By: Margo Nikolova
Most people think about images or stories when discussing propaganda, but linguistic propaganda is an equally powerful tool that has frequently been used in the Russo-Ukraine War. One aspect of Russian propaganda specifically draws upon the concept of a “Russian world” (Russky Mir), which frames Russia as a protector of Russian culture, language, and other values while extending Moscow’s authority beyond its borders. Due to the presence of large Russian-speaking minority populations, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are particularly vulnerable to such language weaponization. In response, the three Baltic states have enacted several language laws to protect their own national identity and counteract foreign influence.
While Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia each declared their own official language in 1918, the Baltics became a part of the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991. As republics in the USSR, the three states experienced industrialization projects alongside large amounts of immigration from the other Soviet states. Coupled with Stalin’s campaigns of mass deportation, Latvia and Estonia experienced large shifts in their demographic makeup, and all three states experienced Russification, which significantly altered their language usage and cultural characteristics.
The war in Ukraine has significantly impacted the Baltic states’ shift away from minority languages such as Russian, which is the second most spoken language in all three countries. Russia continues to use compatriot policies for cultural influence and as a foreign policy tool. This broad policy allows the Kremlin to interfere in the affairs of other states under the guise of minority protection against things such as Russophobia. In turn, the Baltic states’ accelerated shift away from the Russian language is often seen as a response to Russia’s soft power strategies. A critical aspect of this defense has been the banning of Russian state-controlled television and news channels, which often serves as a conduit for this narrative. By cutting off these broadcasts along with actively demoting the use of Russian, the Baltic governments showcase their active fight against the spread of disinformation and their attempts to stand apart from Russian media.
Lithuania has implemented language legislation in an attempt to protect the use of its official language in social, political, and economic spheres. While the country maintained a stronger native majority compared to its neighboring states, Lithuania continues to target language usage with policies requiring a base-level proficiency in Lithuanian for foreign workers conducting business or state-issued language proficiency exams for school teachers. These laws specifically showcase an explicit shift to support the use of Lithuanian over other languages to systematically reduce reliance on Russian within public life. At the same time, these standards faced criticism from organizations such as the EU Court of Justice, which stated that certain rules were disproportionate and unfair to foreign workers, a theme common throughout the Baltics.
Similarly, Estonia’s linguistic policies directly aim to “develop, preserve and protect” the native language as the “main language for communication in all spheres of public life.” The Language Act dictates the use of Estonian in administration, education, and even establishes the Estonian Language Council to oversee the implementation of such laws. This legislation attempts to preserve the Estonian language and works alongside other policies, such as transitions to Estonian-only schools. Similar to the other two states, Estonia has faced criticism from within Russian-speaking communities. Russian language schools brought two cases to the European Court of Human Rights after they were closed because of language reforms. These laws face growing resistance from such communities due to their direct impact on minority language education.
Latvian language laws have received the sharpest criticism for the severity and impact of the policies. In 2022, reforms mandated the transition to Latvian-only schools by the year of 2025. While Latvia, similar to Lithuania and Estonia, highlights education as a main target of its new reforms, the laws intended to support identity and preserve elements of culture have faced especially high disapproval because they led to the expulsion of many Russians who refused to integrate or were unable to meet the basic language requirements necessary for residency.
The education-based language reforms within the Baltic states seek to strengthen national identity, safeguard native language use, and use language as a tool of soft power. At the same time, many organizations, including the UN Human Rights Committee and OSCE, have raised several concerns over the Baltic states not complying with legislation that protects minority rights, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The primary concern is that these reforms violate international human rights that prohibit “discrimination on the grounds of language,” and while none of the Baltic states have signed or ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Council of Europe continues to recommend its implementation. Despite this pressure, the Baltic states maintain that linguistic unity is a key component in security and protection of identity.
As a whole, linguistic policies in the Baltics bring up many questions of national identity, foreign influence, and minority rights. Often, language laws seek to protect and strengthen the country’s cultural identity, but at the same time, they are hard to balance with concerns over human rights and restrictions that may negatively impact certain populations. For these nations, the restoration of their native languages is critical to maintaining their continued existence and resistance against external pressures. The use of linguistic policies allows states such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to remain culturally independent in the face of a neighbor who continues to use shared language as a tool of propaganda and influence.
