American Thought Leaders - Future of European Security and Russia-Ukraine Peace Efforts: Latvia Foreign Minister Baiba Braze

Episode Date: December 12, 2025

Amidst ongoing U.S. efforts to mediate a Russia–Ukraine peace and the release of a new U.S. national security strategy that has sent shockwaves through Europe, I’m sitting down with the foreign minister of Latvia, Baiba Braze, to get her unique perspective.Latvia is a small Baltic country bordering Estonia, Lithuania, Belarus, and Russia. In the 1940s, the Soviets occupied Latvia and its neighboring countries—a reality that has made Latvia hyper-vigilant against potential Russian expansionism.Latvia joined both the EU and NATO in 2004, alongside Lithuania and Estonia.Latvia is one of the few NATO countries that spends considerably more than 2 percent of its GDP per year on its military.“We keep reminding [other NATO countries] that it’s possible to do that, and we are showing you as our example. In our case, it’s 5 percent hard defense capabilities,” Braze said.Latvia is working to reallocate state funding to hit a target of 4.91 percent of GDP in defense spending by 2026 and 5 percent in subsequent years.In our wide-ranging interview, Braze discusses the Ukraine war, how she sees a potential peace agreement taking shape, and how pressure can be mounted on Russia. She’s traveled four times to Ukraine in the 18 months since her appointment as Latvia’s minister of foreign affairs.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Amidst ongoing U.S. efforts to mediate a Russia-Ukraine peace and a new national security strategy that has sent shockwaves through Europe, I'm sitting down with a foreign minister of Latvia, Baibabraja, to get her unique perspective. We fully support the U.S. efforts to achieve the peace, but in our calculation it's the pressure on Russia that needs to be increased for them to feel more pain to actually come to the table seriously.

Latvia is a small Baltic nation bordering Russia, Russia, a reality that has made the country hyper vigilant about Russian expansionism. The U.S. was the land of the free, the big shining light that was not recognizing the occupation of the Baltic states, not recognizing the USSR's illegitimate claim for any country in the world. And that kept us going. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Janja Kellek. Minister Baiba Braja, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Thank you so much for having me. Let's talk about NATO and let's talk about the new U.S. national security strategy. I'm going to read something that the Deputy Secretary of State Landau wrote recently and he said, the U.S. has long failed to address the glaring inconsistency between its relations with NATO and the EU. He's talking now about his NATO ministerial meeting that he was at. And he says, when these countries wear their NATO hats, they insist that transatlantic cooperation is the cornerstone of our mutual security. But when these countries wear their EU hats,

they pursue all sorts of agendas that are utterly adverse to U.S. interests and security. What's your reaction? Well, on the national security strategy, I think one needs to look at it as a whole, because, of course, as always on social media commentary, and here and there, there are bits and pieces that are taken out, and some impression is created that there's, you know, some things that are not acceptable, you know, for Europeans or this and that. So we actually took a look and it's a pretty solid document and also with regard to addressing U.S. concerns, whether that's with regard to China and Indo-Pacific. or technology, but also on Europe, clearly recognizing the role of Europe, that Europe needs to take more responsibility, which is what we fully say. When we invest in defense or security, we believe that everybody needs to do that because we depend on each other at the end.

But also with regard to technological advances, simplification of regulation, there's a whole set of steps that we need to make to be. more competitive, to be stronger, to be out there in the world where we want to be. Because once you look at the overall economic development in the world, we clearly see that Asia is leading in the creation of GDP. And we clearly see that we've been squeezed out, whether the US or Europeans out of certain markets in Indo-Pacific, in Western Hemisphere,

and that's not the position where we want to be. So we believe that we need to work together with the US to make sure that we leverage that in the world. So with regard to Chris Landau's comments, I met him last night and we discussed it a little bit. The sort of Euro-Atlantic partnership is something that is part of the global security architecture. When we look at NATO itself, from one hand, it's a regional organization in the sense of the UN. definition. It's based on the self-defense clause. But, of course, it's transatlantic organization. EU in that respect is also part of post-second World War security architecture de facto, even though it started from the connection of economic interests, you know, to

be able to trade certain goods without internal barriers, without internal trade tariffs, and so on and so forth. But it was very much to create that technological and economic base after destruction of the Second World War, because whereas the Soviet Union was still able to produce stuff, Europe was so destroyed that there was nothing left. So actually merging, the markets merging, the industrial base made a lot of sense. So in a way, NATO and EU is interrelated,

