“Traitors” against “traitors”: how former allies of “Harmony” are fighting for the votes of Russian speakers, promising less aid to Ukraine and more protection for the Russian language

Previously, they worked together — in one form or another. After the collapse of “Harmony”, four political forces are competing for the votes of Russian-speaking voters in these elections: both the weakened old party and former allies who are continuing their political careers elsewhere.

The pre-election videos make this battle look colorful.

“Saskaņas centrs” boasts about Nils Ušakovs’ time at the helm of Riga, while at the same time distancing itself from the party’s once most popular politician. “Stabilitātei!” promises the return of its leader Aleksejs Rosļikovs, who fled to Belarus, the day after the election, and accuses Ainārs Šlesers (LPV) of defending Russians only in words. Jūlija Stepaņenko’s “Suverēnā vara” and “Jaunlatvieši” alliance showcases meetings with residents and the cleanup of storm damage. LPV politicians complain about the humiliation of pensioners and restrictions on Russian culture.

But behind the mutual accusations, similar messages keep recurring: the state has neglected its own people, money needed at home is going to Ukraine, sanctions are harming Latvia, while there is less and less room for the Russian language. The rhetoric differs only in the loudness of the promises and in who presents themselves as the most reliable defender.

Four years ago, “Russian” parties promised voters education in their native language and broader rights for non-citizens. In 2022, “Saskaņa”, the Latvian Russian Union and “Suverēnā vara” failed to enter the Saeima, while “Stabilitātei!” failed to achieve the promised changes despite winning 11 seats. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, none of these things has been conceivable in Latvian politics.

Previously the largest Russian party, “Saskaņa” failed to enter the Saeima after falling apart following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The party lost its most popular leader, Nils Ušakovs (elected to the European Parliament), some politicians left it, and voters who did not support its now clear position against Russia’s war turned away. In opinion polls, it is currently below the 5% threshold required to enter parliament.

In this campaign, having reverted to its former name “Saskaņas centrs”, the party is trying to win back voters with a one-hour film called “Traitors” in Russian, in which it showcases on social media memories of projects in Riga under Ušakovs and initiatives at the national level. However, pride is mixed with accusations against former allies. Party representatives cite Rosļikovs’ “lust for power and betrayal” as reasons for the beginning of the political force’s collapse and the loss of power in Riga. Stepaņenko and Ušakovs are also counted among the traitors.

Candidate Igors Ņikitins criticizes Ušakovs’ decision in the European Parliament to support strikes deep inside Russian territory. Ņikitins claims that Ušakovs has repeatedly acted wrongly, including by supporting LGBT people. Aivars Smans, leader of the Latgale list, predicts a short life for Stepaņenko’s party because the politician herself is turning against those who have worked with and helped her. “This party looks like a sect. There is one god, the purple fairy. And God forbid anyone says anything bad,” Smans says.

Former party leader Ušakovs does not promote his “political home” even once in his social media posts.

The party only recently began campaigning more actively. In Latvian and Russian, it talks about a more united Latvia. One of its leaders, Jānis Urbanovičs, who is its best-known politician, calls for accepting that Russians live in Latvia, although loud accusations of discrimination are not at the forefront. The SC program includes education in minority languages, Latvian-language courses for obtaining citizenship, and the gradual abolition of non-citizen status. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is condemned.

Meanwhile, attitudes toward aid to Ukraine are cooler on social media. After the storm that hit Latvia in August, candidates expressed outrage over generators being sent to Ukraine. Smans called the storm “a little blow of wind from Sweden” and questioned Latvia’s readiness for other threats as well. He mocks Latvia as a rich country that helps Ukraine without asking for anything in return and objects to allocating money for weapons and drones.

In the film “Traitors”, party representatives claim that Latvia lost its independence by joining the EU. They are not bothered by the fact that Ušakovs, whose achievements they use in their election campaign, continues his career in Europe.

Under Rosļikovs’ leadership, the party previously collected the votes of Russian-speaking voters and was the only party from this political flank to enter the Saeima. Over four years, it lost six of its 11 MPs. The faction collapsed, while its leader fled to Belarus to avoid facing trial in Latvia on charges of inciting hatred. It is currently below the 5% threshold in opinion polls.

“Who does Crimea belong to?” — a publication accompanying acting leader Svetlana Čulkova’s video begins with this question. In Latvian politics, this question serves as a dividing line for determining whether someone is pro-Russian. In Čulkova’s case, instead of an answer comes a reproach aimed at the “patriots”: there is a fire in their own home, yet Ukraine is more important to them. “We are for Latvia, not for Ukraine,” the post says. Čulkova is “Stabilitātei!”’s candidate for prime minister, who tirelessly reminds voters that Aleksejs will return and will be a candidate for president!

After MP Nataļja Marčenko-Jodko took part in LTV debates, the party and she herself posted a fragment on social media in which Leila Rasima, leader of the “Progresīvie” Latgale list, explained why Ukraine needs to be supported. The fragment was used to shame the “Progresīvie”, which, according to the politician, wants to help residents of other countries first and only then its own people.

Rosļikovs promises not to give “a single kopeck” to other countries anymore. He links Latvia’s aid to economic schemes and conflicts that “absolutely do not concern us”. Meanwhile, sanctions can supposedly be lifted because they are making Latvia poorer and turning it against its “dear and beloved neighbors”.

Rosļikovs’ TikTok about the closure of the border crossing with Belarus (Interior Minister Jānis Dombrava (NA) wanted it, but the government did not allow it, although it was closed for several days) is accompanied by a demand to dismiss the minister: “The border must not be closed!” Rosļikovs used this situation to threaten Latvia — and later portray himself as a savior who, by activating his contacts, managed to reopen the border crossing where mothers with small children were waiting. Meanwhile, the closure of the “Mere” chain of stores owned by people subject to EU sanctions is presented as sanctions against the Latvian people. Russia’s war and its connection to the sanctions remain outside the frame in these explanations.

