Category: Uncategorised

by Eduardo Astudillo, University of Tartu

While discovering Riga, thanks to the opportunity given by the BAMSE intensive course on Resilience in Nordic-Baltic democracies, I, as a visitor, was able to see that some changes were happening.

One that caught my attention was the removal of instructions in the Russian language around the city. The two examples that made me realize this were the removal of Russian letters from the wall of the central station in Riga, and the removal of Russian language from the public transportation App.

All these changes are coming as a reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Even though Latvia has always had in their medium-term plans “to ensure, maintain, and develop the Latvian language as the official state language and the common language in the society” (Letter of Latvian Government to the UN, 23/12/22).

Efforts like this one and others related to the de-Russification process, such as the dismantling of Soviet-era war monuments, the removal of some Russian diplomats, and the announcement of exclusively Latvian-speaking primary education by 2025, are being implemented firmly and immediately.

During our visit and academic schedule, as a guest group, we were also lucky enough to participate in an ‘NGO cafe’ experience to get to know the work and their vision for a better Latvia. Social workers, academics, youth organizations, and civil society engagement advocators, among others, were participating in this instance. These organizations all work with groups or individuals who need support in getting the same opportunities as everyone else and, with this, towards the nation’s interest of building a stronger Latvia. All the NGOs still had professionals ready to deal with the Russian-speaking population, and they were also convinced that this would continue. Two specific projects where this slow transition towards adopting the full Latvian language was happening were: (1) social workers aiming to integrate kids in contexts of social vulnerability and (2) efforts to create Russian-speaking media channels so that the Russian speaking population can have access to claims away from the Kremlin’s control.

The previously mentioned government-promoted initiatives, of either eliminating or maintaining foreign language considerations depending on the context, could find situations where contradictory viewpoints collide.

Latvia should continue rebuilding their national identity after all the damage done during the occupation period. At the same time, considering the current Russian invasive offensive, they should also require their local Russian-speaking residents to prove some of their patriotic credentials.

But Latvia should be careful at the level of reform and legislation implementation. Language policy fulfillment should be carried out considering all aspects of language learning and integration.

The support of mediators on some of the levels where these transformations take place could help make these transformations more sustainable in time.

The risk that the formation of closed-off parallel communities occurs, even if it means a very small percentage of Russian-speaking Latvians, is not worth it in cases where policy planning and legislative transitions can deal with more flexible deadlines.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the cultural approaches to resilience part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

by Jace Jordan, University of Helsinki

A crucial element of resiliency, be it on a state, community, or individual level, is a rooted sense of cultural identity. A cohesive identity provides a state and its citizens an element of ontological security and stability in responding to and evolving through crises. However, creating and maintaining this sense of identity often proves challenging, particularly when neighboring actors threaten that narrative, or even attempt to co-opt it as their own. Such is the identity conflict common between the Baltic states and the modern-day Russian state, as they both seek to rediscover their own, distinct cultural heritage in a post-Soviet world.

A defining battleground upon which these identity wars have been fought has been in the realm of fairytales. Fairytales serve as a primary basis for national identity, providing heroes, value structures, and characteristics that both the nation and the individuals can rally behind. Latvia has a particularly rich fairytale history, as its capital city Riga was a primary port in medieval trading routes and a proud member of the culturally-rich and diverse Hanseatic League.

One fairytale cherished in Latvia was that of the “Bremen Musicians.” The tale tells of a donkey, dog, cat, and rooster, who, having been abused and sentenced to death, all courageously defy this fate and set out to obtain a new life as musicians in Bremen.

To the Hanseatic states, the fairytale demonstrated how courage can lead to freedom and prosperity and foster a cultural will to defy oppressors. Yet, oppressors still came.

With the formation of the Soviet Union, the communist regime’s leaders (heavily influenced by Maxim Gorky) decided that the fairytales of the newly-occupied states were culturally too powerful to destroy, and so they sought to co-opt and “sovietify” them instead.  In the case of Latvia, this meant that the fairytale of the “Bremen Musicians” was stolen, repurposed with new values, and made into a state-sponsored animated film that became a staple of Soviet culture and identity. Thus, the struggle to regain this element of identity began.

