The statement by the Latvian Russian Union
On August 11 the Saeima (Parliament) of Latvia unanimously adopted a statement “On targeted Russian military attacks on civilians and the public environment of Ukraine.” 67 deputies out of 100 took part in the voting. The document was adopted in order to declare Russia a “state sponsor of terrorism.” It lists Russia’s current actions in Ukraine and refers to the events in Syria, the downing of the MH-17 plane, and the Skripal family case.
We are certain this Statement is meant to impose psychological pressure on both people living in our country and our eastern neighbours.
The Statement contain a call that the EU countries stop issuing tourist and entry visas for citizens of Russia and Belarus. It is the Statement authors’ idea that this ban would cause a wave of discontent among the population of these countries. In fact, such words and actions usually have the opposite effect. Instead they lead to people’s unification around the authorities.
In Latvia itself, such stigmatization of the Russian state as the label of a sponsor of terrorism by this Statement could be used as a kind of “a fig leaf” to cover up the unjustified criminal persecution of a number of activists, the most well-known of whom is Vladimir Linderman. More than twenty people have been targeted by now under Article 74.1 of the Criminal Law of Latvia introduced to punish for alleged “justification of war crimes.”
We have serious grounds to believe that the Statement is needed to also intimidate oppositional political forces of Latvia. It was not just a coincidence that it was adopted on the same day as the decision to transfer the petition demanding the closure of our party Latvian Russian Union to the Parliamentary Commission on National Security. The results of the voting themselves evidence that such intimidation could be efficient as the deputies from the Harmony party did not dare to say “no” or even abstain. Their decision not to vote made it possible for the statement to be presented as taken unanimously.
We also draw attention to the fact that the resolution which content was similar to the one adopted in Latvia was adopted in May by the Seimas (Parliament) of Lithuania. It consequently served as a trigger for the “witch hunt” for a number of protest social movements in the country. On the territory of the EU, it is only Latvia that has decided to support the initiative of Lithuania.
We regard this statement by the Latvian Saeima to be legally illiterate, politically biased and we state that it does not reflect the diversity of opinions in the Latvian society on the conflict between the West and Russia. It neither reflects the more restrained stance of the absolute majority of the EU countries. The radical rhetoric of the parliaments of Latvia and Lithuania does not contribute to the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, but instead leads to an irresponsible further escalation of the conflict on the European continent.
Riga, August 11, 2022
