The case for Orthodoxy, cultural continuity, and resistance to Western hegemony.

“We will not allow the heroic deeds of our ancestors to be diminished or rewritten. The truth about the Second World War must be preserved.” (Vladimir Putin 2020).

As Russia commemorates the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany on May 9, 2025, the event has become a focal point of geopolitical alignment, reflecting the current global divisions.

It is a historical fact that the Soviet Union played a decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany. The Red Army’s sacrifices—over 20 million Soviet lives lost—were instrumental in liberating much of Eastern Europe and capturing Berlin.

“It is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine.” (Winston Churchill 1944).

“The victory over Nazi Germany was a joint effort, but the heaviest sacrifices and blood were spilled on the Eastern Front by the Soviet people.” (Franklin D. Roosevelt.)

1) Russia and Ukraine – The Holy Rus’:

Holy Rus’ is not just a historical term—it’s a spiritual and civilizational concept that lies at the heart of Russian identity, and by extension, that of Ukraine and Belarus as well.

Kievan Rus’ (9th–13th centuries) was a medieval federation of East Slavic tribes centered in Kyiv, founded in the late 9th century by Viking (Varangian) rulers.

In 988 AD, Prince Vladimir of Kyiv adopted Eastern Orthodox Christianity from Byzantium, baptizing his people and aligning the new state with the spiritual heritage of Constantinople.

This baptism of Rus’ marked the beginning of the spiritual identity of the East Slavs.

By the 14th–15th centuries, as Kyiv lost power and Moscow rose, the idea of “Holy Rus’” began to take shape.

It viewed the lands of Kievan heritage (modern-day Russia, Ukraine, Belarus) as a unified Orthodox Christian civilization.

After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow began to claim itself as the “Third Rome”—the last defender of true Christianity and spiritual order.

“Holy Rus’” came to mean more than geography—it meant a sacred mission, a chosen civilization guided by faith, unity, humility, and resistance to heresy (especially Western Catholic and later Protestant influences).

Ukraine’s turn Westward is not just political—it’s seen as a rebellion against Holy Rus’.

The rejection of the Russian Church, the banning of Orthodox institutions loyal to Moscow, and the embrace of NATO/EU are perceived as a fall into apostasy, or at least a spiritual betrayal.

Today, Holy Rus’ is invoked. As a civilizational counterpoint to the secular, liberal West.

To claim spiritual continuity from Kyiv to Moscow, rejecting the artificial division of East Slavic peoples. As a rallying cry for unity between Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians, under the shared Orthodox heritage and rejection of Western moral relativism.

“To forget one’s ancestors is to be a brook without a source, a tree without a root.” (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn).

2) Historical Amnesia or Reframing?

Russia under Putin has positioned itself as the standard-bearer of traditionalism, sovereignty, and multipolarity—values increasingly at odds with the liberal-progressive, technocratic ethos of the EU.

This ideological divergence fuels mistrust. Russia sees the EU as culturally rootless and politically subservient to the U.S., while EU elites view modern Russia as authoritarian, revisionist, and anti-European in values.

“The West’s moral clarity often comes with selective blindness—especially when history becomes inconvenient.” (Konstantin Kisin – Russian-British commentator)

In much of post-Cold War Europe, especially in the former Soviet-occupied countries, the Soviet role is now viewed not as liberation but as the beginning of a new occupation.

This has created a selective memory, while the Nazi defeat is celebrated, the Soviet role is often minimized or reframed negatively, especially in countries like Poland, the Baltic states, and even parts of Germany.

The EU’s alignment with NATO has blurred the line between European and American strategic interests. Since the 2000s, the West has increasingly framed Russia not as a WWII ally, but as a contemporary “aggressor.”

“For the powerful, crimes are those that others commit.” (Noam Chomsky).

Many European leaders, under pressure from the U.S. and internal security lobbies, view participation in Russian-hosted commemorations as legitimizing a state they now consider an existential threat to liberal democracy in Europe.

3) The External Inflluence:

Neocons in Washington (e.g., Victoria Nuland, former Bush/Obama officials) have long viewed Ukraine as a geopolitical wedge against Russia. Ukraine is a proxy zone—not just militarily but ideologically.

