It Now Happens In The EU—State Terrorises Dissidents | Romans Sklenniks

## A new frontier of repression in the EU The image of the European Union as a liberal refuge for free speech and civic pluralism is fraying. A recent exchange with Romans Sklenniks, a former Latvian journalist, brings into stark relief how tools of criminal law and administrative power are being repurposed to silence and intimidate dissidents — including EU citizens of Russian-speaking backgrounds. The case of Tatiana Andriets, a young Latvian student and activist, crystallizes a broader pattern: prosecutorial zeal, sweeping charges, and legal double standards are converging to produce outcomes that resemble political repression more than neutral law enforcement. This is not an isolated anomaly; it is a manifestation of shifting political incentives and a growing readiness among some EU authorities to conflate dissent with existential threats. ## The facts on the table: Tatiana’s prosecution The central strand in the conversation is straightforward yet alarming. Tatiana, a 23-year-old Latvian citizen who had been studying in St. Petersburg, returned home on a break and was arrested. She spent roughly eight months in custody before being released for medical reasons, and is now facing a trial under extremely serious criminal provisions: "justification of genocide," participation in a criminal organization, and "training and development for armed conflict" — offenses that carry sentences ranging from a decade to life. According to accounts shared in the exchange, her only concrete involvement appears to be membership in a Telegram community that supported Russians moving to Russia and loose associations with the creators of another channel labeled "Anti-Fascists of the Baltics." Crucially, testimony and public reporting indicate that Tatiana was not an author of the controversial channel’s posts. Her connection was associative: social contacts and membership in parallel groups. Yet the state’s prosecutorial apparatus has transformed that weak linkage into a narrative of existential threat. Allegations of masked visitors pressuring her to implicate others, if verified, would raise additional concerns about due process and coercive interrogation practices. Whether or not those specific claims hold up, the prosecution’s aggressive posture signals a willingness to escalate administrative and criminal measures against relatively marginal actors. ## From sanctions to show trials: the legal mechanics of political control What emerges from the discussion is a pattern of law being used instrumentally. Judges, prosecutors, and political elites can deploy broadly worded criminal statutes, sanctions, and administrative blacklisting to achieve political ends without transparent public debate. The same legal infrastructure that is intended to combat terrorism, organized crime, or hate speech becomes a blunt instrument against political opponents when applied selectively. This practice is not just local. The conversation highlighted recent EU-level sanctions and the way they have been used to freeze assets and restrict movement of EU nationals suspected of ties to Russia — sometimes without the transparent evidentiary standards one would expect. Such measures are not inherently illegitimate. States have the right to protect national security. The problem arises when "security" becomes a plastic concept that expands to encompass unpopular political views, cross-border association, or a cultural identity that sits uneasily with dominant state narratives. In that context, criminal codes designed for grave threats are repurposed to criminalize association and expression. Romans Sklenniks points to a trend: charges morph as cases proceed. Initial, relatively minor allegations tied to sanctions or online posts are upgraded to accusations of criminal organization, justification of genocide, or even preparations for armed conflict. The prosecutorial playbook appears to be escalation: detain, investigate, reframe. That approach inflicts maximum social, psychological, and procedural pain on defendants even before guilt is proven — and it has chilling effects on broader communities. ## Double standards: whose speech is protected? A striking theme in the conversation is asymmetry. Hate-filled channels and explicitly dehumanizing narratives aimed at Slavs and other groups, which in other contexts would trigger legal or platform responses, seem to operate with a degree of impunity. Yet when Russian-speaking activists publish or are perceived to support opposing views, they face severe criminalization. The result is a selective enforcement of both law and community standards that privileges certain political positions and punishes others. This selective enforcement is both subjective and systemic. Platforms invoke "freedom of expression" to justify hosting racist or extremist content in some cases, while states invoke "national security" to justify draconian measures in others. When the