that's not opposing to each other. But Secretary Landau is right in that respect that very often the same countries who sit around the NATO table and the EU table, sometimes have different statements. And then when you go to OSCE or certain other organizations, it's still there's a third identity. But I guess that is natural because, again, the EU is the organization

which very much has prevented EU member states directly competing with each other against each other. But pooling the resources to make sure that internal market is solid, that there is that one single market where you can move the goods and services and people within instead of fighting against each other. So that from that respect is indeed a very important sort of entity, I think, for all of us in Europe. That's why so many countries want to join the EU even now, starting from Montenegro and Albania and Serbia and Ukraine and Moldova. So it's an understandable, it's an understandable development.

But yes, there is something that Secretary Lalo has touched upon that resonates, I think, in all of us. Well, it's something that's interesting is I know that the, that Latvia has actually, you know, stepped up in terms of its, you know, defense spending. That's something that's kind of, well, let's just say it's not unique, but it's rare up to now. So that, that's interesting. My question is, from the perspective of a smaller country, and maybe I want to talk a little bit about Latvia to introduce Latvia to our audience, because they may not be as familiar. From the point of view of a smaller country in Europe, it's obvious that the EU kind of, it seems obvious like the EU presents a lot of benefit. But from the perspective of these larger countries, does it still present that kind of benefit? I'm curious what you think about that.

Yes, we have been strong on security in defense, basically as long as we exist, because our geographical position is what it is. We border not only Estonia, Lithuania, and Sweden on the west, on the Baltic Sea, but on the east, both Russia and Belarus. So we have 450 kilometers long border. So investing in our national capacities, capabilities, both defense, but also internal security, external border.

of EU-NATO, then regional collaboration, so around the Baltic Sea, and it's great that Finland and Sweden join NATO, because of course in defense planning, in practical sort of collaboration terms, that makes a huge difference, huge difference also for defense plans, NATO's defense plans. We are very pro-American. I think the Nordic Baltic region is as pro-American as you would get in Europe. There's no bigger sort of club of countries working with the U.S. And maybe Poland is in that little bit there. Poland is also on the Baltic Sea. Yeah, that's right. So of course Poland is in that. Then also within the EU. So we bring in the security

defense issues within the EU agenda. Because again, we have NATO's defense plans, NATO defense capabilities and the capability targets for each and every country within that. So there are only four EU member states outside of NATO, which is Austria, Malta, Cyprus and Ireland. So all the rest of us are in NATO. And of course the EU plans for security and defense, whether that's funding for defense industrial base, whether those are various projects in the EDF, European defense, Fund, European Defense Industry problems, so and so forth. They have to support NATO's defense capability targets, because at the end we are there to make

sure that security and defense is strong, because prosperity will not be possible without the first precondition, which is that countries are safe and secure. So in the Baltics, you're right, we do what we say, or or we plan then we decide and then we do it and only then we say it so uh like Poland we're doing 5% next year actually already this year is in terms of defense spending just yeah that's right in terms of defense spending right and very much also working with the US on what needs to be achieved with our US partners we have long term defense industry programs where we buy U.S. weapons, U.S. gets, they fund small part of it, and the U.S. gets

back about $3 per $1 that they give us a seed money to us. And then, you know, we add on our own. How does that money, how does that equation work? There is a specific program called Baltic Security Initiative and then for military sales, which allocate certain resources for the Baltic states to buy U.S. weapons and U.S. capabilities. So it's like a seed money. And then, you know, we do the full procurement, whether that's Blackhawks or High Mars or Naval Strike missiles and Hovitzers and so on so forth. So U.S. industry gets back three, four times more than is sort of given through those support programs. This might sound like an obvious question, but why is this the military so important?

important to you? Well, because the deterrence, the approach that we have in NATO is deterrence, but also planning for defense. But deterrence comes first. And deterrence is formed by defense capabilities, political intent, so political will, and strategic communications that you actually also demonstrate certain capabilities and that political will. So in short, it cannot just be achieved through talking, you need intellectual capabilities.

so that's why and also learning from russia's war in ukraine i guess the thing that here in the u.s a lot of people might not understand is you know what that kind of proximity feels like right because the u.s is separated by big oceans on either side and also kind of the historical perspective right where latvia came from you know after the fall of the berlin wall and so forth. Maybe you can kind of flesh that out a little bit for me. Yeah. I think all the countries on Russia's borders up from Norway to Finland, Baltic states, Poland, and then down to the Black Sea are serious about defense. And in our case, we established, like all the countries mentioned, our republics in 1918, 1718, so that was the period of the republics.

