There are shortcomings in the government’s communication regarding the current geopolitical situation—there needs to be more discussion about what we can do to feel safer, said former Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and current Senior Advisor on Geopolitical Affairs at the international strategic communications agency “Kreab,” Krišjānis Kariņš (JV), in an interview with the LETA news agency.
He acknowledged that he was recently part of the government himself, so his criticism of former colleagues might be perceived in different ways. However, as a former Prime Minister, he expects a clear message from the government leader to the public regarding the current situation, threats, and risks, as well as what actions need to be taken to ensure security.
“We cannot influence what the U.S. does, but we directly influence what we do ourselves. The government must communicate more clearly about what needs to be done, especially in civil protection. For example, does every doctor know their role in an emergency situation?” Kariņš questioned.
In his view, intensive diplomatic efforts must also be made with European partners and Canada. Additionally, there should be government-authorized diplomats working in Washington who regularly engage with U.S. senators and congressmen.
“At the moment, Latvia is not utilizing these opportunities. It is the last moment to act. With [U.S. President Donald] Trump, fears have arisen that the U.S. may withdraw from Europe, but we need them to maintain interest. That is why we must communicate to the Americans what we are doing—we are investing in our defence, we stood alongside Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, we fulfilled our obligations as allies, and if necessary, we will do so again,” Kariņš emphasized.
When asked whether he believes NATO’s Article 5 is still in effect, Kariņš stated that if one listens to statements from key officials, including NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, then Article 5 remains in place and nothing has changed. However, he noted that the world has changed, and the rhetoric coming from the White House is radically different from what any previous U.S. president has expressed.
Kariņš reminded that discussions about reducing the American military presence in Europe have been ongoing since 2009, during President Barack Obama’s tenure.
It is only now that Trump has awakened Germany, France, and even the United Kingdom, prompting these major powers to take a greater role in European defence. The European Commission has proposed that defence expenditures of member states will not be included in budget deficit calculations. Additionally, 150 billion euros will be allocated to a joint defence fund.
“It is inevitable that the U.S. will reduce its presence in Europe. The unknown factor is how quickly they intend to do it and whether it will happen at a pace that allows Europe to assume these functions. Therefore, our government should not scare people but instead clearly outline an action plan to minimize the possibility of war. Russian aggression can only be stopped by strength and power. Military power is necessary,” Kariņš stressed.
At the same time, he expressed that he does not see a greater military threat to Latvia and Europe now than a few years ago, as Russia has been struggling in Ukraine for three years. Therefore, the greatest threat is not an external military one but an internal political threat common to the entire European Union (EU). Specifically, far-right political forces, which in many countries receive up to 30% of the vote. These forces support Russia’s policies, do not wish to support Ukraine, and question NATO, Kariņš pointed out.
“Moscow finds it much cheaper and easier to weaken Europe from within than from the outside. Latvia’s greatest threat is a weak government and weak political leadership, which creates an opportunity for other forces to come to power. That, in my opinion, is our biggest threat,” the former Prime Minister stated.
According to him, Latvia is taking the right approach by cooperating with Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland and by increasing its defence budget. He also believes that defence spending may need to rise beyond 4% of GDP.