Western sanctions against Russia and Belarus are necessary, but their economic impact on Latvia must also be taken into account when decisions on their implementation are made, Ventspils City Council member Aivars Lembergs (For Latvia and Ventspils) said during TV24’s Ziņu TOP, criticising Latvia’s port policy and what he described as the consequences of the sanctions, according to LA.LV.
Lembergs stressed that sanctions are an important instrument for weakening Russia’s economy during wartime, but argued they should not be introduced without carefully assessing their broader economic consequences. As an example, he pointed to exports of Belarusian potash, noting that the United States has lifted restrictions on Belarusian potash exports, allowing the product to return to global markets.
According to Lembergs, Latvia had the opportunity to handle these shipments through its own ports, but in reality the cargo is now being exported via Russian ports.
“Eleven million tonnes. Latvia could export those 11 million tonnes through its ports. Who is handling them? Russia.”
In his view, Russia—not Latvia—is benefiting financially from the situation.
“The money Latvia could have earned—around 300 million euros —is instead being earned by Russia.
One-third of that amount is tax revenue. Latvia is giving up 300 million euros in GDP and around 100 million euros in tax income—for whose benefit? Russia’s. So that Russia has more money to wage war. In this case, Latvia is siding with Russia and acting in Russia’s interests,” Lembergs said.
According to LA.LV, Lembergs also sharply criticised Latvia’s port policy and former transport ministers, arguing that their decisions had harmed the country’s economic interests.
“Completely incompetent people. They simply pushed everything towards removing Latvia’s ports from international trade,” he said.
The politician argued that before introducing sanctions or making other major economic decisions, governments should carefully assess their impact on Latvia’s economy.
“You always have to calculate whether
the damage you are trying to inflict on Russia or Belarus is actually causing even greater harm to your own country
—to Latvia,” Lembergs said.
He also argued that Latvia has failed to properly evaluate the economic consequences of implementing sanctions. According to Lembergs, Belarusian potash continues to reach international markets regardless, meaning Latvia is losing potential revenue while other countries take over the transit business.
“I have asked to see the calculations. What is the damage to Russia? What is the damage to Belarus? What is the damage to Latvia? I am interested first and foremost in Latvia—its gains and its losses. What is the balance? And if Brussels says these sanctions are mandatory, then Brussels should compensate us for the €300 million we are losing. How much has it provided from the compensation fund? Practically nothing. So what does the balance actually look like?” he said.
LA.LV notes that in March this year, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) officially lifted sanctions against the Belarusian companies Belaruskali and the Belarusian Potash Company (BPC), as well as BPC’s Ukrainian subsidiary Agrorozkvit. Sanctions were also removed from several other Belarusian entities, including Belinvestbank and the Belarusian Ministry of Finance, after Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko released a number of political prisoners.
Potash is one of Belarus’s most important export commodities and its most valuable mineral resource, while Belaruskali ranks among the world’s largest potash producers. Historically, Belarusian potash fertilisers accounted for a significant share of cargo handled by Baltic ports. Following the introduction of sanctions, export routes shifted, with part of the trade redirected through Russian ports. Lembergs argues that this has deprived Latvia of substantial transit revenues while benefiting Russia economically. The European Union, however, has consistently maintained that the purpose of sanctions is to limit the ability of Russia and Belarus to finance Russia’s war against Ukraine, even if the measures result in economic costs for some EU member states.
Read also: While Baltic ports empty, Russian ports grow richer. Was this really the goal of sanctions?