Latvian Ambassador: ‘Baltic Sea is kind of an internal sea of NATO’

Latvian Ambassador to Ankara Peteris Vaivars spoke to Harici: “Sweden is NATO, Norway is NATO, Finland is NATO, Estonia, Latvia, we are all in NATO. So, basically, this Baltic Sea is kind of an internal sea of NATO. And Russia doesn’t have the capacity to completely cut these supply chains, supply roads.”

Ambassador Vaivars evaluated the effects of the Russia-Ukraine war on Latvia and the Baltic countries, NATO’s Baltic strategy, the importance of the Suwalki Corridor, and also made evaluations on Türkiye – European Union relations.

Ambassador Peteris Vaivars, whose term of office has ended and who is preparing to return to his country, answered the questions of journalist Dr. Esra Karahindiba and also shared anecdotes about his experiences in Türkiye.

A photo showing a close-up of Latvia’s famous amber stone

What are the security concerns in Latvia and other Baltic states regarding Russia as a threat?

Let’s start then with these general security issues because it’s, of course, a main issue currently in Europe. It’s a main issue for the European Union and for NATO. This is the Russian threat because of Russian intervention into Ukraine and already wars that last more than two years with a lot of casualties, and honestly, it’s very difficult to see any end of this aggression from the Russian side.

About this aggression from the Russian side. So, what do we think? Of course, security of our country and of three Baltic states, our safety provided just by us is not sufficient. But being a member of NATO, of course, gives us a lot of benefits. And in general, I think we feel safe enough at this moment because the probability of direct military conflict between Russia and NATO is still extremely low. There are different reasons for this. First, things that, of course, Russia is very busy with Ukraine. Nothing went as they planned. You remember probably the slogans, “Kyiv in three days,” “Second biggest army in the world,” or “Second most powerful army in the world.”, “So, we will achieve our goals of so-called limited military operation within a few days.” So, everything failed. We can see it, everything failed. And despite the fact that maybe NATO assistance, even at the early stage of the war and aggression from the Russian side, were quite limited. Still Ukraine was able to stop Russians, and then also, after some period, push them back quite significantly, almost to the borders where Russians were from 2014 when they started actually the first occupation. This war is much longer, but threats are there. They are not current, they are not immediate. But seeing the policy and politics of the current Russian regime, it’s no doubt that if they succeed in Ukraine, their appetite will grow. They will understand that they can achieve their goals. It doesn’t go easy for them, but they can do it. They can reach their goals, they can occupy territories, they can cause disturbance all around and show the weakness of international organizations, the weakness of law-based order. And this is what they want to achieve, basically. So, it means that if they achieve their goals, after some period, be it 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, no one knows, but definitely the next step may follow.

How to prevent this and how to protect ourselves? Of course, for us, it is only NATO plus our readiness as much as possible to be ready to react immediately if any direct military threat occurs or any hybrid or small-scale operation starts. We should be ready at first to protect ourselves as much and as long as possible, plus wait for and involve NATO assistance and the NATO troops to deal with this issue together with us.

And a lot of things are done after, I think it was, the Madrid Summit, when the first deployments were made on the level of battalions. Now we have brigades, international NATO brigade in all three Baltic states and in Poland. So, actually, the military presence of NATO is much bigger there.

Our own readiness is much bigger. We have now not only a conscript army, but we have also obligatory military service. Okay, it’s partially volunteer, so we ask for volunteers to join as well, but as this number is smaller than needs for the army, then also there is an obligatory part that young people are asked to come to the army to also join. But also, different benefits are offered to them. For example, if they apply for this military service voluntarily, the government is paying for their higher education. For example, after that, they have free education in university. It seems quite popular, by the way. So, such incentives are introduced, and I think they are important also to motivate our people to be ready to protect Latvia. And then we have quite a big number of so-called land guards, which are volunteers who have training all the time, and everyone can voluntarily join these land guards and be prepared for possible threats.

