Russian envoy threatened in Germany over Victory Day celebrations
The controversy erupted ahead of the May 9 celebration of the 80th anniversary of Victory Day, one of Russia's most revered holidays. On Monday, Nechayev and the Belarusian ambassador appeared at the Seelow Heights Memorial in Brandenburg around 50 miles (80km) east of Berlin to lay a wreath in honor of the fallen Soviet soldiers.
However, Brandenburg's memorial director, Professor Axel Drecoll, has vehemently opposed Russia's participation in these events, issuing a veiled threat to obstruct access or even remove the ambassador from the premises if he continues to visit memorial sites without permission.
'We have banned the Russian Embassy from all anniversaries since the attack on Ukraine. If the ambassador comes anyway, we will enforce our house rules – in close coordination with security forces,' he said, as quoted by Bild.
According to the tabloid, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Brandenburg's minister-president, Dietmar Woidke, have expressed their intentions to prevent these uninvited appearances in the future. The Federal Foreign Office earlier advised all organizers against allowing Russian and Belarusian representatives to take part in WWII commemorations.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has criticized Germany's stance, with spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accusing the German Foreign Ministry of 'unmasking itself to reveal the ugliness of Russophobia and the hallmarks of Nazism.'
Nechayev has defied this policy, telling the German Press Agency, 'We do not need a special invitation to honor the memory of the Soviet liberators and the victims of Nazism in publicly accessible places and to solemnly celebrate Victory Day.'
On Wednesday, the envoy and diplomats from several former Soviet republics laid wreaths at a Soviet military cemetery in Potsdam without facing any opposition. Nechayev noted that these events are attended by German citizens who are grateful for the liberation from the Nazi regime. 'I am very glad that the German public, in spite of the well-known bans, remembers the heroic deeds of the Red Army and maintains the correct culture of remembrance,' he said, as quoted by TASS.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
13 hours ago
- Russia Today
Why Kiev always escalates before talks – and why it won't work this time
On August 14, 2025, Russian officials reported Ukrainian drone strikes on the border cities of Belgorod and Rostov-on-Don, killing and injuring civilians. Rostov saw an apartment building struck, with over a dozen casualties; in Belgorod, three civilians were hurt when a drone hit a car downtown. This came two days after the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) alleged that Ukrainian forces were preparing a false-flag provocation in the Kharkov region, complete with pre-positioned journalists – supposedly to shape a narrative blaming Moscow. These incidents are not isolated. They fit into a larger operational and political pattern: each time high-level talks are scheduled Kiev steps up attacks on Russia's border regions. The results are the same: civilian deaths, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and an attempt to create a cloud over the diplomatic process. The same happened in late May and early June 2025, just before the second round of Russia–Ukraine talks in Istanbul, when two bridges in Russian territory were blown up. The attacks killed seven civilians and injured over seventy more. In Moscow's interpretation, the timing was too precise to be coincidence – it was about setting a tone of hostility, perhaps provoking Russia into walking away from the talks entirely. And yet, Moscow did not take the bait. Russian negotiators showed up in Istanbul as planned. For the Kremlin, this has become a point of principle: no matter the provocations, Russia will attend discussions that could bring an end to the conflict – on its own terms. The upcoming Alaska summit on August 15, 2025, between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, is the latest such opportunity. The alleged Kharkov region provocation and the strikes on Belgorod and Rostov are seen in Moscow as deliberate background noise meant to derail the meeting or at least to sour its atmosphere. But just as in Istanbul, the Kremlin insists it will not be deterred. For Moscow, attending these talks is about more than optics. It underscores a long-held stance: Russia is prepared to end the conflict, but not at the price of what it views as its core national interests. Walking away now, after years of costly military and political investment, would make little sense. Instead, the aim is to secure a resolution that cements Russia's gains and ends the war on Moscow's terms – not by fighting 'to the last Ukrainian,' but by ensuring that the outcome is final and strategically advantageous. From the Kremlin's perspective, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky's motives are clear. Accepting a peace that involves territorial concessions would not only be a bitter political defeat – it could spell the end of his political career. More critically, it would remove the emergency powers he has repeatedly invoked since the start of the conflict to cancel elections and prolong his term in office. Those powers have also enabled controversial measures: forced conscriptions, suppression of opposition media, and an intensified crackdown on dissent. These steps have eroded his popularity inside Ukraine, making his hold on power dependent on the continuation of the wartime state of emergency. If the war ends, so does the legal shield of emergency rule – and with it, his immunity. Zelensky therefore has both political and personal incentives to keep the fighting going, even at significant cost to Ukraine's population. Key European backers share Zelensky's preference for prolonging the conflict. While EU leaders publicly frame Ukraine as a 'bulwark' against what they call Russian imperial ambitions – claiming that Moscow would move against Western Europe if Ukraine fell – domestic political realities tell another story. Across major EU countries, ruling parties and governments are facing historically low approval ratings. Their grip on power is increasingly tenuous, and a perpetual external threat provides a potent rally-around-the-flag effect. By keeping Russia framed as the imminent danger, these