Russia’s aggression against Ukraine remains one of the hottest topics on the global agenda. It seems the aggressor state is constantly testing how far it can push the patience of the Western world and the United States — as evidenced by Russian drones entering Polish airspace. What is the current geopolitical situation in the context of this war and what should we expect, BNN asked former Latvian Minister of Defence and Director of the think tank Northern Europe Policy Centre Artis Pabriks.
After Russian drones entered Polish airspace, many expected the West to announce that it would defend at least part of Ukraine’s airspace. This did not happen — why?
The United States is not ready to provide greater support, while Europe is confused and lacking sufficient resources. I would call it a lack of political will, because if the will existed, the resources would be found sooner or later. But this will is absent. This means we have sent yet another signal to Russia — not the first one — that we, the West, are afraid and are allowing the Russians to continue their escalation, which they will inevitably do sooner or later.
If the West continues to be this “toothless,” does that mean Russia, emboldened by a sense of impunity, could invade Poland or one of the Baltic states?
It’s too early to talk about an invasion, but overall things are moving in that direction, and only because the West has failed to provide what we would call an adequate response to the aggressor during these three years — thinking that appeasement, flattery, and postponement would somehow change Russia’s position. That approach is mistaken.
It has long been said that Russia’s money held in Western banks should be confiscated and redirected to Ukraine’s reconstruction. Yes, shortly after the war began, the EU froze more than 200 billion euros of the aggressor state’s central bank assets, but that was all.
There are many things that could be done: seizing Russia’s frozen funds, imposing control over Ukraine’s airspace, targeting more Russian companies and banks, or even going after the Russian tourists who are filling Europe’s resorts. Yet we refuse to do any of these things. It’s clear that when you are unwilling to make decisions and push back against the aggressor, it’s naive to expect that the aggressor will change its attitude — on the contrary, it won’t.
Despite repeated calls at various levels in Europe to ban imports of Russian oil and gas, this trade continues…
Of course — even though it should have been stopped. There are clear reasons why the White House decided not to go after Russia, while skillfully deflecting attention toward Europe by saying, “Well, if you [Europeans] start introducing these tariffs on Russian oil buyers, then we’ll act seriously too”… This was said knowing Europe wouldn’t do it. So in this case the U.S. can hide behind Europe, even though we know that even if Europe stopped importing Russian oil and gas, Washington, under its current leadership, would likely not make a decision that would be friendly or necessary for Ukraine.
Since Donald Trump became U.S. President, his policy on Ukraine has been very inconsistent. What do these twists and turns mean?
We can only speculate on the motivation, but I have very serious doubts that the U.S. will become friendlier to Ukraine anytime soon. Nothing so far indicates it. We must understand — and also remind our allies — that if they do not provide sufficient support to Ukraine and do not make full-fledged decisions regarding Russia, they are harming Latvia’s, this region’s, and Europe’s national interests and security.
There is also a global dimension. It undermines mutual trust between allies, between Europe and the U.S., and gives China more opportunities to strengthen its positions in various European countries. Because if these European countries begin to doubt their allies, they will seek various forms of economic, and possibly even politico-military, alternatives. For example, India — the U.S. imposed 50% tariffs on Indian goods over buying Russian oil, and as a result, India has drifted closer to China and even sent troops to the “Zapad” exercises. Is that the outcome the West wanted?
U.S. presidential envoy Keith Kellogg recently said that if China stopped aiding Russia, the war would end tomorrow. Is China’s influence on Russia really that big?
I would rephrase that and remind that I have been saying this for at least two years. There are two countries in the world that could end this war — China and the United States. If the U.S. wanted to pressure Russia to end the war, it could. So could China. The question is why neither of them is doing it.
With China, it’s understandable — like the U.S., it sees itself as a competitor on the geopolitical stage. The current Russian attack on Ukraine weakens the entire West. As I said, by not countering Russia, we are fragmenting the
After Russian drones entered Polish airspace, many expected the West to announce that it would defend at least part of Ukraine’s airspace. This did not happen — why?
The United States is not ready to provide greater support, while Europe is confused and lacking sufficient resources. I would call it a lack of political will, because if the will existed, the resources would be found sooner or later. But this will is absent. This means we have sent yet another signal to Russia — not the first one — that we, the West, are afraid and are allowing the Russians to continue their escalation, which they will inevitably do sooner or later.
If the West continues to be this “toothless,” does that mean Russia, emboldened by a sense of impunity, could invade Poland or one of the Baltic states?
It’s too early to talk about an invasion, but overall things are moving in that direction, and only because the West has failed to provide what we would call an adequate response to the aggressor during these three years — thinking that appeasement, flattery, and postponement would somehow change Russia’s position. That approach is mistaken.
It has long been said that Russia’s money held in Western banks should be confiscated and redirected to Ukraine’s reconstruction. Yes, shortly after the war began, the EU froze more than 200 billion euros of the aggressor state’s central bank assets, but that was all.
There are many things that could be done: seizing Russia’s frozen funds, imposing control over Ukraine’s airspace, targeting more Russian companies and banks, or even going after the Russian tourists who are filling Europe’s resorts. Yet we refuse to do any of these things. It’s clear that when you are unwilling to make decisions and push back against the aggressor, it’s naive to expect that the aggressor will change its attitude — on the contrary, it won’t.
Despite repeated calls at various levels in Europe to ban imports of Russian oil and gas, this trade continues…
Of course — even though it should have been stopped. There are clear reasons why the White House decided not to go after Russia, while skillfully deflecting attention toward Europe by saying, “Well, if you [Europeans] start introducing these tariffs on Russian oil buyers, then we’ll act seriously too”… This was said knowing Europe wouldn’t do it. So in this case the U.S. can hide behind Europe, even though we know that even if Europe stopped importing Russian oil and gas, Washington, under its current leadership, would likely not make a decision that would be friendly or necessary for Ukraine.
Since Donald Trump became U.S. President, his policy on Ukraine has been very inconsistent. What do these twists and turns mean?
We can only speculate on the motivation, but I have very serious doubts that the U.S. will become friendlier to Ukraine anytime soon. Nothing so far indicates it. We must understand — and also remind our allies — that if they do not provide sufficient support to Ukraine and do not make full-fledged decisions regarding Russia, they are harming Latvia’s, this region’s, and Europe’s national interests and security.
There is also a global dimension. It undermines mutual trust between allies, between Europe and the U.S., and gives China more opportunities to strengthen its positions in various European countries. Because if these European countries begin to doubt their allies, they will seek various forms of economic, and possibly even politico-military, alternatives. For example, India — the U.S. imposed 50% tariffs on Indian goods over buying Russian oil, and as a result, India has drifted closer to China and even sent troops to the “Zapad” exercises. Is that the outcome the West wanted?
U.S. presidential envoy Keith Kellogg recently said that if China stopped aiding Russia, the war would end tomorrow. Is China’s influence on Russia really that big?
I would rephrase that and remind that I have been saying this for at least two years. There are two countries in the world that could end this war — China and the United States. If the U.S. wanted to pressure Russia to end the war, it could. So could China. The question is why neither of them is doing it.
With China, it’s understandable — like the U.S., it sees itself as a competitor on the geopolitical stage. The current Russian attack on Ukraine weakens the entire West. As I said, by not countering Russia, we are fragmenting the