims must certainly receive the punishment they deserve.
Returning to events in Latvia – an interesting situation has developed with three long-serving mayors who have lost their posts. Gatis Truksnis and Aleksandrs Bartaševičs because they did not receive security clearance for state secrets; Egils Helmanis resigned himself. Although Bartaševičs says he is not going anywhere, his removal is only a matter of time. In your opinion, will they remain in politics or not?
The question is rather: do they remain at the level of their municipal councils, or do they move into national politics, where, in fact, Bartaševičs has already been. Truksnis has been in municipal politics – he has not been at the national level. There are options: first, they can go to parliament, because to work in the Saeima you do not need security clearance for state secrets. Second, all three are characterized by a very high level of trust in their municipalities – in the last elections they achieved extremely good results. Trust at the local level is so high that they can easily remain in positions that do not require such clearance and still be very influential. So they have many opportunities, and I think they do not have to worry too much about the future.
In the past, people in the city said about Helmanis that he is the “man behind the scenes” who largely sets the agenda for the National Alliance.
It would be an exaggeration to say that. He is simply loud and noticeable. Helmanis is a very visible representative of the National Alliance with whom this party is indeed associated, but he is not the only one. Of course, he is a major “key person” for the party – as a point of recognition and gravity – but the party is bigger than just one person.
Another thing people are “worked up” about is Rail Baltica. Even the prime minister has finally woken up and says that transport ministers are to blame for not properly supervising the project’s progress. The question is – will there be any consequences, or will everything be forgotten after some time?
In fact, there are two things here. The first: you can say, wait, let’s see when there will be consequences. The second – and this cannot be forgotten – is our commitments. The option of “Oh, we’ll forget it, build nothing and do nothing,” does not exist.
And we also have to remember “Briškens’s stake” in the Daugava – that huge block that has been concreted there. Of course, in theory you can imagine a scenario where it just stays there, nothing ever happens, the train never runs, and the objects remain half-finished – somewhat reminiscent of Soviet times, when such wrecks, built and left unfinished, were typical and stood there even in the 1990s. Still, I think this will not allow the topic to be forgotten.
Nor will the enormous costs allow it to be forgotten – compared to the initial calculations, they have increased eightfold…
Yes, but the scale is enormous. Riga station, plus that bridge pier in the Daugava, plus everything that has been built at the airport… But if the train does not arrive there, I don’t think Europe will leave it alone. And if it is placed on our budget, then money for security, healthcare, and so on will simply be reduced… Money will be pulled out of things we need in everyday life, and it will remain in those concrete blocks that nobody needs.
So, very simply put, if after some time we have a winter as cold as this year, but the rails have not been built, then people can wait for government support as much as they want – and still won’t get it. Simply because there will be no money in the budget…
Of course, that inevitably also means higher taxes. All of this has to be financed. You cannot hope that people will not feel it – they will. Usually it is felt in taxes, various payments, and someone has to pay. Taxpayers will have to pay.
But why aren’t people “worked up” – why don’t they go out into the streets and demand that this project finally be completed, that excess bureaucracy and excessive expenses be stripped away?
Maybe we have to wait until there is a big mess, and then something will change… Only then many people will leave Latvia to work abroad.
I fear that is exactly what people will do. How long can you watch the state’s money being wasted inefficiently? For example, the construction of the Stradiņš Hospital A2 корпус, which was halted by Health Minister Hosams Abu Meri and which will now cost almost twice as much. Of course, if it can even still be used for medical needs at all…
A classic scandal. But it wasn’t as if there were no problems on the contractor’s side – there were stories about mold, various quality problems, and, most importantly, that the project was delayed. That is why I would not want to pass judgments about who acted rightly or wrongly. Still, the most important thing is that taxpayers pay for any failure in managing large projects. Both the Stradiņš A2 корпус and Rail Baltica are large construction projects that must be managed professionally so that money is not lost and value is created. But there are major problems with that – large projects are rarely delivered smoothly.
Why is that? Are we really so uneducated in these matters? Or is there simply too strong a desire to get access to the money of big projects?
First, experience is needed. Second, decisions have to be made about these projects. And we also see this in the Rail Baltica case: no one wants to make decisions, and as a result everything is left hanging in the air. No one wants to be the one who says, “we do it this way,” because afterward you will be the one to blame.
Another big thing awaiting us is the buyout of shares in LMT and TET. There, too, different opinions have been heard – some say it must definitely be bought out, others object to such large spending…
The biggest problem is that we don’t know what the result should be. Overall, it is clear that the state should not be doing business and competing with private business. Latvia already has the problem that we own many large companies – a kind of state monopoly forms, a kind of dictated economy. At the same time, the previous situation also was not normal: decisions could not be made because everything was “knitted together” in such a way that it was unclear to the shareholders who owned what. That was not development-oriented either. The question is: what are the objective goals the state sets as a result of this transaction – what must be achieved and what the result should be. If we look only at what the state will gain in taxes, that is also not quite the main thing.
In the early 2000s, when the so-called Lattelekom settlement agreement with Telia Sonera was concluded, it was said that very unfavorable provisions for the Latvian state were included there. Perhaps that is why the ownership structure ultimately turned out the way it did.
Yes, but on the other hand, we also have not simply gifted all of this to TeliaSonera. Would it be in our interests for Tet to be just a sluggish subsidiary with one idea – “to milk it” and send dividends to the parent company in Sweden? If we look at Telia, it is not for nothing that the Swedish state is a co-owner of that company, and they do not want to sell it at all. I don’t think the Swedish state is foolish – they understand what and why they want, so that they can also influence strategic sectors. Communications is a strategic sector.
In Latvia we often try to swing to extremes. But the question is about strategic goals. And the fact that some share in this company belongs to the state does not seem terrible to me.
Some share – not that the state is the main commercial operator…
Yes. Overall, the question is: what strategic goals are being set. And it would be important to hear them from those carrying out this transaction. As I said, the goal cannot simply be: “let’s buy it back.” There has to be a result.
Do we even have such a strategic goal?
I hope we do. When the buyout happens, perhaps it will be clearly stated then. Not everything can always be said during such transactions, so that the other side does not use that information in the bargaining process. Still, at some point the purpose of the deal and the “end state” we want to see as a result of this transaction will have to be revealed.
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | Awkward maneuver over Trump’s Nobel Prize makes Latvia look ridiculous, says political scientist