And we were going strong up until 1940, when the Stalin's Russia, you know, totalitarian, authoritarian Soviet communist regime associated itself with Nazi Germany. And in 1933, they concluded a secret pact to divide Europe, which de facto allocated Western Europe to Nazi Germany and Eastern Europe to Soviet Europe to Soviets. So that's how they started the Winter War in Finland. That's how the Second World War started with invasion in Poland. That was the Nazis. That was partitioning of Poland between Nazis and Soviets. And in 1940, Soviets occupied the Baltic states.

And then for 50 years, they didn't leave. So it actually required bringing down the Soviet Union to become free again. And the US was really crucial, like in Poland, like in the Baltic states. The US was the land of the free. the land of the free, the big shining light that was not recognizing the occupation of the Baltic states not recognizing the US legitimate, the USSR's illegitimate claim for any country in the world. And that kept us going. We had big communities here, both the Polish and the Baltic communities in the US working hard with all the US administrations, not letting them forget.

We were active in the United Nations, making sure that the United Nations wouldn't forget that the Baltic states were the founders of the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations, but were not founders of the UN because the Soviets occupied. So then the reestablishment of independence, and I was as a student in the Popular Front, where it was very much again sort of, inspired and we were listening to the reports of Radio Free Europe, an American voice in Latvian, you know, which Soviets tried to suppress and not letting it broadcast. And in the evenings we could catch it on the shortwave radio, so we always listened to that.

And that was a shining light of freedoms that inspired us and made sure that we were able to reinstate our independence and regain it and also become successful again. So for us, that sort of security defense importance also relates to the freedom. And the U.S. has been an inspiration for us in that respect. Let's talk about the Russia-Ukraine war. The president has recently said that he feels like, you know, they're getting close to some kind of peace agreement. Peace agreement is contentious. Some people think that Russia shouldn't be allowed to keep any Ukrainian territory.

Others believe that getting peace is of paramount importance and sort of it's unclear how much to give. I'm curious where Latvia stands on this point. So I was appointed at the end of April 24, so I've been in the office for one and a half years. And I've been to Ukraine four times, two times to Kiev, to one, to Odessa. on the Black Sea. And on this last trip, last week, I also went to Chernihiv, which is close to the front, about 60 centric kilometers from the front. And I speak everywhere, not only to the officials, but also to the soldiers, to the private sector, to people, you know, in the shops and elsewhere. And in nowhere I have felt that they want capitulation

or that they are ready to give up territories or something. In the same time, obviously, we also are realists in various quarters and realize that to achieve a ceasefire, you need to freeze the front at a certain point. On one hand, Ukrainians have their will an agency, and I don't think they will accept something that is imposed on them. So they have to own that peace and ceasefire. And I think the red line for them would be sort of recognizing the legitimacy of the occupied territories as being Russian. I think that is one thing is to see the front and to say, okay, those are Russian occupied territories.

And the other part is actually recognizing the incorporation into Russia. I think that's a big, big sort of difference. But again, it's Ukrainian decision. We will support Ukrainian choices from our side. We know they want peace. That's for sure. They want peace. And they have fought really hard for it. I mean, Russia was trying to get through this war

what they couldn't achieve somehow else. Because remember, before 2004, they tried to stop European ambitions of Ukrainians. The whole Maidan sort of revolution started from the fact that corrupt President Yanukovych refused to sign association agreement with the EU. That was not about membership. It was association agreement. So people rose up and said, listen, this is not acceptable.

