Latvian Political Monitor

From@AndrisKulbergs

🇱🇻 Latvia is currently paying for security from which all of Europe benefits. However, the bill remains largely with us. From 2027, Latvia will spend at least 5% of GDP on defense. We are strengthening the EU and NATO external border with the aggressor state. This border is not only Latvia's border—it is Europe's security border. But the current system is unfair. ➖️ Latvia borrows money to build fortifications and strengthen the eastern border. ➖️ Due to border-area risk, we pay higher interest on this debt. ➖️ Due to geopolitical risk, Latvia also loses investments and tourists. ➖️ At the same time, we buy billions worth of armaments and military equipment mainly from 🇩🇪 Germany, 🇫🇷 France, 🇸🇪 Sweden, 🇳🇱 the Netherlands, 🇪🇸 Spain and other countries. So Latvia takes on the debt and risk, while our defense spending simultaneously warms Western European economies. And all this is done to protect not only Riga or Daugavpils. Deterrence at Latvia's border also makes Berlin, Munich, Paris and Amsterdam safer. Therefore, the 7 billion euros Latvia is asking for is not “extra money for Latvia.” It is part of the cost of protecting Europe's common border. In seven years, that would be only about 0.4% of the nearly 2 trillion euro EU budget. For 449 million Europeans—about 2.23 euros per person per year. One coffee. For Latvia's inhabitants—about 540 euros per year. This difference very clearly shows the problem. Latvia will defend its border in any case. The question is—will all of Europe pay for Europe's common security, or will we leave a disproportionately large share of the bill to countries that happen geographically to be next to the aggressor's border? We are not asking for solidarity just for the sake of solidarity. We are offering the most effective European security investment—investing money where the real threat is. 🇪🇺 Europe's eastern border is common. The bill for its defense must also be common. https://t.co/oyE1yMcnR2

Open referenced post

From@UlvisSilins

I think we need to distinguish NATO and Europe. If Spain has no pragmatic reasons to be in NATO, then it should leave. Although there are dozens of pragmatic reasons, so probably not everything will happen. Speaking of the EU external border, which Kulbergs talks about, Spain would be a beneficiary of such a format. If of course they would guard something. And the EU MUST pay for guarding the external border.

Open referenced post

From@AndrisKulbergs

🇱🇻 Latvia is currently paying for security from which all of Europe benefits. However, the bill remains largely with us. From 2027, Latvia will spend at least 5% of GDP on defense. We are strengthening the EU and NATO external border with the aggressor state. This border is not only Latvia's border—it is Europe's security border. But the current system is unfair. ➖️ Latvia borrows money to build fortifications and strengthen the eastern border. ➖️ Due to border-area risk, we pay higher interest on this debt. ➖️ Due to geopolitical risk, Latvia also loses investments and tourists. ➖️ At the same time, we buy billions worth of armaments and military equipment mainly from 🇩🇪 Germany, 🇫🇷 France, 🇸🇪 Sweden, 🇳🇱 the Netherlands, 🇪🇸 Spain and other countries. So Latvia takes on the debt and risk, while our defense spending simultaneously warms Western European economies. And all this is done to protect not only Riga or Daugavpils. Deterrence at Latvia's border also makes Berlin, Munich, Paris and Amsterdam safer. Therefore, the 7 billion euros Latvia is asking for is not “extra money for Latvia.” It is part of the cost of protecting Europe's common border. In seven years, that would be only about 0.4% of the nearly 2 trillion euro EU budget. For 449 million Europeans—about 2.23 euros per person per year. One coffee. For Latvia's inhabitants—about 540 euros per year. This difference very clearly shows the problem. Latvia will defend its border in any case. The question is—will all of Europe pay for Europe's common security, or will we leave a disproportionately large share of the bill to countries that happen geographically to be next to the aggressor's border? We are not asking for solidarity just for the sake of solidarity. We are offering the most effective European security investment—investing money where the real threat is. 🇪🇺 Europe's eastern border is common. The bill for its defense must also be common. https://t.co/oyE1yMcnR2

Open referenced post

From@Krisjanis_K

@poznaks @JurgisLiepnieks Now it's crap about that data. But imagine - at @AndrisKulbergs press conference some scoundrel asked what we plan to do if at night 500 Shaheds fly to LV at 600 km/h. And what to answer?

Open referenced post

From@ilmarmors

The prime minister should know how to ask the right questions and be able to delve into details and know the subject :) From Sprūds's specific formulations (a favorite trick of politicians - saying it so that it's not a lie, but creates the desired / more positive impression) one can understand that something might not be exactly as Kulbergs, most likely, some NBS staff rat told him.

Open referenced post

From@AndrisKulbergs

Here will be the whole truth about unpurchased charges for anti-drone systems during Defense Minister Sprūds' tenure. Yesterday, during my visit to the Sēlija training ground, I spoke directly with an NBS and a 20-year experienced explosives expert. It is unimaginable stupidity to make soldiers manually fill drones with explosives – it requires training every drone operator in the use of explosives and significantly increases the risk to lives.

Open referenced post

From@andrisspruds

Kulbergs' misinformation about 'forgetting' is being replaced with a half-truth about explosives. Overall, such a pre-election campaign, dragging Latvia's defense sector into it, is irresponsible. I express deep regret about that. But about the substance. If I had acted more simply, then Latvia might not have so rapidly developed innovative technologies that will protect our country, and which we can now also sell to our partners worldwide. That is exactly what the story is about when I speak of Latvia as a drone great power. What someone has called empty talk – these are weapon systems made in Latvia that will now protect our airspace. The agreement to support the development of 'Origin Robotics' counter-drone systems and the planned deployment on the border was my initiative, which strengthens both Latvia's drone and counter-drone industry and Latvia's airspace. Did everyone support it? Initially certainly not. Were there discussions about how to properly implement these new (!) systems? Of course! But this was a 100% correct decision, for which I can answer. The development, testing, and implementation of new systems always takes time. But nothing was 'forgotten' here – tasks were given to find the best solutions so that the systems would be combat-ready, and such a solution was found, with the first warhead deliveries starting in April.

Open referenced post