The ambassadors of Britain, France, and Germany visited the Russian Foreign Ministry on Thursday to present their governments’ Ukraine “peace” position, despite Moscow’s insistence that the three countries are not mediators but direct backers of Kiev.

The conference with Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin reportedly lasted around 90 minutes. French Ambassador Nicolas de Riviere said afterwards that the conversation had gone well, while the British and German envoys declined to comment.

The meeting comes as Kiev's European backers have been trying to force their way back into Ukraine diplomacy after Washington signaled it could step back from mediation efforts. Moscow has dismissed the move as hollow, arguing that the EU and the E3 (Britain, France, and Germany) are arming, funding and politically shielding Kiev while posing as peace brokers.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said that during the meeting, Galuzin accused the three governments of pursuing a “destructive policy” aimed at pushing Kiev to keep fighting Russia “on behalf of, at the expense of and with the direct assistance” of the Western “coalition of the willing.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said ahead of the meeting that he consented to the envoys’ talks with his deputy largely out of curiosity. Russia has “never refused dialogue,” he said, but doubted the ambassadors would say anything new after their leaders’ recent statement with Zelensky.

Moscow has rejected that statement as a demand for Russia’s “capitulation.” Lavrov said Britain, France, and Germany have repeatedly undermined earlier settlement efforts, including the 2014-2015 Minsk accords and the 2022 Istanbul draft deal.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has also dismissed the latest E3 proposal as a repackaged version of Zelensky’s “peace formula,” which Russia rejects as unacceptable. She said the plan is aimed not at peace, but at further militarizing Ukraine and Europe.

The final results of Armenia’s parliamentary elections are due to be announced this weekend. Vaagn Hovakimyan, head of the country’s Central Election Commission, has said ballots will be recounted until Friday, after which complaints and appeals will be considered. The official results are expected on Sunday and those who reject the outcome will then have one day, June 19, to appeal to the Constitutional Court. “Further action will then be dictated by the court,” Hovakimyan said.

Narek Karapetyan, leader of the Strong Armenia electoral list, has said his movement will decide on its next steps once it is clear whether another opposition force, Prosperous Armenia, led by businessman Gagik Tsarukyan, has entered parliament. At present, it appears to have fallen short of the 4% threshold. The opposition Armenia bloc has already said it is ready to challenge the result.

The vote brought to a close a peculiar election campaign. Its oddity didn’t lie in the use of administrative resources, including pressure on opponents, nor in the visible influence of external factors, because such things are now common almost everywhere. The unusual feature was the central narrative of the political struggle, where the campaign was presented as a choice between Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union on one side, and the West and the European Union on the other.

However, this is a phantom choice.

As far as Russia is concerned, it is, of course, for the Armenian people and their elected authorities to decide what kind of relationship they want with Moscow. Friendship cannot be imposed, and if a country wishes to go its own way, then so be it. This time, however, Moscow has made clear from the outset what Yerevan stands to lose if it chooses that path and the intention is obvious: Armenia should make its decision with full knowledge of the consequences.

The EU side of the equation is less clear because the problem is simple: no one has invited Armenia to join the bloc. At least, not in any serious form.

Nevertheless, the question of “EAEU or EU” became the central theme of the current dispute. Russia contributed to this, in part, by putting future relations in the stark terms of choose now. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has been much more evasive, and his line is that Armenia is not leaving anything, remains involved in Eurasian integration, and will continue to do so until there is clarity on EU prospects. In other words, as soon as Brussels gives the signal, Armenia will move in that direction, but until then, everything should remain as it is, because the current arrangement remains useful.

Pashinyan’s tactics, and those of his party, deserve a separate analysis, but the more interesting question is broader. How does the EU, now burdened by enormous internal problems and drawn into a large military-political crisis, remain such a powerful magnet for neighboring societies?

After the end of the Cold War, EU integration became one of the most successful political projects in modern European history. It came to be seen, if not as a blueprint for the whole world, then at least as a model to be extended across neighboring regions of Europe and Eurasia. The EU’s achievements were obvious, in that if offered economic and political stability, high living standards, social protections, and an attractive image of the future.

That perception has proved remarkably durable even though the European Union of the late 2020s bears little resemblance to the idealized image of a quarter-century ago: that image continues to work. For Brussels, the reputation of the EU as a successful, attractive and forward-looking union is not merely a pleasant accessory, it’s an instrument of influence. It has helped the EU pursue its own development goals and shape the political choices of states around it.

Today, amid growing internal and external crises, this instrument is even more important. But the question for countries drawn into Brussel’s orbit is whether the old assumptions still apply.

The successes of European integration in the second half of the twentieth century and in the early years of this century weren’t simply the result of the wisdom and talent of the project’s architects. Above all, they were the product of a unique historical moment, the aftermath of the Second World War, the structure of the Cold War, American patronage, the Soviet threat, and then the unexpected gift of the Soviet collapse, which produced an enormous political and economic “peace dividend.”

Competition for the post-Soviet space existed before, but for a time it could be disguised with the language of shared development and common interests. That camouflage has gone and the situation is now harsh and largely unambiguous.

The previous logic was based on the assumption that by sheltering under the umbrella of European integration, a country could protect itself from geopolitical turbulence. But first, that umbrella is becoming increasingly symbolic as the EU can no longer offer firm guarantees to anyone. Second, the opposite may now be true, because by entering this game, a country can be certain of becoming a target for the hard actions of opposing sides.

For countries such as Armenia, the question is therefore not whether the EU remains attractive, because it obviously does. Nor is it whether Russia can compel affection, because it can’t. The question, instead, is whether the European path being imagined by political elites and voters actually exists in the form they suppose, and whether the price of pursuing it has been honestly understood.

If a nation looks at the risks and decides they don’t matter, then so be it. After all, as the old line goes, “we sing a song to the madness of the brave.”

This article was first published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, and was translated and edited by the RT team 

The European Union is considering sanctions against Kremlin adviser and historian Vladimir Medinsky, who led the Russian delegation in the latest rounds of US-mediated peace talks with Kiev, EUobserver has reported, citing a draft of the bloc’s 21st sanctions package.

Brussels has been mostly left out of diplomatic efforts initiated by US President Donald Trump following his return to office last year, as most EU member states have opted to back Kiev with weapons and impose sanctions on Russia instead of seeking a resolution to the conflict.

Medinsky, also known for co-authoring a new series of history textbooks introduced in Russian schools and leading an extensive online course on Russian history, has reportedly been described by Brussels as a key figure in what they call Russia’s state propaganda efforts.

Russian Sports Minister Mikhail Degtyarev, Russian Wrestling Federation President Mikhail Mamiashvili and acting head of the Russian Olympic Committee Stanislav Pozdnyakov are reportedly included in the draft sanctions list as well. Musician Aleksander Marshal is also set to face sanctions over performances for Russian servicemen in Donbass.

Earlier this week, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the bloc was preparing its largest sanctions package in more than two years, targeting over 170 Russian individuals and entities, on top of 81 listings set for approval the following week.

On Tuesday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the new sanctions package would target Russia’s energy, financial, crypto, trade, and fisheries sectors and bar entry to Russians who have served in the military since the conflict in Ukraine escalated in February 2022.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that the ultimate goal of Western sanctions is to weaken and contain Russia’s long-term development.

Earlier this year, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that although the sanctions have had an overall “negative impact” on the Russian economy, the country has “gained significant experience in minimizing their effects.”

Peskov has also said that sanctions are a double-edged sword, causing damage not only to those they target but also to those who impose them, and contributing to economic stagnation in Europe.

One of the fundamental problems in Russia’s relations with the countries of the former Soviet Union is the persistent belief that Moscow has special obligations towards its neighbors: obligations to interpret their behavior generously, to respond with restraint, and to take their domestic political choices as something it must simply accept.

But this assumption is wrong.

The foreign policy course chosen by the Republic of Armenia is, of course, a sovereign matter for its people and leadership. But it would be strange to imagine that Russia has no sovereign right to respond to that choice entirely at its own discretion. Moscow is under no external obligation to behave as others would prefer. It’s constrained only by its own interests and by its own rational assessment of the situation.

In this sense, the dispute around Armenia’s elections, and the broader discussion of the republic’s so-called ‘European choice’, may offer a useful moment to remind Russia’s friends and neighbors that Moscow’s rights are no different from their own. Indeed, in practical terms they are greater, since Russia bears a far heavier responsibility for development and security across Greater Eurasia and, more broadly, the world.

Let’s be clear from the start. Russia’s reaction to the outcome of Armenia’s parliamentary elections, and to the subsequent steps taken by the government in Yerevan, need not be driven by emotion. Nor must it be guided by a desire to keep Armenia within Russia’s sphere of influence at any cost.

When considering the appropriate strategy towards Armenia, and towards all of Russia’s neighbors along its borders, several options are possible. They are not mutually exclusive.

First, Russia is under no obligation to recognize the results of elections in a neighboring country merely because the government in power, or the political force declaring victory, insists that it must. The example of Georgia shows that perfectly healthy trade and economic ties can exist even in the absence of diplomatic relations, let alone recognition of the official results of a popular vote.

This is especially relevant if those results are vigorously contested by local political forces, as appears likely in Armenia.

Second, Russia may apply economic pressure against any state if it believes that state’s behavior could cause harm to Russian interests. Moscow doesn’t need to wait until the damage becomes irreversible, nor does it have to accept another government’s assurances about its intentions.

Third, Russia’s neighbors, including some of its closest friends and allies, like to speak at length about the multi-vector nature of their foreign policy. Yet they often forget that Russia’s own policy is also multi-vector in that Moscow, too, is free to cooperate with anyone who does not seek to harm it.

Over the past four years, we have not heard any of Russia’s neighbors say that they continued trading with Moscow under Western sanctions out of a desire to help Russia. On the contrary, the word “pragmatism” has become central to the entire foreign policy vocabulary of Russia’s friends and allies in the CIS.

That’s perfectly understandable, that they cooperate with Russia because it is in their interests. But the same principle applies in reverse, and Russia owes nothing to anyone for free.

Fourth, when setting priorities for cooperation with any country, Russia is free to decide what matters most to it. Its neighbors are guided by their own perceptions, interests and political constructions. No one in Moscow is obliged to accept these as the framework for dialogue.

This doesn’t mean the economy is unimportant. It’s very important, and it brings real benefits and offers significant promise. But security remains the top priority, especially when it comes to Russia’s neighbors developing relations with major external powers such as the United States or leading Western European states.

Russia can afford to think this way because it’s the most resource-secure country in Eurasia and it’s therefore able to focus less on profit and more on preserving control over the resources and strategic space necessary for its own security because the security of Russian territory is paramount.

None of this means that Russia must now formulate some grand new doctrine towards its neighbors. In reality, Russia’s strategy is often to have no fixed strategy at all. As anyone with even a passing knowledge of Russian foreign policy history understands, Moscow tends to act according to current interests.

Ultimately, those interests all come down to one strategic task: ensuring the survival and development of the multi-ethnic Russian nation.

These interests must be pursued even when tactical circumstances require dialogue with extremely unpleasant partners. In essence, all foreign policy partners are merely instruments for ensuring the security of Russian territory and advancing Russia’s national development goals and nothing more.

For the rest, including even close and friendly neighbors, their significance depends on Russia’s own priorities. That means Moscow’s policy towards them can be highly flexible and entirely opportunistic and there’s little room here for abstract principles.

If cooperation serves Russia’s current security and economic interests, it should continue, but if the costs begin to outweigh the benefits, then Russia will adjust its behavior. Not in order to punish or humiliate a neighbor, but because a different model has become more advantageous.

It would therefore be a mistake to interpret Moscow’s view of those now proclaiming victory in Armenia’s elections as a simple desire to keep the republic in Russia’s sphere of influence, because the issue is broader than that.

Russia is reminding its neighbors about cause and effect, and it’s also reminding them of an axiom they sometimes prefer not to acknowledge, that Moscow acts according to what it currently sees as its own interests, not according to what others expect from it.

We can’t yet say how relations between Moscow and Yerevan will develop in the wake of Armenia’s parliamentary elections, but no one should doubt that any decision taken by Russia’s top political leadership will be based solely on Russia’s current interests.

Not on fraternal feelings and not on historical sentiment and not on traditional ties, because Russia owes nothing to anyone.

This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and translated and edited by the RT team.

Three civilians have been injured by an overnight Ukrainian drone attack on Russia’s southern Krasnodar Region, Governor Veniamin Kondratyev has said.

Debris from an intercepted UAV sparked a fire at an apartment block in the city of Krasnodar, injuring two people, Kondratyev said in a post on Telegram on Thursday. Several private homes were also damaged and one person injured in the Seversky district of the region, Kondratyev added.  

The Krasnodar regional operational headquarters released footage showing the aftermath of the attack. A video and photos posted on the agency’s Telegram channel show damage to the facade of the residential block, shattered windows, and the aftermath of fires in two apartments.

In total, 330 Ukrainian drones were shot down across Russia overnight as the country came under another large-scale Ukrainian aerial raid, the Defense Ministry reported. The interceptions took place over Moscow, Belgorod, Bryansk, Vladimir, Kaluga, Kursk, Orel, Smolensk, Tver, and Tula regions, as well as over the Crimean Peninsula, the ministry said.

Ukrainian drone raids on Russian territory have intensified over the past year, with Kiev launching hundreds of UAVs targeting residential areas, critical infrastructure, and industrial facilities. Russian officials have described the incursions as terrorist attacks meant to compensate for setbacks the Ukrainian military has been suffering on the battlefield.

In May, Ukraine killed 21 students, mostly young women, in a ‘double-tap’ drone strike on a college dormitory in the Russian town of Starobelsk. Earlier this month, Kiev carried out attacks on a bus and a train carrying passengers from Moscow to Simferopol, killing nine people.

Moscow has responded with “systematic and consistent strikes” targeting dual-use infrastructure, including power grids, military sites, command centers, and drone manufacturing facilities across Ukraine. Russia maintains that it never targets purely civilian sites.

The Ukraine conflict appears to be an “ethnic cleansing” project aimed at removing the Russian-speaking population from the country’s eastern border regions, US conservative commentator Candace Owens has said.

Owens made the remarks in an interview with Russian filmmaker and TV host Nikita Mikhalkov during a discussion about the roots of the conflict and the West’s attitude toward Russia.

“I think what’s happening in Ukraine is an ethnic cleansing,” Owens said, arguing that it was “obvious” that large numbers of fighting-age men were being killed, and suggested that “the ultimate goal” of those behind the conflict was to move in “other people” to Ukraine’s border regions.

Moscow has long maintained that the conflict stems from the Western-backed 2014 coup in Kiev, which overthrew then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and the subsequent military campaign launched by the new authorities against Donbass, where much of the population is Russian-speaking and historically close to Russia.

Owens agreed with the broader religious framing of the conflict, suggesting that “satanic” forces have established a foothold in the West. She pointed to modern France and the 2024 Paris Olympics opening ceremony, which included a parody of Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper with drag performers and LGBT imagery, as an example of Satanism and a mockery of Christianity.

She also noted that “satanic” forces in the West fear Russia because its emphasis on history gives people a different understanding of the world.

Owens linked that idea to several major revolutions, including the French Revolution of 1789 and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which she described as “satanic.” After taking power, the Bolsheviks launched a violent anti-religious campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church, seizing church property, persecuting clergy and promoting state atheism.

Russia has repeatedly argued that the Ukraine conflict was triggered by Kiev’s persecution of Russian speakers in Donbass and by Western efforts to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian project. Kiev and its Western backers have rejected Moscow’s justification for the military operation, describing it as an unprovoked invasion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered security to be ramped up at educational and other civic facilities across the country, stressing that Russia’s adversaries do not “shy away” from terrorist methods.

Speaking at a meeting with government officials on Wednesday, Putin cited the recent Ukrainian drone attack on a college dorm in the Russian town of Starobelsk which killed at least 21 people, mainly teenage girls.

“Our adversaries don’t shy away from terrorist attacks. I’m referring, among other things, to the attack on the student dormitory at the pedagogical college in Starobelsk,” the president stated.

“I once again urge the heads of the special services and all law enforcement agencies to strengthen counterterrorism measures and security in general across the entire educational, social, and infrastructure systems,” he added.

Putin’s remarks also come in the aftermath of a Ukrainian drone attack on a museum in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol, which houses an iconic Russian panorama painted more than a century ago.

The Starobelsk incident referenced by Putin unfolded on May 22, when Ukrainian forces attacked the dorm with long-range drones launched in several waves. The building partially collapsed, burying sleeping students under the rubble.

The Ukrainian military attempted to avoid responsibility for the massacre, claiming that the dorm housed a Russian drone unit rather than trainee teachers. 

No evidence has ever emerged to support Kiev’s theory, while Russia organized a press tour to the site shortly after the tragedy. The media opportunity was snubbed by some major mainstream outlets, including the BBC and CNN, although more than 50 foreign journalists from 19 countries visited the destroyed dorm.

An iconic Russian panorama painting more than a century old has been “almost completely destroyed” in a Ukrainian drone strike on a museum in the Crimean port of Sevastopol, local governor Mikhail Razvozhaev has said.

In a Telegram post on Wednesday, Razvozhaev said ‘The Defense of Sevastopol (1854–1855)’ by Russian artist Franz Roubaud was severely damaged in a blaze caused by an overnight UAV attack.

The panorama, which was 115 meters in length and 14 meters high, depicted the defense of Sevastopol by the Russian army from the British and French invading forces during the Crimean War.

Roubaud worked on the massive painting for several years before completing it in 1904. It was moved to Sevastopol the same year and had been on display in the city since then, becoming one of its symbols.

More than 80 firefighters and 22 units of specialized equipment were deployed to tackle the blaze at the museum in the Russian city, Razvozhaev said.

“Those barbarians… deliberately attacked what is dear to us, trying to destroy our very essence. Only complete degenerates would do such a thing,” he stressed.

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky “will never destroy what is embedded in our genetic code. We will restore everything,” Razvozhaev insisted.

The governor recalled that the panorama had already been severely damaged in shelling by Nazi German forces in late June 1942, during the Great Patriotic War.

Later on Wednesday, a representative of the museum told RT that some fragments of Roubaud’s work have been saved following the Ukrainian attack and will become part of a separate exhibition.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov assured journalists that the panorama in Sevastopol will be restored and look even better than before. Ukrainian attacks on historical heritage sites are more proof of “Russia’s righteousness in the struggle for its regions. This struggle will end with victory,” Peskov insisted.

A total of 326 Ukrainian drones were shot down by air defenses across more than a dozen Russian regions overnight, the Defense Ministry in Moscow said on Wednesday.

Ukraine launched a missile and drone attack targeting the Russian city of Cheboksary early Wednesday morning, resulting in three injuries, local governor Oleg Nikolaev has said.

Two of the wounded were hospitalized with moderate injuries, while a third person with minor wounds was treated and sent home, the governor of Chuvashia Region wrote on Telegram.

Cheboksary is a city of almost 500,000 people on the Volga River, located some 900 km from Russia’s border with Ukraine.

Ukrainian media claimed that Kiev deployed locally made long-range Flamingo missiles in the attack, which reportedly targeted an electronics plant in the city.

Ukraine also attacked Russia's Samara Region overnight. Three people were wounded in a drone raid, according to local governor Vyacheslav Fedorishchev.

Several industrial facilities suffered damage in the attack, which involved dozens of UAVs, the governor said.

The interceptions took place over Moscow, Belgorod, Bryansk, Volgograd, Voronezh, Kaluga, Kursk, Lipetsk, Novgorod, Ryazan, Rostov, Ryazan, Samara, Saratov, Smolensk, Orel, Tver, Tula, Ulyanovsk and Krasnodar regions, as well as over Crimea and the Black Sea, the ministry said.

Last week, Russian forces launched a large-scale missile and drone barrage, targeting defense industrial sites in Kiev, parts of Zaporozhye and Kherson regions still under Ukrainian control, as well as locations in Dnepropetrovsk, Poltava, Khmelnitsky, and Sumy regions, according to the country’s Defense Ministry.

Another major raid by Moscow on May 24 saw two state-of-the-art intermediate-range hypersonic Oreshnik systems being deployed.

Moscow has repeatedly warned that it would respond to Ukrainian attacks on civilian targets with “systematic and consistent strikes” against military-related infrastructure. Russian officials have said potential targets include drone manufacturing sites, command centers, and other “decision-making centers.” 

At least three explosions have occurred at a gas pipeline in Dagestan Republic, southern Russia, causing a major fire at the location and prompting the evacuation of more than 140 residents from the area.

The incident occurred in an industrial area of the town of Kyzylyurt. The flames erupting from the ruptured pipeline were up to 15 meters tall, according to the local authorities. A preliminary assessment indicated that the explosions and fire caused no casualties, the interim head of Dagestan, Fedor Schukin, has said.

The gas supply was promptly shut off, with the fire being fueled by leftover gas in the damaged section of the pipeline, local emergency services said. Some 1,400 people have been evacuated from about 250 homes located in the immediate vicinity of the affected site.

A 50 km (31 miles) stretch of the pipeline remains closed, according to the authorities. Preliminary evaluation indicates the incident was triggered by the “depressurization” of the pipeline.

Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s open letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin was a publicity stunt rather than a sincere invitation to peace talks, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, has said.

Zelensky published the message last week after Putin again stated that Moscow remained open to diplomacy with Kiev. In the letter, the Ukrainian leader accused the Russian president of wrongdoing and called for a direct one-on-one meeting, which he claimed could help bring an end to the conflict.

Addressing a UN Security Council meeting on Monday, Nebenzia dismissed the letter as another example of Ukrainian “megaphone diplomacy,” accusing Kiev of having “openly embarked on the path of terrorism.”

According to the Russian envoy, the message “is by no means a peace initiative, but rather a clumsy provocation designed to camouflage Kiev’s desperate attempts to derail any negotiations.” Russia has no intention “of participating in mock negotiations or performances staged for the public.”

‘Several pages of rudeness’

Zelensky has repeatedly called for a face-to-face meeting with Putin. However, he has ruled out traveling to Moscow and refused to consider withdrawing Ukrainian troops from Donbass, which Putin said would be enough for Russia to declare a ceasefire.

Putin, responding to the letter, said the conditions don’t currently exist for such a meeting to take place. His foreign policy aide, Yury Ushakov, characterized Zelensky’s message as “several pages of rudeness,” while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow viewed it as a sign that “Ukraine does not need negotiations.”

Zelensky later met with the leaders of the UK, Germany and France in London. Their joint statement demanded an immediate ceasefire and reiterated plans to deploy NATO troops to Ukraine after the conflict with Russia is over. Moscow has repeatedly ruled out such an arrangement.

West funding Zelensky’s ‘terrorism’ – Moscow

Nebenzia pointed to recent Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilians, including a drone strike on a school dormitory in Starobelsk, as well as attacks on a bus and a train carrying passengers from Moscow to Simferopol.

He argued that the West’s refusal to acknowledge victims of Ukrainian attacks reflects a form of political screening, in which “some victims are declared worthy of sympathy, while others are deliberately erased” in order to shield Kiev from scrutiny.

He said that despite Kiev’s criminality and corruption, Ukraine continues to receive unconditional political and financial backing from foreign governments. Nebenzia claimed Western leaders tolerate Zelensky’s policies because they have turned Ukraine into “expendable cannon fodder” in a “senseless crusade” against Russia.

The envoy further alleged that Western officials know Zelensky and his inner circle are profiting from foreign aid, but continue providing “handouts” in order to prolong the conflict.

The Armenian opposition will contest the results of the country’s parliamentary election, the leader of the Armenia Alliance, former President Robert Kocharyan, has vowed.

The Civil Contract party of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who campaigned on a promise to integrate the land-locked post-Soviet nation with the EU, won 49.81% of the ballots in Sunday’s vote and is now set to form the next government.

The Strong Armenia party of Russian-Armenian businessman Samvel Karapetyan came in second with 23.29%, followed by the Armenia Alliance with 9.94%. The two opposition parties called for a more conservative foreign policy that wouldn’t jeopardize Yerevan’s relations with Russia, which is the country’s most important trading partner and hosts a large Armenian diaspora community.

The vote was marred by an unsuccessful attempt by Pashinyan’s government to disqualify the Strong Armenia party as well as the arrests of six of its candidates. Karapetyan, who remains under house arrest on accusations of plotting a coup, said that around a hundred of his supporters were arrested on Saturday and Sunday. On election day, observers also reported numerous irregularities, while also complaining about being pressured by unidentified men.

“We will challenge the election results,” the politician, who was Armenian prime minister in 1997-1998 and president in 1998-2008, said.

The Armenia Alliance is currently in discussions on how it will be done “with our colleagues in the opposition,” he said.

“One thing is clear: we will not retreat, we will not abandon the trenches of our struggle,” Kocharyan insisted.

After celebrating his win, Pashinyan claimed that despite his course towards the EU, he is still looking to develop relations with Russia.

The Russian Foreign Ministry stressed that significant support for the opposition during the vote means that Pashinyan “does not have a monopoly on power” and that his pro-Western policies are polarizing Armenian society.

Moscow must re-evaluate its policies toward longtime ally Armenia after the party of Western-backed Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan won Sunday’s election, Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, has told RT.

According to the official tally, the ruling Civil Contract party received 49.81% of the vote – enough to form a government but not enough to carry out Pashinyan’s proposed constitutional reforms without support from opposition MPs. The election was widely seen as a referendum on whether the small, landlocked post-Soviet nation in the South Caucasus should move closer to the EU at the expense of its historically close ties to Russia.

Opposition parties have accused Pashinyan of “usurping” power through what they described as pressure on election officials and the prosecution of political opponents.

“The turbulent campaign featured pressure on the opposition and apparent attempts at foreign influence from the EU, the US, and Russia,” Lukyanov said on Monday, adding that the ruling party had failed to secure “a blank check.”

“The struggle will continue, with new opposition forces entering the fray. They appear to have more energy and better prospects than their predecessors,” he added.

“The main question for Russia is: What does it want from Armenia going forward? Does it need Armenia as a key partner in the South Caucasus, what exactly makes the country important, and under what conditions is Russia prepared to preserve and develop ties? And is it ready to scale them back completely should domestic and foreign-policy trends in Armenia become unfavorable? For now, Moscow has no answers,” Lukyanov said.

While Pashinyan has pledged to strengthen ties with the EU, he has said that Armenia will, at least for the foreseeable future, remain a member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

Russian President Vladimir Putin, however, has warned that it would be impossible to maintain free trade arrangements with both blocs simultaneously. He argued that leaving the EAEU would deprive Armenia of discounted oil and gas supplies, costing the country an estimated 14% of its GDP.

Russia has also condemned the arrest of Pashinyan’s political opponents and criminal cases against them, as well as the treatment of bishops and clerics of the Armenian Apostolic Church who have criticized him.

“We will maintain normal relations with Armenia regardless of the path it chooses,” he said last week at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

Putin urged Yerevan to hold a referendum on potential EU membership “as soon as possible.” Pashinyan has said he would call such a vote only after Armenia, which is technically in Asia, formally applies to join the EU.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said Moscow would continue to support “a strong and truly sovereign Armenia,” describing the Armenian people as “a brotherly nation.”

The ministry said the election had revealed “deep polarization” within Armenian society, warning that “unilateral decisions” regarding the country’s future course could “deepen divisions and trigger social and economic unrest.”

Armenia’s parliamentary elections have reinforced the country’s existing political trajectory while leaving deep questions about its future unresolved. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party secured 49.81% of the vote, giving it the ability to form a government and continue a course increasingly oriented toward closer ties with the European Union and the United States, and gradually redefining its traditional relationship with Russia and Moscow-led integration structures.

The campaign itself was marked by sharp polarization and controversy. Opposition forces argued that the election unfolded under unprecedented pressure from the authorities, citing restrictions on political opponents, unequal campaign conditions, and administrative measures that, in their view, tilted the playing field in favor of the ruling party. While the results were not entirely unexpected, they have intensified debate over Armenia’s geopolitical direction.

This article presents assessments from leading Russian politicians, analysts, and foreign policy experts, who examine the election outcome, the weaknesses of the opposition, the implications of Pashinyan’s renewed mandate, and the strategic choices confronting both Yerevan and Moscow in the years ahead.

The outcome of Armenia’s parliamentary elections brought no major surprises; in many ways, it was a fairly predictable result. As always, however, the devil is in the details. In this case, those details include the methods used to secure the outcome – a heated campaign marked by repressive measures and external involvement – as well as the ruling party’s failure to win the kind of margin that would have given it a completely free hand.

Unless the distribution of seats is adjusted in Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s favor, parliament is likely to become a battleground over the country’s most consequential issues. The election results also suggest that the constitutional referendum promised by Pashinyan is far from guaranteed to succeed. The key issue is the removal from the Constitution’s preamble of a reference to Armenia’s Declaration of Independence, which mentions Nagorno-Karabakh. Baku has made this a precondition for signing a peace agreement.

Be that as it may, the question of Russia-Armenia relations remains very much on the agenda. Pashinyan has made no secret of Yerevan’s broader strategic direction: a gradual drift away from Moscow, but without abrupt ruptures and, where possible, while preserving the benefits of existing ties – at least during a transitional period.

