President Levits, many thanks for speaking to DW today.
Now you've come to Germany just as a time when it has committed billions of euros of
more in support to Ukraine.
And yet Olaf Scholz on one of the main questions whether to provide Ukraine with fighter jets
is still very much holding back.
Very skeptical about that.
You've spoken out about that for a long time, that Ukraine should get everything it needs.
What's your message to him on Jets?
I think, we all in NATO and in the European Union should think about how to support Ukraine
in the first place.
Of course, now very actual military support and we need to support Ukraine with all necessary
equipment, with necessary weapons.We don't have fighter jets.
Latvia don't have.
But but countries which have tanks and fighter jets should think about.
But think about or actually do.
I mean, Olaf Scholz has come pretty close to sort of ruling out even providing jets.
It's up to German policymakers to decide on that.
But I think we have agreed in the European Union and in NATO to support Ukraine so that
Ukraine can resist the Russian attack and also to 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 and up until now, I mean, there's been movement on things like tanks.
But do you feel that Ukraine has now what it needs to win that war?
What we're hearing from the Ukrainians is not yet.
Of course, Ukraine, Ukrainians know better, but what is the actual situation?
And we rely on Ukraine in this respect, but it is a very good sign that already the first
leopard tanks arrived in Ukraine, as Chancellor Scholz already promised at a time ago.
I think Germany is supporting Ukraine with very considerable support in absolute terms
and this should be continued.
Now, Vladimir Putin has recently said that he's going to be moving nuclear weapons to
Belarus.
What does this, how do you interpret that and what does this mean for Latvia?
After all, Latvia borders both Belarus and Russia.
For Latvia, we have consulted also other allies.
The NATO apreciation for the moment is that this does not change the military situation
as a whole.
So because the nuclear weapons, it is not so important where they are directly because
they are they could be used from different places.
But of course, it's a signal it's a political signal from Russia that Russia does not want
to have peace.
Russia wants to continue the aggression in the Ukraine.
Now, Latvia, of course, along with the other Baltic states, is right there in the region.
It's right up against Russia.
NATO, since the beginning of the war, has increased its presence in the Baltic states
in Latvia.
Do you feel like it's enough or do you want NATO to do more?
Is there more that needs to happen?
We have agreed in NATO, NATO summit in summer 22 that the eastern flank of NATO should be
strengthened.
There should be more military capacities.
And in the next time, we will have more NATO troops also in the Baltic region, but in the
eastern flank in general, because NATO doctrine is now after this very clear Russian aggression,
deterrence of Russia, through military capacities, through credible military capacities, and
this investment in military capacities is in the same time investment in peace, because
if Russia will know that in the case of attack, Russia will lose, then they will not decide
to attack.
And this is a logic which we should be very serious.
And therefore, NATO and of course also Latvia, but also Germany, and now investing in military
capacities in strengthening of the military capacities in order to keep the peace in Europe.
And specifically, you know, what the steps that have been taken in the Baltic states
so far, Do you feel that that threshold of credibility has been reached or does more
need to happen?
So this is not a one point when we can say it is reached.
We are increasing these capacities so that for Russia it is clear that there is no sense
to attack.
And I think, we in Latvia, but also NATO as a whole is investing in more capacities in
the whole eastern flank.
So this is we should understand that it is not an attack against one country.
It is an attack to the NATO.
NATO is a union or an association of 30 countries.
And the whole NATO eastern flank from now from Estonia to Bulgaria.
This is the area where the capacity should be strengthened and very soon also Finland.
Also Finland will have a very long common border with Russia, 1300km.
We have 200km.
So this Eastern Flank then from Finland to Bulgaria in the south should be strengthened.
This is our common politics, also common politics, also Latvian, US politics, of course, and
also German politics.
But specifically, I mean, there are some calls for permanent basing rather than this sort
of rotational principle in the Baltic states.
Where do you stand on that?
Yes, of course, permanent deployment is also part of the strengthening of NATO eastern
flank.
This is a process.
It is not tomorrow, but it is a process so that we will, in due time, not very in irreversible
time, have also more NATO troops in the whole eastern flank.
We should count also the Finnish troops, of course, in Finland in a few months when there
would be officially Finland, a member of NATO.
I'd like to talk about China, because China has been very much entering discussions about,
you know, trying to find peace at some point is brought out this position paper with 12
points with its view.
What do you make of the paper and what China has been saying recently?
