The time for platitudes is over, show us real actions

Earlier this week, a number of highly influential world politicians arrived in Riga. On Monday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, on Tuesday Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. They all met with the highest Latvian officials. What message did Levits, Kariņš, Rinkēvičs give them, and what message did they give us?

In times of war - and there is a war in Europe at the moment, the scale of which it is too early to tell - it is difficult not only to criticize one's own people, but even to interject a single critical word, because each one can be interpreted as pouring water on the enemy's mill. That is why I wish to make it clear at the outset that I highly value Blinken's visit, and if there is one politician in the administration of US President Joe Biden who can be called our true friend without any doubt, it is Blinken. At the same time, however, I cannot help but note a few moments of concern.

First of all, it is time to distinguish between platitudes and real action. That is to say, sweet songs from tangible deeds. The eternal affirmations - I love you - need to be backed up by deeds. And they must cost effort and significantly empty the wallet. To believe in words is to build a future on quicksand. Why is this so important to understand?

Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, its capital Kyiv was visited by a wide range of world leaders and organizations, all of whom, without exception, expressed their strongest support, promised to step up military supplies - helmets and bandages for the time being, but when the invasion comes (which it probably won't), then the widest stream of the most advanced and powerful weapons will flow like a spring flood. While it cannot be denied that some arms are already flowing (and admittedly were flowing before the invasion), it is certainly not what the defenders of Ukraine had hoped for.

Here's what retired Colonel Igors Rajevs, former commander of the Latvian Land Forces, has to say about these weapons: "Stinger air defense weapons, Javelin and NLAW anti-tank weapons are low-level tactical weapons well suited for ambush operations and urban combat, but these are not weapon systems that can determine the result of a war... I don't even see the possibility that the West will agree to give the Ukrainians any more sophisticated weapons systems at all."

Since last spring, there has been an increased concentration of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, but no "more sophisticated weapons systems" were ever delivered to Ukraine. There is no doubt that this unspoken slowing down of the flow of arms was part of the "just so as not to anger Putin" tactic that I wrote about yesterday.

Now that the hostilities in Ukraine are already in a heated phase, has this tactic - "just so as not to anger Putin" - been changed or recognized as ineffective? Blinken's visit to Riga does not show this. What exactly did Blinken, Stoltenberg and the others bring us? Of course, it is always nice to hear platitudes such as "NATO's commitment to Article 5 is greater than ever". But in the new circumstances, that is not enough. We need to demand real arms deliveries and troop presence now. Maybe I missed something, but it was only Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkēvičs who publicly demanded that US forces be permanently deployed in Latvia, not on a rotational basis. There was no clear answer to this request/demand from Rinkēvičs. The reason is also clear - the fear of "angering Putin".

I understand perfectly well the world's fear of being embroiled in a horrific or even just a limited nuclear war, but this fear must not become a willingness to avoid war at all costs, because "at all costs" means just that - literally at all costs. That is to say, there will be no bargaining. At the price of humiliation, shame, dishonor and self-disrespect.

When, a few years ago, Islamic terrorists (yes, Islamic terrorists, not "terrorism has no nationality or religion") shot up the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the whole of France, with its then President, François Hollande, took to the streets under the slogan: we won't let terrorists intimidate us. Now, one crazed Russian terrorist (yes, Russian, not "terrorism has no nationality or religion") is terrorizing the whole world, but there are no massive marches on the Champs-Élysées with the idea: we won't let terrorist Putin intimidate us. Instead, another tactic is quietly being pursued - that of "not angering Putin". The humiliating calls made to this terrorist by the President of the same "unintimidatable" France feel too shameful to even mention.

I remember perfectly well the situation that existed until the end of the 1980s - huge NATO (US) forces in Western Europe, above all in West Germany. There were nuclear weapons then too, even more than now, but that did not diminish the role of conventional weapons and the number of NATO bases in Western Europe. The Kremlin was told in no uncertain terms that it would be no cakewalk to get to the English Channel. The Kremlin understood this, and peace reigned in Europe, under which this "pink pony" culture has so gloriously grown over the last 50 years.

Now the situation has changed radically, and one can only agree with Rinkēvičs: "I do not see any good reason to think that Russia will change its policy." Therefore, the only way to ensure real security for Latvia is to substantially reinforce NATO's military presence in Latvia and the other two Baltic States. And not, as Rajevs put it, with "low-level tactical weapons", but with "much more sophisticated weapon systems". This is what Levits, Kariņš and other top Latvian officials should be asking for, demanding at every possible moment, not submissively nodding their heads like trained elephants at every phrase uttered by a high-ranking guest.