We want to have a European future. And then Russians invaded for the first time in 2014, illegally occupying and annexing Crimea, started the war in the eastern part of Ukraine. But they have not been able to break down Ukrainian nation's will to have a sovereign democratic states and to be a legitimate member of the EU and also NATO. Actually, when Russians first time invaded in 2014, Ukraine didn't want to be a member of NATO. was officially a neutral country. And so, you know, they have achieved the strengthening of Ukrainian sort of sovereignty, democracy and institutions, which then leads me to think

that for Ukraine to own that peace, it does have to be a dignified peace. I think we hear this word, but that's what it means. And in the same time, obviously it will have an effect on all European security because the only country that doesn't want peace, what we see, is Russia, because all the instruments of power. In NATO, we always analyze the instruments of power that country has. It has a military instrument of power. It has a political instrument of power, economic, you know, private sector instrument of power, religion, media and so on and so forth. We don't see a single instrument of power in Russia that would be oriented towards peace. it's all about war so they how do you measure that that's very interesting well when you look

for example at military military instrument of power it's actively employed to try to crush ukrainian self-defense and not even achieving its objectives because like this years they have occupied below one percent of ukrainian territory and they have lost around 280,000 soldiers in this year long. All together 1.2 million soldiers lost and severely wounded in Russia. But they are continuing. There is no indication that they want to stop the bombings, nightly missile attacks, you know, trying to advance on the front. So very clear military instrument of power is fully employed to continue the war. Economic instrument of power is the same thing. The military production is prioritized over any civilian economy. So the civilian sector is

cannibalized, prioritizing resources, prioritizing production, labor, machinery tools, and so and so forth, which means that together with the restrictive measures that US, Europe, and others have imposed on Russia to stop the war, that it's leaving Russian economy in tatters. because military production is not a productive economy. It doesn't create growth of GDP. Well, unless you keep at war, I suppose, for the time being. That sort of produces stuff that is then eliminated on the battlefield. But it's not a productive economy.

It doesn't stick around. No, and it doesn't create GDP growth per se. It pays salaries and so and so forth. but that's not economy like, you know, companies that we have, you know, that produce either staff of services or exports and so on and so forth. And then religion is part of authoritarian regime's tool to control the society. There is no free media, there is no all the social media, including the X and the Facebook and Instagram, anything is banned in Russia.

You can't even, you need to use a VPN or whatever, which is also prohibited, actually, to post anything. So they use closed telegram groups to, you know, sort of communicate and so on. So there are a couple of Russian networks, but those are also controlled. So you go through one by one and you clearly see they are all oriented towards the war. And that's why when, yes, we fully support the U.S. efforts to achieve the peace. And we are the staunchest supporters of President Trump in that effort. But in our calculation, it's the pressure on Russia that needs to be increased for them to feel more.

pain to actually come to the table seriously and so we we admire the resilience you know of the negotiators they've sat down for three days four days doing round after round and it's good that things are not leaked that it's sort of kept in the in the negotiation circle and it's not easy it's not easy either for Ukrainians or the US but to be successful all we need that pressure on Russia. That is what will achieve the peace deal. And there's sort of here, there's different viewpoints about Russia's intentions, right? In Poland, for example, it's actually, you know, there's a lot of, you know, political difference

between the political parties, for example. But they both believe from what I, from the people I've spoken to that, you know, they, if it doesn't go well with Ukraine, they might be next. What does Latvia think about that? Well, first of all, in any peace deal, the important part is Ukrainian ability to ensure their future self-defense. So that there is sufficient Ukrainian self-defense force at a certain level with certain capabilities to provide deterrence for Ukraine. And it's the same for everyone in the Euro-Atlantic zone,

because I agree with certain assessments that say that Russia cannot stop the military production. And again, it's sort of authoritarian regime, where there is no internal checks and balances, will continue its existence in the way as it is. And that continue posing a threat to all of us, to all the democratic countries. You feel it's inherently expansionist, it will try. They have shown in the past that indeed, instead of internally doing reforms to be a successful economy, force for goods globally, which it could be, to have a competitive sort of structure,

positive agenda, unfortunately it has been the opposite. And so having no illusions about that is the best recipe in all of you to be safe and secure. Having said that for now, none of the NATO states, from Norway to Finland to Baltics and further south, have direct military threats. Because one thing that we did collectively in NATO after 2014 was was to work on a new military strategy, to be open-eyed and recognize that what Russia did in Ukraine, in Crimea and in the eastern part of Ukraine is a big turning point. So NATO's new military strategy that was adopted in 2019 provides for the need not only to

conduct out-of-the-area operations like we did in Afghanistan. where we had a choice to send 500 troops for half a year or not, or send 130 troops to K4 or or not. But to turn to collective defense, to make sure that both territories, people, populations are defended. And that is a completely different type of work that was done. So, what we did was to really combine the civil-military intelligence capabilities with NATO to make sure that information Intel is shared, but also tech capabilities increased, space capabilities, and that gives you that early warning, that ICR, ISR, and ability to monitor and understand what is happening.

