OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 15, N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025
227
SPOILS OF THE PAST: MEMORY DIPLOMACY IN THE RUSSO-
UKRAINIAN CONFLICT
INÊS FERREIRA DE SOUSA
a2024100837@campus.fcsh.unl.pt
PhD candidate in International Relations at NOVA University of Lisbon (Portugal). She holds a
bachelor’s degree in Languages and International Relations from the University of Porto since
July 2023. During her studies, she was enrolled in the University of Heidelberg for one semester.
CONSTANÇA MAGALHÃES
constancajose@gmail.com
MA student in Political Science: International Relations at the Free University of Brussels (ULB).
She holds a bachelor’s degree in Languages and International Relations from the University of
Porto since July 2023. She also enrolled in the Erasmus+ Programme, having studied for one
semester in the University of Pisa.
HUGO QUARTEU
hugoaq2003@hotmail.com
MA student in Political Science at the Free University of Brussels (Belgium). He holds a
bachelor’s degree in Languages and International Relations from the University of Porto since
July 2023. He also enrolled in the Erasmus+ Programme, having studied for one semester in the
University of Pisa.
ANA CAMPOS MARINHEIRO
anamarinheiro823@gmail.com
MA student Political Science: International Relations at the Free University of Brussels
(Belgium). She holds a bachelor’s degree in Languages and International Relations from the
University of Porto since July 2023. She also enrolled in the Erasmus+ Programme, having
studied for one semester in the Free University of Berlin.
Abstract
In the context of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, this article draws from the conceptual
framework of memory diplomacy to explore how memory has been employed in Russian and
Ukrainian diplomacy since 2022 and what international goals its use aims to achieve. Previous
research has continuously shown how memory is instrumentalised in domestic politics, but its
employment to achieve international goals has only recently become an object of study.
Nevertheless, memory diplomacy offers a valuable addition for interpreting the diplomatic
practices of both Ukraine and Russia when viewed through the constructivist framework of
International Relations. This research is based on a content discourse analysis of speeches
and official statements from both countries, with regard to interpretations of the past, since
2022. It concludes that conflicting memories are built and employed by both parties to serve
their international goals.
Keywords
Russia, Ukraine, Memory Diplomacy, Memory Studies, Diplomacy, War.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 227-246
Spoils of the Past: Memory Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
Inês Ferreira de Sousa, Constança Magalhães, Hugo Quarteu, Ana Campos Marinheiro
228
Resumo
No contexto do conflito russo-ucraniano, este artigo baseia-se no quadro concetual da
diplomacia da memória para explorar a forma como a memória tem sido utilizada na
diplomacia russa e ucraniana desde 2022 e quais os objetivos internacionais que a sua
utilização pretende alcançar. A investigação anterior tem mostrado continuamente como a
memória é instrumentalizada na política interna, mas o seu emprego para atingir objetivos
internacionais só recentemente se tornou um objeto de estudo. No entanto, a diplomacia da
memória oferece um complemento valioso para a interpretação das práticas diplomáticas da
Ucrânia e da Rússia, quando analisadas através do quadro construtivista das Relações
Internacionais. Esta investigação baseia-se numa análise de conteúdo discursiva de discursos
e declarações oficiais de ambos os países, no que respeita a interpretações do passado, desde
2022. Conclui-se que memórias conflituosas são construídas e utilizadas por ambas as partes
para servir os seus objetivos internacionais.
Palavras-chave
Rússia, Ucrânia, Diplomacia da Memória, Estudos sobre a Memória, Diplomacia, Guerra.
How to cite this article
Sousa, Inês Ferreira de, Magalhães, Constança, Quarteu, Hugo & Marinheiro, Ana Campos (2024).
Spoils of the Past: Memory Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict. Janus.net, e-journal of
international relations. VOL 15 N.º 2, November 2024-April 2025, pp. 227-246.
https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.15.2.9.
