Interview with the Russian Ambassador to Malta Andrey Lopukhov by Shawn Borg on the Occasion of the 80th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War

Shawn Borg. This year marks 80 years since the end of the Great Patriotic War, a defining event in Russian and global history. How does Russia view the significance of this anniversary today?  

Andrey Lopukhov: I am convinced that for the entire world – Malta included – the victory in the Second World War marked a defining turning point. The defeat of Nazism, the hoisting of the Victory Banner over the Reichstag, the liberation of Europe, the founding of the United Nations – humanity was granted a chance at a peaceful future, purchased at an enormous cost. That triumph will forever remain a symbol of justice, courage, and unity.

But for Russia, Victory Day is far more than a commemoration of military success – even in a war as brutal as the Great Patriotic War, even against an adversary as powerful as Hitler’s Germany, which had brought half of Europe to its knees.

On this day, as we look back through the lens of history, we honour the memory of the millions who paid the ultimate price for this victory. We celebrate the heroes who returned from the frontlines, who defended our homeland and helped free European nations from the shadow of Nazism. We bow our heads to those who rebuilt our country from the ruins and helped restore it to the ranks of the world's great powers.

And yet, for me, there is something even more important.

No matter how many years pass since 1945, the Great Victory will always remain – and perhaps grow even stronger with time – as a symbol of my country’s greatness and strength, a testament to the unbreakable spirit of its people, and to their unwavering readiness to stand firm against any attack on their values and traditions, against any attempt to impose an alien will. 

Shawn Borg. How did civilians in cities like Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Minsk endure years of siege, starvation, and bombardment?  Also  what role did resilience, communal solidarity, and sheer survival instinct play in their ability to withstand such horrors?  

Andrey Lopukhov: The fate of these cities – and their people – unfolded in different ways.

Minsk was seized within the first week of the war and remained under Nazi occupation for three long years. Its people endured the full weight of the occupation regime – mass executions, public hangings, and forced deportations. Around 70,000 residents of Minsk were killed. The Nazis also created a ghetto in the city, where they herded and ultimately murdered around 80,000 Jews.

Leningrad was besieged for nearly 900 days. The Nazis didn’t just want to conquer the city – they aimed to wipe it from the face of the Earth, along with its inhabitants. According to those close to Hitler, he believed that breaking Leningrad would break the spirit of all Soviet citizens, for whom the city was a source of immense pride. Nearly 2.9 million civilians were trapped inside the blockade, subjected to starvation and freezing temperatures. The siege claimed up to 1.5 million lives – only 3% from German bombs; the rest died from exhaustion and hunger. Some 4,000 people died each day. A monstrous war crime! To this day, Russia continues to call on Germany to recognize the Siege of Leningrad as an act of genocide.

The Battle of Stalingrad – one of the largest and bloodiest battles of the war – raged for 200 days within the city limits. It began with a devastating bombing campaign when Luftwaffe destroyed half the city in a matter of hours. While some civilians were evacuated, the majority remained and endured the unrelenting horrors of urban warfare, caught in the heart of the conflict.

Yes, the trials differed… but only in form. In essence, they were the same: unthinkable suffering and deprivation, testing human limits.

What helped people endure and survive? Certainly, the qualities you mentioned. But I would add two more: hatred of the invaders and unwavering belief in victory.

Shawn Borg. The non-aggression pact that was signed in August 1939 or better known as Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact has drawn lots of criticism till now days can you describe in brief about this controversial pact with the Nazis?

Andrey Lopukhov: It’s important to note that the pact itself contained nothing inherently objectionable. By 1939, similar agreements had already been signed with Germany by Poland, the United Kingdom, and France. Everyone at the time was trying to deflect the threat of an increasingly aggressive Germany.

