On August 31, 2026, Kremlin organizers in Kazan held an event dedicated to the work of Latvian cultural icon Raimonds Pauls as part of the 'New Wave' music festival, despite Latvia's official designation as an 'unfriendly state' by Russia. This event is analyzed as a deliberate soft power and propaganda tool used by Russia to appropriate a Latvian cultural symbol and promote the narrative that Latvia's true cultural homeland is Moscow, not Riga. The event aims to create a shared cultural identity among Russian speakers in Russia, Latvia, and the post-Soviet space, thereby undermining Latvian national identity and loyalty to the Latvian state. The Kremlin uses this cultural gesture to depict Latvia as excessively Russophobic and politically intolerant, while positioning itself as a defender of 'pure art.' The choice of artists and festival emphasis are politically calculated. The sustained honoring of Latvia's key cultural figure in a country officially seen as a threat risks normalizing Russia culturally in parts of Latvian society and fostering an alternative identity aligned with the 'Greater Russian world.' This aspect challenges Latvia's official historical narrative emphasizing occupation and resistance and may affect the historical consciousness of younger generations. The event's messaging serves to weaken threat perceptions of Russia and discredit Riga's political stance, thus constituting a rational propaganda and soft power instrument targeted at the Latvian population rather than Kazan audiences.

On August 31, 2026, Kremlin organizers in Kazan held an event dedicated to the work of Latvian cultural icon Raimonds Pauls as part of the 'New Wave' music festival, despite Latvia's official designation as an 'unfriendly state' by Russia. This event is analyzed as a deliberate soft power and propaganda tool used by Russia to appropriate a Latvian cultural symbol and promote the narrative that Latvia's true cultural homeland is Moscow, not Riga. The event aims to create a shared cultural identity among Russian speakers in Russia, Latvia, and the post-Soviet space, thereby undermining Latvian national identity and loyalty to the Latvian state. The Kremlin uses this cultural gesture to depict Latvia as excessively Russophobic and politically intolerant, while positioning itself as a defender of 'pure art.' The choice of artists and festival emphasis are politically calculated. The sustained honoring of Latvia's key cultural figure in a country officially seen as a threat risks normalizing Russia culturally in parts of Latvian society and fostering an alternative identity aligned with the 'Greater Russian world.' This aspect challenges Latvia's official historical narrative emphasizing occupation and resistance and may affect the historical consciousness of younger generations. The event's messaging serves to weaken threat perceptions of Russia and discredit Riga's political stance, thus constituting a rational propaganda and soft power instrument targeted at the Latvian population rather than Kazan audiences.