9 May: A Parade of Competing Pasts
Europe Day or Victory Day: In Estonia, a country with a significant Russian-speaking population, commemorating the end of the Second World War is more than ever a question of political stance. But a survey by ZOiS shows that there are also signs of a rapprochement, especially among younger people.
Few dates on Europe’s calendar carry as much historical weight and provoke as much political contention as 9 May. In the EU, the day marks Europe Day, a commemoration of peace and unity rooted in the Schuman Declaration of 1950. In Russia and much of the post-Soviet space, however, 9 May is Victory Day, which celebrates the Soviet triumph over Nazi Germany in 1945. The day still resonates powerfully: a recent survey in Russia found that 67 per cent of the population views 9 May as the country’s greatest historical achievement, and 98 per cent believe the memory of the so-called Great Patriotic War must be preserved.
Russia’s war against Ukraine has amplified these clashing commemorative scripts. In Moscow, 9 May is now a carefully choreographed reaffirmation of imperial entitlement – repackaged as anti-fascist heroism and instrumentalised to legitimise present-day aggression. By contrast, the EU’s narrative of democratic peace lacks comparable emotional and political traction.
In Estonia, a member of the EU and NATO with a sizeable Russian-speaking population, 9 May exposes competing loyalties. For many Russian-speaking Estonians, it remains a day of familial pride, shaped by stories of sacrifice and liberation. For Estonians, 9 May evokes painful associations with Soviet occupation, deportations, and the erasure of statehood. The commemorative divide is stark: memory here is not only personal but also a statement of political orientation.
Estonia’s political leadership has increasingly framed Soviet nostalgia as incompatible with democratic belonging. Former Estonian prime minister and current EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has warned that romanticising the Red Army risks legitimising Russia’s current aggression. As the war in Ukraine drags on, commemoration practices in Estonia encapsulate a broader battle over the moral boundaries of belonging. In a country where social cohesion has long meant balancing the interests of Estonian and Russian speakers, Russia’s invasion has deepened divisions. For many Estonians, celebrating 9 May as a day of liberation now aligns with an aggressor state.
Can there be room for a common civic identity when remembrance itself has become a test of loyalty? Or has the shadow of 9 May cast social cohesion into fundamental doubt?
Clashes of memory but fragile hopes for cohesion remain
Within the MoveMeRU project, funded by the European Research Council (ERC), and in cooperation with the Institute for Baltic Studies in Estonia, ZOiS surveyed over 1,500 residents of Estonia – including many Russian speakers – between October 2024 and January 2025. Our goal was to trace how 9 May is remembered across ethno-linguistic and generational lines.
One striking commonality emerged: commemorating victims of war was important for all groups. Asked what should be remembered on 9 May, around 20 per cent of Estonian-speaking respondents and over a quarter of those with a Russian background chose this option (figure 1). In a polarised field of memory, this recognition of loss offers a fragile but meaningful civic bridge.
Still, deeper fractures persist. Among Estonian speakers, particularly the younger generation, 9 May increasingly represents Europe Day: 27 per cent of younger Estonians and a similar share of their parents linked the day to European integration. This reading found little resonance among respondents with a Russian background, however. Only a very small segment of older Russian speakers, and one in ten of their younger counterparts, associated the day with the European project. A Russian background, unsurprisingly, correlated strongly with a lower likelihood of embracing the EU narrative.
For older respondents with a Russian background, the dominant framing of 9 May was the Soviet narrative of victory over Nazi Germany. Yet, this interpretation is gradually losing ground. Among the younger generation, fewer than one in ten still prioritised this view, pointing to a generational shift away from inherited patterns of commemoration. Higher levels of education and income were associated with lower attachment to the Soviet framing.
The sharpest fault line lies between those who interpret 9 May as a day of liberation and those who see it as marking the onset of Soviet occupation. While a notable share of Estonian-speaking respondents aligned with the latter view, only a very small minority of respondents with a Russian background – whether older or younger – shared this perspective. Most probably, these perceptions are shaped by the transmission of memory across generations, political socialisation, and exposure to education.
Still, the memory landscape is shifting. Among younger respondents with a Russian background, 12 per cent identified 9 May with Europe Day, and 9 per cent with the onset of occupation. These figures may seem small, but they mark a significant rupture with inherited orthodoxy. What was once a rigid approach to remembrance is becoming more porous and open to multiple interpretations. The contours of collective memory are being redrawn.
Memory as a civic orientation
Memory is not just a reflection of the past: it also informs political belonging. Whether a person sees 9 May as a moment of liberation, occupation, or mourning shapes how they relate to European integration.
As such, 9 May functions as a civic barometer. It tests how far European integration resonates with Estonia’s diverse population. But commemorative tensions cannot be resolved by civic education alone. The emotional pull of family stories and the performative power of public rituals run deep. The task is not to erase diverging pasts but to build a civic culture in which they can coexist, anchored in democratic values. Disagreement must not fracture cohesion; it must become part of what holds it together.
Recalibrating remembrance
As the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II nears, the politics of memory remains highly charged, particularly in states with large Russian-speaking populations. In Estonia, regulating Soviet-linked commemorations and restricting associated symbols have become ways to draw civic boundaries. But the politics of memory is not dictated from above – it shifts through everyday practices.
Rather than a sweeping divide, it is in national and local shifts that the politics of memory of 9 May takes shape. Our findings suggest that while deep divisions persist, there are also fragile commonalities that offer a potential civic bridge. At the same time, second-generation Russian-speaking respondents showed signs of loosening their attachment to inherited Soviet narratives and cautiously approaching the European project.
Could this emerging openness among younger Russian speakers signal a future in which contested memories coexist in a shared civic framework?
Dr Hakob Matevosyan is a sociologist and a researcher in the ERC-funded project Moving Russia(ns): Intergenerational Transmission of Memories Abroad and at Home (MoveMeRU) at ZOiS.