World Monitor — real-time global intelligence dashboard with live markets, geopolitical data, and infrastructure monitoring

Country · LV

Latvia country risk and resilience

Latvia country risk and resilience: ranked #25 of 170 in World Monitor's Country Resilience Index, with live instability, travel-advisory and sanctions signals. The structural snapshot is dated and source-labelled; the live monitor loads separately.

Current signal

Latvia instability monitor

Published partial pulse

Instability combines current information, unrest, conflict and security-mobility signals. It is separate from structural resilience; do not combine the scores.

Instability score—No current score
24-hour comparison-window movementUnavailable
Travel advisory inputExercise Normal Precautions
OFAC designations in feed14 designated entities
Live enhancement pending
Open Latvia on the live map →

Recent developments in Latvia

Country brief

What this means for Latvia

The planned acquisition of Anduril’s Barracuda cruise missile signals a focus on long-range strike capability, while Latvia is linked to 14 US OFAC and Canada SEMA sanctions designations. [1][E2]

Key risks

Latvia's net energy import dependency of 29% exposes it to price shocks from external suppliers. [E3]

Latvia is linked to 14 US OFAC and Canada SEMA sanctions designations, creating potential compliance or reputational risks. [E2]

Watch items

The outcome of the incident at Ādaži military base where four Italian soldiers were injured remains unresolved. [4]

World Monitor data cited

  • E2 · US OFAC and Canada SEMA designations: 14 ·
  • E3 · Net energy import dependency: 29% ·

Automated summary of 2 cited reports and 2 World Monitor data points, generated .

Structural resilience snapshot

Rank#25
Overall score62.8
Dimension coverage76%
ConfidenceStandard

Latvia resilience analysis

Latvia ranks #25 of 170 countries with an overall resilience score of 62.8 out of 100. Recovery capacity is the weakest pillar at 64.9, with structural readiness next at 76.7. Live shock exposure is strongest at 83.5, while Recovery capacity is the lowest of the six underlying domains at 64.9. Across the recorded 30-day window, the index is stable at +0.1 points. Dimension coverage is 76%, and the page labels confidence as standard.

Pillar profile

Six-domain profile

Dimension evidence, observed scores weakest first

DimensionDomainScoreCoverageEvidence state
Liquid-reserve adequacyRecovery capacity9100%Fresh
Logistics and supply chainsInfrastructure3150%Fresh
Currency and external balanceEconomic capacity6485%Fresh
Fiscal spaceRecovery capacity66100%Fresh
Governance and institutionsSocial and governance69100%Fresh
Financial-system exposureEconomic capacity7076%Fresh
Social cohesionSocial and governance7692%Stale
Border securitySocial and governance77100%Stale
Information environmentSocial and governance7755%Stale
State continuityRecovery capacity77100%Stale
Health and public servicesHealth, food and water79100%Fresh
Core infrastructureInfrastructure7970%Fresh
Macro-fiscal positionEconomic capacity7995%Fresh
Import concentrationRecovery capacity82100%Fresh
Energy system resilienceEnergy security88100%Fresh
Food and water securityHealth, food and water9282%Fresh
Education capacitySocial and governance95100%Fresh
Trade policy resilienceEconomic capacity97100%Fresh
Cyber and digital capacityInfrastructure100100%Fresh
External-debt coverageRecovery capacity—30%Unmonitored
Fuel-stock bufferRecovery capacity—0%Unavailable
Reserve adequacyRecovery capacity—0%Unavailable
Sovereign fiscal bufferRecovery capacity—0%Not applicable

Comparison set

Nearest ranked peers: Germany (#24, 63.2), Lithuania (#26, 62.6), Netherlands (#23, 63.4), France (#27, 62.5). Comparisons in Europe: Lithuania (#26, 62.6), France (#27, 62.5), Germany (#24, 63.2), Montenegro (#28, 62.3), Netherlands (#23, 63.4). Similar scores do not mean equal conditions.

Tracked crisis context

Latvia has no dedicated crisis tracker; the 14 trackers cover selected crises. That is a coverage limit, not a statement about risk.

Reading limits

Scores come from the August 29, 2026 snapshot. Top domain: Energy security, 88. Weak pillars pull the overall score down; read each score alongside its coverage and imputation.

Questions about Latvia

What is Latvia's resilience score?

Latvia scores 62.8 out of 100 in the August 29, 2026 structural snapshot and sits #25 of 170 ranked countries. This is a comparative index, not a crisis probability.

Which resilience pillars are weakest for Latvia?

Recovery capacity is lowest at 64.9, followed by Structural readiness at 76.7. Their evidence coverage is 54% and 89%.

Is Latvia's resilience score rising or falling?

The 30-day reading is stable, with a change of +0.1 points. It is structural and separate from the live instability monitor.

How to read this page

The 0-100 index records the August 29, 2026 snapshot. See the Country Resilience Index methodology for dimensions, sources and confidence rules. Published revisions that affect Latvia are in the corrections log.

This 2026-08-29 snapshot applies domain design weights inside pillar aggregation. Earlier published CRI numbers used coverage-only member aggregation and are not directly comparable.

Use this dated reference with the live map for active alerts, conflict, market and energy signals. Neither score on this page is a forecast; where World Monitor does forecast, the graded record is on the forecast accuracy scorecard.

Download: resilience.json. Source: World Monitor Country Resilience Index snapshot, August 29, 2026. Methodology: Country Resilience Index.

How World Monitor compares: Geopolitical risk dashboard comparison · Free Geopolitical Risk Dashboards.