Originally published in Latvian on www.delfi.lv
Mārcis Balodis, researcher at the Centre for East European Policy Studies
A thematic report titled “On the Situation with the Glorification of Nazism, the Spread of Neo-Nazism, and Other Practices that Contribute to the Escalation of Modern Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance” was released by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in August of this year (hereinafter referred to as the report).[1] Despite the fact that the title clearly states the nature of the report, it is notable for its coverage of 41 countries.
Given Russia’s current international isolation and strained relations with Western countries, the report includes countries that dare to implement anti-Russian policies. For example, the report covers the majority of European countries, as well as the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia. Serbia, on the other hand, has not received much attention, being a long-time ally of Russia’s foreign policy. Essentially, the report can be viewed as a tool of influence developed by Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is used to slander countries that are not beneficial to Russia under the guise of concern for human rights.
Already in the foreword of the report, it is stated that during 2022, the situation in the range of topics covered in the report has deteriorated dramatically, implying that in many countries, campaigns to rewrite history have intensified and historical concepts have been altered. As an example, the report’s authors cite equating Nazi Germany’s regime with the totalitarian USSR or efforts to place some of the blame for the outbreak of World War II on the shoulders of the USSR.[2]
It is not surprising that the Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine are grouped with the “worst” countries in terms of behaviour, which are accused of discriminating against minorities (read – Russians). Russian Foreign Ministry claims that Western nations have even decided to work together to conceal the “Nazi essence” of the Kyiv regime from the eyes of the international community in an effort to cover up the crimes committed by various extremist movements in Donbass.[3]
Russia’s list of concerns
The authors of the report claim that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has given a new impetus to the “persecution” of Russian-speaking activists and residents in Latvia. This explains the adopted amendments to the law, which forbid supporting Russia in its aggression against Ukraine and give Russia the status of a state supporting terrorism.[4]
Latvia’s efforts to limit the spread of pro-Kremlin misinformation have also been claimed to be “cleansing the information space of dissenters”.[5] However, judging by the subsequent attention, the authors of the report are deeply concerned about what they call “de-russification”, or the strengthening of the status of the Latvian language in Latvia. A gradual transition of the education system to education in Latvian is called discrimination. The same accusations are levelled against Latvia in connection with the requirement to make printed advertising materials available in Latvian.[6] According to Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the manifestation of Russophobia is even the amendment made this year to the Law on Political Parties, which prohibits parties from supporting individuals or countries who undermine or threaten the territorial indivisibility, sovereignty, and independence of democratic countries or the constitutional system.[7]
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not pass up the opportunity to address the Victory Park monument. According to the authors, the monument, which was erected in honour of those who liberated Latvia, is a direct victim of the local outbreak of Russophobia, which was exacerbated by the removal of individual monuments outside of Riga as well.[8]
To dramatise the events, the President’s support for the demolition of Russian imperialism symbols is even invoked, in order to clearly mark the allegedly prevailing trend in Latvia[9] – the desire to rewrite history, subjecting it to political conjuncture and thus discriminating part of the local society.
It is worth noting that the report includes references to the UN General Assembly resolution on limiting the glorification of Nazism, which was drafted by Russia and calls on countries to limit the “rewriting” of history and expresses concern about efforts to ban symbols associated with countries that defeated Nazism.[10] It is important to note that no EU member states supported the resolution, also including Ukraine, the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan and other countries directly discussed in the report.[11] The US mission to the UN also issued an explanation, emphasising that the resolution is unsupportable because it is a veiled attempt by Russia to influence other countries by posing as a limiter of Nazi glorification.[12] Moreover, Russia has made similar attempts before, for example in 2016, and also then the EU member states refrained.[13]
What exactly is the big Russian bear up to?
On the surface, the report itself is not revolutionary. The criticisms levelled against Latvia and other western countries are neither new nor unique. In some ways, the report encapsulates Russian foreign policy trends, bringing together allegations of ongoing discrimination against Russian speakers, rewriting history and Russophobia under one roof. However, the meaning of the message is hidden behind that.
To begin with, this is not the opportunism of a single pro-Kremlin website or television personality, but rather the vision of Russia’s nominally main foreign policy-making institution. It should be noted right away that, in terms of influencing other countries, Russia’s foreign policy is largely formed in the Kremlin, not just the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The name of the reporting institution immediately adds value and, as a result, perceived prestige.
Secondly, the report is directed at the Russian public in order to bolster the Kremlin’s official position on the West’s apparent growing threat to Russia and Russians. The report provides an explanation for why Western countries’ positions are not the result of Russian foreign policy, but rather of the growing tendencies of Nazism. Attributing the revival of Nazi tendencies directly to the developed Western countries is a way to reduce the attractiveness of the Western liberal democratic state model in Russian society, in order to promote the Russian model of public administration as the best way to prevent Nazi tendencies.
