Presenting the occupation of Latvia in false colours
On 31 August RuBaltic published an article where it emphasised that preservation of the Latvian nation was only possible due to it joining the USSR. The article stated that the British and French sides did not agree to provide guarantees to neighbouring countries of the USSR as a result of indirect aggression.
The RuBaltic article did not state that the definition of “indirect aggression” was the Constitution of the USSR , allowing it to “protect” the Baltic states, even without their consent. The Baltic states were strictly against such an approach.  Additionally, the aforementioned endangerment of the USSR by Nazi Germany was impossible as it could only take place via Poland and Romania, whose independence was ensured by British and French guarantees. As a potential corridor for attack the Baltic states was too narrow to be able to seriously endanger the USSR, while Eastern Prussia, bordering Lithuania, was separated from the rest of the German territory.  The author of RuBaltic also conceals the fact that during the parallel Soviet, French and British military negotiations the USSR demanded the occupation of the most important islands and ports of the Baltic states in the event of war. 
The RuBaltic article does not contain a reference that Poland was attacked not only by Germany but also by the USSR. This aggression of the USSR against Poland significantly affected the acceptance of the USSR’s ultimatum that followed shortly thereafter and negotiations with Latvia regarding placement of the Red Army bases. During the negotiations following the USSR’s ultimatum regarding placement of the Red Army bases in Latvia, the Soviet diplomats emphasised to the representatives of Latvia that significant changes had taken place in the Europe, including that Poland had disappeared from the political map, which was a significant hint regarding a possibility of military attack - all parties were well informed regarding the role of the USSR in the complete defeat of Poland. 
The thesis defended by the RuBaltic article regarding the preservation of the Latvian nation is justified by the expressions from the memoirs of Vilhelms Munters, the former Foreign Minister of Latvia published during Soviet times. However, one should take into account that the post-war public activity of V. Munters, including the publishing of memoirs, publications, correspondence with foreign countries, etc. was inspired and managed by the Soviet secret services, and thus it provides the grounds to seriously doubt the credibility of these memoirs as the historical source.  This article also states that a victory of the Latvian Labour People’s Block List in the Saeima elections in 1940 was a natural result of the increase in popularity of the left wing. Even though the article mentions in some places that other parties were not allowed to participate in the Saeima elections, the author of the publication deliberately ignores the fact that the elections were not only illegal and non-democratic, but also the fact that the officials of foreign country -the USSR - were involved in the organisation of the elections, and the USSR citizens were participating in them, as well as the results of these elections were announced well prior to closing of the election district.
Thus the purpose of the RuBaltic article is not only to reject the fact that Latvia was included in the composition of the USSR as a result of a forceful occupation, but also to repeat the myth created during the Soviet times that the incorporation of Latvia in the USSR was legal and conformed to the will of the Latvian nation. Thus such commonly known facts regarding Soviet repressions, including the mass deportations of the population of Latvia, as well as the evident colonisation and Russification politics of the USSR are being concealed. 
In additions, the article “Inconvenient beginning of World War II” published by Vesti.lv on 14 September stated that Poland and not the USSR was at fault for the occupation of Latvia, as well as emphasised that Moscow had already agreed to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact after the actual beginning of World War II when Poland occupied the Cieszyn region of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Referring to the Belarusian political scientist J. Volcek, Vesti.lv claimed that the beginning of World War II should be dated 1938 rather than 1939.
The matter of dating the beginning of World War II is directly related to the fault for causing the war, which the USSR and also Russia for a while now has tried to place on the shoulders of politicians of Western countries and remove from the shoulders of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and attack of Germany on Poland, to which the USSR shortly became a party.
The practice of Nazi Germany to enter into non-aggression treaties with other countries emphasised in the article would reduce the significant role of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in causing World War II. Vesti.lv article concealed that the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a unique treaty compared to other non-aggression treaties. Even though neither the non-aggression treaties, nor their being supplemented with secret additional protocols was something new, and also the expression “influence areas” was already known in international relations,  the use of this expression in the secret additional protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not characteristic to any other bilaterally signed non-aggression treaty of the inter-war period. Thus such treaty caused a great lack of understanding among European diplomats.
Vesti.lv publication also does not include the page of history of World War II that is unpleasant for the Russian media and politicians - cooperation of the USSR with Nazi Germany between August 1939 and June 1941 - during the time when Nazi Germany conquered the majority of Europe. This complicated and morally inconvenient problem has been overshadowed by the notion of the Great Patriotic War created during the USSR years, which squeezes from the public space the memories and narratives regarding the USSR attack on Poland in September 1939, the ultimatums to the Baltic states, occupation of the Baltic states and the attack on Finland in 1939. 
Battle with the ghost of the Latvian legion
On 19 September, the Russian state-owned multi-media platform Sputnik published a comment of Josif Koren, the Co-Chairman of the Anti-Fascist Organisation of Latvia where he criticised the construction of a monument for the legionnaires of Latvia in Zedelhem - Belgium. Koren emphasised that it was not acceptable that “the memory of the Vaffen SS legion soldiers would be preserved in any way”. On the same day the article of Vesti.lv incorrectly indicated that the monument would be created using the budget of Latvia.
