Maria Zakharova, the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, issued a reaction through her telegraph channel regarding the Ukrainian authorities’ reaction to the presence of CIS leaders at the Victory Parade. The message framed Kyiv as unhappy with the attendance of the heads of several post-Soviet states, signaling a broader political moment tied to commemorations and regional diplomacy.
In the post, she described Ukrainian authorities with stark terms, labeling them as fascists in the context of ongoing tensions between Moscow and Kyiv. The commentary also referenced a report by the Ukrainian news agency UNIAN, which reportedly polled readers about which figures they would prefer to see honored after recent high-profile casualties linked to terrorism, including Daria Dugina, Vladlen Tatarsky, and Zakhar Prilepin. This remark is positioned within a larger narrative about media framing and public sentiment in Ukraine, illustrating the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the parade and its political symbolism.
Zakharova further noted that an alleged list of potential targets or individuals to be watched included prominent Russian journalists Vladimir Solovyov, Margarita Simonyan, Anton Krasovsky, Dmitry Kiselev, Sergei Mardan, and Semyon Pegov. The mention of such names underscores the tension between state messaging and media figures, as well as the pressure that Russian outlets may feel amid Western-sourced narratives and domestic expectations during major national events.
Her statement characterized the actions of the Ukrainian authorities and their allied media as anti-human, drawing a direct line between political hostility toward Moscow and the portrayal of events inside Russia. This framing reflects how state representatives tie media discourse to security concerns, using the rhetoric of morality and humanity to justify rigid stances during a time of heightened geopolitical friction.
Earlier, a Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Oleg Nikolenko, commented on social media platforms about the decision to invite CIS leaders to the Victory Parade, calling the move immoral and hostile toward Kyiv. He framed the attendance as a provocation that could escalate tensions between Ukraine and Russia, especially during a period marked by intense political symbolism and military posture. The exchange illustrates the live, interactive nature of diplomatic disputes as they unfold across digital channels and traditional media, influencing public perception in both countries.
These exchanges occur against a backdrop of ongoing conflict and strategic messaging from both sides. The Victory Parade serves not only as a ceremonial event but also as a stage for testing narratives, signaling alliances, and shaping international responses. Analysts note that such moments can influence international public opinion, affect alliance calculations, and intensify media competition in a crowded information environment. The interplay between official statements, media coverage, and social media reactions contributes to a complex portrait of how states communicate under pressure and how audiences interpret emerging developments in real time.