Latvian Political Monitor

From@AndrisKulbergs

“In 2024, Evika Siliņa called this a ‘very successful deal’. It seems to me that after two years we finally have the opportunity to assess how successful it was.” “340 million euros at 14.5 percent. Then another 40 million. Total 380 million. At the time, even financial market experts publicly said — this was the most expensive bond rate in Europe that year‼️But the government told us about a success.” “If the market asks a company for 14.5 percent, that is not a compliment to the company. It is a very loud warning signal.” “And that is precisely where my main complaint against the previous government lies. If you borrow money at 14.5 percent, a fundamental corporate transformation plan must be on the table that same day — what the fleet will be, how costs will be reduced, how the capital structure will be arranged, and when a strategic investor will come in.” “Instead, we continued the growth story. Now, two years later, we have Seabury, creditor negotiations, preparation of a new plan, and discussion about who will give the next money.” “That is why I sometimes look with a certain envy at the previous government’s optimism. Borrowing at 14.5 percent and calling it a very successful deal — you really need to know how to be that optimistic.” “Our government will not repeat this mistake. First restructuring. First creditor participation. First a viable airBaltic. And only then a conversation about whether the state still has to finance anything more.”

Open referenced post

From@djjapanis

@JurgisLiepnieks This attack on Kulbergs looks a bit uncool. In essence, the prime minister hasn't said anything wrong, and the fact that additional funds are being requested in Europe for strengthening the border is hardly reprehensible or wrong. Nobody is getting upset about increasing support for Latvian agriculture.

Open referenced post

From@AndrisKulbergs

This mechanical increase of government and Saeima deputies' salaries must be frozen; there can be no talk of a rise when the budget lacks funds. There is no room for discussion there https://t.co/RgJoyIp11T

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@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