state’s decisions about which speech threatens public order mirror elite political preferences, legal neutrality evaporates. The people most affected are often linguistic and ethnic minorities — in Latvia’s case, a roughly one-third Russian-speaking population who are full EU citizens yet find themselves disproportionately scrutinized. Such double standards have real consequences. They distort the public sphere, deter civic engagement, and produce a hierarchy of protected speech that correlates with political acceptability rather than legal principledness. The effect is a gated democracy where pluralism exists in form but not in practice. ## Historical echoes: radicalization, war unions, and the machinery of conformity The conversation invokes historical parallels deliberately and provocatively. References to Aristotle’s discussion of tyranny — the imperative to crush rivals, control discourse, and cultivate dependency — are used to frame modern tactics. More starkly, parallels are drawn to troubling chapters of 20th-century Eastern Europe: collaborationist purges, the destruction of pluralism in the service of war mobilization, and the extreme racial violence of the Holocaust. Those comparisons are not offered as simplistic equivalences but as warnings about the trajectory of political radicalization. There is an argument that the political economy of war — increased military spending, tighter control over public narratives, and reduced tolerance for dissent — creates incentives to compress debate. Building a "war union" politically requires social consent or at least acquiescence; when broad democratic consent is lacking, coercion and narrative control can substitute. In the Baltic context, where historical memory of occupation and war is acute, that process can be especially potent. Public officials and media elites who style themselves as defenders of democracy may find themselves implementing policies that have the paradoxical effect of hollowing it out. Sklenniks’ account is explicit: the current climate in some Baltic states is among the most extreme in Europe. Whether that assessment is taken literally or seen as a rhetorical alarm, it compels us to examine the institutions and choices that facilitate such escalation — legal frameworks, intelligence practices, media ownership, and the role of transnational think tanks and financial networks in shaping security narratives. ## Political consequences: who benefits from silencing dissent? Beyond the immediate human costs to defendants like Tatiana, selective criminalization reshapes the political landscape. It begins to delegitimize entire communities, undermines trust in judicial institutions, and hardens identity-based cleavages. When one group sees the state as a neutral arbiter of justice and another sees it as a weapon against their members, the social contract frays. There are also geopolitical dimensions. In a context of rising tensions with Russia, internal security policies become entangled with foreign policy mess

It Now Happens In The EU—State Terrorises Dissidents Today I'm talking again to Romans Sklenniks, a former Latvian journalist in Riga, who pointed out to me that there is another very scary ongoing case of a EU citizen, a Latvian citizen, Tatiana Andriets, who is being prosecuted for basically having a connection to Russia. This kind of occurrences is now happening more and more inside the European Union, and we want to discuss this today. Links: Tatiana’s Case: https://baltija.eu/2025/05/08/v-latvii-prodolzhilsya-sud-nad-nahodyashhejsya-v- bolnicze-pravozashhitniczej-tatyanoj-andriecz/ https://www.sool.lv/tatyana-andriets-ot-10-let-tyurmy- do-pozhiznennogo-zaklyucheniya/ Roman’s YT: https://www.youtube.com/@RomansSklenniks Roman's Telegram: https://web.telegram.org/k/#@perspektyva369 Our Shop: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourthwall.com/ #M3 He was deported from Latvia back in 2004. He was simply taken into a van and pushed out at the border. "Bye, see you, take care." From that moment, the pressure on alternative media, Russian media, has only increased. Nowadays, they're closing down the Russian division of Latvian radio, which was fully pro-government media financed by the state. But their only "sin" was simply that they provided content in Russian. #M2 Hello, everybody. This is Pascal from Neutrality Studies, and today I'm talking again to Romans Sklenniks, a former Latvian journalist in Riga, who recently pointed out to me that there is another very scary case going on involving an EU citizen, a Latvian citizen, Tatjana Andriets, who is being persecuted and prosecuted for very, very dubious reasons—basically just for having a connection to Russia. These kinds of occurrences are now happening more and more inside the European Union, and we want to discuss this today. Roman, welcome back to the channel. #M3 Hello, nice to hear from you again. May I start with a bit of background? #M2 Yes, please, because you alerted me that