The Parade That Couldn’t Perform: The Limits of Russian Symbolic Power

Photo: OpenAI

By Irina Mamulashvili and Sydney Sheinfeld

This year's Victory Day parade in Russia was, for the first time in nearly twenty years, devoid of tanks, armoured vehicles, and ballistic missiles. There was no internet access in Moscow. A three-day ceasefire had been negotiated via Washington in order to prevent an attack by Ukraine during the celebration of the holiday. These are not the conditions under which a state projects strength. They are the conditions under which a state tries to get through a difficult day.

This Victory Day has a special role in the architecture of Putin’s Russia. This is not just a celebration, but an annual reminder of one of the myths of this nation, the idea that Russia inherited the power that triumphed over the forces of fascism, thus giving the Russian regime a historical foundation and authority because of the legacy received from the past. From 2022, this narrative is tied to the war in Ukraine, presented by the Kremlin as yet another chapter of the same struggle. On Victory Day, the Kremlin attempts to translate its propaganda into something tangible for its own citizens and the rest of the world. But this year, the gap between the desired and perceived picture only widened further.

Why No Hardware?

There are two principal reasons for the absence of military equipment. First, the Russian military has sustained substantial losses of tanks, armored vehicles, and other heavy equipment during the war in Ukraine. Since the beginning of the large-scale invasion, Russian forces have deployed military assets on a massive scale, leaving limited capacity for replenishment without withdrawing equipment directly from the battlefield. Second, and more significantly, the security situation surrounding Moscow has become increasingly vulnerable, making the concentration of military equipment in the capital a potential strategic risk. The Ukrainian armed forces have significantly enhanced their long-range strike capabilities, increasing the threat of attacks against targets deep within Russian territory, including areas in and around Moscow.

Ukraine’s information operations further intensified the pressure on the Kremlin. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy deliberately maintained strategic ambiguity regarding the possibility of an attack on the parade, not necessarily with the intention of conducting a strike, but to increase the political, psychological, and security costs associated with holding the event. The Kremlin’s decision to reinforce air defense systems in Moscow and temporarily restrict internet access across the capital for several days reflected a heightened sense of vulnerability and concern. This strategy proved highly effective, as it forced Russia to seek a ceasefire arrangement, reportedly facilitated through President Donald Donald Trump, in order to minimize the risk of disruption to the parade and preserve the symbolic significance of the event.

Diplomatic Isolation in Plain Sight

The composition of foreign delegations at the parade revealed not only Russia’s growing diplomatic isolation, but also the limits of its efforts to present itself as the center of an emerging non-Western geopolitical coalition. The most significant aspect of the event was the absence of Chinese President Xi Jinping, whose participation would have carried substantial symbolic and strategic importance for the Kremlin. In recent years, Moscow has increasingly relied on its partnership with Beijing to demonstrate that Russia remains integrated within an alternative global power structure despite Western sanctions and political isolation. Xi’s absence therefore weakened the broader narrative of a consolidated anti-Western or multipolar bloc aligned around Russia.

Although several leaders from post-Soviet states and countries maintaining pragmatic ties with Moscow attended the parade, their presence lacked the geopolitical weight necessary to offset the absence of major global actors. Most participating states maintain limited strategic influence internationally and often pursue cautious, interest-based relations with Russia rather than deep political alignment. As a result, the parade failed to project the image of broad international legitimacy or strategic momentum that the Kremlin had likely intended to showcase.

Even the attendance of a small number of European political figures such as Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico, generated limited diplomatic value for Moscow. Rather than signaling a major political breakthrough, such visits reflected individual political calculations and pragmatic engagement rather than a broader shift in Europe’s position toward Russia. Consequently, the overall diplomatic picture surrounding the parade reinforced the perception that Russia continues to face significant international isolation, particularly in its attempt to position itself as the leader of a coherent non-Western geopolitical alternative.

The Narrative Russia Was Trying to Tell

The speech delivered by Putin was defiant, but structurally defensive. The Russian leader denounced NATO, praised the "Soviet generation" as the spiritual ancestors of troops engaged in "special operations," and portrayed Russia as having noble objectives in the war. While none of this is novel rhetoric, when enacted during a parade in which there were no armored vehicles except troops, and in which video screens replaced missiles, it took on a new resonance compared with previous marches. This was not a triumphant speech, it was filled with the necessity of defending an unsuccessful endeavor. 

Perhaps the most telling point came afterwards, when Putin mentioned that the war in Ukraine was "moving towards a conclusion". This comment, although short and vague, sparked rumours that Moscow could be looking into negotiating a diplomatic solution for the war. Taking into account the state of stalemate on the battlefield, the economic problems at home, and the small-scale parade, this statement carries weight beyond what might otherwise be assumed. Whether this is the actual intention of the Russian government or just another attempt to control public opinion remains uncertain. Anyhow, following an obviously underwhelming display of military capacity from Russia, this hint at peace did not go unnoticed.

The message of 9 May 2026 is straightforward: the costs of the war are now growing inside Russia in ways that are visible to the world, and increasingly difficult to stage-manage away. The Kremlin has spent more than four years insisting otherwise. This year's parade made that insistence harder to sustain.

_________________________________________

Irina Mamulashvili is Head of International Security Program at the Strategic Security Initiative (SSI)

Sydney Sheinfeld is Fellow at International Security Program of the Strategic Security Initiative (SSI)