Pabriks: Discontent With Riga in Latgale Does Not Mean a Wish to Secede, While the Kremlin Exploits Self-Determination Arguments

Artis Pabriks, a former Latvian foreign and defence minister and director of the think tank Northern European Policy Centre, explained in the “Aiz priekškara” (“Behind the Curtain”) segment of the podcast “Kas tas vispār bija?!” why Russian propaganda comparisons between Latvia’s independence, the Donetsk “republic” and Kosovo are misleading. He also addressed whether the distinct identity of Latvia’s eastern Latgale region could become a security issue. Pabriks sees no grounds for treating the region as a hotbed of separatism.

Latgale: identity is not separatism

Pabriks says that a sense of Latgalian identity does not in itself mean a wish to redraw Latvia’s borders. He cautions against treating every expression of discontent with the government, which some Latgale residents voice, as a political programme, noting that people in Riga are also dissatisfied. In his assessment, there is no strong local secession movement in Latgale, although such efforts could be encouraged from outside.

Calls for secession have nonetheless occurred. In August 2026, the State Security Service recommended launching criminal proceedings against a Latvian non-citizen who had, according to its investigation, supported the separation of Daugavpils on TikTok. In 2016, a BBC broadcast staged a hypothetical conflict involving separatism in Latgale.

Donbas and Latvia’s restored independence

Pabriks stresses that in Donbas, Russia created the impression of a local uprising while itself helping to cause and sustain the conflict. The European Court of Human Rights has found that separatist-controlled areas of eastern Ukraine were under Russia’s effective control from 11 May 2014. In September 2022, Moscow announced the annexation of four Ukrainian regions after votes in occupied territories, which the UN General Assembly condemned.

Latvia’s case, he says, is different: the state was founded in 1918, occupied in 1940, and in 1990 and 1991 the independence of that same state was restored on the basis of legal continuity. He sees a closer parallel to Donbas in the 1940 occupation, when elections were held in the presence of Soviet troops.

Sowing doubt and the limits of self-determination

Pabriks believes Moscow does not need to prove its case; it is enough to sow doubt. At the same time, he acknowledges that not every nation will have its own state, but in that case it should have a degree of autonomy. On Palestine, he expresses a personal view that self-determination could be realised through autonomy.