this case is going on. Can you maybe lay it out for us? #M3 -- 1 of 15 -- I would like to start our conversation with the words of the former Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis. He's the leader of the political movement DiEM25. He said that Europe is turning into a war union. He talks about racial fascism and a totalitarian system. I would also like to remind you about the speech of J.D. Renz in Munich. We have also heard Věra Jourová, former vice president of the European Commission, saying that in some countries the deviation from democracy is shocking. And indeed, Europe has brought many innovations to its democracy during the last several years. But I will disagree with Ms. Jourová in the sense that she's talking about the deviation from democracy. I'm afraid it's too late to talk about democracy at all. We are now already facing a completely different political system, I'm afraid. Accidentally, I reread several chapters of Aristotle's Politics last week. There's this book, number five, where Aristotle talks about tyranny. Aristotle wasn't the biggest fan of democracy, but tyranny, as he thought, was the worst of the systems. Anyway, in book five, there's a list of advice to tyrants. I know that your channel, Pascal, is viewed by people who, by some accident, haven't forgotten how to read books. I encourage everyone to have a quick run through the chapter and read that advice. The main themes are: crush potential rivals, keep people distracted and dependent, use spies and divide people, control public life, suppress education and free speech. So, everything you can find here to talk about these things. I can guarantee you that while you are reading it, you will get the feeling that these pieces of advice from Aristotle are now being implemented in many parts of Europe. If you want a handbook on how to rule today's Europe, you don't need to look at those silly, annoying books about democracy. What you need is a guide on how to rule through tyranny. As I say, there are two tyrannies now in Europe at the moment: it's the system of narratives for the citizens and common consensus for the elites. And none of these narratives, none of these consensuses, are created inside democratic debate. No, they are created somewhere in the networks of think tanks and global financial institutions. I think you just talked about this in the last video you published on your channel. Yes. Say hi to BlackRock's Merz or Rothschild's Macron. #M2 Yeah, I mean, we have this huge problem that the people who scream the loudest inside the European Union that we need to protect democracy are, with both hands, all of them together, trying to push over the edge the little bit of democracy that's left inside the European Union. And they do so on different fronts. And I think you have now a new front to tell us about in the Baltic states, right? #M3 Yes, yes, yes. I believe many of your viewers have heard about the repression against those who are not okay with the ruling narratives, right? Just a couple of days ago, there were arrests of political -- 2 of 15 -- activists in the UK again. I mentioned Yanis Varoufakis at the beginning—just last week, he was talking about how activists from their movement in Germany are losing their jobs because of their political views. Varoufakis compared this situation to the 1930s. #M2 And let's not forget, Varoufakis himself is banned from speaking in Germany. He's not even allowed to speak online, because a year ago he was banned from actually appearing in Germany at public events that were supportive of Palestine. #M3 But I should say that compared to the Baltics, the rise of what he calls totalitarianism in Western Europe looks like a Sunday school picnic. Here, we can see the rise at its extreme. And we are now living at a time when a political activist in a European country is facing—take a deep breath—up to a life sentence. Actually, it's not only about Latvia; there are similar cases also in neighboring Estonia. The situation is, let's say, a bit milder in Lithuania, but there are also some cases there. We have a journalist being arrested in Estonia, but when it comes to Latvia, the situation looks really bad and raises many questions. This spring, for example, Jelena Krejla—she's Latvian—got three years in prison for placing a Russian flag in the window of her house. Now we have a trial against two Russian activists, Tatiana Andrietsa and Aleksandr Zhgun. First, they were both charged with violations of the sanctions. Now the prosecutors have changed the charges. Now they are facing accusations of participation in a criminal organization—let me check—justification of genocide, and training and development for armed conflict. I mean, those are really heavy charges, right? And you would think that these people, Tatiana and Aleksandr, must be some kind of terrorists with their own warehouses full of arms or munitions. They should have planned to hijack a plane or take down the TV tower or something