In difficult times, May 9 remains a point of memory for many people. Ask an average Russian about stopping the celebration and you’ll likely hear hesitation, frustration, or silence, yet it is rare to find someone who believes the sacrifice of more than 20 million Soviet citizens should be forgotten. The tragedy shaped the Russian psyche, especially for those in the western regions where Nazi forces once controlled territory, bombed cities, destroyed infrastructure, and claimed civilian and military lives alike.
That collective scar fuels a cautious duty to remember the sacrifices of those who lived through that era. The Kremlin has long linked today’s military actions to the wars fought in the past, drawing parallels between current conflicts and the Great Patriotic War, as it is often called in Russia and in many former Soviet states. In obituaries from battles on fronts like Bakhmut, Mariupol, and Kherson, readers may encounter a framing that harks back to heroes who faced the Nazi menace with resolve.
Symbology and dictionary
Even before Moscow took action in Ukraine, the concept of anti fascism was used to justify moves in the Donbas. Since 2014, pro-Russian militias and guerrilla groups in eastern Ukraine fought alongside the regular Ukrainian forces, a dynamic that caught the attention of international volunteers who drafted new narratives inspired by World War II. The term Internationalist Brigades appeared among such accounts, weaving a myth around a shared struggle against fascism.
Individuals described as militants or partisans came from Europe and Latin America, joining various paramilitary groups who claimed to be stopping fascism again. Some associations linked to far right factions, others to nationalist currents. This blend produced a perplexing picture where references to German Nazism could mingle with Marxist ideas—a mix that many Russians today find contradictory and troubling.
Tonight, a televised program features remarks suggesting that European nations support Ukraine to avenge historic battles such as Poltava, Borodino, and Stalingrad. This framing is part of a broader media narrative that aims to connect contemporary events with a storied past.
To remind viewers, the program has circulated widely on social media and has been shared by several commentators, reflecting how public discourse can echo national memory and influence sentiment. The dynamics of memory and political rhetoric continue to shape perceptions of the present conflict.
Fighting the “Nazis”
Being careful with language about labeling countries or governments as Nazis, especially in the current climate, has long influenced how Ukraine is discussed. Since 2014 Moscow has highlighted the role of far right groups and militarized units in Ukraine. The narrative emphasizes a struggle against extremism, often aligning it with broader historical conflicts.
From state media to the comments of officials, those deemed unfriendly can become targets of blame. The Russian leadership has at times pointed to Western actors as backing Kiev, tying the issue to broader geopolitical tensions. Media figures have framed European and American support for Kyiv as a reaction to past wars and a strategic choice in the present conflict.
The discussion among Russian political communicators often frames support for Ukraine as part of a broader attempt to reassert influence and to contest what they describe as a moral and strategic balance in Europe. Analysts note this approach to messaging shapes public perception and reinforces a chosen historical lens to interpret current events. (Attribution: media analysis and commentary cited in public discourse.)