Latvian President: Why Ukraine holds the key to the challenge of China | DW News

President Levits, thank you very much for speaking with DW today. He has now arrived in Germany just as he has committed billions more euros in support of Ukraine. And yet Olaf Scholz remains very doubtful about one of the main questions: whether to supply fighter jets to Ukraine. Very skeptical about it. You have long spoken that Ukraine should receive everything it needs. What is your message to him at Jets? I think that everyone in NATO and the European Union should think, first of all, about how to support Ukraine. Of course, now there is very real military support and we need to support Ukraine with all the necessary equipment, with the necessary weapons.

We don't have fighter jets. Latvia does not have it. But countries that have tanks and fighter jets should think about it. But think about it or do it. I mean, Olaf Scholz has been pretty close to even ruling out the supply of aircraft. It is up to German policymakers to decide. But I think we have agreed in the European Union and in NATO to support Ukraine so that it can resist the Russian attack and also win the war. So, and if we have this goal, then of course each country should think about what could be the contribution of each country to achieve this goal.

But so far, I mean, there's been movement on things like tanks. But do you think Ukraine now has what it needs to win that war? What we are hearing from Ukrainians is not yet. Of course, Ukraine, Ukrainians know better, but what is the real situation? And in this sense we trust Ukraine, but it is a very good sign that the first leopard tanks have already arrived in Ukraine, as Chancellor Scholz promised some time ago. I think Germany is supporting Ukraine with very considerable support in absolute terms and this should continue. Now, Vladimir Putin has recently said that he will move nuclear weapons to Belarus.

What does this mean, how do you interpret it and what does it mean for Latvia? After all, Latvia has borders with Belarus and Russia. In the case of Latvia, we have also consulted other allies. NATO's view at the moment is that this does not change the military situation as a whole. So because of nuclear weapons, it's not that important where they are directly because they could be used from different places. But of course it is a signal, a political signal from Russia that Russia does not want to have peace. Russia wants to continue aggression in Ukraine.

Now, Latvia, of course, along with the other Baltic States, is right there in the region. It's right in front of Russia. NATO, since the beginning of the war, has increased its presence in the Baltic countries of Latvia. Do you think it is enough or do you want NATO to do more? Is there anything else that needs to happen? At the NATO summit in the summer of '22 we agreed that NATO's eastern flank must be reinforced. There should be more military capabilities. And next time we will have more NATO troops also in the Baltic region, but on the eastern flank in general, because NATO doctrine now seeks this very clear Russian aggression, the deterrence of Russia, through military capabilities , through credible military capabilities. , and this investment in military capabilities is at the same time an investment in peace, because if Russia knows that in the event of an attack it will lose, then it will not decide to attack.

And this is a logic that we must take very seriously. And therefore, NATO and of course also Latvia, but also Germany, and are now investing in military capabilities to strengthen military capabilities to maintain peace in Europe. And specifically, what are the measures that have been taken in the Baltic States so far? Do you think that threshold of credibility has been reached or does more need to happen? So this is not a single point where we can say it has been reached. We are increasing these capabilities so that Russia is clear that it makes no sense to attack.

And I think that we in Latvia, but also NATO as a whole, are investing in more capabilities across the eastern flank. So we must understand that it is not an attack against a country. It is an attack on NATO. NATO is a union or association of 30 countries. And from now on the entire eastern flank of NATO, from Estonia to Bulgaria. This is the area where capacity should be strengthened and very soon also in Finland. In addition, Finland will have a very long common border with Russia, 1,300 kilometers. We have 200km. Therefore, this eastern flank, from Finland to Bulgaria in the south, should be reinforced.

This is our common policy, also common policy, also Latvian policy, American policy, of course, and also German policy. But specifically, I mean, there are some calls to establish permanent bases instead of this kind of rotation principle in the Baltic States. What is your position on this? Yes, of course, permanent deployment is also part of strengthening NATO's eastern flank. This is a process. It is not tomorrow, but it is a process so that, in due time, not very irreversible, we also have more NATO troops on the entire eastern flank. Of course, we should also count the Finnish troops that will be in Finland in a few months, when Finland officially becomes a member of NATO.