Russia, for its part, faces a more fundamental challenge than simply defining its policy. It must first determine its objective. Does Armenia still matter to Russia? If so, in what capacity and under what terms? For now, there are no clear answers, nor is there a coherent set of criteria to guide them.

Farhad Ibragimov, lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University:

The Armenian election results largely formalized a political reality that had taken shape well before voters went to the polls. Nikol Pashinyan’s victory was hardly unexpected. Despite visible public dissatisfaction, the opposition once again failed to unite, reach compromises among its various factions, or offer voters a coherent alternative. Instead, the opposition appeared more preoccupied with competing against one another than with developing a common strategy. Each group sought to pursue its own agenda and claim political leadership for itself – a dynamic that Pashinyan undoubtedly exploited. Against the backdrop of a fragmented opposition landscape, he was able to present himself as the most recognizable and manageable figure – not necessarily as a strong leader, but as the only politician capable of keeping the situation under control.

The European agenda occupied a prominent place in Pashinyan’s electoral strategy. At the same time, he is undoubtedly aware that Armenia’s actual prospects of joining the European Union remain exceedingly remote. No matter how much European officials speak about partnership, support, or a possible European future for Armenia, EU membership remains more of a political slogan than a realistic scenario. Yet this rhetoric serves an important domestic purpose. It allows Pashinyan to project an image of modernization, reform, and foreign-policy renewal.

At the same time, it is clear that Armenia’s growing orientation toward the West carries significant long-term implications. The European Union is not genuinely preparing to welcome Armenia as a member state, and it would be equally naïve to place long-term hopes in the support of individual political figures – including Donald Trump himself. Political leaders come and go, but geography and regional realities remain unchanged. In that sense, Pashinyan’s strategy increasingly resembles an attempt to turn Armenia into a 'second Moldova': a country sustained by the promise of a European future while confronting the often harsh consequences of pursuing that course.

Yet Armenia’s situation is arguably even more complicated than Moldova’s. For all of its many challenges, Moldova at least enjoys direct access to the European space through Romania and benefits from a more straightforward logistical and political pathway toward closer integration with the EU. Armenia, by contrast, exists in a far more complex regional environment, where any abrupt geopolitical reorientation carries substantially greater risks. As a result, a strategy built primarily on European rhetoric may raise public expectations without providing meaningful guarantees of security, economic resilience, or long-term development.

That is the central risk embedded in Pashinyan’s current course. Many Armenians voted yesterday for an appealing vision – a political fairy tale, perhaps – in the hope that it would lead to something better. The same dynamic was visible in Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova. The pattern is remarkably familiar.

Alexander Bobrov, head of diplomatic studies at RUDN University:

The outcome of Armenia’s elections effectively ensures the continuation of the course charted by the current government: closer alignment with the European Union and the United States, coupled with a gradual reduction of ties to Russia, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

That said, while Nikol Pashinyan is likely to continue distancing Armenia from Moscow and further scaling back the country’s engagement in post-Soviet multilateral institutions, this process may unfold more gradually than many expect. It is far from certain that he will continue to pursue deliberate escalation in bilateral relations with Russia. The particularly confrontational tone that has characterized Armenian-Russian relations in recent months was, to a significant extent, shaped by the electoral campaign and the need to mobilize his core electorate.

Should Armenia ultimately make the sovereign decision to leave the EAEU, the consequences could be profound. Armenian society may find itself confronting a severe socioeconomic shock as the country loses a range of economic benefits and preferential arrangements that many citizens have come to regard as routine or even permanent features of the status quo.

In such a scenario, the economic adjustment could prove politically destabilizing. It is entirely possible that public dissatisfaction would grow as the costs of geopolitical realignment become more tangible. Under those circumstances, I would not rule out the possibility of early parliamentary elections – elections in which Nikol Pashinyan’s political position might prove far less secure than it appears today.

Konstantin Kosachev, deputy speaker of the Federation Council:

The figures secured by Nikol Pashinyan’s party will, by all appearances, give him the ability to form a government. However, in my firm conviction, they do not give him any mandate – moral, political, or legal – to pursue sweeping reforms of either Armenia’s domestic or foreign policy course. Mr. Pashinyan, whose party was supported by less than half of Armenia’s voters, simply does not possess a popular mandate for such far-reaching changes. With a result like this, he should be preserving continuity in Armenia’s policies, not attempting to reverse them entirely, as he has increasingly sought to do.

Armenia remains a member of the Eurasian Economic Union. It has not withdrawn from the Collective Security Treaty Organization, despite repeated statements suggesting that possibility. Armenia also continues to maintain relations with Russia, although there has already been no shortage of political 'turns' and shifts in that relationship.

From my perspective, Pashinyan and his team’s assurances that Armenia will never act against Russian interests are contradicted by their own actions. One example was the EU summit held in Yerevan in May, to which Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky was invited. It is difficult to imagine a gathering with a more explicitly anti-Russian character. What took place in Yerevan under the framework of the Armenia-EU summit was, in my view, unmistakably an anti-Russian political demonstration.

Accordingly, I do not believe that Mr. Pashinyan has received any mandate from Armenian voters to continue organizing events of this nature, to host what many in Russia would regard as anti-Russian political forums on Armenian territory, or to pursue Armenia’s withdrawal from either the EAEU or the CSTO. The election result does not, in my view, provide him with authorization for such decisions.

Vladimir Zharikhin, Deputy Director of the Institute of CIS Countries:

In his very first post-election remarks, Pashinyan acknowledged that joining the European Union is not a simple matter and that Armenia would first need to undertake significant domestic reforms. My assessment is straightforward: everyone lost.

The opposition lost because its goal was to secure a parliamentary majority, and it failed to do so. Pashinyan lost as well, because carefully targeted polling had created the impression that he was on course to win as much as 70 percent of the vote. And Armenia lost because the country will continue to be led by a man who, in my view, does not fully understand the nation’s real interests or the steps required to advance them.

Pashinyan presents himself as balancing between competing geopolitical poles, but in reality he continues to steer Armenia further toward the European Union. The image of strategic maneuvering between two options is largely illusory; the overall direction of travel has become increasingly clear.

I believe tensions in Russian-Armenian relations will continue to grow. Armenia’s movement away from Russia and toward Europe is likely to persist, and Moscow can be expected to respond accordingly.

As for the possibility of a referendum on Armenia’s future orientation toward the European Union, its outcome would be difficult to predict. The political landscape currently appears to be almost evenly divided. Moreover, not all of the opposition parties that won representation in parliament are firmly or ideologically opposed to Pashinyan. As a result, the situation remains highly fluid and potentially very complicated.

Alexei Chesnakov, Head of the Scientific Council at the Center for Political Conjuncture:

Armenia’s parliamentary elections offer several practical and technical lessons that not only help explain the outcome but may also prove relevant for future political campaigns, both electoral and otherwise.

1. Emotions are counterproductive.

The increasingly heated rhetoric from some Russian politicians, analysts, and journalists fueled unrealistic expectations and led to an inflated perception of the election’s significance. Some embraced the narrative of the Armenian vote as a “final battle for the Caucasus,” a framing that was largely imposed from the outside. Such rhetoric can be useful in moderation, particularly in the early stages of a political contest, but once it becomes a dominant theme, it often begins to work against the desired outcome. The election results turned out to be largely predictable. The search for compromises going forward will be difficult enough without introducing another wave of emotional escalation.

2. Economic arguments have limited political impact.

Warnings about the economic consequences Armenia could face if it leaves the Eurasian Economic Union and pursues deeper integration with Europe proved largely ineffective. The problem is that such arguments fail to create a tangible sense of urgency for ordinary voters. Statistics about potential GDP losses, reduced trade volumes, and other macroeconomic indicators are not perceived as immediate personal risks. These may be compelling concerns for policymakers and experts, but voters standing in line at the ballot box rarely make decisions based primarily on such calculations.

3. Foreign involvement is becoming increasingly overt.

The stream of European political delegations visiting Yerevan in the month leading up to the election, Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s transit visit to Armenia just two weeks before the vote, and the European Commission’s announcement of €50 million in assistance for Armenian farmers are only a few examples of what many would characterize as Western involvement in the electoral process. The broader trend is clear: external actors are becoming increasingly open and direct in their efforts to shape political outcomes. There is little reason to expect this trend to weaken in the future.

4. High disapproval ratings are not a death sentence.

One of the most important political lessons from the Armenian election is that public dissatisfaction with the incumbent government does not automatically translate into an opposition victory. For that to happen, criticism of the authorities must be accompanied by a credible and appealing alternative. Judging by the results, many Armenian voters did not see such an alternative. Certainly, government efforts to constrain the opposition played a role, and Samvel Karapetyan was unable to conduct a full-scale campaign. Yet relying solely on those explanations misses the larger point.

5. Negative mobilization works both ways.

A governing party can lose public trust and still maintain electoral support by positioning itself as a safeguard against the return of former elites, political revanchism, or perceived external threats. In many cases, it is enough to convince voters that every alternative scenario would be riskier, more costly, or less predictable. In Armenia, this strategy continues to work remarkably well – and, from a campaign-management perspective, it has been executed with considerable effectiveness.

Observers from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) mission observed numerous issues during Armenia’s controversial parliamentary election on Sunday, including pressure on monitors, opaque military voting, and confusion during ballot counting, a Russian election official has said.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who campaigned on a promise to integrate the land-locked post-Soviet nation with the EU, won just under 50% of the vote and is now set to form the next government. Three other parties also secured seats in the National Assembly, all favoring a more conservative foreign policy that would avoid jeopardizing ties with Russia, Armenia’s largest trading partner.

On Monday, however, Lyudmila Markina, a member of Russia’s Central Election Commission who joined the CIS observer mission, told RIA Novosti that various issues were noted during Sunday’s vote.

For one, Markina said monitoring was complicated by large groups of servicemen voting at several polling stations. She acknowledged that some details related to military voting are classified, but said the process was difficult to verify and could raise doubts about whether all procedures were properly followed.

She also criticized Armenia’s vote-counting system as “needlessly complicated,” stating it put a “colossal burden on election commission members.” Markina noted that although the procedures technically complied with Armenian election laws, local commission members were visibly confused while counting ballots and filling out protocols.

Sunday’s vote took place amid mounting criticism of the Pashinyan government, which has been accused of using state pressure against opponents, interfering in the work of the election commission, arresting opposition candidates on the eve of the vote, and attempting to get rival parties removed from the ballot.

Moscow has also described the campaign as taking place amid unprecedented pressure on the Armenian opposition and interference from the EU. Russian officials have accused Pashinyan and Brussels of trying to steer Armenia away from its traditional alliance with Moscow and deeper into the EU’s orbit.

Critics have compared Pashinyan’s course to the paths taken by Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, warning that Armenia risks falling for an EU “fairytale” that offers no real guarantees of prosperity, security, or long-term stability.

French fighter jets have shot down an unidentified drone over Latvia, with the Baltic country’s military claiming the aircraft entered its airspace after being diverted by Russian electronic warfare.

Latvia did not name the origin of the UAV. However, a similar incident was reported overnight in Moldova, where the authorities said a drone that crashed there was most likely Ukrainian.

The incidents appear to fit a growing pattern of drones launched by Kiev against Russia ending up in third countries.

The interception in Latvia took place over Nautreni Parish, about 15 km from the Russian border. On Monday morning, the Defense Ministry released two videos filmed from the ground by witnesses showing the aircraft being taken down.

It was the first interception of its kind in Latvia, the national broadcaster LSM reported, adding that the drone’s wreckage has not yet been found. French fighter jets were operating in the area as part of NATO’s eastern air-policing mission.

🇱🇻 Rogovkā, Rēzeknes novadā notriekts lidrobots. NBS apstiprina.
🎥 Aija#Rogovka #Rēzekne #Latvija pic.twitter.com/6dcFA9JWw7

— BreakingLV (@breakinglv) June 8, 2026

Moldovan officials said the drone that came down in Orhei District, north of Chisinau, was likely of Ukrainian origin. Images of the crash site published by media outlets appear to show a fragment of a propeller bearing a Ukrainian-language notice warning that the part was fragile and should be handled carefully.

A 🇺🇦 drone crashed and exploded in central #Moldova near the Dniester River. 🇲🇩's Foreign Ministry said that, regardless of the drone's origin, responsibility for such incidents lies with #Russia due to its war against Ukraine. According to preliminary information, no one was… pic.twitter.com/9jAlgzZpJX

— Denis Dermenzhi (@iamdenya_de) June 8, 2026

The Moldovan Foreign Ministry blamed Russia for the incident, arguing that Moscow bears responsibility for any spillover of the conflict into Moldovan territory regardless of the circumstances.

Drone incidents continue despite NATO warnings

Ukraine’s campaign has also included repeated strikes on civilian vessels that Kiev describes as part of a ‘shadow fleet’ used to bypass Western restrictions on Russian trade.

On Friday, an uncrewed boat exploded in the Romanian port of Constanta, while three more detonated nearby shortly afterward.

Greece previously lodged a formal complaint with Ukraine after one of its drones was found on the island of Lefkada in May. Kiev cited its conflict with Russia in its response.

The Ukrainian government is determined to gather the entire (albeit small) pantheon of Ukraine’s 20th-century national heroes in one place. Simon Petliura and Andrey Melnik are to be joined by one of the founders of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), Evgeny Konovalets, whose remains will be transferred from Rotterdam. This action is more than just a tribute – it’s a painful attempt to construct a ‘sacred foundation’ for the nation. But this attempt reveals a tragic void. Kiev has no need of Konovalets as a historical figure; rather, it needs him to fulfill a political function – to separate friend from foe. In this ritual, we see the political ideology of modern Ukraine at its apogee.

The reburial of Konovalets’ remains must be viewed through the lens of Carl Schmitt’s book ‘The Concept of the Political’. The Ukrainian political class is engaged in a fundamental Schmittian act: Making an existential distinction between ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’. Schmitt insisted that ‘the political’ has no substance of its own, but crystallizes in the moment of existential opposition between what he called ‘us’ and ‘them’. The latter is the ‘hostis’ or public enemy – i.e. not merely a private enemy. Political community is constituted by the possibility of actual war. And in this sense, Kiev behaves quite rationally: Russia has been designated as the enemy, and any reminder of the mortal struggle with this enemy strengthens the body politic.

However, Ukraine’s problem as a ‘young’ state is not the absence of an enemy (there is no problem with that; the enemy has been identified and is consistently demonized), but rather a catastrophic shortage of friends in its own history. Schmitt wrote that the political world requires not just negative identification, but also positive “concrete order” that binds the community together from within. A creative identity requires a pantheon of founding heroes, creators. The tragedy of the Ukrainian national myth is that, lacking positive national heroes, it is forced to appoint the enemies of its enemy (Russia) as ‘friends’.

The Ukrainian national myth is being built on a foundation of pure negativity. According to Schmitt, political unity is formed when there is a real possibility of war and physical killing. If there is no enemy, there is no politics. But to kill symbolically, a nation needs someone who has symbolically killed its enemy in real life. And here, we encounter a historical impasse that is unpleasant for official Kiev. Ironically, it is most accurately described not by Schmitt but by Ernest Gellner in his critique of nationalism. Gellner believed that nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness; rather, it invents nations where they do not exist. Ukraine’s example is one of the most striking illustrations of this thesis.

Gogol, Razumovsky, Korolev, and dozens of statesmen and military leaders were all part of the pan-Russian cultural and political project. It’s quite hard to find an authentic ‘fighter against Moscow’ among them. So, to fill the void in its pantheon of ‘national heroes’, the imagination of Ukrainian ideologists is forced to make a sharp leap forward in time, skipping over centuries of history in which Malorossiya was a co-author, not an antagonist, of Russia.

Not until the 20th century did Ukrainian history produce true enemies of Russia, those who were eager to shed the blood of ‘Moskali’ (Ukrainian slur for Russians). Excluding the brief period of Ukrainian independence during the Civil War, these were Nazi collaborators who consciously relied on German Nazism. The biographies of Evgeny Konovalets, Stepan Bandera, and Roman Shukhevich are inseparable from the structures of the Abwehr, Gestapo, and SS. Ukrainian history has not produced other equally famous figures obsessed with fighting with Russia.

Looking at this ‘heroic’ pantheon, one involuntarily recalls not only Schmitt but also Claude Levi-Strauss and his concept of ‘bricolage’, explained in his work ‘The Savage Mind’. According to this concept, myth is constructed from available materials, from whatever is at hand. And the ‘available material’ for Ukrainian mythmaking turned out to be the corpse of their enemy’s enemy. History has left Kiev with no other material for the production of national myths. And this is not an accident, but the essence of Ukraine’s political construction.

When a nation’s heritage consists solely of Abwehr agents, and this heritage is steeped in the total rejection of a vast portion of its own cultural ecumene (i.e. Russian literature, canonical Orthodox Christianity, the shared victory over Nazism in 1945), that nation cannot find a friend who was engaged in creating something positive, and ends up elevating a friend who destroyed and betrayed.

Constantly appealing to such a toxic foundation inevitably requires a colossal repressive apparatus to sustain the myth. Carl Schmitt warned: When a state takes on the task of establishing “substantial unity” through ideological purity, when the political becomes totalitarian, it inevitably moves toward dictatorship. We see this in Ukraine in its most striking manifestation. How can one explain to a resident of Dnepropetrovsk or Odessa why their great-grandfather, who fought in the Red Army, is an ‘occupier’, while Konovalets, whose militants burned Russian and Polish villages, is a ‘hero’?

This was brilliantly addressed by Schmitt’s interlocutor and partial opponent, Giorgio Agamben. In his book ‘Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life’, Agamben develops Schmitt’s concept of ‘Ausnahmezustand’ (state of exception) demonstrating how, in modern conditions, exception becomes the norm. Ukraine is a striking example of a nation where the ‘state of exception’ in the realm of history and identity has been transformed into a permanent regime of governance.

Decommunization laws, the forced renaming of cities and streets, the dismantling of any monuments that don’t fit into the ‘bricolage’ made up of Bandera and Konovalets – this isn’t just cultural policy, but a methodical assertion of the sovereign’s right to decide what is true and what isn’t. Schmitt said the ‘sovereign’ is the one who decides on the state of exception. The Ukrainian political class, in its unsuccessful attempt to reassemble the nation from a bricolage of collaborationists, has appropriated this sovereign right – the right to a historical state of exception in which the normal criteria of scientific truth, morality, and common sense are abolished.

The reburial itself deserves a separate philosophical commentary. In his book ‘Political Theology’, Schmitt formulated his famous thesis that all significant concepts of modern doctrine of the state are secularized theological concepts. Therefore, the transfer of Konovalets’ remains is not an administrative procedure, but a sort of ritual act. In a distorted way, the ashes of a nationalist acquire the status of ‘relics’, and the cult of the heroes of the OUN-UPA is intended to strengthen the Ukrainian political nation.

Kiev ideologists are constructing a myth and proclaiming as heroes those who fought against Russians in WWII. Ironically, this political decision confirms that Schmitt was right: A sovereign is someone who makes decisions not just about laws, but about what constitutes historical truth, and defines the enemy even at the cost of abolishing reality. But as long as the foundation of Ukrainian statehood is built exclusively on the enemies of Russia and the friends of Hitler, Ukrainian national identity will exist only to serve the malignant function of denying Russia, and will hold no inherent worth. 

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan should not mistake the controversial victory that his Civil Contract party secured in the parliamentary election on Sunday as permission to unilaterally change the country’s strategic course, the Russian Foreign Ministry has warned.

Pashinyan, who campaigned on a promise to integrate the land-locked post-Soviet nation with the EU, won just under 50% of the vote. Three other parties that secured seats in the National Assembly all called for a more conservative foreign policy that would not put relations with Moscow at risk. Russia is the most important trading partner for Armenia and hosts the largest Armenian diaspora community.

Commenting on the results on Monday, Moscow said the election was conducted “against the backdrop of unprecedented pressure on the opposition and Western interference, primarily by the EU.”

“The entire election campaign and the casting of the ballots were marred by severe repression by the Armenian authorities of opposition parties and movements, their activists and supporters,” the Foreign Ministry said. “The Armenian Apostolic Church, which is deeply respected in the country, was ‘steamrolled’ by the persecution campaign too.”

Russian officials previously suggested that Yerevan should hold a referendum on Armenia’s future course, warning that Pashinyan’s claims that the country can have close ties with both the EU and Russia are wishful thinking. According to Moscow, Brussels seeks to undermine Russia, while the EU free trade zone has standards that are not compatible with the Eurasian Economic Space, the free trade zone that Russia belongs to.

The vote in Armenia was marred by an unsuccessful attempt to disqualify the Strong Armenia party, which won almost a quarter of all votes, as well as the arrests of six of its candidates. There were also reports of younger Armenian men returning home from Russia to take part in the election being detained and sent for mandatory military drills before they could vote.

Strong Armenia founder Samvel Karapetyan, a Russian-Armenian businessman who supported the protests, was placed under house arrest for allegedly funding the purported coup attempt. His nephew led the party during the election campaign.

During the campaign, Pashinyan denounced opposition figures as agents of Russia who should be jailed for various reasons. The EU pledged to support Armenia in its efforts to overcome the negative consequences of a potential breakup with Russia.

Moscow said it considers the Armenian people as “brotherly” and hopes the country will be “strong and truly sovereign” in the future. Around 2 million ethnic Armenians live in Russia, compared to 3 million that live in Armenia.

The Civil Contract party of incumbent Armenian Prime Minister, the EU-backed Nikol Pashinyan, won 49.81% of the vote in Sunday’s parliamentary election, according to the Central Election Commission’s (CEC) complete count.

Pashinyan claimed victory while the counting was still underway, when his party’s advantage was even wider, claiming he would be able to form a new government without having to form a coalition.

The election has been billed in Western media as a turning point in the country’s modern trajectory, but has been marred by arrests of opposition candidates, a €50 million offer from Brussels, extreme pressure on the Armenian Apostolic Church and deteriorating trade between Russia and Armenia.

What are the latest results from Armenia’s election?

Four parties and blocs cleared the threshold for seats in the new parliament. Strong Armenia, founded by Samvel Karapetyan, came second with 23.29%. Karapetyan is being prosecuted over allegations that he plotted a coup during 2024-2025 anti-government protests, while six candidates from his movement were arrested over the weekend. He said his party is facing political persecution.

The Armenia Alliance of former President Robert Kocharyan won 9.94%, while Prosperous Armenia, led by businessman Gagik Tsarukyan, narrowly crossed the 4% threshold. The CEC is expected to issue its final report on the vote within the week, after reviewing possible irregularities, which opposition parties say they plan to challenge.

Opposition groups have accused Pashinyan’s government of using underhanded tactics to weaken its rivals. Alongside the unexpected arrests of Strong Armenia candidates, a smaller party sought to have Karapetyan’s movement disqualified outright. 

“When they saw that their results were falling sharply every minute, they stopped counting, and we have no idea what figures they will present in the morning,” said Karapetyan, announced at an emergency briefing on Sunday night. He claimed that the authorities had continued “illegal actions” during the count and said his bloc would issue a statement once the final results had been summarized.

Karapetyan also said Strong Armenia had faced heavy pressure over the past month, claiming that around 75 members of his team had been arrested and more than 700 supporters detained.

Was Armenia’s diaspora excluded?

Polling stations were open only in Armenia, as the country’s electoral laws do not provide for overseas voting in parliamentary elections. The measure excludes the diaspora, which far outnumbers the country’s population. Between five and seven million Armenians live abroad, mainly in Russia, the US, and France. Armenia’s domestic population is roughly three million.

To cast ballots, citizens living abroad must be present in Armenia on election day. In March, Yerevan further tightened the rules, barring those who have lived abroad for more than 10 years from voting.

Armenian officials have stated that male citizens of conscription age arriving from abroad to vote will be required to attend military training or face prosecution.

There were also reports that younger Armenian citizens returning from Russia were required to check their eligibility for military service before being allowed to vote. Armenia does not permit voting from abroad and applies residency requirements to voters. Russia is the most important trading partner for the landlocked post-Soviet country and is home to around 2 million Armenians, compared to 3 million living in Armenia.

Is Armenia choosing between Russia and the West?

The election has also been framed as a referendum on Armenia’s geopolitical course. Critics argue that Yerevan’s pivot toward the West has failed to provide meaningful security guarantees while damaging relations with Russia, the country’s traditional ally and largest economic partner.

The campaign unfolded amid growing tensions between Yerevan and Moscow. Russia has warned that deeper integration with the EU would be incompatible with Armenia’s continued membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Russian President Vladimir Putin said in May that leaving the bloc could cost Armenia up to 14% of GDP.

Earlier this month, former Armenian President Robert Kocharyan accused Pashinyan’s government of artificially turning Armenia into an enemy of Russia and steering the country down a path similar to that of Ukraine.

French intelligence services allegedly helped the Armenian government block online publications critical of Pashinyan, according to French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche.

Pashinyan admitted that he held a phone call with French President Emmanuel Macron before publicly claiming victory.

Armenia will eventually have to make a final geopolitical choice, because the prospect of integration with the EU is incompatible with membership in the Eurasian Economic Union, Aleksandr Bobrov, an associate professor at MGIMO, Russia’s leading international affairs university, told RT.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan claimed victory in the country’s parliamentary elections overnight, saying his ruling Civil Contract party would form the next government on its own.

“This effectively means the continuation of the course set by the current authorities toward integration with the European Union and the United States, and, in turn, the gradual reduction to nothing of ties with Russia, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the CSTO,” Bobrov said.

READ MORE: EU-backed Pashinyan declares victory before final Armenia vote count

While Pashinyan is likely to keep straining relations with Moscow and scaling down Armenia’s participation in post-Soviet multilateral formats, Bobrov said the process could be gradual.

Armenia is one of five members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), alongside Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Kyrgyzstan. The bloc operates a single market and harmonizes regulations to facilitate trade, investment, and other forms of economic cooperation. 

“It is absolutely clear that, at some point, Armenia will have to make its final geopolitical choice, because the prospect of integration with the European Union is incompatible with membership in the Eurasian Economic Union,” Bobrov said.

“If Armenia ultimately makes the sovereign choice to leave the EAEU, this could of course have a very deep impact on Armenian society. The country could face a powerful socioeconomic crisis, because it would lose the preferences it currently enjoys and which many now take for granted. In such circumstances, Nikol Pashinyan’s position would no longer be so strong,” Bobrov said.

A Ukrainian UAV attack on a passenger train in Crimea has left one person dead and another injured, regional Governor Sergey Aksyonov has said.

The train was traveling between Moscow and Simferopol when the locomotive was hit by an “enemy drone,” Aksyonov wrote on Telegram early Monday.

“According to preliminary information, the train driver was injured, the assistant driver was killed, and none of the passengers were hurt,” he said.

Aksyonov expressed condolences to the friends and family of the deceased crew member and wished the injured driver a speedy recovery.

Bus transportation for the train’s passengers is currently being arranged, Aksyonov said, adding that the authorities will provide all necessary assistance.

Following the incident, operator Grand Service Express temporarily suspended services in Crimea, adding that all passengers on its trains on the peninsula were evacuated.

On Thursday, a Ukrainian UAV struck a suburban train traveling between Azovskoye and Kerch, Crimea, leaving one passenger dead and several others injured.

Moscow previously warned that it would carry out “systematic and consistent strikes” on Ukraine’s military infrastructure, including drone production facilities, command posts, and “decision-making centers,” in response to Kiev’s terrorist attacks. These included an attack on a college dormitory in the town of Starobelsk in the Lugansk People’s Republic, which killed 21 people, mostly teenage girls, and injured 70 others.

Last week, Russian forces launched another large-scale missile and drone barrage, targeting defense industry sites in Kiev, parts of Zaporozhye and Kherson regions still under Ukrainian control, as well as locations in Dnepropetrovsk, Poltava, Khmelnitsky, and Sumy Regions, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

The results of Armenia’s parliamentary elections largely confirmed a political reality that had already taken shape beforehand, Middle East expert Farhad Ibragimov told RT on Monday.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan claimed victory overnight, saying his ruling Civil Contract party would form the country’s next government on its own. His announcement came as Armenia’s Central Election Commission published the results from fewer than a quarter of polling stations, with Civil Contract leading with 53.84% of the vote, according to preliminary figures. 

“Nikol Pashinyan’s victory did not look unexpected: Despite noticeable dissatisfaction within society, the opposition failed to consolidate, reach agreements among themselves, and offer voters a clear alternative. On the contrary, it seemed that different opposition groups were more focused on fighting one another than on developing a common strategy,” Ibragimov said.

“Pashinyan must, of course, understand that Armenia’s real prospects of joining the European Union remain negligible. No matter how much Europe talks about support, rapprochement, and a possible European future, in practice the issue of Armenia’s EU membership looks more like a slogan than a realistic scenario. However, this rhetoric itself is useful for Pashinyan domestically: It allows him to create the image of movement toward imagined modernization, reforms, and foreign-policy renewal.”

“At the same time, it is obvious that the bet on the West has far-reaching consequences. No one in the European Union is truly waiting for Armenia, and it would also be naive to count on long-term support from individual leaders, including Donald Trump himself: Political figures come and go, while geography and regional risks remain.”

Ibragimov said Pashinyan’s course increasingly appears to be an attempt to make Armenia into a “second Moldova” – a country living in anticipation of a European future while facing the severe consequences of that choice.