Article received on 17 August 2023 and accepted for publication on 2 March 2024.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 227-246
Spoils of the Past: Memory Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
Inês Ferreira de Sousa, Constança Magalhães, Hugo Quarteu, Ana Campos Marinheiro
229
SPOILS OF THE PAST: MEMORY DIPLOMACY IN THE RUSSO-
UKRAINIAN CONFLICT
INÊS FERREIRA DE SOUSA
CONSTANÇA MAGALHÃES
HUGO QUARTEU
ANA CAMPOS MARINHEIRO
Introduction
2014 saw armed conflict re-entering the European continent through the Crimean
Peninsula. Since 2022, the escalation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has left
politicians, scholars, and civil society concerned about the dimensions of the war and the
seemingly irreconcilable views of the parties involved. Despite the media coverage of
and academic attention received by the conflict, the employment of memory in the
diplomatic discourse issued by each side has yet to be analysed. The role of memory is
usually overlooked in International Relations scholarship (Wang, 2015). When
considered, the use of memory is typically studied in domestic contexts – especially its
role in upholding identity and political legitimacy (Hobsbawm & Terence, 1983). However,
it has been shown that countries also employ constructed memories to achieve their
foreign policy goals, which are reflected in official texts, speeches, and diplomatic
documents (Bachleitner, 2018). Indeed, Singh (2023) argues that the state “needs
constructing” (p.45) to legitimise its actions and its identity not only towards their
domestic public, but also in relation to other countries. In turn, collective memories are
crucial in the construction of the state’s self and collective identities (Bachleitner, 2021).
This paper aims to explore how memory has been employed in Russian and Ukrainian
diplomatic practices and what international goals its use aims to achieve, through a
content discourse analysis of speeches and official statements from both countries issued
since 2022. Following analysis, these will be interpreted and discussed to draw
conclusions using the framework of constructivism.
The research begins with an overview of existing literature on memory diplomacy, serving
as a basis for the subsequent analysis and discussion. The next section reviews previous
research on the history of both countries and the historical narratives present in their
official national memories. The paper then proceeds to examine political statements and
public speeches delivered by key political actors, firstly from Russia and then from
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 227-246
Spoils of the Past: Memory Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
Inês Ferreira de Sousa, Constança Magalhães, Hugo Quarteu, Ana Campos Marinheiro
230
Ukraine. Finally, it will dissect and interpret these diplomatic acts and compare them.
The role of the narratives found in the conflict’s development will be discussed, as well
as the possible international goals and outcomes for the parties involved, using the
constructivist framework as a backdrop. The findings will be further summarised in the
final section.
Memory Diplomacy
Scholars have recently begun to explore how memory influences and is actively employed
in a state’s foreign policy (Wang, 2015; Bachleitner, 2018; Clarke & Duber, 2018;
McGlynn & Đureinović, 2022; Klymenko & Siddi, 2022).
States' use of collective memory is always selective because it “...manipulat[es] certain
bits of the national past, suppressing others, elevating still others in an entirely functional
way” (Said, 2000, p. 179). In the same way that states (re)construct an official national
memory to pursue domestic goals, they also do so to achieve their foreign policy goals,
often with a different memory from that which prevails at the domestic level (Bachleitner,
2018, p. 4). This constructed memory is then exported to the international stage by
diplomatic actors (Bachleitner, 2018, p. 4) who, according to Kathrin Bachleitner (2018),
aim to signal either innocence or guilt to an international audience. States can employ
memory in their diplomatic relations to various audiences, depending on their
international goals. They can, for instance, attempt to form memory alliances with allied
states, with states with whom they want to ally, or even sympathetic audiences in
external states with antagonistic governments (Clarke & Duber, 2018; McGlynn &
Đureinović, 2022). Their target audience can also be states with opposing versions of the
past, in order to legitimise their own (Klymenko & Siddi, 2022). Finally, to establish a
monopoly of memory and marginalise different experiences, states can export their
memory to a general global audience (Chang, 2022; Nguyen, 2017).
