Latvian Political Monitor

Today I have decided to resign from the post of Minister of Defense in order to protect the Latvian army from being drawn into a political campaign. In recent days and weeks, we have experienced drone incidents in Latvia and other countries. Foreign drones must not threaten the safety of our people. The defense sector has done a lot and will continue to do so to strengthen our air defense capabilities. And the safety of our people is the responsibility of services across various sectors. The development of the defense sector is my political responsibility. And now my political responsibility is to prevent our armed forces from being drawn into a political campaign. I am not doing this because I have stopped believing in what we do in the defense sector. Quite the contrary. Latvia's defense capabilities are at a high level. Is there still much work to be done? Yes. But the Latvian army, together with allies, is ready today to defend Latvia. I am resigning because our armed forces and the state's defense capabilities are more important than any minister's post or any party's interests. Unfortunately, it is visible that this situation is no longer being used only to criticize the minister or his party. It is being used to question Latvia's defense capabilities, to cast doubt on the readiness of the Ministry of Defense and the National Armed Forces – the Latvian patriots who work daily for Latvia's security. This is not acceptable to me. I will not allow a political campaign against me or against the Progressives to be turned into a campaign against the Latvian army. In recent weeks, we see a very wide and targeted campaign against the Progressives. It happens on various fronts and in various formats. And the reason is simple – the Progressives do not fit into the old party system. With the Progressives, one cannot negotiate things the old way. At the Progressives, there are no politically arranged procurements. There is no division of millions among its own. At our place, decisions, influence, or silence cannot be bought. Neither in catering competitions nor in the million-dollar wood industry affairs. And many do not benefit from that. We see how very different political and economic forces, which otherwise supposedly have nothing in common, suddenly find a common language – from nationalists to Shlesers' supporters, from the business interests of old politics to those who are already openly paving the way for the next populist government. These are the politicians of ZZS, the United List, the National Alliance, and Shlesers' party, who in various combinations have been in power in Latvia for the last 20 years. And in this context, the actions of the New Unity raise questions. I understand concerns about ratings. I understand political pressure. But at a time when a party that calls itself a statesmanlike force starts playing on the same team with those who are preparing the next Shlesers and populist government, that is short-sighted and unstatesmanlike conduct. It becomes especially dangerous when, in the name of these political games, Latvia's defense capabilities and the professionalism of our armed forces are questioned. I want to say very clearly: The Latvian army is strong. The Latvian armed forces are professional. Latvia's defense sector works. And no political force has the right to undermine trust in national defense because of its campaign. It is time for New Unity to look at itself as well. One cannot turn every problem in the country into someone else's fault. One cannot always look for culprits outside oneself. One cannot be at the center of power for years and at the same time pretend that others are only responsible for the system's problems. New Unity has 26 deputies in the Saeima and eight ministers in the government, including the prime minister and the finance minister. It is the largest government party. Therefore, one cannot simultaneously claim political control over the entire government and at the same time avoid responsibility for what is happening in the country. In the government and in politics, there must also be responsibility for oneself, for one's own decisions, and for the political culture that is being created in the country. I will continue to work in the Saeima. I will continue to defend the principles I have stood for all my professional life – as an academic, as an expert, as a politician, and as a minister. Responsibly and purposefully.

:)) “Smiltēns also emphasised that the use of VIP services is not a matter of comfort, but a considered exception applied only in special circumstances, and that such decisions are made in cooperation with protocol and security services.” Source - https://t.co/BnzcBtl8zm https://t.co/CM3IJVbAHD https://t.co/jkjOsDpaUC

It is hard to imagine how a kindergarten director would sneak into work late at night to commit crimes that need to be investigated by @KNABinforme. @Apvienotais proposes to exclude such institution directors from the circle of state officials. There is a lively discussion about this in the Saeima State and Local Government Commission.

Party ratings in July: Prime Minister's party in the lead; ZZS falls below the 5% threshold.

