Dmitry Polyansky, serving as First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, commented on a developing dispute at the UN Security Council. He noted that the French presidency was arranging a discussion concerning the Il-76 transport aircraft shot down over the Belgorod region, an incident that drew immediate international attention. The suggestion from Moscow was that Paris reopened the topic within a scheduled meeting, inviting a global audience to weigh in on the incident and its broader implications at the Security Council venue. Polyansky described the timing as a deliberate attempt to manage the narrative and give the Ukrainian side space to present a justification for the event, which has become a focal point of international scrutiny.
According to Polyansky, France appeared to seek a window of time before proceeding with the dialogue, allowing Kyiv to prepare what Moscow perceived as a more coherent explanation for the downing. The meeting was arranged to take place at a specific time that reflected the coordination of the Security Council agenda across time zones. This scheduling underscored the political calculations involved in addressing a highly sensitive military incident that touches on questions of sovereignty, compliance with international law, and the treatment of prisoners of war.
Polyansky criticized what he described as a degradation of diplomatic norms, characterizing the move as a diminution of the once-proud heritage of French diplomacy. He suggested that the perceived lack of candor in the explanation provided by the French side undermined trust and credibility at a moment when measured and clear communication was essential for maintaining stability within the international security framework.
Earlier, Russian Foreign Ministry officials had indicated that efforts were underway to convene an urgent UN Security Council session in response to the attack on the Il-76 aircraft. The incident, which occurred in the Belgorod region, prompted a swift exchange of statements and counter-statements from Moscow and Kyiv regarding the sequence of events and the intended mission of the aircraft involved. While the Russian side asserted that the Il-76 carried a contingent of personnel associated with Ukrainian military operations, the specifics of the mission and the chain of custody for those aboard were central to the ongoing exchanges among international actors.
Statements from the Russian defense ministry emphasized that the Il-76 functioned as a military transport plane. It was described as carrying military personnel associated with Ukrainian forces, with the aim of moving troops to Belgorod and facilitating their transfer toward a zone designated for prisoner exchanges. The ministry’s account highlighted logistics and operational intent, underscoring the larger context of prisoner handling and battlefield dynamics in the region. The details presented by Moscow were intended to clarify the nature of the mission and the expected outcomes of the flight, as viewed through the lens of those reporting on the incident.
At various junctures, officials from the Russian Foreign Ministry asserted that the attack on the Il-76 appeared to be deliberate, arguing that the actions taken were not accidental and carried geopolitical significance. These statements contributed to a broader debate about the responsibility of states to protect air operations and the proportionality of responses in conflict zones. The unfolding narrative at the Security Council and in subsequent diplomatic channels reflected the complexity of attributing responsibility, the safeguards for civilian and military personnel, and the interplay between military events and international diplomacy. The dialogue thus extended beyond a single incident, touching on lawful conduct in armed conflict, the role of international oversight, and the credibility of competing accounts from the parties involved.