Armenia, by contrast, is located in a “far more complex regional environment, where any sharp foreign-policy turn carries much higher risks,” Ibragimov said.

“Therefore, trying to build a strategy solely on European rhetoric may create inflated expectations in society, but it will not provide real guarantees of security, economic stability, or long-term development. This is precisely the main risk of Pashinyan’s current course. Today, people voted for a beautiful myth and fairy tale, in the hope of something better. Exactly the same thing happened in Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova. One to one.”

The Russian Defense Ministry has released footage of the elite Rubicon drone unit intercepting Ukrainian kamikaze UAVs.

The video shows more than a dozen interceptions of Ukrainian mid- and long-range fixed-wing B-2 and FP-2 kamikaze drones.

Rubicon operators reportedly often only need a thread dropped from a drone while flying above an enemy UAV, tangling its propeller and causing it to crash.

In recent months, Kiev has intensified attacks on Russian regions using long-range fixed-wing drones such as FP-2 models shown in the footage, often targeting civilian infrastructure and vehicles.

Last week, these types of strikes killed at least 35 civilians, including three children, and injured 182 people, according to Rodion Miroshnik, who leads the Russian Foreign Ministry mission responsible for tracking Ukrainian war crimes.

A growing confrontation between Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and the Armenian Apostolic Church is exposing deep divisions within Armenian society and raising questions about the country’s future direction.

The rift began after Azerbaijan regained control of Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023, prompting the exodus of most of the region’s ethnic Armenian population – an event many Armenians viewed as a national tragedy. As church leaders echoed public anger and questioned the government’s actions, they increasingly found themselves in the authorities’ crosshairs: priests have been arrested, senior clergy accused of plotting against the state, and supporters of the church dispersed by police.

Critics say that the campaign mirrors a broader pattern seen elsewhere in the post-Soviet space, including in Ukraine and Moldova, where traditional churches have become obstacles to political projects backed by the West.

Incumbent Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has claimed victory in the South Caucasus country’s parliamentary elections, saying his ruling Civil Contract party will form a single-party government, even though the vote count was still in its early stages.

Speaking at a late-night briefing, the EU-backed Pashinyan said Civil Contract had secured enough support to govern alone. At the time of his statement, Armenia’s Central Election Commission had published results from 455 polling stations, representing fewer than a quarter of the total.

The election has been billed in Western media as a turning point in the country’s modern trajectory, but has been marred by arrests of opposition candidates, a €50 million offer from Brussels, and deteriorating trade between Russia and Armenia.

What are the latest results from Armenia’s election?

According to preliminary figures, Civil Contract was leading with 49.8% of the vote after results from 1,420 of 2,005 polling stations had been processed.

Parties must secure at least 4% of the vote to enter parliament, while alliances of two or three parties face an 8% threshold and larger coalitions 10%. No minimum voter turnout is required for the election to be valid.

Pashinyan’s ruling Civil Contract party is expected to remain the largest party in parliament, although it could still struggle to secure an outright majority. His leadership is being challenged by a fragmented opposition of 17 parties and political blocs.

How did the opposition react?

The opposition Strong Armenia bloc, trailing with 23.7% of the vote, said the election was “not over yet,” rejecting Pashinyan’s claim of victory as premature and accusing the authorities of deliberately delaying the count once results from urban areas started coming in.

“When they saw that their results were falling sharply every minute, they stopped counting, and we have no idea what figures they will present in the morning,” said Strong Armenia leader Samvel Karapetyan, a Russian-Armenian businessman. Speaking at an emergency briefing, Karapetyan claimed that the authorities had continued “illegal actions” during the count and said his bloc would issue a statement once the final results had been summarized.

Karapetyan also said Strong Armenia had faced heavy pressure over the past month, claiming that around 75 members of his team had been arrested and more than 700 supporters detained.

Has the opposition been persecuted?

The vote came a day after Armenian authorities detained six parliamentary candidates from the Strong Armenia bloc, which has emerged as the main challenger to the government.

Opposition groups have accused the authorities of exerting heavy pressure ahead of the vote. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the arrests cast doubt on the democratic character of the election. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev accused Pashinyan of trying to sideline political rivals.

Was Armenia’s diaspora excluded?

Polling stations were open only in Armenia, as the country’s electoral laws do not provide for overseas voting in parliamentary elections. The measure excludes the diaspora, which far outnumbers the country’s population. Between five and seven million Armenians live abroad, mainly in Russia, the US, and France. Armenia’s domestic population is roughly three million.

To cast ballots, citizens living abroad must be present in Armenia on election day. In March, Yerevan further tightened the rules, barring those who have lived abroad for more than 10 years from voting.

Armenian officials have stated that male citizens of conscription age arriving from abroad to vote will be required to attend military training or face prosecution.

Is Armenia choosing between Russia and the West?

The election has also been framed as a referendum on Armenia’s geopolitical course. Critics argue that Yerevan’s pivot toward the West has failed to provide meaningful security guarantees while damaging relations with Russia, the country’s traditional ally and largest economic partner.

The campaign unfolded amid growing tensions between Yerevan and Moscow. Russia has warned that deeper integration with the EU would be incompatible with Armenia’s continued membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Russian President Vladimir Putin said in May that leaving the bloc could cost Armenia up to 14% of GDP.

Earlier this month, former Armenian President Robert Kocharyan accused Pashinyan’s government of artificially turning Armenia into an enemy of Russia and steering the country down a path similar to that of Ukraine.

French intelligence services allegedly helped the Armenian government block online publications critical of Pashinyan, according to French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche.

Pashinyan admitted that he held a phone call with French President Emmanuel Macron before publicly claiming victory.

The Armenian authorities have detained six parliamentary candidates from the opposition Strong Armenia bloc a day before the country heads to the polls in Sunday’s general election.

During recent televised debates, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who came to power in 2018 following the ‘Velvet Revolution’, called for the revocation of the registration of several major opposition groups.

The Central Election Commission refused to remove Strong Armenia from the ballot, but approved requests for criminal proceedings and pre-trial detention of six candidates: Hayk Avagyan, Susan Badalyan, Artur Abrahamyan, Vahe Tavakalyan, Vahe Yeghiazaryan, and Ashot Sahakyan.

Opposition groups accused the authorities of exerting immense pressure ahead of the vote, in which Pashinyan’s ruling Civil Contract party – which has been pushing for closer integration with the EU while maintaining traditionally close relations with Russia – is expected to remain the largest single party in parliament, but could fall short of forming a one-party majority government.

Pashinyan’s leadership is being contested by a heavily fractured opposition of 17 parties and political blocs. The Strong Armenia bloc, led by Russian-Armenian businessman Samvel Karapetyan, is polling second, although figures vary widely depending on the pollster, how many parties cross the 4% threshold, and how the roughly 30% of undecided voters split. Should Civil Contract fail to secure a majority of seats, coalition talks among its rivals are not guaranteed to succeed.

Moscow warned that closer integration with the EU would make Armenia’s continued membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) impossible due to incompatible standards. Russian President Vladimir Putin said in May that the country could lose up to 14% of GDP if it leaves the economic organization.

Earlier this month, former President Robert Kocharyan warned that Pashinyan’s government is “artificially” turning Armenia into an enemy of Russia and leading the country down the same path as Ukraine.

The eruption of the Shiveluch volcano on the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia’s Far East has sent a massive plume of ash 10 km into the sky and triggered red-level aviation alerts for the area and nearby regions.

The ash cloud from Saturday’s eruption stretched 50 km from the volcano as it traveled east toward the Bering Sea, according to the Volcanology and Seismology Institute of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

A more powerful explosion that could send ash up to 12 km into the sky “could occur at any time,” the institute warned. A video recorded by scientists and published on social media shows a massive plume of smoke and ash rising into the sky.

It is the second Shiveluch eruption in just a week. On Thursday, the volcano produced an ash column that reached 8 km above sea level.

The previous red-level alert linked to its activity was issued in 2024, when it sent ash up to 8 km high. Another major eruption was reported in January 2026.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is leading his nation into a trap by pushing it closer to the EU, World Armenian Congress President Ara Abramyan has said in an interview with RT. Brussels is luring Yerevan with vague promises as it seeks only to break Armenia’s ties with Russia, he believes.

Under Pashinyan, the South Caucasus nation has launched the process of seeking EU membership. Last month, the prime minister hosted an EU-Armenia summit and a meeting of the European Political Community (EPC), an EU-led intergovernmental group launched in 2022 in response to the escalation of the Ukraine crisis.

Moscow has said that closer integration with the EU would make Armenia’s continued membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) impossible due to incompatible standards. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned in May that the South Caucasus nation could lose up to 14% of its GDP if it leaves the economic organization.

The bloc is unlikely to invite Armenia to join it or even open its market to Armenian goods, which are mostly agricultural products, any time soon, Abramyan, who leads the organization coordinating Armenian diasporas around the world, said.

Earlier this week, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen vowed to “ease the trade for some Armenian products, in particular agri-food,” adding that Brussels had allowed a shipment of 10,000 flowers to Latvia.

European farmers now oppose Ukrainian agricultural exports, he said. “How can they let Armenia in? […] It’s a deception. It’s against Russia,” Abramyan warned.

“They [the EU] want Russian bases [in Armenia] to be closed to completely ruin relations with Russia,” he said. “Armenia has one partner and that is Russia. This is a strategic partner.”

Armenia remains heavily reliant on the Russian market. According to UN data, Russia accounted for nearly 24% of Armenian exports in 2024, making it the country’s second-largest export destination after the UAE.

“They [the EU] want to destroy all of this economically,” Abramyan said, adding that following a pro-EU path could “destroy Armenia completely.”

Watch the full interview here:

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has warned that Warsaw’s support for Kiev could become increasingly driven by hard national interests. The criticism follows Zelensky’s move to honor World War II-era Ukrainian nationalist paramilitaries responsible for massacres of Poles and Jews by naming a commando unit after them.

In May, Zelensky decreed that the Special Operations Center North would bear the honorary title ‘Heroes of the UPA,’ referring to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the armed wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

The OUN sought to establish an ethnically and religiously homogeneous Ukrainian state and collaborated with Nazi Germany during the early stages of the invasion of the Soviet Union. The UPA was formed in 1942 following a split between much of the OUN leadership and the Germans.

Ukrainian nationalists killed an estimated 100,000 Polish civilians in what is now western Ukraine from 1943-44. The massacres remain a major source of tension between Warsaw and Kiev.

The PM noted that “all responsibility lies with the Ukrainian side to somehow heal this completely unnecessary conflict over historical interpretations.”

While Kiev has promoted the legacy of the UPA and Ukrainian Nazi collaborators as part of state historical policy for years, the latest move has sparked an unusually fierce reaction in Poland.

President Karol Nawrocki has called for Zelensky to be stripped of the Order of the White Eagle, the country’s highest state distinction, highlighting that a nation honoring “bandits and murderers” is not yet fit to join “the European family.”

Earlier in May, the Ukrainian authorities rolled out full state honors for the remains of Andrey Melnik, the leader of the OUN, and his wife, Sofia Fedak-Melnik. Exhumed in Luxembourg, the couple was reburied in Kiev’s main military cemetery. At the same time, the Ukrainian authorities announced plans to rebury Evgeny Konovalets, one of the founders of the, whose remains will be transferred from Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Commenting on Kiev’s latest steps, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the current Ukrainian leader is Jewish by nationality, and suggested that his grandfather, who fought against Nazism during WWII, “is probably turning in his grave.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has highlighted that, had Andrey Melnik and his OUN followers triumphed, Zelensky’s grandfather would have perished in a Nazi gas chamber, and that the current Ukrainian leader himself would never have been born.

St. Petersburg has come under a major Ukrainian drone attack, according to the regional authorities, on the closing day of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF).

More than 140 drones were downed in the early hours of Saturday morning, Leningrad Region Governor Aleksandr Drozdenko said on social media. No casualties or major infrastructure damage were immediately reported.

An air alert was declared overnight and residents were warned to stay indoors. Operations at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Airport were suspended, with dozens of flights delayed and aircraft diverted to other airports.

The attack comes two days after Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky published an open letter in which he said many Ukrainians would support having drones pay “a visit” to SPIEF.
In the letter, he also called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to meet with him to discuss a settlement of the conflict.

Responding on Friday, Putin said there is no sense in meeting at present, arguing that Zelensky’s actions have made meaningful negotiations impossible. He also criticized the tone of the message, describing it as inappropriate and insolent.

The EU is courting Armenia as part of its broader strategy in the Eastern Hemisphere aimed at weakening Russia, renowned Serbian filmmaker Emir Kusturica told RT on Friday.

Under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, the South Caucasus nation has launched the process of seeking EU membership. Moscow has warned that closer integration with the bloc would ultimately require Yerevan to scale back its economic ties with Russia, on which Armenia remains heavily dependent.

“You have to understand that all actions that are taken by [the] European Union in the eastern part of the planet [are] always aimed to weaken Russia,” Kusturica said on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

“The episode with Armenia is alarming because the same man who had lost the Nagorno-Karabakh territory… is the one who is very close to Azerbaijan or to the third party that arranged this military defeat,” Kusturica said.

According to Kusturica, American aid and the influence of NGOs funded by billionaire financier George Soros have also helped shape Yerevan’s current trajectory, which he warned “could be catastrophic” for Armenia.

There are many examples in Europe now in which small nations are just devastating themselves in the name of money and in the name of influence.

Armenia purchases Russian gas at $177.50 per thousand cubic meters, far below the European spot price of roughly $600, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Pashinyan in April. He warned that Yerevan would eventually have to choose between the EU and the EAEU, arguing that membership in both blocs is “impossible.”

Five Azerbaijani nationals have been killed and three injured in drone strikes on grain vessels in the Sea of Azov, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry has said. The attacks were later confirmed to have been carried out by Ukrainian forces.

The Beliz-flagged Natra and Palau-flagged Zirkon were sailing from Türkiye to the Russian port of Rostov-on-Don when they were attacked by Ukrainian drones early Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Attacks on the vessels resulted in “deaths and injuries,” including among Azerbaijani nationals, according to the ministry.

Sailors aboard the ships were aided by a Russian vessel sailing nearby and a Russian FSB border guard patrol, the statement said. The incident “once again proves the terrorist nature of the Kiev regime that increasingly targets civilians and civilian infrastructure” in its attacks, the ministry stated.

A video shared on social media purports to show the aftermath of the attack on one of the vessels. It shows the deck covered in debris and the command bridge virtually destroyed in the strike.

Top Ukrainian drone commander Robert Brovdi later confirmed the attacks, claiming on Telegram that unmanned aerial vehicles targeted five vessels in the Sea of Azov overnight Thursday into Friday. He accused the ships of transporting military cargo and fuel and of preparing to “steal” Ukrainian grain.

Kiev has intensified its long-range attacks on Russia since mid-March, launching hundreds of drones on an almost daily basis. Moscow has condemned the strikes, calling them terrorist attacks and accusing Ukraine of indiscriminately targeting civilian infrastructure and populated areas.

Ukrainian raids have caused significant civilian casualties. In a recent incident, 21 people, most of them teenage girls, were killed and dozens more injured when a college dormitory in Starobelsk, Russia was attacked in a multi-wave Ukrainian drone attack on May 22.

Armenia, a small land-locked post-Soviet nation with extensive economic and humanitarian ties with Russia, is voting on its next parliament.

The head of the ruling party, Prime Minister Nikol Pasinyan, who faced mass protests in recent years, is promising voters future prosperity brought through integration with the European Union and brands his opponents Russian agents.

Doesn’t the playbook sound familiar?

Why did Armenia become the focus of the West-Russia fight?

Mostly for geopolitical reasons.

Armenia has a remarkable ancient Christian history, but as of 2026 is smaller than Belgium, has fewer people living in the country (about 3 million) than the Armenian diaspora (the US and Russia have the biggest communities of 1.5 and 2.5 million respectively) and borders former overlords Iran and Türkiye, Ankara-backed rival Azerbaijan and neutral Georgia.

Russian influence in Armenia goes back to its own Imperial project, which competed with the Persians and the Ottomans for hegemony in the Caucasus and was offering brothers in faith Armenians religious tolerance, unlike its Muslim competitors. Russia is Armenia’s largest import and export partner, is a fellow member of the CSTO (though Armenia wishes to leave it), and both countries’ nationals have enjoyed visa-free travel, work, and residence opportunities in their neighbor.

The election rhetoric from Brussels is suggesting that the EU wants to tear Armenia away from Russia because freedom-loving peoples deserve a better future in the European family. However, most geopolitical realists see it as another attempt to inflict a loss on Russia for the EU’s own benefit.

Who is Nikol Pashinyan?

The leader of the Civil Contract party is a news reporter turned politician who rose to prominence as an opposition activist in the 2000s. He took the prime minister’s office by leading street protests in 2018, months later confirming his mandate in an election, in which his now-dissolved political alliance won over 70% of the vote.

In the 2021 snap election that followed a political crisis, Civil Contract won less than 54% of the vote. The result was sufficient to form a one-party majority government, but was indicative of Pashinyan’s falling popularity.

What was the war about?

Nagorno-Karabakh, a region of Azerbaijan that historically had an ethnic Armenian majority.

Ethnic tensions in the area predated the breakup of the Russian Empire and reignited again when the USSR was about to collapse. For over two decades, the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic existed with unofficial backing from Yerevan, fuelling recurring flare ups as well as direct border clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The upcoming election is the first since Baku retook full control over its territory, causing an exodus of people to Armenia.

How was Russia involved?

Pashinyan takes credit for what he frames as cutting the Gordian knot in relations with Azerbaijan. But the loss of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is a highly emotional issue for many Armenians, not unlike how the NATO-enforced breakaway of Kosovo from Serbia is for many Serbs.

Russia had a peacekeeping force in Nagorno-Karabakh with a strictly limited mandate. Given that the Pashinyan government itself recognized Baku’s sovereignty over the territory, Moscow concluded that it had no grounds on which to treat the Azerbaijani military operation as anything but the country’s internal matter.

Is Pashinyan’s rule coming to an end?

By no means. His leadership is being contested by a heavily fractured opposition.

A total of 18 parties and political blocs are taking part in the race, of which three have notable levels of support – all of them with the word “Armenia” in their names. Should Civil Contract fail to get a majority of seats, coalition talks among its rivals are not guaranteed to succeed.

Who are the contenders?

Strong Armenia 

Launched last year by businessman Samvel Karapetyan who supported Church-backed mass anti-government protests in 2024-2025, primarily triggered by the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Pashinyan government charged him with plotting a coup and economic crimes. It also moved to nationalize his energy business. He is currently under house arrest.

Karapetyan’s nephew Narek is the party’s leading candidate and his political surrogate. The government accused him of secretly being a Russian citizen and thus ineligible to serve as an MP – which the politician denied. Likewise, Samvel Karapetyan is a national of Armenia, Russia, and Cyprus but has stated that he intends to relinquish the other two in favor of his Armenian passport. Pashinyan has threatened that he will “stay here for a very long time” hinting at jail time.

The Armenia Alliance 

Founded by former President Robert Kocharyan in 2021, when it scored just over 21% of the vote in the snap election. Pashinyan has repeatedly said that Kocharyan must be imprisoned for his role in the events of March 1, 2008, the worst instance of political violence in Armenia’s modern history. 

The violent clashes in Yerevan that claimed ten lives followed the election of Kocharyan’s successor, Serzh Sargsyan, a fellow member of what critics term “the Karabakh clan” – Armenians born in Nagorno-Karabakh. The opposition, including Pashinyan, rejected the election outcome. Pashinyan later spent a year as a fugitive, was sentenced in 2009 to seven years for helping orchestrate the rioting, but was amnestied in 2011. Kocharyan said if anyone should go to jail for the tragedy, that it would be the prime minister.

Prosperous Armenia 

Launched in 2004 by Gagik Tsarukyan, believed by some to be Armenia’s richest person. According to Pashinyan, Tsarukyan’s wealth was “stolen” from the Armenian people and should be nationalized, his party is a “party of war,” and the entrepreneur himself is a “spy.”

Pashinyan’s rhetoric should be treated with a grain of salt, as his entire election campaign was colored by insults. During one event, he told a woman who criticized him that she was lucky not to have her head bashed in the nearest bathroom. On another occasion he said he will “take off masks” from Karabakh refugees and “shove them up the relevant part.”

🇦🇲 Pashinyan shouts down woman who accused him of destroying Armenian statehood at campaign rally

During yet another pre-election event, the Armenian PM lost his composure at a woman in the crowd who accused him of dismantling Armenian statehood.

She stated that the Armenian… pic.twitter.com/aBKEeBOQpR

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) May 18, 2026

Does Moscow have a horse in the race?

Definitely not the incumbent prime minister. Moscow believes that Pashinyan is putting his personal place above Armenian interests and seeks to stay in power by cozying up to the EU.

Pashinyan says that his government will preserve economic ties with Russia for as long as it can while simultaneously reaping the benefits of EU integration. Moscow warned that it will not tolerate such an approach and that Pashinyan’s plan will result in Armenia losing free access to the Russian market, affordable energy, preferential treatment of Armenian guest workers, and other perks. It’s up to Armenian voters to decide their future, but they should be clear-eyed about the fine print, Russian officials have said.

The EU is preparing a €50 million ($58 million) support package for Armenia to deal with what European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described as “economic coercion” by Russia. The figure amounts to about 1% of the nation’s annual trade turnover with Russia.

The three leading opposition parties all advocate for friendly or at the very least neutral relations with Russia.

Who do the polls favor?

Pashinyan’s party is leading. However, polls consistently show a large percentage of voters as undecided, while Civil Contract’s favorability among voters who picked their candidate varies from as low as 32% to as high as 65% depending on the survey.

There are under 2.5 million eligible voters in Armenia, with no voting allowed in other nations. In a recent Gallup survey, 76.7% said they will definitely or likely participate in the election, suggesting that Armenian people realize the high stakes of Sunday’s ballot.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he sees “no sense” in meeting with Vladimir Zelensky, responding to an open letter from the Ukrainian leader. The “author of the letter” has done everything to make such talks impossible, Putin stated at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), adding that even his latest call for talks included “elements of insolence.”

On Thursday, Zelensky published what was described as an “open letter” on his website, where he called on the Russian president to negotiate an end to the Ukraine conflict during a personal meeting. In the letter he described the conflict as Putin’s “personal choice” that would allegedly bring “negative consequences” for Russia.

He appeared to issue some thinly veiled threats by saying that most Ukrainians would support Ukrainian drones paying “a visit” to the SPIEF. He also claimed that the Russian president “will have to fight much harder for [his] existence” while repeatedly vowing to make Ukraine “work” to bring the Russian government closer to its alleged demise while hinting that Putin’s “age is beginning to take its toll” after decades in power.

The Russian president responded by saying that age is just a number and that it is a person’s competency and performance that really matter. Putin, 73, also said that world leaders who are older than him “demonstrate sufficient energy” while in office.

Russia has repeatedly argued that Zelensky is an “illegitimate” leader since his five-year presidential term expired in May 2024. Zelensky postponed holding a new vote under various pretexts. In February, he claimed that Ukraine’s Western backers could be pressuring him to hold a vote only to oust him.

Moscow has consistently said that it remains open to negotiations but insists that any lasting settlement must address the root causes of the conflict, including Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the Donbass republics as part of Russia.

Zelensky reiterated Kiev’s demands in his letter by calling for a “ceasefire” before the start of any peace talks and rejecting the idea of ceding territory to Russia.

The Kremlin has repeatedly stated that Zelensky could always come to Moscow if he wants to talk to Putin – an offer the Ukrainian leader explicitly rejected in his letter.

Russia and Ukraine have conducted a prisoner of war exchange involving nearly 200 servicemen from each side, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has announced.

In a statement on Friday, the ministry said, “185 Russian servicemen were returned from territory controlled by the Kiev regime. In exchange, 185 Ukrainian Armed Forces prisoners of war were transferred.”

The swap was carried out with humanitarian mediation from the United Arab Emirates, according to the Defense Ministry.

The Russian servicemen are currently in Belarus, where they are receiving psychological and medical assistance. Russian Human Rights Commissioner Yana Lantratova is working with them, the ministry added.

After receiving the necessary care, the servicemen will be transported to Russia for further treatment and rehabilitation in medical facilities operated by the Defense Ministry.

The latest exchange follows a series of prisoner swaps between Moscow and Kiev in recent months. On May 15, the two sides returned 205 POWs each, also with UAE mediation.

In April, Russia and Ukraine carried out exchanges involving 193 and 175 servicemen on each side. In March, they conducted swaps under the formulas ‘200 for 200’ and ‘300 for 300’, with the US and UAE involved in mediation.

Western sanctions must be “ignored,” the first deputy governor of the Bank of Russia, Vladimir Chistyukhin, said at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on Friday. He added that Russia should deepen its financial sovereignty and build payment infrastructure less exposed to external pressure.

Speaking at the forum’s “Reassembling the Global Financial System” session, Chistyukhin joined government officials, economists, and bankers in discussing alternatives to the Western-dominated financial system.

Russia has been promoting its own payment infrastructure since many of the country’s financial institutions were cut off from SWIFT following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Alongside its SPFS financial messaging network, Moscow has expanded the Mir payment system and developed digital-ruble and cryptocurrency initiatives for cross-border transactions.

“At some stage, these sanctions must be ignored and not recognized,” he said, adding that 88% of Russia’s settlements with partners from friendly countries were now conducted outside currencies of ‘unfriendly’ states, while 12% still used them. 

Olga Goncharova of the Association of Russian Banks said the reset has already begun, as regulators move digital currencies and cryptocurrencies into legal frameworks. Digital currencies have become a major workaround for Russian and non-Russian banks seeking to maintain trade flows despite Western efforts to isolate Moscow. Goncharova pointed to experimental cross-border use and an offshore ruble stablecoin as part of a shift toward national-currency settlements.

Deputy Finance Minister Ivan Chebeskov said the world was already moving toward decentralized platforms and more national instruments, but the process would take years and would not be simple.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken part in a plenary session at this year’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, where he revealed that Kiev requested talks through a Russian businessman, only to kill dozens of Russian teenage girls the following day.

During a 45-minute speech and a two-hour questions and answers panel, Putin discussed economic policy, the conflict in Ukraine, and Russia’s deepening relations with China, India, and their BRICS partners.

Here’s what you need to know.

Zelensky’s letter

During the Q&A session, Putin publicly responded to a recent letter from Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, in which Zelensky insulted Putin, threatened Russia with more drone strikes, and then invited Putin to so-called peace talks.

Russia is always ready for serious negotiations, he declared, adding that he would not meet Zelensky “just for the sake of meeting.” Putin noted that the last time Russia entered negotiations with Ukraine and its European backers in good faith, the resulting Minsk agreements “were about one thing: that is saving more time for the rearmament of Ukraine. Why would we need anything like this once again?”

Secret talks in Kiev

Putin revealed for the first time that an unnammed businessman called him last month and said that he had been invited to Kiev to meet with Zelensky's officials. Kiev used the meeting as a backchannel to request a sit-down with Putin, but Ukrainian forces struck a college dormitory in Lugansk with multiple waves of kamikaze drones a day later, killing 21 people, mainly teenage girls. 

”I asked him, what does it mean? They are asking for a meeting, and they carry out such atrocious, blatant attacks as the killing of children,” Putin recalled his conversation with the businessman after the attack. “They said ‘I've got no explanation’.”

Referring back to the letter, Putin determined that instead of trying “to create an environment for a personal meeting,” Zelensky’s letter was meant “to make sure that no personal meetings can take place at all.”

Russian sovereignty

Throughout his speech and his comments afterwards, Putin repeatedly referred to the concept of sovereignty. Cut off from Western financial and trade institutions, Russia was forced to adapt, on the battlefield and in the economic arena.

”Sovereignty implies being smarter and being stronger,” and not just “the capability to oppose external pressure,” Putin said. “This is about the quality of the government, the economy, and society.”

Putin also reminded Ukraine that sovereignty is essential for military victory. “You have to have your own industrial base for a defense industry. You have to have your own scientific base and your own resource base,” he said. “Russia has all of that. So the sooner those who are fighting us understand that, the better it's going to be for them.”

China and India are ‘strategic partners’

Sovereignty also involves partnerships with like-minded friends, Putin pointed out. Whereas trade between Eurasian nations like Russia and China was once based on “the settlements, logistics, insurance, [and] arbitration” mechanisms governed from “a handful of Western infrastructure hubs,” Moscow and its BRICS partners are building alternative mechanisms.

“Russia has learned its lesson,” he said. “We saw that certain suppliers of software left the market. We saw payments blocked. We saw how politics interferes within commercial relations.”

The balance of power is shifting toward the BRICS group, Putin noted, pointing out that BRICS nations account for 49% of global growth over the last five years, while “the contribution of the so-called Group of Seven (G7) is estimated at 18%.”

The EU is fully aware that Ukrainian accession would be disastrous for the bloc, and would sooner see the country join NATO, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has told RT.

The US-led military bloc controversially declared its intention to admit Ukraine in 2008, setting in motion a political spiral that sparked a coup – after which Kiev declared NATO membership an official policy – a civil war, and eventually the conflict with Russia.

The heads of NATO states have promised membership to Kiev on a number of occasions, with the caveat that the conflict with Russia must be concluded first, but nothing has been delivered, much to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s embarrassment.