No sooner had the Soviet Union fallen was a statue of the “Musicians” erected prominently behind Riga’s St. Peter’s Church. The statue significantly shows the animals emerging through a metal divide, representing the future found beyond the Iron Curtain. Latvia had thus regained their fairytale and with it their claim to an identity rooted in courage, prosperity, and freedom.

However, the identity conflict is not yet over.  As the Russian Federation attempts to “rehabilitate” its own national narrative, the songs and messages from the Soviet’s version of the tale have resurfaced, most recently in the form of a propagandistic music-video campaign promoting Russia’s nuclear program. Though there may never be a clear victor to this identity tug-of-war, this case makes clear the role fairytales play in fostering resilient identities. Whether it be through the “Bremen Musicians” or other forms, fairytales will continue to be a key tool in fostering resilience in the Baltic states as they navigate the geopolitical complexities of the 21st century.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the cultural approaches to resilience part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

Text and photos by Hannah Huber, University of Helsinki

Music plays a central, yet often-overlooked role in fostering resilient communities by influencing culture, language, and even political participation. A strong example of this is in the “singing revolutions” leading up to the fall of the Soviet Union that swept across Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the late 1980s.

In each of these cases, each nation’s musical heritage was a unifying element in building resilient societies that were determined to endure the difficulties of the time and push forward into a brighter future.

However, in an ever-globalizing world filled with international conflicts that threaten to eradicate cultural singularities and undermine the resiliency of smaller states, there is a pressing need to better understand the role musical traditions play and utilize them as a tool in safeguarding culturally vibrant and socially resilient communities.

During a recent excursion to Latvia, I witnessed two active examples of how music can be preserved, protected, and utilized to create a resilient society, be it on a state, community, or individual level. The first example is Latvia’s careful preservation efforts of musical heritage. The National Library of Latvia displays a “Cabinet of Folk Songs,” which holds a meticulously-gathered collection of 268,815 scripts of songs culturally significant to the Latvian people. This collection represents the long-term resiliency of culture that has persevered, despite decades of occupations, conflicts, and calamities. However, without the concentrated efforts of Latvian researchers and anthropologists, this vast treasure of Latvian culture and identity may have been lost in a forgotten past. The active preservation and research of these records allow the Latvian people to reconnect with this historical tradition providing Latvia with an important national narrative and identity that can continue to endure for decades to come.

My second example demonstrates Latvians’ active participation in this musical heritage, as well as their further expansion upon it. On a quiet Sunday night in Riga, I attended a concert in the stained glass encased main hall of the beautifully preserved “Maza Gilde” where the choir “Sigunigunikam” performed both a collection of culturally significant folk songs, as well as new patriotic pieces recently composed by Latvian musicians. The choir, accompanied by two solo guitarists and directed by the conductor and cultural researcher Andrejs Mūrnieks, presented a moving performance centered on a celebration of cultural heritage.

Although I did not understand the words of what was sung or spoken, it was clear through the tears in the eyes of both the singers and the audience members who joined in singing several songs, that music was not only a significant part of Latvia’s past, but also the nation’s present and future.

This experience exemplifies how a culture and society actively grows, evolves, and builds upon its traditions, strengthening its potential for a culturally resilient future.

These two cases demonstrate how music can reinforce the resiliency of a people and nation. As conflicts and international actors continue to threaten the longevity of cultures and histories around the world, it is crucial we all take a page from Latvia’s songbook and actively seek ways to preserve and participate in the continuation of our unique cultural heritage.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the cultural approaches to resilience part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

by Anelė Dromantaitė, Vilnius University

All post-Soviet countries during the period of the Soviet occupation received many monuments glorifying Soviet ideology, war, and oppression. Moreover, in the last year, the war that Russia started in Ukraine was a huge motivator for almost all post-Soviet countries to get rid of the remainder of these monuments. However, the way and decision to get rid of them are not that easy to come by unanimously.

What to do with Soviet monuments that are still standing after decades of restored independence? This is a complex issue that depends on a range of factors. At this moment, the monuments that usually represent a Soviet ideology, Soviet soldiers, or glorify the victory of the communist regime are not just ghosts of Soviet times; they are Soviet ghosts that have spent 30+ years between independent Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Ukrainians, and others. Because of that, we cannot ignore that those monuments became a part of the understanding of the independent self for some people. Additionally, we cannot ignore people from Russian minorities in post-Soviet countries that link the memory of their relatives who have passed away to these monuments. That is why the decision “what to do with Soviet monuments?” includes the historical, cultural, political, and social context of the region and the real motive of destruction.