This strategic employment of memory for international goals, directed at an international
public, has been called “diplomacy with memory” or “memory diplomacy”. McGlynn and
Đureinović (2022) have described memory diplomacy as aiming to identify and create
commonalities between a state’s memory and that of other states, to form memory
alliances. However, other researchers have also explored how states have used memory
in their diplomatic discourse which directly contrasts with other states’ memory of the
same event when this helps them advance their international aims (Bachleitner, 2018;
Clarke & Duber, 2018; Chang, 2022; Nguyen, 2017). Nevertheless, to analyse the use
of memory diplomacy, one must always consider why and for what international goals
the past is constructed and reconstructed. According to Kathrin Bachleitner (2018), one
must find evidence that a selected version of memory is forged into a diplomatic strategy
through looking at a country’s diplomatic practices.
Researchers have contributed to the increasing knowledge on the concept of memory
diplomacy as well as to the understanding of countries’ diplomatic practices by exploring
specific cases and countries where memory diplomacy was employed. McGlynn and
Đureinović (2022) have explored how Russia exports its memory of World War II in
Serbia, culminating in the formation of a memory alliance between the two countries;
Bachleitner (2018) has examined how Germany constructed and exported its official
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 227-246
Spoils of the Past: Memory Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
Inês Ferreira de Sousa, Constança Magalhães, Hugo Quarteu, Ana Campos Marinheiro
231
memory of guilt for its participation in World War II to achieve Western integration, in
contrast to how Austria forged an official memory of innocence to achieve independence,
later reconstructing it to achieve European integration; Clarke and Duber (2018) have
analysed how the current Polish government has used memory to validate its vision of
European history and defy that of its European partners; Nguyen (2017) has
demonstrated how the United States created a monopoly of memory by exporting its
narrative of the Vietnam War; and Chang (2022) has shown how China’s discourse
regarding its role in World War II has changed from victimhood to victory through
sacrifice, to highlight its important role in founding and constructing the current world
order and its responsibility in defeating aggression in the Pacific and Europe.
In her book Collective Memory in International Relations, Bachleitner (2021) lays out that
memory can be used as a strategy when it is forged internationally for a specific goal
through memory diplomacy. Moreover, memory can also become part of a state’s identity
when it is stable, as it reaches and spreads through domestic audiences, and continues
to do so over time (Bachleitner, 2021). Memory is first employed as strategy and then
becomes identity and guides state behaviour in passive ways. Memory diplomacy, as the
strategic employment of memory to achieve international goals is, according to
Bachleitner (2021) and in line with constructivist scholarship, a discursive international
interaction which in turn constitutes and reconstitutes state identity and state behaviour
(Wendt, 1999). In international conflicts, such as the one between Russia and Ukraine,
it is important to pay attention to “conflicts of identities manifested in political narratives”
(Faizullaev & Cornut, 2017, p.583).
Contextualising Memory Politics in Russia and Ukraine
Researchers have also discussed how historical narratives are being constructed and
reconstructed to fit into both Russia and Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policy agendas
(Fedor et al., 2017; Klymenko, 2022; Zhurzhenko, 2022; McGlynn & Đureinović, 2022).
In both countries, the memory of World War II is a recurrent theme in their official
national memories and narratives, given the trauma and suffering stemming from this
event (Fedor et al., 2017). According to Fedor et al. (2017), these narratives are central
in building these countries’ post-Soviet identity. However, they have also served as an
“ideological justification for Russian aggression against […] Ukraine” (Fedor et al., 2017,
p. 5) and as a justification for Ukraine’s pursuit of a pro-EU foreign policy agenda
(Klymenko, 2022).
