The Museum of the Occupation of Latvia has opened a new exhibition examining the methods used by the Soviet Union against Latvia in 1939–1940 and drawing parallels with contemporary forms of hybrid warfare.
The exhibition, titled The Hybrid War Against Latvia, 1939–1940, opened on June 17, the 86th anniversary of the day Soviet troops entered Latvia in 1940 and began the country’s occupation. Prepared by historian Kārlis Dambītis, the exhibition explores how military pressure, propaganda, political manipulation, social polarisation and intimidation were used to weaken Latvia before the arrival of Soviet tanks in Riga.
Speaking at the opening, Dambītis acknowledged that historians may debate whether the term “hybrid war” should be applied to events from the first half of the 20th century. However, he argued that the comparison became unavoidable after Russia’s annexation and occupation of Crimea in 2014. According to him, while technology has changed, many of the underlying methods remain strikingly similar.
The exhibition suggests that the occupation of Latvia was not a sudden event, but the result of a gradual process. Soviet power was imposed step by step, as totalitarian regimes divided Europe, undermined states from within, and used political and psychological tools alongside military force. This perspective is intended to help visitors understand how Latvia reached the point at which Soviet troops entered the country in June 1940.
Museum director Solvita Vība said one of the most frequent questions asked by visitors is how the occupation became possible. She emphasised that the answer lies not only in military power, but also in the slow erosion of society’s resilience. Propaganda, fake news and attempts to divide the public played an important role in weakening confidence and creating confusion.
The exhibition also points to the relevance of these mechanisms today. It highlights that hybrid warfare is often difficult to notice in everyday life. It may appear through disinformation, social fragmentation, pressure on public institutions, attacks on collective memory or attempts to undermine trust in democratic decision-making.
One striking contemporary example included in the exhibition is the attack on the Museum of the Occupation itself two years ago, when a flammable liquid was thrown into the director’s office. The incident is presented as part of a broader pattern of hostile actions that can be understood within the framework of hybrid warfare.
By placing the events of 1939–1940 alongside current security challenges, the exhibition seeks to remind visitors that occupation and aggression are rarely preceded by military action alone. They are often prepared through propaganda, manipulation, intimidation and the weakening of public trust.
The exhibition is located outside the museum building and is open to the public 24 hours a day. It will remain accessible for the next six months.
