Article by Ilona Bērziņa/BNN
Representatives of Latvian Railways (Latvijas dzelzceļš) and business organisations, as part of Transport Minister Atis Švinka’s (Progressives) delegation, met with local companies and business associations in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan as recently as October to discuss boosting freight flows between Central Asia and Latvia. Yet now, public talk of dismantling railway infrastructure threatens to wipe out these efforts.
State representatives are actively travelling the world in an attempt to attract cargo, investment, and cooperation projects. This autumn, for example, Latvia’s transport and logistics sector, operating under the VIALatvia brand, took part in one of Eurasia’s largest transport and logistics exhibitions, TransLogistica Kazakhstan 2025. In addition to traditional cargo groups — grain, mineral fertilisers, and metallurgical products — active work was also carried out to attract other cargo segments, including container traffic from China.
The strategic importance of the Central Asian direction has been discussed almost continuously since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as cooperation with Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries offers Latvian businesses an alternative to the Russian and Belarusian markets. In recent years, it has repeatedly been emphasised that Latvia must seize Kazakhstan’s willingness to cooperate with the Baltic region and develop joint logistics solutions with Latvia.
Talks are being held, delegations are welcomed, and some results are being achieved. At the same time, however, statements are appearing in the public domain that risk destroying these efforts before they can be translated into concrete contracts. BNN has learned that
a universal terminal operating in one of Latvia’s major ports has already received a refusal to sign a long-term cooperation agreement
with Uzbekistan precisely because of such signals.
As transit-sector entrepreneurs told BNN, Latvia’s reputation as a transit, logistics, and cooperation partner is built not only on infrastructure, but also on credibility. Potential partners closely monitor not just official documents, but also public rhetoric. When reports emerge about dismantling infrastructure, tearing up rail tracks, or declaring a strategic sector “non-viable,” the question becomes unavoidable: why enter into long-term contracts with a country that publicly questions the foundations of its own offer?
According to unofficial information, negotiations have stalled, contracts are not being signed, and cargo is being redirected elsewhere. This is not about censorship or banning opinions. It is about understanding that every loud statement concerning strategic infrastructure sends a signal to the market — and the market reacts quickly.
The state cannot afford to have two faces: one seen in foreign delegations inviting cooperation, and another in the domestic public space casting doubt on the very fundamentals of what is being offered. If Latvia wants economic stability and development, then before making loud public declarations, one simple question should be asked: how will this sound to those from whom we expect cargo, investment, and trust tomorrow?
Read also: “Very foolish” — Zatlers assesses politicians’ discussions about removing railway tracks