The parade, the past, and the rise of a post-Western world
The 9th of May Victory Day celebrations in Moscow once again captured international attention – despite the many other global events vying for the headlines. This wasn’t simply about pageantry or military symbolism. The Red Square parade was, as always, a statement: a public expression of one country’s position in the evolving global environment. Whether critics will admit it or not, events like this provoke reactions – and that in itself signals relevance.
Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, the memory of that conflict is being viewed through new lenses. It was, undeniably, a world war – its consequences reshaped the international order. The creation of the United Nations was its most formal legacy, but the broader historical impact extended far beyond. The war marked the beginning of the end for the colonial system. From the late 1940s onward, decolonization accelerated rapidly. Within three decades, colonial empires had all but disappeared, and dozens of new states emerged across Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. Their paths varied, but they fundamentally changed the structure of global politics.
Looking back from 2025, one could argue that this wave of decolonization – driven by the global South – was no less historically important than the Cold War or the bipolar superpower confrontation. Today, the role of the so-called “global majority” is expanding quickly. These nations may not dominate the international system, but they increasingly form a vibrant, influential environment in which all global actors must operate.
The presence of guests from Asia, Africa, and Latin America at this year’s parade in Moscow was a symbolic confirmation of that shift. It signaled that the world has definitively moved beyond the Cold War structure, which framed international life around a North Atlantic-centric axis. Equally important was the fact that this reconfiguration was highlighted in Moscow – through Russia’s own initiative. It reflected not just commemoration, but transformation. A similar event is expected in Beijing in September to mark the end of the war in the Pacific theater. Together, these ceremonies highlight how the geopolitical center of gravity is gradually shifting away from its traditional Western base.
As time distances us from the largest war in human history, its meaning doesn’t diminish. On the contrary, it reappears in new forms. Like it or not, memory has become a political force. It increasingly defines which community a country belongs to. Each nation has its own version of the war – and that’s to be expected. This isn’t revisionism. It’s the natural result of different historical experiences shaped under different conditions.
There will never be a single unified narrative of the past, and attempts to impose one are not only unrealistic but dangerous. The focus should be on finding compatibility between differing interpretations, not enforcing uniformity. Using memory as a political weapon erodes the foundations of peaceful international coexistence. This issue is particularly relevant for the global majority, which may one day voice its own historical claims more loudly – especially against former colonial powers in the West.
In this context, the growing divergence between Russia and Western Europe over the legacy of the Second World War cannot be ignored. Efforts to preserve and defend Russia’s interpretation of the conflict are vital – not to convince others, but for domestic coherence and national identity. Other countries will write their own histories, shaped by their own interests. That cannot be controlled from the outside. The real issue is whether differing historical narratives can coexist. And on this front, it turns out that Russia has a far more productive engagement with many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America than with most in Europe.
Many of these countries have their own war stories – ones that align more naturally with the Russian perspective. Unlike in the West, particularly in Europe, where the memory of the war has become a political wedge, countries in the global South tend to see history less ideologically and more as a shared human experience. Even parties in Western Europe that are ostensibly more sympathetic to Russia, such as the Alternative for Germany, are likely to hold radically different positions when it comes to questions of historical memory.
If we simplify the picture, the previous world order was built on the shared memory and outcomes of the Second World War. That order is now gone – and so is the consensus that supported it. The current global situation doesn’t amount to a new order in the traditional sense, but perhaps a new equilibrium can emerge. This equilibrium won’t be based on universal values or unified narratives, but rather on peaceful coexistence among diverse interpretations and interests.
Irreconcilable historical differences will remain a source of tension – particularly between Russia and the West – but differing perspectives need not always lead to conflict. With the global majority, Russia finds more space for mutual respect and constructive interaction. These countries do not seek to overwrite Russian memory; they have their own, and they don’t clash. That opens the door to new relationships and partnerships, grounded not in conformity but in compatibility.
What we are witnessing is the slow dissolution of the Western-centric worldview. In its place is emerging something far more complex and diversified. This shift is not merely the result of the current geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the West, but a reflection of deeper structural changes. It is an objective process – and, for Russia, a potentially advantageous one.
As a transcontinental power, Russia has more flexibility than any other state to operate in a multidirectional, multi-civilizational world. The new international environment – whatever form it ultimately takes – will not be shaped by a single hegemonic center. And that reality will force everyone, including Russia, to adapt.
But adaptation is not the same as subordination. On the contrary, Russia’s unique historical identity and geopolitical position may allow it to thrive in this emerging world – not by conforming to a Western blueprint, but by helping to build something more balanced, inclusive, and representative of the world as it actually is.
