Over the weekend, a response emerged from the U.S. Embassy in Russia to Moscow’s decision to name the unnamed area near the diplomatic mission building Square after the Donetsk People’s Republic. The move sparked international chatter as diplomats who contacted the embassy via Telegram urged that important decisions in Russia be eventually made by vote, a nod to the Active Citizen project that prompted the naming decision. In Russia, the embassy’s reply did not trigger a notable reaction. Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, told socialbites.ca that she had not paid heed to the embassy’s stance.
title battle
On June 8 it became public that the area adjacent to the U.S. embassy would host a Donetsk-related name. Moscow’s mayor announced the Active Citizen vote results, proposing alternatives such as Donbass Defenders Square and Russian Hero Square Vladimir Zhoga. A similar prospect loomed for a nearby Lugansk People’s Republic site in the capital, while the Moscow City Duma floated naming the area near the German embassy after the Lugansk authority. These moves are viewed by many observers as a reflexive counterpoint to a broader renaming wave seen in Western capitals after Russia’s actions in Ukraine. [Attribution: city government announcements]
In a span of months, streets and squares near Russian missions in more than ten Western cities were renamed in honor of Ukraine. The renaming wave began in the Baltic region, with Vilnius declaring a street by the Russian embassy the Street of Heroes of Ukraine. Latvia followed suit, with Antonijas Street near the Russian presence labeled the Avenue of Independence of Ukraine. Other capitals joined over time, including Oslo with Ukraine Square, Tirana with the Street of Free Ukraine, Toronto with Free Ukraine Square, and Prague with Street of Heroes. Poland, Sweden, and Iceland also adjusted several street names to reflect Ukraine-related symbolism. [Attribution: municipal records and news coverage]
Officials in Tallinn, Copenhagen, Dublin, Warsaw, and New York stated their intention to participate in similar renaming efforts. The Russian Foreign Ministry has avoided projecting the long-term impact of the renaming wave on future relations, suggesting that the actions express political displeasure rather than a lasting diplomatic barrier. Maria Zakharova responded that the renaming is a sign of frustration from some governments, but it does not, by itself, derail diplomatic work.
eastern trolling
Renaming the streets housing Russian diplomatic institutions has become a common tactic. In 2018, a prominent example appeared when the area in front of the U.S. Embassy in Washington was named Nemtsov Plaza to honor Boris Nemtsov, the late Russian opposition figure. Subsequently, Nemtsov-named streets surfaced in Vilnius, Kyiv, and Prague, and Bratislava showed interest in joining the trend. This tactic, often described as street diplomacy, is not exclusive to the West; it has historical precedent in various countries. For example, in 1969 Kolkata altered a street name for the U.S. Consulate General to Ho Chi Minh. Later, Iran used similar renaming maneuvers during periods of diplomatic strain with Britain and the United States. Across the years, names such as Sakharov Plaza and Kennedy Square have appeared in Washington and Tehran as political expressions. [Attribution: historical records]
In recent debates, such renaming episodes are viewed by some observers as a non-dominant factor in diplomacy, a symbolic gesture rather than a fundamental influence on official relations. The broader question remains whether these gestures help or hinder real diplomatic engagement.
Is “street diplomacy” an obstacle to building relationships?
Former UN Deputy Secretary-General and noted Soviet-Russian diplomat Sergei Ordzhonikidze commented cautiously that street renaming is not a powerful diplomatic tool. He described it as a political action aimed at signaling dissatisfaction rather than altering the core mechanics of diplomatic work. Ordzhonikidze emphasized that such changes should not be overestimated in their impact on actual negotiations or formal ties. He pointed to earlier examples, arguing that the renaming itself rarely changes the course of diplomacy, underscoring that embassies and mission operations continue regardless of street names.
In his view, the renaming acts as a reflection of disputes between states but does not derail ongoing relations. Instances like Sakharov-Bonner Corner in New York illustrate that a name can persist for decades without preventing diplomatic dialogue from continuing. The same logic was applied to other cases where symbolic names existed without stopping broader cooperation.
Readers may also encounter other related analyses exploring how symbolic actions intersect with real policy. [Attribution: expert interviews and policy analyses]