The best way to undermine Putin's revision of history is through mockery
According to Putin's version of history, the Soviet experience in World War II is a foundation stone for Russian exceptionalism: having lost millions of lives in a horrific conflict, Russia emerged set apart from other countries as a global savior uniquely qualified to combat Nazism yesterday and today.
Putin has infused the May 9 'Victory Day' celebrations with spiritual significance, branding the day a 'sacred holiday' and declaring 2025 the 'Year of the Defender of the Fatherland.' This narrative has great resonance among Russians, who retain a profound emotional connection to the conflict as countless families have lost loved ones.
The Kremlin's narrative about World War II is based on a selective reading of history. It ignores, for example, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, in which the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany cooperated to divide and conquer Poland. The aftermath of this pact and a subsequent trade agreement witnessed extensive commerce between the Soviets and Nazis. More poignantly, it saw the infamous Katyn Massacre of 1940, in which the Soviets executed over 20,000 Poles.
The Russian narrative imagines that the war began only after the Nazis betrayed their erstwhile ally. Furthermore, according to Putin's conception of history, the Poles were fascist sympathisers heroically saved from Nazi tyranny by Soviet intervention. There is no room for criticism of Soviet actions. Defending former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's actions during the war, Putin once declared that 'nobody can now throw stones at those who organized and stood at the head of this victory.'
In 2014, Russia's parliament passed a law mandating up to five years in prison for 'spreading intentionally false information about the Soviet Union's actions during World War II.'
Beneath the façade of concern with fighting fascism, Putin leverages this narrative to justify Russia's aggressive foreign policy. Indeed, Russia has tried to convince the world that its war against Ukraine is a continuation of the fight against the Nazis. By cloaking his revanchist wars in anti-fascist dress, Putin perversely presents his aggression as a defense against tyranny.
Putin also uses historical propaganda to attack his Western adversaries. In 2019, for example, Putin characterised former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill as a hypocrite, stating: '[R]emember Churchill, who at first hated the Soviet Union, then called Joseph Stalin a great revolutionary when it was necessary to fight Nazism, and after the Americans got nuclear weapons, he called for the immediate destruction of the Soviet Union.' The Kremlin has argued that the American and British bombing of the German city of Dresden 'can be compared to Nazi atrocities,' portraying the Soviet military as more noble by contrast.
The UK and the US should counter the Kremlin's shameless exploitation of World War II. Recently, the Trump administration took a meaningful step toward this end, with president Trump declaring May 8 'Victory Day' in the United States.
When announcing Victory Day, Trump declared that 'nobody was close to us in terms of strength, bravery, or military brilliance,' thereby hitting Putin and his lackeys in a sensitive spot. Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president and deputy chairman of the country's Security Council, called Trump's statement 'pretentious nonsense.' Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed the Soviet Union 'would have defeated the Nazis regardless' of American intervention.
The United Kingdom and its allies should launch offensive influence operations to undermine Putin's efforts to use World War II propaganda to shape Western perceptions of Russia's foreign policy and put Moscow on the defensive.
For example, London should needle Putin and his cronies through satire and revive Soviet-era jokes about Stalin. The information space in Russia should be filled with the famous Stalin slogan 'Life has become better, comrades!' and adapted to the current situation to remind the Russians of the lack of freedom and economic hardships under Putin.
Just as Adolf Hitler hated Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator film, the Kremlin loathes the 2017 movie The Death of Stalin. Russia's Culture Ministry banned it for mocking Russian history and 'humiliating the Russian people.' Now, the UK should strengthen a public-private effort between the British Government and the British film industry and produce a humorous movie about the Great Dictator Putin. Similar to how Stalin imprisoned people for telling disrespectful jokes, Putin approved a law that threatens to jail people for 'disrespecting government.'