Probably the more significant portion of citizens argues that Soviet monuments should be destroyed as they represented oppression; a dark period in the country’s history when many people were killed, tortured, and silenced. They do not question if the monuments should be removed. The questions are why they are still here after decades of independence. In their eyes, they legitimize and glorify tyranny and Soviet Russia, whose descendants are committing atrocities in Ukraine today. Also, a big part of the argument that the removal of Soviet monuments as fast as possible sends a powerful message – that we reject the values of Soviet Russia, which today, in the eyes of many, is still represented by the actions of Russia. However, there is still a part of society, especially among Russian minorities, that does not think we should take down these monuments, especially when they represent the soldiers who died in the war.

Overall, the question “what to do with Soviet monuments?” does not only speak about the monuments; the question for people deciding to demolish or not to demolish them is “what message do you want to send to the world?”

It is a message that the country, a city, or a community still holds onto the memory of the Soviet regime or wants to strongly declare that as an oppression that should never be repeated. Of course, either decision comes at a price and does not come easily, but today we live in a world where no decision, especially one that sends a message this powerful, is easy. So we need to understand that we need to look forward now, not to the ease of the decision, but to the role that the message that we are sending will play in the future.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the relevance of history politics part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

by Ēriks Ralfs Vanags, University of Latvia

On the fifth day of the project, we had a lecture and presentation by Deividas Šlekys from the Institute of International Relations and Political Science. He explained in great detail to us the importance of oral history in preserving the memory of the Second World War and the Soviet era, explicating the struggles and challenges historians face when trying to record this information.

I found it very compelling right from the start as it is a subject very dear to me. My father is an enthusiastic historian and I am naturally drawn to life stories of elderly people. My grandmother is 87 years old and has a mighty fine memory still. My mother’s parents who were born right after the war are very similar. I also worked at a fish market for a couple of years, so you could say I already had some experience in the field.

I must thank Šlekys for his work because he put forth very concise arguments as to why oral history should be recorded. He explained how there is a lack of primary sources and how a lot of documents as well as archives in the Baltics and Poland have been destroyed. Because of the previously mentioned factors, history is becoming weaponized, for example, how politicians engage in historicism. However, most people, at least it seems to me, do not understand this.

That is, so much of history has been physically destroyed, erased from the records, or burnt to the ground because that is what people have been doing since civilization started.

Everyone has done it; even our government at this very moment is knocking down monuments, and in many cases failing to paint the full picture. The Russians in Ukraine are doing similar things. Burning history to rewrite it to gain legitimacy. It’s an awful reality, yet that is the world we live in and since we cannot fully rely on our politicians and institutions to paint us the full picture, we must find another way. What better place to do so than by asking the people who experienced history firsthand.

From my personal experience, I can tell you that there is so much that has been intentionally left out of our history books which I’ve only found out from hearing it told to me. For example, my grandma told me that there were Latvians in her hometown, and elsewhere, that went around and hunted down family members of other Latvians who had joined the Soviet army. I imagine it had been written down somewhere, but I cannot recall this being taught in school.

Šlekys also spoke on the challenges that historians face when recording oral history and how to approach the recording of it, explaining concepts like soviet-two person mentality, the importance of reputation and social standing, how trust is extremely important, and how trauma and stigmatization might raise problems in the recalling of history. It was very informative and an entertaining lecture as well thanks to the professor’s deep knowledge of the subject and enthusiastic attitude.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the relevance of history politics part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

by Amanda Čuhnova, University of Latvia

The debate about destroying Soviet monuments in the Baltic countries has been ongoing for decades, long before the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. After the war started, everybody in the country had an opinion about the removal of monuments that in any way symbolized or praised the oppressive Soviet regime. Does the demolishing of said monuments further polarize the already ethnically polarized Baltic societies? Or does it finally show a strong stance that the Baltic countries are not and will never again be under Russian rule?

