By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A “Victory will be ours” banner, unfurled on the Russian embassy in Seoul ahead of the fourth anniversary of the Ukraine invasion, has drawn criticism from diplomatic circles and the South Korean government. Despite demands for its removal, Russia has refused, citing diplomatic conventions and highlighting North Korean contributions to the conflict. The South Korean government asserts that displaying such slogans violates the UN Charter and risks provoking the public and damaging bilateral relations.
Read the original article here
The Russian embassy in Seoul has reportedly displayed a banner that appears to glorify the ongoing war in Ukraine, and crucially, has refused requests to remove it. Korean media outlets have brought this provocative act to light, sparking considerable debate and, predictably, a wave of strong reactions. The banner itself, according to reports, carries the message “Victory will be ours!” This statement, in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is seen by many as deeply offensive and a clear endorsement of military aggression.
The decision by the Russian embassy to hang such a banner, and then to refuse its removal, is viewed by many as a deliberate act of antagonism. It’s difficult to fathom what exactly there is to “glorify” about a war that has resulted in widespread devastation, immense human suffering, and, from many perspectives, has severely damaged Russia’s own international standing and military reputation. The invasion itself is widely condemned as a horrific crime, and the Russian military’s performance has been characterized by significant failures and embarrassing setbacks, doing little to bolster its image.
This act also seems to highlight a perceived hypocrisy. Russia frequently accuses others of “Russophobia” whenever any criticism is leveled against its government or actions. Yet, here is an instance where the embassy itself is engaging in behavior that many consider to be overtly aggressive and inflammatory, seemingly oblivious to the negative perception it generates. It’s the kind of behavior that can be likened to a bully who simultaneously cries victimhood when challenged.
Instead of drawing attention to a war that many see as a failure, the embassy’s actions are seen as incredibly tone-deaf. Some have suggested that the embassy should instead be displaying banners that highlight the war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine, or that the very act of displaying such a triumphalist message is, in itself, a display of profound ignorance or deliberate provocation. The question naturally arises: why would any entity choose to celebrate such an event, especially when it is so widely condemned?
The refusal to take down the banner has led to a multitude of suggestions for how to respond, many of them reflecting a sense of frustration and a desire to “match the pettiness” of the embassy’s actions. These range from the diplomatic to the more pointedly symbolic, and even the overtly disruptive. Some have called for the expulsion of the Russian diplomatic envoy until such a time as their stance changes. Others have proposed more creative, albeit unconventional, responses.
One suggestion involves altering the perception of the banner through the use of projectors. The idea is to project images or messages onto the embassy building that counter the banner’s message, such as the Ukrainian flag, or even more pointedly, messages that directly condemn the actions of the Russian government. This approach aims to turn the embassy’s own display against it, using technology to subvert the intended message.
Another popular sentiment involves a more direct, albeit symbolic, form of protest against the banner itself. There have been numerous comments alluding to the banner somehow “mysteriously” going up in flames, or suggesting that it is highly flammable and should be burned. These ideas, while extreme, underscore the deep anger and disdain felt by many regarding the banner and the war it represents.
Beyond direct action against the banner, there are calls for broader symbolic gestures. One such idea is to rename the road where the embassy is located to “Heroes of Ukraine Street.” This would serve as a constant, visible reminder of solidarity with Ukraine and a repudiation of Russia’s actions, right on the doorstep of the embassy. The sentiment behind these proposals is clear: to respond to Russia’s aggressive display with equally strong, albeit often more symbolic, countermeasures.
The overall reaction points to a perception of Russia as a belligerent state, unwilling to acknowledge its wrongdoings and prone to aggressive posturing. The banner is seen not as a display of strength, but as a desperate and misguided attempt to project an image that is increasingly at odds with reality. The refusal to remove it only serves to confirm these negative perceptions, hardening attitudes rather than fostering any understanding or sympathy. It seems that, for many, this incident simply reinforces the belief that Russia is a state that acts with a bullying mentality, capable of immense cruelty while simultaneously portraying itself as a victim.