The decision to report inaccurate information about the Russian drone that entered Latvian air space on the 7th of September was a political decision, and political responsibility lies with Minister of Defence Andris Sprūds (Progressives), said former Commander of Latvian National Armed Forces (NBS) Juris Maklakovs in a conversation with BNN. Former Minister of Defence, politologist Artis Pabriks (For Latvia’s Development) believes this is largely an issue of political morality. The story with the “military monument” outside of Ādaži base and the scandal that accompanied it was nothing more than an attempt to distract people, experts say, adding that it it unlikely the Ministry of Defence only learned about it now.
The possible lies from high-ranking officials about the Russian drone being under constant monitoring from the moment it breached Latvian air space remains one of the hottest topics in the country. BNN asked Artis Pabriks and Juris Maklakovs – should the high-ranking officials be dismissed after being caught lying to the public?
“When then the Minister of Environment Protection and Regional Development Juris Pūce was caught lying about EUR 70, no one said – well, it happens to everyone. I believe this is largely a matter of political morality. As a politologist, I can say that morality is composed of the norms others expect us to follow. In this case, I have a very laconic answer to this question – this decision remains on the conscience of these people. That is all,” said Artis Pabriks.
Juris Maklakovs, on the other hand, said this was definitely a political decision.
“With all due respect to the ministry, but the decision was made by politicians. I don’t think it was made by the NBS leadership. Clearly, it’s a political responsibility and Sprūds, if he hasn’t consulted with the prime minister or anyone else, has to take that responsibility.”
When asked why there was a need to report false information to the public, the former NBS commander said this political decision was likely made to maintain the narrative that Latvia is capable of shooting down drones.
“However, in reality the possibility of detecting such a small object is very low. So it’s logical to assume they missed it.”
Juris Maklakovs also stresses that the undermining of the authority of the armed forces came from the political decision to report inaccurate information. “What I want to approve and present is that we need to invest enormous finances in order to ensure the capability to detect and shoot down drones. The border [with Russia and Belarus] is 450 km long, and if it [a drone] is flying over a forest, there is no way to detect it, except visually.”
Artis Pabriks reminded that the defence sector is very hierarchical – it’s a pyramid. “This means it’s not entirely right to demand responsibility from the lower ranks,” said the former minister.
When asked to comment how the scandal with the “military monument” near Ādaži military base surfaced a day after LTV programme De Facto presented a report about lies with the Russian drone, Artis Pabriks said the art installation outside of the base is unimportant when compared to the scandal. “I don’t know if it’s intentional or not, but this installation issue certainly distracts from other more pressing problems, since its importance against border protection, air defence and drone downing is a hundred times more important than this installation.”
Juris Maklakovs, when asked if it is possible that neither the minister nor the NBS commander were ever aware of this art installation being put together near Ādaži base this whole time, said no, definitely no. “If it [wasted spending] hadn’t been disclosed, the minister would have been the first to be present and give opening speeches. They must have known about it. A lot of money was allocated for it – almost EUR 200 000. I don’t think it was hidden in such a way that no one noticed that and the political leadership was not aware of it.”
Artis Pabriks, on the other hand, says there are two important points. “One is when this idea even appeared, and it happened when I was minister. I don’t see anything bad about this idea at its core. If the armed forces came to the ministry at the time (2020) and told us: look, we have an idea for an installation we could add to the base, so, dear friends, if you have some loose change and time – let’s do this! No one can really present any costs at that point, they are unknown. Here’s an idea – work on it. The other important decision is when the money was provided for the construction project, these EUR 183 000. So we have to ask who exactly was it that greenlit this decision. I don’t know if it was on the ministry’s level or some public servant level. Maybe it wasn’t the ministry at all.”
Artis Pabriks said there are many and more important things where money could be used during the war. He also argues that there are basically two sections in this story – artistic, which it is no sense to judge, because all tastes are different and the discussion can last forever, the second question – whether documents are even in order. The third issue is whether or not it is appropriate for the time and the costs are reasonable.
Artis Pabriks stresses that it would have made more sense to spend money on military industry grants in order to make and study something new. “Priorities are reviewed at least once every six months, and it is no secret that private institutions and the government have many projects in the works which they are unable to maintain and are forced to freeze. This is one such project that wasn’t really necessary. It cannot be in the first ten or twenty priorities in the defence sector – it should be somewhere at the bottom,” said Artis Pabriks.