Vladimir Putin at the shrunken Victory Day parade last Saturday in Moscow.Image: keystone
interview
Latvia’s former president Egils Levits believes that Russia will remain a threat to Europe even after Vladimir Putin. At the St.Gallen Symposium he spoke with Watson about Ukraine’s accession to the EU and the limits of neutrality.
May 17, 2026, 05:33May 17, 2026, 05:33
We live in a time of multiple crises. Which one worries you the most?
Egils Levits: There are two crises that concern me. Firstly, the security crisis, particularly in Europe but also in the world. And secondly, the crisis of democracy, in which a certain erosion can be seen.
Viktor Orban’s defeat in the Hungarian election was interpreted as a positive signal for democracy. Or how do you see it?
I’m cautiously optimistic. A few days before the election in Hungary, I demanded that if Orban wins again, the European Union must find ways to prevent one or more member states from blocking the entire Union. This is probably no longer so urgent after the election of opposition leader Péter Magyar. One of his central election promises was to unblock European funds. To do this, he must adhere to certain constitutional standards.
Egils Levits (70) was President of the Baltic Republic of Latvia from 2019 to 2023. He was previously a judge and diplomat, including as ambassador to Switzerland.Image: EPA
Things also look difficult in other Eastern European countries. Romania is a new addition.
Romania, as well as Bulgaria and Slovakia. But one could also mention France, where there are elections next year. And according to the latest polls, the AfD is the strongest party in Germany. Nobody wants to form a coalition with her, at least at the moment.
You have been warning about the threat from Russia for a long time. It is part of the security crisis you mentioned. How big is the problem currently?
For the foreseeable future, Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine. We must clearly emphasize that Ukraine defends Europe. And we must ensure that Ukraine can do that. But I expect there will be a fragile ceasefire at some point. And Russia is a constant threat through its ideology.
How would you describe these?
Vladimir Putin and his party developed it from various set pieces: from classical imperialism of the 19th century, from fascist ideas of the 1920s and 30s in Germany and Italy, and from Russian exceptionalism and missionarism of the 19th century. Accordingly, God gave Russia the task of civilizing the world. I am skeptical that this ideology will disappear after Putin. It can also exist with another leader. As long as many Russians, perhaps the majority, carry this poison, Russia will remain a constant threat.
Vladimir Putin in a Moscow church: Russian ideology has a strong religious component.Image: keystone
But things are no longer going so well for the Russians in Ukraine.
Ukraine has pulled itself together in an astonishing way. It has developed its own military industry, the drone industry, under wartime conditions. It is even ready to make this new technology available to states in the Middle East. That is why it is very important for Europe that Ukraine joins both the EU and NATO.
The reservations against it are great. How is that supposed to work?
There are seven candidate countries for EU membership: Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkan states. The EU and its decision-making mechanism must be prepared for this. I have proposed that the accession treaty agree that these new members waive the right of veto for 15 years. Everyone should be happy with that. The candidate states because they are in it, and the current EU countries because this does not create any additional problems. We’ll see what happens next, but in principle this veto must be severely restricted.
«Ukraine has shown that it can resist despite this harsh winter. Now she’s even doing a little better than before.”
Egils Levits
Are you advocating a two-speed Europe?
It’s going in that direction. For me it is also a legal problem: the veto or just the threat of it sometimes constitutes an abuse of the law. You have to take this seriously.
Ukraine has experienced a very harsh winter, with attacks on the energy and heating infrastructure. Can she go through this again?
Two developments since the beginning of the year make me confident: Ukraine has shown that it can withstand this harsh winter. Now she’s even doing a little better than before. At the same time, Russia is showing certain signs of fatigue. Perhaps both will lead to some sort of solution emerging.
At the same time, Switzerland is supplying generators to Ukraine.
Things like that could help things go better next winter.
It is said that Putin is becoming increasingly paranoid. Is his regime threatened?
Paranoia is the characteristic of this Russian ideology. It is the idea that Russia is surrounded by the whole world. We have to take offensive action against this. This is completely paranoid. Europe can respond to this by assuring that it does not want to attack Russia. But I don’t think that will work, the paranoia is too strong for that. One can only respond to such a state with deterrence.
