There is no state or government in the world that does not recognise the importance of intelligence — the trustworthy gathering and analysis of information necessary for successful governance.
Intelligence gathering, espionage, and information dissemination have always been crucial elements of any government. Their relevance has been equally high in times of peace and during wars. Throughout history, accurate and timely information has helped rulers make sound political and military decisions, avoid or win wars, ensure social stability, and prevent coups, invasions, or assassinations.
Intelligence was one of the main tools of the art of war even according to Sun Tzu, who stated that the essence of war is deception — often executed through intelligence.
In Europe, the 16th-century Renaissance thinker Machiavelli wrote: “As for intelligence, which is the foundation of all enterprises, no prince should ever neglect it. For he who is not well informed cannot possibly govern well.” Machiavelli also stressed that saving money on spies is an unwise policy, underscoring the importance of information gathering. Later, intelligence institutions emerged across many countries. In the 19th century, the Napoleonic Wars created the need for structured military intelligence as well. Today, most countries maintain several intelligence institutions responsible for intelligence, counterintelligence, military intelligence, and internal security.
Latvia provides a good example of how civil and military intelligence institutions were established and developed alongside the creation of the Latvian nation-state. From the very beginning, their primary goal has been to assist the government in maintaining and securing two fundamental objectives: external and internal security.
Since the proclamation of the Republic of Latvia in 1918, both internal and military branches of intelligence have served the new democratic government. In 1940, when Latvia’s independence was crushed by the Soviet occupation, Latvian intelligence services and their members were among the first to face harsh repression by the invading forces. The Soviets were eager to seize information hidden in the files and minds of the Latvian intelligence community.
On 21 August 1991, Latvia once again restored its national independence after nearly fifty years of Soviet occupation. Following independence, three separate intelligence institutions were created to safeguard national sovereignty and democratic governance.
In November 1991, the State Security Department under the Ministry of the Interior was established, later becoming the State Security Service (VDD). This civilian counterintelligence and internal security service gathers and analyses information, informs state officials, and neutralises threats.
With the reconstruction of the Latvian armed forces, the Information Service of the Ministry of Defence was created on 12 June 1992. In 1994, it evolved into the Defence Intelligence and Security Service (MIDD), responsible for military counterintelligence, intelligence, and a variety of defence-related tasks, including matters of the defence industry.
The third Latvian intelligence institution, the Constitution Protection Bureau (SAB), was established in 1995 and is supervised by the Cabinet of Ministers. It is responsible for intelligence, counterintelligence, and the protection of state secrets. The very name of this office underscores the importance of democracy in modern Latvia, as democratic governance is seen as a prerequisite for national independence.
In the 21st century, intelligence communities worldwide — including those in Latvia — face immense challenges in adapting to a rapidly changing world while maintaining the ability to provide trustworthy information and timely guidance to governments and societies. For Latvia, additional challenges stem from the country’s small size, its proximity to a large, aggressive, revanchist power — Russia — and the presence of a sizeable Russian-speaking diaspora.
Among the main global challenges are the rapidly changing nature of societies influenced by the technological revolution and information networks. The world is becoming increasingly polarised and fragmented, while traditional international institutions are under significant strain. These natural challenges, born of human progress, are further intensified by state actors seeking greater influence over global affairs and expressing dissatisfaction with the existing international order. Russia and China — along with at least one major non-state actor, the Islamic world — are leading this acceleration.
To fulfil their mission, intelligence communities around the globe must operate in an increasingly complex environment characterised by massive flows of fragmented information, the growing impact of artificial intelligence, persistent cyberattacks, and an intensifying hybrid warfare that is forcing a redefinition of classical theories of war and peace. Added to this are the rising risks of nuclear proliferation and the potential use of nuclear weapons. One might say we already live in a state of undeclared war, as the boundary between war and peace looks very different today than it did twenty years ago.
Existing international institutions and rules were not designed for such circumstances, which contributes to growing instability. Reforming them requires time and broad international consensus — yet time is running out. This reality only increases the importance of intelligence institutions: if they fail to obtain the right information and provide timely, accurate analysis, state bureaucracies and politicians may fail to make the right decisions.
Another growing danger stems from political institutions themselves. The accelerating chaos of the world, fragmented and polarised societies, the blending of truth and misinformation, and hybrid, cyber, and informational attacks promoted by states seeking to reshape global power dynamics all place mounting pressure on democratic governments. These governments, in turn, increasingly struggle to balance the preservation of democracy — including privacy rights — with the need to provide effective governance and appropriate responses to threats posed by adversaries such as Russia, China, and various non-state actors.
Today, intelligence communities everywhere face mounting challenges — not only to obtain, analyse, and present actionable insights to governing authorities, but also to ensure that their recommendations reach the right decision-makers, and that those leaders are both willing and able to act upon the intelligence they receive.
Dr., Director
Northern Europe Policy Centre
Latvia
Former Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of Defence of Latvia