Speaking on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on Thursday, Lavrov said Western countries regard Ukraine as a proxy to be used against Russia – not as a genuine partner

”The reason Europe wants Ukraine in NATO is because they’d rather do that than make the fatal mistake of letting it into the EU, because then the EU would just fall apart,” he said. “They know it perfectly well. But NATO is fine in their eyes.”

The continued support for Kiev shows that EU officials “want to preserve the current Nazi regime indefinitely without requiring it to comply with the UN Charter, with numerous international conventions, or even with its own constitution,” Lavrov argued.

He also pointed to remarks by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who repeated that Ukraine will eventually become a member during his latest trip to Kiev. Rutte apparently “couldn’t care less” that US President Donald Trump has stated that Ukraine will not join NATO, the foreign minister said.

Watch the interview.

America’s position on the Ukraine conflict has become almost indistinguishable from that of the EU, making US President Donald Trump’s stated ambition to mediate an end to the fighting hollow, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has told RT.

Trump repeatedly blamed the conflict between Russia and Ukraine on his predecessor, Joe Biden, and claimed that he could bring it to a swift conclusion while campaigning in 2024.

However, recent statements by members of his administration suggest a different course, Lavrov said on Thursday in an interview on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

“Biden’s war has become Trump’s war,” the Russian foreign minister said.

Speaking to Congress this week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said efforts to facilitate Russia-Ukraine talks were complicated “because, frankly, we’re not an impartial mediator.” He cited the continuation of the sanctions on Russia and sales of US weapons to Ukraine.

“After we agreed to the United States proposal in Anchorage [in August 2025], Washington began to shift its position. Instead of advancing those same proposals in its dealings with Ukrainians, it is now pretending that the parties should sort things out themselves. This is not a very consistent position,” Lavrov said.

“It is the West that cannot be trusted to keep its agreements. Its approach is: ‘I’ll promise something now, then stall for time.’ If the US had truly advanced its own initiative, I think… the fighting would already have stopped.”

Watch the entire interview.

Losing what had been a quasi-guaranteed seat on the UN Security Council has caused considerable embarrassment across the German diplomatic establishment, which had openly talked of securing a permanent seat in New York.

Berlin had won unopposed or as the favorite in all previous cases, is the second-largest contributor to the UN, and the latest vote was presided over by its former foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock – now the president of the UN General Assembly.

The gaffe-prone, staunchly pro-Israel Baerbock, however, may have proven more of a hindrance than a help, according to Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.

“Over the past year, countries had the misfortune of watching a representative of the German political elite, Annalena Baerbock, serve as president of the UN General Assembly. They decided not to take any more chances,” she said on Telegram.

In the wake of the vote, the Russian media ran headlines stating that Germany “failed” to secure a UNSC seat and was “left empty-handed,” while describing statements by German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul – who had suggested that Russia was to blame for Berlin’s failed bid – as “startling.”

If Berlin is so determined to find someone to blame for its failure, it might as well look in the mirror, experts and journalists said.

‘Predictable result of overconfidence’

Germany’s “special responsibility” for Israel has long turned into “unconditional support, including the military one” for all of West Jerusalem’s actions, Russian news outlet RG wrote in a lengthy piece on the issue.

“During the UN vote in May on assistance to Palestinians, German representatives chose to abstain, whereas Austria – which will now join the UN Security Council – voted in favor of the initiative,” the outlet wrote.

It noted that “Israel’s neighbors, as well as other countries of the Global South, see this ‘subservient’ position of Germany quite clearly.” The debacle at the UN vote was a “predictable outcome” of Berlin’s “overconfidence,” it added.

‘Distorted’ diplomacy

Guided by the West’s “values-based” unipolar world order dream rather than its own national interest, Germany has lost all the qualities that once made it an influential actor on the world stage, Artyom Sokolov, a senior fellow at the MGIMO Institute for International Studies, told the Izvestia news media outlet.

Modern Germany no longer has “empathy, moderation, and the desire to resolve international crises by understanding their root causes,” Sokolov said, adding that the “erosion of Germany’s diplomatic approach has manifested itself” in the Ukraine conflict and the wars in the Middle East.

“Today, these strengths that once made Germany an influential player on the international stage have been significantly distorted, and this is what led to the failure of Germany’s bid.”

Izvestia also wrote that the development would deal a serious blow to Merz and Wadephul’s plans to expand Germany’s global influence and push forward Berlin’s bid for a permanent UNSC seat.

No need to blame Russia

Wadephul makes it sound as if Russia somehow “instigated” other nations to “punish” Germany for its “uncompromising stance on Ukraine and Israel,” analyst Sergey Poletaev, a member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy think tank, told RT, adding that Berlin could just be trying to shift the blame for its own policy mistakes.

“Most countries dislike Germany’s uncompromising stance on Ukraine and Israel, and so they want to see more reasonable European representatives on the Security Council, like Portugal and Austria, which they voted for,” he said, maintaining there was “no need to drag Russia into this.”

“This is what international isolation looks like, Mr. Wadephul.”

Looming isolation?

The UN debacle might be the first sign of Berlin’s continued rejection of true multipolarity backfiring, well-known German author, journalist, and political commentator Alexander Rahr told Russia’s VZ newspaper.

Berlin’s lack of criticism of Israel as well as its attempts to portray its support of Ukraine as some sort of a higher moral calling make its claims of being the defenders of international law and universal values sound “inconsistent” in the eyes of many nations outside Europe, Rahr believes.

“Germany… continues to strongly emphasize its support for Ukraine and Israel and remains committed to its values-based foreign policy. This could further deepen the divide between Germany and much of the international community,” he warned.

“It remains to be seen whether this trend points to Germany’s growing international isolation or merely reflects broader shifts in the global balance of power and the ongoing formation of a new world order.”

A monument to Kiev-born Russian writer Mikhail Bulgakov has been dismantled in the Ukrainian capital as Kiev continues to remove, rename, and erase cultural sites and memorials associated with its common Russian and Soviet history.

The statue, located near the Bulgakov Museum in one of Kiev’s best-known historic districts, became a target of Ukraine’s broader campaign to remove symbols deemed connected to “Russian imperial culture.”

The Kiev City Council voted in December to remove 15 objects from public spaces, including monuments to Bulgakov, poet Anna Akhmatova, and composer Mikhail Glinka.

“A historic moment! Bulgakov is already gone,” Ukrainian journalist Ekaterina Nekrecha said in a video posted on Facebook on Thursday, showing the monument being taken away by workers.

Bulgakov, born in Kiev in 1891, wrote primarily in Russian and became one of the 20th century’s most influential authors. He is best known for ‘The Master and Margarita’ and ‘The White Guard’.

The dismantling has reignited debate over how Ukraine should treat cultural figures whose identities cut across Russian and Ukrainian history. Critics of the campaign argue that erasing writers such as Bulgakov risks flattening Ukraine’s complex past and whitewashing uncomfortable chapters of its own history.

The removal comes as Ukraine continues to rename streets, dismantle Soviet-era symbols, and cancel historical figures under its ‘decommunization’ laws. The process, launched after 2014 and accelerated after 2022, has expanded from Soviet political monuments to writers, composers, and other cultural figures linked to Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin fielded questions from the heads of international news agencies on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on Thursday. The agencies included Chinese, Belarusian, German, French, Spanish, and Iranian state news outlets, as well as representatives of Reuters and AP.

The mammoth Q&A session lasted just over two hours and touched on a variety of subjects, including Russian domestic and foreign policy, the Ukraine conflict, and potential routes to rapprochement with Europe.

Here are the main topics discussed.

The West’s ultraliberal model has reached a “civilizational dead end” and is increasingly restricting the rights of its own citizens, journalists, and political movements, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.

Speaking at a panel on Europe’s future on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Zakharova argued that a system which once promoted “freedom, democracy, and human rights” is now facing an ideological crisis as it struggles to uphold those principles at home.

”We are witnessing the civilizational dead end of an ultraliberal model that only yesterday claimed to literally teach and reprogram the entire world,” she said. “Today, this model cannot even guarantee the declared rights of its own citizens.”

According to Zakharova, political parties, journalists, and public organizations in Western Europe increasingly face pressure if they challenge the dominant narrative. “Either you keep quiet, or you go to jail,” she said.

Most Western nations imposed sweeping restrictions on RT and other Russian media outlets following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. RT content was subsequently removed or limited on major digital platforms, including YouTube, where the network had amassed around 30 million subscribers before the restrictions were introduced.

Concerns over censorship and restrictions on public debate have helped fuel support for conservative movements across much of the West. Parties such as Germany’s AfD, France’s National Rally, Italy’s Brothers of Italy, and the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom have gained ground by criticizing political elites, mainstream media, and policies on issues including immigration and national sovereignty.

Russia's PSB bank plays a significant role in the new regions of the country, and the organization has been actively developing infrastructure in these territories since June 2022, PSB Deputy Chairman Mikhail Dorofeev said in an interview with RT on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.

“We now have 456 offices... Our clients include almost 3 million individuals and more than 110,000 legal entities. Over this period, we have built a Russian banking system there,” Dorofeev said.

The bank is now present in 147 localities across all four new regions, including dangerous areas.

“In such dangerous areas as Kakhovka and Novaya Kakhovka, offices are open,” he said.

Speaking about the bank’s international operations, Dorofeev mentioned the work of the A7 platform, which provides services for international cross-border transfers. According to the PSB deputy chairman, this is an example of successful public-private partnership.

“The main currencies in our payments are the yuan, the dirham, and the ruble. By the end of 2025, the turnover of the Russian ruble and the currencies of friendly states exceeded 85%,” he added.

At the same time, Africa is a strategic direction for PSB: over the next two years, the bank plans to open offices in 20 countries on the continent.

Responding to a question about the use of artificial intelligence in PSB’s operations, Dorofeev emphasized that in banking, AI is viewed as a tool, not a replacement for people.

In its current understanding, artificial intelligence is above all the processing of large volumes of data, though it is also used for routine operations such as preparing simple documents and working in call centers.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has wrapped up a wide-ranging Q&A with the heads of major global news agencies on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, taking more than 20 questions on the Ukraine conflict and new weapons systems, as well as strategic partnerships, the Middle East, and relations with the West. Here are the key points from what Putin said.

– Control of Donbass and a deal on Ukraine “do not contradict each other.” Moscow is “without doubt” ready for a peaceful settlement based on the compromise discussed with US President Donald Trump in Anchorage, if Kiev also agrees.

– Russia did not use the Oreshnik system “in the full sense” in strikes on Ukrainian territory. “We tested similar systems at training grounds, but not the Oreshnik. This was not combat use.” 

– The Russian Army now controls all of the Lugansk People’s Republic, more than 85% of the Donetsk People’s Republic and almost 80% of Zaporozhye Region.

– Answering a question about a possible new presidential term, Putin said the Constitution allows him to run again in 2030, but it is “far too early” to discuss it and he is “not even thinking about that right now.” 

– Russia has not made any sudden “pivot” to Asia; its close ties with China have been built up over many years, as Moscow and Beijing are “natural allies and partners,” as well as neighbors.

– On potential talks with Kiev, Putin said Russia would sign any future document with a “legitimate representative” of Ukraine, calling this “not a whim.” He added that there is “no need” to halt hostilities to hold negotiations.

– The European Union could play “a positive role,” not by sending more weapons but by trying to persuade the Ukrainian authorities to accept the compromises discussed in Anchorage.

US journalist Christopher Helali has asked President Vladimir Putin for Russian citizenship and says he expects to receive it within months.

Helali, an investigative reporter and international secretary of the American Communist Party, told reporters at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on Thursday that he had sent Putin a four-page letter making his case for citizenship.

“Yes, I expressed my wish to receive Russian citizenship,” Helali said, adding that the letter described his “desire to become a citizen of the Russian Federation.” He cited his work in Donbas, support for Russian-American friendship and interest in the country’s history, culture, language, and traditions.

Helali said he hoped to receive a positive reply “in the next few months,” stressing “I greatly appreciate everything Russia has done for me.”

The request comes after Helali joined a group of more than 50 foreign journalists who visited the town of Starobelsk in Russia’s Lugansk People’s Republic where 21 people, mostly teenage girls, were killed and dozens more injured in a multi-wave Ukrainian drone attack on a college dorm on May 22.

In March, Helali signed a contract to serve in Russia’s military operation in Ukraine.

Russia has opened its doors to foreigners who share its traditional values. In 2024, Putin signed a decree granting such individuals the right to apply for temporary residence.

Italian opera director Giancarlo Del Monaco, known for staging Verdi’s Rigoletto at Moscow’s Bolshoi Theatre, received Russian citizenship under a December 2024 decree.

Others include Italian activist Ennio Bordato and Sofia Lyskun, a former Ukrainian diving champion, who renounced her Ukrainian citizenship to become a Russian citizen.

Russia is making steady progress in developing its domestic rare earths industry, even though Moscow does not consider reliance on Chinese supplies to be a critical weakness, Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov has said at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum 2026 (SPIEF).

Unlike many other minerals, rare earth elements are usually not found in large concentrations and require a costly, multi-stage process to extract and refine. China currently dominates the global market and has developed extensive value-added supply chains, making it a key supplier for numerous high-tech industries. Beijing’s leverage in the sector played an important role in the trade war with Washington, launched by US President Donald Trump.

Speaking during a panel discussion on Thursday, Manturov said the recovery of Russia’s rare earth minerals industry after the collapse of the USSR, which had disrupted old supply chains, was impacted by competition from China.

Russia already possesses an almost complete set of skills and technologies needed to produce heavier rare earth elements independently, and aims to achieve the same capability for lighter elements by 2028, Manturov said.

The panel also included several senior Russian officials and industrial executives, as well as ministers responsible for mining and industrial policy from Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, and Sierra Leone.

SPIEF is a major annual business forum, sometimes referred to as “the Russian Davos.” This year’s event is taking place from June 3 to June 6 and focuses on industrial development and international cooperation, particularly among Global South nations.

A geopolitical storm of global proportions is swirling around tiny Armenia. At stake are its relationships with Russia, Europe, and the United States, not to mention its immediate neighbors: Iran, Azerbaijan, and Türkiye.

At the center of attention today are the recently signed memorandums between Armenia and the United States. These are far from routine documents. After all, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally traveled to Armenia for the signing ceremony – a level of involvement that would be highly unusual for agreements of secondary importance.

The depth and complexity of both historical and contemporary developments across the South Caucasus, Central Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the Eastern Mediterranean – regions where the European Union, Israel, and Türkiye wield significant influence – are beginning to come into focus like long-forgotten photographs finally emerging in a darkroom. 

Suddenly, attention is returning to a network of strategically important mining and transportation enclaves scattered across this vast macro-region. One of the most critical among them is Armenia’s Syunik Province, home to substantial deposits of valuable minerals ranging from molybdenum and uranium to gold.

None of this is new. Everyone has known it for decades.

Syunik has been known for these resources since Soviet times. The region is dotted with mines, open-pit operations, mineral deposits, and processing facilities. Historically, these assets were connected to the wider Soviet transportation network by a railway running along the Iranian border, which follow the Aras River. This is precisely why the Zangezur Corridor has become so strategically significant.

Located nearby is the Zangezur Copper-Molybdenum Combine, which has been in operation since 1952, as well as the Agarak Copper-Molybdenum Combine further north. Both remain fully operational and have continued to expand in the post-Soviet era, with copper-molybdenum ore production doubling between 2003 and 2011.

From the standpoint of geopolitics and strategic logistics, the 43 kilometers of railway track that were dismantled decades ago and are now being rebuilt represent a pathway to roughly seven percent of global molybdenum reserves. Molybdenum is indispensable for missile production, nuclear energy, and semiconductor manufacturing. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain why Washington is devoting so much attention to a short stretch of rail line that was removed more than 35 years ago. For perspective, the section in question is shorter than Moscow’s Arbatsko–Pokrovskaya (dark blue) metro line.

The risk of losing influence over this mining enclave has become sufficiently apparent that US President Trump has moved to secure a stake in the broader spectrum of industrial output generated by the region. Hence the emergence of the so-called “Trump Route for Peace and Prosperity.” After all, in today’s increasingly turbulent world, what do peace and prosperity mean without access to uranium and molybdenum?

One phrase appears repeatedly throughout the US-Armenia memorandum: “export controls.” Whenever export controls are discussed alongside semiconductors, the conversation inevitably turns toward dual-use technologies and strategically sensitive materials.

For years, tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan served as a destabilizing factor that complicated the development of a broader US security strategy in the region. Now, however, Armenia and Azerbaijan increasingly find themselves having to view the situation along the Iranian border through a shared lens. They are, in effect, in the same boat – bound by a common framework of agreements involving the United States.

So where do Armenia’s European ambitions fit into all of this?

Ironically, the primary criterion that could support Armenia’s eventual integration into the European Union is much the same as the factor that once underpinned its participation in the Eurasian Economic Union: geography.

Consider a series of seemingly disconnected developments that, taken together, point toward a much broader strategic picture:

• The TRIPP corridor agreement involving Azeri President Aliyev, Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan, and US President Trump was reportedly reached well before the American strikes on Iran.
• The importance of copper-molybdenum and uranium deposits for the defense industry has long been understood, making these assets increasingly valuable bargaining chips in geopolitical negotiations. Moreover, it remains unclear whether all surveyed deposits and associated mineral resources are publicly known.
• Among the various US strikes against Iranian territory were attacks targeting areas near the Caspian Sea.
• Armenia is actively discussing the construction of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), a technology currently mastered by only a handful of countries, including the United States, France, and Russia. At the same time, Armenia’s relationship with Russia continues to deteriorate.
• The Zangezur Corridor will inevitably connect to transportation networks extending into Türkiye, and Armenia has already planned a parallel highway running alongside the railway.
• Europe is eager to capitalize on the South Caucasus both as a transit route and as a source of critical raw materials. While the region may not represent a major consumer market for European goods, it could become an important destination for European industrial and technological equipment.

Viewed through the lens of a potential Washington-Tehran understanding, these factors suggest that Iran fully recognizes the strategic importance of Armenia’s uranium and molybdenum resources to both the United States and the European Union, as well as the importance of securing the broader mining assets that support Western defense industry capabilities.

If that assessment is correct, there may be grounds for optimism regarding the eventual de-escalation of conflict in the Persian Gulf region. Should hostilities continue, it becomes difficult to imagine the establishment of a major US military-economic foothold in Syunik and the surrounding territories – let alone the emergence of one of Washington’s key centers of influence across Eurasia.

That is, assuming a negotiated outcome remains possible.

The stakes could hardly be higher.

This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team

Russia has achieved economic sovereignty, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov has announced at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). The minister warned of risks to the country’s finances “amid global lawlessness.”

Financial sovereignty and autonomy over economic policy has been secured, he said, adding that Russia operates without external sources of investment and relies only on itself.

“For several years, Russia has been living in conditions of global lawlessness, so it is important to pay close attention to the country’s finances, as this will reduce the negative impact of such shocks,” Siluanov told a SPIEF panel on Thursday.

The minister vowed that Moscow will soon fully repay its external debt, adding that real incomes in Russia have increased by more than 24% over the past three years.

The 29th SPIEF 2026, often referred to as the ‘Russian Davos’, is taking place from June 3 to 6, welcoming around 20,000 businesspeople, politicians, and public figures from more than 100 nations.

Apart from Siluanov, the panel ‘Regions in the Face of Global Challenges: How to Maintain Financial Stability and Stimulate Development’ was attended by top speakers including Russian Construction and Housing Minister Irek Fayzullin, Accounts Chamber auditor Natalia Trunova, and the head of Moscow’s Complex of Urban Development Policy and Construction, Vladimir Efimov.

The opening day of the forum featured the official ceremony of SPIEF 2026, where key speakers included Russian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak, First Deputy Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan Daniyar Amangeldiev, and Eduardo Pedrosa, executive director of the APEC Secretariat.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to address the gathering on Friday.

Ukrainian tax authorities have uncovered a suspected large-scale fraud scheme in which more than 2,000 shell companies funneled around $4.7 billion abroad through fictitious foreign trade operations.

Meanwhile, Western nations continue to provide Ukraine with billions in aid financed by ordinary taxpayers, which Moscow says is then embezzled and shared with Kiev’s patrons through various corruption schemes.

Ukraine – often referred to as the “breadbasket of Europe” – has also for years struggled to tackle “black grain” export schemes, with many shipments until recently flowing to the EU under a preferential regime.

In a statement on Tuesday, the State Tax Service of Ukraine announced that it had uncovered a network of more than 2,300 shell companies that had withdrawn over 198 billion hryvnia (around $4.7 billion) from the country between 2024 and the first quarter of 2026.

Lesia Karnaukh, the acting head of the Tax Service, noted that hundreds of companies had been re-registered under the same individuals, adding that in some cases the scheme reached stunning proportions. “We identified seven individuals, each of whom is simultaneously the manager or founder of more than 500 companies. In total, more than 7,000 business entities are under their control,” she said.

The tax service said it had prepared analytical conclusions for 557 business entities, indicating violations and signs of money laundering, with the materials transferred to the Prosecutor General’s Office for further investigation.

While the tax service did not disclose specifically what categories of goods were involved in the scheme, Ukraine is known as a farming giant, with agricultural exports reaching $24.5 billion in 2024, accounting for almost 60% of total exports.

While being moved, the products are sometimes resold several times to make the shipment look legally sound. In some cases, the grain is listed as agricultural waste, leading to a much lower taxation value. The illicit profits often never make it back to Ukraine, residing in foreign banks.

Ukraine has for years struggled with inadequate financial oversight and chronic corruption, which only exacerbated after the escalation of Kiev’s conflict with Moscow in 2022.

Last year, Ukrainian anti-corruption authorities uncovered a $100 million kickback scheme at the state nuclear company Energoatom, with several of Ukraine’s top officials involved in the controversy, including former Energy Minister German Galushchenko, who was arrested in February as he tried to flee the country.

Moscow has long accused Ukraine and the EU of being linked by “unified corruption chains,” claiming that a significant portion of the Western aid to Kiev – financed by taxpayers – gets embezzled and kicked back to Ukraine’s supporters.

US conservative commentator Candace Owens says she has been stunned after visiting Moscow for the first time and has laughed off mainstream media “fiction” about her visit to Russia.

Speaking to RT’s Rick Sanchez in an upcoming interview on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Owens said she was struck by how “clean, safe, beautiful, and historic” Moscow is, adding that the city has defied the assumptions Americans are encouraged to hold.

Owens described the hostility toward Russia in the US as a “Cold War hangover,” saying Americans are simply told that Russia is “a no-no, and a no-go.”

The former Daily Wire host also said the reaction to her trip in the US had been “laughable,” pointing to a stream of media claims and online rumors about her motives, funding, and alleged links to foreign actors.

Owens initially rose to prominence in the late 2010s by using her platform to urge black voters to stop supporting the Democrats. She joined Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire in 2020, where her self-titled podcast reached millions of viewers. However, she was fired four years later following a public dispute with Shapiro over Israel’s war in Gaza.

Owens later broke with US President Donald Trump over his support for Israel. Following the launch of her own show on YouTube, the popular podcaster drew criticism for controversial statements, including suggestions that Israel could have been involved in the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Last year, French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, filed a defamation lawsuit against Owens after she suggested that France’s first lady was born a man.

Conservative US commentator and podcaster Candace Owens has posed for photos next to a face sculpture depicting an angry French President Emmanuel Macron at RT’s stand at the 29th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF).

The 3-D likeness which attracted Owens’s attention is part of an exhibit called ‘12 Angry Viewers of RT.’ It features the heads of the most prominent Western politicians and public figures to have criticized the broadcaster or attempted to cancel it over the years, including former US President Joe Biden, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the current leaders of Germany and the UK, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, tech entrepreneurs Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, and others.

Last July, Macron and his wife, Brigitte, filed a defamation lawsuit against Owens after her repeated suggestions that France’s first lady was born a man. The blogger, who has 6 million subscribers on YouTube, also claimed later that Macron had ordered her assassination.

During her interview with RT’s Rick Sanchez on Thursday, Owens doubled down on her accusations, saying that she was “1,010%” convinced that Brigitte Macron is transgender, especially after the Macrons took her to court.

“I don’t know who was advising them - a sitting president of a foreign country suing a podcaster in another country. This shows that there is something very true about the claims that are being made, not the opposite,” she argued.

Owens arrived at SPIEF to participate in a panel on family values, titled “A Big Family, a Big Reach: New Demographics and Narratives for Media Leaders,” which was held earlier in the day.

She made the trip to Russia with her husband and four kids, describing it as “a family vacation.”

I don't know if standing next to a death mask of Macron inside the RT studio at SPIEF was on Candace Owens' bucket list, but we made it happen anyway.

One day... pic.twitter.com/8pkGJQ2yQG

— Margarita Simonyan (@M_Simonyan) June 4, 2026

Before traveling to St. Petersburg, Owens toured Moscow, noting “it is genuinely shocking how clean, beautiful and orderly this city is. It is so far removed from media depictions.”

More than 40 patients have now been selected for Russia’s personalized cancer vaccine program, with the first treatments already producing a strong immune response, Russian Federal Medical-Biological Agency head and former Health Minister Veronika Skvortsova told RT’s Rick Sanchez on Wednesday.

Speaking on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum 2026, Skvortsova said the treatment uses artificial intelligence as a key weapon against cancer.

The vaccine is custom-made for each patient in a process that takes around 42 days. Scientists take material from the person’s tumor and blood, sequence the RNA, and use AI-driven predictive algorithms to compare the patient’s genome with that of the tumor in order to identify unique mutations. Once those targets are found, the vaccine introduces peptides that teach the immune system to recognize the same markers on malignant cells and selectively kill them, while leaving healthy tissue intact.

“We use the immune system to kill malignant tumor cells,” Skvortsova said. “It’s one of the most powerful weapons.”

Skvortsova stressed that AI does not work alone. Even after the most advanced artificial intelligence completes its analysis, bioinformaticians and geneticists manually validate the results. This is followed by another week of quality and accuracy testing.

The first two colorectal cancer patients began treatment around two months ago and have already received five injections. According to Skvortsova, the vaccine appears safe and well tolerated so far, and the concentration of G immunoglobulins in their tumors rose by 50 to 100 times. Doctors have also observed a decrease in lymph node size after the fourth injection, she said.

However, Skvortsova cautioned that it is too early to claim clinical effectiveness. The first major checkpoint will come after three months, when MRI scans will measure changes in lymph nodes and other metastatic sites.

At least four people have been killed and ten others wounded in Ukrainian drone attacks on Crimea, local governor Sergey Aksyonov has said.

One person was killed and three others were wounded during a drone attack on a suburban train traveling from Azovskoye to Kerch, Aksyonov wrote in a post on Telegram on Thursday morning.

The strikes damaged several “nonresidential facilities” in the city of Simferopol, killing at least three people and injuring seven others, the governor added.

The Crimean port city of Sevastopol, home to the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, was also attacked overnight, according to its governor, Mikhail Razvozhayev.

At least 20 incoming Ukrainian drones were shot down by air defenses, and there were two incidents of drone debris falling in residential areas. No injuries were reported.

The Russian Defense Ministry has reported that 272 drones were intercepted and destroyed over several regions of the country on Thursday morning. Apart from Crimea and the waters of the Azov and Black seas, the UAVs were downed over Belgorod, Bryansk, Volgograd, Voronezh, Kursk, Nizhny Novgorod, Orel, Rostov, Ryazan, and Tambov regions.

Russia was hit by another major Ukrainian drone attack overnight, with 272 UAVs shot down across the country, according to the Defense Ministry. The interceptions took place over Belgorod, Bryansk, Volgograd, Voronezh, Kursk, Novgorod, Orel, Rostov, Ryazan and Tambov Regions as well as over Crimea and the Sea of Azov, the ministry said.

Moscow previously warned that it would carry out “systematic and consistent strikes” on Ukraine’s military infrastructure, such as drone production facilities, command posts, and “decision-making centers,” in response to Kiev’s terrorist attacks, including one in the Lugansk People’s Republic on May 22. 

On that occasion, Ukrainian forces struck a college dormitory in the town of Starobelsk in several waves of drone attacks late at night while students were asleep, killing 21 people, mostly teenage girls, and injuring dozens of others.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that the Ukrainian leadership had opened “a new chapter in its crime spree” with the attack on Starobelsk, adding that those responsible would face “well-deserved and inevitable punishment.”

Burned villages. Families slaughtered in their homes. Women, children, and the elderly hacked to death with axes and pitchforks. Thousands of Jews beaten, tortured, and murdered during pogroms that accompanied the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. These are some of the atrocities associated with the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its military wing, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – movements whose legacy remains one of the most divisive issues in Eastern Europe more than eighty years after World War II.

For decades, supporters of the OUN-UPA have portrayed its members as freedom fighters who resisted both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in pursuit of Ukrainian independence. Opponents, however, point to a different record: collaboration with the Third Reich, participation in anti-Jewish violence, and the mass killing of Polish civilians during the Volhynia massacres of 1943-1944, which Poland today officially recognizes as genocide.

Below, we’ll talk about the origins of modern Ukrainian nationalism, the motives behind the mass killings of Poles and Jews by underground nationalist forces, and the reasons why OUN-UIA leaders collaborated with Nazi Germany.

