U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegset called the Baltic States and Poland exemplary allies, mainly due to their defense spending, but the question arises as to how much the U.S. can be relied upon in the 'Hour X,' said Maris Andžāns, director of the Center for Geopolitical Studies and associate professor at the University of Stradiņš in Riga, to the LETA agency.
He noted that despite the positive perception of the Baltics by American institutions, the final decision will be made by one person — U.S. President Donald Trump. When asked whether the U.S. could be expected to intervene in the event of a crisis, Andžāns replied that this year Trump has more frequently used tariffs and threats, and has only engaged in wars when victory was guaranteed and involvement occurred quickly.
As an example, Andžāns cited the war between Israel and Iran, in which the U.S., according to him, intervened only after Israel had already done "most of the work" — eliminating generals, scientists, and air defense systems, allowing Israeli aircraft to fly freely over Iran.
Andžāns recounted that in this context, the operation "Midnight Hammer" took place, during which Trump sent B-2 bombers and other aircraft to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, and then quickly insisted on a ceasefire. He also mentioned U.S. strikes in Syria, Somalia, and Yemen, which the expert characterized as quick, "surgical," and without a clear desire to escalate the conflict.
Commenting on the statements of the U.S. Secretary of Defense regarding the Baltic States and Poland, Andžāns pointed out that these countries have a good image, partly due to previous cooperation in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS). However, he reiterated that the crucial question remains: how will the U.S. act if "something happens" — will they view the Baltics and Poland as allies with a good reputation, or as Europeans whose reputation in Trump's eyes is lower.
Andžāns noted that the war in Ukraine and the peace negotiation process evoke mixed feelings. According to him, Trump has stated that Russia will not attack other neighboring countries while he is president. In Andžāns' opinion, Russia may have a different logic — that Trump is ready to "divide Ukraine." He added that U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff traveled to Moscow and St. Petersburg, and then echoed narratives from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Andžāns noted that hypothetically, a similar perspective could be applied to Narva and Daugavpils if a "territorial trading" approach and the logic of "they speak Russian there" emerge. He also mentioned the actual "reset" of relations with Belarus as a "sad event."
At the same time, Andžāns pointed out that the U.S. has changed and will become more selfish in the long term, and reminded that the U.S. plans to reduce the number of troops in Europe, which the administration has clearly stated. He noted that even if words of support are expressed and American troops are rotated in the region, overall support for Europe may weaken, and Europe itself is facing criticism.
Andžāns also drew attention to the instability of Hegset's position, mentioning the so-called "Signalgate" and other events, adding that Hegset might step aside, and someone like U.S. Vice President's friend James David Vance, U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, or U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense for Political Affairs Elbridge Colby could take his place. The director of the Center for Geopolitical Studies noted that their attitude towards Europe is unfavorable, and they emphasize a pivot towards Asia and China.
The expert emphasized that in the "Hour X," decisions need to be made quite quickly, and intelligence services notice warning signals, as nothing happens "out of the blue." As an example, he cited the full-scale invasion of Russia into Ukraine, which was preceded by obvious signs. At the same time, Andžāns pointed out that politicians' words of support do not always translate into actions, citing the issue of sanctions, including U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham's statements about the readiness to impose tough sanctions against Russia, which were not implemented, although, in Andžāns' assessment, around 80 senators could have voted for them.
In response to a question about enhancing Europe's defense capabilities, Andžāns noted that EU countries perceive threats differently. He said that Germany, despite its shortcomings, has done a lot, including deploying a brigade in Lithuania, which he characterized as an extremely important step. The director of the Center for Geopolitical Studies rhetorically asked whether, if viewed cynically, Luxembourg and Belgium should really worry about a Russian invasion. He noted that these countries are more likely to face incidents with drones, cyberattacks, and espionage. He added that while demanding more from Europe, Latvia should remember that for most other European countries, the threat is much lower.
Speaking about Latvia's actions, the director of the Center for Geopolitical Studies added that the State Defense Service could have been introduced earlier, and noted that this year, 1,000 people have been called up for 11 months of service in Latvia, with plans for about 1,600 next year, while Estonia and Lithuania train about 4,000 people annually, which over five years amounts to approximately 20,000 trained individuals.
He called the situation regarding trade with Russia and Belarus, as well as the issue of railway routes, regrettable. Andžāns pointed out that Russia remains the sixth largest export market for Latvia, with a volume exceeding 800 million euros, and noted the double standards — Latvia supports Ukraine and strengthens its defense, but at the same time continues trade with the aggressor. He added that the armed forces are calling for the dismantling of the rails and emphasized that freedom has a price, even if it means economic losses.
He also criticized the approach to the issue of the rails, indicating that the demand for a unified solution between Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia is a step backward, as a common solution will not be achievable, partly because Lithuania has the Kaliningrad transit established under the agreement between the EU and Russia.
Andžāns summarized that much has been done in Latvia, but the pace could have been faster, and the position could have been more principled, especially regarding trade with Russia and railway routes to Russia and Belarus. The expert emphasized that Latvia is managing without Russian gas and electricity, but does not want to do without the Russian market.
Leave a comment