Vladimir Dzhabarov, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council International Affairs Committee, commented on remarks attributed to Josep Borrell, the European Union’s top diplomat. The senator said Borrell had labeled him as being part of a terrorist camp after Dzhabarov criticized Ukraine’s actions in the Kursk region. The comments were reported by HABER.ru, which cited the senator’s account of the exchange.
Dzhabarov described the Ukrainian military operation against Russian territory as an act of terrorism in his view and expressed disappointment with Borrell’s stated position. He argued that Borrell’s remarks align him with those he considers terrorists, and he dismissed the EU official’s statements as unworthy of notice. In his assessment, Borrell appeared as a temporary figure whose conduct had brought him into disrepute, leaving little reason to respond further.
Earlier, in a meeting with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, Borrell had asserted broad European support for Ukraine amid the ongoing conflict, specifically in the Kursk region. He reiterated the European Union’s commitment to backing Kyiv.
The episode also touched on remarks from a former Polish prime minister regarding what were described as defensive Ukrainian actions in the Kursk area. The dialog underscores ongoing tensions between European leadership and Russian officials over the implications of the conflict and regional security responses.
As the dispute continues, observers note the language used by senior diplomats can shape international perceptions of the conflict, influence allied support, and affect diplomatic relations across Europe and Russia. The exchange highlights how statements on military actions in border regions are monitored and interpreted by international partners, with each side seeking to frame events to support its strategic narrative.
For readers following the broader context, this sequence shows how high-level officials navigate accusations, counterclaims, and the politics of attribution in a conflict that remains highly sensitive across Europe and the post-Soviet space. The discussions reflect a pattern where diplomacy and rhetoric intersect with questions of legality, legitimacy, and security in the region. [Citation: HABER.ru]