Tyranny is no laughing matter, but time and again humour has proven an effective antidote to dictatorship. The UK should launch a concerted effort to make Putin the butt of many jokes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘It wasn't an error': Ofqual boss defends regulator after withdrawn data row
England's chief regulator of exams has put up a staunch defence of Ofqual after it was forced to withdraw a decade of statistics detailing the number of students granted extra time and other assistance for A-levels and GCSEs. In his first interview with a national media organisation since his permanent appointment as head of Ofqual, and just weeks after the data was dramatically pulled, Sir Ian Bauckham said there had been no error in the figures, blaming instead the way they had been interpreted. He also denied that the data 'misunderstanding', which comes five years after Ofqual's disastrous attempt during Covid to award GCSE and A-level grades by algorithm, had further undermined confidence in the organisation, saying: 'We've got a qualification system in this country to be proud of.' In an interview with the Guardian, the chief regulator also addressed the debate surrounding the government's curriculum and assessment review, warning against any wholesale move from exams to coursework because of concerns about students' growing use of AI. He also urged caution over the introduction of digital exams, saying that any assessment innovation must be secure and deliverable, and should not disadvantage poorer students who may not have had the same access to digital devices and software as their wealthier peers. Ofqual, which was set up in 2010 to regulate qualifications in England, shocked the education sector when it announced on 17 July that it was withdrawing official statistics for special access arrangements for exams going back to 2014, because they 'significantly overstated' the number of students. Access arrangements are adjustments to exams for students with special needs, disabilities or injuries, with 25% extra time being the most common. In 2012-13, 107,000 students in England were granted extra time, but in 2024 Ofqual said it was nearly 420,000 students, an increase of nearly 300%. The data appeared to show that 30% of students had been granted 25% extra time last year, with particularly high rates in private schools where nearly 42% of students received adjustments. Ofqual now thinks the actual rate is far lower. Bauckham said the confusion had arisen because, rather than showing access arrangements solely for students entered for GCSEs and A-levels in one particular year, the data includes a much broader list of access arrangements. Each access arrangement lasts two years. There can be duplicate applications for the same student, and the list may include pupils with special arrangements in place who did not sit exams that year at all. 'It wasn't an error, because the published data only ever claimed to be the long list of approved access arrangements,' Bauckham said. 'It never claimed to be that data mapped against actual exam entries, but it was interpreted as that. 'I've been clear that moving forward … we need to publish actual granted access arrangements that relate to actual entries in the year in question.' He said the final figure is likely to be much more in line with the proportion of pupils in England with special education needs and disabilities (Send), which according to the most recent official statistics stands at 19.5%, including those with education, health and care plans 'Just because this figure is significantly lower, doesn't mean that there may not have been a rising trend,' Bauckham added. 'I would be very surprised indeed if the final data, when we're able to pinpoint it, doesn't indicate a rising trend. So I don't think it takes away the problem, but it alters the scale of what we're thinking about.' On what appeared to be a growing gap between the use of access arrangements between private and state schools, he said: 'Of course in independent schools there is a slightly higher proportion of Send than there is in state-funded schools. 'I don't think it's unreasonable to hypothesise that there will still be a difference between state-funded schools and independent schools, not least because of that higher Send figure, but I'm absolutely clear that we must have data that informs the public debate on this issue.' Bauckham, who after a year as interim chief regulator was permanently appointed in February, said Ofqual had moved on a long way from the chaos of Covid when exams were cancelled and grades calculated using an algorithm had to be scrapped. 'Five years later, we've moved back to examinations which are widely trusted as the fairest way to accredit and assess what students know, understand and can do,' he added. On the government's curriculum and assessment review, due to report later this year, the Ofqual chief acknowledged concerns about the volume of exams pupils currently face, but he warned against reducing assessment to a single paper per subject. Students 'really value the opportunity to have at least two bites at the cherry, by which I mean two opportunities in two separate exam papers in the same subject',' he said. He is in favour of AI being used to support teaching and students' learning. 'But I would be very concerned about moving wholesale to a system where exams were replaced by extended writing coursework, because that would, in current circumstances, be open to malpractice.' 'I'm not worried about the future of qualifications,' Bauckham said. 'I think qualifications are going to be needed more than ever in the future, but I think in education, we've got to be clear that students still need rigorous intellectual training. They still need mastery of key knowledge. 'We still need to set our sights high for them and we mustn't succumb to the confused thinking that says, because AI will enable future workplaces, we don't need students to know, understand and be able to do skills and demonstrate knowledge at a high level, because I think the opposite is true.'
