The time we are spending thinking more about health and related matters has not stopped the course and direction of other events, which sometimes remain in the background. It is clear that the national partisans (forest brothers) in the post-war years gave little thought to who they were pleasing. How can one act with foresight and reason today?

The current hot topic: the European Green Deal. How can it be implemented more sensibly? Keeping an eye on events, it is clear that almost every EU member state has its own interests regarding the Green Deal, with common interests following only afterwards. In Latvia, the plans sound the other way round: “Let us be European, and then we will think about local problems and interests.” How far-sighted is that, if at all?

No one else will think about us and our problems. That is clear! The large countries that form the core of the European Union (Germany and France) will be leaders in green policy, in setting principles for the use of energy resources, and in drafting legislation. Latvia must watch, participate, evaluate, and understand very carefully how green policy can be implemented here, how to use it usefully and in the interests of our people. The voices of Latvia's representatives in European institutions must be clear and easily heard. As is well known, our situation differs significantly from that of the financially powerful and industrially developed Germany and France. If we look at the bigger picture, the idea of moving from fossil energy resources to renewable energy is convenient and timely for us, because... there is a large and dangerous neighbour nearby that uses fossil energy resources for various purposes. Over the last few years, we have been moving step by step away from our dependence on gas.

I think we must do everything we can to be as little dependent as possible on the resources of our neighbouring country; the Green Deal will be a good assistant to us in this regard. Another thing – more developed European countries will be able to implement the rules of the Green Deal more easily. In Latvia... let us remember the age of our vehicle fleet (compared to the EU). To say that in 2030 we will switch to electric cars is easy, but it will not be possible without very large subsidies. Besides, 2030 only seems far away. If this autumn, while preparing the 2022 budget, we cannot satisfy all the needs of the medical sector and social requirements, and there will also be a lack of money for education, where will we get the money for large subsidies for the purchase of electric cars? Our own daily needs remain very high.

If, truly, everything is to happen in 2030, and those who use cars powered by diesel or petrol are hit with a huge tax, one must ask: “Are we supporting the majority of society, or not?” The people who can currently afford to buy an electric car will probably be able to do so in 2030 as well, and in that case, they would be even more heavily subsidised. There are not many such people in Latvia! If a large tax is imposed on old cars, one must ask what will happen, for example, in the regions where infrastructure is not sufficiently developed, public transport runs infrequently, and the railway has been liquidated. How will people travel? Without thinking with foresight, we could end up with both a heavy financial burden and serious social problems.

The second important thing: the Green Deal could severely restrict agriculture and its development. On the one hand, organic farming with organic products is very nice, but... will we be able to grow and produce the products we need ourselves? In this regard, there must be complete clarity so that we do not suddenly have to look for opportunities to import the necessary (missing) products from some part of the world where they have not yet heard of the Green Deal. Will food prices rise, and by how much? Back to the aforementioned: how thick will the citizens' wallets be and what will the social security be like? It is one thing to talk about the Green Deal in countries where the level of prosperity and people's incomes are significantly higher, and quite another to discuss it in Latvia. It must be taken into account that we have a pronounced ageing of society; how will we be able to ensure a sufficient volume of energy and food without our own agriculture and our own energy resources?

Of course, the Green Deal is strategically advantageous for us, but the situation must be modelled so that the changes are sensible and balanced. Moreover, it must be remembered: at present, it is impossible to implement the Green Deal all over the world. Can we regulate China in some way? Can we dictate anything to Russia? In international politics, it is clear that on many issues these countries cannot be influenced or persuaded; what basis is there for nurturing illusions that it will be different in green policy? The political direction towards the Green Deal is clear, but it must happen in a balanced and sensible manner.

This is a serious and very important (perhaps in this regard, the most important) task for politicians: to talk and explain the everyday practical details of the Green Deal.

One of Latvia's border states – Belarus, has provided its European neighbours with a series of unexpected problems this year: transporting people from Asia and trying to illegally get them into the European Union. It is clear that the plan of Belarus (and it is not as if the neighbouring country is acting alone) is to create long-term problems at the border, thereby trying to resolve its relations with other European countries. At the same time, there are people in Latvia who are fighting remotely against Lukashenko, against his actions, but, believing that we in Latvia (as well as in Lithuania and Poland) must correct the mistakes of Lukashenko and Co. We have to take care of the consequences of Lukashenko's policy...

