Against the historical backdrop of systematic, politically motivated erasure of Soviet contributions to Allied victory President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s visit to Russia for Victory Day commemorations acquires particular symbolic and political significance, Boris Perius Zabolotsky writes.
The end of World War II marked a watershed moment not merely for Europe but for the entire global order. In Latin America, particularly Brazil, the Allied victory and the commemorations of Victory Day hold political, historical, and symbolic significance that continues to resonate today. These implications intertwine with processes of national self-assertion, international relations recalibration, international insertion, and the reconstruction of regional political identities in the post-war landscape. Currently, they should also be understood as part of South America’s strategic partnership reassessment in relation to Trump’s new term in the White House. The Brazilian case becomes particularly noteworthy, both due to the importance of Brazil’s contribution to the Allies during the Second World War and to the centrality the date acquires as a result of President Lula’s historic official visit to Russia on the occasion of the ceremonies commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Victory.
For Latin America, the Allied victory represented a crucial opportunity to reclaim sovereignty and redefine the region’s place in the postwar world. During the conflict, many Latin American countries severed ties with Axis powers and, in certain instances, declared war on Germany and Japan, although largely in symbolic terms. This alignment aimed to secure positioning in the post-war international architecture and give the region greater influence in peace negotiations.
Brazil’s experience stood apart. As the only South American country to send combat troops to the European front, deploying both ground and air forces, it marked the nation’s first direct participation in a global conflict. The Brazilian Expeditionary Force (FEB), which fought alongside Brazilian forces in the Italian front, represented more than just military contribution; it was Brazil’s bold claim to international relevance and its status as a regional power. In the post-war period, Brazilian diplomacy pursued the permanent seat on the newly established UN Security Council – an aspiration reflecting the perception that wartime contributions had legitimized greater international ambitions, a goal that remains central to Brasília’s foreign policy objectives until nowadays.
At same time, the political implications for Brazil regarding the war’s outcome and its contributions reflect profound ambiguity: on one hand, this period represented a historical juncture where the country sought global prominence; on the other, it resulted in significant diplomatic disappointments regarding recognition of its international standing. Following World War II, Itamaraty anticipated tangible acknowledgment for its military and diplomatic support to the Allies, particularly considering the FEB’s sacrifices in the Italian Campaign. However, this recognition never materialized: not simply because Washington regarded Latin America as its exclusive sphere of influence, but primarily because American strategy deliberately avoided empowering any regional actor that might potentially challenge its hemispheric dominance or create continental power imbalances. In line with this logic, in Washington’s foreign policy and public discourses, Brazil’s contribution and role in World War II is often neglected or forgotten. Furthermore, the Cold War’s emerging bipolar structure rapidly overshadowed Brazilian aspirations for more recognition and greater strategic autonomy, imposing ideological constraints that severely limited independent action possibilities for Brazil and other Latin American nations in the post-1945 international order.
Consequently, World War II’s outcome marked for Latin America the beginning of new challenges related to self-determination pursuit amid great power competition. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, war memories and the war legacy became subject to even greater ideological selectivity. The Cold War served to legitimize ideologically aligned military regimes supported by Washington or to marginalize alternative historical narratives. Within this framework, the Brazilian military dictatorship of 1964 also played a role in erasing the contributions of the Soviet Union to the victory over Nazi-fascism.
In the post-war, with the Soviet Union’s rapid transformation from ally to adversary in the new bipolar system, the United States strategically constructed a hegemonic narrative that amplified its own contributions to the Allied victory while systematically marginalizing the role of the USSR. South America, incorporated into the US strategic sphere of influence, experienced direct effects from this ideological construction. Through military cooperation initiatives, educational programs, and support for anti-communist regimes, Washington actively promoted a worldview where Western-backed political regimes and anti-communism were inextricably linked.
This deliberate omission, sustained throughout more than two decades of authoritarian rule, stemmed from the regime’s ideological imperative to frame communism as an existential threat. Recognizing the USSR’s wartime achievements would have destabilized the very foundation of the dictatorship’s anti-communist doctrine, which simultaneously informed its foreign policy alignments and justified its domestic repressive apparatus. Consequently, Brazil’s collective memory of World War II became an instrument of ideological engineering, carefully curated to reinforce narratives that legitimized the containment of communist influence while facilitating the expansion of US hegemony in South America.
It is against this historical backdrop of systematic, politically motivated erasure of Soviet contributions to Allied victory that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s visit to Russia for Victory Day commemorations acquires particular symbolic and political significance. This diplomatic engagement carries multidimensional implications across both domestic and international spheres. Domestically, its importance is amplified by occurring during a period of pronounced internal ideological polarization between the Lula administration and pro-Bolsonaro opposition. The timing intersects with controversial deliberations concerning potential amnesty for participants in the 2024 attempted coup d’état – individuals who predominantly exhibit ideological alignment with Brazil’s former military regime and its historical narrative practices. Reviving slogans from the past, they call for military intervention to “save Brazil from communism”.
In terms of international repercussions, it is significant to note that Lula’s presence at the Victory Day parade constitutes the first official participation of a Brazilian President in this ceremony in Russia, amid increasingly polarized international tensions. Within this geopolitical context, the divergent interpretations between the West and Russia regarding World War II’s memory and its legacy, particularly concerning the Soviet contribution, function as critical elements not merely in historical and mnemonic discourse but especially in legitimizing contemporary foreign policy positions. This diplomatic engagement occurs at an inflection point in global politics where commemorative practices surrounding historical events as World War II are central to disputes between Russia and the West and serve as discursive battlegrounds for competing visions of international order and the distribution of symbolic capital in contemporary international relations.
In this context, Lula’s attendance at the Victory Day parade represents a partial recovery of the conflict’s historical complexity and constitutes a belated public official Brazilian recognition of Soviet sacrifice. Moreover, this visit takes place within a broader reconfiguration of international relations, particularly amid uncertainties regarding future relations with the United States. It also functions as a diplomatic counterweight, leveraging closer ties with Russia to enhance Brazil’s bargaining power vis-à-vis both Washington and Brussels. Hence, Lula’s visit to Russia at this historical juncture is not merely symbolic; it should also be interpreted as a strategic maneuver by Brazilian foreign policy to advance Brazil’s longstanding bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. By engaging with Moscow and Beijing, Brazil seeks not only to diversify its external partnerships but, more importantly, to assert its leadership and secure recognition as a regional power in shaping a space among equals in the formation of a multipolar world.
