For Stability! (Stabilitātei!, S!)

EU RANK: 195 (Tier 5: High Risk)

For Stability! (Stabilitātei!, S!) is a populist party that appeals strongly to Russian‑speaking voters, combining social conservatism and scepticism towards Latvia’s post‑2014 security and language policies with a protest profile rooted in opposition to COVID‑19 restrictions. In the 2022 Saeima election it won 11 seats (6.8% of the vote) and has since sat in opposition, positioning itself as a defender of Russian‑language rights and a critic of the political establishment. The party failed to secure representation in the 2024 European Parliament election, reflecting both fragmentation on the pro‑Russia flank and increased scrutiny from security services and regulators.​

Disinformation and alternative media

For Stability! relies heavily on Russian‑language social‑media platforms such as Telegram and YouTube, as well as on oppositional online outlets, to reach its core electorate. The party’s leaders use these channels to contest government policy on language, education and security, often framing reforms as persecution of Russian speakers and presenting themselves as the only authentic voice against “Russophobia”. Analyses of Latvia’s information space note that ST! operates close to Russian‑language ecosystems where Kremlin narratives circulate, raising concerns that its messaging sometimes overlaps with, or amplifies, disinformation, even if it is not formally an arm of Russian state media.

Mainstream LTV and Latvian‑language portals cover the party largely in the context of controversy, including disciplinary incidents in the Saeima and security‑service investigations, rather than as a routine policy actor. Watchdog and academic work on hybrid threats highlights ST! as an example of a party whose communication strategy leans on alternative Russian‑language online spaces that are under active monitoring for Kremlin‑aligned propaganda and troll activity.

Foreign influence and external alignments

Formally, For Stability! presents itself as a Latvian party defending the rights of Russian speakers and opposing what it portrays as one‑sided Western narratives, while not openly advocating withdrawal from NATO or the EU. In practice, its rhetoric on Russia’s war against Ukraine, sanctions and security policy has been markedly more critical of Western positions than that of mainstream parties, focusing on the social and economic costs of confrontation. This stance places ST! closer to the pro‑Russia end of Latvia’s political spectrum, even if it stops short of explicit endorsement of Kremlin actions in official programmes.

Foreign‑influence concerns sharpened in 2025, when the State Security Service (VDD) opened a criminal case against party leader Aleksejs Rosļikovs on suspicion of assisting Russia in activities directed against Latvia and inciting ethnic hatred; he was detained and later released pending investigation, with proceedings ongoing. While guilt has not been established, the case illustrates how security‑law enforcement now intersects directly with ST!’s activities and underscores the party’s elevated risk profile regarding external alignments and information‑space integrity.​

Media capture, advertising and public service media

For Stability! does not own major media outlets but has built significant influence through Russian‑language online ecosystems that lie partly outside traditional regulatory structures. Its reliance on Telegram channels, YouTube streams and sympathetic fringe portals allows it to bypass editorial checks common in mainstream Latvian media and to reach audiences affected by NEPLP’s bans on Russia‑registered TV channels. This strategy gives the party disproportionate visibility in Russian‑language digital spaces, though it also subjects those channels to heightened platform moderation and security‑service scrutiny, especially following the Rosļikovs investigation.

In terms of funding, ST! receives substantial state subsidies, about €471,000 in 2023 and €532,000 in 2024, placing it among the larger recipients of public party finance. These resources, combined with low‑cost digital outreach, enable intensive communication efforts; however, there is no public record of major KNAB sanctions specifically targeting ST! for misuse of state subsidies up to 2025, even as enforcement against other parties has tightened. The key media‑capture risk lies less in ownership and more in its ability to dominate segments of the Russian‑language online space with relatively limited oversight.

Corruption, litigation and institutional integrity

Apart from the VDD case against Rosļikovs, the 2015–2025 litigation record does not report major corruption or party‑financing convictions against For Stability! as an organisation. Integrity concerns instead concentrate on the intersection of security law, political activity and speech: the VDD investigation is based on Criminal Law articles dealing with assistance to an aggressor state and incitement of ethnic hatred, signalling that authorities see elements of ST!’s activity as potentially crossing from political expression into criminal territory. The outcome of this case will be crucial for assessing the party’s long‑term institutional‑integrity risk; as of early 2026, proceedings remain ongoing and no final judgment has been delivered.​

More broadly, ST! operates within Latvia’s state‑funding‑dominated party‑finance system, benefitting from generous subsidies while facing the same disclosure obligations as other parties. OECD and GRECO assessments warn that enforcement gaps and limited auditing capacity can allow high‑risk actors to exploit public funding; given ST!’s polarising profile and security‑law exposure, this systemic weakness raises concern about the potential misuse of state resources to amplify divisive messaging, even in the absence of proven financial crime.

Press freedom, harassment and treatment of critical media

For Stability!’s leadership frequently attacks Latvian public‑service media and major portals as biased and hostile to Russian speakers, accusing journalists of spreading propaganda and ignoring their supporters’ grievances. This rhetoric, combined with the party’s reliance on alternative Russian‑language platforms, contributes to a climate of mutual distrust between ST! and mainstream media, where critical coverage is framed as persecution and where journalists covering the party can face intense backlash from its supporters online.

Press‑freedom and hybrid‑threat analyses emphasise that ST!’s communication style, especially in Russian‑language digital spaces, complicates efforts to maintain a cohesive information environment and increases the risk of harassment and intimidation of journalists who investigate security‑sensitive issues. While there is limited evidence of systematic defamation suits or state‑leveraged repression initiated by the party, the combination of inflammatory rhetoric, ongoing security investigations and concentrated outreach through lightly moderated channels places For Stability! at the high‑risk end of Latvia’s political spectrum in terms of its potential impact on media freedom and information integrity.

Dimension	Risk level	Short justification
Disinformation & alternative media	High	Relies heavily on Russian‑language Telegram/YouTube and oppositional outlets where Kremlin narratives circulate; messaging often overlaps with or amplifies disinformation targeting Latvia’s language and security policies.
Foreign influence & external alignments	High	Positions itself as defender of Russian speakers and critic of Western security policy; VDD’s 2025 criminal case against party leader over suspected assistance to Russia underscores elevated external‑influence risk.
Media‑capture & advertising / PSB control	Medium–High	No ownership of major outlets but dominates segments of Russian‑language online media using substantial public funding and low‑cost platforms, in a space with relatively weak editorial controls.
Corruption & institutional‑integrity risk	Medium–High	No major financial‑corruption convictions yet, but under active security‑law investigation and operating in a weak‑enforcement funding system, raising serious concerns about use of public subsidies and adherence to democratic norms.
Press‑freedom & harassment of media	High	Aggressive rhetoric against mainstream media and intense supporter activity in Russian‑language online spaces contribute to a hostile environment for critical journalists, especially on security and minority‑policy coverage.