Russian threat will endure beyond Putin’s era, Latvian foreign minister cautions

For people living in the Baltic states, the threat posed by Russia has never been a theoretical concept. Krišjānis Kariņš is no exception; it is deeply personal.

The Latvian foreign minister was born in the US in 1964 to parents who had fled Latvia in 1944 to escape the Soviet re-occupation of the country.

That family history has given Mr Kariņš - Latvia’s prime minister until last September - an acute awareness of the pathologies of the modern Russian psyche.

“Russia right now - and it’s a rather deep philosophy, bought into by society - they are still an imperialistic country, viewing the world the way some European countries did maybe 100, 150 years ago,” he explains.

The corollary to that statement is the grim understanding that if and when Vladimir Putin leaves the stage, Russia’s imperial pretensions - currently playing out with devastating effect in Ukraine - will continue to menace Europe.

“From Nato’s point of view, we will have to deal with a problematic Russia, a dangerous Russia for a long time to come,” he warns. “Even after the end of this war - and all wars end eventually - we will still have a problem in Russia which will not be related directly to the rule of Putin.”

The death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in an Artic penal colony last month and this weekend’s sham presidential election in Russia only serve to underline this stark fact.

“We see no indications that there’s any movement within Russia which would produce a leader espousing enlightenment, liberal ideas,” Mr Kariņš says. “This is not in the foreseeable future at all.”

For the minister, it is that enduring challenge from the East which necessitates a “robust” and “transparent” policy of containment from Nato. Mr Kariņš - who has previously indicated his interest in becoming Nato’s next general secretary - says that if Moscow “clearly see what we have, what we’re capable of, and how we’re willing to put it to use”, then “Russia’s imperialistic ambitions would simply no longer have the opportunity to turn to the West”.

That’s the theory anyway.

Meeting The Telegraph at the Latvian Embassy in London during a packed two-day visit to the UK, Mr Kariņš cuts a tall, spare figure.

Born and raised in Joe Biden’s home state of Delaware (he remains a dual citizen), he does not betray an American accent, though the occasional word or turn of phrase (“newbies”, “we still have a ways to go”) hints at his upbringing on the other side of the Atlantic.

Mr Kariņš completed a PhD in linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania before relocating to Latvia in the 1990s after it regained its independence, entering first the world of business and then politics. Coolly cerebral in rimless spectacles, it is no great stretch to picture him in his former life as an academic.

The minister is visiting London - where he met with the Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron - during a crucial phase in the Ukraine war.

“It’s a very tough portion in the war,” he admits. Mr Kariņš accentuates the positives: Ukraine has an “absolutely top-notch fighting spirit”, and the country has excelled at “asymmetrical” warfare, including terrorising the Russians in the Black Sea.

“They’ll be teaching us how to use drones in these types of conflicts,” he says. But there is no escaping the fundamentals. “Ukraine needs weapons, Ukraine needs ammunition.”

The country may be “developing, advancing, innovating”, but “they still need our basic support, because their military industry and arms manufacturing industry is not capable of supplying the arms at pace that they need”.

US deadlock

It is not just the military facts on the ground which make this stage of the war critical. While the Russians are yet to make a major breakthrough, the tectonic plates within American politics seem to be in motion and the rumblings have been ominous. A $60 billion (£45.9bn) package of military aid for Ukraine is mired in Congress.

Donald Trump - who leads President Biden in the polls in key states - has promised to end the Ukraine war “within 24 hours” if re-elected, while providing no details. After meeting Mr Trump in Florida last week, the Hungarian prime minister Victor Orban claimed that if returned to the White House he would “not give a penny” to Ukraine and “then the war is over”.

Mr Kariņš plays down such comments. Choosing his words with the care befitting Latvia’s top diplomat, he says: “Viktor Orban is quite well known for… going against the grain, shall we say?

“He was blocking EU funding for Ukraine, but he ended up stepping back. So Europe came through with its funding pledge, and now it’s the US’s turn.”

Mr Kariņš’ upbringing gives him an intimate understanding of American politics. While he distinguishes between Mr Trump’s “rhetoric” in an election year and his “track record” (he points out that the US military presence in the Baltics increased during his time in office) he says Europe must adapt to shifting priorities in Washington DC.

“It’s not based upon any one individual or either of the parties, longer term they will be wanting to and needing to put more assets into the Pacific. And we need to pick up the slack.”

Europe, he says, is “collectively wealthy enough to actually be able to afford our own defence”.

“This is what we have to strive for in Europe, and get away from the thinking that sort of ‘US does security - in Europe we do prosperity’.

“That’s a model which I think is not at all sustainable. And there is an element of, you know, unfairness to it. If we were a poor continent, that would be one thing, but collectively, we’re a rather wealthy continent.”

That means both ramping up the European defence industry to supply Ukraine and making sure that Nato countries on the continent “pick up our own bill” when it comes to contributions to the alliance. Latvia is on track to hit 3 per cent of GDP being spent on defence and he supports the UK moving towards the benchmark.

Total defence

It is unsurprising that Latvia and the other Baltic states are among the most hawkish Nato countries when it comes to opposing Russian aggression. That is not just the consequence of the trauma of occupation, but a product of brute geographic facts. Latvia shares a 133-mile land border with Russia. It has a population of 1.8 million compared to Russia’s more than 140m.

How does a small country hope to stand up to such a behemoth? For Mr Kariņš, the answer lies in “total defence” - a concept pioneered by Finland (another country with compelling historic and geographic reasons to fear Russian expansionism) where the whole of society is mobilised for the potential purpose of war. This year, Latvia reintroduced conscription, and Mr Kariņš urges the UK and other Nato countries to consider following suit.

Of course, the real key to Latvia’s security is its membership of Nato. Mr Kariņš is phlegmatic about the threat. “There is no notion that the Baltics could be next”, he says. But “if Russia were to invade a Baltic country, Russia would be invading Nato”.

The alliance, he says, will defend Nato territory “from the first square centimetre”. He believes the US will remain engaged in Nato whatever the election result this November.

For now at least, the Russian onslaught is confined to Ukraine. He dismisses the siren voices calling for Kyiv to negotiate.

“Russia has proven that it uses peace to rearm in order to attack,” he says.

Again, we return to psychology. “In many Russians’ minds, it has the feeling of a crusade,” he says. “We have to understand that they’re not in any mood to stop. I’m convinced that Russia will not stop, it can only be stopped.”