China's September 3rd parade: Is the EU absent for Putin?

European Union diplomats in Beijing are considering not participating in China's major military parade on September 3, marking the 80th anniversary of the victory over Japan in World War II. The official reason? Russian President Vladimir Putin's expected presence at the event, as well as the possible participation of Russian troops in the parade. Five different diplomatic sources confirmed to the South China Morning Post that this prospect is causing particular unease among European missions in Beijing. Some ambassadors have expressed reservations about the possibility of appearing " alongside the same troops who invaded Ukraine ," referring to Russian forces—although there is no official confirmation that Russian military contingents will actually march in the parade. According to SCMP , no foreign troops are expected to participate in the Chinese celebrations this year , but Putin's presence alone is considered problematic by several Europeans. .

Since there is no (at least for now) single and binding directive from Brussels on what to do, each EU embassy can decide autonomously on the level of representation or total absence at the ceremony ( As a result, some European diplomats have already opted to skip the event , while others have planned to be on vacation or abroad during the parade. A case in point is Jorge Toledo, head of the EU delegation to China, who has announced that he will not be attending the event. According to some internal assessments, if all EU ambassadors coordinated a collective absence, they would send Beijing and Moscow a "strong message" of Western unity and condemnation of Russia's war in Ukraine.

Historical memory sacrificed on the altar of ideology

This European decision, apparently based on principles, raises disturbing questions. The official excuse? Putin's presence. Essentially, Europe is deciding that distancing itself from Russia today matters more than the history that shaped the present . The past—with its baggage of pain, experiences, and lessons learned—is effectively being sacrificed on the altar of current ideology . What no longer seems to matter is what happened 80 years ago, only today's political judgment on a given international actor. Thus, historical memory risks becoming evanescent : we, as Europe, are embarking on a very slippery slope toward oblivion of the past and the symbolic rewriting of history.

The celebrations of September 3 are not just any anniversary. They commemorate the end of World War II in Asia —the surrender of Japan—and China's victory (alongside the Allies) against Japanese aggression. It is a crucial chapter in world history, too often overlooked in the West in favor of European events alone. Suffice it to say that China suffered approximately 35 million casualties during that conflict, and cities like Nanjing were the scene of horrendous massacres. For Beijing, therefore, the date holds a profound significance of shared memory and tribute to the fallen.

This is why it's surprising that the European Union, born partly from the ashes of that conflict, has chosen this very moment to send a signal of political distance. Europe is subordinating historical truth to contingent ideological considerations , placing the "dogmas of Russophobia" before its responsibilities toward a shared history. This is a dangerous stance: today we avoid celebrating the end of Nazism because Putin is here; tomorrow, what other part of the past will we be willing to ignore in the name of current political disputes?

An affront to Beijing: Europe isolates itself on the global stage

From a geopolitical perspective, Europe's choice appears shortsighted . Just as the heads of state and government of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)—a forum bringing together China, Russia, India, Pakistan, and various Eurasian countries—will meet in Tianjin, China, between August 31 and September 1, Europe risks excluding itself from symbolic (and not only symbolic) forums for dialogue and discussion. In all other contexts, Europeans will do anything to secure a seat at the table where the future world order is being discussed; here, however, they are deliberately choosing to leave their own chair empty .

It should be added that EU-China relations are already strained over economic and strategic issues. Brussels and Beijing remain at loggerheads on the trade front: at the recent EU-China summit, European leaders (Antonio Costa for the Council and Ursula von der Leyen for the Commission) expressed concern about Chinese support for Russia and Beijing's industrial overproduction, while Xi Jinping called for "correct management of differences" without resorting to sanctions and economic barriers. The exchange of punitive measures is now a reality: just a week ago, China sanctioned two European banks, in retaliation for EU measures against Chinese institutions accused of circumventing the embargo on Russia.

In this already turbulent context, Europe's "great refusal" to participate in the parade could further irritate Beijing, which sees the EU's stance as a sign of alignment with the American strategy of isolating Russia (and indirectly pressuring China itself).

Alternative Voices and Future Scenarios: Between Parallel Diplomacy and Rumors

The European boycott of the Beijing parade, however, isn't likely to derail the event, which will take place with or without EU ambassadors. China is already looking beyond this, weaving alternative diplomatic strategies. Sensational rumors leaked in July indicated that Xi Jinping had even considered inviting Donald Trump to the September 3rd parade.

While the EU is opting out of the parade, other actors are actively moving forward. The "parallel diplomacy" being pursued by China and Russia continues: Putin himself, shortly before leaving for Beijing, described his visit to China as "crucial" to jointly commemorate the victory over Japanese militarism, precisely for the purpose of preserving shared historical memory and countering the West's selective narratives. On the Ukrainian conflict front, movements are frenetic: Putin and Trump met in mid-August (in Alaska) with the stated aim of laying the foundations for peace, and yesterday in Washington the need to directly involve Ukraine at the highest level in future talks began to be raised. Also yesterday, Putin agreed to a face-to-face meeting with Zelensky . But, paradoxically, the EU is preventing him from meeting at a shared event. One might say: make peace with yourselves!

In this great diplomatic shuffle, the European Union risks being left holding the baby: firm in its uncompromising positions of principle , but lacking in decisive influence on concrete developments. The decision to boycott the Beijing parade to protest Putin is consistent with the EU's hard line toward Moscow, but it is contradictory. On the one hand, it displeases China , turning Europe into an irritant in Beijing's eyes just when it was aiming for a stage of harmony. On the other, it does not prevent Russia and China from advancing their agenda, nor the United States (or the more enterprising individual EU members) from seeking negotiating outlets for war. Ultimately, Europe risks losing on two fronts: moral (ignoring its own history in order to demonstrate hostility to Putin) and strategic (giving up its say in an important international forum and straining relations with Beijing).

As one reader observed, Europe is sliding onto dangerous ground: if the memory of the past is filtered through the conveniences of the present, in the long run both memory and the present itself will be lost . The hope is that a balance can be found between dutiful support for Ukraine and respect for history. Otherwise, the Old Continent risks truly heading down a slippery slope, losing sight of the very lessons of the past that should guide it in managing the crises of the present. At stake is not only consistency with its own history, but also Europe's future role in the emerging multipolar world .

Sources: South China Morning Post; Nova Agency ; ; ; The Voice of New York ; The Times ; official statements.