I will repeat: when talking about green policy and when talking about the situation on the Belarus border, we must think about our national interests, as Lithuania does, as Poland does. There are many pointers, as we see, from the EU, the EC, and the UN. They are far away and do not live in Latvia, in Poland, or anywhere near the Belarus border. Representatives of these institutions have already managed to point out that the problems created by Belarus's hybrid war, which are in no way related or relatable to refugees, for some reason must be solved by Poland, Lithuania, or Latvia. The organisation of human flows towards EU countries indicates clear political goals. It must be realised that Latvia must act similarly to Greece, which is building a fence on the border, like Bulgaria, which is sending soldiers to the border, like Hungary, which built fences, etc. Elsewhere in Europe, it should finally be understood that a policy of deterrence, for example, the building of fences, is a normal method of protecting EU external borders that corresponds to the interests of many countries. We do not have to solve the problems of Belarus, which has chosen a strange method to make the world close its eyes to human rights violations and not support the Belarusian opposition. We do not have to respect the interests of Russia hiding behind Belarus, for which a united EU is a serious rival, even in economic terms. Latvia must defend and explain its national interests, and human flows must be deterred from our country.

I will remind you that it has long been historically known: an aggressor state does not understand a policy of appeasement. As soon as we give in, the flow of people across the border may increase, and trading with the EU may begin. For example, Belarus will offer not to let the flow of people they brought themselves go any further, but in exchange “give us money, we will maintain them, lift the sanctions and everything will be fine.” We cannot allow such trading; Europe already experienced something similar in 1938. One must not encourage Belarus to take further steps by giving in.

In a recent conversation* about the post-war resistance movement, your fellow historians Inese Dreimane and Zigmārs Turčinskis emphasised that the question of the forest brothers (national partisan) movement has not been studied much (for example, we know very little about Zemgale), concluding that it (the resistance, its scope, etc.) should be talked about louder, more and more often, so that there would not be a feeling that we were only oppressed, deported and: “Oh, us, poor things!” What should or could be done in this regard?

I will start as a politician: I have facilitated the creation of a Remembrance Day for the Armed Resistance Movement. The Saeima has decided, and next year on 2 March, the day when the largest battle of Latvian national partisans took place in the Stompaki swamp in 1945, we will commemorate the entire armed resistance. Let us hope there will be no restrictions in March and the event will turn out to be significant. As I know, a reconstruction of a partisan bunker is planned right there in the Stompaki swamp, which could be both an educational and a tourist site. So far, with the support of “Latvijas valsts meži”, Captain Pēteris Čeveris’s forest brother bunker in Talsi municipality has been restored and is operating. As Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Culture, I have encouraged ministry staff to create a support programme that would support the research and popularisation of the resistance movement.

As a historian, I will say: “Of course, Inese Dreimane and Zigmārs Turčinskis are right, the resistance movement in Zemgale has not been studied.” It must be admitted that Kurzeme has not been sufficiently studied in this regard either. There have been individual articles about Zemgale (I am thinking of the united Lithuanian-Latvian forest brother group that operated in the vicinity of Īle), but that is not enough. It is clear that financial support for science is necessary, but I want to add: “It is excellent that academic research is underway, but emotional perception ‘works’ much, much more strongly in society.” For example, the multi-series film “Sarkanais mežs”. The film showed very many people for the first time and made them think – national partisans or forest brothers have existed in Latvia. Yes, it has been heard, someone has said something, but if you see it on the TV screen with the help of a film character and strong acting, it has a different effect. It is similar with the film “Dvēseļu putenis” – one can talk and tell stories about riflemen from morning till night and start again, but – after watching the film – it becomes clearer what happened in those times, what was experienced, what the hardships were. This would be the genre of cinema one should work with, in which one should invest. In my opinion, documentary films, which have also been made on the topic of resistance, do not appeal to the public as strongly as a feature film. I hope that the masters of the field will get an idea and a concept that will be realised in a high-quality artistic work about our national partisans. A film undoubtedly has a greater significance in informing the public than the speeches of politicians. It is important that the work of our historians gains a broader perspective, becomes popular science, and that historians’ ideas serve film scripts - as happened with “Sarkanais mežs”. If a historian publishes an academic book, those who know this fact will get the book and read it. That is good, but it is a small part of society.

