PoliticsUK

Mr Speaker,

I rise today to make an urgent statement regarding ongoing affairs in the Republic of Latvia.

Yesterday at 1:36 p.m. Eastern European Standard Time, three Latvian citizens belonging to Latvia’s Russian speaking minority opened fire at the Riga Shipyard, using AK-47 automatic rifles to engage in a killing spree that eventually left 57 dead.
 
The municipal police responded with a series of ‘targeted curfews.’ Throughout the afternoon and early evening, allegations of a crackdown in Russian-speaking areas led to demonstrations in Daugavpils, Zilupe, and other cities and towns in predominantly Russian-speaking enclaves of Latvia developed. By 8:00 p.m., these demonstrations had grown significantly in size, resulting in the deployment of the Latvian National Guard.
 
As demonstrators gathered, a flurry of online activity targeting the Latvian government of Māris Kučinskis took place. As protests grew in scale, Jãnis Urbanovičs, the leader of the Harmony Party and perhaps the most prominent Russian-speaker in Latvia, also condemned Kučinskis.
 
At approximately 3:30 a.m., as demonstrations continued, Urbanovičs fled - apparently in fear of arrest - to a local broadcasting station, where he appealed on numerous channels, including Riga TV24 and Russia’s Kremlin-funded Channel 1 and Russia Today for assistance in protecting the security of Russian-speaking Latvians and preventing what he called the “fascist crackdown against the Russian population”.

From 3.30 a.m. onwards, broadcasting in Latvia began to go off the air and reports began to circulate of Russian-speaking soldiers in civilian clothing operating armoured personnel carriers in parts of Latvia. Riga International Airport has been locked down, and reports suggest scattered fighting between Latvian internal security forces and Russian-speaking soldiers.

At approximately 8 a.m., the Latvian Prime Minister announced the full mobilisation of the Latvian Armed Forces to quell the unrest in the country and reestablish control over the airport and municipal and national government buildings.
 
Following this announcement, the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, announced that the Western District of Russian military command would be holding snap exercises and proceeded to mobilise six brigades. At a little after 9 a.m., we received word that those brigades were now moving in the general direction of the Baltic States. British intelligence refutes the claim that this mobilisation formed part of a long-planned exercise.

At 9.15 a.m., the Prime Minister assembled the COBRA emergency committee and he, myself and the Defence Secretary received advice from the National Security Adviser, the Head of MI6, the Chief of Defence Intelligence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Director of GCHQ, and the Permanent and Military Representatives to NATO. The Prime Minister and I were informed that the Latvian foreign ministry intended to trigger Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, and given advice about a number of sensitive strategic matters that I cannot currently discuss freely.

It became abundantly clear, very quickly, that whilst there is no evidence of Russian state involvement in the initial attacks in Riga, that the apparatus of the Russian Federation was fully committed to taking advantage of the brewing instability to seize control of parts of Latvia, through tactics similar to those seen in Ukraine some years ago. The government immediately ordered British forces on the continent, including our Enhanced Forward Presence units in Estonia, the 20th Armoured Infantry Brigade in Poland, and the 16th Air Assault Brigade, to move to a condition of high alert. The Quick Reaction Alert base at RAF Coningsby was also placed on high alert.

The Prime Minister and I spoke personally with President Trump of the United States; President Macron of France and Chancellor Merkel of Germany; with the leaders of Poland, Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia; with the leaders of the Baltic States; with various other NATO leaders and with the NATO Secretary-General. Our position in those discussions was that Russian aggression could not be allowed to go unanswered; that NATO must unanimously support Latvia’s call for Article V to be triggered; and that a military operation of some form should be instigated if necessary to deter Russian encroachment on Latvian territory.

Discussions are still ongoing, and a resolution is not yet in sight. But I have this to say to the Russian Federation: back down now and respect the territorial integrity of Latvia; come to the table at the UN; and let us avoid at all costs a military confrontation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker
I thank my right honourable friend for informing the house on the unacceptable behaviour by the Russian state. The Russian Federation under President Putin seems to be nothing more than regressing to paranoia and fear. It cannot bear the fact that the Soviet Union is no more and that it has no control over its former states. It must understand that democracy is the way forward and that Putin needs to respect the democratic will for independence that the former Soviet States wish.

I hope that there is a peaceful resolution to this situation and that it Russia refuses to co operate, that the UN can agree sanctions that will mean Russia has no choice but to pull back.

Mr Speaker,

I thank the Right Honourable Lady for sharing the information of events in Latvia as well as the information that she is able to share on the Latvian response and the potential security concerns in the country. I welcome this version of transparency from the Minister and hope that it continues, particularly in that there are lives that have already been lost and many more at stake depending on how this situation unfolds.

As it stands now, caution must be the watchword for our actions. While we feel it is entirely appropriate to support Latvia’s decisions with respect to the triggering of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, we should also be completely sure that actions we take are coordinated with NATO allies and part of a comprehensive strategy to ensure the collective defense of alliance members.

But NATO is not the only tool that can be used here, and I hope that this Government will also engage on this issue with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and its membership, which includes Russia. This allows the UK a forum in which we can work towards promoting and reinforcing stability in the region, and it allows us to have a strong voice which the Right Honourable Lady does clearly want to ensure is heard.

But if we are to act, we need to make sure that it is the right decision, based on the facts. The comments from the Member for North West Hampshire aside, the Right Honourable Lady suggest that Russia was not behind the tragic events that led to the cruel deaths of 57 working people and that Russia now is only sabre-rattling at best through its unscheduled military exercises.

I absolutely agree with the Right Honourable Lady that we must be vigilant and that we must make sure that we state in no uncertain terms that attempting to take advantage of the situation would be unacceptable. I feel this is something that the then-Coalition Government could have done better with respect to Crimea; a situation today where we rightly refuse to recognise Russia’s claim to the region but where more needs to be done to lead to a peaceful and stability-promoting outcome.

At the same time, I return to the idea of caution. Mobilising forces on our own could just as easily lead to further destabilisation and conflict as the opposite, and I don’t think there is anyone that is itching for that further conflict and loss of life.

I am curious, based on the Government’s statement, what the replies were from allies in Europe. While the Right Honourable Lady has made clear the Government’s position, are the positions of France and Germany, to name two countries, as strong? In time, I hope we will all be able to hear the answer to this.

That is not to say I disagree with this Government’s approach. Based on the facts as presented, the action is appropriate and I hope that the Government will continue to keep this House informed as well as the British public so that when a decision on action IS reached and when action IS to be taken, that we are all well aware of the rationale for the action and the plan for both the action itself and the potential aftermath.