Memory politics and historical narratives between Ukraine and Russia are rooted in the
complex, interwoven history of the two countries. In 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic issued the Act of Declaration of Independence of
Ukraine from the Soviet Union (Magocsi, 2010). This act came after centuries of
repression of Ukrainian identity by Moscow, of which the most well-known is the 1932-
1933 Holodomor, or Ukrainian famine, (Rozenas, Schutte & Zhukov, 2017; Shapoval &
Olynyk, 2008), and resulting from an enduring struggle for Ukrainian sovereignty and
self-determination (Magocsi, 2002). This declaration did not, however, end the shared
history that, since the 9th century, has connected Kyiv and Russia.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 227-246
Spoils of the Past: Memory Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
Inês Ferreira de Sousa, Constança Magalhães, Hugo Quarteu, Ana Campos Marinheiro
232
Since their independence from the USSR in 1991, the new states of Ukraine and Russia
have struggled to navigate the international system, especially when it comes to their
relation with each other and the so-called West, seen at times as a strategic partner and
at others as a threat (D’Anieri, 2019; Siddi, 2022). During this period, Ukraine has
ventured into a process of integration into Europe, interpreted by many as an effort by
Kyiv to exit the orbit of an increasingly aggressive, authoritarian, and unstable Moscow
under Vladimir Putin (D’Anieri, 2019).
Later in 2014, in response to the Maidan Revolution, Russia annexed the peninsula of
Crimea and supported an armed insurgency in the Ukrainian Donbas region, thus
sparking the Russo-Ukrainian War. Peace negotiations started in the wake of this war,
resulting in the Minsk Agreements, which were not successfully implemented (Åtland,
2020; Wittke, 2019), and were later discarded by Putin in 2022, at the time of the full-
scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.
During World War II, the USSR played a key role in the allied victory in Europe. Fedor et
al. (2017) mention that in Russia the memory of World War II and the country’s role as
a victor against fascism has been employed domestically to achieve post-Soviet-Russian
national consolidation and identity. This narrative has also been exported to achieve
Russia’s goal of becoming a great power, and “weaponised” to provoke pro-Russian
sentiments in Ukraine
1
. This is in line with what Grigas (2016) suggests is the ultimate
goal of Russia under Vladimir Putin: the reimperialization of the former Soviet space. This
‘reimperialization’, as Grigas (2016, p.10) puts it, follows a revisionist trajectory which
encompasses a stage of “aggressive use of propaganda (…) to promote a political cause
or point of view” (p. 44), more precisely the cause of the “urgent” need for “protection”
of Russian compatriots (p. 27).
The author also shows that, in particular, the propagandistic historical view promoted by
the Kremlin has steadily been converting fascism into a political tool to frame and
antagonise the opposition, namely the Ukrainian government. Indeed, according to
Grigas (2016), the defeat of fascism during the Second World War serves as one of the
pillars of the Russian identity. Simultaneously, Fedor et al. (2017) describe how any
attempts to depart from the Soviet narrative of the war are considered ‘fascist’ by Russia.
Zhurshenko (2015) discusses how Ukraine, nevertheless, deals with conflicting views of
its past, where in some regions the memory of World War II has raised ideological
conflicts and is subject to populist manipulations. This happens as Ukraine, like Russia,
not only seeks a post-Soviet national identity, but also faces the “geopolitical choice
between Russia and the West” (Fedor et al., 2017, p. 17). Klymenko (2022) argues that
since 2014, with its deep changes in foreign policy agenda, Ukraine has also changed its
official historical narratives, as it looks to distance itself from Russia and align itself with
Europe and the West. Ukraine has thus distanced itself from several Soviet and Russian
symbols and acts of remembrance (Fedor at al., 2017), while trying to portray similar
historical experiences to Europeans (Klymenko, 2022). This distancing from Soviet and
Russian history and memory is also in line with what Faizullaev and Cornut (2017) found
by analysing the annexation of Crimea through a constructivist lens. Faizullaev & Cornut
1
As pointed out by some scholars (Ferragamo, 2023; McGlynn, 2023), Russia has also been using memory
diplomacy to pursue its interests in the African continent – championing Russia as an anti-imperialist and
anti-colonialist power – with the aid of Wagner Group’s influence in the region.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 227-246
Spoils of the Past: Memory Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
Inês Ferreira de Sousa, Constança Magalhães, Hugo Quarteu, Ana Campos Marinheiro
233
(2017) study the phenomenon through narrative practices, concluding that both Russian
and Ukrainian political representatives acted as “narrative practitioners” (p.599)
strategically employing “competing narratives” (p.598) to create their own conceptions
of the past, present and future, and legitimise contentious political actions.