Now there’s a discussion, let it be through Russian-Latvian border, let it be through the Suwalki Gap. Anyhow, if Russia decides to somehow intervene in any Baltic countries, I wish not, the experts say that NATO as a whole will not sacrifice, the rest of Europe, central European countries like Germany and France; they will not sacrifice themselves for little Baltic countries. What’s your response to this discussion?

My response is that this is basically a narrative that Russians are very much trying to impose on the public because this is what Russia wants to achieve, to make kind of disbelief or distrust between NATO countries by spreading such information. But my feeling and my belief, and what we see from meetings on top-level NATO meetings, is that NATO is very strongly committed to react from the first moment, from the first centimeter if anything happens. This is one thing.

The second thing is that Suwalki Corridor was, at first, there are a lot of false or partially false narratives which are used regarding Suwalki Corridor. The first thing is that this is an enclave, a Russian enclave, and Russians may be unhappy because they have some restrictions to reach it. This is not true. Let’s start with this. It’s not an enclave. There is free access, as it was through the air, there is access through land, road access through train connection based on the agreement between Russia and the European Union. So, it’s not isolated at all. The only restrictions are put on military goods and double usage goods for transit. So, it’s not a territory between Russia and Russia, it’s territory between Russia, Belarus, Poland, and Sweden, and then Russia again. So, this is a much more complex issue. Even if we consider at this moment that Lukashenko is totally loyal and he will in some way allow or start any military aggression again, it’s not so plausible that it will be so because he’s also caring about people’s opinion in Belarus, he’s caring about his capacity of his army.

And to start anything in Suwalki, it means that militaries from Russia should be moved to the Belarus border, which is several hundred kilometers from Russia, and then to try to capture this 60, around 62-kilometers corridor. This is one thing. Another thing is, geopolitically, so we were occupied by the Soviet Union, Poland was an independent state. There is not much infrastructure because the Soviet border was the border between Lithuania and Poland. It was the Soviet Union’s border. This border had very little crossing points and very little roads and infrastructure along this border. If there were how to cross a few places, there are almost no roads, no train connecting Belarus with Kaliningrad. All the roads were, then, from Belarus connecting to Lithuania, to Vilnius, to Kaunas, to main cities, and then from Russia to Latvia, to Riga, or to Tallinn. But there were no roads along this border, actually, because it was a border zone and the train is very complex. So, there are no roads. It’s quite low land, a lot of lakes, a lot of hills, a lot of forests. So, to think that an army can march through this immediately, it doesn’t seem so. What can be done and what Russians are doing again are hybrid operations, like this migration crisis. Yes, this is an issue, but again, it’s not military. So, they are trying to push.

But yeah, they love this Suwalki idea. They love to talk about this, and they love to really try to build this distrust between NATO members, but we don’t buy this. So, this is a short answer, what I would like to say.

And last but not least, most of these articles and all these discussions were around the year 2022 before Russian aggression to Ukraine and before Finland and Sweden joined NATO. Now, the geopolitical situation in northern Europe is totally different, and the importance of Suwalki Corridor is much less because, basically, by Suwalki Corridor, because the supply chain from the rest of Europe to the Baltics, especially in case of military conflict, supply chain of military goods and everything, now this is not so important because there are other supply chains. Because Sweden is NATO, Norway is NATO, Finland is NATO, Estonia, Latvia, we are all in NATO. So, basically, this Baltic Sea is kind of an internal sea of NATO. And Russia doesn’t have the capacity to completely cut these supply chains, supply roads. We see what happened with the Black Sea fleet in the conflict with Ukraine. This fleet doesn’t exist anymore, basically. A country without a fleet, Ukraine, has destroyed completely the Russian fleet. So, I don’t really think that an imminent threat is there.

Of course, again, if we look long term, probably yes. Probably yes, Russia will try to cause conflict somewhere. Will it be Suok? Will it be a direct threat to Latvia or Estonia, where we have a border? Maybe northern Europe, north of Europe, Norway, where there is a huge border between Russia and Finland as well, even much bigger.