The ideology behind Ukrainian ‘heroes’

Ukrainian integral nationalism, which became the foundation of OUN-UIA ideology, owes much to the writings of Dmitry Dontsov. In the mid-1920s, he articulated a doctrine of Ukrainian nationalism that was heavily influenced by the fascist ideology of the time. 

In his 1926 work ‘Nationalism’, he proclaimed the principle of Social Darwinism in relations between nations: he stated that various peoples exist in a state of perpetual and merciless conflict, and the strong ones “expand” at the expense of the weak. He dismissed morality as a constraint, arguing that “the end justifies the means” – i.e., any form of violence could be justified in the name of national success, including the physical extermination of anyone not belonging to one’s “own” nation.

According to this doctrine, the Ukrainian nation was seen as an absolute value, superior to the lives of the individuals who inhabit the country. Dontsov’s ideal was a totalitarian movement where individual interests were entirely subordinate to the greatness of the nation. He envisioned the future Ukrainian state as monoethnic and imperial, encompassing all “ethnographic Ukrainian lands” and purged of outsiders, including Russians (seen as Ukraine’s eternal strategic and mystical enemies), Jews, and Poles.

Such a state would be governed by an order, a special “ruling caste” – an elite composed of the “best people” who would manifest maximum ruthlessness for the sake of the national idea. Dontsov explicitly stated that members of this elite “know neither mercy nor humanity... they are driven solely by a burning desire to maintain the integrity of the nation,” not tolerating anything foreign and dealing with enemies in a decisive manner.

He envisioned a strong national leadership capable of implementing the Ukrainian liberation policy in order to address urgent challenges. From this perspective, Dontsov believed that the leaders of fascist, totalitarian, and anti-communist states – most notably Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler – could serve as role models for Ukrainians.

Dontsov extolled fanaticism and amorality, asserting that the driving forces of nationalism should be will, strength, expansion, and violence, along with racism, fanaticism, mercilessness, and hatred.

It’s no surprise that such an ideology inherently permitted and justified political terror. Dontsov established close ties with the Ukrainian Military Organization and urged his comrades to abandon discussions with opponents and resort to radical actions for the sake of the nation.

“You will attain a Ukrainian state or perish in the struggle for it,”

proclaims the precept from Dontsov’s ‘Decalogue of the Ukrainian Nationalist’. In this manifesto, a “true patriot” is instructed to avenge fallen comrades and harbor hatred for the enemies of his nation.

In essence, Dontsov proclaimed violence a virtue. By the early 1920s, many of his followers, including members of the Ukrainian Military Organization, resorted to individual acts of terror against those they deemed agents of “anti-Ukrainian policies.”

The rise of the OUN

The Ukrainian Military Organization was a clandestine military group founded in 1920 by Colonel Evgeny Konovalets who spent over 10 years in exile and hoped to one day return and seize power in Ukraine.

The organization’s mission was to fight against Polish and Soviet authorities for Ukraine’s independence, employing tactics of terror and inciting a “revolutionary explosion among the Ukrainian people.”

In 1921, Stepan Fedak attempted to assassinate Polish Prime Minister Jozef Pilsudski by shooting the “dictator” of the Polish Republic. The operation failed (Pilsudski emerged unscathed) but it underscored the radicals’ willingness to take extreme measures.

Over the following years, Ukrainian nationalists continued their underground activities, including political assassinations and sabotage. In 1926, in Lviv, 19-year-old Roman Shukhevich, who would later lead the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, shot and killed Polish school supervisor Jan Sobinski. He was accused of persecuting Ukrainian students, and thus the nationalists believed he deserved death. Each year the number of victims of such violence grew by the dozens.

The organization founded by Konovalets was the largest and most radical of its time, but it wasn’t the only one. In 1929, the First Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists took place in Vienna, where various factions – including the Ukrainian Military Organization – came together to form a new entity: the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). Led by Konovalets, the movement’s ideology was rooted in the principles set forth by Dontsov, elevating the cult of strength, blood, and national superiority to an absolute value.

During the 1930s, the OUN engaged in underground activities, particularly in Galicia. It was also during this period that Stepan Bandera emerged as a prominent figure among the nationalists. Young, ruthless, and determined, he quickly established himself as one of the recognized leaders of the OUN, gaining notoriety through violent acts against high-ranking Soviet and Polish officials.

In 1933, Bandera organized the high-profile assassination of Soviet diplomat Andrey Mailov, who worked at the Soviet consulate in Lviv. The assassin, Nikolay Lemik, shot the diplomat inside the consulate building. 

However, the OUN considered its real “triumph” the assassination of Polish Interior Minister Bronislaw Pieracki in June 1934. Pieracki was the mastermind behind a campaign known as “pacification” which aimed to suppress the Ukrainian nationalist movement in Galicia. Bandera personally selected Grigory Matseiko to carry out the assassination. Matseiko fatally wounded Pieracki right on the street in Warsaw.

A Polish court sentenced Stepan Bandera to death for organizing the murder,  but the sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. During his trial, Bandera showed no remorse, and stated: “We know how to value our lives and those of others, but our idea is worth making millions of sacrifices for.”

Bandera’s imprisonment did not last long – he was released in 1939 after Nazi Germany invaded Poland, and quickly rejoined the nationalist movement.

By the late 1930s, after Konovalets was assassinated by Soviet intelligence agent Pavel Sudoplatov, the OUN splintered into factions of “moderates” and “radicals.” This division became apparent by 1940, as the organization split into the Melnik faction (led by Andrey Melnik) and the Bandera faction (led by Stepan Bandera).

Despite their differences, both factions remained committed to the ideas of integral nationalism and sought allies to combat their common enemies in Ukraine. Soon, they found such an ally in Nazi Germany.

Terror against Jews

Ukrainian nationalists placed their main hope in Adolf Hitler, with whom Konovalets met several times in the 1930s. They believed that with the support of the Nazis, they could finally build an independent state. As Dmitry Dontsov wrote at the time, “For us, the most important aspect of Hitlerism is its commitment to a decisive struggle against Marxism.”

The connections between the nationalists and the Nazis were so significant that in 1939, just a few weeks before WWII broke out, Andrey Melnik personally met with Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the chief of the Abwehr. As a result of these negotiations, the OUN received specific directives from the German command on gathering intelligence about the USSR and conducting subversive activities in Poland.

However, the collaboration with the Nazis did not distract the Ukrainian nationalists from what they considered more pressing tasks: eliminating ethnically foreign elements.

In a May 1941 directive, the OUN explicitly stated that Russians, Poles, and Jews were enemies of the Ukrainian nation and must be annihilated. 

In the early days of Nazi Germany’s war with the USSR in June 1941, nationalists called on people to take up arms and “destroy the enemy,” declaring:

“Muscovites, Hungarians, Jews – these are your enemies. Eliminate them!”

And words soon turned to actions. 

After German forces captured Lviv on June 30, 1941, Ukrainian nationalists unleashed a brutal pogrom against the city’s Jewish population. OUN militants, operating as part of the so-called Ukrainian People’s Militia and the Nachtigall Battalion, organized raids on Jewish residents. People were publicly beaten, tortured, and many were murdered right in the streets or executed after being tortured. Over the course of a few days, thousands of Jews were brutally killed. Similar atrocities occurred throughout the region; the occupying authorities encouraged anti-Semitic violence, which local nationalists eagerly participated in.

The OUN viewed Jews as “supporters of the Moscow-Bolshevik regime” and welcomed their extermination. Many members of the OUN later served in auxiliary police forces for the Nazis, actively participating in the Holocaust by herding Jewish people into ghettos and camps, escorting death marches to Babi Yar in Kiev, and personally executing prisoners.

Although later the UIA declared a fight against Germany, by early 1943 almost all Jews in Volynia and Galicia had been killed, with the active help of Ukrainian nationalists. Few managed to escape, and only a handful of people survived the war within the ranks of the UIA – these were mostly doctors or specialists who were tolerated for practical reasons.

Hunting for Poles

However, the primary targets of the ethnic cleansing efforts of the OUN-UIA were the Poles of Galicia and Volynia, whom the nationalists regarded as historical enemies and “occupiers” of Ukrainian lands that needed to be expelled or eliminated. Plans for these atrocities were devised long before the Volynian massacre: as early as 1938, the OUN’s internal doctrine outlined a project for an uprising aimed at “sweeping away every last Polish element” from Western Ukrainian territory.

This document cynically stated that

“Polish colonists are the hostile force against which the struggle must be ruthless, brutal, and zoological... Those Poles who resist will be destroyed in this fight, while the others must be forced to flee beyond the Vistula [river].”

The OUN demanded that no Poles remain on Ukrainian territory, seeking complete “national purity.” Moreover, the doctrine explicitly stated that “no methods should be considered too harsh... Poles, Russians, and Jews must be exterminated.”

These sinister plans began to be implemented in the spring of 1943 when the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the military wing of the OUN) carried out the massive slaughter of the Polish population in Volynia.

The Volynian massacre of 1943 became one of the bloodiest crimes of WWII in Eastern Europe. UIA units and armed nationalist peasants attacked hundreds of Polish villages with the intent of physically annihilating all Poles living on “Ukrainian” land. Terror reached its peak in July 1943 during ‘Bloody Sunday’ on July 11, when dozens of settlements were simultaneously attacked by militants.

The methods of execution were unbelievably cruel. People were killed indiscriminately: women, the elderly, children, and infants; many were not just shot but hacked with axes, stabbed with pitchforks, or bludgeoned to death. The homes of Poles were burned to the ground, their property looted; entire villages vanished in flames and were reduced to charred ruins.

Historians estimate that 60,000-100,000 Poles were barbarically killed by the OUN-UIA in Volynia and the surrounding areas. Polish partisan groups later responded with retaliatory terror against Ukrainian villages; however, the initiative for the large-scale extermination of civilians belonged squarely to the Ukrainian nationalists. 

The modern Polish Sejm and historians classify the Volynian massacre as an act of genocide. Numerous accounts indicate that the slaughter was premeditated by the leadership of the OUN, which sought to realize Dontsov’s vision of a “monoethnic” state at any cost.

As a result of the actions of the OUN and UIA, Poles in Volynia and Eastern Galicia were virtually annihilated. Waves of refugees fled their homes to escape the violence. The ethnic landscape of the region was radically reshaped through mass terror tactics. Repression was not limited to Poles and Jews: UIA militants also targeted Ukrainians who refused to support them or were suspected of “disloyalty,” labeling them as traitors.

Nazi collaborators

The activities of Ukrainian nationalists extended beyond the extermination of Jews and Poles. Under the command of Roman Shukhevich, the head of the OUN military branch, two diversionary Abwehr battalions were formed – the Nachtigall Battalion and the Roland Battalion. These Ukrainian units became part of the Wehrmacht and, in June 1941, crossed the Soviet border dressed in German uniforms and under German command, invading the territory of the Ukrainian SSR alongside the Nazis.

Subsequently, the Germans formed the Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201 from the Nachtigall and Roland battalions. It was dispatched to Belarus to combat partisans. This battalion was also commanded by Roman Shukhevich, who would later become the supreme commander of the UIA.

In 1942, the soldiers under his command participated in punitive expeditions aimed at “pacifying” Belarusian villages suspected of aiding partisans (in other words, burning down entire settlements along with their inhabitants).

Throughout this period, the OUN hoped to reap political benefits from its alliance with the Nazis.

On June 30, 1941, immediately after capturing Lviv, Bandera’s followers, led by Yaroslav Stetsko, proclaimed the establishment of the Ukrainian State and formed a pro-German “government.” In its declaration of statehood, the OUN openly expressed the intention to collaborate with Nazi Germany, which “under the leadership of its Führer Adolf Hitler is creating a new order in Europe and assisting the Ukrainian people in liberating themselves from Moscow’s occupation.”

However, these expectations were soon dashed. Adolf Hitler had no intention of granting independence to Ukrainians or creating the proposed ethnocratic Ukrainian state stretching from the Carpathians to the Volga. By July 1941, the German authorities had arrested Stepan Bandera, Yaroslav Stetsko, and several other OUN leaders for overstepping their authority.

Despite this, at the grassroots level, the OUN continued to serve the Third Reich. Hundreds of Ukrainian nationalists worked for the Nazi authorities, police forces, and auxiliary SS units. The Ukrainian police, which included OUN members, participated in guarding ghettos and conducting mass executions of Jews, as well as carrying out punitive operations against partisans and the civilian population.

Even after this shift, however, the UIA continued to unofficially collaborate with the German command – documents show instances of local ceasefires and agreements between the insurgents and the Wehrmacht during 1943-1944. Apparently, the common enemy – Soviet power – brought them closer together than any ideological differences.

***

None of this helped save the Bandera and Melnik movements, however. After defeating Nazi Germany, the USSR turned its attention to the Ukrainian nationalists, effectively blockading western Ukrainian regions. State security agents cleared area after area. By 1950, most of the rebel leaders had been either killed or captured (Roman Shukhevich was killed in 1950, and Vasily Kuk, the last leader of the Ukrainian nationalist underground, was arrested in 1954). All centers of resistance had been suppressed by 1956.

The few OUN figures who survived ended up in exile in the West. Stepan Bandera settled in Munich under the protection of Western intelligence services after the war; however, he was assassinated in 1959 by Soviet agent Bogdan Stashinsky using cyanide gas. Other prominent OUN members – Yaroslav Stetsko, Nikolai Lebed, and Stepan Lenkavsky – settled in Europe and North America, continuing their ideological work by publishing journals and books and lobbying for the “Ukrainian cause” during the Cold War between the USSR and the USA. Within the émigré community, the OUN and UIA gradually became symbols of anti-Soviet resistance, while their dark past was hushed up.

The European Union is pressuring Armenia to expel the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) from the country as a prerequisite to EU integration, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has alleged.

In a statement on Wednesday, the SVR said that EU officials had made severing religious ties with Moscow a condition for closer ties with the West, a policy it said is being pursued by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

The landlocked nation maintains close economic ties with Russia and hosts one of Moscow’s few military bases abroad. It is set to elect a new parliament on Sunday. Critics of Pashinyan have warned that he is steering Armenia down a path similar to Ukraine’s after the 2014 Western-backed coup. One of Kiev’s hallmark policies has been a crackdown on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which authorities accuse of promoting Russian interests.

Armenia’s religious landscape differs from Ukraine’s. The country’s dominant religious institution is the Armenian Apostolic Church, an ancient denomination that broke with mainstream Christianity in the 5th century, centuries before the Great Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

In its report, the SVR referenced a May statement by two Armenia-based NGOs that accused an ROC priest of influencing the upcoming election through his sermons, including those delivered at a church on the Russian military base in Gyumri. The agency said the allegations are part of a campaign orchestrated by Brussels and that EU operatives “are currently fabricating compromising evidence” to smear other Russian clergy.

Pashinyan’s government was rocked by mass protests in 2024 and 2025, as critics, including senior figures in the Armenian Apostolic Church, accused him of betraying national interests in his handling of the conflict settlement with neighboring Azerbaijan. The prime minister, in turn, accused his opponents of plotting a coup and launched prosecutions against the alleged organizers, including several members of the clergy.

Russia has renamed the BMPT Terminator, a specialized armored vehicle built to support tank operations, as ‘Spiridon’ in an effort to move away from its association with the Hollywood film franchise.

The infantry fighting vehicle features tank-grade protection and a broad range of heavy weapons. It was developed to survive in urban combat, where main battle tanks can lose the advantage offered by their long-range firepower, while standard infantry fighting vehicles may lack sufficient armor.

The imminent rebranding move was highlighted on Tuesday by Omsktransmash, a heavy machinery plant which subcontracts for Russia’s main armored vehicle manufacturer, Uralvagonzavod. A campaign to select a new name for the system was launched in late 2025, inviting more than 2,000 proposals.

“Today, society and the army agree that we should move away from foreign names. Our armor has its own Russian character. And our history has more heroes than Western movies,” a plant spokesman said. Uralvagonzavod later confirmed the name had been changed.

Spiridon is a traditional Russian male name of Greek origin, now mostly preserved among Orthodox clergy. Spiridon of Tremithus was a pre-schism Christian saint who is honored in both Eastern and Western traditions. Spiridon of Pechersk was a 12th-century Russian saint buried at the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, where he lived as a monk.

Omsktransmash said Spiridon emerged as the preferred option because of its spiritual associations and because it is derived from a Greek word for box – echoing Russian military slang for armored vehicles.

A tradition of military humor

The Peresvet laser system, for instance, was named after a warrior monk who fought in the Battle of Kulikovo, a key event in the re-emergence of the Russian state after centuries of fragmentation under Mongol domination.

Among the more tongue-in-cheek traditions is the habit of naming heavy artillery systems after flowers – the more destructive the weapon, the softer the floral reference.

The TOS-1 incendiary rocket system is nicknamed Buratino, after the Soviet adaptation of the fairy tale ‘Pinocchio.’ The Soviet version also centers on a magical wooden doll, but lacks the religious undertones of the original story.

Other examples include an autocannon nicknamed “little ballerina,” an anti-tank missile called “baby-girl,” and an artillery control system known as “zoo.”

Russia’s Northern Fleet has released footage of its Arkhangelsk nuclear submarine performing a successful missile test in the Barents Sea in the Arctic.

The vessel fired an Oniks cruise missile from an underwater position, hitting a target imitating a surface ship some 200 km away, the fleet said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Arkhangelsk is the third entry in Russia’s Project 885M Yasen-M, representing a modification of fourth-generation submarines with a reduced acoustic field that makes them increasingly hard to detect and track by sonar.

Besides the Oniks missiles, Yasen-M vessels are also armed with Kalibr cruise missiles and Tsirkon hypersonic missiles.

The Arkhangelsk has been in service with the Northern Fleet since December 2024.

Il sottomarino a propulsione nucleare Arkhangelsk ha effettuato un lancio missilistico nel Mare di Barents, secondo quanto riportato dalla Flotta del Nord.

Il sottomarino ha colpito un bersaglio navale con un missile da crociera Onyx a una distanza di 200 km.

Fonte TASS pic.twitter.com/3pd0qXGUI0

— michelino riformato (@michelinorifor1) June 3, 2026

During his tour of the submarine last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the crew that it was “the most modern, the best-equipped, capable of performing a wide variety of tasks.” The Arkhangelsk and other Yasen-M vessels “can do everything,” Putin stressed, referring to their ability to strike targets underwater, on the surface, and on land.

Ukrainian drone attacks on St. Petersburg have left several people wounded, local governor Aleksandr Beglov has said. The wave of strikes coincided with the opening day of Russia’s largest international investment forum, which will host thousands of guests from around the world over the coming days. 

UAVs targeted infrastructure in the Kirovsky and Krasnoselsky districts as well in the port of Kronstadt, Beglov wrote in a post on Telegram on Wednesday morning.

Response teams have been deployed to the facilities damaged by the attacks, he added.

The 29th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF 2026), often referred to as the ‘Russian Davos’, is taking place from June 3 to 6 and will be attended by around 20,000 businesspeople, politicians, and public figures from more than 100 nations.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to address the gathering on Friday.

In total, 345 Ukrainian UAVs were shot down across Russia overnight as the country came under another large-scale attack, the Defense Ministry reported.

The interceptions took place over Moscow, Leningrad, Belgorod, Bryansk, Voronezh, Kaluga, Kursk, Novgorod, Orel, Pskov, Rostov, Smolensk, Tver, Tula, and Krasnodar regions, as well as over Crimea and the Sea of Azov, the ministry said.

Ukrainian UAVs have targeted Leningrad Region, particularly its energy facilities, on numerous occasions in recent months, with the explosive-laden drones often reaching northwestern Russia via Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Finland. Some of them have crashed inside the NATO countries.

Russian Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu warned previously that if it turns out that the Baltic States and Finland “deliberately provide their airspace” to Ukrainian UAVs, Moscow has the right to self-defense in response to an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

At least eight people have been killed and 11 others wounded in a Ukrainian drone strike on a passenger bus in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), local governor Denis Pushilin has said.

The bus was traveling between Moscow and the Crimean city of Simferopol and was attacked in the town of Enakievo in the western part of the DPR, Pushilin wrote in a post on Telegram on Wednesday morning. The initial death toll stood at seven, but it was revised later in the day when emergency services inspected the burned-out vehicle.

“The Ukrainian fascists have committed another act of unprecedented, inhumane aggression,” the governor said.

Pushilin expressed condolences to the relatives and friends of those killed in the attack and wished a speedy recovery to the injured, who, he said, are being provided with all necessary medical assistance.

Russia’s human rights commissioner, Yana Lantratova, asserted that the attack was “not a tragic accident” but rather a “vile, deliberate, and inhumane crime” against non-combatants.

“There are no military objectives that could justify the bloodshed of civilians. There are no arguments that can absolve those who issue and execute such criminal orders from responsibility,” she stressed.

Russia’s Investigative Committee has announced that a terrorism case has been opened over the attack on the bus.

Russia was hit by another major Ukrainian drone attack overnight, with 345 UAVs shot down across the country, according to the Defense Ministry. The interceptions took place over Moscow, Leningrad, Belgorod, Bryansk, Voronezh, Kaluga, Kursk, Novgorod, Orel, Pskov, Rostov, Smolensk, Tver, Tula, and Krasnodar regions, as well as over Crimea and the Sea of Azov, the ministry said.

Several people were hurt and infrastructure damaged in Ukrainian drone attacks on St. Petersburg on the opening day of the 29th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), local governor Alexander Beglov said.

At least 59 UAVs were shot down by air defenses above Leningrad Region, according to governor Aleksandr Drozdenko. Leningrad Region surrounds St. Petersburg, which has the status of a federal city.

SPIEF 2026, which is often referred to as ‘Russian Davos’ due to being the main global economic event hosted by the country, is taking place between June 3 and 6. This year’s forum will be attended by some 20,000 businesspeople, politicians, and public figures from more than 100 nations. Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to address the gathering on Friday.

Moscow previously warned that it would carry out “systematic and consistent strikes” on Ukraine’s military infrastructure, including drone production facilities, command posts, and “decision-making centers,” in response to Kiev’s terrorist attacks, including the one in Russia’s Lugansk People’s Republic on May 22.

Ukrainian forces struck a college dormitory in the town of Starobelsk in several waves of drone attacks late at night while students were asleep, killing 21 people, mostly teenage girls, and injuring 70 others.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that the Ukrainian leadership had opened “a new chapter in its crime spree” with the attack on Starobelsk, adding that those responsible would face “well-deserved and inevitable punishment.”

For the first time in a long while, Belarus has again found itself at the center of the Ukraine conflict. For more than a month, Vladimir Zelensky has been warning Ukrainians about a supposed threat from the north. Minsk, he claims, is preparing to enter the war and he’s even threatened Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko with either a pre-emptive strike or a kidnapping in the style of Nicolas Maduro.

The rhetoric has now reached the point where Zelensky has ordered preparations for the circular defense of cities in Ukraine’s northern regions, including Kiev itself. Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron has called Lukashenko for the first time since 2022, apparently to persuade him not to enter the conflict.

The problem is that nothing visible is happening on the Belarusian side of the border. There’s no mobilization and no unusual concentration of Belarusian forces and no redeployment of Russian units. The only recent event that could be stretched into a military signal was last week’s Russian-Belarusian nuclear exercise. But even that took place in the Osipovichi district, in the center of Belarus, and was more about strategic deterrence than any ground operation against Ukraine.

The more obvious question is why Lukashenko would want to join the military operation at all. Such a move would be wholly out of character for him and would run against the geopolitical role he has tried to carve out for Belarus.

Lukashenko has always sought to preserve room for maneuver and he kept doing so after 2020, when he became de facto persona non grata in the West, and even after the conflict escalated in 2022. In the Ukrainian crisis, Belarus has remained largely a passive observer and that arrangement has suited Moscow. For Russia, he’s a valuable diplomatic asset, not a military one.

Could the reverse be true? Perhaps Zelensky is preparing to strike Belarus first, overthrow Lukashenko and open a second front against Russia. His pointed invitation to the fugitive opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya gives this theory a certain surface logic, but the military reality makes it deeply implausible.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces’ last major offensive operation was the incursion into Russia’s Kursk Region. To mount it, Kiev gathered around 30,000 troops, weakening its positions in Donbass and losing large areas there as a result. Even then, the operation failed to produce a decisive strategic outcome. A serious attack on Belarus would require far more resources. Since then, Ukraine’s army has weakened further and its present ceiling is local counter-attacks in Donbass, so it’s in no position to open a major new front.

Nor would it make strategic sense. Any escalation with Belarus would risk creating another 1,000-kilometer front stretching across Ukraine’s northern flank, with direct threats to Kiev. However odious the Kiev regime may be, it can’t fail to understand this.

The timing is telling. Zelensky began to raise the alarm just as relations between Minsk and Washington showed signs of thawing. In March, the US eased sanctions on Belarus and Washington spoke of reopening its embassy. There was even talk of a possible Lukashenko visit to America and a meeting with Donald Trump.

For Kiev, this is dangerous because Zelensky may fear that the eloquent Belarusian leader could charm Trump and persuade him to increase pressure on Ukraine to bring the conflict to an end. Lukashenko might also secure further sanctions relief, potentially turning Belarus into a hub for the transit of American goods to Russia.

From Kiev’s point of view, that scenario must be prevented. Hence the effort to present Minsk as an imminent threat, because if Belarus can be cast once again as Russia’s military accomplice rather than as a possible diplomatic channel, any US-Belarusian rapprochement becomes far harder to sustain.

In such conditions, inflating a new military threat is politically useful as it allows Zelensky to tell Ukrainians that the gravest crisis is still ahead, and that he remains the horse that cannot be changed midstream.

But the old ‘Russian card’ is wearing thin in the fifth year of hostilities. Ukrainians are tired, mobilized society is fraying, and endless emergency politics no longer works as it once did. So now Kiev is reaching for the ‘Belarus card’.

Will it work? Probably not. At most, it may buy Zelensky a little time, a little fear, and a little more room to maneuver, but as a strategy, it’s thin gruel. Or to put it more appropriately, it is worthy only of a carrot, and a dry one at that.

This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team

Moscow has added five British nationals to its blacklist over London’s hostile actions, spread of disinformation, and the concentrated effort “to pump up the Kiev regime with weaponry,” the Russian Foreign Ministry has said.

The ministry announced the move on Tuesday, urging London “to renounce aggressive anti-Russian steps, as well as its support for the [Vladimir] Zelensky regime.” The UK’s effort to prolong the Ukraine conflict no matter what leads only to “further civilian casualties” and ultimately the “destruction of Ukrainian statehood,” it said. 

The latest addition to Russia’s no-entry list includes journalists and experts involved in “disseminating slanderous fabrications and false information.” It also features two heads of “British security companies” that recruit personnel to prop up the Kiev regime under the guise of “implementing pseudo-humanitarian projects in Ukraine,” the ministry stated.

The sanctioned individuals are Catherine Belton and Richard Holmes, journalists with the Washington Post and The i Paper, respectively. The list also includes Alexander Browder, a self-styled corruption and money-laundering expert, described by the ministry as the author of a misleading report for the Henry Jackson Society think tank.

Russian diplomats said work on the blacklist, as well as other retaliatory measures, is bound to continue unless London abandons its hostile stance. 

“We warn that any efforts by British political elites to further fuel Russophobia, deliberately damage our country’s international reputation, and accelerate the anti-Russian sanctions will inevitably be met with a decisive response,” the ministry stated. 

London has emerged as a key backer of Kiev in the Ukraine conflict, actively seeking to derail attempts to resolve it through diplomacy and focusing on inflicting a defeat on Russia instead. The UK has been leading various initiatives to supply Ukrainian forces with increasingly sophisticated weaponry, and to rally additional foreign monetary and military support.

A Colombian mercenary captured by Russian forces after being wounded in combat has spoken with his family for the first time since his detention, describing his decision to fight for Ukraine as the worst mistake of his life.

William Andres Gallego Orozco’s relatives in Colombia learned he was alive after seeing an interview he gave to RT last month. Following the broadcast, family members reached out and contact was established, leading to an emotional video call.

RT correspondent Donald Courter looks back at Gallego Orozco’s capture, his previous interview about the realities faced by foreign fighters in Ukraine, and the reunion with his family after they learned of his whereabouts through RT’s reporting.

Gallego Orozco’s case reflects a broader trend of Colombian nationals joining Ukraine’s military. The South American country has become one of Kiev’s largest sources of foreign recruits as it seeks to offset manpower shortages on the battlefield. According to a February investigation by Ukrainian outlet NV, between 1,000 and 2,000 Colombians were serving with Ukrainian forces at the time, while up to 7,000 are believed to have passed through the country’s ranks since 2022.

The trend has drawn criticism from Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who has argued that his country’s citizens are “dying for nothing” in a foreign conflict. Petro has repeatedly stressed that mercenary activity is illegal under Colombian law and accused recruiters of exploiting vulnerable people. Last October, he voiced concern over the treatment of Colombian fighters in Ukraine and urged those being used as “cannon fodder” to return home immediately.

Watch the video call between William Andres Gallego Orozco and his family in full below.