And then also changing the whole defense planning, developing those defense plans where you have forces that you need, you have enablements that you need, you have rapid reinforcement, you have authorities for commanders, you have the presence on the ground where you need. So that all is that deterrence to make sure that we are safe and secure. And that is a basis again for having successful economies, because if security and safety is threatened, the prosperity, the future hopes of all of us will not be there. And that has worked.

That has worked. So, yes, so strong force for Ukraine, for the self-defense and deterrence, but also Ukraine as a successful democratic country with strong institutions, lively democracy, sovereignty, independence, and it has a perspective, European perspective, it has a NATO perspective, once political conditions are there, and yeah, I think we are okay in Europe, but the leadership of the U.S. is something that, of course, we all highly appreciate, whether it's in the peace process

or in defense-spending and reform of NATO, collaboration. Well, one of the arguments that I've heard, which was compelling, is that, you know, the Trump administration is very keen to try to foster peace in Europe, peace in the Middle East, so that it can focus on the real threat, which is communist China. What do you think? Yeah, U.S. assessment has been there for a while. I mean, we know that well. Well, officially in the NATO's strategic concept, the official threat is Russia for the Euro-Atlantic security and allies security, and China is a challenge whose behavior and whose lack of transparency on nuclear and conventional capabilities, of course, presents a challenge to us all.

But also what we have seen, the assertive behavior in the region, certain types of exercising, certain types of threatening behavior to the neighbors in the sea and so and so forth has presented valid questions. And Madame Minister, and also the funding of course of Russia by purchasing a lot of the oil, a big chunk of the oil purchase. Absolutely. Absolutely, you're totally right on that. And also the no-limits partnership between Russia and China was, you know, whatever issues covered there. So, so, so, so, so Quite clearly we understand that for the US it is a big strategic issue. And I think working closely within various organizations between EU and the US to try to also see what economic tools can be used,

how we can sort of work together, not to let ourselves to be squeezed out from the markets that I mentioned earlier, earlier, but also we have other partners in Indo-Pacific who are as bothered by all this behavior as we are. Notably Japan recently. Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, but also Philippines and others. So economic interests are there. So I remember there is a theory that believes that trade stabilizes relationships and that economic interdependencies is something that creates, you know, more stable relationships,

which is partially true, because if you do have an authoritarian regime, they will disregard these relationships to achieve the political objectives that can be achieved by military or other means. And in the same time engaging with China, like President Trump has done, or like European leaders have done, and making sure that there is that open dialogue, open relationship is very important, very important, because that helps avoiding misunderstandings, that helps to prevent miscalculations that can arise. But yes, we understand the US sort of challenge and worry on China. but also on Russia. So we work together with them.

I mean, I know Latvia is, there isn't a lot of love for communism in Latvia. No. And we have actually discussed with Secretary Rubio's that because we very much to welcome this anti-communism weak initiatives that the administration has announced to have joint initiatives on that. So we are supporting the Museum of Victims of communism here, there's a monument also there that we have contributed to. And that's because these ideas disregard the realities. Communist ideas is ideology above everything, about freedom, about human rights, above any sort of other issues.

They are ready to sacrifice countries, literally, for fulfillment of their ideas. And yes, it's, we fully support the administration of this one. We have suffered ourselves through that. I mean, when you visit Latvia, you can visit the Museum of Occupation, what the communist meant for us. The KGB House, the so-called corner house, where we as children were always walking around, you know, like a whole distance away from it, just not to be near to that, because we knew that's where the people were killed. That's where, you know, our parents, grandparents suffered and were tortured. So that is, communism is a poison, yeah.

