Valentina Matvienko, who chairs Russia’s Federation Council, has called on senators to conduct a thorough audit of international agreements. The aim is to identify treaties that are outdated or no longer advantageous for Russia, and to determine which ones should be reconsidered or even denounced. The remarks were reported by TASS, the Russian news agency, and reflect a push to reassess the country’s strategic commitments in light of current geopolitical and economic realities.
Matvienko emphasized that any agreement which grants unilateral privileges or advantages to what she described as enemy countries—distinguishing enemy from merely hostile—needs careful scrutiny. The core point she underscored is that Russia should not be bound by terms that disproportionately favor other nations at Moscow’s expense. In practical terms, this means a comprehensive review of treaty language, disclosure of operational implications, and a clear assessment of how each agreement aligns with Russia’s national interests, security considerations, and long-term strategic goals. The process envisaged would involve a step-by-step evaluation, resulting in recommendations for modernization, renegotiation, or, where warranted, denunciation in accordance with international law.
In recent developments, the Russian government has taken concrete steps to realign its international commitments. Moscow publicly condemned the agreement governing the procedure for providing pensions and state insurance for employees of internal affairs institutions from CIS member states. The decision signals a tightening of how pension-related obligations are managed across borders and highlights the broader effort to recalibrate financial and social commitments to foreign personnel working within Russia’s security and public order agencies. This action comes amid a broader mood of vigilance about treaty benefits and the balance of obligations among partner nations, especially those with potentially divergent interests or strategic dependencies on Russia’s economic or political influence.
Earlier, Rosa Chemeris, a deputy in the State Duma and a member of the International Affairs Committee, expressed openness to the possibility of terminating the 1990 USSR-USA agreement on the Bering Strait. The discussion underscores a wider reevaluation of historical accords that emerged during the late Cold War era and early post-Soviet transitions. Deputies and council members alike have signaled that while some treaties continue to facilitate practical cooperation, others may no longer serve Russia’s evolving security architecture or economic priorities. In such cases, the decision to withdraw, renegotiate, or reframe terms would be guided by a careful assessment of potential consequences for regional stability, energy and transportation logistics, and the future posture of maritime and airspace governance in northern corridors.
There has also been public discourse within the Federation Council about the potential termination of the 1990 agreement with Germany. This conversation reflects a broader pattern of reviewing post-Cold War settlements to ensure that they remain aligned with current geopolitical realities, NATO dynamics, and Europe’s evolving security environment. While the specifics of any contemplated action would depend on a detailed legal and diplomatic analysis, the overarching message is clear: Russia seeks to ensure that its international commitments are fair, reciprocal, and supportive of its strategic autonomy. In this context, the ongoing audit process would serve as the mechanism by which Moscow translates strategic intent into concrete policy choices, balancing the benefits of cooperation against the risks of asymmetrical obligations and unintended concessions.