A year ago this Saturday, Moscow asserted control over a region to widen its borders. Annexation appears indisputable on paper, with maps—from wooden decorative versions to those produced by Yandex, Russian Google, or school textbooks—placing the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions of Ukraine among Russia’s territories. Yet the on-the-ground reality is riddled with doubts and contradictions that the paper trail alone cannot resolve.
The clearest illustration lies in Kherson, where the regional capital remains under Ukrainian administration, yet maps still depict it as part of Russia. Similar portrayals recur across the other sectors. In the early phase, Moscow sought to win over residents with banners and slogans suggesting Russia would stay forever, but as Ukrainian counter-offensives progressed, Moscow had to concede some areas. Far from easing conflict, Russia mobilized more personnel who could be sent to the front. President Vladimir Putin, this Friday, issued a decree to mobilize 130,000 young people for military service, with these troops aged 18 to 27. Regions it claims remain under administrative Russian control, while the armed forces promised that frontline assignments would not target those drafted.
On March 8, 2022, Putin promised women that their sons, husbands, brothers, and children would not be sent to fight in Ukraine. Yet by late September that year, thousands of conscripts were summoned, many drawn from Siberia and the Caucasus to participate on the Ukrainian front.
day of remembrance
To mark the anniversary, the Kremlin organized a concert in Moscow’s Red Square that celebrated patriotism under banners aligned with the idea of unity and national family. An independent outlet highlighted the event’s echoes with themes reminiscent of historic authoritarian rhetoric, drawing comparisons to slogans historically used by other regimes. The program featured patriotic poems and proclamations against Ukraine, with one participant presenting a text to the crowd that included mocking references to enemies and a disparaging view of an opposing nation’s symbols.
There was a distinct emphasis on the idea of a singular national identity, as some participants voiced language that critics described as nostalgic and exclusionary. Messages conveyed on stage reflected a mood of intensified nationalism and a rejection of Ukraine’s statehood in certain quarters.
Quotes in the program included lines that critics interpreted as demeaning to those who dissent and a glorification of the state’s leadership. The scene, captured by social posts, showed the tension between official celebration and minority voices that viewed the event as propaganda rather than a unifying national moment.
During the event, accompanying commentary and social media posts circulated that drew comparisons to historic propaganda and warned of the dangers of demonizing opponents. The contrasting narratives–state displays of unity versus voices of dissent–shaped the reception of the commemorations as a symbol of political mobilization rather than a purely celebratory occasion.
One post described the moment as a display of national sentiment embedded in a broader political project. It suggested that the gatherings were less about shared memory and more about mobilizing popular support for ongoing political and military objectives. The exchange captured a moment where cultural ritual intersected with strategic messaging, leaving observers to weigh the balance between commemorative tribute and coercive rhetoric.
Despite large crowds, there were questions about public health compliance, including the absence of a universal enforcement of certain measures that had previously been in place in other contexts. While the country has faced broader controversies over public health rules, this event proceeded in a climate where domestic policy and international tensions intersect, particularly as the date marked events tied to post-annexation narratives and regional alignments in the Eurasian sphere.
international recognition
When Moscow moved to retroactively convert and annex these Ukrainian territories through referendums, nations across the globe responded with skepticism or outright condemnation. Only a couple of states publicly endorsed the announcements as legitimate. Among the usual supporters, North Korea and Syria stood by Moscow. Other traditional allies such as China, India, Iran, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus refrained from taking a clear stance on the annexation, even as they joined Moscow on separate policy issues. The wider Western reaction was one of strong disapproval, accompanied by sanctions reminiscent of past episodes in the region. A notable example of global dialogue, though not an endorsement, involved a playful parody referendum in the Czech Republic that mocked Moscow’s claims by proposing a different regional reconfiguration of borders.
The international response highlighted the divide between recognition of territorial changes and adherence to international norms. Critics argued that the referendums and subsequent annexations violated established rules, and the episode intensified debates about sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the legitimacy of military measures in disputed regions.