Experts weigh parties’ crisis responses in election simulation

Experts have offered contrasting assessments of how three party teams handled a fictional crisis, with disagreements over whether additional NATO forces would improve security or raise tensions. LSM reported on the final instalment of Latvian Television’s election simulation, “X Hour in Silgale”, produced by the programme “Aizliegtais paņēmiens”.

Political scientist Jānis Ikstens, a professor at the University of Latvia, described the Progressives’ approach as team-based, identified Andris Kulbergs as the leading voice for the United List, and called Jūlija Stepaņenko a key figure for Sovereign Power/Association of New Latvians.

All three teams said they wanted to reduce tensions, but their decisions drew different interpretations. Ikstens viewed Sovereign Power/Association of New Latvians’ caution as consistent de-escalation by both sides. Mārtiņš Vargulis, a lecturer at Rīga Stradiņš University and managing partner of the PowerHouse Latvia analytics group, saw it as manoeuvring and said that approach is not always right during wartime.

Only the Progressives wanted a complete ban on the Russian flag. All three teams brought in the prime minister at the first stage of the crisis. Vargulis said the prime minister’s involvement could be held back for a later stage and recommended a symmetrical response to threats from a Russian military figure.

On a government representative’s visit, Vargulis said the message and choice of interlocutors mattered more than the representative’s position. The United List would not meet the son of a deceased man, while Sovereign Power/Association of New Latvians would meet with the family. After a drone incident, the Progressives and the United List backed additional NATO presence; Sovereign Power/Association of New Latvians did not. None of the teams supported an evacuation.

The third simulation involved five representatives from each team, with all given the same scenarios and three minutes to make each decision. Silgale, its residents and the events were fictional. The scenario began with a dispute over a Russian flag and a person’s death in police presence, then moved to hostile activity between groups and ended with threats from a fictional Russian military figure and a drone near the town. The experts urged viewers to consider the arguments, leaders’ roles and preparedness behind decisions, rather than judging only whether teams answered yes or no.