Main narratives:
- Latvia is the aggressor;
- The West is the aggressor;
- The government is incompetent.
Overview:
Recent posts in pro-Kremlin channels reveal a few recurring narratives used to influence audiences in Latvia and beyond. They pushed conspiracies about Latvia being controlled by the West and used as a staging ground for drone strikes into Russia.
One prominent narrative frames political opposition to Russia as purely financially motivated. The channels suggest that Baltic politicians and public figures only adopt pro-Western stances because they receive salaries, government positions, or other economic benefits. This narrative attempts to delegitimize genuine political disagreement by reducing complex geopolitical positions to simple greed and hints that Latvia is a puppet state of the West. The messaging portrays patriotism as a commodity, implying that those who support European integration or NATO are merely paid actors rather than citizens with genuine convictions. This economic reductionism serves to dismiss the legitimacy of democratic discourse and political choice.
A central pillar of these narratives is the claim that Baltic governments operate as puppet states controlled by foreign powers. The channels describe elaborate scenarios where politicians receive daily instructions from British or US embassies, complete with detailed “manuals” and reporting requirements. This conspiracy theory serves multiple purposes: it denies agency to Baltic nations, portrays them as lacking sovereignty, and suggests that any anti-Russian policies stem not from national interests but from foreign manipulation. The specificity of these claims, which mention embassy visits and envelope distributions, is designed to create an illusion of insider knowledge.
The channels frequently employ ridicule and personal attacks against Baltic leaders, using derogatory nicknames and focusing on physical appearance rather than policy positions. This approach aims to diminish respect for democratic institutions and their representatives. The mockery extends to military capabilities, with dismissive references to hypothetical military scenarios that portray Baltic forces as ineffective. This serves both to boost Russian confidence and to discourage resistance by suggesting futility.
These channels present routine NATO activities, such as reconnaissance flights, as direct precursors to military action, claiming that a NATO drone above Latvia is assisting Ukrainian strikes into Russia. By connecting normal defensive activities to past conflicts, they create an atmosphere of imminent threat that justifies Russian defensive measures and preemptive actions. The narrative suggests that Western military presence automatically indicates aggressive intent, inverting the defensive nature of NATO operations into offensive preparations.
These narrative strategies serve broader strategic goals of undermining trust in democratic institutions, creating division within Baltic societies, and legitimizing Russian actions through preemptive justification. By portraying the West as manipulative and corrupt, these channels attempt to make Russian authoritarianism appear comparatively honest and authentic.