In May, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan cemented Armenia’s geopolitical pivot away from Russia and toward the EU. At the beginning of the month, Yerevan hosted the 8th summit of the European Political Community. This was the first time that the event was held in a member state of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

While the event itself may seem vague in terms of concrete outcomes, one thing is clear: it allowed EU countries to show political support for certain governments, while those governments demonstrated their loyalty to the bloc.

Just a few days after the summit, Pashinyan directly stated that “Armenia is not an ally of Russia on the issue of Ukraine.” It was already apparent to Russia that Armenia was not neutral on this matter and that it politically backed the Kiev regime. However, highlighting this point was necessary to reaffirm it’s allegiance to Brussels.

The recent European Political Community summit could have been another routine event organized by Brussels to dangle the carrot of ‘European prospects’ before nations aspiring to join the EU. However, it became more than that, turning into a platform for voicing sensitive threats to Russia. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky used the occasion to threaten a strike against Moscow ahead of its Victory Day parade, while French President Emmanuel Macron rhetorically questioned why there is still a Russian military base in Armenia.

Pashinyan must have realized that such statements would irritate Moscow, and could have made an effort to mitigate the fallout with the country that, at least rhetorically, he continues to call a ‘partner’. Nonetheless, he chose to ignore the meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council held on May 29 in Astana, sending Armenia’s Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan in his place. Combined with other actions taken by Armenia’s leadership, this sends a strong political signal – not just to Russia, but to the entire EAEU, which, by the way, provides significant economic benefits to Yerevan.

It would be incorrect to say that relations between Moscow and Yerevan have only recently begun to deteriorate. Pashinyan’s pivot toward the EU has been evident for some time, particularly following October 2022, when the Armenian prime minister signed the Prague Statement, recognizing the borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan based on the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1991. 

This tied the borders of the two countries to the state boundaries established at the time of the USSR’s collapse, giving Azerbaijan sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh. In doing so, he fulfilled the wishes of European politicians who were eager to resolve the conflict. Pashinyan seemed to expect assistance from Europeans in defending Armenians in Karabakh, yet all he received were calls for a quick peace that demanded painful concessions from Armenians.

This step had additional consequences. Armenia has never legally recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as its territory, but by signing the Prague Statement, Pashinyan questioned the mandate of Russian peacekeepers who had been in the region since 2020 and ensured adherence to the ceasefire between the parties. Consequently, the issue of the self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh officially became an internal matter for Azerbaijan, which Baku acted upon by dissolving the unrecognized state.

In 2025, the Armenian parliament passed a law to initiate the process of joining the EU. Later, while in Washington, Pashinyan agreed to establish the so-called Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (T.R.I.P.P.), a transport corridor that would link Azerbaijan with its exclave Nakhchivan via Armenian territory and would be under US oversight. Essentially, Pashinyan handed over control of this future route to external powers, further compromising Armenia’s sovereignty.

Throughout each stage of this rapprochement, Moscow repeatedly warned Yerevan that integrating into EU structures and markets contradicted Armenia’s participation in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

On May 21, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan emphasized that Yerevan had no intention of leaving the EAEU. Pashinyan echoed this sentiment on May 28, stating that Armenia was not preparing to exit the union. Overall, it’s understandable why Armenian politicians are cautious about leaving the group.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently elaborated on the advantages of the EAEU for Armenia. First and foremost, it gains access to a protected market encompassing the entire group of nations, which includes Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan — this is a massive market encompassing a population of up to 186 million. Armenia enjoys duty-free trade with these countries, along with shared technical regulations and phytosanitary standards. The logistics established during the Soviet era have been further refined in the context of these nations’ independent development.

Additionally, Russia supplies natural gas to Armenia at a highly subsidized rate — around $150 per 1,000 cubic meters, compared to the European market price of €600. 

Putin also pointed out that Armenia has received significant investments totaling $4.9 billion, with 86% originating from Russia. In contrast, the EU has invested only a few hundred million euros over the past three years while trying to pull Yerevan into its sphere of influence. The EU has stated its intention to invest €2.5 billion in Armenia’s economy, which is considerably less than what Yerevan has already gained from its engagement with the EAEU.

The Armenian GDP could shrink 14% if Armenia loses access to the benefits of the EAEU.

Seemingly hoping to gain some advantage from the current situation, Pashinyan emphasized the need to make a concrete offer instead of resorting to threats. However, this was clearly a rhetorical move; the Armenian leader cannot fail to understand the preferences his country would lose in if it departs the EAEU, and that this, in itself, is Russia’s ‘offer’: benefits which are already in effect, unlike vague promises made by the EU. 

Another pressing issue is the status of Armenian citizens in Russia. Should relations between Yerevan and the EAEU sour, they would face the same requirements as other CIS nationals – such as needing work permits, navigating more complex procedures for obtaining legal status, and experiencing delayed access to compulsory health insurance. This is especially concerning given that remittances from labor migrants constitute a significant part of the income for thousands of households in Armenia.

In Ukraine’s footsteps but with a Moldovan twist

The situation in Armenia strikingly mirrors the developments in Ukraine, where the EU also forced a painful choice upon the government. The Armenian authorities have long followed a similar script, labeling the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) as a threat to the country’s sovereignty, branding Russia as a party engaged in “hybrid warfare” against Armenia, and asserting that “Armenia is no longer a brother to Russia.”

On June 7, Armenia will hold parliamentary elections, and it seems unlikely that anyone can challenge Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party. The opposition remains fragmented, and surveys by Europe Elects show a surge in support for the ruling party – from 24% to 65% in just eight days. Yet back in April, Civil Contract’s ratings hadn’t even surpassed 25%.

This has largely been a result of intense pressure on opponents. Samvel Karapetyan, who attempted to defend the Armenian Church from state attacks, remains imprisoned. Other opposition leaders, including Robert Kocharyan, Serzh Sargsyan, and Gagik Tsarukyan, are also under pressure. We observed similar ‘European values’ during last year’s elections in Moldova.

Pashinyan appears increasingly unconcerned about his public image. During a meeting with voters, he told one woman to be grateful for not having had her head cracked open; he also expelled critics from rallies and referred to the Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh as “runaway degenerates”. And all of this occurs as part of an electoral campaign meant to attract new supporters and unify the populace. Perhaps this is the ‘European perspective’ Pashinyan envisions for his citizens. 

The upcoming elections will show whether this resonates with voters. However, we may again remember the example of Moldova, where President Maia Sandu lost domestically but secured votes from the diaspora that allowed her to claim victory. 

The annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) will be held over June 3-6. In its nearly three decades of existence, this event has borne witness to fundamental global shifts – and it has shifted along with the world.

Founded with the aim of facilitating foreign investment in Russia, it became known as Russia’s Davos in the 2000s, when Western executives descended upon St. Petersburg in their private jets in the hopes of securing lucrative business deals. In recent years, SPIEF has a very different feel but it has remained one of Russia’s most important economic forums and is now a key platform for discussing the transformations taking place in the global economy.

This year’s event, as usual, will draw many in the upper echelons of Russia’s business and political elite, as well as foreign business and government representatives from across the globe. Famously dubbed by Alexander Pushkin a “window to Europe,” St. Petersburg is becoming a window to a new multipolar world.

History

SPIEF dates its origin back to 1997, when Russia was struggling through a chaotic and difficult transition to a market economy. Initially, the main goal of SPIEF was to attract foreign investment and project an image of being ready to do business in the post-Soviet world. Just over a year after the first SPIEF was held, Russia would default and plunge into a severe economic crisis.

However, the forum persevered, and as Russia’s economy expanded during the 2000s, Western banks, energy firms, consultancies, and industrial companies started showing up to SPIEF in droves. The event became one of the key stops on the global business calendar.

Russia’s current role in the vanguard of multipolarity has led many to assume that SPIEF has always been centered on Eurasia, BRICS, and the Global South. It wasn’t. Somebody striding through the forum halls around 2010-2013, for example, would have encountered major Wall Street banks and major European energy companies – and possibly European heads of state. Attendees in years past have included, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, EU Jean-Claude Juncker, ex-IMF chief Christine Lagarde, Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein, and Exxon’s Rex Tillerson. This was a time when Russia was trying to position itself as a central player inside the existing global economic order.

There was traditionally a strong energy angle to SPIEF. Top Western oil and gas executives were a common sight in the midnight sun of St. Petersburg in June. Bankers and businessmen would mingle on the sidelines of the event, sometimes with serious propositions at stake.

Throughout the late 2000s and 2010s, SPIEF became a venue for announcing major energy and infrastructure agreements involving Russia, European states, China, and others. Even when deals were negotiated elsewhere, they were often unveiled at SPIEF because the event provided maximum visibility and prestige.

Over the years, the presidential address became one of the forum’s defining features. Analysts routinely scrutinize these speeches for policy signals.

The Western media has tended to mock the post-2022 SPIEF as passé and insular, with one former attendee telling The Guardian that an invitation to it is “totally toxic.” The lack of Western dignitaries is seen as a step down in prestige. Often left unremarked upon in these accounts is the collapse in popularity and trust in the West itself of the same Western elite that now shuns the forum.

Last year’s event, meanwhile, saw 24,200 participants and media representatives from 144 countries and territories, while over a thousand agreements were signed. The largest delegations came from Indonesia and China.

In the spotlight this year: AI

AI has become a significant area of focus for the Russian government. President Vladimir Putin has established a presidential commission devoted to the development of AI technologies to streamline state policy.

A senior executive at Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank and an innovation leader, recently told RT that “Russia has fertile soil for AI-linked business development.” The bank also released Russia’s first comprehensive guide on integrating artificial intelligence into the production cycle of digital companies.

Not surprisingly, AI is a prominent theme at this year’s SPIEF. In fact, 14 of the roundtable sessions scheduled explicitly mention AI in the title – and that’s only a surface analysis. AI will invariably come up in numerous other talks throughout the three-day event as well.

What is noteworthy is the extent to which the AI discussion has shifted in just a couple of years. For comparison, SPIEF in 2023, which came just months after ChatGPT burst into public consciousness, reflected much of the techno-optimism of the time. The official press release on Sberbank’s AI Journey at SPIEF 2023 displays a focus mostly on AI capability and how its capabilities can be best harnessed. The questions being asked were the same ones many countries were being asked at the time. Implicit was the notion that Russia catching up in an exciting new field.

A session entitled “The Struggle for Economic and Cognitive Influence in the AI Era” promises to address not so much AI as a technology, but, according to the program, “who controls the flow of information and the logic by which it is constructed in this new system” and “whose narratives are reproduced and scaled.”

In other words, this is a shift from asking what AI will deliver to asking what kind of environment AI is producing and who will control it. For Russia, as for a number of other countries, the concept of AI sovereignty has become a central concern. Russia is treating AI very much within the context of a larger state and even civilizational narrative.

What else is on the agenda

The overall theme for this year´s forum is: “Pragmatic Dialogue – The Path to a Stable Future.” A major point of focus is governance in a multipolar world. Whereas Davos might assume the current West-led globalization as the baseline and inquire how it could be better managed, SPIEF is looking to help build a new model of global development. Accordingly, much of the forum will not merely address the question of boosting economic growth, but will grapple with the institutional and technological foundations of a changing world order.

Several thematic blocks have been chosen: A Platform for Global Growth: Shaping a New Development Model, “Putting the People First: A New Development Paradigm”, “Raising the Quality of the Environment for Living and Growth”, “The Technologies Shaping the Future.”

This reflects something of a shift in how sovereignty is being understood. Traditionally associated with territory and borders, sovereignty is increasingly being discussed in the context of scaffolding: supply chains, payment systems, data infrastructure, artificial intelligence, media ecosystems, and technological standards. Many of the forum’s discussions begin from the assumption that countries will seek greater control over critical systems rather than rely exclusively on globally integrated networks.

Return of the West?

After the Ukraine conflict began in 2022, top-level Western representation largely disappeared, although the Western presence didn’t dry up entirely. Now, however, the winds seem to be shifting again.

This comes as numerous Western companies have begun to demonstrate an interest in returning to the Russian market. Several Western oil majors met with Russian industry representatives during an energy conference in Abu Dhabi last November, according to The Economist. Several American firms that had left Russia, including Apple and McDonald’s, have recently registered new Russian trademarks.

In an interview with Russia’s Channel 1 late last year, Putin said: “We have letters from American companies, letters they have sent us where they ask us not to forget about them. These are our former partners who left Russia not on their own will.”

The bottom line

The forum has always been able to change with the times, meeting a panoply of profound challenges throughout its 30-year history. This year, perhaps uniquely, the greatest challenge will not be geopolitical. While old dialogues are rekindled, the rooms of business leaders and politicians will certainly be examining how best to deploy AI, perhaps in a manner that will incubate the tech from the political and economic crisis management that the humans at St. Petersburg have always practiced. 

Armenian citizens will suffer significant economic damages should incumbent Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan implement his strategy of breaking trade with Russia in favor of integration with the EU, Russian Parliament Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin has said.

Armenians will go to the polls on Sunday to elect a new parliament. The vote is widely viewed as a referendum on the country’s geopolitical alignment, as Pashinyan claims the land-locked post-Soviet republic can benefit greatly from closer ties with the West. 

Volodin on Tuesday accused Pashinyan of misleading voters by downplaying the negative consequences of his proposal, reacting to the prime minister’s promise to compensate farmers from the state budget for any produce that spoils if they lose privileged access to the Russian market.

Armenia is one of five members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) – alongside Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan – an economic organization that operates a single market and harmonizes regulations to facilitate trade, investment and other forms of economic cooperation. Yerevan has been previously warned that membership in the EAEU is incompatible with its EU aspirations.

“Apparently, Pashinyan has made a personal pledge to see Armenia join the EU… while trying to put the costs on the EAEU and Russia,” Volodin wrote. “Obviously, he does not care about the fate of the Armenian people and statehood. He cares about staying in power.”

“The price will be steep,” the official warned.

Volodin compared Armenia’s current trajectory to that of Ukraine, arguing that Kiev’s expectations of greater access to EU markets had failed to materialize and that the country’s agricultural exports had instead faced tariff quotas and other restrictions. He warned that Armenia could face similar risks.

Armenia remains heavily reliant on the Russian market. According to UN data, Russia accounted for nearly 24% of Armenian exports in 2024, making it the country’s second-largest export destination after the UAE. Statistics show that Armenia’s overall exports shrank by nearly 35% year on year in 2025, driven by a decline in Russia-related re-exports and reduced export opportunities amid instability in the Middle East.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Pashinyan reportedly said the referendum on EU membership could only be held if his country formally applies to join the bloc or comes close to obtaining candidate status. Until then, “there will be no referendum,” he said, as quoted by Armenpress. The prime minister described the benefits of EAEU membership as “obvious,” but claimed that the regional organization should create new opportunities for Armenia.

A video showing Russians reacting without hostility to being addressed in Ukrainian on the street has gone viral on social media.

In the clip, filmed last week in the Ural city of Ekaterinburg, blogger Andrey Gorlivsky asks passersby in Ukrainian for directions to the musuem to legendary Russian actor, poet, songwriter and performer, Vladimir Vysotsky.

None of the those approached appeared surprised or offended by the use of Ukrainian, instead responding in Russian, and readily offering help.

The blogger also asked several Ekaterinburg residents how they were able to understand Ukrainian. One man said he has a Ukrainian friend, while another noted that the two languages share many similarities.

Viewers online have contrasted the footage with numerous videos from Ukraine showing disputes over the use of Russian. Despite Kiev’s ongoing efforts to reduce the language’s role in public life, it remains widely spoken across the country and is the primary language for millions.

The effort intensified after the escalation of the conflict in February 2022. Moscow has repeatedly cited the protection of Russian speakers and the restoration of their language rights among its key conditions for a peace settlement.

In December, the Ukrainian parliament stripped Russian of protections granted under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Earlier this year, Kiev also moved to establish a legal basis for a broad ban on Russian literature, paving the way for the removal of such books from circulation.

A graft scheme has been exposed at Energoatom, a Ukrainian energy giant previously linked with an alleged extortion ring run by businessman Timur Mindich, a close associate of Vladimir Zelensky. The alleged crimes were exposed by the same Western-backed anti-corruption agencies.

Mindich, dubbed “Zelensky’s wallet” by the media, fled the country last November shortly before the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) charged him and his associates with running a $100 million extortion scheme at Energoatom. Investigators alleged that contractors were forced by corrupt company management to pay kickbacks from their state contracts.

The newly alleged scheme revealed on Wednesday reportedly involved the theft of at least $3.8 million in public funds during the construction of critical infrastructure for the Tashlyk Pumped-Storage Power Plant in Nikolaev Region. The facility was originally conceived as a Soviet-era project and approved in 1981, but was later scaled back following the collapse of the USSR. Two of its turbines were commissioned in the mid-2000s, while a third was launched only in late 2021.

The anti-corruption agencies said that the de facto owner of several construction companies involved in the project and a former senior manager at Energoatom’s engineering branch had been charged with large-scale embezzlement.

Wartime money cow

Energoatom operates three Soviet-built nuclear power plants, as well as the Tashlyk facility and the Aleksandrovka hydroelectric power station – which complement the South Ukraine Nuclear Power Plant helping cover peak power grid loads.

While Ukraine and Russia have struck each other’s energy infrastructure during the conflict, nuclear and hydropower sites have largely been spared, as damage to such facilities could trigger major environmental disasters. With Ukraine’s overall generating capacity reduced, Energoatom remains a major source of revenue.

A big graft club in Kiev

The scandal sent shockwaves through the Ukrainian government, as Mindich’s alleged ring involved several senior officials, including a former energy minister, his former deputy who later replaced him in a cabinet reshuffle, and former Deputy Prime Minister Aleksey Chernyshov.

Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, was forced to resign over suspected links to Mindich and has since been charged in a separate alleged money-laundering case connected to the financing of a luxury property development outside Kiev, reportedly owned by Yermak, Mindich, Chernyshov, and Zelensky.

The fugitive businessman’s other interests reportedly focused on the arms giant Fire Point. Leaked surveillance records suggest Minidich secretly ran the company, profiting from his influence on then-Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, who still retains a senior security position in the government.

A plant owned by Fire Point, a Ukrainian defense company widely linked to a high-level corruption scheme involving Vladimir Zelensky’s inner circle, has been struck during a Russian raid, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said.

In a rare occurrence, the ministry provided a detailed list of Ukrainian defense industry enterprises that had been attacked as part of the latest wave of airstrikes on the country earlier on Tuesday.

A Fire Point facility, which produced parts for long-range attack UAVs and missiles, was hit in Dnepropetrovsk Region, it said in a statement.

Originally established as a film scouting agency linked to associates of Vladimir Zelensky, Fire Point was later exposed in leaked conversations involving members of the Ukrainian leader’s inner circle as a vehicle for siphoning off lucrative arms contracts.

Leaked recordings published by Ukrainian media since April suggested that businessman Timur Mindich – who is wanted in Ukraine over an alleged $100 million corruption scheme in the energy sector – effectively controlled Fire Point throughout 2025.

The tapes also indicated that Mindich enjoyed preferential treatment from then-Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, who now serves as secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that ten enterprises manufacturing weapons, inducing UAVs, have been attacked in Kiev. Three recruitment centers have also been hit in the Ukrainian capital, it added.

In the city of Zaporozhye, the Omelchenko machinery plant and the Motor Sich aircraft engine plant were targeted, the statement read.

The raid also targeted six military airfields in Cherkasy, Rovno, Zhytomir, Kirovograd, Khmelnytsky and Kiev Regions, it added.

According to the ministry, the large-scale missile and drone strike against military-related targets in Ukraine was carried out in response to Kiev’s terrorist attacks on civilians, including the one in Russia’s Lugansk People’s Republic on May 22.

Ukrainian forces struck a college dormitory in the town of Starobelsk in several waves of drone attacks late at night while students were asleep, killing 21 people, mostly teenage girls, and injuring dozens of others.

Ukraine launched explosive-laden drones towards Finland, triggering an alert that affected 1.8 million people, Helsingin Sanomat reported on Monday, citing sources familiar with the matter.

The incident took place on May 15 and set off a major security alert in the southern Finnish region of Uusimaa, which includes the country’s capital, Helsinki. The warning halted air traffic at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport and triggered a lockdown order by the authorities.

Finnish officials did not initially disclose details of the alert, stating only that the drones could be approaching from Russia, creating the impression that the threat was linked to Moscow.

According to HS, however, the emergency measures were prompted by a warning from Ukraine, which said it had accidentally sent drones carrying explosives toward Finland.

The Finnish Defense Forces later said no violation of Finnish airspace had been detected. HS reported that it remains unclear why the drones never entered the country, noting that Russian air defenses may have shot them down en route.

The report has prompted criticism from Finnish lawmakers. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee said they were not told that the warning came from Ukraine, which was essential information that should have been shared immediately.

Last month, Estonia shot down an alleged Ukrainian drone over its territory for the first time, while Latvia saw Ukrainian drones hit oil storage facilities near the Russian border, which ultimately led to the collapse of Prime Minister Evika Silina’s government.

Moscow has repeatedly accused NATO countries of quietly allowing Ukraine to use their airspace for attacks on targets in northwestern Russia, particularly energy infrastructure in Leningrad Region. Russian officials have also warned that Kiev could stage provocations involving drones to draw NATO deeper into the conflict.

Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo previously said he had told Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky that Helsinki considers Ukrainian aircraft entering its airspace “unacceptable.” Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur has likewise urged Kiev to keep its drones away from Estonian territory and to “control their activities better.”

Russian forces have carried out a large-scale missile and drone strike against military-related targets in Ukraine in response to terrorist attacks by Kiev, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said.

The overnight raid focused on defense industry facilities in the capital, Kiev, parts of Zaporozhye and Kherson regions still under Ukraine’s control, as well as in Dnepropetrovsk, Poltava, Khmelnitsky, and Sumy regions, the ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.

Fuel and transport infrastructure facilities used by Ukrainian forces and military airfields were also hit, it added.

Land- and sea-based precision weapons, including hypersonic missiles and drones, were deployed during the attack, the ministry said.

Multiple videos have been posted on social media, purporting to show explosions in various parts of Ukraine. Kiev Mayor Vitaly Klitschko confirmed partial blackouts in several districts of the capital during the raid.

Moscow previously warned it would carry out “systematic and consistent strikes” on Ukraine’s military infrastructure, including drone production facilities, command posts, and “decision-making centers,” in response to a terrorist attack in Russia’s Lugansk People’s Republic on May 22.

Ukrainian forces struck a college dormitory in the town of Starobelsk in several waves of drone attacks late at night while students were asleep, killing 21 people, mostly teenage girls, and injuring 70 others.

Speaking to RT, American journalist John Varoli has defended Russia’s strikes on Ukrainian targets as “legitimate” and fully “allowed by international law,” arguing that Moscow has “a right to dismantle any infrastructure that supports terrorism.” Varoli said “Russian punishment against the Kiev regime is going to continue” and “is going to intensify,” accusing Western nations of backing “a terrorist regime” in Ukraine.

Western intelligence agencies hacked the phones of Russian officials and other people with access to sensitive information, Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) has said.

Devices belonging to Russian diplomats, politicians, high-ranking officers and journalists were allegedly compromised, allowing foreign spies to record everything around them and collect vast amounts of data, the agency said in a statement on Tuesday.

The FSB said that its operatives uncovered “one of the largest operations involving the installation of malicious software on mobile devices.” The scheme had attempted to gather data through covert access to content and messaging, wiretapping of phone conversations, acoustic and video surveillance of the gadget’s surroundings, and through the collection of geolocation and contact data, it added.

“It appears that Western intelligence agencies assumed it would be easier and cheaper to mass hack cell phones than to recruit costly informants among holders of state secrets,” the agency noted.

The sheer volume of information gathered by Western spy agencies would have been impossible for humans to process just a few years ago, but AI is now being used to analyze it within minutes, it stressed.

According to the FSB, the investigation began in 2023 after experts at Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab detected unusual network activity on employees’ Apple devices.

A representative of Kaspersky Lab explained that those targeted by foreign intelligence had received an undetectable message via the standard Apple messaging app, which launched a spy program that quickly gained “complete control” of the phone.

Among other things, the malicious software could “start an audio recording for the next three hours, and it didn’t matter whether the phone had no connection or internet access. As soon as the phone regained connection, that audio recording would be sent to the attacker’s server,” he explained.

The US has been developing its cyber-espionage infrastructure for decades, particularly since the adoption of the Patriot Act in 2001. Introduced in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the legislation gave American intelligence agencies broad powers to demand information from IT companies in the name of national security.

Multiple videos have been published on social media showing explosions rocking Kiev and other Ukrainian cities amid Russian airstrikes. The Defense Ministry in Moscow confirmed carrying out a major raid on military-related targets across Ukraine in response to terror attacks by Vladimir Zelensky’s government.

The first wave of blasts in the Ukrainian capital was heard at around 1:30 AM local time, followed by more explosions in early morning hours, according to Ukrainian officials and media.

In one clip, a powerful blast is followed by the lights going out, plunging much of Kiev into darkness.

Other footage captured the sounds of repeated secondary explosions. The exact locations and types of facilities hit are difficult to verify as Ukrainian authorities tightly restrict information about strike sites and penalize those who share footage of impacts, except when civilian infrastructure is affected.

Multiple blasts were also reported in parts of Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye still under Ukrainian control, as well as in Sumy and Kharkov regions.

Later on Tuesday, the Russian Defense Ministry said that its bombardment targeted defense industry facilities, fuel and transport infrastructure facilities used by Ukrainian forces, and military airfields across the country.

Land- and sea-based precision weapons, including hypersonic missiles and drones, were deployed during the attack, it said.

The attack on the Starobelsk college dormitory, conducted in several waves late at night while students were sleeping inside, left 21 people dead, mainly teenage girls.

With the Starobelsk massacre, “the Kiev leadership has decided to open a new chapter in its crime spree, to add a new dimension to the conflict as a whole,” President Vladimir Putin said on Monday, adding that the perpetrators will suffer a “well-deserved and inevitable punishment.”

Moscow has accused France and the UK of engaging in “piracy” after French and British naval forces intercepted and diverted a cargo ship sailing from Russia’s Murmansk to Cameroon in international waters.

The vessel, the Tagor, was stopped on Sunday, more than 400 nautical miles off the coast of Brittany, according to Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. French authorities claim the ship was operating under a “false” flag.

In a statement on Tueday, Zakharova said the Russian Embassy in Paris has demanded full information concerning the circumstances of the detention, warning that the operation violated international maritime law. She also stated that Moscow is taking measures to protect Russian crew members aboard the vessel.

The spokeswoman rejected France’s justification for the operation, which cited Article 110 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The provision allows warships to board and inspect vessels on the high seas under limited circumstances, including when a ship is suspected of having no nationality.

However, international maritime law does not permit a warship to compel a vessel to alter course and escort it from international waters to a national port, according to Moscow.

Zakharova also dismissed French President Emmanuel Macron’s insinuation that the ship was violating “international sanctions,” arguing that only restrictions approved by the UN Security Council qualify as international sanctions. Unilateral measures imposed by European states cannot be considered international under law, she said.

The spokeswoman accused European governments of selectively interpreting legal norms to suit their interests, while cautioning that attempts to enforce sanctions in areas governed by freedom of navigation could have broader consequences for global shipping.

She added that many vessels operating in the interests of European countries sail under so-called flags of convenience, cautioning that extending such enforcement practices to the high seas could prove costly for international maritime trade.

Russia has launched this year’s LNG shipment season (NSR), with its nuclear powered icebreakers clearing paths through Arctic ice to keep the Northern Sea Route open for energy exports.

Russia operates the world’s largest fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers. These massive ships support rapid Arctic development and maintain shipping along the NSR – the shortest sea link between Europe and the Asia Pacific, which is faster than traditional routes via the Suez and Panama canals.

An RT crew boarded Russia’s Yamal – one of the world’s most powerful nuclear icebreakers – for a rare look at how the crew lives and works for weeks at a time. Aboard this floating behemoth, a canteen serving four hot meals a day, a fully equipped gym, a sports court, a sauna, a swimming pool, and a Soviet era library help sailors unwind after long shifts. “Every corner of the ship is designed to keep you sharp, fit, and safe,” RT correspondent Anastasia Volodina reports. 

The General Court of the European Union has registered a Central Bank of Russia lawsuit against the European Parliament and the EU Council over the bloc’s €90 billion ($105 billion) loan to Ukraine.

The filing contests an EU mechanism adopted in February that allows proceeds from frozen Russian sovereign assets held in Europe to be used to repay a joint loan to Kiev, the central bank said.

Kiev’s Western backers froze about $300 billion in Russian sovereign state assets after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Moscow has repeatedly said any use of its frozen assets would amount to theft.

The Bank of Russia said the scheme amounts to “an illegal and disguised form of using assets as collateral for a loan,” arguing that it effectively legitimizes the expropriation of sovereign assets.

According to the regulator, the mechanism violates EU law, property rights, and the international legal principle of sovereign immunity afforded to states and central banks.

The Bank of Russia separately challenged that decision before the EU’s General Court in February. In that case, it argued that the asset-freeze regime infringes property rights, the right to effective judicial protection, and the sovereign immunity protections recognized under international law and EU legislation.

The regulator also claimed the measure was adopted through “serious procedural violations,” arguing that it should have required unanimous approval by EU member states rather than a qualified-majority vote.