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed toand what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
In wartime, demonstrations in Ukraine can never be more than a peaceful protest
Once a decade, Ukraine has a moment in which street protests redefine the country's political direction. The Orange revolution of 2004; the Maidan revolution of 2014; and now, over the past 10 days, the first major wave of protest since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion. A series of unexpectedly boisterous and well-attended demonstrations forced Volodymyr Zelenskyy to execute a swift U-turn on his decision to scrap the independence of two anti-corruption bodies. On Thursday, MPs reversed the contentious changes they had adopted a week previously. Outside the parliament building, crowds whooped and cheered as the result of the vote was announced. The size, scope and demands of this latest protest movement have been much more modest than those of its revolutionary predecessors, but the spectacle has been no less remarkable, given the context of full-scale war in which it has taken place. The final, celebratory gathering came only hours after the latest massive Russian airstrike had hit Kyiv, killing at least 28 people including three children. Hardly anyone had managed a good night's sleep before arriving at parliament armed with banners and high spirits. This wartime context to a large extent inspired the protests: a common sentiment that when people are laying down their lives for the country on the frontline, the government has to live up to a certain set of values. But it also limited their scope. There was none of the revolutionary enthusiasm of Maidan present here; instead, there was a sober acknowledgement that all-out political unrest would only play into Russia's hands. 'There were some people chanting for impeachment and the vast majority of others said, 'Shut up, we do not undermine the legitimacy of the president, what happened is that the legitimate president made a mistake,'' said Inna Sovsun, an MP from the opposition Holos party who attended several protests. Dmytro Koziatynskyi, whose post on social media provided the initial spark for the protest, dismissed any comparisons to Maidan for exactly this reason. 'Even if they don't pass the law, this will never become anything other than a peaceful protest,' he said, in an interview before the parliamentary vote. Koziatynskyi was a masters student in the Czech Republic before returning to Ukraine after the full-scale invasion in 2022 and signing up to become a combat medic. After three years on various parts of the frontline, he left the army in May and now works for an NGO. When he saw the news last week that parliament had rushed through a law curtailing the independence of two bodies specially designed to go after high-level corruption, he found it 'insulting', he said. 'People are not fighting so that our government can do some crazy stuff, that destroys all our achievements since 2014,' he said. He penned an angry post on social media calling on people to protest against the new law. He expected 'maximum 100 people, mostly friends and acquaintances' to join the protest. By the second night there were about 10,000 people outside the Ivan Franko theatre, the nearest point to the presidential office that is accessible to the public. Most of those who came out were young – this has been a protest wave dominated by gen Z, with friends competing for the wittiest slogan or meme reference on their handwritten placards. On Wednesday evening, a man leading the singing of the Ukrainian national anthem through a loudspeaker was holding a sign that bore a single word: 'Cringe'. Suddenly, the fate of two relatively small institutions – the national anti-corruption bureau, known as Nabu, and the specialised anti-corruption prosecutor's office, Sapo – had become the issue of the day among Ukrainian teenagers. Nabu and Sapo were established after the Maidan revolution as part of a drive against the long-running scourge of corruption in Ukraine, financed partly with US money. Some western observers agree that there are problems with Nabu and Sapo: too many cases opened and not enough of them brought to a conclusion, for one. In theory, some streamlining would make sense; in practice, Zelenskyy's move looked a lot like bringing independent investigators under political control. With the Trump administration no longer pushing an anti-corruption agenda, and Europe on summer holidays, Zelenskyy's team appears to have felt they could push the bill through quickly, without anyone paying much attention. That might have been the case were it not for the protests. But the images of thousands of young people demanding the law's repeal forced European politicians to take a stand, and several leaders spoke privately to Zelenskyy to tell him he needed to find a way out of the self-inflicted mess. Sign up to Headlines Europe A digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week day after newsletter promotion 'This became a major breach of trust. It's problematic both from an EU accession point of view and in that it makes it much harder for friends of Ukraine to continue making the case that the country needs support,' said one diplomatic source in Kyiv. Zelenskyy's response was swift and decisive, even if somewhat embarrassing for the MPs of his Servant of the People party, who were instructed to vote against the very thing they had been ordered to vote for the previous week. Now that the status quo has been re-established, there are two very different readings of the whole episode. One sees a leader using wartime powers to try to stifle independent institutions, too out of touch to predict the obvious backlash. Another reflects on how, even in wartime, Ukrainian society is still capable of expressing democratic sentiment, and its leaders still able to react swiftly to it. Koziatynskyi, whose post started off the protest wave, leans towards the second view. 'The protests showed that Ukrainian democracy is as strong as possible in times of a full-scale war, and our society is mature enough to have a dialogue with the government, and the government is able to listen,' he said. Zelenskyy's five-year presidential term should have ended last year, but almost all Ukrainians, including his fiercest opponents, agree that elections are both legally and technically impossible during wartime. With Russia's nightly attacks continuing, and a hope that Donald Trump might finally start getting tougher on Russia, that consensus has not changed. Nobody wants upheaval, but the outburst of protest may yet change the political atmosphere. 'Legally, everything will go back to how it was; politically, it's more complicated,' said Sovsun. 'It's unpredictable what this might have done to Ukrainian society. We have basically lifted the unspoken rule that we don't protest during martial law.'
