Latvia is asking Brussels to provide 7 billion euros to cover military and economic costs associated with standing up to Russia, amid growing pressure over the cost of the country’s hardline policy toward Moscow.
Latvian Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs told POLITICO’s Brussels Playbook in an interview that these funds should come from the next seven-year EU budget under a new Competitiveness Fund. The goal is to compensate for increased defense spending and the sharp reduction in trade with Russia following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Riga seeks to obtain these funds in addition to other funds allocated for the country.
The requested 7 billion euros will amount to nearly half of Latvia’s projected defense spending of 15.1 billion euros over the seven-year budget period. This demand comes at a sensitive time, as Latvia is one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters in Europe and has sharply increased defense spending. At the same time, sanctions and the collapse of bilateral trade have significantly reduced economic ties that were previously oriented to the east.
Andris Kulbergs believes that Latvia deserves special attention because it is borrowing money to ensure the security of countries much further from the front line. “We are pushing our budget deficit to the maximum […] and from this debt we are paying […] for the defense of all of Europe,” the prime minister said. A significant portion of Latvia’s military spending ultimately returns to richer Western European economies through arms purchases from Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands, Kulbergs added: “We are feeding their economies.”
Election pressure and policy change
Ahead of the national elections on October 3, parties are gaining momentum, arguing that Riga should demand greater compensation for sanctions and military support. Ainars Shlesers, an experienced populist businessman whose party is part of the far-right “Patriots for Europe” group in Brussels, claims that Latvia should demand compensation when supporting EU sanctions against Russia. Although Shlesers condemns Moscow’s invasion and believes that support for Ukraine should continue, he argues that Latvia cannot indefinitely bear these costs. “We are losing money … we are talking about how to support Ukraine, but we are the victims,” he told POLITICO at his Riga pre-election headquarters.
Shlesers noted that when EU sanctions are renewed, Latvia should “receive support in return.” Asked if this could mean Riga’s refusal to support sanctions, he refrained from making a direct veto threat but did not rule out such a possibility, saying: “I don’t want to talk about a veto now. I think we […] will find a peaceful solution.” Shlesers, who has business ties with Russian oligarchs, believes that the country ultimately needs to restore economic ties with Moscow and advocates for a quick end to the war. He claimed that the issue of transferring territories to Russia should be a “decision for Ukraine,” but noted that other countries, including Latvia, have lost territories to Russia after conflicts, “to achieve a peace agreement.”
The centrist-right party of Kulbergs is currently leading in the polls, but coalition arithmetic may determine how much Latvia’s policy toward Russia will change after October. The far-right, pro-Russian party “Sovereign Power,” which is in second place in the polls, seeks to restore ties with Moscow but is considered unacceptable to the mainstream parties. Shlesers, who is in third place, is a more likely coalition partner, and Kulbergs has left the door open to cooperation with him. The centrist-left “Progressives,” who are in fourth place and also hope to enter the government with Kulbergs, warn that involving Shlesers in the coalition will gradually soften Riga’s position on Russia. The party’s candidate for prime minister, Andris Shuvajevs, told POLITICO near the parliament: “I am 100 percent sure that Latvia’s foreign policy toward Russia will soften over time.” He pointed to possible exceptions to sanctions for Russian business interests and ministers who “will speak in a friendlier tone about Russia.”
Hardline stance on Russia
Ahead of a new package of sanctions expected in the fall, Kulbergs called for a complete EU ban on issuing visas to Russian citizens. EU countries issued over 630,000 visas to Russian citizens in 2025. In the previous sanctions package, France and Italy resisted a complete ban for Russian combatants, arguing that this issue should be regulated by EU visa rules rather than being part of the sanctions, while northern and eastern countries insisted on stricter restrictions. The final agreement created a legal and political basis for banning Russian combatants and ex-combatants who participated in the war, leaving it up to EU countries to decide when this ban would take effect.
“Have we gone crazy?” Kulbergs said about the delay. “We are allowing Russian military to get visas, those who are killing [Ukrainians] on the battlefield.” He also called on EU countries to reconsider the issue of transferring 210 billion euros of sovereign Russian assets frozen in Europe to Ukraine, dismissing concerns that Moscow could challenge this step after the war.
Kulbergs also criticized the decision of the President of the European Council, António Costa, to open a communication channel with the Kremlin, stating that this should be a “decision of all countries together.” He called any appeal to the Kremlin a “futile exercise,” arguing that there are no signs that President Vladimir Putin is ready for negotiations, and that negotiations would only give Russia “time to rest” to make the “next move.” Despite Latvia’s break in ties with its eastern neighbor and Kulbergs‘ hardline stance on relations with Moscow, he said that “we must be open” to restoring ties once Russia pays reparations to Ukraine and those guilty of war crimes are brought to justice, pointing to post-war Germany as an example to follow. “Do we isolate Germany because of this? No, it is an admission of guilt, admission of wrongdoing, punishment, and retribution,” he said. After the ceasefire, Kulbergs summarized, “the danger at the border will only increase,” as the real threat will be a wave of migration when hundreds of thousands of “broken” soldiers return from the battlefield in search of a better life, and other citizens flee as Moscow’s military economy collapses.
Source: Politico
