If necessary, Estonia could deploy allied nuclear weapons on its territory, Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna stated this week. Poland has also turned its attention to developing nuclear capabilities, while in Sweden voices have emerged suggesting that Nordic countries should consider acquiring nuclear weapons.
What does this mean for Latvia? BNN asked political analyst and co-owner of “Mediju tilts,” Filips Rajevskis.
“The possession of nuclear weapons is also a certain security guarantee that you will not be attacked. That is the new understanding and reality we must learn to live with. If Ukraine had not been stripped of the nuclear weapons stationed on its territory in the early 1990s, Russia would not have attacked,” the political scientist said.
According to Rajevskis, four years of war in Ukraine demonstrate not only how modern and technological warfare has become, but also that
strategic deterrence is only truly possible if a country possesses nuclear weapons.
Statements by Poland’s president about choosing a path toward developing nuclear capabilities, as well as debates in Sweden about potentially creating their own nuclear weapons, show that perceptions of defense and national positioning are rapidly changing.
“Sweden used to be very calm and neutral. Now it is a NATO country saying it should at least have the option of hosting nuclear weapons on its territory. That is a fundamental shift,” Rajevskis noted.
Regarding Estonia’s stance, Rajevskis stressed that Latvia must clearly define its own position.
“There is the international Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. However, as we saw in the case of the Ottawa Convention, it is extremely important not to fall behind real life and perhaps not to cling too tightly to agreements that are no longer functioning properly. If we see that Russia is blatantly violating them by deploying nuclear weapons in Belarus — our neighboring country — we must also consider Latvia’s position on this issue. Yet there is an awkward silence about it.”
Asked whether Latvia’s defense establishment should respond following Estonia’s statement, Rajevskis replied that
either the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should react.
“It is important for us not to sleep through this and to be part of the discussion — at least to try to enter it. I understand we are too poor to have our own nuclear weapons, but it should not be the case that while our neighbors are debating and planning, we are occupied with utopian ambitions at the UN Security Council, defending outdated ideas that no longer fit the modern world.”
Rajevskis stopped short of accusing Latvia of rigidity but emphasized the need for flexibility.
“We must be able to respond to such situations and find our place in the new security architecture — not only regarding conventional weapons, but also nuclear weapons.”
In the broader context of geopolitical tensions, Rajevskis also commented on Russia’s use of sports events such as the Olympic Games for propaganda.
“Sport is indeed a propaganda weapon for the aggressor state right now.
Many Russian athletes hold military ranks in the Russian army, which is committing crimes against humanity. Yet these individuals compete in the Olympic Games as neutral athletes. Meanwhile, various Russian and former Soviet symbols are displayed among supporters, and the victims — Ukrainian athletes — are disqualified.”
He also pointed to the Paralympic Games, where Russian and Belarusian athletes compete under their national flags.
“There have already been concerns in international media about whether Russia might be represented at the Paralympics by war veterans. It would be extremely cruel toward Ukraine if athletes who are in fact soldiers of the occupying army — participants in a war beyond any bounds of humanity — were to be honored and celebrated with Olympic prestige.”
Read also: Estonia plans to build 600 bunkers on Baltic Defense Line
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | Is Latvia’s Government collapsing or just arguing loudly? A political scientist explains