It is therefore interesting to explore how, while at war with each other, Russia and
Ukraine seem to continuously export their own memories of past events to other nations,
not only powering the “memory war” between each other, but also advancing their
competing narratives internationally and constructing their own understanding of social
reality.
Methodology
This research is based on a content discourse analysis of diplomatic acts, using an
interpretative approach framed by the constructivist theory of International Relations.
These are meant to facilitate a discussion about the employment of memory in Russia
and Ukraine since 2022. The diplomatic acts considered for analysis were those delivered
between 2022 and 2024. To find recurrent themes, opposing narratives and key ideas,
ten documents – speeches and official statements – were analysed for each party. When
collecting data for this purpose, certain key words were used to select the statements
and speeches, primarily in the websites of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
governments of both countries. The key words used were “Nazi”, “World War II”,
“Ukraine”, “Russia”, and “nationalism”, which were chosen based on the literature
reviewed on the history and official national memories of the target countries. The
speeches were also considered when delivered in contexts related to the remembrance
of historical moments related to World War II and when deemed relevant due to their
diplomatic importance to the countries’ foreign policy agenda.
Russia: Content Analysis
The historical narratives stressed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian
Federation have been consistent in the period of time considered in this paper. Russia
presents itself as a “country-civilization” in a distinct position with “a historically unique
mission aimed at maintaining global balance of power and building a multipolar
international system” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 2023). This
position is then justified by Russia’s efforts during World War II and, accordingly, by its
contribution to the development of the current international system (MFARF, 2023).
Russian policymakers propagate the idea that Russia, as the successor of the Soviet
Union, is largely responsible for the allied victory during World War II and for helping to
build the new world order, by assisting the process of decolonisation in Africa, Asia, and
Latin America. Simultaneously, this narrative portrays Russia as a victim of the
“falsification of history” carried out by the West (MFARF, 2023). Such ideas are clearly
expressed in “The Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation” (MFARF, 2023)
but are also conveyed by the frequent stances of the Foreign Affairs Ministry on what it
considers to be fake information in Western media aimed at demeaning the nation’s
image and its part in the victory against Nazi Germany.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 227-246
Spoils of the Past: Memory Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
Inês Ferreira de Sousa, Constança Magalhães, Hugo Quarteu, Ana Campos Marinheiro
234
In a briefing in April 2022, the Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova
addressed the “cancel culture” to which Russia was falling victim, as the West attempted
to “cancel the Red Army’s contribution to defeating Nazism” (Zakharova, 2022). In this
speech, Zakharova accuses Germany and later Ukraine of erasing Russian culture and
history, especially during World War II, drawing a parallel between this erasure and the
“Nazi campaign in Germany to destroy undesirable books”, describing the former as acts
of “xenophobia, Nazism, and extremism” and “a new cultural genocide” (Zakharova,
2022).
Continuously portraying itself as responsible for resisting and defeating the Nazis after
being a victim of their offensives, Russia condemns many Ukrainian expressions of
patriotism linking them to a Nazi past (MFARF, 2022a). In June 2022, the Embassy of
the Russian Federation addressed a letter to the Republic of Malta condemning the use
of “the old notorious slogan of radical Ukrainian nationalists” – a reference to ‘Slava
Ukraini’ (“Glory to Ukraine”), followed by ‘Herojam slava’ (“Glory to the heroes”). This
slogan, as the Russian Embassy claims throughout the letter, is inherited from Stepan
Bandera, “a leader and ideologist of a radical Ukrainian nationalists’ movement, which
collaborated with Nazi Germany and carried out inhumane ethnic cleansing in Ukraine
during World War 2” (MFARF, 2022a). The letter goes on to highlight that the spread of
this slogan is not the fault of Maltese citizens, who “honorably preserve the memory of
World War 2”, but that of a lack of education on the claimed values behind the
expressions (MFARF, 2022a).