Globalists see national identity (especially Slavic Orthodox ones) as incompatible with the borderless, liberal world order. Ukraine’s traditional culture is being overwritten with an idealized European identity.

Many EU elites (especially in Brussels) see Ukraine as an ideological project—modern, Western, secular, progressive. But they are often blind to the regional complexities and historical depth of Slavic civilization.

Ukraine is being “Europeanized” in a bureaucratic, top-down way, not organically.

“The West is not interested in remembering the real price of its freedom when it clashes with today’s political interests.” (Yevgeny Primakov).

The West, especially the U.S. State Department, EU institutions, and NGOs, has heavily funded Ukrainian civil society, media, and education since the early 2000s. This soft power often promoted: Liberal democratic values, NATO/EU alignment, Post-nationalist, and anti-Russian narratives.

This helped create a new Ukrainian civic nationalism, but also pushed Ukraine away from its traditional cultural roots.

In December 2013—during the height of the Maidan protests—U.S. Senator John McCain appeared in Kyiv’s Independence Square, standing alongside opposition leaders and addressing the crowd. He said:

“We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently.”

This was not a neutral visit. It was direct political signaling from the United States, in the middle of an uprising against a democratically elected (though corrupt) president, Viktor Yanukovych, who leaned toward Moscow. McCain’s appearance was a deliberate act of geopolitical intrusion.

4) Clash of the Identities:

Russia, for all its imperfections, is defending the idea of civilizational sovereignty, the right of a people to resist globalist standardization, the memory of a shared Orthodox-Slavic heritage.

Meanwhile, the West cloaks its imperial designs in freedom and democracy, while enforcing, mass conformity, cultural amnesia, and geopolitical control through “values”.

Banning of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) regardless of religious affiliation represents state intrusion into spiritual life.

Suppression of Russian language and media with laws restricting Russian-language education and broadcasting, even in Russian-speaking regions.

Toppling monuments, rewriting textbooks, and renaming streets all aimed at erasing the Russian-Soviet historical legacy, often replacing it with nationalist or Eurocentric narratives.

These are not organic processes of national awakening—they are part of an engineered identity rupture, often influenced by Western NGOs, intelligence agencies, and media apparatuses.

European nations face internal fragmentation too—economic slowdown, migration unrest, cultural divides. Russia becomes a convenient “Other.”

Many European states have limited independent foreign policy. Their decisions often reflect NATO/U.S. priorities rather than a distinct European diplomacy.

At a deeper level, there is a civilizational crisis in Europe. The EU has distanced itself from its own Christian heritage, traditional identity, and collective memory.

From a traditionalist or civilizational lens, it is a kind of self-destruction. Renaming streets, banning the Russian language, rewriting history, these are signs of cultural rupture.

Ukraine risks losing its soul in the pursuit of an artificial identity modeled on Western liberal norms. But from a Western liberal perspective, this is framed as “self-assertion,” not self-destruction.

Russia, with all its flaws, asserts a civilizational mission—rooted in Orthodoxy, cultural continuity, and resistance to Western hegemony.

“The memory of the Great Patriotic War is not merely history—it is a civilizational code of resistance against domination and spiritual decay.” (Alexander Dugin)

5) The Hidden Layer:

Ukraine is a battlefield not only of tanks and drones, but of civilizational allegiance. The West sees Ukraine as the frontline of liberal democracy. Russia sees it as the heartland of its historic unity.

The West is not neutral: It has used Ukraine as a tool to weaken Russia, prolong the war, and profit (arms sales, energy markets, global positioning).

Ukraine is caught in a proxy war: Many Ukrainians are dying not for a noble cause, but for someone else’s geopolitical agenda.

Russia argues that Ukraine is part of its historical and spiritual space—Holy Rus’, forged by shared Orthodox Christianity, language, and struggle against external invaders.

For decades, Russia warned that NATO inching toward its borders—especially bringing Ukraine into its fold—would cross a red line. These warnings were ignored.

Russia views the West’s model—hyper-liberalism, cultural erasure, and ideological uniformity—as a form of colonization. By resisting this, it claims to protect traditional civilization.

Caught between these forces, Ukraine, tragically used as a battering ram, has chosen a path of rupture—but whether this leads to true independence or becoming a dependent outpost of the global order remains to be seen.