Latvia is planning to ban the transit of grain from Russia and Belarus, but it remains unclear how thoroughly the consequences of such a decision have been assessed. While the move might provide political satisfaction, what impact would it have on Latvia’s economy? Filips Rajevskis, political scientist and co-founder of Mediju tilts, stresses that the “grain issue” needs to be considered from a broader perspective.
The political scientist points out that grain transported through Latvia in transit is mainly traded by American commodity traders. “Of course, there may always be moral objections, but we must take into account that the grain no longer belongs to Russians and that this is not a Russian business. It is the business of our strategic partners – major American commodity traders who handle these transactions. This means their country’s interests are also involved,” Rajevskis says.
He also stresses the importance of examining how Latvia’s neighbours are acting. “Estonia was very quick to announce that it would not transport any grain. That is logical because Estonia has never been a grain transit country. Therefore, its loud announcements do not really mean much. At the same time, we can see that Estonia quietly secures an exemption from sanctions for a Russian magnesium plant to protect its own economic interests. It is not loud statements but quiet actions that reveal countries’ real economic interests. Latvia must finally understand, both in its foreign policy and its external economic policy, that we have national interests of our own. We should not harm our partners who guarantee our security either.”
When BNN noted that Lithuania had announced plans to propose a complete halt to grain transit at both Baltic and European Union level, Rajevskis responded that attention should be paid not to what Lithuanian officials say, but to what is happening at the Klaipėda terminal, where potash is handled. “That will be potash purchased by American traders, and they will continue handling it without any concerns. Latvia is also a transit country for potash. So we need to approach this issue sensibly and realistically.
What Lithuanians say is one thing; what they actually do is another. In this world, words and actions often differ greatly.”
Asked about the announcement that railway infrastructure charges for Russian grain transit could be increased by 300%, and the uncertainty surrounding the proposal’s compliance with EU transport policy regulations, Rajevskis described it as entirely unnecessary activity in an area that is also regulated beyond Latvia’s borders.
He argues that the main priority should be understanding Latvia’s own interests. “When the new government opens the budget and we see the figures, the issue of grain traded by American companies will affect the budget just like any other decision. If this transit is simply cut off arbitrarily, driven by revolutionary conviction, it means that, firstly, we will pay enormous penalties and, secondly, we will have to subsidise the railway and ports. And then the question is – where will we make the cuts?
“Before the election, everyone naturally said that no money would be taken away from teachers, doctors or defence. So where else can these enormous sums be cut? That is precisely what all those shouting about this issue refuse to understand.
They are deliberately trying to turn it into a political rather than an economic issue in order to undermine the next government before it has even begun its work.”
Asked whether there is public demand in Latvia for ending grain transit from Russia and Belarus, Rajevskis said that studies have been conducted on the issue, suggesting that Latvia should avoid rushing into decisions without considering the consequences.
“Let us do what is reasonable. Nobody in Latvia is particularly fond of Russia, but nobody wants to set themselves on fire either. If Lithuania does it, Estonia does it, and we end up being the only saints who decide to set ourselves on fire, then what is the point of a country that destroys itself? Perhaps, just to be safe, we should burn down our own country so that there is nothing left for anyone to take from us?”