The topic of Ukrainian nationalism has received significant attention from the Kremlin,
who convey narratives that directly oppose those of Kyiv. While being interviewed for the
production of the film “Nazism on trial”, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (2022b) alludes
to close “family ties” between Russia and Ukraine, and to Russia’s wish to have peaceful
relations with what it saw as a “good neighbour”. Yet, Lavrov (2022b) blames the USA
for propagating anti-Russia sentiments in Ukrainian leaders, culminating in a situation in
which, according to him, “neo-Nazi ideology is made part of Ukrainian life in every
possible way”. The association of neo-Nazism and Russophobia with Ukrainian
nationalism is therefore regarded as an external imposition, unnatural to the Ukrainians,
seen as historical friends of the Russians.
Indeed, at the 2024 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Foreign Ministry
Spokeswoman stresses the idea that the Ukrainian regime employs “radical nationalists”
with the goal of erasing Russian language and culture (Zakharova, 2024). Zakharova
(2024) expands on the Ukrainian bill on the English language, which made it an official
language of international communication, contrasting it with the perceived prosecution
of “Russian and other minority languages”, describing these linguistic policies as “typical
of colonies” and comparing them to those of Nazi Germany.
Simultaneously, Russia seeks to summarise, expose, and condemn what it considers to
be a growth in “the scale and frequency of neo-Nazi acts in Ukraine” in a document issued
by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and shared by the official social media accounts
of the Permanent Mission of Russia to the EU (MFARF, 2022b). In this document, titled
“The Truth Behind Events in Ukraine and Donbass” (MFARF, 2022b), Russia accuses
Ukraine of committing multiple Human Rights violations towards the people of Donbass,
warning of a “genocide in Donbass”. This choice of words seems to fit coherently with
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 227-246
Spoils of the Past: Memory Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
Inês Ferreira de Sousa, Constança Magalhães, Hugo Quarteu, Ana Campos Marinheiro
235
the many accusations of a supposed “glorification of Nazism” carried out by the
government and the many neo-Nazi groups in schools, memorials, and statues (MFARF,
2022b). Moreover, this document claims that Ukrainian leaders, namely Volodymyr
Zelenskyy, actively try to diminish the role of Soviet troops in defeating Nazism, “in order
to destroy the historic memory of the Ukrainian people concerning the events of the
Great Patriotic War”, by changing the names of villages, towns and cities that paid
homage to war heroes, and by taking down “2,500 Soviet-era monuments” (MFARF,
2022b).
In important speeches and interviews, the narratives conveyed are the same: Russia
liberated (or played a major part in liberating) Europe from Nazism and sees itself once
again now confronted and threatened by the growth of neo-Nazi ideology in Ukraine, as
well as by a common Western offense to Russia and Russian citizens (Lavrov, 2022a;
Lavrov, 2023; Putin, 2022; Putin, 2023). In his famous speech on the Victory Day, Putin
(2022) accuses the West of refusing to negotiate with Russia for a peace arrangement,
blames Western countries for the “cynical falsifications of World War II history” and for
the growing Russophobia, while also acknowledging that there are allies in the West,
such as the “US veterans who wanted to come to the parade in Moscow” and “were
actually forbidden to do so”. Similarly, in the Gala concert for 80th anniversary of
defeating German Nazi forces in Battle of Stalingrad, Putin states that “again and again”,
Russia must repel the aggressions of the West, that the security of his country is “once
again” threatened, and “once again” by “German Leopard tanks with crosses on them”
that prepare to fight Russia “at the hands of the followers of Hitler and Bandera” (Putin,
2023).