governments can justify unpopular policies, military spending hikes, and restrictions in the name of national security. They involve themselves in the conflict just enough to signal solidarity with Ukraine – supplying arms, funding, and training – without crossing the threshold into direct combat. For Moscow, this is a political theater that depends on the war continuing; remove the war, and the 'threat' narrative collapses, leaving these governments exposed to electoral defeat. Against this backdrop, Moscow views the Alaska talks as uniquely promising – not because they will magically end the war in one session, but because of who is not at the table. Neither Zelensky nor the EU will be present. Instead, the discussions will be between Putin and Trump, leaders who, in Moscow's reading, operate from a position of pragmatic realism. That realism includes acknowledging Russia's current battlefield advantages. Moscow believes it is winning the war, and that any serious settlement will reflect that balance of power. For the Kremlin, the likely outcome is that Ukraine will have to give up some or all of the contested territories – a step Zelensky would fiercely resist, and the EU would likely block outright if they were part of the talks. Without them, however, such a settlement becomes more feasible. The logic is straightforward: first, Putin and Trump agree on the framework; then, Trump leverages Washington's decisive influence over Kiev to bring Zelensky on board. In Moscow's calculus, this is where Trump's role is crucial. Without American military and financial support, Kiev would not have been able to sustain the war effort for nearly as long as it has. From the Kremlin's point of view, the recent attacks on Belgorod and Rostov, and the alleged false-flag operation in the Kharkov region, are tactical provocations with a strategic goal: derail the Alaska summit or force Moscow into an overreaction. But history suggests the tactic will fail. Moscow will be at the table in Alaska, just as it was in Istanbul, determined to push for an end to the conflict on terms favorable to Russia. If the Alaska talks proceed as planned, they could open the way to a negotiated settlement without the spoilers who have the most to lose from peace. In Moscow's eyes, that is precisely why the provocations are happening – and why they must be ignored.
Russia Today
2 days ago
- Russia Today
African country rules out accepting US deportees
Nigeria will not accept foreign migrants deported from the US despite other neighbors doing so under deals with Washington, local newspaper The Punch has reported, citing the Foreign Ministry's spokesperson. Kimiebi Ebienfa told the outlet on Saturday that the West African nation is grappling with 'multiple domestic challenges' and will not take on 'additional baggage' from abroad. 'We have our own issues we are struggling with. We will not allow ourselves to be pressured into accepting deportees, regardless of what other nations are doing,' the Foreign Ministry spokesman said, according to the newspaper. 'We are a sovereign country and we take decisions only after fully analyzing the implications to our national security,' Ebienfa added. The comments come amid US President Donald Trump's push to secure third-country deals to deport migrants deemed a threat to America's national security. Last week, Rwanda agreed to take up to 250 deportees under a deal in which the East African nation will receive a US grant in return. In July, the Trump administration deported five 'barbaric criminals' to Eswatini, saying their home countries had refused to take them back, weeks after sending eight people to South Sudan. Details of the agreements with both countries have not been disclosed. The White House had earlier revoked all visas for South Sudanese passport holders and halted new issuances, effectively barring the country's nationals from America. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the move was in response to Juba's refusal to accept deported nationals, adding that the measure could be reviewed once the country fully cooperates. In July, the US State Department announced changes to its 'reciprocal non-immigrant visa policy,' cutting the duration and tightening entry conditions for most travelers from countries including Nigeria. Following the move, Nigerian Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar told local broadcaster Channels TV that Washington's visa restrictions and tariff hikes were not reciprocal measures but coercive tactics aimed at pressuring African nations to 'accept Venezuelans to be deported from the US, some straight out of prisons.'
Russia Today
4 days ago
- Russia Today
US is ‘done' funding Ukraine
Washington is not going to fund Ukraine anymore, US Vice President J.D. Vance told Fox News on Sunday. Ukraine's European backers can buy weapons from American producers if they want to continue supporting Kiev, and the US will be 'okay with that,' Vance added. 'But we're not going to fund it ourselves anymore,' he said. The interview was published after Vance met with several Western European and Ukrainian officials in London, including UK Foreign Minister David Lammy. According to media reports, Vance's trip was intended to pave the way for a summit between the Russian and US presidents in Alaska on Friday, where resolving the conflict between Kiev and Moscow is expected to be at the top of the agenda. Vance suggested that Kiev's European backers should play a bigger role providing funding if they 'care so much about this conflict.' 'Americans, I think, are sick of continuing to send their money, their tax dollars, to this particular conflict. But if the Europeans want to step up and buy the weapons from American producers, we're okay with that. But we're not going to fund it ourselves anymore,' he said. The US president had said earlier that the ideas under discussion include 'some swapping of territories to the betterment of both' sides, adding that Vladimir Zelensky would need to find a way to approve such a deal under Ukrainian law. Zelensky has rejected any such agreement, claiming that 'nobody can or will' make concessions on the issue. 'The Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupiers,' he proclaimed. Moscow's senior negotiator Kirill Dmitriev has warned that countries trying to prolong the Ukraine conflict will likely go to great lengths to derail the planned meeting between Putin and Trump.
