Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Latvia announced the dismantling of up to 300 Soviet-era monuments, a decision that intensified regional tensions and further strained relations with Russia. These monuments evoke deeply conflicting meanings: for parts of the Russian-speaking minority they symbolize liberation and victory over fascism, while for ethnic Latvians they represent occupation, repression, and the loss of sovereignty. This clash of interpretations exemplifies the phenomenon of heritage dissonance, in which the same cultural remnants sustain incompatible historical narratives.
After World War II, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were incorporated into the Soviet Union, and monuments commemorating the Red Army were embedded into urban space as instruments of ideological memory. In the post-communist period, these structures became sites of unresolved cultural trauma. The concept of the “trauma of victory” captures the disorientation produced by abrupt political transitions, while cultural trauma itself is shaped through public discourse, media, and commemorative practices rather than fixed historical fact.
Russia’s war in Ukraine reignited debates over Soviet monuments in Latvia, transforming their removal into a struggle over national identity and security. Public opinion reflects this divide, with strong support for removal among ethnic Latvians and significant opposition among ethnic Russians. Latvia suspended its bilateral agreements with Russia regarding monument preservation and accelerated processes of de-Sovietisation and de-Russification as part of a broader hypersecuritisation strategy aimed at protecting national sovereignty.
The dismantling of monuments, including the Soviet memorial in Riga’s Victory Park in August 2022, has reshaped the city’s memory landscape. The empty spaces left behind function as “mnemonic remains,” retaining symbolic and emotional power despite the absence of physical structures. These “phantom monuments” continue to influence collective memory, demonstrating that removal does not erase meaning but transforms how history is negotiated in public space.
More, here