like that. But I will disappoint you—there's nothing like that in this whole story. Tatyana is a 23-year-old student. She's been a political activist since she was at school. And her "crime" is that she had connections with some other activists who created a Telegram channel called the Anti-Fascists of the Baltics. Since school, Tatyana—as I said—was very politically active. She joined one of the Russian parties here in Latvia. After school, she started her studies at the State University of St. Petersburg. It's an easy task to get there. #M2 And we just need to lay out—you know, the Russian-speaking population of Latvia is, what, about 30 or 40 percent of the country? -- 3 of 15 -- #M3 Something like a third of the population. #M2 About a third of the population. And those are Russian-speaking Latvians, of course, who are, by virtue of having a Latvian passport, also EU citizens, right? I mean, we're talking about a Russian- speaking part of the European Union. #M3 Yeah, right, right, right, right. #M2 Just to set this straight: she managed to get into a very good university in Russia, so she went abroad to study there. Can you talk more about this? #M3 Yeah. So she started her studies there, and when she came back to Latvia for the holidays, she was arrested and faced criminal charges. She has already spent something like eight months in prison. She's out at the moment. By the way, when this case started, she was only 22. #M2 And she's not out for happy reasons, right? She's out because she actually needs medical care. #M3 Medical treatment, right. She's a charming girl with big brown eyes. She has serious health issues right now. And what's interesting is that she claims that while she was in prison, there were very interesting methods of pressure implemented against her. For example, she was visited by individuals wearing masks who did not identify themselves. They were urging her to confess or incriminate other people. They were threatening that otherwise she would remain in prison for a very long time. I know that this information is also being given to some human rights activists in Germany at the moment. But if this is true, it looks like we have a Guantanamo case here in the Baltics, I'm afraid. To be honest, I think this should be a wake-up call for the whole of Europe, by the way. It looks like we have gone a bit too far with all these cases. #M2 -- 4 of 15 -- You need to tell us again what exactly didn't happen. What is she charged with because of this Telegram group? But what you're saying is that we are getting to the point where what we have seen in Ukraine—the kind of incrimination and criminalization of journalism in Ukraine, where journalists died in prison, even an American citizen, Gonzalo Lira, who died in prison—these kinds of things are now occurring inside the European Union. But maybe let's start with: can you tell us about this Telegram group? Why was she put into prison for eight months? #M3 Because this Telegram group is marked as extremist here in Latvia. About this "Anti-Fascists of the Baltics" group—a little bit. I should say there are some questions about the content of that channel, but the thing is that, first, Tatyana wasn't the author of the publications on that channel. While she was studying in St. Petersburg, she had her own group on Telegram. She created something like a community for Latvians who were moving to Russia, to help them with paperwork and bureaucracy, and those guys who created the anti-fascist group were also in that group. They have all moved to Russia by now. As I said, there are some questions about the content of the anti-fascists' channel. They sometimes used strong language against Latvian nationalists. There were attempts to publish some personal data of some nationalists. Yes, there could be some debate about what they were publishing. I don't support that. But as I said, Tanya wasn't the author of those publications. Her only connection to the channel is that she knew these guys and they were in another Telegram group together, right? This Telegram group supported Latvian nationals moving to Russia. And when it comes to the content of the Anti-Fascists of the Baltics, basically, there is nothing you won't find on the other side, in some social networks of the Latvian nationalists. There are even much more extreme examples. And they work, they produce content, and nobody makes any charges against them. I can give you an example: a channel on X, formerly Twitter, called The Chronicles of Vatastan. I don't know if others have ever thought about that, but they are 100% repeating a concrete narrative of Nazi propaganda. That is the so-called— forgive my German—Untermensch narrative. #M2 That's correct. This Nazi ideology says that you have the Aryans on top and then you have lower levels. That means that kind of horrible, Nazi, racist ideology. #M3 That means "subhuman." The point was to dehumanize Slavs, to portray them as aggressive, stupid, uneducated, dirty vodka