Accusations infuriate Russians
Germany announced on September 2 that it would close the Russian General Consulate in Bonn and terminate the lease agreement for the “Russian House” – the Russian cultural center – operating in Berlin. The decision was made after the August 4 incident at Leipzig/Halle airport, where a drone loaded with explosives was found near a military transport plane designated for Ukraine.
Read more The newly convened Seimas is still in the midst of renovations: the chancellor explained why
Later, another drone and about 50 grams of explosives were found. Germany’s Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt blamed Moscow for the incident, and Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul stated that the consulate must be closed by September 18.
Berlin also announced it would tighten controls on the arrival of Russian citizens, seek additional European Union sanctions, and increase pressure on Russia’s shadow fleet. Suspicions in Germany were also raised by the activities of the “Russian House”: conservative parliamentarian Roderich Kiesewetter told the “Welt” TV that this center might be used not only for cultural activities but also for propaganda and intelligence gathering.
He pointed out that more than 100 people allegedly live in the building without a clear status and that there is an unusually high electricity consumption.
This infuriated the Russians. The country’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov publicly accused Germany of preparing for war, using a historical parallel from World War II.
“In general, this is essentially the beginning of a real war. The General Consulate was expelled from Bonn… The Russian House is being closed in Berlin. I remember that before the start of World War II, more precisely – the Great Patriotic War, the Germans also closed their diplomatic missions… They want war again. (…)
He (Friedrich Merz, –15min) is basically preparing to declare war on us. History lessons have not been learned at all. It turned out that these metastases of Nazism are beginning to manifest again. This is a dangerous phenomenon. I believe the Russian leadership will draw appropriate conclusions,” said the head of Russian diplomacy S. Lavrov.
Russian political scientist and historian Dmitry Savin, commenting to 15min, assessed this statement by S. Lavrov as a means of propaganda intimidation, aimed at fueling the image of Russia surrounded by enemies and maintaining tension in relations with the European Union.
USSR and Germany relations deteriorated back in 1940
Although after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany closely cooperated, by the autumn of 1940 disagreements began to emerge between them over influence in Southeastern Europe.
The USSR sought to include Bulgaria in its sphere of influence and intended to deploy Soviet forces there. This was mentioned in Joseph Stalin’s instructions to Vyacheslav Molotov before his November 1940 visit to Berlin.
Germany opposed these plans. On March 1, 1941, after Bulgaria joined the Tripartite Pact formed by Germany, Italy, and Japan, German troops entered the country. This provoked a very harsh reaction from Moscow.
The Soviet Union also sought to control the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits and to establish its dominance in Southeastern Europe, but Adolf Hitler also claimed this region.
During V. Molotov’s visit to Berlin, the countries failed to agree on the possible accession of the USSR to the Tripartite Pact. Less than a month after these negotiations, A. Hitler signed a directive for the plan to attack the Soviet Union – Operation Barbarossa.
However, S. Lavrov’s claim that both countries allegedly closed diplomatic missions before Germany’s invasion does not correspond to historical facts.
Diplomatic relations between the USSR and Germany were maintained until the very beginning of the war – ambassadors were not recalled, embassies and consulates continued to operate. However, in April 1941, the Soviet Union did not allow Germany to open a consulate in Riga.
In June of the same year, employees of the German embassy began to leave Moscow en masse, and documents were burned in the embassy courtyard.
Thus, until the Soviet Union was attacked, Germany maintained the appearance of normal diplomatic relations and did not close any Soviet institutions on its territory. The situation changed only on June 22, when the invasion began: Soviet institutions and their employees’ residences were seized, the embassy was surrounded, and telephone communication was cut off.
Therefore, the historical parallel drawn by S. Lavrov has no factual basis. Before the invasion, Germany did not close its diplomatic missions in the USSR, and now the Russian consulate and “Russian House” being closed in Germany are Russian, not German, institutions.
Thus, the analogy to the Nazi regime in this case is merely a tool of political rhetoric, not an argument based on historical facts.
Not the first time
Western accusations of Nazism and warnings about an allegedly impending war are not new in S. Lavrov’s rhetoric. As early as February 2026, in an interview with “Al Arabiya” TV, he stated that if Europeans, instead of acknowledging their mistakes, “prepare for war” against Russia, it will be “a completely different war, conducted by completely different means.” At the same time, he criticized, in his words, “unselected bureaucrats” – EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
In April, the head of Russian diplomacy stated that his country was allegedly “declared an open war,” and Kyiv is used in it as the West’s “spearhead.” According to him, Ukraine would be powerless without Western weapons, intelligence data, satellite systems, and assistance in training soldiers.
