Opinion article by Ilona Bērziņa
Monday evening in Latvia highlighted not the possible incursion of a drone into the country’s territory, but a far more serious issue—the state’s inability to communicate effectively in a crisis.
The President issues an alarming statement about a potential threat to airspace. The public reacts, people search for information. And what do they find? Nothing. The website 112.lv is down. The app is not working. The official information system is paralysed at the very moment it is needed most.
This is not a minor technical glitch. It is a systemic failure. Let us recall the so-called “friendly drone” that crashed in Gaigalava parish less than two years ago, and the communication surrounding that incident, which turned into a genuine disaster for both the National Armed Forces and Defence Minister Andris Sprūds (Progressives).
Now the situation has escalated. It turns out that all the boasting about Latvia’s digital capabilities may be nothing more than an inflated bubble. How else can one assess the failure of the vote-counting system in municipal elections, the subsequent IT procurement scandals this year, and, even more critically, the collapse of the 112.lv system at the very moment when residents of Balvi Municipality and Ludza Municipality were warned of a possible drone-related airspace threat?
Perhaps it is time for the state to
stop investing vast sums into systems that, at critical moments, “require improvements” or “need fixes.”
Continuing to “absorb” Latvian and European taxpayers’ money in this way risks revealing, in a moment of crisis, that the emperor has no clothes—that funds intended for these systems have been distributed through questionable procurement processes, while projects worth tens of millions deliver substandard results.
We live in a region where the war in Ukraine is not distant—it is just a few hundred kilometres away. And yet, Latvia still lacks something basic: a stable, functioning crisis communication infrastructure. How is this possible? Where have the millions invested in digitalisation gone? Where are the tests? Where are the backup systems?
Even more absurdly—the state itself creates panic but cannot manage it.
The President issues a warning, but institutions fail to ensure that the public can access clear, verified information in one place. As a result, people are left navigating between social media, rumours, and incomplete media reports.
This is not strengthening security. It is eroding trust.
The Defence Minister himself admits that it is unclear what exactly approached Latvian airspace. Perhaps a drone, perhaps something else. Perhaps from Russia, perhaps from Ukraine. Perhaps nothing dangerous at all. In other words—the state warns of a threat it cannot even identify.
And in such a situation, the only tool designed to inform the public collapses. This is no longer about technology—it is about responsibility.
If a crisis communication system fails at the very moment the President issues a warning, then that system effectively does not exist. And if the system does not exist, a simple question must be asked—who in Latvia is actually prepared for a crisis?
This incident must not end with yet another “we apologise for the inconvenience.” It requires political and institutional accountability. Those responsible must be identified, the system’s capacity must be assessed, and immediate investment must be directed where it is truly needed—not in presentations about digitalisation, but in real, functioning systems.
Otherwise, next time it will no longer be a “potential threat.”
And then a non-functioning website will not be the worst of the problem.
Read also: Mysterious object near Latvia’s border – answers still pending