This week, Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs suddenly appeared to realise that grain transported in transit from Russia and Belarus does not belong to Russian companies but to major international traders from the United States and other countries. Moreover, grain transit through the European Union has never been prohibited. The Ministry of Transport also finally released calculations showing that banning grain transit through Latvia would cost the country 290 million euros annually and could increase domestic rail freight costs by up to three times. Since the government had already been aware of these figures in early September, it appears that ministers first familiarised themselves with the consequences, then announced their determined fight against Russian grain transit, and only afterwards explained to the public why that fight could not be won.
What was really behind this sequence of events? BNN asked political scientist Filips Rajevskis, co-owner of the company Mediju tilts.
“I think all these issues related to grain and sanctions have become excessively politicised in Latvia,” the political scientist said. “Instead of pursuing sensible policies genuinely aimed at taking effective action to weaken Russia and help Ukraine, we have turned the issue into shouting politicised slogans while concealing and withholding the true situation. And that is much worse than simply addressing the problem rationally.”
“Who tried to introduce a voice of reason by asking whether we are doing everything possible, and whether we are doing the right things, to restrict Russia and inflict maximum damage on it?” Rajevskis asked rhetorically, adding that this was precisely the problem.
Asked by BNN whether the prime minister genuinely had no knowledge of EU regulations governing grain transit until this week, Rajevskis replied:
“I am absolutely convinced that he knew. But he had to play by the rules established during the election campaign.
If he had told the truth then, what he is saying now, all the politically aligned media would most likely have attacked Kulbergs, creating problems for him during the election campaign. It is clear that policy in this area will not change at the European level either.”
Asked whether public controversies such as the “Russian grain affair” and the “timber industry scandal” could be regarded as instruments of domestic political competition, Rajevskis agreed. “For example, the entire grain and sanctions issue was important to New Unity, while the timber industry affair was important to the Progressives. This correlates very directly with the ministries controlled by these parties and the ministries that distribute funding to the media.”
What should be done to put an end to such practices?
According to Rajevskis, the first fundamental question that needs to be reconsidered is whether such substantial amounts of public money should be allocated to the media.
“We can see that the more money the media receive nowadays, the more their audiences decline. Instead of informing society, they engage in ‘conditioning’ people, as we remember very well, spreading certain ideas and propaganda. This is actually very dangerous. As a result, alternative information environments emerge, beyond the state’s reach, where the real dialogue with society takes place. These environments remain invisible, and consequently all sorts of unusual individuals get elected to parliament, leaving everyone asking: how did they get there?“The answer is that they are capable of establishing their own dialogue with society.”
BNN pointed out that Latvia’s parliament currently includes a rather unusual political party whose leader is facing legal proceedings and has fled the country.
Rajevskis responded that this party was among those attempting to establish alternative channels of communication. “Until its leader started making obscene gestures from the Saeima rostrum and speaking Russian, he was actually doing quite well at it.”
Could all the controversy surrounding Russian grain, the timber industry affair, the proposed buyout of shares in Swedish-owned Tet and LMT, and other major economic issues ultimately lead to a split within the United List?
Rajevskis is convinced that attempts to create such a division will occur.
“To create a split, or at least the impression of one, they will use media outlets controlled through funding and people placed in key positions. There will certainly be pressure. The important thing is that the United List should understand the need to use more modern tools, including sociological research, to determine what society actually thinks. If your only understanding of public opinion comes from the media and social networks, you cannot build successful policies,” Rajevskis said.
He added that studies have shown people support pragmatic policymaking. “The question is what people mean by that, how they understand it, and how to respond to this demand for both change and pragmatic policies that would benefit the country and society.”