But one more thing, what we see right now is that Russia is not militarizing these territories where they have a border with the Baltic states and Poland. And, vice versa, a lot of troops and equipment are removed from there for the needs of Ukraine. So, there’s much less Russian military presence on the border. In Kaliningrad a lot, yes, still.

Latvia is one of the few countries which supports Türkiye’s accession to the EU membership. Please tell us your opinion how Türkiye and the EU can find more common grounds of interests. What do you think the main challenges between Türkiye and the EU are?

Well, it is very big topic in general. One main thing is that more Europe in Türkiye or more Türkiye in Europe is very important. For us, it is both because of our economical interest. Trade numbers are very big. We are very much connected in energy issues and climate issues. So it means that basically we should get as close as we can get. But it is at the same time a philosophical question. The European Union is historically built among the countries who agreed to accept kind of different laws and regulations together. And other countries are joining in the EU because they also want to accept these laws and regulations within the EU. There was no case that any country who is willing to join this club has asked this club to change the laws and regulations.

Has Türkiye asked for this?

Of course, we can feel this. Well, I understand Turkish interests. We can hear Turkish politicians who is saying Türkiye is so big and important, therefore Europe should change some things. Then, if we look back, it is not fair anymore because, for example, when we joined Europe, we joined Europe along with those laws and regulations which Europe has until now. And we do now changes only when member countries agree on any changes. So, this is a dilemma in general. It is very well-known, of course, where the issues are, where there is discontent between the EU and Türkiye especially on the press freedom and rights, human rights, questions about democracy. Still, there are things in our understanding, the Europeans differ very much. But still we have to look at how to get closer.

Another issue is economical goals which are we are close. We are strong defenders of the modernization of customs union, trades and benefits. But Customs Union Agreement is very old and up to date. It should be modernized. There are a lot of steps done. Negotiations are going on by the mandates of European Commission on this issue. What I heard from my European colleagues they have already figured out the so-called irritants, so they are indicated and both sides are dealing with these issues.

Energy, climate, culture and these topics are going very well. One issue is about so-called visa issues and mobility. This is very common topic and sometimes we hear some allegations from media and politicians that there is a political policy to apply some restrictions on Türkiye because it is Türkiye. But it is because of the documents which are not proper or the capacity of issuing visa is limited. As an Ambassador, I have never received any political guidelines from government or Europe to implement restrictions on Türkiye. My ministry gave instruction to me to increase mobility especially with Turkish citizens, tourism and young people. And we are trying to do it as much as possible. The number of the students we receive in Latvia increases every year. But there is another issue which is capacity. For example, our embassy is very compact and we are very few people here. We have one consul here who has right to make the decision for granting visa. It takes 5 minutes to make a positive decision and half an hour to make a negative decision. If there are fake documents or insufficient amount of money for travel costs. To reject a person like this, take a lot of time. But we could issue visa for another person instead of spending half an hour for a person who also apply for visa and does not event want to go to Latvia. Some people want to go to Germany or Netherlands but there are big queues there and they are providing fake document but it is very easy to check it.

We want people to come to Latvia but we want people who really wants to come to Latvia. For example, you came and you are happy. And we hope that you will visit Latvia again. We are open for people to visit our beautiful country.

Sometimes there are organizations behind that. Sometimes the same type of documents are coming from so many different people. Most probably they are asking for many promising that they can receive visa but then they say “it is not our fault, Embassy rejected the application; they are perfect documents so pay again and we try again”.

Honestly, Turkish Foreign Ministry is very aware of the situation and they are working to solve this issue. We have very good contact and we want to have more good friends who come for business, tourism and education. We have a very strong “fast track” visa facilitating program.