As noted by the authors of the monument, “The Monument for Freedom” must manifest the idea of freedom in its symbolic meaning. Historical events relating to the monument remind us that after World War II British soldiers created a prisoner of war camp in Zedelhem where soldiers of Latvia and other Baltic states, enlisted in German military forces by forceful mobilisation, were placed. Therefore, it is a monument for the prisoners of war and not the legionnaires of Latvia. Thus, the purpose of these misleading publications is to present the memory as glorification, by mixing an image of the Latvian legionnaires of World War II with an image of the prisoners of war, and trying to characterise the Latvian society as pro-fascist. Funding of EUR 100,000 is planned for the creation of the monument, which will be paid in similar portions by Zedelhem City and the Latvian Occupation Museum, while the funding for the museum related to the monument is planned to be obtained by means of donations.
Fight against the clarification of history of the Salaspils camp
In September, extensive attention of the Russian media was paid to the history of the expanded police prison and labour camp of Salaspils. It was due to two facts - a celebration of the anniversary of the Salaspils camp liberation, in which the representatives of the Russia and Belarus embassies took part, and the long drawn critics directed toward the discoveries of the historians of Latvia.
On 24 September, Sputnik published an article where a negative attitude was expressed towards the planned exposition of the Salaspils Memorial. It is noted that the purpose of the exposition is to equate “the terrible Soviet occupation years” to Nazi crimes. The article of the newspaper Segodnja, in turn, on 26 September strongly criticised the restoration of the Salaspils Memorial, during which a historical exposition is planned to be displayed in the empty premises of the Memorial. The new exposition is being characterised as a “painting of the Memorial from red to brown”, and as a complete distortion of the events taking place in Salaspils and turning the Soviet era Memorial into the Occupation Museum.
Historical exposition of the Salaspils Memorial is not ready, but the Pro-Kremlin media has already started its systematic criticism, thus preventing messages based on alternative and credible historical sources regarding the Salaspils Memorial, from entering the Russian-speaking informational space. The turning of this media against the new exposition may be explained by the antipathy against the fact that the historians of Latvia have managed to refute the myths created by the Soviet propaganda regarding the Salaspils Memorial, including the total number of prisoners and dead at the camp, which in reality was approximately 50 times less than the 100,000 mentioned during the Soviet time and repeated in the current Russian media.  The stories spread by the Pro-Kremlin media regarding the Salaspils camp are usually based on the memories of the prisoners and the Soviet materials, the credibility of the historical sources of which have been doubted by experts.
 Taurēns, J., Baltijas virziens Latvijas Republikas ārpolitikā 1934.-1940. Dissertation. 1999
 Andersons, E., Latvijas vēsture. Ārpolītika II. 1984, page 87
 Feldmanis, I. Baltija triju lielvalstu šaha spēlē. Latvijas avīze, 22.05.2009
 Feldmanis, I., Stranga, A., Virsis, M., Latvijas ārpolitika un starptautiskais stāvoklis (30.gadu otrā puse). 1993, page 271
 Engīzers, E. Fricis Kociņš - Latvijas sūtnis PSRS: liktenīgie gadi. Daugavpils universitātes Humanitārās fakultātes XXI starptautisko zinātnisko lasījumu materiāli. Vēsture XV. Vēsture: Avoti un cilvēki. Daugavpils Universitātes akadēmiskais apgāds “Saule”, 2012, page 80
 Ronis, I. Vilhelms Munters un PSRS čeka. Latvijas vēstnesis, 23.07.1998, No. 216 (1277) https://www.vestnesis.lv/ta/id/32295
 Treijs, R. Saeimas vēlēšanas 1940. gadā nebija demokrātiskas. Latvijas avīze, 28.07.2011
 Salīdzinājumam sk. Eglīte P., Padomju okupācijas demogrāfiskās, sociālās un morālās sekas Latvijā. LZA Vēstis, 2011, No. 3/4. Page 103 http://www.lza.lv/LZA_VestisA/65_3-4/6_Eglite_Padomju%20okupac.pdf; Смирнова Л.В. Советская национальная политика в условиях командно-административной системы. Вестник Оренбургского государственного университета. №7/ИЮЛЬ`2006. 127 c. http://vestnik.osu.ru/2006_7/17.pdf
 Hast, S., Spheres of Influence in International Relations. History, Theory and Politics. Reutledge, 2014
 Гудко, Л., "Память" о войне и массовая идентичность россиян. // «Неприкосновенный запас» 2005, №2-3(40-41) http://magazines.russ.ru/nz/2005/2/gu5-pr.html
 Kangeris, K., Neiburgs., O., Vīksna, R. Aiz šiem vārtiem vaid zeme. Salaspils nometne: 1941–1944 Rīga: Lauku Avīze, 2016
Supported by The Ministry of Culture of Latvia