The Bank of Russia is also locked in a legal dispute with Euroclear, the Belgium-based depository that holds the bulk of Russia’s frozen assets. Last month, Moscow's arbitration court awarded the regulator $230 billion in damages. Euroclear has pledged to appeal.

The Armenian government is forcing the country onto the same anti-Russian path taken by Ukraine, former President Robert Kocharyan has warned ahead of upcoming elections.

In Sunday’s vote, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party will seek a mandate to pursue closer integration with the European Union – a course that could ultimately lead to a break with Russia.

Pashinyan’s party is facing a divided opposition field that includes three major players: Strong Armenia, launched earlier this year by businessman Samvel Karapetyan; the Armenia Alliance, led by former President Kocharyan; and Prosperous Armenia, headed by businessman Gagik Tsarukyan.

While the opposition groups differ over how the landlocked post-Soviet nation’s problems should be addressed, they all blame the current leadership for causing them.

Armenia, he argued, “should stop playing on the differences of great powers and provoking them, putting its own people in harm’s way.”

Yerevan facing either-or choice

Pashinyan, who came to power following street protests in 2018, has presided over a string of crises, including border clashes and a proxy war with neighboring Azerbaijan, an influx of refugees from the now-defunct self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, major protests that he suppressed by accusing critics from the Armenian Apostolic Church of plotting a coup, and a broader economic slowdown.

The prime minister has also accused Russia of failing Armenia in its confrontation with Azerbaijan and has claimed that deeper integration with the EU, along with transit revenues, would deliver a significant economic boost.

Asked about calls to put Armenia’s geopolitical course to a referendum, a proposal voiced by the EES last week, Pashinyan said holding a vote before the choice becomes unavoidable would be “illogical.” Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev compared the approach to the Bolshevik government’s attempt to unilaterally withdraw from World War I without signing a formal peace treaty with Germany.

Leo Trotsky’s formula, often summarized as “no peace, no war, and disband the army,” backfired badly, forcing Soviet Russia to accept the highly unfavorable Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with a country that was later defeated by the Entente powers.

Misleading polls

Without a single consolidated opposition force, Pashinyan appears positioned for a landslide victory, Euronews claimed on Sunday, citing opinion polls. The outlet pointed to a survey by the pollster Breavis, in which 65% of respondents said they planned to vote for the ruling party.

Armenia, Breavis poll:

KP~EPP|~S&D: 65% (+41)
Mer dzevov-*: 12% (+3)
HD/ARF-S&D: 6% (+3)
MPA-*: 4% (+3)
BHK-*: 2% (-1)
DOK-*: 2% (n.a.)
MT-*: 2% (+1)
BDE-*: 2% (n.a.)

+/- vs. 03-13 February 2026

Fieldwork: 05-11 May 2026
Sample size: 1,551

➤ https://t.co/ImUIujL15i pic.twitter.com/SzL4v5va8M

— Europe Elects (@EuropeElects) May 30, 2026

However, responses from 51% of those surveyed were excluded because they refused to answer, said they had not yet decided, intended to spoil their ballot, or planned to skip the election altogether.

Pashinyan has taken leave from his duties as prime minister to campaign, and some of his appearances have cast him in an unfavorable light, showing him as short-tempered and thin-skinned. “Be glad your head is not smashed in at the closest toilet,” he told a woman who accused him of betraying national interests.

🇦🇲 Pashinyan shouts down woman who accused him of destroying Armenian statehood at campaign rally

During yet another pre-election event, the Armenian PM lost his composure at a woman in the crowd who accused him of dismantling Armenian statehood.

She stated that the Armenian… pic.twitter.com/aBKEeBOQpR

— DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics) May 18, 2026

When a head of government makes such threats, opinion polls are likely to produce distorted results.

Russia is preparing to host the 12th annual Primakov Readings International Forum, one of the country’s leading platforms for discussion of global politics and the world economy. The event, themed ‘World Without Rules: Power Game?’, will take place in Moscow on June 23–24, 2026, at the Radisson Blu Leninsky Prospect Hotel, coinciding with the 70th anniversary of IMEMO.

The forum is expected to bring together senior Russian officials, including presidential aide Yury Ushakov, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and Deputy Speaker of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev, alongside leading Russian and international experts in international security, global politics, and economics, as well as diplomats, politicians, and representatives of public organizations.

According to organizers, the program will focus on some of the most pressing challenges in international affairs. Key themes will include the global fallout from regional conflicts, the domestic drivers of US foreign policy, the Middle East conflict and its дальнейшая evolution, scenarios for a new world order, risks to global trade and investment, Eurasian security during Russia’s chairmanship of the CSTO, and AI-driven international competition alongside a new round of military-technological rivalry.

Special attention will be given to prospects for de-escalation in the Middle East, the possible creation of a new regional security architecture, and the role of non-Western countries in stabilizing the region. Participants are also expected to discuss the consequences of the termination of the New START treaty, the risk of a broader collapse of the arms-control system, and the impact of emerging military technologies on strategic stability as the arms race accelerates.

“Both in Russia and globally, the liberal ‘rules-based’ world order has faced harsh and fair criticism. In 2022–2026 it ultimately faded into history,” said Aleksandr Dynkin, president of the Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “We are witnessing a breakdown: there is an obvious fragmentation of the global political and economic architecture, and an almost complete dictatorship of force in international security backed by states’ combined economic and military power, ignoring international law and its institutions.”

Dynkin said that under these conditions, the importance of the remaining “anchors of stability” is growing, along with the demand for strengthening international institutions that can serve as alternatives to Western-led ones. He named Russia-China and Russia-India ties among such anchors, and pointed to BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and ASEAN as key institutions shaping this process.

The event is expected to bring together around 50 experts from 20 countries, including China, India, the US, Iran, the UK, Uzbekistan, and Belarus.

Organized by IMEMO together with the Evgeny Primakov Center for International Cooperation, the forum continues the legacy of Evgeny Primakov, the statesman and scholar after whom it is named. First launched in 2015, the Primakov Readings have become an annual gathering of leading specialists in international relations and the global economy.

Media representatives can apply for accreditation via the official website of the Primakov Readings forum.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has condemned the French seizure of an oil tanker in international waters as “borderline piracy.” Paris had hailed the move as the enforcement of anti-Russian sanctions.

The crude oil tanker Tagor was boarded by French commandos in the Atlantic, with support from the UK and other countries, French President Emmanuel Macron announced on Monday while presenting footage of the raid.

Macron claimed the vessel posed environmental and safety risks and was engaged in the “circumvention of international sanctions,” referring to restrictions adopted by a number of Western countries targeting Russian foreign trade. The measures were imposed without a UN mandate following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022.

Peskov rejected Macron’s claim that French forces had acted in accordance with international law. He said Russia would “draw on this negative experience” when adjusting the “measures we take to ensure the safety of our shipments.”

La Marine nationale a arraisonné hier matin un nouveau pétrolier sous sanctions internationales en provenance de Russie : le Tagor. Notre détermination est constante et totale.

Cette intervention a été effectuée en Atlantique, en haute mer,… pic.twitter.com/zxEslYjbUE

— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) June 1, 2026

Western raids and Ukrainian bombs

Kiev’s Western backers have accused Russia of using a so-called ‘shadow fleet’ to conceal and maintain international trade flows that they seek to restrict in order to weaken Moscow and aid Ukraine.

Last month, an LNG tanker that had arrived at Russia’s Baltic port of Ust-Luga from Antwerp was found to have been fitted with limpet mines. Moscow said the discovery had prevented what it described as a Ukrainian attempt to trigger a major explosion near the port’s export terminal.

The British backseat driver

According to public maritime tracking data, the Tagor sails under the flag of Madagascar and had previously visited an oil terminal near the northern Russian port of Murmansk. The vessel stopped transmitting transponder data more than a week ago while sailing off the Norwegian coast. Macron did not disclose what role Britain played in the capture of the Tagor.

France carried out a similar operation in March, when its navy intercepted the Deyna, an oil tanker Paris alleged was part of ‘Russian shadow fleet,’ as it sailed through the Mediterranean after having departed Murmansk. The ship was released in mid-April after its owner paid a fine to French authorities over paperwork irregularities.

President Vladimir Putin’s state visit to Kazakhstan last week was an important moment in bilateral relations. It gives us the opportunity to think more broadly about the current state of Russia’s relations with those former Soviet republics that remain most friendly towards us.

This is especially necessary now, as elections approach in Armenia and its leadership speaks openly about moving closer to the European Union. Once again, we hear the familiar claim that Russia is “losing” the post-Soviet space. The argument is not new and it’s supported, in different ways, by the open desire of some neighboring states to strengthen cooperation with the West, and by the less visible but steadily growing presence of Western corporations, NGOs and political actors in countries near Russia.

But we should begin with a simple fact. Against the background of the geopolitical catastrophe of 1991, Russia has retained, and continues to retain, considerable influence over its immediate neighborhood.

There are two reasons for this. First, Russia’s size, economy, culture and geography make it a natural center of attraction for states that don’t make hostility to Moscow the organizing principle of their existence. Even Georgia, after bitter experience, has learned that the West is not always capable of helping those it encourages.

Second, most of our neighbors are themselves acting with a degree of statesmanship in that they may maneuver and diversify their foreign relations, but they’re not usually seeking to sever ties with Russia. The established states of the former USSR pursue pragmatic policies and understand the value of their special relationship with Moscow and, in recent years, Russia has also found new ways to ensure that those who benefit from cooperation outnumber those who profit from conflict.

Kazakhstan remains one of the countries with which Russia has the closest and most trusting relations and this was confirmed during Putin’s visit. Kazakhstan’s president, along with the leader of Uzbekistan, attended the May 9 celebrations in Moscow, and cooperation between our countries extends far beyond economics or routine social contacts.

At the same time, Kazakhstan is building relations not only with Russia but also with our adversaries, and while this doesn’t mean Astana wants to distance itself from Moscow, it does mean Kazakhstan must remain part of the global economy on which its export revenues depend. What matters is that it is confidently seeking ways to avoid harming its cooperation with Russia.

A recent example is revealing. Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Justice announced that it would not comply with a ruling by the International Financial Centre in Astana upholding a Swiss arbitration decision in the case brought by Ukraine’s Naftogaz against Russia’s Gazprom for more than $1.4 billion. This is precisely the kind of practical behavior that matters more than loud declarations

Armenia presents a more difficult case. The country’s defeat in its confrontation with Azerbaijan has produced deep moral exhaustion and a desire for peace almost at any price. The political forces now in power are exploiting these feelings and trying to convince society that rapprochement with the West is the key to a peaceful future.

The deeper point is that even the best diplomacy cannot always overcome the objective consequences of social development in neighboring states. We understand how profoundly Russian society has changed in recent years and we shouldn’t forget that our neighbors are also undergoing internal transformations.

New generations are coming of age and often they are more nationalistic, partly because they have less direct experience of international engagement and of the shared Soviet past. New elites want to displace older establishments that historically had closer ties with Moscow while longstanding economic problems remain unresolved, often because these states simply lack the resources to solve them.

In Armenia, many young people support the current government not because they hate Russia, but because they see the “European choice” as a route to personal self-fulfillment in the West. Often they are disappointed with their own country and Russia cannot realistically absorb everyone who wants a different future.

Ukraine is another case altogether and the reason for the tragic turn of events there wasn’t primarily a mistake in Russian policy, but the failure of the Ukrainian people to build durable statehood, combined with a systemic Russophobia that had been developing since Soviet times. Georgia’s turn away from a disastrous course after 2012 wasn’t the result of Russian pressure or assistance, but of the Georgian elite and society recognizing their own circumstances. Finland’s anti-Russian shift after 2022, meanwhile, was the product of an internal crisis made irreversible by its entry into the European Union’s political and economic system.

Most importantly, we must think long term because history doesn’t end with tomorrow’s statement from Brussels or Donald Trump’s next social media post. Russia’s relations with its neighbors move in cycles and the setbacks we are seeing now will eventually be followed by a return to a more favorable trajectory.

We often admire the ability of the United States to influence other countries, but what Russia should learn most from the Americans is their historical optimism and not their pressure tactics. Even in Latin America, the region closest to the US, Washington’s influence has never been absolute and look at how Venezuela has been governed since 1999 by forces openly unfriendly to America. Cuba has remained outside American control for decades and Nicaragua returned Daniel Ortega, an old friend of the USSR, to power after years of pro-American rule.

None of this led Washington to conclude that history was over or that every unfriendly turn was irreversible. Russia should adopt the same patience. The Soviet Union weakened itself partly through excessive spending on its external presence. We must not repeat that mistake, because for a military superpower, the most dangerous enemy is often itself.

Russia’s own socio-economic stability is more important than events in the post-Soviet space or anywhere else. This doesn’t mean retreating from our neighbors and, on the contrary, we should strengthen ties through trade and human contact, and we shouldn’t treat every ebb and flow in these relations as a tragedy.

This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and translated and edited by the RT team.

Moldova is not ready to join NATO because its own citizens don’t want the membership, Foreign Minister Mihai Popsoi has admitted.

Popsoi, a close ally of pro-Western president Maia Sandu, made the remarks on Saturday in an interview with Vocea Basarabiei TV, where he was asked whether he thought the former Soviet republic should seek closer ties with NATO or pursue full membership.

While Popsoi called himself “a sincere supporter of everything related to Euro-Atlantic security,” he acknowledged that public support is not there.

“Integration into NATO, as into any other international structure, depends on the will of our citizens. Once there is a significant majority support for joining the North Atlantic Alliance, this can be examined as a natural option... In our case, historically, for various reasons, this significant majority has not existed,” he said.

In addition to insufficient popular support, another factor blocking Moldova’s potential membership is the breakaway region of Transnistria, which seceded from the country after a short war in the early 1990s. Transnistria currently hosts Russian peacekeepers to maintain the ceasefire and guard Soviet-era weapons and ammunition stockpiles.

The Sandu government has been pushing for integration with the EU, but the president herself also acknowledged the lack of public appetite for NATO membership. She, however, tried to explain the overbearing “fear of NATO” by what she described as “years of propaganda by the Russian Federation.”

Russia has long been vehemently opposed to any NATO expansion, viewing it as an existential threat. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also suggested that Moldova’s current authorities are making a “serious mistake” by making Russia their antagonist for the sake of building relations with the West.

Popsoi also weighed in on another politically charged question: unification with neighboring Romania – which would automatically bring Moldova into NATO. He said that while he is personally in favor, such a move would require “a pragmatic discussion [and] a dialogue with all our citizens.” According to an IMAS poll, only 30% would back unification.

“Would you like me to help with the other problems on the list?”

That was the sentence a physics teacher recently found at the end of a pupil’s homework assignment. The solution itself was elegant and correct. Unfortunately, it was not produced by the child. It was generated by artificial intelligence and copied so carelessly that the pupil left in the chatbot’s question.

A video on this went viral because it was funny in the uneasy way bad news can be funny. Today’s schoolchildren, it seems, are not only forgetting how to think, but some are forgetting how to cheat properly.

This might have remained another sad school anecdote if President Vladimir Putin had not instructed the State Council at around the same time to prepare proposals for changing federal education standards and incorporating AI into them. So we are no longer discussing a toy, a novelty, or a passing panic – we’re discussing the future of Russian education.

At first glance, ordinary citizens may think this only concerns teachers and administrators. But the consequences won’t remain inside the classroom. They will shape the way children read, write, argue, remember, and think.

The statistics already tell the story. By 2025, the share of student work written with the help of AI had risen from 17.8% to 24%. Nearly a quarter of presentations, essays, coursework, and even dissertations are now being produced with AI assistance. Among school pupils, the scale is greater still; 29% of Russian pupils admit they use AI tools to do homework, while 23% use them out of boredom, as a substitute for real conversation.

Teachers don’t need surveys, because we see the problem every day. I once had a pupil who wrote excellent essays at home but consistently failed creative assignments in class. His homework passed anti-plagiarism checks perfectly, and I couldn’t accuse him without proof. The Russian language Unified State Exam settled the matter, as when he was deprived of his digital ghostwriter, he suffered a complete fiasco. His supposed literary ability belonged to a neural network.

If we don’t stop and think seriously about this uncontrolled integration of AI into education, the future looks bleak.

The risks identified by teachers and experts are real. In surveys, 36% of respondents say they fear reduced mental effort will damage children’s development while another 31% worry about the decline of face-to-face interaction. A further 27% fear a collapse in motivation and the rise of catastrophic laziness.

This is the central danger because AI doesn’t merely help a child avoid effort, it can imitate effort. It can produce the appearance of thought and even personality. A bad essay written by a child is still a human document as it contains errors, awkwardness, effort, fear, ambition, and sometimes buried inside, a living voice. A polished AI essay might contain none of this.

IT pioneer Natalya Kaspersky has said we risk raising “a generation of complete idiots.” You might not like the harshness of her words, but there’s a grain of truth in them. If a child today cannot even thoughtfully rewrite an answer produced by a machine, what will happen in two or three years? Will our children still write and formulate thoughts of their own, or will they outsource these basic human acts to an algorithm?

Still, pretending we can simply ban AI from the classroom would be childish, and burying your head in the sand never works. Nor does fanatically opposing innovation. Those who try to keep technology out of school entirely will lose, and the only serious answer is to teach children how to use AI intelligently, without surrendering their own minds to it.

The problem is that neither teachers nor pupils have yet been properly taught how to use this tool.

I remember how my parents, who were programmers, feared that calculators would destroy mathematical thinking. In the end, calculators destroyed nothing in those who had first learned to count, and they freed the brain instead for more complex work – but only after the basic skill was formed.

This is the principle we must apply to AI. Children must first learn to think, read, write, argue, doubt, calculate, and express themselves, and only then should the neural network become an additional layer of intellect. 

What can a teacher or parent give a child that no neural network can provide? The answer is simple and old-fashioned: Living human contact and real conversation. The spark of shared thought and the discipline of disagreement. Emotion that hasn’t been simulated.

Even the most advanced AI can’t feel anything. But it can imitate feelings, and a lonely child might accept this imitation if nothing better is available.

Are teachers to blame? Only partly, but as long as Russia remains desperately short of teachers, neural networks will remain the most accessible ‘tutor’ for many families. For parents, they are convenient; for pupils, they are obedient. For administrators, they create the illusion of improved results.

That’s why the issue can’t be resolved by scolding children or laughing at them for copying chatbot replies. If we don’t restore the authority of the teacher, reduce bureaucracy, fill staff shortages, and teach both adults and children how to work with AI honestly, then the machine will take the place of thought.

And our children will continue typing ‘essay on the topic’ into a search bar, while the neural network politely finishes their education with the same fatal question: 

‘Would you like me to help with anything else?’

This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team

Russia is set to take Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to the UN’s top court over the systematic crackdown on Russian-speakers, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has announced, adding that the pre-trial phase of the dispute is coming to an end.

Moscow has for years sounded the alarm over the three former Soviet republics, which it accuses of restricting the rights of the Russian-speaking minority populations. It has accused the Baltic states of flagrantly violating the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Speaking to RIA Novosti on Sunday, Zakharova blasted Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia over their “refusal to negotiate and unconstructive reaction to Russia’s grievances,” stressing that this will lead to litigation in the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ).

It accused the Latvian authorities of carrying out a purge of dissents from the country’s information space “under the trumped-up pretext of combating ‘Russian propaganda.’” In Estonia, the Foreign Ministry said the rights of the “non-titular” population are openly restricted.

All three Baltic governments have dismissed the potential ICJ lawsuit. Lithuania called the allegations “entirely unfounded” and part of a Russian “campaign of lies and disinformation aimed at discrediting the Baltic states.” 

The Hague-based ICJ specializes in settling disputes exclusively between nations under international law. The court was deliberately designed without a mechanism to compel, with the function falling under the purview of the UN Security Council – where any of the five permanent members can use their veto power to block rulings.

Since breaking away from the Soviet Union in 1991, the three Baltic states have worked to phase out Russian from most walks of life. The effort picked up pace in 2022 after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict.

In recent years, Latvia has moved to conduct all general education exclusively in Latvian, while Russian as a second language will be removed from schools and replaced with EU languages. All three nations have also moved to curb access to Russian-language media.

On top of this, around 60,000 people in Estonia have ‘undetermined citizenship’, while 175,000 in Latvia – around 9% of the population – are classified as non-citizens. These individuals cannot vote in national elections, run for office, and work in certain sectors. In 2025, the Estonian parliament voted to amend the constitution, stripping Russian and Belarusian citizens of the right to vote in local elections.

Swiss artist Micha Hani (Vierwind) has created a massive mural of Jesus Christ using a decommissioned passenger jet in Armenia as a canvas. The installation can only be viewed in its entirety from above as all the elements merge into a single image.

Jesus’ outstretched arms are painted onto the wings, with the entire structure resembling a crucifix.

The scenic views of Lake Sevan, on whose shore the old Soviet Yak-40 has stood idle for years, add to the artistic experience, as seen in Ruptly drone footage.

It took Hani six days in mid-May to paint the aircraft’s fuselage, but he had spent several months preparing for the project beforehand, he told the Russian video agency.

“Getting the proportions exactly right so that the image looks ideal from every angle was the most difficult part,” the artist said, citing the plane’s complex shape.

Hani explained that he had opted for such an unusual canvas because he felt that “there is something both powerful and at the same time fragile in the plane.”

His choice of Armenia as the location for his installation was no coincidence either, Vierwind told Ruptly, noting that the South Caucasus nation “has an incredible wealth of history and spirituality.”

With a background in 3D poly design, the Bern-born artist currently specializes in painting, graffiti, and illustrations, and views his art as inclusive in the sense that people “who would never set foot in a gallery” can still encounter his works in public spaces.

King Tiridates III proclaimed Christianity the state religion of ancient Armenia in 301 AD. The faith has persisted through the highs and lows of the nation’s turbulent history ever since.

Three civilians were killed and four others injured after Ukrainian drones targeted civilian vehicles in Belgorod Region, Russia, the local authorities have said.

A man lost his life “as a result of drone detonation” after the Ukrainian military attacked the village of Oktyabrsky in the early hours of Saturday, officials reported. Around the same time, Ukrainian forces “deliberately” struck a civilian car with an FPV drone in the same area, killing two occupants and injuring the two others.

Several hours later, another vehicle came under a Ukrainian drone attack in Oktyabrsky, leaving one person injured.

A separate Ukrainian drone attack also targeting a civilian vehicle in the village of Orlovka in Belgorod Region later on Saturday left a man with shrapnel injuries, according to the authorities.

In Rostov Region, Russia, Ukrainian UAVs attacked the sea port in the city of Taganrog overnight, setting a tanker and a fuel tank ashore ablaze, Governor Yury Slyusar stated, adding that the fire has since been extinguished, with no leaks reported.

The Russian Defense Ministry estimated that a total of 127 Ukrainian UAVs were intercepted Friday evening to Saturday morning over several Russian regions.

In recent months, Ukraine has intensified its drone raids deep into Russian territory, targeting civilian infrastructure, industrial sites, and residential buildings. These attacks have increasingly targeted Russia’s oil infrastructure.

In April, Ukrainian UAVs hit an oil refinery and an adjacent marine terminal in Tuapse, Russia, a key port in Krasnodar Region. The ensuing fire led to high-risk air pollution, with miles of the beach in the resort town destroyed by an oil spill.

Moscow has accused Kiev of resorting to terrorist attacks to compensate for the setbacks the Ukrainian military has been suffering on the battlefield.

Russia has responded with long-range strikes of its own, saying it only targets Ukrainian dual-use critical infrastructure and military installations, and never civilian sites.

The Ukrainian military attacked Russia’s Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), puncturing a hole in the machine hall of one of the facility’s units, Aleksey Likhachev, CEO of the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, has said.

The ZNPP – which has repeatedly been attacked by Kiev forces over the past years – came under a new attack on Saturday, with a fiber-optics-guided drone making it to the machine hall of the sixth power unit of the plant. Given that such munitions are guided by their operators until the impact, the strike was carried out deliberately, and any “theories of an accidental hit” can be ruled out, Likhachev stated.

“One could, if I may put it this way, ‘congratulate’ the entire international community – this is the first-ever deliberate attack on the nuclear power plant’s main equipment, with a penetrative explosion and damage to the machine hall,” he said.

The Ukrainian armed forces repeatedly cross not just red lines, but the very boundaries of common sense. What to expect next? Strikes directly on the turbine? The reactor hall? The reactor and its safety systems?

Russia has repeatedly drawn the attention of the international community to the “extremely dangerous behavior” on Kiev’s part, the nuclear chief added. Many appear not to take the continuing attacks on the ZNPP “seriously,” while a potential nuclear incident at the plant could spread well beyond Russia and Ukraine, affecting those believing themselves to be “completely safe,” Likhachev warned.

The Ukrainian military has denied any involvement, claiming it does not possess fiber-optics-guided drones of sufficient range or packed with powerful enough charges capable of penetrating a wall. The power station, however, is located on the bank of the Dnieper River, with the Ukrainian-held part of the region lying immediately across the waterway.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi has expressed “serious concern” over the “reported incident” at the plant, the organization said. Grossi warned against attacks on nuclear sites, describing them as “playing with fire.” The agency added that it had requested access “to examine the affected turbine building first-hand.”

A team of IAEA experts visited the plant on Sunday to assess the damage, Russia’s envoy to the agency and other international organizations in Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, has said. He shared footage from the scene, showing the hole in the wall of the machine hall punctured by the Ukrainian drone, as well as fragments of the UAV and the fiber optic cord it left behind. 

The consequences of a Ukrainian drone entering the mashing block of Power Unit number 6 at the Zaporozhskaya NPP on May 30. As the #IAEA Director General said yesterday, they are playing with fire. pic.twitter.com/eyTLGmYkrW

— Mikhail Ulyanov (@Amb_Ulyanov) May 31, 2026

The IAEA said its team had observed damage “consistent with the impact of a drone,” with “a few pieces of debris and burned optical fiber remains” found on the ground. During the visit to the plant, the experts were “told to shelter after hearing the sound of drones nearby and gunfire to repel them,” the agency noted.

In recent weeks, the Ukrainian military has ramped up attacks on the plant, repeatedly striking structures within its perimeter and targeting the facility’s employees. The ZNPP came under Moscow’s control early in the conflict and has been operated by Rosatom after the Zaporozhye Region voted to join Russia in a referendum in the fall of 2022.

Ex-Russian President and Deputy Chief of the Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, warned that the potential destruction of a power unit at the ZNPP would result in a “new Chernobyl.” An incident of such magnitude is “not any better than the use of tactical nuclear weaponry,” he said, adding that it could ultimately prompt “symmetrical” retaliatory strikes on nuclear power plants in Ukraine and “NATO nations involved in the conflict.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin took questions from reporters during his trip to Kazakhstan on Friday, providing an update on the Ukraine conflict and tensions with NATO in Europe.

He also commented on the recent drone incident in Romania, which NATO blamed on Russia, and touched on foreign policy debates in Armenia, a former Soviet state and longtime Russian ally.

Russia has the upper hand on the battlefield

The Ukraine conflict is nearing the end as the Russian military continues its offensive on all fronts, Putin said, adding that it would be “unwise” to provide a specific timeline.

“The situation on the battlefield gives reason to believe that (the conflict) is drawing to a close.”

He went on to say that although Moscow maintains “certain contacts,” no peace talks are being held at the moment.

While the US has been preoccupied with the Iran conflict, some EU officials have begun floating the idea of resuming talks with Russia, which were suspended in 2022.

The president reiterated that Russia has no intention of attacking NATO or EU members, dismissing claims to the contrary as “brazen lies.” He reiterated Russia’s position that it was forced to intervene in Ukraine after Kiev failed to implement the 2014-15 Minsk accords with the breakaway Donbass republics, which later voted to become part of Russia.

Western leaders are using the conflict to justify “unreasonable” military spending hikes, Putin argued. “They should not mislead their own people.”

Aggressors will be razed to the ground

Putin warned, however, Russia has the capability to “raze to the ground” any country that attempts to attack it.

He was responding to Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys, who said this month that, in the event of a conflict, NATO must demonstrate that it “can break into” Kaliningrad Region, a Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea between Poland and Lithuania.

He warned that Russia would treat all Ukrainian drone launch sites as legitimate targets, even if they operate from the Baltic states.

Putin called for an objective investigation into a drone strike on a residential building in the Romanian city of Galati near the Ukrainian border on Friday, which injured two people. Romania, along with its NATO allies, blamed Russia for the intrusion.

The president said Romania should provide objective data about the incident, just as Russia handed over decoded flight data from a Ukrainian drone shot down last year en route to one of Putin’s residences. He noted that suspected Ukrainian drones have veered into the Baltic states and Finland in recent months.

Western media outlets ‘making fools of’ their own audiences

Putin said the Western media is “a tool for making fools of people” that is used to channel more money into Ukraine. He blasted foreign news outlets for their failure to cover the Ukrainian drone strikes on a college in Starobelsk last week, which killed 21 students and injured more than 40 others.

Moscow has criticized outlets including CNN and the BBC for declining an invitation to travel to Starobelsk.

Armenia’s economy will suffer if it cuts ties with Russia

Commenting on the upcoming parliamentary elections in Armenia, Putin said the country’s drive for closer integration with the EU could eventually become incompatible with its membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Leaving the EAEU would cost Armenia at least 14% of its GDP, he said.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who was recently endorsed by US President Donald Trump, said Armenia is not planning to terminate its membership in the EAEU at this stage, but that voters would ultimately decide between the two economic blocs.