Let’s personally talk about you. You stayed in Türkiye for 4 years during your duty here. What are the things you were most proud or challenged about diplomatic relations? As a high-level diplomat, what did you succeed in bilateral relations between Türkiye and Latvia? Please also tell about your experiences and the moments you liked most.

Everything is very nice regarding Türkiye. A lot of positive emotions and impressions. I have. When I was asked to come first, I had no knowledge about Türkiye but the image was not the most positive one.

Did you think that Türkiye was a Middle Eastern country?

Maybe a little, it is so crowded but I also worked in South Korea. I thought it maybe not an organized country. It was Covid period, I discovered that there are a lot of cultural, historical and natural places comparing to Korea. I love history and my end of paradise to travel to Ephesos, Sagalassos, Thermesos, Side, Perge, Olympos and etc. I visited all of them. They were lovely. It’s history has so many different civilizations and nations.

Did you also visit South Eastern Türkiye?

Yes, I did. I also went to Van, I climbed Mount Ararat last summer.

Do you call it Ararat? We call it Ağrı.

I know that it is Ağrı in Turkish but in English it is Ararat and in Latvian it is Ararat because in old Soviet Union it was called Ararat in Armenia. Sorry for that. (Laughs) But despite of different names it was amazing. I visited the mountain with a Turkish group. My assistant was the only connection between me and Turkish group. I love most of Turkish people. Such a friendship, such a hospitality that I have never experienced somewhere else. And last but not least, the most dangerous thing was food. It was so tasty. You cannot stop eating sweets and kebabs and especially fruits and vegetables, actually everything.

All in total I have million tons of positive emotions on Türkiye. But the policies are very unpredictable. Something which normally happens in another country in one year, happens here in one week or one night. So, this is of course a very difficult situation for a diplomat.

Was there anything which impacted on your work directly?

Of course, it affected me directly. Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is asking me about a topic, like what is going to happen about that situation, I answer that I don’t know. Nobody knows what is going to happen tomorrow. (Laughs) That’s why I cannot write any reports which is expected from me.

Again, it was interesting to observe. And I can completely understand Türkiye, its government, its president, its policies and its interests internally, regionally or globally. They are usually interconnected. And what is important is that what is done for internal politics does not seem different from global politics and vice versa. What is done regionally is not so attractive internally. And we observe it every day and try to understand.

I did not experience any political issue or problem that Ministry of Foreign Affairs called me. My main duty was to maintain this very very positive relations between two countries. I had my farewell speaking with Mr. Numan Kurtulmuş, the President of National Assembly around three weeks ago. Recently, I met with Mr. Mehmet Kemal Bozay, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Both were extremely friendly so I am departing as a friend of Türkiye. And I am sure that my colleagues will keep the relations very good.

To sum up, we need to improve business and cultural exchange. We are also the leading country on Baltic Documentary Festival which was held in Istanbul. Our problem is our capacity. We don’t have a consulate in Istanbul. This is a little bit challenging.

You are in Ankara for 4 years. You witnessed Ministry of Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu for 2 years and a half and Ministry of Hakan Fidan for 1 year and a half. Fidan comes from intelligence service and Çavuşoğlu was the second minister who held the position this long. According to your observation, what is different between these two top diplomats?

Well, it is very difficult to have a deep analysis. But I can say that the personalities are very different. Maybe it is about their backgrounds. I had opportunity to meet both high ranked politicians. I enjoyed interaction with both of them. Çavuşoğlu is a very outgoing person, he likes to have people around him and tell them stories. Minister Fidan is more introvert but his knowledge, experience and skills are obvious when you talk to him. He seems to me very deep. I was impressed by his knowledge especially on Near East region and North Africa. Few months ago, Marko Mihkelson whom you also met and delegations of three Baltic states visited Ankara. We had meeting with Minister Fidan and his knowledge was very impressive.

What about his knowledge about Baltic region?

Oh, we are not kind of complicated or tricky region. So, it is not difficult to be briefed about our policies. There are not so many stones under the water. (Laughs)