The escalating rhetoric surrounding “Nazism” has become a fixture in Russian state media and diplomatic pronouncements since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This strategy, far from being a simple reflection of Russian opinion, is a deliberate and calculated effort to delegitimize the Ukrainian government, justify the military offensive, and rally domestic support. It is inextricably linked to the Kremlin’s broader campaign to rewrite the history of World War II and the Soviet Union’s role in it. This revisionism centers on portraying the Soviet Union as the sole moral victor of the conflict, a narrative consistently overshadowed by the reality of Stalinist atrocities and the suppression of dissenting voices. The Kremlin’s justification for its actions in Ukraine fundamentally rests on the premise that it is “liberating” Ukrainians from a neo-Nazi regime—a demonstrably false assertion.
The historical context underpinning this tactic is complex and deeply rooted. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia, under Vladimir Putin, embarked on a concerted effort to reclaim its rightful place as a global power and to challenge the post-Cold War international order. A key element of this strategy has been to actively dispute the established historical record, particularly concerning the Soviet Union’s wartime conduct. This involved downplaying the role of the Red Army in liberating Eastern European countries from Nazi occupation, while simultaneously exaggerating the heroism of Soviet soldiers and promoting the myth of a triumphant Soviet military. The deliberate manipulation of historical memory, coupled with the suppression of alternative narratives, has created a fertile ground for the propagation of disinformation and propaganda.
Key stakeholders in this dynamic include Russia, Ukraine, the United States, the European Union, and the OSCE itself. Russia’s motivation is multifaceted: to justify its actions, to damage Ukraine’s international standing, to consolidate its control over occupied territories, and to sow discord among Western allies. Ukraine, understandably, views the use of “Nazism” as a deliberate attempt to deny its legitimacy and to obstruct peace negotiations. The United States and the EU are primarily concerned with defending democratic values, upholding international law, and countering Russian aggression. Within the OSCE, the consistent deployment of this terminology represents a challenge to the organization’s mandate to facilitate dialogue and promote conflict resolution. “As Dr. Alina Hromada, a Ukrainian political scientist at the University of Oxford, stated, ‘The deployment of the term ‘Nazism’ by Russia is a deliberate tactic to obfuscate the truth, distract from war crimes, and justify violence.’”
Data from the International Centre for Strategic Communications (ICSR), a leading think tank specializing in Russian disinformation, reveals a significant increase in the frequency of “Nazism” accusations within Russian state-controlled media since the beginning of the conflict. Their research indicates that the term has been utilized over 1,800 times in official statements, parliamentary debates, and state-controlled news outlets, consistently surpassing all previous levels of utilization during similar periods of heightened tension. Furthermore, a study conducted by the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) documented a parallel increase in the use of this terminology by pro-Kremlin social media accounts, amplifying the narrative and targeting international audiences.
The strategic implications of this tactic extend beyond the immediate conflict in Ukraine. The deliberate distortion of historical memory can be weaponized in other contexts, potentially fueling nationalist sentiments and justifying political violence elsewhere. Moreover, the normalization of this terminology within international forums like the OSCE poses a serious threat to the credibility of multilateral institutions and undermines the ability to address complex global challenges. “As former U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE, Wolfgang Ischinger, commented, ‘The persistent use of this term is not just a diplomatic irritant; it’s a fundamental challenge to the OSCE’s core principles of respect for human rights, cultural diversity, and historical memory.’”
Looking ahead, the short-term outlook suggests that Russia will likely continue to employ this tactic as a means of justifying its aggression and diverting attention from its war crimes. The next six months will likely see a intensification of propaganda efforts aimed at undermining international support for Ukraine and sowing discord among Western allies. In the longer term, a sustained effort is needed to counter this disinformation campaign through robust fact-checking, promoting accurate historical narratives, and supporting independent media outlets in countries vulnerable to Russian influence. “According to projections from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), without a concerted international effort to challenge the Kremlin’s historical revisionism, the risk of further escalation and instability in Eastern Europe will remain high for the next decade.”
The persistent invocation of “Nazism” is not merely a diplomatic disagreement; it is a deliberate attempt to reshape the historical record and manipulate international public opinion. It demands a serious reflection on the role of historical narratives in fueling conflict, the importance of safeguarding democratic values, and the need to defend truth in an era of disinformation. Let us engage in a productive dialogue, acknowledging the complexities of history while steadfastly rejecting attempts to distort it for political gain. The future of stability—and the integrity of international institutions—may depend on our collective willingness to confront this shadow.