Key Insights:
Domestic opposition politicians and pro-Kremlin channels operate in parallel to undermine Latvian institutions and NATO cohesion. Domestic actors amplify narratives portraying Latvia as undemocratic to mobilize opposition, while pro-Kremlin channels deploy geopolitical inversion, creating a multi-layered campaign that targets different audiences while serving a unified objective: weakening Baltic institutional confidence and NATO alignment.
Pro-Kremlin narratives reverse agency and causality by reframing Russian military threats as defensive responses, NATO membership as subjugation, and Baltic defense measures as provocation. By denying Baltic agency and inverting responsibility, these narratives convince populations that resistance to Russian pressure is futile, thereby normalizing accommodation with Russian regional dominance.
The main narratives were:
- Latvia is undemocratic
- Latvia is the aggressor
- Latvia is a puppet state
- The West is the aggressor
Overview of the Findings:
November 2024 showed a convergence of narratives in pro-Kremlin Telegram channels and local peddlers of disinformation. Local actors were delegitimizing Latvia’s institutions, while Russia-based pro-Kremlin actors discredited NATO alignment and security policies, positioning Russia as a misunderstood victim of Baltic aggression.
Domestic opposition politicians – particularly Rosļikovs of the Stability party and Ainars Šlesers of Latvia First – constructed narratives of persecution and systemic injustice. Rosļikovs’ pending prosecution for inciting national hatred and assisting Russia became, in his telling, evidence of political persecution for defending Russian identity and language. His claim that Latvia sentences political speech more harshly than murder, paired with his assertion of predetermined guilt before trial, portrayed the judiciary as a tool of political control. His TikTok video advancing this narrative reached half a million views. Šlesers extended the victimization framework to media and public institutions, alleging sthat tate-funded broadcasters operate as propaganda arms, selectively amplifying government-aligned causes while marginalizing dissent. Both politicians weaponized retrospective grievances, with Šlesers demanding apologies for COVID-era criticism of anti-vaccination protesters, reframing public health debates as authoritarian persecution.
Simultaneously, pro-Kremlin Telegram channel “Antifascists of Pribaltics” deployed a complementary disinformation strategy centered on systematic inversion. This channel reframed legitimate European security warnings about Russian military threats as warmongering, portrayed NATO membership as a form of Russian control rather than voluntary alignment, and ridiculed Baltic defense efforts as futile fantasy. When Latvia proposed reducing economic dependence on Russia, the channels employed false equivalences, suggesting this would cause economic collapse. They dismissed military parades and nuclear deterrence discussions as provocative, while casting Russia as a passive victim of Baltic hostility.
The convergence of these narratives reveals the disinformation ecosystem beneficial to the Kremlin: domestic opposition politicians provide the emotional appeal of Russian victimhood and institutional mistrust, while pro-Kremlin channels amplify anti-Western and pro-Russian themes. Together, they construct an alternative reality where Latvia’s institutions are corrupt, NATO membership represents hidden subjugation, and resistance to Russia is both futile and illegitimate.
Story of the Month:
Delegitimizing Baltic Sovereignty and NATO
Pro-Kremlin Telegram channel “Antifascists of Pribaltics” employed several interconnected geopolitical narratives designed to delegitimize Baltic independence, NATO membership, and Western alignment while normalizing Russian regional dominance.
The foundational pro-Kremlin narrative systematically reverses causality in regional conflicts. Russia’s military threats, invasions, and territorial acquisitions are reframed as defensive responses to Baltic and NATO provocation. When European officials warn of a Russian military threat, these warnings are characterized as warmongering rather than threat assessment. This inversion obscures Russian agency – invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea, and ongoing military pressure on NATO’s eastern flank – while magnifying Baltic defensive measures as inherently aggressive. Military parades become evidence of Baltic militarism; nuclear deterrence discussions become delusional fantasies; severing economic ties with an aggressive neighbor becomes unprovoked economic warfare.
A parallel narrative denies Baltic voluntary agency in NATO and EU membership by claiming these institutions represent a new form of control rather than escape from Russian domination. By falsely asserting that NATO has “leased” Baltic states from Russia, pro-Kremlin channels invert historical reality: these nations joined NATO and the EU precisely to escape Russian domination and assert sovereignty. This narrative suggests Baltic resistance to Russian pressure is futile because they remain fundamentally subjugated, thereby discouraging both popular and institutional support for NATO alignment and independence.
Pro-Kremlin narratives exploit Soviet-era infrastructure dependencies to argue that Baltic states cannot function independently of Russia. By framing the modernization or replacement of inherited Soviet systems as economically impossible without Russian cooperation, these narratives deny Baltic development agency and suggest that severing ties with Russia will inevitably cause economic collapse. This weaponizes historical legacies to argue for continued Russian economic influence and political accommodation.
By amplifying claims of systemic persecution of pro-Russian voices and alleged bias in Baltic courts and media, pro-Kremlin disinformation undermines confidence in Baltic governmental legitimacy. If institutions are portrayed as tools of political oppression rather than neutral arbiters, Baltic democracies become questionable. This narrative prepares populations to question whether Baltic resistance to Russian pressure is justified or whether accommodation might be preferable to living under unjust systems.
Collectively, these narratives aim to weaken NATO cohesion, undermine Baltic institutional confidence, and create populations receptive to Russian regional dominance by suggesting that resistance is both futile and illegitimate. By inverting responsibility, denying agency, and weaponizing historical grievances, pro-Kremlin disinformation constructs an alternative geopolitical reality where Russian pressure appears inevitable, and Baltic independence appears unsustainable.
