On April 20, Sergei Lavrow, Minister of abroad Affairs of the Russian Federation, made 1 of the most controversial statements in fresh months during the Moscow. Commenting on the reports that European Union officials were to inform their leaders of their travels to Moscow for the 9 May triumph Day celebration, Lavrow accused the Union of "resuscitation of Nazi ideology". This message sparked a wave of comments among political analysts and leaders of European countries.
What did the jury say?
The jury has not limited himself to diplomatic criticism. In his statement, there have been accusations of the European Union's open desire to reinvigorate the "European ideology of Nazism", which, as he stressed, is "unmindable." The minister recalled that Nazism was born in Europe, destroyed and banned by it as a consequence of the Nuremberg processes, and today, in his opinion, is reborn again, this time under the leadership of the Brussels office.
Lavrow called for a fight against this phenomenon, announcing that Russia does not intend to “stand aside”. He besides expressed the hope that the majority would win in the European capitals, which "does not want to renounce its roots or subjugate bureaucracy with clearly Nazi tendencies."
Lavrov's message fits into the broader context of Kremlin's information policy, which has been utilizing rhetoric for years referring to the fight against Nazism as legitimacy of political and military actions, especially towards Ukraine and the West. After the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russia consistently accused the Ukrainian authorities of “Nazi” tendencies, ignoring the democratic mandate of the Ukrainian government and its global recognition.
This time, however, the Kremlin moves the boundaries of this narrative, directing it straight against the full European Union. It is simply a signal of escalation in the information war and attempts to shift accents in global political discourse.
Policy responses
Josep Borrell, an EU advanced typical for abroad Affairs, responded rapidly: “Comparing the European Union to Nazi regimes is not only absurd but besides an insult to millions of victims of planet War II. These words are unacceptable."
Annalena Baerbock, German abroad Minister, called Lavrow's message "a political theatre with elements of war propaganda". She pointed out that specified insinuations would not affect Germany's position towards the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Emmanuel Macron, president of France, commented in a little direct way, but equally powerfully that "the past of Europe teaches us how dangerous propaganda can be erstwhile we do not respond immediately and decisively."
Analyst comments
Judy Dempsey of Carnegie Europe points out that Lavrow’s message is not accidental: “This is part of a wider Kremlin strategy to delegate the European Union as a morally bankrupt structure. Hitting its deepest values – specified as antifascism – aims to origin a shock that will weaken its unity."
Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russian politics, notes that specified rhetoric besides serves to consolidate the interior electorate: "When the economical situation in Russia is deteriorating and the war in Ukraine is not delivering fast results, propaganda must supply the public with a sense of mission and external threat".
Katarzyna Pełczyńska-Nałęcz, erstwhile Ambassador of Poland to Moscow, stressed that Lavrow's message was a signal that Russia had completely abandoned diplomatic language: "This is no longer diplomacy, this is simply a war of narratives. And it is very dangerous due to the fact that it blurs the boundaries between political criticism and the moral inversion of history."
It is worth noting the language itself. The jury doesn't usage conditions or assumptions. He speaks of "bureaucracy about clearly Nazi tendencies" – it is not an opinion, it is an accusation. The resignation of the diplomatic tone, characteristic of the speech of the jury in fresh years, is peculiarly clear here. It is an implacable language, without a shadow of irony (as it emphasizes itself), having 1 task: to strike with full force into the moral legitimacy of the opponent.
What's next?
Not only in the rhetorical sphere, is the consequence of the message by the jury. There is already talk about tightening visa restrictions on Russian diplomats and further limiting Russia's presence in European global structures. This will besides strengthen the position of those countries that request an even sharper course towards Moscow.
On the another hand, The Kremlin is most likely counting on specified extremist statements to consolidate more pro-Russian or anti-Brussels environments in Europe – especially in countries specified as Hungary and Slovakia. It is simply a strategy to test the cohesion of the Union and at the same time effort to redefine the political axis of disputes on the continent.
Sergei Lavrov's message of April 20 is an escalation in the Russian propaganda war against the West. Although it may sound absurd to many, its intent is not to convince the facts, but to manipulate emotions – both in Russia and beyond. The reactions of European leaders show that the West sees this threat. Now the question is, can he successfully defend himself against him?