Portraying Russia as a cyclical victim of the West and as bearing the mission of fighting
Nazism, Sergey Lavrov (2022a) states that “the West left us [Russia] no choice” but to
conduct its special military operation in Ukraine, whose regime is always referenced as
“neo-Nazi”. Lavrov (2022a) adds that the conflict is nothing but a strategy of the United
States and its allies, which are “ready to sacrifice Ukraine for the sake of their geopolitical
goals”. Further recalling the memory of World War II, Lavrov (2023) compares the
collective Western offensive against Russia to Hitler’s effort to defeat the Soviet Union,
going as far as naming the Western “war against Russia” a strategy to find the “Final
Solution” for Russia, further comparing it to Hitler’s.
Ukraine: Content Analysis
Since 2022, Ukraine's foreign policy narratives have remained consistent. Upon
examination, a clear trend emerges of speeches and statements delivered by Ukranian
political representatives; they are actively promoting historical narratives that reinforce
Ukraine’s current shift toward Europe, while deliberately distancing itself from Russia.
Dmytro Kuleba (2024), the current Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, reinforces this
narrative by contending that it is Russia’s goal to crush Ukraine’s identity and “dissolve
the Ukrainian nation within the Russian imperial melting pot” - portraying Ukraine as a
colonised nation falling victim to Russian imperialism. Despite this, the minister
emphasises that Ukraine has “always belonged historically, politically, and culturally” to
Europe, and that it fights even today to “break free from the Russian influence” (Kuleba,
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 227-246
Spoils of the Past: Memory Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
Inês Ferreira de Sousa, Constança Magalhães, Hugo Quarteu, Ana Campos Marinheiro
236
2024). This struggle against Russia is depicted as a path to ultimately return to “the
European cradle”, where Ukraine continues to belong as a “European nation” (Kuleba,
2024).
Based on the narratives of Ukrainian political leadership, Europe and Russia are perceived
as distinct political, cultural, and religious entities. When deciding between the European
and the Russian “civilisations”, Ukrainian political leaders frequently present Ukraine as
sharing similarities with the former while diverging from the latter. In his speeches,
Volodymyr Zelenskyy depicts Ukraine as sharing common values and principles, such as
“freedom” and “equality”, with its European partners, arguing that the war is “not only
against Ukrainians” but “against the values that unite us [Europe and Ukraine]”
(President of Ukraine, 2022a). The President of Ukraine (2023) believes that the “crimes
and injustices” resulting from Russian aggression are not only directed towards Ukraine,
but also “against the civilised system of the world”. As such, the fight against Russia’s
“aggression and terror” should be carried out with the collective power of the “common
heritage of nations” (President of Ukraine, 2023).
The idea that Ukrainians share historical experiences similar to Europeans promoted by
the Ukrainian political leadership is most evident in its references to events of World War
II. President Zelenskyy frequently underlines the significant contribution made by
Ukrainians in defeating Nazism, asserting, for instance, that “Ukrainians, along with other
peoples of the anti-Hitler coalition, liberated European land from Nazi invaders”
(President of Ukraine, 2022d).
Ukraine draws a comparison between Russian “armed aggression” and the ongoing war,
and the atrocities committed during World War II, contending that “Russian racism is the
reincarnation of German Nazism” since both ideologies employ “imperial chauvinism” and
claim superiority over other nations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, 2022).
Additionally, Ukraine points out that in Russia “pacifist slogans are banned, and the cult
of armed forces and war is cultivated” (MFAU, 2022).
President Zelenskyy (2022f) highlights the repetition of History by stating that “Evil,
which seemed to have been finally defeated and burned to the ground in 1945, is reborn
from the ashes 80 years later”. Although the form of “evil” might have changed, “the
essence has remained unchanged”, with “a new guise, with new slogans, but with the
same goal” (President of Ukraine, 2022f).
