Key Insights:
In September, pro-Kremlin Telegram channels disseminated multiple narratives that undermined Latvia’s domestic and security policies. They recontextualized legitimate policy discussions within hostile interpretive frameworks rather than fabricating entirely false information, taking real events like educational reforms, military preparations, and treaty ratifications and surrounding them with inflammatory rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and deliberate misrepresentations. Security narratives revealed a dual messaging approach that simultaneously portrayed Latvia as militarily weak and incompetent while also characterizing its defensive measures as recklessly aggressive and endangering civilians, creating a no-win framing where any security policy could be attacked. The Istanbul Convention disinformation highlighted how domestic opposition politicians have adopted and amplified Kremlin-style narratives, fabricating baseless claims about gender ideology, pedophilia, and attacks on traditional values that bear no relation to the treaty’s actual violence prevention provisions.
The main narratives were:
- Russophobia in Latvia
- West is the aggressor
- West is weak
- Istanbul Convention is a conspiracy against traditional families
Overview of the Findings:
In September, pro-Kremlin Telegram channels resumed their focus on portraying Latvia’s language education policies as discriminatory and oppressive. Following intensive geopolitical coverage in August, the monitored channels switched back to domestic issues and used the beginning of school to characterize Latvia’s transition to Latvian-language-only instruction as evidence of systematic discrimination against Russian speakers. These narratives employed inflammatory rhetoric, including accusations of Nazism against Latvian officials and public figures, and used loaded terminology to misrepresent legitimate policy discussions. These posts recontextualized real events within hostile interpretive frameworks rather than fabricating entirely false information, aiming to foster negative perceptions of Latvian institutions among Russian-speaking audiences.
Security and defense narratives featured prominently following incidents like Russian drone crashes in Poland and the Zapad 2025 military exercises. Pro-Kremlin channels simultaneously mocked Latvia’s military capabilities while portraying defensive preparations as reckless endangerment of civilians. They ridiculed air defense systems, claimed military installations used civilians as “human shields,” and dismissed fortifications as ineffective against Russian weapons. Meanwhile, Russia and Belarus were presented as transparent actors by highlighting international observers at their military exercises, while framing the Baltic states’ absence as diplomatic failure. Personal attacks targeted Latvian officials advocating for stronger NATO responses, attempting to portray pro-defense voices as hypocritical.
Domestic disinformation intensified around Latvia’s ratification of the Istanbul Convention, with opposition politicians propagating conspiracy theories about the violence prevention treaty. Despite the Convention’s focus on protecting domestic violence victims, critics fabricated narratives claiming it promotes “117 genders,” supports “pedophilia” and “transvestism,” and represents an assault on traditional family values. These baseless claims, advanced by politicians from Latvia First, New Latvians, and other opposition parties, deliberately misrepresented the treaty’s actual provisions to generate fear and outrage, framing human rights protections as part of a global conspiracy while ignoring the practical benefits already being delivered to violence victims.
Story of the Month:
The West is the Real Aggressor
Following the crash of 19 Russian drones in Poland, pro-Kremlin Telegram channels increasingly focused on security issues to undermine confidence in Latvia’s defensive capabilities. The channels employed satirical imagery and mockery to ridicule Latvia’s air defense systems, posting images of primitive weaponry alongside official announcements about airspace closures. The messaging suggested Latvia lacks adequate military technology to defend against modern Russian threats, dismissively referring to defensive fortifications as ineffective against Russian weapons systems. Some posts mockingly suggested that effective air defense requires “idols, shamans and sacrifices,” deliberately portraying Baltic military preparations as primitive or superstitious rather than credible security measures.
Simultaneously, these channels promoted narratives portraying Latvia’s defense planning as actively endangering its own citizens. Latvian Parliament member Roslikov claimed to analyze Latvia’s defensive positions, alleging that military installations use civilian settlements as “human shields” and questioning the placement of defensive infrastructure near populated areas. These posts reframed standard defensive preparations as evidence of government incompetence or malicious intent toward citizens. The messaging also characterized proposals for expanded military service and border security measures as “aggressive militarization” that would economically harm the country while unnecessarily escalating tensions with neighbors.
A contrasting narrative emerged around the Zapad 2025 military exercises, positioning Russia and Belarus as transparent actors while casting the Baltic states as the aggressors. Posts emphasized that the exercises included observers from the United States, Turkey, Hungary, and 20 other countries, with 150 international journalists present, while highlighting that Baltic states “refused to go” and characterizing their absence as a diplomatic failure. When Baltic officials like Latvian Deputy Igors Raevs advocated for stronger military responses, including NATO control of Ukrainian airspace, Russian channels responded with personal attacks and sarcastic suggestions that such officials should personally fight on the front lines. This dual strategy aimed to portray Latvia as simultaneously militarily weak and irresponsibly aggressive.