Thirdly, Russia’s appeal to the UN and other international institutions’ documents is part of Russia’s efforts to use the institutions against the countries themselves. Similarly, Russia has attempted to use documents adopted by the Council of Europe that were pushed by Russia itself. This approach is used to give Russia’s point of view more legitimacy. The status of the documents, that is, whether they are recommendatory or binding, is of secondary importance in this approach. If Russia does not distinguish between the different statuses of international institutions’ documents when criticising other countries, then an opposite approach applies to documents pertaining to Russia and its obligations.
Finally, the report is part of a larger trend in Russian foreign policy to label any actions by other countries that are unfavourable to Russia as Russophobia or even Nazism. Both phenomena have become prominent in the remarks of Russian officials and media figures, including those about events in Latvia, such as language and education issues.
The transition of the Latvian education system to education in Latvian, as well as other issues concerning the language or political parties, falls within Latvia’s sovereign space. It is clear to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Latvia is taking steps toward social integration that will reduce Russia’s influence in the long run. It would be hasty and unreasonable to assert that education in the Latvian language will magically resolve social integration issues, but it is a crucial step to reduce the division of society. This, in turn, helps to mitigate the long-term problem of bilingual information spaces, which Russia actively sought to exploit against us.
Finally, the Red Army’s critical role and sacrifices in the defeat of Nazi Germany should not be overlooked. However, this, along with the crimes committed by the USSR in occupied territories during and after the war, does not grant Russia the right to reinterpret Nazi ideology and apply it to the realisation of Russia’s own political interests. This is crucial now more than ever as authoritarianism, the targeting of dissenters, restrictions on free speech, and open calls for the extermination of people of other nationalities are on the rise in Russia itself – processes that correspond to Nazi ideology.
This publication has been financed by the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF) that is managed by the “Calouste Gulbekian Foundation”: The sole responsibility for the content lies with the author(s) and the content may not necessarily reflect the positions of EMIF or the foundation.
[1] Министерство иностранных дел Российской Федерации, “О ситуации с героизацией нацизма, распространении неонацизма и других видов практики, которые способствуют эскалации современных форм расизма, расовой дискриминации, ксенофобии и связанной с ними нетерпимости”, skat. 06.09.2022., 9. lpp., pieejams: https://mid.ru/upload/medialibrary/ea9/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%20-%20%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B0%20-%202022.pdf#page=231&zoom=100,109,95
[2]Turpat, 9.-10. lpp.
[3]Turpat, 12.-13. lpp.
[4] Turpat, 246. lpp.
[5] Turpat, 247.-248. lpp.
[6] Turpat, 251. lpp.
[7] “Likumi.lv”, Politisko partiju likums, 7. panta 5. daļa, pieejams: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/139367-politisko-partiju-likums
[8] Министерство иностранных дел Российской Федерации, “О ситуации с героизацией нацизма, распространении неонацизма и других видов практики, которые способствуют эскалации современных форм расизма, расовой дискриминации, ксенофобии и связанной с ними нетерпимости”, skat. 06.09.2022., 238-239.lpp., pieejams: https://mid.ru/upload/medialibrary/ea9/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%20-%20%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B0%20-%202022.pdf#page=231&zoom=100,109,95,
[9] Turpat, 236.-237. lpp.
[10] United Nations General Assembly, 76th Session, “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”, pieejams: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954148
[11] Министерство иностранных дел Российской Федерации, “О ситуации с героизацией нацизма, распространении неонацизма и других видов практики, которые способствуют эскалации современных форм расизма, расовой дискриминации, ксенофобии и связанной с ними нетерпимости”, kat. 06.09.2022., 793.-794. lpp., pieejams: https://mid.ru/upload/medialibrary/ea9/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%20-%20%D0%B3%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC%D0%B0%20-%202022.pdf#page=231&zoom=100,109,95,
[12] United States Mission to the United Nations, “Explanation of Vote at the Third Committee Adoption of the Combating Glorification of Nazism”, see 09.06.2022, https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-at-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-combating-glorification-of-nazism/
[13] “Tvnet”, “Latvija un ES neparaksta rezolūciju pret nacisma glorifikāciju vienpusējas vēstures interpretācijas dēļ”, see 06.09.2022, https://www.tvnet.lv/4616147/latvija-un-es-neparaksta-rezoluciju-pret-nacisma-glorifikaciju-vienpusejas-vestures-interpretacijas-del