The results of the first analyses of grain samples taken from transit shipments do not indicate that the grain originated in Ukraine, according to information released by the Ministry of Agriculture over the weekend. However, if these grains were not stolen from Ukraine, there is no basis for describing them as “bloody” or demanding that their transit be stopped. BNN asked political scientist Filips Rajevskis, co-founder of the company “Mediju tilts”, how the controversy surrounding a possible grain transit ban began and how it might develop.
“When decisions like these are made, they must be based on data,” the political scientist said.
“That means everything from information about where the cargo and grain originate to calculations of how much stopping these shipments would cost, including penalties, unemployment benefits, the impact on the economy and the state budget, railway subsidies, compensation for ports and other compensation payments. Therefore, such decisions cannot be made emotionally. These initial findings about the grain’s origin once again demonstrate that decisions of this kind must be made calmly and on the basis of careful calculations. We cannot make decisions based on emotions – simply because someone thinks there is something wrong with the grain – when we, the taxpayers, will ultimately have to pay for them.”
When BNN suggested that protests would most likely continue, Filips Rajevskis disagreed.
“We saw the second protest, and there were very few people. More people had turned up to record monologues for their TikTok, X and Facebook accounts than to participate in the protest itself. The turnout was extremely small, and that was obvious. Even the protest organisers admitted that attendance was considerably lower than at the first demonstration. And these grain analyses repeatedly raise doubts among the public about whether we really need to act on the basis of emotions. We have already made a whole series of decisions based on emotions. We built that Rail Baltica graveyard in central Riga and on the bridge, and we built concrete structures near the airport based on emotions. These emotions have cost us, as taxpayers, billions. And we can now see the consequences in what the Prime Minister is presenting – these emotional decisions have landed us in a very serious mess. Perhaps we should finally start making decisions based on data and information. That would only benefit us as taxpayers and the country as a whole.”
Responding to BNN’s observation that the grain controversy essentially began with sensational media headlines, while the proportion of society genuinely interested in or concerned about the issue may not be particularly large, Rajevskis again recommended looking at the data.
“We do not have that data yet. I hope someone will realise that a study is needed to determine how important this issue actually is to the public.
“But one could put forward the hypothesis that society is considerably more pragmatic than those shouting on X or in the media outlets trying to stir up a scandal against Kulbergs.
“People want to know how much this decision will cost. I think every member of society wants to understand how much they will have to pay in taxes for this decision and whether it is genuinely justified. People would much rather see that money spent on things we need far more urgently. Instead of paying hundreds of millions in compensation to grain transit operators for terminating contracts, it would be better to spend that money on healthcare.”
The political scientist also recalled that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Transport were supposed to provide assessments of the issue.
“So where is the heroic Braže now, after all that shouting? Where are the assessments of how much this will cost us and what the consequences will be? It sounds as though the Foreign Minister is running late. At least that is what the Prime Minister says about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and he specifically mentioned Braže by name.
He is waiting for her position on this issue and somehow cannot get it. That only demonstrates how highly politicised this matter has become.”
BNN also asked Rajevskis to comment on a statement by a former employee of Dombrovskis’s office, who argued that Latvia could have imposed a unilateral ban on grain transit long ago because nobody was preventing it from doing so.
“We can do that unilaterally, but it will cost money. Simply terminating contracts now means paying compensation. The grain belongs to specific companies. It would become stranded, and arrangements would have to be made to transport it elsewhere. She is right – Europe cannot prevent us from doing it. Kulbergs said the same thing.”
However, Rajevskis also recalled remarks by the European Union’s Special Envoy for Sanctions, David O’Sullivan, who stated that, in the interests of global food security, the transit of Russian grain through the EU to third countries should not be prohibited. “This is about global food security. That must be taken into account.”
If Latvia faced no obstacles to introducing such restrictions even under Evika Siliņa’s government, why did it not do so?
According to Rajevskis, the reason is that Siliņa and other politicians understand very well that making loud statements in paid media is one thing, while actually adopting decisions that would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of euros is something entirely different.
“Those are two different things. One is politics, the other is the actual cost.”
Asked why the controversy was being fuelled now, the political scientist replied: “A government is currently being formed, and we can see that this government will not include New Unity.”
BNN also asked Rajevskis to assess the public controversy surrounding media reports about Andris Kulbergs’s proposal to achieve savings by, among other measures, “reviewing the administration of sick leave, benefits and the service pension system […] reviewing more than 200 tax exemptions, as well as retirement allowances and support for people with disabilities”.
Rajevskis responded that, in reality, only a handful of media outlets were stirring up controversy by attempting to extract something from Kulbergs’s presentation that could provoke public unrest.
“After listening to Kulbergs’s presentation, which lasted an hour and 20 minutes, I did not hear him say that he was now going to cut benefits or take support away from people with disabilities, as those media outlets portrayed it.
“No. What was actually said – and this is a very important message – is that taxes will not be increased, efforts will be made to stimulate the economy to achieve 4% growth, and, thirdly, the government will be guided by the findings of the State Audit Office concerning identified irregularities. That includes irregularities in the granting of benefits and disability status, which can take place without an in-person assessment, and other situations where money is simply being handed out. At no point was there any suggestion that support would be taken away from people with disabilities who genuinely need state assistance. I did not hear anything of the sort at any point during the presentation.”
Finally, BNN asked why the public was being stirred up in this way and how Andris Kulbergs’s presentation on necessary reforms had turned into a dispute over how the media reported his statements.
Rajevskis said there was indeed reason for controversy because anyone who listened to the Prime Minister’s hour-and-20-minute presentation could establish that words were being attributed to Kulbergs that he had never said.
“I think those fuelling this scandal understand very well that they will be among those whose funding is cut. Because the system that had been established, in which governing parties control media outlets through the state budget and inject money into them, is not normal. If we want a properly functioning democracy, the media must be free from state funding and state influence.”