During the Soviet occupation, a monument for a person who supported the regime was a normal occurrence. In the 50 years in which the Baltic countries lived under Soviet rule, many monuments praising and symbolizing the regime were made and exhibited. A discussion about demolishing them has been ongoing ever since the Baltic countries regained independence, however, for different reasons, no drastic or major steps were ever taken. One of the reasons, in the case of Latvia, was that the demolition of the monument could contradict the agreement between the governments of the Republic of Latvia and the Russian Federation, which was concluded in April 1994. The agreement states that both countries should ensure the cleaning, preservation, and accessibility of memorial buildings and burial sites of soldiers. Another reason for not demolishing some Soviet-era monuments was the fact that it could polarize already ethnically polarized Baltic societies. However, both of these arguments did not stand a chance when Russia crossed every line and fully invaded Ukraine on the 24th of February, 2022.

The two most popular cases of Soviet-era monuments that were removed included the “Monument of Victory” in Riga, as it was called by the Russian population in Latvia, and a Soviet-era memorial in Narva, Estonia, a city which has a large Russian-speaking population. Both of these cases show a strong stance from both Latvia and Estonia about their views of the past. This also reflects their views of the future, signaling to Russia that its influence in the Baltics is and has been over for decades.

The removal of Soviet-era monuments and symbols raises an important question: how far are the Baltics ready to go?

Soviet-era architecture is prominent in all three of the Baltic countries. These buildings symbolize the years of occupation, repression, and trauma. Should they also be removed, or at least made to look different? How far are the so-called post-Soviet countries willing to go to clean their past of the memories and signs of occupation? Seeing that the Baltic countries are not hesitant to take drastic steps when it comes to Russia, it would be no surprise that these countries will continue to cleanse themselves of the Soviet occupation.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the relevance of history politics part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

Text and photos by Johannes Nikitin, University of Helsinki and University of Eastern Finland

In Finland, Finnish-Estonian writer and activist Sofi Oksanen is, in my opinion, one of the best-known advocates for talking about Stalin’s terror, Kremlin, KGB, FSB, Russian human rights and Vladimir Putin’s government. Before February 2022 Sofi Oksanen’s speeches and books about Stalin’s terror “Stalinin lehmät” was very eye-opening in Finland and told a lot about the government in Moscow and how Moscow treated its neighbors as well as different nationalities within the Soviet Union (Finno-Ugric people, Tatars, etc.). Sofi Oksanen is a person who is not afraid to talk openly about problems between Finland and Russia. As a primer, after the Finnish Winter War and Continuation War, the period of so-called Finlandization began. Finlandization is a kind of state-level self-censorship under which it was not okay to criticize Moscow and the Kremlin’s decisions. This was partly due to the fear that Finland could get into another war with Moscow or the Soviet Union. It seems that fear did not go away in 1991 when the Soviet Union officially collapsed. Today we have discussions in Finland regarding whether Finlandization is still happening even if we finally joined NATO. Even if Finland had the Winter War and Continuation War with Moscow, most of the population was against joining NATO until the war in Ukraine escalated horribly in 2022. A sad reality finally hit Finns in the face.

The “Resilience of Baltic and Eastern European democracies” course in Riga handled many different kinds of these “red flags” when talking about the Finlandization phenomena. Our second lecture was titled “How to Stay Afloat Through Difficult Times” by Inese Voika. We talked about regaining independence in 1991 and what happened during the revolution. I have seen too many times in Finland that the most popular media outlets, such as YLE or Helsingin Sanomat, use the term “independence” instead of “re-independence.” It is alarming when Finland does not mention in practice that the Baltic countries were illegally occupied by Moscow.

Saying that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were part of the Soviet Union, without mentioning these facts, is not an action that a state that calls itself honest – like Finland –should ever do.

Even though Finland joined the European Union before the Baltic states, we can see that all Baltic states have been already part of NATO before Finland. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania tried to warn Finland beforehand that the Russian Federation was not to be trusted. In Finland, the response was that “it is just Baltic hysteria.” Later, Finland itself joined NATO with panic when seeing how the War in Ukraine escalated in 2022. Different conflicts initiated by Moscow, like Chechnya in 1999, the 2008 Georgian War, and the illegal annexation and occupation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014, did not trigger Finland enough to join NATO earlier.