The film “Segvārds “Vientulis””

The film shows one facet of the resistance struggle, but does not show the scope, which was also not the goal of the film. The story of priest Antons Juhņevičs is powerful, but it is about one person. The partisan struggle in Latvia’s history is special – if we look at the numerical composition – there are more than 13 thousand active partisans united in groups. They cause headaches not only for local communists and Chekists, but also in Moscow. In 1955-56, USSR KGB orders were issued regarding the suppression of armed resistance in the Baltic states, Western Ukraine, and Western Belarus. The armed resistance continued for more than 10 years after the end of WWII. It is clear that the partisans could not have operated without local support, so the spirit of struggle and resistance remained. I think, largely thanks to this post-war stage, the hidden and preserved stubbornness perhaps unconsciously broke out during the Atmoda (National Awakening). It is very important to explain to the new generation that there were not only deportations but also serious, long-term resistance.

In what language should one talk to the residents of Latvia about what? The virus and vaccination have once again sparked discussions about this topic.

The virus crisis has exacerbated this issue. Statistics are appearing regarding the significant morbidity of Russian pensioners. If these statistics are correct, it is clear that the fact is problematic for society as a whole. Hospitals are burdened and overloaded. This situation has created problems in the search for information for those who still only speak Russian and use the Russian information space. Language is not always the significant factor here. “Life” in the Russian information space in November 2021 means that one cannot believe what Russian TV says about vaccines, one cannot believe the local press, medics, or the Latvian government either. One cannot believe anyone! What now? In the Russian information space, calls to get vaccinated have been heard for quite some time, but they do not believe those either. This is not a language issue, it is a level of understanding and education.

In this crisis, we see that there are also a large number of people in Latvian society who do not see the correlations, who deny science. Has the current education system sufficiently grasped the people? What is this phenomenon, is it fanaticism? We must search for and understand the causes. Society does not look good if we evaluate its security and ability to mobilise.

Let’s assume politicians can be disregarded, but we have professionally very strong doctors and scientists. If they are not heard, that is a very serious crisis of trust. What would happen in another situation? What would the cohesion of society be? I think the aforementioned action of Belarus is a kind of test for us – how strong and professional we are. In the situation with Covid-19, we do not look very good because society is not cohesive. In classical democratic countries, there are no such questions.

The problem is not in informing Russian pensioners in Russian; it is deeper, not just a language issue.

What will Latvia be like in 2068, upon reaching its 150th anniversary?

I do not know if we will be able to check that; we can only wish for it. I would very much like to see Latvian society educated in the best and broadest sense, with its own cultural identity (as it was in Latvia’s centenary). By 2068, much can change in the world and in Latvia – both politically and due to climate change. If many people in many places think about the economy, climate, and development, no one else will think about Latvian identity – only we will.

Of course, I think there will be greater prosperity in society, which is also important for democracy. I would be happy if in 2068 the principles mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution regarding a national state, democracy, and national identity remained as a stable goal and foundation. Climate change will probably take some part of our territory, the sea will “gnaw away” the shores. We must think about demography, because by that time the number of inhabitants could shrink even more.

The Song Festival and its 150th anniversary. 2023. Choirs have been singing remotely for quite some time. The opportunities to rehearse and prepare for the festival properly and seriously have been frayed.

The Ministry of Culture is preparing for the Song Festival! Everything will continue, funding for the festival is provided for. I am completely convinced that even in the most difficult circumstances, the Song Festival will take place. Next year's budget provides for financial stimulation for the leaders of amateur groups and money for festival preparation activities. That is important: to show one's skill to others, to affirm oneself.

One must not suppress the idea of the Song Festival (for whatever reason). To stop, wait, and start something from scratch is much more difficult. Is it necessary to return to 19th-century Dikļi? No, let us prepare for 2023! The Song Festival must happen, and it will!
* https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/-vai-dienin-kadas-zemgale-bija-mezabralu-grupas-un-kadus-pigorus-tas-taisija-intervija-ar-vesturnieci-inesi-dreimani-un-vesturnieku-un-lauksaimnieku-zigmaru-turcinski