I rely on the appreciation of President Zelenskyy of Ukrainian government.
President Zelenskyy said that he is looking positively to Chinese engagement.
So because there is one point also in the 12 points that the territorial integrity of
all countries is should be guarded, should be respected.
And it is exact that that Ukraine want to restore the the territorial integrity.
So we will see what kind of involvement of China.
We will see for the moment.
It seems that Russia is not interested in the restoration of territorial integrity of
Ukraine, but we will see also this is in principle, Ukraine is appreciating positively, rather
positively this engagement.
And we will see.
But we've seen just how close Russia and China are at the moment.
Xi Jinping was very recently in Moscow, you know, very, very strong symbolism of that
relationship.
And both what they share is an analysis that it is NATO expansion that ultimately led to
this war.
Now, Latvia is a shining example of this NATO expansion.
So what do you say to China to rebut this argument that you're part of the problem?
It is a fake argument.
NATO is a defence, pure Defence Association and it would be very false from our side too,
to go into the paranoic argumentation of Russia, because it is, you know, also I don't I don't
think that's in Germany someone is thinking about attacking Russia.
No, it's it's clear it is a fake argument.
So but in other way around Russia attacks Ukraine, previously attacked Georgia.
There is a real threat from Russia to other countries.
And therefore, the natural reaction is to join NATO.
It is the choice of the country there.
So we should not go into this fake argumentation.
But China is also angry about what it sees as...
China is is very carefully looking what would be the result of the Russian aggression against
Ukraine.
If Russia will have some benefits of them, that means for Russia, for China that the
West is weak.
West cannot defend itself, and of course it especially the US is weak, the West and the
West in general is weak so that China would also have some interest to expand, especially
in the first time in East Asia, Taiwan, first place, but also other countries and the other
countries in East Asia are very worried about that.
It is interesting that during the visit of Xi in Moscow, the Prime Minister of Japan,
Kishida, was in Kyiv and Prime Minister Kishida said *unclear* Ukraine today can be East Asia
tomorrow.
Also, China is not heavily involved, maybe rather politically on rather on the Russian
side, but they are staying apart and they will look how that would be the result of
Russia's attack to 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 that that Russia will win the war and have some benefits for that.
Now, China, for its part, though, is angry about what it sees as NATO kind of expanding
its horizons into Asia connections.
Also, you mentioned Japan, the AUKUS submarine deal.
What it kind of it puts all of this under what it says is a sort of a Cold War mentality
and accusing the American led West broader West democracies of lining up against China,
trying to contain it.
What do you say to that?
Of course, the other countries don't want to be within this sphere of influence of Russia
or the sphere of influence of China.
Therefore, Japan, South Korea are very worried about that.
And it's also interesting that by the last summit of NATO, the prime minister of Japan
was there, the president of South Korea was there as a prime minister of Australia and
New Zealand.
I think we should look where is the source of aggressive mind, not the NATO.
It is clear it's a Russian ideology here in our region, but also the politics of China
against Taiwan in the first place and also other regions in Eastern Asia.
I think we should not mix up the source of aggression and our aggressive mind in East
Asia and case with the politics or of seeking defend to defend itself.
Just a final question.
Looking to the United States, we're beginning to enter a kind of election mode there.
The Republican Party, there's movement.
Donald Trump is out in front.
He's got a very sort of isolationist sort of attitude, doesn't care much about the Ukraine
war.
Ron DeSantis, his main challenger, seeming to kind of cleave towards Donald Trump's position,
suggesting that it's not really in America's interest, it needs to turn to Asia and focus
on China.
What's your message to Republicans kind of considering the way their party wants to go
and sort of being drawn towards an attitude that Europe doesn't matter anymore?
Yes, such signs are there.
In some politicians political circles in the US.
The idea of isolation, of that US should not care about the world is always been there.
There was sometimes it's more stronger that sometimes not so strong.
But I think the majority of Americans know that it is in the interest of the US to be
on the world stage and the that Europe is a best ally of the United States because we
see that the West as whole I mean Europe plus North America, plus some countries like Japan,
Australia, South Korea, which builds so-called West, which is united by common values.
This is a common basis why we can speak about the West so that we, the West Are only one
player in the multipolar world, but we should be strong enough at least to defend ourselves,
because if we don't want to give up our values, then it is the way how we can keep our identity
as democracies, our values.
So we should invest in our defense.
Egils Levits, thanks for speaking to DW today.
Thank you.