So just going back to the national security strategy, I see a, you know, it's interesting. You have a very measured response to it. I've seen a lot of, I mean, I'm looking on social media, different parliamentarians, different people responding. I mean, many people were saying things like America. is leaving us alone, we don't want, you have a much more measured view of this. One thing I'm curious about is, you know, Europe has had a very difficult time reaching those, you know, basic spending needs for NATO to actually create the deterrence we've been

discussing so much during this interview. Do you think this could possibly, you know, motivate them if they really believe that they're going to be alone, right? As many people have said to actually step up that deterrent spending? We all together made a decision at NATO Hague summit this summer to raise the spending on defense to 5%. But just it's one thing to say it. It's another thing. You're rare, as I said, right?

But actually we see very clearly that it's raising, you know, European allies and Canada have doubled defense expenditure over the last few years. So it's a significant commitment. And also what we see, allocations for the next year the budgets are being published are very significant again it goes against the background of having financial discipline in our case we have had that very clearly making sure that the public sector is not too big and that our debt is low and that our budget

deficits is low so we have that space like Germany does and Poland and the Baltics, other Baltics. So not only we are reforming the administration and cutting on the spending, but also we have that space where to, if necessary, borrow for investing in these capabilities. Other countries have been quite different in that respect, so for them it's much more difficult, so much more gradual. So we keep reminding that it's possible to do that. And we are showing with our example.

In our case, it's 5% hard defense capabilities. It's not some, you know, we're not trying to cover up, you know, sports fields or something else, you know, under that. It's real, it's real defense. And on top of that, as I said, we have external border of the EU and NATO, where we have invested significant demands. and two months, because it's both the civilian capacities, like for border guards, but it's also military defense, so all the infrastructure that is needed. It's also the customs services, because that's the external border of the EU, we control the exiting goods so that sanctions are

respected. So more than 80% of goods, 80% of goods crossing Latvian border, on the way to Central Asia or other destinations are non-Lathian. So they come from elsewhere in the EU and other countries. Because this is a big issue, actually. I'm going to mention that, that transshipment, there's a lot of, you know, a lot of goods that are, you know, of course, there's a lot of sanctions against Russia. There's a lot of goods heading there, nonetheless, through these transshipment. So you're saying you're making a point of making sure that none of this is happening through Latvia.

So there are goods that are still allowed to be exported to Russia, like alcohol and a few others. And also those travel via our border. And then there are goods that are prohibited and so we work two ways. One is to make sure that our export controls, so strategic goods system is very, very robust. Because we have seen also there that companies are trying to squeeze under certain sort of civilian capabilities, certain stuff that can be used for military. And so we are very strict there. But then also the goods going, for example, to Central Asia.

We clearly are committed to work with other European countries to make sure that they, what they declare, because export declarations are filled in other EU countries. if they export them, that they know what custom codes to insert, how to check final destinations, how to sort of have that due diligence system on sanctions like we have established, because otherwise it's our customs offices on the borders that have to discover that these goods are going to some type of yurt in Kazakhstan Steppe. So, you know, what does it have to do with final destination, right? But that could have been checked another. countries where the exports originated. It's not our border, it's not our customs

officers who have to discover that. There have to be due diligence systems at the national level in each of the countries. So that is the other part how we work with other countries. So it's a lot of investment also on internal security. We have strengthened our internal security services, you know, and the way they work with each other. They work with other boats and Nordics. The whole shadow fleet issue, Russia is, you know, transporting its oil through the Baltic Sea to India, to China, two other parts. And just explain that very briefly, the shadow fleet, what that is. So there are old vessels that are not properly maintained or registered that had to be

scrapped, but Russia had bought it, bought them. and is using them to ship its oil, to squeeze under the oil cap, and to maintain income in its budget, in its federal budget. So these ships, these vessels are, as I said, they had to be scrapped, they are badly maintained. They have crews that are not properly trained because that's again to make it cheaper. fake insurance, then they change the flags of convenience, they can do it, you know, several times a day. Sometimes those are flagless ships, vessels. So there's a whole ecosystem enabling this.

And so in the EU we have sanctioned them, we have sanctioned particular ships. We have sanctioned these services and service providers, so we will keep going after them. them. And the US has done its share too. So I think currently what we are discussing also with the administration here is how to align properly, you know, what we all have done because then it has much more effect. And the aim is to decrease income in Russia's budget because they are financing the war from the federal budget. And just on this point, this was another thing that Deputy Secretary Landau mentioned. And this was also on, through his ex account, that he asked the State Department to provide

some information about how much, basically how much money is going towards Ukraine from various European countries and how much money is going to buy Russian oil from various countries. And in many cases, they found, he found that there's quite a lot that are buying quite a lot of Russian oil. What do you make of that? Well, we have actually stopped importing Russian oil and gas. We made that decision after the invasion into Ukraine. It took a while to stop the agreements, obviously.

