### The dialogue of misunderstanding: Zelensky and Putin in the face of the commemorations of the Second World War
In a complex international context where tensions between Ukraine and Russia remain lively, the recent statements by Volodymyr Zelensky concerning the proposals of Truce made by Vladimir Putin arouse critical discussions. In the eyes of Zelensky, these speaking are similar to a “theatrical performance”, intended to manipulate public opinion, rather than establishing conditions conducive to peace negotiations. Indeed, the Ukrainian President said he did not want to “play” with these trucers, emphasizing a deep distrust towards the intentions of Russia.
At the same time, Russia reacts vigorously, accusing Zelensky of creating a “direct threat” to the security of the celebrations of May 9, an emblematic date for the country, marking victory over Nazism. This situation highlights complex diplomatic dynamics where the embroidery of national discourse, imbued with emotion and historical heritage, interferes with the quest for a peaceful dialogue.
### The historical dimension of commemorations
The commemorations of May 9 in Russia are not simply military celebrations; They represent a collective memory shaped by the events of the Second World War, known in Russia under the name of “Great Patriotic War”. This day commemorates millions of lost lives and symbolizes victory over a common enemy, Nazism. For Russia, and more broadly for certain ancient countries members of the USSR, this date is intrinsically linked to national pride and a historical story that has shaped modern identity.
However, this story is in great opposition to the Ukrainian experience, which has its own perception of war and its consequences. Ukraine, having also undergone enormous losses and opposing to Soviet domination, has developed a collective memory which tends to diverge from that of Russia. This historical duality illustrates how similar events can be interpreted in deep different ways, leading to a gap of understanding between nations.
#### The question of truce and negotiations
The truces proposed by Putin are therefore a delicate question. Zelensky, by interpreting these initiatives as a theatrical gesture, underlines a distrust of the sincerity of the Russian intentions. As part of prolonged conflicts, temporary breaks often promise peace opportunities, but they can also be perceived as tactical maneuvers. The Ukrainian position seems to be an answer to these fears, reflecting the harsh reality of a conflict that has left deep scars.
On the other hand, the Russian posture seems rooted in a desire to preserve an image of strength while seeking to maintain interior support, particularly during commemoration when emotions are exacerbated. The accusation carried by Russia against Zelensky on its alleged threat to the celebrations of May 9 can be considered as an attempt to focus attention on an external enemy, thus strengthening national solidarity during periods of trouble.
### towards a mutual understanding?
This exchange of declarations testifies to a blocked situation in which dialogue seems absent. The two parties, while anchoring their speeches in historical and emotional justifications, create an environment unfavorable to talks. How then to move towards a lasting peace?
The first step could consist of recognizing the historical narrations of the two countries, promoting common ground focused on the lived truths of the populations. Dialogue initiatives between historians, sociologists and community leaders, for example, could make it possible to better understand divergent perspectives and to envisage innovative solutions.
It is also crucial to recall that commemorations, beyond being a way to pay tribute to the sacrifice of the past, can serve as a springboard for future reconciliation. A common celebration of the efforts made to defeat fascism, which transcends historical differences, could contribute to the construction of a European collective memory rather than an isolated national story.
#### Conclusion
The words of Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin’s response illustrate the many challenges facing political leaders in a context of conflict. By emphasizing theatrical performance versus the threat, everyone finds a justification for their approach. However, as the world observes this dynamic, a question persists: how to develop this dialogue towards a mutual understanding, beyond speeches, in order to lay the foundations for a peaceful future?
While the commemorations of May 9 are approaching, it may be essential to encourage an approach that values peace, promoting a space where memory can both raise national identity and initiate reflection on shared avenirs. The way towards reconciliation is undoubtedly winding, but it deserves to be explored.