Inese Voika mentioned that European values are human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law, and human rights. I also think that listening to other countries which have the same problematic neighbor should be included in this list. That is why I also considered it important that we also visited the Museum of Occupation as well as the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence in Riga. International university courses like this would help Finns to understand more about the problems related to the Russian Federation and Finlandization. In my own free time, I also saw Stalin’s Terror Memorial next to Tornakalns train station. The open-air museum’s wagon used to take Latvians to Siberian gulags. This reminded me of Sofi Oksanen’s stories about how Moscow has treated Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the relevance of history politics part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

by Maria Filippenkova, University of Helsinki 

During the spring Finnish elections, the streets were filled with eager candidates trying to catch pedestrians’ attention, give them fliers, and earn a much-needed vote. This sight looked like a clear display of open democracy that is resilient enough to withstand differing political opinions, where the political representatives are able to perform their campaigns in close proximity to each other. Many people enjoy election time, filling out questionnaires and looking for a perfect candidate. Some, on the other hand, might not care and look to their family and friends to help them make a decision. As for people who were born in the Soviet times, institutional distrust seems to play a big role in the way they view elections. Perhaps there could be a need for more research about children and grandchildren of immigrants as a democratic resource in the political field. 

Adapting to new social security systems in new home countries is always difficult, especially if the systems are fragmented or differ from what immigrants are used to.

Families that emigrate to Finland from a Soviet or Russian background might often have preconceived notions or distrust of their new home country’s institutions simply based on how the institutions in their previous country failed them.

These institutions can include everything from healthcare and childcare institutions to democratic and political institutions. Institutional distrust refers to the lack of confidence or faith that people have in established organizations, such as governments, corporations, media outlets, and other societal institutions. Institutional distrust can arise due to a variety of factors, such as past failures or scandals, a perceived lack of transparency or accountability, or a general sense that these institutions are not serving the public’s best interests. Institutional distrust can be harmful to democracy and society as a whole, as it can lead to a breakdown in communication and cooperation between institutions and the public, erode trust in the democratic process, and undermine the legitimacy of government and other institutions. 

Democratic distrust, on the other hand, is a more specific form of institutional distrust that focuses on people’s lack of trust in the democratic system itself. Democratic distrust can arise when people perceive that their voices are not being heard, that their votes do not matter, or that the political process is rigged in favor of certain groups or interests. Like institutional distrust, democratic distrust can be harmful to democracy and can lead to a lack of civic engagement, political apathy, and a breakdown in trust between citizens and their government.

By recommending who to vote for in the elections, the younger generations look after their own and their community’s rights, and thus may be a part of rebuilding institutional trust for the older generation as well.

Young people with second or third-generation immigrant backgrounds are rebuilding democratic trust and resilience by truly being éminences grises for older generations that have suffered from the intergenerational trauma of the Soviet Union. 

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the social consequences part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

by Maksim Makhankou, Vilnius University

Visiting the Occupation Museum in Riga, one tiny artifact might catch your eye —the passport of a citizen of the First Latvian Republic. What made this object unique is the fact that its owner, who fled his homeland due to Soviet occupation, used this passport until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Western countries did not recognize the occupation of the interwar Latvian Republic, and many refugees preserved their Latvian citizenship. This artifact signifies the tragedy and trauma of all refugees and victims of occupations and dictatorships.

It raises the questions of citizenship and documents in modern Europe against the background of the Russian-Ukrainian war and brutal dictatorship in Belarus.

Unfortunately, the instability and war generated many undocumented refugees and outcasts who lost their homes and were unprotected against different leviathans.

Russia pulled the lid off Pandora’s box in 2014, occupying Crimea. Russia forced the locals to accept Russian citizenship. Some people denied it, which resulted in the deprivation of their rights in their native Crimea. Especially the Crimean Tatars, the indigenous people of Crimea, suffered from the actions of the Russian administration. Even if people agreed to accept Russian citizenship, these Russian passports, issued on occupied Ukrainian territories, are not recognized in Western countries, which makes some people from occupied Ukrainian territories unprotected in Europe. Not everyone has an opportunity to apply for or renew their Ukrainian documents due to war hostilities.

