Latvian Military Official Responds to Border Migrant Shooting Question

Major Jānis Slāviņš, a National Armed Forces officer and Zemessardze staff officer, addressed public frustration over illegal border crossings during a recent broadcast of the TV24 program “Aktuālais par karadarbību Ukrainā,” reminding viewers that Latvia operates as a 21st-century European Union state bound by strict legal frameworks.

The Rising Tension at the Eastern Frontier

During an appearance on TV24, a viewer directly challenged Major Jānis Slāviņš with a blunt inquiry regarding the rules of engagement along the frontier with Belarus, as reported by Baltic News. The listener asked, “If you illegally cross the border of another state, which is prohibited by law, then why can’t we shoot at them? Why?”

While the program’s viewer acknowledged that her stance was severe, she argued that harsher deterrents might finally halt unauthorized entries. The discussion underscores a difficult tension between public desire for absolute border control and the legal obligations of a democratic European nation.

Weighing Lethal Force Against European Norms

Major Slāviņš acknowledged the relevance and emotional weight of the question, noting that the ongoing migration pressure organized by Alexander Lukashenko’s regime continues to test national patience. However, the military officer firmly rejected the notion of authorizing border guards to open fire on individuals simply attempting to cross the line.

“We are in the 21st century, we are a European Union state. No one will particularly understand if we start shooting them in the legs,” Slāviņš stated during the broadcast. He emphasized that any operational response must be rooted in precise legislation rather than emotional frustration or personal attitude. Clear legal norms must define the exact thresholds under which border personnel hold the legal right to discharge weapons.

The Legislative Bottleneck and Institutional Responsibility

The debate quickly shifted from tactical desires to legal realities. When the program host questioned why harsher measures cannot immediately be applied to individuals committing illegal acts, Slāviņš drew a firm line regarding his institutional remit. “You are asking me about something I cannot answer,” he noted, clarifying that decisions regarding the modification of rules of engagement fall outside his independent command.

According to the military officer, substantive adjustments to border enforcement regulations require deliberate legislative action and direct coordination with the Ministry of the Interior. While Slāviņš admitted personal dissatisfaction with seeing unauthorized migrants cross the frontier and remain within the country, he maintained that the rule of law must govern the state’s reaction.

Moving Forward Under the Rule of Law

The exchange on TV24 highlights the vital need for transparent public communication regarding what border guards can and cannot legally do under international and domestic law.

Photo: en.bb.lv

Ultimately, Slāviņš’s remarks serve as a reminder that democratic societies must defend their borders without abandoning the legal frameworks that define them.