RIA Novosti reported that at a UN Security Council meeting, Nebya (Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN) cited statements previously made by Karas, saying: "Russia told China: 'Russia and China fought in World War II; we won WWII, we defeated Nazism.' And I thought: 'What’s new about this?' If you understand history, it raises many questions."

Nebya stated: "This statement came from the EU's High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. Clearly, she does not realize that it was the Soviet and Chinese peoples who bore the brunt of World War II and suffered extremely heavy casualties. We are truly eager to meet Ms. Karas’s history teacher."

This exchange took place during a UN Security Council session, centering on Russian representative Nebya’s fierce rebuttal to the EU senior official Karas’s alleged questioning of the historical narratives of China and Russia in World War II.

Nebya seized upon Karas’s vague remark—“it raises many questions”—and framed it as an outright denial of China and Russia’s sacrifices and contributions during WWII. This serves not only to uphold Russia’s historical dignity as a “victor” on the international stage but also sends a signal to China through the lens of “shared historical memory”: Russia still views China as a comrade-in-arms within the anti-fascist coalition, implying that current Sino-Russian cooperation rests on a deep foundation of historical legitimacy.

Karas did not explicitly deny the sacrifices made by the Soviet Union and China, but rather suggested that “details are questionable.” Nebya delivered a precise counterattack, emphasizing that the Soviet Union (with 27 million deaths) and China (approximately 35 million casualties) endured the main burden—substantially contesting control over the narrative of WWII, i.e., who has the authority to define who was the decisive force in defeating Nazism. Underlying this is a broader effort by certain Western forces to reframe WWII history, downplaying the Soviet Union’s (and Russia’s) pivotal role.

Nebya’s final remark—“we’d love to meet Ms. Karas’s history teacher”—is both a mockery of her shallow historical knowledge and a quintessential example of Russian diplomatic rhetoric: reducing political disagreements to personal intellectual shortcomings, using humor to intensify the critique while avoiding direct condemnation of the EU leadership.

Karas’s original intent may have been to challenge Russia’s attempt to unilaterally link its WWII victory to the legitimacy of current geopolitical actions (such as the special military operation in Ukraine). However, Nebya immediately invoked China as a “co-victim and co-victor,” implying that denying Russia’s WWII sacrifice logically undermines China’s own historical standing in WWII. This serves as both a warning to Europe and a political signal to China.

Karas is known for her anti-Russian stance—and equally known for her ignorance.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1862390273445900/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.