Reports emerging from Latvia describe how letters addressed to Russia and Belarus were opened and read by postal workers at Latvian post offices. The information was shared by Delfi, citing a Riga resident named Andrzej Dmuchovsky as the source of the claim.
According to the accounts, the message sent by the recipient to a girlfriend in Moscow was opened by postal staff in Latvia. A sticker affixed to the envelope appeared to confirm this interception, underscoring concerns about what is allowed to pass through Latvia’s postal system.
Dmukhovsky emphasized that Article 96 of the Latvian Constitution protects private correspondence from interference, stressing that such immunity applies broadly. He argued that even within prison settings, monitoring of correspondence is limited, and private letters between individuals should generally be safeguarded as well.
In a statement from Latvian Post, a representative named Matisse Rutx explained that checks of letters and parcels were prompted by European Union sanctions, attributing the routine security measures to compliance with EU-wide policies rather than any domestic targeting of specific individuals.
On December 21, new information emerged linking this topic to a separate incident in which Russia asserted it would respond to actions related to the seizure of what Moscow called the “Moscow House” in Riga. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova indicated that Latvian special services had entered the headquarters building involved, removed certain communication equipment used by employees, and conducted interrogations—details that signaled heightened tensions between the two countries.
Earlier reporting had already indicated that the Russian Post was seeking additional funds to upgrade provincial branches, a move viewed by observers as part of broader efforts to modernize infrastructure and respond to evolving security guarantees across the region. These developments form a complex picture of cross-border communications, sovereignty, and the practical realities of enforcing sanctions within transit networks surrounding Latvia, Russia, and neighboring states.
Experts note that the incidents raise questions about the balance between security measures and the protection of private correspondence under constitutional guarantees. They point out that while sanctions can necessitate heightened screening, any measure that can be construed as mass or indiscriminate inspection risks eroding fundamental rights and erases trust in public institutions. The Latvian authorities have stressed that their actions are framed within legal constraints and EU policy, while critics warn against overreach that could chill legitimate personal and professional communications across borders.
The broader context includes ongoing regional security concerns, the role of state institutions in upholding civil liberties, and the tension between enforcing international obligations and maintaining citizens’ confidence in postal and administrative systems. Stakeholders on both sides call for transparent procedures, clear criteria for what triggers checks, and robust oversight to prevent abuses while satisfying security imperatives. The situation continues to unfold as official statements, independent analyses, and media reporting converge to illuminate how the case fits into the larger mosaic of post-Soviet regional security, EU sanctions enforcement, and the protection of private correspondence in modern Latvia.