The Soviet Union spent considerable time seeking a collective solution – it proposed a broad international coalition to counter Hitler. Moscow reached out to Britain and France with offers to sign a joint treaty to curb German aggression. During formal negotiations, the USSR even presented a detailed plan for joint military action, committing to deploy 136 divisions, 5,000 artillery pieces, 10,000 tanks, and 5,000 aircraft – all ready to move toward the German border, if Poland and Romania granted transit. When it became clear that neither Britain, nor France, nor Poland or Romania were interested, the USSR was left with no option but to negotiate directly with the source of the threat  –  and to speak in a language the aggressor understood. I’m referring to the secret protocols – so often dragged into debate by those eager to accuse the Soviet Union of expansionism, whether it fits or not.

Shawn Borg. The Soviet Union bore immense losses – 27 million lives Was the Soviet Union’s victory worth the unprecedented human cost?

Andrey Lopukhov: Let us not forget that Hitler was obsessed with the idea of a “Thousand-Year Reich,” based on the absolute domination of a so-called superior Aryan race. Some races, according to Nazi ideology, were to be exterminated entirely – Jews and Roma, for example. Others, deemed inferior, were to be eliminated partially, and the rest, who were literally “equal in value to animals” –  reduced to slavery serving the master race. That was the intended fate of the Eastern Slavs, who made up the majority of the Soviet Union’s European population.

It’s worth being mentioned that this scheme was being implemented as the war unfolded – with barbaric atrocities committed in the occupied territories. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were herded onto trains bound for Germany, where they were forced to do the hardest labor, either in factories or as unpaid farm slaves in German farmsteads.

Thus, Nazi Germany brought to the Soviet Union not just the threat to sovereignty and statehood – but also to the very existence of our people.

You see, the question of whether victory was “worth the cost” was never really a question at all.

Could the same result have been achieved with fewer losses? Perhaps. Likely, even. A huge number of mistakes and miscalculations were made by military and political leaders of various ranks. How many people died! My own mother had just turned 18 before the war – she had just finished school. All the boys in her class went to the front. Not a single one came back.

But… that was how it was. People lived and acted under the harsh and often cruel laws of the time. Decisions were made in critical circumstances – and often under the weight of those very circumstances. Only one thing mattered: victory. At any cost!

Shawn Borg. In what ways did Soviet women contribute to the war effort beyond traditional roles (e.g., as snipers, pilots, medics, and factory workers)?   and How were their sacrifices remembered (or forgotten) in postwar narratives? 

Andrey Lopukhov: First and foremost, I want to emphasize that Victory was a triumph of the entire nation. Absolutely everyone – men and women, the elderly and children – all contributed, each to the best of their ability and strength, to the common cause.

But since you specifically wish to speak about Soviet women... let me put it this way. When most of the male population was at the front, the main productive force keeping the wartime economy running became women and young people below conscription age – those under 18. And while skilled workers in industry were often exempt from military service, under what was known as a "reserved occupation", so that a number of men remained at the factories, in agriculture the situation was different: there were virtually no men left at all.

My father grew up in a rural area. At the start of the war, he had just turned twelve. He told me how, after the men of the village left for the front, all the heavy work in the fields and with the livestock fell squarely on the shoulders of women and boys his age. Children grew up fast back then… The same thing was happening in the cities. Everyone – women and children alike – was mobilized to dig trenches, build defensive fortifications. These people kept the entire home front going. This contribution was always recognized. In fact, a new term emerged: the “labour front.”

But there are aspects that cannot be measured in statistics. Among military there's an expression: “a strong rear,” “a reliable rear” – and they don’t just mean logistics or supply chains. They mean their families, their loved ones. Those who stood behind them. Whose love, loyalty, and support gave them strength – made them invincible.

And in that sense, the contribution of Soviet women cannot be overstated.

A politician and a Diplomat, we are talking about Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov. A person that played an important role in the Second World War also a person that was too close of Josef Stalin. How do you describe this politician in your personal and honest opinion? I would like to know all sides of him.

Andrey Lopukhov: We must begin by acknowledging that Molotov was, without question, one of the Soviet Union’s most prominent statesmen. From 1930 to 1941, he headed the Soviet Government. And for more than a decade in total – including during the war – the country’s foreign office.

