Follow us on social

Robert Fico Kaja Kallas

'It's 2025 not 1939!' EU threats over Russia Victory Day draw backlash

Slovakia's Fico lashes out after Kaja Kallas said there would be 'consequences' for members attending commemoration of Nazi defeat

Analysis | Europe

The latest warning from the EU High Representative on foreign policy Kaja Kallas — implying consequences for the member and candidate states if their leaders attend Moscow’s Victory Day parade on May 9 (dedicated to the defeat of the Nazi Germany in the WWII) — is a stark reminder of how the Union is dangerously overstepping its boundaries.

While Kallas did not threaten any specific punishments if her warning is ignored, she said any participation in Moscow’s parade would “not be taken lightly” by the EU, suggesting diplomatic or political repercussions against dissenting countries.

Some leaders did interpret her words as diplomatic blackmail and predictably, it sparked backlash. Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico rebuked Kallas and affirmed his own plans to attend the Moscow celebrations honoring the defeat of Nazism. “The year is 2025, not 1939,” Fico declared.

Fico’s stance reflects a core principle of the European Union: foreign policy remains the prerogative of member states under the Treaty on European Union (Article 24), not the bureaucracy in Brussels. The EU’s foreign policy framework does not grant the High Representative the ability to unilaterally sanction or penalize member states for their foreign policy choices. In that context, Kallas’ statement can be seen as an attempt to encroach on Slovakia’s right to determine its own foreign policy actions.

The Brussels’ warning might be particularly ominous for Serbia, whose president, Aleksandr Vucic, was also invited to Moscow. Unlike Slovakia, Serbia is not a member of the EU, but it is a candidate. As the EU increasingly behaves like a geopolitical bloc, it expects an unconditional foreign policy alignment from those eager to join it.

Serbia has long balanced its ties between the EU and Russia, a pragmatic stance given its history and geography. Yet the Kallas faction pushes the Balkan nation to choose a side — EU’s side — or essentially risk membership. The EU can use Belgrade’s status to arm twist it into submission, or erect hurdles on its path, if not freeze the process altogether.

There is a precedent for that: the suspension of Georgia’s candidate status, ostensibly for democratic backsliding, which some experts, however, believe to be merely a cover for the real reason — retaliation for Tbilisi’s failure to fully join the EU’s sanctions against Russia (there is some credence to that argument given how obsequiously the EU treats Azerbaijan, the real dictatorship next door to Georgia ).

This isn’t integration; it’s coercion. And, when it comes to Serbia, it’s also a dangerous game. By criminalizing attendance at a parade commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany, the EU risks alienating the nation which lost over a million lives in World War II fighting against the Nazis. To threaten them now over a symbolic gesture is not just tone-deaf — it can be perceived in Serbia as forcing a betrayal of its own history as a price of joining the EU.

Apart from Kallas’s overreach, the collective Brussels’ approach also demonstrably lacks pragmatism and realism in dealings with Russia, and in particular, to bring the war in Ukraine closer to an end. Yes, Russian President Vladimir Putin will use the celebrations in Moscow, particularly the presence of the foreign leaders, as a massive photo op. He will try to bridge the Soviet Union’s victory in the WWII with the war in Ukraine which he consistently frames as a “war against the Nazis.”

That said, however, trying to impose a boycott of the event on all EU members and candidates would amount to no more than a form of virtue signaling — without discernible gain for the EU. If Kallas and her allies indeed are worried about handing Putin a diplomatic victory, then their own hawkish ineptitude is already delivering it to him. They are fueling the narrative, not only in Moscow, but in Europe too, of unelected Brussels bureaucrats dictating foreign policies to sovereign nations, running roughshod their historical and political sensitivities.

The prospect of Fico and Vucic’s travel to Moscow echoes the Brussels meltdown over earlier attempts at diplomacy by Hungary’s Prime-Minister Viktor Orban. When Orban visited Moscow in 2024 and met with Putin, instead of learning about what Moscow’s bottom-line on Ukraine was, the EU tried to sabotage Hungary’s rotating presidency of the European Council.

Furthermore, when the U.S. President Donald Trump started his own talks with Moscow, the EU was left scrambling when it could have used Orban’s diplomacy, which was already a few months ahead of Trump’s efforts.

And yet, the EU is repeating the same mistake again — bullying its own members instead of using their outreach to at least explore ways in which the EU could move towards the end of the war in Ukraine, something that its own citizens increasingly expect and demand. As the prominent Cold War historian, professor of the London School of Economics Vladislav Zubok said, by rejecting the diplomacy track, the EU-guided Europe makes itself less, not more relevant in international politics.


Top photo credit Slovakia’s President Robert Fico and (Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock) and Kaja Kallas, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock)
Analysis | Europe
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.