I'd like to talk about China, because China has been engaging a lot in discussions about, you know, trying to find peace at some point. This position paper was published with 12 points with his point of view. What do you think of the document and what China has been saying recently? I trust President Zelenskyy's recognition of the Ukrainian government. President Zelenskyy said that he welcomes the Chinese commitment. Because there is also a point among the 12 points: the territorial integrity of all countries must be protected and respected. And it is true that Ukraine wants to restore territorial integrity. Then we will see what kind of participation from China.

We'll see for now. It seems that Russia is not interested in restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity, but we will also see that, in principle, Ukraine views this commitment positively. And we'll see. But we've seen how close Russia and China are right now. Xi Jinping was very recently in Moscow, you know, very, very strong symbolism of that relationship. And what they both share is an analysis that it was the expansion of NATO that ultimately led to this war. Now, Latvia is a shining example of this NATO expansion. So what would you say to China to refute this argument that you are part of the problem?

It is a false argument. NATO is a defense association, pure defense, and it would also be very disingenuous for us to enter into Russia's paranoid argument, because, you know, I don't think there is anyone in Germany either. thinking about attacking Russia. No, it is clearly a false argument. Thus, but in reverse, Russia attacks Ukraine and previously attacked Georgia. There is a real threat from Russia to other countries. And therefore, the natural reaction is to join NATO. It's the country's choice there. So we should not enter into this false argument. But China is also angry about what it sees as...

China is watching very carefully what the outcome of Russian aggression against Ukraine would be. If Russia will get some benefits from them, that will mean to Russia and to China that the West is weak. The West cannot defend itself and of course especially the United States is weak, the West and the West in general are weak, so China would also have some interest in expanding, especially for the first time in East Asia, Taiwan first of all, but also others. countries and other East Asian countries are very concerned about this. It is interesting that during Xi's visit to Moscow, Japan's Prime Minister Kishida was in kyiv and Prime Minister Kishida said *unclearly* that Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow.

Also, China is not very involved, perhaps more politically on the Russian side, but they are staying separate and will see what that would be the result of Russia's attack on Ukraine. And for China, this war is a test for the West, for the strength of the United States, for the strength of NATO, for the strength of the West. And therefore, it is very important for the West, for Europe, to support Ukraine, not to allow Russia to win the war and get some benefits from it. Now China, for its part, is angry at what it sees as a kind of expansion of NATO's horizons toward Asian connections.

Additionally, she mentioned Japan, the AUKUS submarine agreement. Which sort of puts all of this under what she says is a kind of Cold War mentality and accuses the broader Western democracies led by the United States of lining up against China, trying to contain it. What do you say to that? Of course, other countries do not want to be within this sphere of influence of Russia or the sphere of influence of China. That's why Japan and South Korea are very concerned about this. And it's also interesting that at the last NATO summit, the prime minister of Japan was there, the

president

of South Korea was there as prime minister of Australia and New Zealand.

I think we should look for where the source of the aggressive mentality is, not NATO. It is clear that this is a Russian ideology here in our region, but also China's policy against Taiwan first of all and also other regions of East Asia. I think we should not confuse the source of aggression and our aggressive mentality in East Asia with politics or the quest to defend oneself in order to defend oneself. Just one last question. Looking at the United States, we're starting to get into a sort of electoral mode. The Republican Party, there is movement. Donald Trump is in front.

He has a very isolationist attitude and doesn't care much about the war in Ukraine. Ron DeSantis, his main rival, seems to adhere to Donald Trump's position, suggesting that it is not really in the interest of the United States, that it needs to pivot towards Asia and focus on China. What is his message to Republicans who are considering the path his party wants to take and are drawn toward an attitude that Europe no longer matters? Yes, those signs exist. In some politicians in the political circles of the United States. The idea of ​​isolation, that America should not care about the world, has always been there.

Sometimes it was stronger and other times not so strong. But I think most Americans know that it is in America's best interest to be on the world stage and that Europe is America's best ally because we see that the West as a whole, I mean Europe plus North America. in addition to some countries such as Japan, Australia, South Korea, which build the so-called West, which is united by common values. This is a common basis by which we can talk about the West so that we, the West, are just an actor in the multipolar world, but we should be strong enough at least to defend ourselves, because if we do not want to give up our values, then it is the way we can maintain our identity as democracies, our values.

That is why we should invest in our defense. Egils Levits, thank you for speaking to DW today. Thank you.