The companies had the agreements with Russia. So currently we don't import any oil or gas from Russia. The only thing that is still there in our case is these propane gas balloons, you know, these smaller things where there were a sandwich. longer term agreements, but that's insignificant. And providing aid to Ukraine, it's about 1% of GDP per year. I'm just thinking more in general, I mean, not Latvia specifically, but it's just kind of, it's surprising to learn that, that there's many European countries that are...

I think there are a number of allies that are questioning those numbers and they are engaging with the State Department, but I'm not going to comment on that. Okay, well, that's good to know as well. But it's... In our case, we know what we are doing. are doing we know that was the political decision to stop that it took a few months to actually end but now we import actually 70 80 percent of our lNG is from guess where the united states

well that i'm sure i'm sure they're very happy about that but also quite a bit of diesel you know it just had a big ship of 13 000 tons coming into into the ports and we are also learning quite a bit from Ukrainian reaction to Russian attacks on their energy infrastructure, because Russians have tried to eliminate the main producers of electricity in Ukraine. So Ukrainian response has been quite significant. They've been able to restore quite a bit of production, moving from the big nuclear stations to more decentralized models, especially for smaller cities, settlements, districts, you know, with a lot of generators, co-generation stations, renewables, and so on, so forth. So there is also something around those

models where in developed economies, we depend largely from these big centralized electricity suppliers, but actually during the times of crisis, we have to think how we can continue operating and be resilient with alternative plans. And that's another lesson learned. But, yeah, we have raised on the oil and gas from Russia, especially LNG, we have raised those issues also with our European allies. And then there are issues such as Ross Atom and the nuclear fuel, where Russia holds still...

That's right. Uranium. Dominating position, which is, again, some things that we need to work with many countries in the world. I mean, there is no lack of uranium in the world, right? So to make sure that there's alternative supplies that we don't have to rely on one source. And I'm Minister, this has been an absolutely fascinating conversation for me. I've just been on the lighter note. We've covered a lot of very heavy things. You know, I mean, I personally am a regular consumer of Riga Sprats, smoked spratz. Right? I love them. I will allow the embassy to provide you a new collection. We have actually some producers. I mean it's just it's a unique thing.

It's really it's quite quite wonderful. Absolutely. I love smoked fish. But just tell me a little bit about what people will find that might want to get interested through this interview in Latvia what they might find there. Oh yeah. It's one of the most beautiful countries I think in Europe was a lot of untouched nature, 500 kilometers of sandy beach, clean waters, lakes, rivers, in the same time, highly developed cultural and entertainment possibilities. There's a special genre hiking in marshes, you know, you get a special flat shoe, so you wouldn't sing, so you can hike in marshes, which is very unique at a sunrise, for example. or you can do stand-up paddling at sunrise in the sea or in the marshes, you know.

You can skate and ski and do literally anything. But also in the same time, it's a very techy country. So we have U.S. investments, like some of our best drone, highest drone producers, are U.S. investment. And they're doing very well. The Department of War is one of the biggest consumers. but also armed forces of Latvia but also others and the Finns and you know there's quite quite a bit of exports from that we have very highly developed digital infrastructure because a country seems small on the map but is twice as

big as Belgium really was 1.8 million inhabitants only which means that we don't want people queuing up in local governments spending time you know traveling distances, for example, to sit in queues for some local services. So everything is online. We submit taxes in about 10 to 15 minutes because information is already there. So it's pretty straightforward. I sign my cabinet documents from here online. So cabinet meetings are open to public, so they can watch them online.

So there's quite a bit of transparency in that respect. So it's a great country. We are open, happy, transparent. Well, Madame Minister, a final thought as we finish, perhaps? Do you have a final thought you'd like to share? We would like more Americans in Latvia, more American troops, more American investment, more relationships.

We love the US. Well, Minister Baiba Brage, it's such a pleasure to have you on. Thank you so much. It was a pleasure being here. Thank you all for joining the foreign Minister of Latvia, Baiba Brage, and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders, I'm your host, Janja Kelek.