Unfortunately, those not very familiar with our history tend to associate his name only with the Soviet–German Non-Aggression Pact, which we discussed earlier. But I would remind them that Molotov was also the man who – as Foreign Minister – worked closely with Britain and the United States during the darkest years of the war. He helped prepare and took part in the Tehran Conference, 1943, the Yalta Conference, 1945, and the Potsdam Conference, 1945. He was also in San Francisco in 1945, where the United Nations was founded. Those are milestones that would crown any diplomatic career, wouldn’t you agree?

With all of this, if we talk about my personal attitude towards this political figure, he will always remain for me the one who addressed the population via radio, reported the treacherous attack by Nazi Germany and announced the beginning of the Patriotic War.

Everyone in my country knows these words:

“Today, at 4 o’clock in the morning, without any claims being made against the Soviet Union, without a declaration of war, German troops attacked our country, striking at our border in many places and bombing our cities  –  Zhitomir, Kiev, Sevastopol, Kaunas. Air raids and artillery fire also came from the territory of Romania and Finland.”

Molotov went on to describe the assault as an unprecedented betrayal, particularly in light of the existing non-aggression pact. He said that Soviet forces had been ordered to repel the attacks and drive the German invaders from Soviet soil.

But the most powerful message came in his closing line: “Our cause is just. The enemy will be defeated. Victory will be ours.”

Those words had an enormous mobilizing effect.

The people responded. They believed. They united. And through their sacrifice and heroism, they proved those words – spoken on the very first day of the war – to be historically true. Even today, they still echo in our hearts.

Postwar Period in the USSR

Shawn Borg. How did the destruction of infrastructure (factories, farms, cities) cripple the USSR’s postwar recovery?

Andrey Lopukhov: The devastation left by the Nazis on Soviet soil made postwar recovery a grueling, exhausting marathon. Millions of people were left without homes. Thousands of factories and industrial sites were reduced to rubble. Railways and bridges lay in ruins. The destruction of infrastructure was so complete that some cities had to be rebuilt quite literally from scratch.

And yet, for all the scale of the catastrophe, the USSR wasn’t starting from nothing. The wartime years had taught the country how to reorganize the economy quickly and efficiently, and the industrial facilities evacuated to the east during the war were not just a lifeline  –  they became the foundation for a new industrial surge. These plants and factories, built in Siberia, the Urals, and Central Asia, played a vital role in rebuilding the devastated western regions. They provided the materials and machinery that drove the reconstruction effort. More than that, they laid the groundwork for future growth, turning vast territories into thriving industrial centers.

Postwar USSR was a country simultaneously healing deep wounds and racing toward the future. The pace of recovery was astonishing, though it came at the cost of immense human effort and sacrifice. By 1948, just three years after the end of the war, the country had not only regained its prewar levels – it had surged ahead, entering a new era of industrial might.

Shawn Borg. What long-term scars did the war leave on Soviet society, from orphaned children to displaced populations?  

Andrey Lopukhov: Yes, the wounds took a long time to heal… The pain of losing loved ones didn’t end when the war did. And while people say that time heals all wounds, these losses left scars that never truly faded – they cut deep into the souls of hundreds of thousands.

Those who had been burned by war, both literally and figuratively, returned to civilian life – but many no longer remembered how to live in peace. Some, too young when the war began, had never even learned. They had to start from scratch, to find a new place for themselves in a world that had changed beyond recognition. Many never found their way. So many personal tragedies.

And how many people did the war maim physically? So many young, strong, beautiful men lost their arms, their legs.

I grew up in Moscow in the 1960s. By then, more than 15 years had passed since the war ended – and yet I still remember how many war-disabled veterans you could see on the streets. I can still hear the clatter of those homemade wooden carts with metal bearings, which the legless men used to push themselves along the sidewalks with their hands.