Due to the repeated violations of international law by the Russian Federation (MFAU,
2022), “memories of a terrible war become a terrible reality” (President of Ukraine,
2022f). Therefore, the only viable solution to this conflict is to provide “maximum aid to
Ukraine, which is fighting against the Russian Empire” (Podolyak, 2022). Mykhailo
Podolyak, advisor to the head of the Office of the Ukrainian President and representative
at Russian-Ukrainian peace negotiations, argues that only when Russia is defeated will
there be a chance for “stable peace, peaceful life, and fewer criminal activities by Nazi
and far-right groups financed by Russia in Europe” (Podolyak, 2022).
Zelenskyy has given numerous speeches around the globe since the onset of the Russo-
Ukrainian conflict, tailoring them to suit the national audience, drawing parallels with
events that hold significance in the host country’s national memories and consistently
reminding audiences of the risk of history repeating itself.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
VOL 15 N.º 2
November 2024-April 2025, pp. 227-246
Spoils of the Past: Memory Diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
Inês Ferreira de Sousa, Constança Magalhães, Hugo Quarteu, Ana Campos Marinheiro
237
Presenting his speech in the Knesset in Israel, Zelenskyy mentioned that the Babyn Yar
site, where “100,000 Holocaust victims are buried”, had recently been bombed by the
Russian military forces. He also stresses the similarities between Russia’s rhetoric and
that of the Nazis, specifically to the reference to the “final solution” to the Jewish and
“Ukrainian issue”. Mentioning the establishment of the Nazi party on the 24th of February
1920, Zelenskyy points out that, 102 years later and on the same day, “a criminal order
was issued to launch a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine”, resulting in the
displacement of millions of exiles to “neighbouring countries” such as “Poland, Slovakia,
Romania, Germany, Czech Republic, and the Baltic States” (President of Ukraine, 2022c).
When addressing the Bundestag, Zelenskyy reiterated that the Babyn Yar site had been
targeted by Russian missiles. The President also argued that the ongoing war was
creating a “new wall that divides Europe” between “freedom and slavery”, similar to the
situation in Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall (President of Ukraine, 2022b).
Ukraine's narrative is deeply connected to the broader struggles for independence in
Central, Eastern, and South-Eastern European countries in the early twentieth century.
This is evident in Ukraine’s representatives’ speeches addressing nations that were
previously in the Moscow orbit, highlighting the countries’ shared struggle against Russia,
seen as the common enemy. For instance, President Zelenskyy emphasised Lithuania
and Ukraine’s “common historical past”, noting that Lithuanians “like no other,
understand how the occupiers can destroy freedom” (President of Ukraine, 2022e).
Interpreting Memory Discourses and their Outcomes
As previously mentioned, Russian history, as recalled (or revised) by the Russian state’s
diplomatic apparatus and political elites, presents a number of elements fundamental to
understanding its international efforts. Indeed, the narrative put forward by the Russian
state and its representatives posits the certainty of a special role for this nation to play
in history (MFARF, 2023). This becomes clear whenever Russia is portrayed as a
civilisation in its own right (MFARF, 2023). Moreover, analogous to China (Chang, 2022),
Russia declares itself, in the framework of Bachleitner’s (2018) analysis, not only as a
victim of World War II, but as a victor and thus saviour of other nations (MFARF, 2023).
The constant recalling of Nazism, genetically linking Ukrainian nationalism to it (MFARF,
2022a), along with the accusations of “Russophobic” actions carried out by Ukrainian
political or military apparatuses (MFARF, 2022a; Zakharova, 2022), can be interpreted
in different manners. By pointing out this link, Russia could be aiming to weaken the
legitimacy of Ukrainian nationalism, or the perception of Ukraine as a nation-state
altogether. This strategy is complemented by the discourse regarding the common
ancestry shared by Ukrainians and Russians (Lavrov, 2022b).
In an international context, this narrative seeks to establish a memory alliance between
the Russian state and certain sectors of the population within other states. This would be
the case especially if the possibility of growth of Russian nationalism among the territories
formerly under the USSR were to be considered, namely in Ukraine, where remembrance
of the war has been weaponised (Fedor et al., 2017). This is coherent with one of Russia’s
main international goals, which is to maintain the Russian sphere of influence in Eurasia