The party’s program calls for restoring cooperation with Russia and Belarus, reviewing sanctions and maintaining the country’s neutrality. It also calls for broader opportunities to use the Russian language, easier acquisition of citizenship and education in one’s native language.

The campaign centers on the promise of Rosļikovs’ return. He compares himself with opposition leaders in Russia and Belarus — the murdered Aleksey Navalny and imprisoned Syarhey Tsikhanouski: why are they honored while he is condemned?

The political force measures the credibility of its competitors by their attitude toward the Russian language. Marčenko-Jodko warns that with Russian-speaking votes, a “Russophobic” coalition with NA could be formed. Meanwhile, former party TikTok star Gloria Grevcova’s satellite Jurijs Klepakovs, dressed in “Emporio Armani” sportswear and a T-shirt featuring a golden Kalashnikov, criticizes restrictions on importing Russian books and Šlesers, who, during the Saeima vote on the issue, “as always ran to the toilet”. In the view of Rosļikovs’ party member, Šlesers supports cooperation with Russia only in words, as his votes show the opposite.

The alliance of Stepaņenko’s “Suverēnā vara” (SV) and “Jaunlatvieši” is not in the Saeima. In the previous election, SV received 3.24% of the vote, while currently it ranks among the top three in opinion polls (11.8% in July). Of the “Russian” parties, it has the best chances of entering parliament, apparently consolidating voters who were confused and scattered among different lists in the previous election.

Stepaņenko’s former allies nicknamed her the “Purple Fairy” (apparently reflecting the party’s colors). Both she and her companion — seasoned disinformation spreader, Riga City Council member and defendant in a case over the alleged looting of the state, Rūdolfs Brēmanis — are actively working on social media. There, the alliance’s Riga City Council politicians listen to residents’ complaints and show how they work themselves.

But behind the courtyard cleanup efforts lies a proposal to change language and security policy. The program promises education in minority languages at private schools, the option to study Russian at schools and easier naturalization. Candidate Andrejs Pagors (formerly of the Latvian Russian Union) is pictured at a rally for education in Russian holding a poster with a quote from the 1919 education regulations on teaching in the language of students’ families.

The alliance promises not to participate in military conflicts, “including their financing”, to end a “subservient foreign policy”, redirect the defense budget toward internal security and infrastructure, and abolish compulsory military service. The program does not directly promise to stop all aid to Ukraine, and Stepaņenko has said in debates that refugees will be helped.

The promised changes will require not only mandates but also partners. SV/J is currently surrounded by the thickest red lines. Even former ally LPV’s Šlesers would not cooperate with it, even if the fate of the prime minister’s post depended on it (their paths diverged when Stepaņenko was unable to condemn Russia’s war in Ukraine).

The party’s campaign addresses both Latvian conservative and Russian-speaking voters. Its program covers family, the economy, security, NATO and the United States. It contains nothing like the extensive promises on language and non-citizens’ rights made by “Stabilitātei!”, SC and SV/J. Its competitors on the Russian flank are actively attacking it, but besides Šlesers himself, the most active figure in the fight for Russian votes is Daugavpils politician Olga Petkeviča, who previously ran for the European Parliament from “Saskaņa”.

In many videos, she shows Russian citizen pensioners and their difficulties in maintaining residence rights. In her eyes, they are elderly people who have spent their entire lives in Latvia and are being treated cruelly by the state. “They are once again fighting against the Russian language,” Petkeviča writes in her posts. In another post, Petkeviča highlights the Soviet past of Culture Minister, popular music and opera singer Naurs Puntulis — his singing in an army ensemble.

False reports about the alleged banning of Raimonds Pauls’ songs allow the campaign to turn the issue of sanctions into outrage over an attack on beloved culture. MP Edmunds Zivtiņš posts Intars Busulis performing “Я тебя рисую” with the caption “They asked [him] to remove it… :@”. Commenters express anger and promise to continue listening to songs in Russian. The post does not prove that there was a ban, but that is precisely what is being discussed in the comments.

Meanwhile, Viktorija Pleškāne (elected to the current Saeima from Stabilitātei!) laments Soviet industry, mentioning the “Ditton” factory and the “Spārīte” bicycle: “Back then there was enough money for everything.” Now, however, there are defense expenditures, a fence and cameras that supposedly cannot even contain the flow of migrants.

While defenders of Russian speakers are looking for traitors among their own ranks, Latvian parties have systematically narrowed the place of the Russian language in Latvia over the past four years. Russia’s war in Ukraine has provided a security justification for this policy and helped push through decisions that were previously controversial. Schools have accelerated the transition to teaching exclusively in Latvian, while unjustified requirements for knowledge of foreign languages in the workplace have been restricted. Jaunā Vienotība, NA, United List, ZZS and “Progresīvie” do not agree on everything, but they share the same view on this direction. What differs is the tone. “Progresīvie” talks about integration, JV about the state language and security, NA demands new restrictions, while “Austošā saule Latvijai”, formed by those who split from it, presents them as eliminating the consequences of Russification.

Russia uses the defence of its compatriots to justify its aggressive foreign policy. But this does not answer every question about the necessity and consequences of restrictions. Concerns about a child’s education do not in themselves indicate support for the Kremlin. Those who claim to be defenders of Russian speakers can portray every restriction as proof: we told you that you are not wanted here. For Latvian parties, their statements about Ukraine and friendship with Russia once again provide an opportunity to point to a security threat.

Both sides have something to campaign on. For voters who support Ukraine but also want to talk about the everyday problems of Russian speakers, there is little room left in this dispute.