Post War Conflicts in the Eastern Region

Both Czechoslovakia and Hungary were invaded by the Soviet army one in the 1956 in Hungary and in 1968 in Czechoslovakia. Would you agree with such military interventions? 

Andrey Lopukhov: Modern history offers no shortage of civil unrest – even in the heart of Europe. Take, for example, the massive student protests in France in 1968, which shook the country to its core and led to violent clashes with the police.

Whenever we look back on such events, we’re left asking the same questions: How did it come to this? Why did the authorities allow things to spiral into violence? Where were the institutions responsible for public order? Were they unaware of the rising tide of protest? Couldn’t the tension have been defused peacefully? Couldn’t the contradictions have been resolved without bloodshed?

I have approximately the same questions concerning the cases you mentioned. And I will say this without hesitation: civilian casualties in such situations are unacceptable.

Shawn Borg. Something more recent now not any more under the USSR but under the Russian Federation as in 2008 Russian army backed  the separatist in South Ossetia and Abkhazia these 2 regions were/are part of the Georgian Territory also its crossing my mind the Transnistria region that also Russia backed the separatist   and  were /are part of Moldova. Why Russia decided to intervene in such internal affairs of these sovereign countries?

Andrey Lopukhov: You know, a lot depends on how you classify a certain phenomenon.

Some label the actions of people who resist assimilation, who want to preserve their national identity, protect their traditions, their language, their way of life and culture – as “separatism.”

Others see these aspirations as entirely natural and legitimate, fully in line with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter and the core international human rights conventions  –  and therefore worthy of support.

I count myself among the latter.

Shawn Borg. Your Excellency these 2 previous questions will lead to the Ukrainian conflict which again Russia is the main protagonist in it and again Russia is backing the separatists in the Donbas Region that were/ is part of Ukraine.  Also Russia frames its actions in Ukraine as a “struggle against neo-Nazism.” But critics call this a distortion of WWII’s lessons. How do you respond to such critiques and to the whole scenario?

Andrey Lopukhov: Well, we've already spoken about the difference between separatism and the right of nations to determine their own path and values.

As for fascism, I am firmly convinced that it does indeed exist in Ukraine today – and in two distinct forms.

The first is a crude, virulent brand of Nazism, not unlike what gripped Germany in the 1930s and ’40s: torchlit marches, Nazi insignia, salutes, and slogans. The glorification of Bandera and other Nazi collaborators, the honoring of SS division veterans. Armed paramilitary groups – remember the "Right Sector"? And then there’s the infamous Azov Regiment, filled with thugs whose bodies are covered in swastika tattoos. Not so long ago, even the United States designated it a terrorist organization. And now, as of February 2023, it is officially part of Ukraine’s armed forces and expanding into a brigade.

But the most dangerous element is that this ideology doesn’t just fester in isolation. It is adapting to modern realities, seeping into government institutions and security structures, influencing state policy – and, in many ways, dictating it. That’s what we mean when we talk about "neo-Nazism."

Judge for yourself: how would you assess the statement made by the leader of the country, who, addressing the Russians that make up 20 percent of the population, says: “If you want to feel Russian – go live in Russia”? Who calls Russians “subhumans”? Who called for the purging of everything Russian – language, culture, history – from the country?

For years now, the Russian language has been effectively outlawed in Ukraine. Banned in government offices, removed from kindergartens, schools, and universities. You can’t speak it in public spaces, shops, and in many places – even on the street. Volunteer patrols roam the country, seeking out "violations" and handing offenders over to the police. All Russian-language media have been shut down. The government has split the Orthodox Church along ethnic lines, banning the canonical Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, driving priests from their churches, and forcing congregations to join a schismatic Ukrainian structure. Monuments are being torn down, cities and streets renamed.

This is pure Nazism! And it has nothing to do with supporting separatists. It’s about defending the fundamental rights and vital interests of a population that has been systematically deprived of both.

Personal Opinion and Remembrance

Shawn Borg. Your Excellency, I want your opinion what personal lesson from the Great Patriotic War guides your work as a diplomat today? 