📻 Listen to LDDK education and employment expert Liene Voroņenko @Gimenes_Studija on how to find a balance between young people's career choices and the needs of the national economy: https://t.co/pn73MCHqxH

Rarely does a matter enter Latvia's political agenda that provokes not only discussion but even hatred, setting two opinion camps against each other and radicalizing them to the point of promising physical retaliation. I see the fuss around the Istanbul Convention as an excellent lesson in democracy, proving that not all questions can be settled by a simple majority of votes. It is still unclear how to balance the political will of the silent majority and the hyperactive minority. What role do participation and political activism play as an argument for being 'right'? And where should we place the passive onlookers who have no opinion on this matter? Those who try to answer these questions by explaining decision-making algorithms in a democratic society are the true statesmen, taking on the role of mediator. Without such commentary, Latvia will most likely sink to the level of tribal thinking, where different societal and interest groups will draw insurmountable red lines against one another, and people with a different opinion will not be allowed to remain. At present, politicians are doing everything possible to bring society closer to a brawl. The president should take on the main mediator/peacemaker role, as the harmonizer of political cliques and society's interests, while protecting the people from parliamentary arbitrariness, ensuring that votes stem from the common good rather than political expediency, PR tactics, or similar principles. Unfortunately, Rinkēvičs once again demonstrated cowardice by hiding in the lilacs and 'kicking back' to the Saeima the examination of the question of withdrawing from the Istanbul Convention. In doing so, the will of the people's elected representatives was denied, even though the ratification that took place two years ago was the product of the president's own party's political trading, completely unconnected to voters' values. The Istanbul Convention demonstrated another truth. Our elected representatives are not political philosophers but mere hangers-on, seeking every opportunity to cling to power. It remains to follow the rumours about throwing ZZS out of the coalition, when the United List and the National Alliance 'agree' with the president's proposal to entrust the examination of the denunciation of the Istanbul Convention to the next Saeima. That elected deputies are not great thinkers is proven by the 2 November 'Nekā personīga' report, in which some ZZS representatives were asked 'What bad has happened because of this convention?', and the only answer was 'No, I will ask you, what good has happened?' Obviously, these biological voting machines can only follow faction discipline, not reason and conscience. Therefore, seeing how arbitrarily and irrationally decisions are made, with lines drawn between 'good' and 'bad', one must ask whether politics is just the sum of subjective views, or whether there are questions in which only one correct answer exists regardless of political orientation. Both yes and no. Mostly it is the result of choices based on subjectivism, but on questions involving undeniable, non-redefinable reality there is only one answer, and the will of the voter is not an argument there. I also support the denunciation of the Istanbul Convention, because several formulations used in it are unacceptable to me: first, the historically existing structured violence of men against women (where in Western culture is that acceptable?) and, second, the term 'gender', understood as socially constructed sex/gender roles. The fact that only ladies wear ball gowns is also a socially constructed stereotype, and let us not criticise the Edgarses who wear bikinis. 'Husband' and 'wife' are also socially constructed roles. If so, then a man can also choose the image of a wife and in the future marry a man who embodies the image of a husband. And they will be able to adopt children. And that is just one word, one concept that denies biological reality, which they try to silence with an awkward explanation about the need to strengthen the determination to fight violence (in that case, I propose composing an anti-violence declaration once a week and sending it to all EU member states). In fact, that is where this discussion begins and ends. And counterarguments such as 'let us fulfil only the good points of the convention' are also irrational, because, as supporters of destructive ideologies grow in the Saeima, one should not prematurely provide a legal basis that enables laws contrary to the common good. The rest of the convention's content, which genuinely concerns reducing violence, is already woven into Latvian laws. Try hitting any accommodating woman and remaining unpunished. And you will also be punished if you hit a man. And no supporter of denunciation is an apologist for violence. That cannot at all be said about a country whose executive branch has only one ministry with a slight male majority (the Ministry of Defence). And a few more coincidences. On the political front, the biggest and loudest defenders of the convention are the same people who believe that better than a safe and peaceful environment for a woman are a machine gun, mortar, and howitzer, i.e. military service, where, believe me, the chance of suffering violence is quite great (in wartime, of course). And what a wonder that the picket outside the Saeima, in which reportedly several thousand people took part (including many minors and mere passers-by), was organized by NGOs that receive EU and Latvian taxpayers' money to bring to life the ideology derived from the Istanbul Convention, holding seminars on gender quotas in corporate boards, justifying it with the fight against institutionalised male violence? And then there is the Society Integration Foundation, which has created a movement (?) 'Diversity', disseminating information about non-binary identity and gender-neutral Latvian language. 'Centre MARTA', 'Mozaīka', 'Papardes zieds', which already teach primary-school-age children a very broad spectrum of sexual education topics, including 'gender' identities. If the convention, which repeatedly emphasises state and NGO cooperation, were denounced, the source of money for the protest organisers would threaten to run dry.

Is NATO currently experiencing the biggest crisis in its history? Raimonds Bergmanis unravels the complex question.

@JurgisLiepnieks NA invited Sprūds to a meeting already in early September. Still today 'looking for time'... So this is about attitude, not inability. For comparison, the health minister not only responds to opposition party invitations, but himself maintains contact and informs about what is important in the sector.