Similar accusations and threats were also voiced in June this year. In a text that Sergey Lavrov intended to publish in “Politico”, it was warned that a direct NATO-Russia confrontation could end with an exchange of nuclear strikes, the consequences of which would be catastrophic.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko then stated that NATO and the European Union are preparing for a military confrontation with Russia by the end of 2030, and their preparations increasingly resemble the “Barbarossa” plan – Nazi Germany’s strategy to attack the Soviet Union.
Also in June, S. Lavrov compared present-day Europe to Nazi Germany and accused the West of creating an “all-Europe offensive bloc” against Russia. According to the pro-Kremlin publication “Kapital strany,” quoting “Cargrad,” he named Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as the leader of this bloc, effectively assigning him the role of A. Hitler. “At the head of this group is not Adolf Hitler – he is no longer here – but Volodymyr Zelensky with his Nazi slogans,” said S. Lavrov.
Similar analogies were abundant in September as well. During the Eastern Economic Forum, S. Lavrov called European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen “Führer Ursula” and accused her of seeking to concentrate more power in Brussels. The Russian minister also claimed that European policy is allegedly leading the continent “back to Nazism.”
Just a few days later, speaking on Russia’s state “First Channel” program “The Great Game,” S. Lavrov stated that Europe is considered by many as “the hellspawn of world history.” He attributed responsibility to European countries for colonialism, slavery, and both world wars, also recalling Napoleon’s campaign and Nazi Germany’s attack on the USSR.
Thus, the statement about allegedly reviving “metastases of Nazism” in Germany fits into the consistently repeated rhetoric of S. Lavrov: Western decisions are portrayed as manifestations of Nazism or revanchism, and support for Ukraine and strengthening European defense as preparations for war with Russia.
Russian House – German territory
Russian political scientist and historian Dmitry Savin calls S. Lavrov’s statement absurd because every sovereign state has the right to independently decide which foreign state or non-governmental organizations can operate on its territory.
“Therefore, to say that such a decision is a form of aggression, an attack on the country, or a manifestation of Nazism is simply absurd,” he said.
However, according to D. Savin, this statement can be explained by the Kremlin’s adherence to the logic of the neo-Soviet system. According to it, Russia is considered the main heir of the Soviet Union, and Soviet identity is a kind of highest form of identity, an ideal and value.
According to this paradigm, the Russian Federation is also granted the exclusive right to set standards of public morality, historical assessment, and culture.
“Everything directed against neo-Sovietism or the Russian Federation is labeled as Nazism or fascism. In this logic, Sergey Lavrov’s statement becomes understandable: closing a Russian Federation institution was immediately called Nazism and a continuation of the war,” explained the political scientist.
In his assessment, the Kremlin calls fascism, Nazism, or revision of World War II results essentially everything that contradicts its interests or shows disapproval. D. Savin emphasized that this worldview differs from both classical communism and historical imperialism or nationalism but serves a clear propaganda function.
“The propaganda scheme created by the Russian leadership is very simple: Russia is a kind of bastion of good, a country that inherited the title of the victor over Nazism, and all those who disagree with it are Nazis and fascists,” he said.
Since the number of those disagreeing with Moscow is growing, Russia is presented to its audience as a state surrounded by enemies. According to D. Savin, this narrative becomes a universal explanation for deteriorating quality of life, increasing repression, and worsening economic and psychological conditions of people.
“The thesis that we are defending ourselves from attacking Nazi hordes must be constantly maintained and fueled. This is exactly what this statement by S. Lavrov is intended for, if we talk about the Russian domestic audience,” noted the historian.
Speaking about the foreign audience, primarily the European Union, D. Savin linked the statement to a broader strategy of increasing tension. According to him, various hidden, latent, or hybrid forms of aggression are intensifying: cyberattacks are carried out, sabotage actions are prepared, which in some cases can turn into acts of terror and cause civilian casualties.
According to the political scientist, this is a targeted escalation, likely becoming part of diplomatic pressure and negotiations, and S. Lavrov’s statement fits into this logic.
He distinguished three levels of this rhetoric: the neo-Soviet worldview basis, the propaganda need to influence the Russian domestic audience, and the aim to maintain tension in relations with the European Union under current circumstances.