Andrey Lopukhov: I would say this: peace is the most precious thing we have. There is no greater happiness for a human being than to live a peaceful life with their family, in harmony with the values passed down from their ancestors – honoring traditions, respecting one’s cultural and spiritual roots, preserving history and language, and passing these views to their children.

But peace doesn’t just happen. It must be nurtured and protected – like a delicate flower. If necessary – defended. Ideally, of course, through peaceful means.

This is the principle that guides my diplomatic work every day.

Shawn Borg. The current situation in Ukraine forced many Ukrainians to seek refuge status in different countries around the world include Malta. In your opinion can  Ukrainian refugees celebrate the 80th anniversary as nothing is happening  in their country ?

Andrey Lopukhov: Of course, it would be impossible to ignore the current conflict – not only for Ukrainians but for people all over the world.

And as for Ukrainians they are not all the same. Yes, some have been swept up in the darkness of state-sponsored obscurantism and Russophobia; some now consider the legionnaires of the SS “Galicia” division as heroes. These people, no doubt, will also mark the end of World War II – but by glorifying Nazi collaborators as national icons. I still believe, though, that they are in the minority.

But the vast majority of Ukrainians, whom I have always regarded – and will always regard – as a fraternal people, will remain true to the memory of their ancestors. Ancestors who fought in the Red Army, crushed Nazi Germany, and raised the banner of victory over the Reichstag.

Shawn Borg. In the light of the 80 years anniversary.  Do you have any message to pass to all the people living on this island whether they are Maltese, Russians or Ukrainians?

Andrey Lopukhov: First of all, I would like to address the Maltese. To tell them that I’m sincerely impressed and have a deep respect for the way Malta treats everything that connects it with Second World War. How carefully the memory of the events of those years is preserved here. How much effort is devoted to uncovering and sharing new details about the heroic “Siege of Malta” – how newspapers continue to publish personal stories. How right it is that everyone both locals and tourists are shown the bombed-out Royal Opera House, the cratered dome of the Mosta Rotunda, the air-raid shelters of Valletta!

All this shows that people are proud of the feat of their forebears – those who endured relentless bombings, hunger, and hardship. The feat that they consider an integral part of their history, their identity, their national dignity. It resonates so deeply with the feelings of the people of my country.

So I say to all Maltese, to my fellow Russians, to Ukrainians, to Serbs, and to the many other nationalities living here in hospitable Malta: “Happy Victory Day! The day of our shared triumph of good over evil!”

Shawn Borg. Last question on a personal note how would you celebrate this anniversary?

Andrey Lopukhov: For as long as I can remember, May 9 has always started for me with the broadcast of the military parade on Red Square. I know that many Russian families share this tradition. The rhythmic march of the troops, the triumphant music – all of it sets the solemn and festive tone for the day. And this year will be no different.

And then, as always, with my colleagues from the Embassy I will traditionally spend the whole day with our compatriots.

We plan to begin by laying flowers at the monument in Floriana in memory of all those who perished during the Second World War. We truly hope that this year the Maltese authorities will grant us permission to do so.

And after that, as in years past, we’ll gather at our Embassy here in Malta with fellow Russians living on the island. We always decorate the space with special care for this day – it's more than tradition, it’s a piece of home. People bring old photographs of their relatives who fought on the front lines or worked tirelessly behind them for the sake of victory. The songs of that era will fill the air, children's voices will carry heartfelt performances, and the table will offer simple but symbolic dishes from the soldier’s field kitchen. And yes – there will be the traditional wartime toast, the “frontline one hundred grams.”

And of course, no celebration would feel complete without the deeply emotional phone conversations with family and friends back in Russia. It’s in those moments – across miles, but united in memory – that we truly breathe this Victory Day together, as one.

Thank you for the interview.

Once again, I congratulate all your readers on the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory!

(It-Torċa newspaper) May 4 and 11, 2025