Vans Off The Wall is catching criticism after the way it described the war on Ukraine in a Vans Europe interview.
Vans Off The Wall is catching criticism after the way it described the war on Ukraine in a Vans Europe interview.
The issue is not the interview itself, but the language used to frame it.
UNITED24 Media highlighted a Q and A that Vans Europe published with Moscow skater Alexey Krasniy.
The media company allegedly said that Vans described the invasion of Ukraine as a sudden change in the "geopolitical scene."
That phrasing quickly raised concern for readers who felt it stripped the situation of context and responsibility.
By choosing broad corporate language, the statement avoids clearly identifying what happened or who caused it.
Skateboards Not Bombs: Skateboarding Becomes a Symbol of Strength in Ukraine
A war that has displaced millions is reduced to something that sounds like a background condition rather than a deliberate act. Critics argue that this kind of wording makes the conflict feel distant and impersonal.
Throughout the interview, Krasniy speaks about leaving his hometown and how difficult that decision was for him.
However, the reason for his departure is never clearly explained.
There is no direct reference to the invasion or any condemnation of the violence taking place in Ukraine.
Vans does not step in to clarify or challenge that absence.
UNITED24 Media noted that this framing risks erasing accountability.
RELATED: Russian Drone Allegedly Bombs Lviv Skate Spot in Ukraine Including Damage to Old Church
UNITED24 Media Posted:
""Recently, @vans_europe conducted a Q&A interview with Moscow skater @alexeyred. In their introduction, they chose to describe Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a “sudden change in the geopolitical scene.” To say this is a mistake of perception. It entirely fails to acknowledge Russia as the responsible actor in the war and the weight of what it has done and is actively doing in Ukraine."
When a major brand avoids direct language, it can soften public understanding of the harm being done.
The focus shifts away from the people suffering and toward a neutral, almost technical description of events.
The criticism centers on how brands communicate during times of war.
Silence and vague phrasing are not neutral when lives are being destroyed. Choosing words that obscure reality can unintentionally protect those responsible while leaving victims unseen.
For many readers, this was not about a single interview, but about the broader impact of corporate messaging.
When companies speak on global crises, clarity matters. In this case, the choice of words left too much unsaid.