The full-scale war broadened the seriousness of the problem. The hostilities spread to several Ukrainian regions, forcing many Ukrainians to flee and making them internally displaced persons and refugees. Many of them have some issues with their documents, depriving them of rights both in Ukraine and abroad. The troubles are related not only to passports but to other documents as well. Many Ukrainians have problems, for instance, with marriage certificates, university diplomas, vaccination cards, etc. This all makes their legalization and employment in the EU more onerous.

However, at least Ukrainians can rely on their diplomats to help them have some documents restored through Ukrainian embassies abroad. Meanwhile, Belarusian refugees, impacted by the authoritarian regime, do not even have this privilege. Belarusians who fled the country due to repressions after 2020 cannot go back to Belarus and renew or apply for crucial documents.

People deprived of rights in their motherland also become pariahs in other countries.

Unlike Ukrainians, these people cannot even receive assistance from their state because these authoritarian political regimes persecute them. Indeed, Lithuania and Poland significantly helped many Belarusian dissents, issuing humanitarian visas. Still, a lot of political prisoners from Belarus do not have these visas, fleeing the country with regular working visas. These people already have troubles with legalization in the EU due to a lack of documents. Moreover, European sanctions against Belarus primarily impact political refugees as it is now becoming more and more challenging to legalize their living status in the EU. Sanctions, which allegedly punish the dictatorial regime in Minsk, have an unintended impact on political dissenters from Belarus, who are already deprived of their rights in their homeland and cannot obtain support from the Belarusian state. These new European pariahs, unwanted both in Belarus and abroad, remind us of the worst and most cruel experiences of the 20th century.

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the social consequences part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.

by Inese Bulava, University of Latvia 

In our quest to combat depressing narratives during times of crisis, there is a temptation to paint a sunny picture of resilience and survival. But too often we forget about people who are left behind. Those who do not have our best interests at heart, such as populists and Russian proxies, are sometimes the only ones who pay attention to the marginalized and vulnerable populations.

Think about the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The consequences of these tragedies have hit Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries hard, exacerbating pre-existing vulnerabilities.  

While governments focus on resilience and resisting Russian propaganda, vulnerable groups are often left to fend for themselves, with rising prices, stagnant wages, burnout, depression, other health issues, and limited access to essential services.  

Low-wage workers, youth, single-parent families, victims of domestic abuse, and refugees, to name a few, are disproportionately affected by systemic issues and existing inequalities. They need our attention and support now more than ever.  

It is understandable that leaders celebrate successes and sometimes ignore the struggles. Populists and Kremlin proxies want people to focus solely on the negative, so highlighting successes is a way to push back against Kremlin propaganda.  

Negative narratives, such as the Kremlin’s depiction of Latvia as a failed and powerless state, can be incredibly damaging. Then again, merely spreading positivity without recognizing possible pitfalls can lead many folks to feel ignored and marginalized, potentially making them more susceptible to populist and extremist messages.  

Also, our leaders may suffer from survivorship bias and from their positions of privilege. They may be unable to see how much worse things are now for underprivileged groups.  

In 2019, amid the pandemic, the Prime Minister of Latvia, Mr. Krišjānis Kariņš, said publicly that “there is more money than ever.” 

In 2023, healthcare workers in Latvia say that the sector will face a severe crisis in the summer at latest. GP practices are closing because of staff shortages and a lack of money. Hospitals and outpatient clinics are facing unprecedented queues for examinations, which will have to be significantly reduced or stopped this year due to lack of funding. Doctors and nurses are planning to leave the sector and the country en masse. 

Survivorship bias is a dangerous force, as it can make us ignore the failures and disregard those who did not make it through. We must also recognize that there should be more than just talk.

When we do not act to address social and economic inequalities, people lose hope, become unemployed, silent, depressed, or violent. If they still have agency, they leave the country altogether.  

Resilience is not just about surviving a crisis, but also about confronting systemic issues. Would you agree that, in order to effectively combat harmful propaganda and promote a more cohesive and equitable society, it is crucial to strike a balance between countering negative narratives and addressing the real problems? 

• This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Riga intensive course students. The blog series analyses the concept of resilience from five different viewpoints: democracy in crises, regional responses, social consequences, relevance of history politics and cultural approaches. This blog belongs to the social consequences part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.