Volodymyr Zelenskyj and Friedrich Merz explain a drone developed jointly by Germany and Ukraine.Image: keystone
How do you imagine this specifically?
Deterrence consists of three elements. The first is real military capabilities. That’s why investing in defense is very important. Europe has decided this and things are slowly moving in the right direction. Secondly, and this is the problematic part, there needs to be the political will to defend oneself in the event of an attack. With its hybrid information war against the open, democratic West, Russia is trying to weaken this will to defend itself.
What is the third element?
You have to communicate this will and abilities credibly. This creates deterrence. And you have to make your own population understand that investing in defense is an investment for peace. We’re doing this so that there won’t be a war.
In Russia, life is becoming increasingly complicated for the population due to inflation and internet closures. Could this become a problem for Putin?
We in the West measure this with our own standards. For us, even a few percent inflation is a catastrophe. The Russians are much more capable of suffering. They live in a repressive state and are used to oppression and restrictions.
“Given the Russian threat and Chinese arms buildup, Trump’s push to increase defense spending to five percent of gross domestic product is very sensible.”
Egils Levits
NATO is also under pressure from the West, more precisely from Donald Trump. How do you view this problem?
It was already foreseeable in his first term in office. This negative attitude is forcing Europe to rethink its own role in the world. Given the Russian threat and Chinese military buildup, Trump’s push to increase defense spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product is very sensible. This is being done now, so Trump’s pressure has also had a positive effect. At the same time, the United States’ security umbrella in Europe has suddenly become perforated. That’s quite a problem. And of course Greenland, which is, let’s say, a surprising development.
Does that mean Europe really needs to start strengthening its defenses now?
Yes, Europe as a whole, not just individual states. NATO structures must be used to enable Europe to defend itself independently. This includes integrating Ukraine into these European security structures, perhaps by joining NATO.
There’s no point in hoping for the time after Trump?
It’s good to have a friend. But if he isn’t there or isn’t willing to help, you have to be able to help yourself.
Could this mean having nuclear weapons for Europe?
This is being discussed; Emmanuel Macron has offered to expand his nuclear umbrella. There were also discussions with Friedrich Merz. I think this is going in the right direction.
Workers dismantle a power line between Latvia and Russia in February 2025, making the Baltic state independent of Russian energy.Image: keystone
Energy supply also remains a problem for Europe. Germany, for example, has become very vulnerable.
The population has long rejected nuclear power, not in all, but in many countries. In doing so, it creates a certain independence. Small nuclear power plants are now being developed and are expected to be available in France by the mid-2030s. This is a solution in the medium term, but renewable energies already produce a very high proportion. You can increase it further and try to manage this transition period through diversification.
In Latvia, after the Russian attack on Ukraine, you had to solve the energy problem fairly quickly.
We have the advantage that half of our energy comes from hydropower. This is a constant renewable source. There are also other renewable energies. And we have switched to liquefied gas and are no longer dependent on Russian energy.
Switzerland is neither an EU nor NATO member. Sometimes you get the impression that we haven’t recognized the seriousness of the situation.
Switzerland is surrounded by friends (laughs). It is in a very fortunate geographical location. But Switzerland benefits from Europe’s defense capability and willingness to defend itself. I notice that many people in Switzerland also see it that way and are thinking about how they can contribute.
Many people in Switzerland believe that we should rely on diplomacy instead of rearming.
Diplomacy is good, but one must not be mistaken in it. There are many situations in which diplomacy can help. And there are those in which it cannot really help solve the problem. For diplomacy, both sides must have some overlap of interests. That is not always the case, and diplomacy is relatively helpless. This needs to be acknowledged rather than used as an excuse.
You pointed out to the German Bundestag that Latvia lost a third of its inhabitants in both world wars. We Swiss were spared. Does this mean we lack sensitivity to such problems?
Perhaps this historical memory makes us more sensitive to reality. But Switzerland is in the middle of Europe. This continent has had very different experiences with war and violence. I think Switzerland sees itself as part of Europe. So not the Union, but Europe (laughs).
Neutrality is also an important topic for us. Can it still work in today’s world?
Sweden and Finland have recognized that neutrality does not help when there is a threat. At the beginning of the Second World War, Latvia also declared itself neutral. That didn’t help either, nor did Belgium before the First World War. One should be prepared to draw certain conclusions from history.