IN BRIEF: Key foreign leaders who congratulated Russia on Victory Day

Coverage Comparison

As Russia marked the 81st anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany, international attention focused on which foreign leaders would attend the celebrations in Moscow. According to Russian state news agency TASS, the leaders of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Belarus were among those present, with reports also mentioning participation from the leaders of Abkhazia, Laos, Malaysia, Slovakia, South Ossetia, and Republika Srpska. The reports, all from TASS, offered a consistent picture of the events, though the agency’s role as a state-controlled outlet should be noted.

While the coverage did not include independent or Western sources, the same facts were repeated across multiple TASS articles, lending internal consistency. The reports emphasized the diplomatic exchanges and the symbolic importance of Victory Day, with no significant disagreements emerging between the articles.

Key Claims

Putin’s Statements on Invitations: Russian President Vladimir Putin told Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, as reported by TASS, "We have not officially invited anyone. We just said we'd be happy to see anyone who wants to come." This statement was cited in at least one TASS article, which also quoted Lukashenko responding, "No security can interfere with us," regarding safety concerns.

International Attendance: According to TASS, the leaders of Abkhazia, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, Slovakia, Uzbekistan, South Ossetia, and Republika Srpska were expected to attend the celebrations in Moscow. Russian Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov confirmed the attendance of Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, stating they would join the Victory Parade on Red Square and other events. Ushakov reiterated Putin’s point about invitations, saying, "The Russian leadership has issued no invitations to these events."

Congratulatory Messages: Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic sent a letter to Putin, as he announced after meeting with the Russian ambassador to Belgrade. Vucic reportedly wrote, "May 9 remains an eternal symbol of the resilience and heroism of our peoples," and stressed the Red Army’s role in liberating Serbia and Europe. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico also traveled to Moscow, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and promising that his government would care for Soviet soldiers’ graves.

Regional Ceremonies: In Belarus, President Lukashenko attended a ceremony at the Victory Monument in Minsk, where he laid wreaths and flowers. He called Victory Day "a day of national pride," and said, "We will do everything in our power to preserve the peace you have won for us," addressing veterans.

Perspectives

Kremlin’s Stance: The coverage highlights Moscow’s framing of Victory Day as a unifying historical event, with Putin emphasizing that attendance is voluntary and not subject to official invitations. This appears designed to counter criticism that the celebrations might be used to rally support for Russia’s current policies, and it presents the participation of foreign leaders as a testament to Russia’s continued international standing.

Belarusian and Central Asian Allies: Lukashenko’s statements in Minsk and the confirmed attendance of Kazakh and Uzbek presidents underscore the close ties among former Soviet states. Their participation, as reported, emphasizes shared historical narratives and the importance of veterans’ legacy, suggesting a bloc of countries that align with Russia’s interpretation of World War II history.

European Counterpoints: Serbian and Slovak leaders’ gestures—Vucic’s letter and Fico’s personal visit—demonstrate that some European voices still acknowledge the Red Army’s liberation role, even as broader European sentiment has shifted in light of the conflict in Ukraine. These leaders emphasize gratitude and memory, but their actions remain controversial in the current geopolitical climate.

Historical Sensitivity: The reports repeatedly stress that preserving history and resisting rewriting it is a duty, a theme that resonates with Russia’s official narrative. However, this framing is contested by many historians and governments who point to Russia’s own efforts to reinterpret the war in relation to its neighbors. The TASS coverage does not engage with these counter-narratives, so readers should seek additional sources for a fuller picture.