Russia is Armenia’s largest trading partner and provides the country with discounted natural gas.

Advantages in AI technology

Russia is one of the few countries with the human capital and energy resources to develop its own sovereign artificial intelligence, Putin said.

“We have enormous capabilities in nuclear and hydroelectric power, particularly in Siberia,” he said, adding that Russia has “clear advantages” in the global AI race.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has urged his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, to take the lead in promoting dialogue between the EU and Russia, saying the Ukraine conflict should be resolved through direct talks rather than further escalation.

Speaking to journalists on Friday, Lukashenko revealed details of a phone call with Macron on May 24, saying he proposed a meeting in Minsk involving himself, the French president, and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

According to Lukashenko, Macron did not rule out such a meeting but said he would first need to consult with his European allies. The Belarusian leader said he responded by urging Macron to take the initiative, describing him as one of Europe's most experienced statesmen.

“You’re the veteran among Europe’s leaders. Today, you are the key player and the driving force in Europe,” Lukashenko recalled telling Macron. “You should call Putin, come, sit down, and talk man to man.”

EU officials have for months complained that US-Russian negotiations on the Ukraine conflict have left the Europeans sidelined. However, the 27-member bloc has still failed to agree on who could speak for its interests in possible direct negotiations with Moscow, which Brussels cut off after the escalation of the conflict in 2022.

According to Lukashenko, Macron had also expressed concerns about Belarus potentially being drawn deeper into the Ukraine conflict.

The Belarusian leader dismissed such speculation, stating: “I am not planning to enter any war. Why would I?”

Lukashenko also rejected claims that recent joint nuclear drills conducted by Moscow and Minsk signaled preparations for a wider escalation.

Russia stationed nuclear weapons in Belarus in 2023, following repeated requests from Minsk. It also deployed its nuclear-capable Oreshnik hypersonic missile system there last year. The Belarusian leadership cited aggressive Western policies as the reason for the deployment.

According to Lukashenko, Minsk would consider using nuclear weapons only in the event of an attack on the country.

Romania has provided no evidence that a drone which struck a residential building in the city of Galati came from Russia, Moscow’s ambassador to Bucharest, Vladimir Lipaev, has told RT.

A drone carrying explosives hit the 10th floor of an apartment block in eastern Romania near the Ukrainian border on Friday, injuring two people. Romania’s Defense Ministry has claimed the UAV had come from Russia.

Lipaev said he was summoned to the Romanian Foreign Ministry over the incident, but noted that officials did not provide any evidence to support their accusations.

“Unfortunately, they never provided any evidence, as usual,” the ambassador said, noting that Russia regularly faces “baseless claims” that it has violated Romania’s airspace and has never received any detailed information regarding such incidents.

He added that Bucharest appeared to have already made up its mind before hearing Russia’s position and ignored Moscow’s arguments or requests for basic information about the alleged airspace violation, including the drone’s route, speed, location, and time spent inside Romanian territory.

Following the incident, Romania announced the closure of Russia’s consulate general in Constanta and declared the Russian consul general persona non grata.

“It seems that the decision to stop the Russian General Consulate in Constanta was made before we could even provide our position,” Lipaev said, stressing that there was “no connection” between the drone crash and the consulate’s work. The measure appeared to have been prepared in advance, he suggested.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called for an “objective investigation” into a drone incident in Romania in which two people were injured. Moscow is ready to share its assessment if it is provided with either the debris of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or the data about it, he told journalists on Friday.

A drone crashed into an apartment block in the eastern Romanian city of Galati near the Ukrainian border early on Friday. The Romanian Defense Ministry claimed the UAV had originated from Russia.

Putin noted that drones have previously crashed in various EU nations, including Finland, Poland, and the Baltic States.

“A short time later, it would emerge that these incidents had nothing to do with Russian aircraft at all. Rather, they involved drones of Ukrainian origin that had gone off course due to electronic warfare… or technical shortcomings,” the president said during his visit to Kazakhstan.

Putin called on the Romanian authorities to share “objective evidence” with Russia, adding that Moscow did the same when the Ukrainian military targeted a Russian presidential residence in a drone strike. “Let them [Romanians] do the same and provide the evidence to us,” he added.

“Some of them were shot down over Ukrainian territory, and one of them was probably hit above the city of Reni. Its trajectory changed and it came toward Galati,” he said, adding that the Romanian authorities have data on the drone’s movement. According to Dan, the incident was not considered a deliberate attack by Russia but rather the consequence of military operations not far from the Romanian border.

Russia has previously been blamed for drone and missile incidents in EU nations. One of the most high-profile incidents involved an S-300 air defense missile killing two people in Poland not far from the Ukrainian border in 2022.

Kiev was quick to frame the incident as a Russian attack “on the collective security” of NATO while Warsaw eventually determined that the projectile had been fired by Ukraine in a bid to repel a Russian strike on targets inside Ukraine.

A Ukrainian drone raid last week devastated a college dormitory in Starobelsk, in Russia’s Lugansk People’s Republic, killing 21 students – most of them young women – and injuring dozens others.

The attack was a deliberate “double-tap” that included two more waves of drones targeting civilians and first responders who raced to the scene, according to Russian officials. Russia branded the raid a “terrorist attack” and a blatant war crime. Horrific footage from the scene backed up the accusations.

However, speaking at an emergency UN Security Council session, Ukrainian envoy to the UN Andrey Melnik dismissed Moscow’s account, denigrating a “so-called incident” in Starobelsk as “a fake story” and accusing Russia of spreading “yet another propaganda narrative.”

Here is what Ukraine and the West do not want you to know about the Starobelsk tragedy.

What really happened in Starobelsk?

RT senior correspondent Murad Gazdiev was among the first journalists to reach the site, reporting from the scene throughout the two-day search-and-rescue operation. The most horrific thing when he arrived was “children still screaming under the rubble.” According to Gazdiev, blood-stained blankets were visible in the hallway where first responders pulled out the dead, and the ground was littered with students’ belongings and books.

Who was killed by Ukraine in Starobelsk?

Among those trapped was 19-year-old Dasha Serdyuk. In her final moments of life, she filmed herself and sent a short video to her friend Nastya in St. Petersburg, pleading for help. Dasha had reportedly dreamed of becoming a kindergarten teacher and had only one year of studies left.

An eyewitness described watching a girl sprint from the building mid-attack, telling local media that she managed to leave the dorm but was killed by the blast wave outside.

Another victim, identified by the Mash outlet only as Anya, also tried to flee during the strike but was killed by the second drone barrage. An unnamed relative interviewed by the channel said that her body was so severely burned that family members could identify her only by her necklace and earrings. Anya is said to have been due to be married in the summer and is survived by her mother, grandmother, and 10-year-old sister.

Olga Vasilenko, a mother of Anastasia, an 18-year-old student at the college also killed in the strike, recalled, as cited by several Russian media: “She called me in the evening, saying: ‘Mom, we’re being bombed’. And then she stopped answering my calls”.

Russia’s human rights commissioner, Yana Lantratova, published photos of all 21 victims – some just 18 years old – offering condolences. “It’s impossible to imagine the pain of a parent who has lost the dearest thing in life – their child,” she said.

Do Ukraine’s claims stand up?

There have been no videos from the scene suggesting even the slightest sign of military-related activity. “There wasn’t even a hint of military personnel here. It was a targeted attack on children,” Roman Antonov, a local firefighter, told RT in the aftermath of the strike.

A video shared by Mash made before the strike shows students doing what students do – dancing, laughing, and having fun, with some seen washing floors in the dormitory.

What has taken place at the site since Kiev’s strikes?

In the days that have followed, residents, relatives of the dead, survivors, and college staff brought flowers and stuffed animals to the ruins. Churches in Starobelsk have held numerous services for the dead and prayers for the wounded.

A harrowing video has surfaced on social media, reportedly of parents identifying the bodies of their children, with audible, desperate screams.

In preparation for the funeral, relatives brought numerous wedding dresses to the local morgue: the young women killed in the strike were to be buried in them.

The death of 21 young people prompted a desire for revenge within the Russian military, with one drone operator filmed inscribing ‘Starobelsk’ on an attack UAV before launching it towards Ukrainian armed forces positions. Russia has maintained it targets only military-related sites.

Meanwhile, within days of the attack, Mirotvorets, a Ukrainian state-linked website that functions as a de facto ‘kill list,’ added ten staff members of the college – including deputy directors and teachers – accusing them of undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and spreading propaganda among minors.

Russia launched a large-scale strike on Ukrainian military-related targets, including in Kiev. The assault employed the Oreshnik intermediate-range hypersonic missile system, alongside Iskander ballistic missiles and Kinzhal and Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles.

How has the West responded?

No Western country has spoken about holding Ukraine accountable, while any comments attempted to cast doubt on the facts – a classic hybrid war tactic Western media organizations themselves spend so much time warning of.

Some of Kiev’s backers have demanded “an independent investigation”, while claiming that the tragedy occurred on what they called “occupied Ukrainian territory.” Meaning that Ukraine brutally bombed students in land Kiev actually still claims.

While being conspicuously silent about the dead students, Western leaders have rushed to condemn Moscow’s response. Russia’s UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia subsequently accused Western countries of “hypocrisy and cynicism.”

She later noted that CNN had aired a segment on Ukrainian drone operations, wondering whether the American network filmed the preparations for a Starobelsk strike.

Is Ukraine lying about the mass murder of students?

The facts from the ground, the harrowing scenes and identification of all 21 young victims, along with multiple testimonies, suggest clearly that the atrocity took place, and that Kiev’s denials are obvious attempts to deflect its responsibility.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s state visit to Kazakhstan carries significance well beyond the immediate agenda of bilateral talks. As his second state visit to the country in just two years – an unusual frequency for the highest level of diplomatic engagement – it reflects the depth of relations between Moscow and Astana and the durability of a strategic partnership that has remained a defining feature of the regional landscape.

The visit comes at a moment when Central Asia is attracting growing attention from external powers and Kazakhstan continues to expand its diplomatic engagement with China, Türkiye, the European Union, and the United States. Within this increasingly competitive environment, the meeting serves as a reminder that Russia retains a central place in Kazakhstan’s foreign policy calculations and that political dialogue between the two capitals remains steady, direct, and highly institutionalized.

The symbolism surrounding the visit has reinforced that message. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev personally welcomed Putin upon arrival, Kazakh Air Force jets escorted the Russian leader’s aircraft, and the two presidents later met again outside the Palace of Independence. Taken together, these gestures conveyed a level of political attention rarely reserved for routine diplomatic exchanges and publicly underscored the special status Russia continues to enjoy in Kazakhstan’s external relations.

If relations between Moscow and Astana are increasingly being anchored in infrastructure, energy, technology, and long-term investment, what does this tell us about the emerging architecture of Eurasia?

Turning political trust into institutions

Kazakhstan occupies a pivotal position in Central Asia, combining vast territory, abundant natural resources, significant transit potential, and a strategic location at the intersection of major Eurasian transport routes. Relations between Russia and Kazakhstan rest on a unique foundation shaped by shared history, deep economic linkages, extensive humanitarian contacts, and the world’s longest continuous land border, stretching 7,599 km. Geography continues to exert a powerful influence on the relationship, embedding cooperation between the two countries within broader questions of national security, economic resilience, energy connectivity, and regional stability. Cross-border trade, transport corridors, industrial supply chains, migration flows, and critical infrastructure create a dense network of interdependence that gives the partnership a long-term structural character.

The visit has produced a substantial political agenda. Following their talks, Putin and Tokayev signed the Joint Statement on the Seven Pillars of Friendship and Good-Neighborliness, alongside a broader package of bilateral agreements. The statement carries particular significance because it codifies the core principles underpinning the long-term Russia-Kazakhstan partnership, including political trust, security cooperation, economic collaboration, humanitarian ties, and a shared historical legacy.

The economics behind the partnership

The economic dimension of Russia-Kazakhstan relations provides one of the clearest indicators of the partnership’s depth and durability. Russian investment in Kazakhstan has approached $30 billion, reflecting a long-term commitment that extends across multiple sectors of the economy. The scale of this engagement is also evident in the corporate sphere, where companies established with Russian participation account for more than 40% of all Kazakh legal entities involving foreign capital.

Investment activity spans well beyond natural resources. Around 70 major projects involving Russian investors are currently being implemented in sectors such as automotive manufacturing, heavy engineering, and chemicals, generating more than 60,000 jobs and contributing to Kazakhstan’s broader industrial development. These projects have fostered production networks, technological cooperation, and supply chains that reinforce economic connectivity between the two countries.

Trade remains another central pillar of the relationship. Bilateral trade reached approximately $27.4 billion in 2025 and continued to expand in early 2026, demonstrating the resilience of commercial ties despite a rapidly changing international economic environment. An equally important trend is the growing use of national currencies in mutual settlements, which has strengthened the autonomy of bilateral trade and aligned with broader efforts to develop alternative financial mechanisms across Eurasia.

Energy continues to occupy a central place in Russia-Kazakhstan relations, reflecting the broader infrastructure links that connect the two economies. More than 80% of Kazakhstan’s oil exports reach international markets through Russian territory via the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, making transport infrastructure a critical component of Kazakhstan’s export strategy and a key element of bilateral economic connectivity.

Cooperation extends into the gas sector, where plans to modernize and expand Kazakhstan’s gas transportation network with Gazprom’s participation underscore the long-term nature of the partnership. These initiatives carry significance for regional development, energy security, and the expansion of domestic gas infrastructure across Kazakhstan.

Taken together, these projects illustrate the extent to which energy cooperation has become embedded within the broader economic relationship. Oil transit, gas infrastructure, and cross-border energy networks have created enduring linkages that continue to shape the strategic calculations of both countries.

Kazakhstan’s nuclear choice

Among the most consequential outcomes associated with Putin’s visit is the advancement of plans for Kazakhstan’s first nuclear power plant, a project that carries significance extending well beyond the energy sector. After considering proposals from several international contenders, including France and South Korea, Astana selected Rosatom for the leading role in the project, placing Russia at the center of one of the country’s most important infrastructure initiatives.

Nuclear energy projects create long-term technological, financial, and institutional linkages between supplier and recipient states. The construction and operation of a nuclear power plant require sustained cooperation in areas ranging from fuel supply and maintenance to personnel training, regulatory oversight, and technological support. Kazakhstan’s decision therefore reflects a high degree of confidence in Russia’s capabilities and reliability as a strategic partner.

The Eurasian dimension

Putin’s participation in the Eurasian Economic Forum and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) summit have highlighted a broader dimension of the visit extending beyond bilateral relations. Kazakhstan occupies a central position within the Eurasian integration project, while its economic weight, geographic location, and transit potential make it one of the Union’s most influential members. The decision to combine a state visit with key EAEU events underscored the importance both Moscow and Astana continue to attach to regional integration as a framework for economic cooperation and connectivity.

The significance of the EAEU has grown alongside the transformation of the international economic environment. Shifting supply chains, expanding sanctions regimes, and rising protectionism have increased the importance of regional mechanisms capable of facilitating trade, investment, industrial cooperation, and transport connectivity. For both Russia and Kazakhstan, the EAEU provides an institutional platform through which these objectives can be pursued while supporting broader efforts to strengthen economic resilience across Eurasia.

Against this backdrop, the Eurasian agenda formed an integral part of Putin’s visit to Astana. The discussions reinforced the view that Russia-Kazakhstan cooperation continues to develop simultaneously through bilateral channels and multilateral institutions, linking the future of their partnership to the wider trajectory of Eurasian integration.

Cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan increasingly extends into high-technology sectors. The planned launch of the Soyuz-5/Sunkar rocket from the Bayterek launch complex reflects continued collaboration in space exploration and advanced industrial projects. The Baikonur Cosmodrome remains an important platform for technological cooperation, providing both countries with opportunities to maintain and expand joint capabilities in strategically significant fields.

The persistence of such projects highlights the breadth of the bilateral relationship, which encompasses not only trade, investment, energy, and transport connectivity, but also areas requiring long-term technological coordination and specialized expertise.

A strategic axis in Eurasia

Taken together, these political, economic, energy, technological, and institutional ties illustrate the exceptional depth of the Russia-Kazakhstan partnership. All the connections mentioned above have produced a dense framework of interdependence linking capital, infrastructure, logistics, manufacturing, and technological development across Eurasia.

Putin’s visit has demonstrated that Moscow’s influence in Central Asia continues to rest on a broad foundation encompassing investment, industrial cooperation, transport corridors, energy infrastructure, technological projects, and multilateral institutions. For Kazakhstan, engagement with Russia remains closely tied to national economic priorities, infrastructure development, regional connectivity, and participation in Eurasian integration processes.

At a time when the geopolitical landscape of Eurasia is undergoing profound transformation, the visit has reaffirmed the enduring significance of the Russia-Kazakhstan relationship. Rooted in geography, reinforced by economic interdependence, and sustained through institutional cooperation, the partnership occupies a central place in the evolving regional order. The broader question is whether this increasingly interconnected relationship will emerge as one of the key pillars shaping Eurasia’s future political and economic architecture.

Ukrainian rhythmic gymnasts were caught on video covering their ears and eyes during the Russian and Belarusian national anthems at the European Championship in Varna, Bulgaria.

The tournament marks the first time athletes from the two countries have been allowed to compete under their national flags in nearly five years, after World Gymnastics and European Gymnastics lifted their restrictions earlier this month.

One of the incidents took place during the medal ceremony for the junior ribbon event in Varna on Thursday, in which Russia’s Yana Zaikina won gold, Ukraine’s Sofia Krainska took silver, and Germany’s Melissa Diete took bronze.

Krainska was seen standing on the podium wearing headphones and covering her eyes and face as the Russian national anthem played. Zaikina’s victory was Russia’s first gold at the tournament.

A similar episode occurred when Ukrainian gymnast Varvara Chubarova covered her ears and eyes as the Belarusian national anthem played following Kira Babkevich’s victory in the junior ball event.

Russian and Belarusian athletes were barred from most international competitions after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. The two countries condemned the bans, calling them politically motivated. Some restrictions were later eased, allowing selected athletes to compete under neutral status.

Recently, major international sports organizations have started to lift their bans entirely.

Despite the lifting of the restrictions, the Russian team nearly missed the Varna championship after the Bulgarian authorities refused to approve its charter flight. The delegation eventually arrived via Istanbul one day before the competition began.

President Vladimir Putin has denounced what he described as selective sanctions against Russian competitors, accusing international sports bodies of political bias and corruption. Athletes should have access to competitions based solely on merit, as “politics has no place in sports,” the president said earlier this year.

The “barbaric” Ukrainian drone strike on a Russian college dormitory in Starobelsk cannot be justified, Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia told the UN Security Council on Thursday, comparing Kiev’s actions to the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany.

A total of 21 students, most of them young women, were killed in the attack on May 22, while 44 others were injured. 

Speaking at a Security Council meeting in New York, Ukrainian representative Andrey Melnik dismissed the “so-called incident” in Starobelsk as “a fake story,” accusing Russia of spreading “yet another propaganda narrative.” US deputy envoy Tammy Bruce condemned what Russia described as retaliatory strikes on Kiev as “obscene and unacceptable.”

Nebenzia accused the West of turning a blind eye to the “cynical act of terrorism” in Starobelsk.

The Russian diplomat said 51 civilians have been killed by Ukrainian forces over the past week, and 199 others were injured, including 20 children. He added that, over the same period, Ukraine launched more than 4,300 drones at civilian targets, including residential neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals.

Nebenzia stressed that the Russian strikes on Kiev on May 24 targeted “military-industrial sites,” including facilities involved in drone production.

“Let us reiterate what we have said many times before: Our armed forces do not target civilians or civilian infrastructure,” he said.

In response to the attack on Starobelsk, Russia announced that it would carry out “systematic” strikes on military sites and command centers in Ukraine.

NATO requires confrontation to justify its existence, which is why it designated Russia as its principal enemy in Europe, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko has said.

The remarks come as an increasing number of Ukrainian drone raids are sent deep inside Russia, while the debris of several drones have recently fallen in NATO member states bordering Russia. Moscow has accused the Baltic states of allowing Ukraine to use their territory for attacks, claims that Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania deny.

Speaking in an exclusive interview to RT on Thursday, Grushko argued that NATO and the EU radically shifted their approach toward Russia around 2010–2012, as the US-led military bloc wound down its costly Afghanistan mission and refocused on its original Cold War-era purpose of collective defense against an adversary in Europe.

“They needed a big enemy. And since there was none, Russia was appointed to this ‘honorable’ role,” Grushko said, adding that “NATO cannot exist in peaceful conditions – it is like a fish out of water.”

European leaders and intelligence officials have increasingly claimed that Russia could attack NATO or EU member states in the coming years, something Moscow has repeatedly dismissed as “nonsense.”

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte claimed in December that “we are Russia’s next target.”

Since 2022, NATO has expanded battlegroups across Eastern Europe, intensified air and maritime patrols in the Baltics, and increased military exercises near Russia’s borders. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have also accelerated border fortification projects, including anti-tank defenses and bunker networks.

Grushko, however, argued the Baltics had historically been one of Europe’s calmest regions before NATO expansion transformed it into “an arena of confrontation.”

Watch the full interview with the Russian deputy foreign minister below.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has blasted EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas' latest attempts to force maximalist demands, regarded by all parties to the Ukraine talks as unworkable, onto the agenda.

Kallas has repeatedly insisted that Russia should scale back its armed forces as a precondition for EU involvement in negotiations, despite the bloc being seen in Moscow as an active participant in the conflict and never having been formally invited to talks.

The bloc’s fear of missing out has reportedly fueled discussions in Brussels over who could eventually represent the union in possible talks with Moscow.

The EU’s conditions for any such move included Russia “mirroring” any troop limits imposed on Ukraine, as well as withdrawing forces from Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, where Russian troops have long served as peacekeepers.

“Look, I’m not discussing idiotic statements,” Lavrov responded on Thursday when asked about Kallas’ remarks.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also mocked the EU diplomat, saying Kallas sounded as though she was “talking to herself.”

It is not the first time the EU foreign policy chief has issued such demands. Back in February, Kallas called for limits on the Russian military and argued that “everyone” should understand that Ukraine peace talks were not going to go anywhere without EU approval.

Those remarks showed that “Eurobureaucrats are hellbent on disrupting the conflict settlement at any cost,” Zakharova said at the time.

Moscow has repeatedly accused the EU of engaging in “megaphone diplomacy” – issuing public ultimatums instead of pursuing substantive negotiations.

In November 2025, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen demanded on X that the EU be given a “central” role in resolving the conflict, at a time when Moscow and Washington were discussing a US-drafted peace plan. She also outlined a list of conditions the Kremlin dismissed as “unconstructive” and unacceptable.

Russian cosmonaut Sergey Kud-Sverchkov, on his first spacewalk of 2026 on the International Space Station (ISS), sent a message to his mother.

Current ISS commander Kud-Sverchkov and his fellow cosmonaut Sergey Mikayev were performing scheduled installation and removal of scientific experiment hardware on the outer hull of the space station on Wednesday.

A stream of the spacewalk, broadcast by Russian space corporation Roscosmos, shows Kud-Sverchkov holding up a laminated piece of paper with the words “Mom, I’m wearing my hat” printed in Russian.

Over the course of more than six hours, the cosmonauts installed new hardware to observe the Sun in the previously unexplored terahertz range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and retrieved a slide from an experiment attempting to grow ultra-pure semiconductors in space.

Kud-Sverchkov and Mikayev were launched to the ISS alongside NASA astronaut Chris Williams aboard the Russian Soyuz MS-28 in last November. Kud-Sverchkov then took over command of the ISS Expedition 74 from NASA astronaut Mike Fincke.

The Russian State Duma, the lower house of parliament, has approved legislation authorizing the central bank and major financial institutions to deploy armed personnel to counter Ukrainian drone attacks against civilians and infrastructure.

Ukrainian drone raids against Russia have intensified over the past year, with hundreds of UAVs targeting residential areas, critical infrastructure, and industrial facilities. Russian officials have called the strikes terrorist attacks.

Last week, Ukrainian kamikaze drones struck Starobelsk Professional College in Russia’s Lugansk People’s Republic in three waves, hitting the main building and student dormitories. Twenty-one people were killed, most of them teenage girls training to become teachers; another 65 were injured in what officials described as a double-tap strike on first responders.

The week prior, Russian air defenses repelled a massive Ukrainian drone attack on Moscow and the surrounding region. More than 12 people were reported injured in the capital; three people were killed and another six wounded in Moscow Region.

Under the new law, armored transport and cash collection crews from the Bank of Russia and Sberbank would be granted authority to neutralize unmanned aerial, naval, and ground vehicles, as well as other automated drone systems.

The measures can be used to repel attacks and prevent threats against protected facilities, employees, and civilians on site. The law would authorize personnel to jam or alter drone control signals, disrupt operator communications, and disable or destroy unmanned vehicles if necessary.

The bill still requires approval from the Federation Council and President Vladimir Putin.

The choice between war and peace is often presented as stark and simple, but in today’s circumstances it’s a false dilemma.

If by war we mean only armed conflict, then the current fighting with Ukraine will probably end in the foreseeable future because an indefinite war of attrition isn’t in Russia’s interests. What is needed is victory, and such a victory is possible, provided the necessary decisions are taken both at home and on the battlefield.

But full peace will not follow and even after the guns fall silent, confrontation with the West will continue in many fields and in many forms. This struggle will be long and it will require something Russia has lacked for too long: long-term goal-setting and a serious strategy for achieving national objectives.

The central task is the construction of Russia as a state-civilization. This idea has been proclaimed but not yet properly defined, and it must involve the creation of a society based on solidarity among citizens and on values broadly shared by them, such as faith, freedom, family, and justice. Such a project inevitably raises the question of deep renewal in the country’s economic and political systems.

This can’t be a project of the elite alone. Of course, the elite themselves require renewal, and not merely in generational terms; they also need new mechanisms of self-renewal and a different relationship with the wider society. Meritocracy is necessary, but it’s not sufficient and while competence and professionalism matter, so do values and a sense of service.

Then it may be possible to say that the Great Patriotic War (World War Two), with all its trials, sacrifices, and losses, wasn’t only a turning point in national history, but also the prologue to Russia and its people acquiring a new quality.

The internal character of the state and society will shape Russia’s place in the world and a renewed Russia will be able to act as a stronger pole, in the literal magnetic sense of the word. But the most important task is to avoid being forced into alignment with either of the major geo-economic and geopolitical blocs: the Euro-Atlantic bloc or China.

The stakes in the confrontation with the West are exceptionally high. Despite all the talk about a possible resumption of dialogue between the European Union and Russia, no one in Western Europe is genuinely ready to negotiate with Moscow. The goal of our adversary, the globalist elites of the West, as President Vladimir Putin has defined them, isn’t compromise but rather the crushing of Russia.

This must be understood clearly because the aim is not simply regime change, but rather the destruction of Russia as a major independent power in world affairs.

For three generations after the Great Patriotic War, Russians were raised in conditions of external security. At first, this security rested on strategic stability and mutual nuclear deterrence with the United States and later, it was sustained by partnership and cooperation in a world where major war came to be seen as an anachronism.

That world is gone. The old security paradigm has become obsolete and we now face a new and uncomfortable reality: war in peacetime, or peace in wartime.

Russia must accept this reality, endure a long and difficult struggle, and emerge from it transformed and victorious. That is the path ahead and there’s no road back. The only alternative is decline.

The refusal by British state broadcaster the BBC to report from the site where a Ukrainian drone attack killed 21 students is an act of “hypocrisy,” Russia’s ambassador to the UK, Andrey Kelin, has said. He accused British media outlets of “diligently pursuing a political agenda” to discredit Moscow.

Last week, Ukrainian kamikaze drones struck the Starobelsk Professional College in Russia’s Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) in three waves, hitting both the main building and student dormitories.

Most of the 21 people killed in the attack were teenage girls training to become teachers. Another 65 were injured in what Russian officials described as a ‘double-tap’ strike on first responders.

Some 50 foreign journalists from 19 countries reported from the scene on Sunday after accepting an invitation from the Russian authorities. The BBC, as well as US network CNN, refused to visit the site of the atrocity.

“The overwhelming majority of the British media are diligently pursuing a political agenda aimed at discrediting our country,” Kelin stated. He added that the actions of the Russian military are often portrayed as targeted attacks on civilians, while “the bloody crimes committed by the Kiev regime against civilians are completely ignored.”

According to Kelin, while the BBC refused to visit Starobelsk, reporters from Reuters were “less cynical” and participated in the trip. However, he described their coverage as “ostentatiously detached, if not biased,” noting that the agency labeled the strike “alleged” and claimed an inability to verify the attack independently.

She noted that after the network declined the invitation to visit Starobelsk, four days later it aired a segment praising the effectiveness of Ukrainian drones, filmed by correspondent Nick Paton Walsh, who is wanted in Russia over his alleged involvement in the Kursk incursion of 2024.

Zakharova pointed to a detail in the CNN report about a drone strike on Stavropol, suggesting Walsh could have been embedded with a Ukrainian unit “at the very moment they were coordinating a planned attack on the college in Starobelsk.”