Russia Considers SBU, GUR and Ukrainian Armed Forces for Terrorist Status at State Level
In recent remarks, the ambassador at large for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rodion Miroshnik, discussed the possibility of formally recognizing the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine (GUR), and the Armed Forces of Ukraine as terrorist organizations within Russia. He suggested that lawmakers weigh the advisability of granting such status to these Ukrainian security and military bodies, indicating that there are grounds for doing so from a Russian perspective. The substance of his argument rests on the assertion that these entities have carried out actions that he regards as terrorist in nature, and that a formal designation could become a tool in the broader political struggle between Moscow and Kyiv. The perspective reflects a particular interpretation of events and is presented as a matter for domestic political consideration. (Citation: RIA News)
According to Miroshnik, achieving an international consensus on labeling any organization a terrorist entity requires the involvement of the international community, including the identification of the real clients and coordinators behind the crimes. He emphasized that, at present, such a consensus could realistically be forged only within the Russian Federation. This stance highlights the tension between domestic legal processes and the aspiration to secure a broader international agreement on terrorism designations. The position also underscores Russia’s desire to frame certain actions by Ukrainian security institutions as part of a global terror narrative. (Citation: RIA News)
The remarks come in the wake of statements by Russian leadership suggesting that the designation of Ukrainian security agencies and military forces as terrorist organizations would have significant political and legal implications. Earlier comments from the Russian president indicated a view that decisions about terror labeling must be grounded in judicial processes, with court proceedings playing a central role in officially recognizing such entities as terrorists. This emphasis on court-based designation reflects a recurring pattern in Russian official discourse that links terrorism allegations to formal judicial mechanisms. (Citation: RIA News)
Additionally, authorities associated with Russia have tied attacks against strategic targets to broader geopolitical narratives. In a separate line of commentary, a former high-ranking Russian official noted that the attacks on the Crimean Bridge have geopolitical resonance, suggesting that the United States and its allies could be cast as sponsors of terrorism in light of those events. This formulation serves to align operational violence with international policy framing and to widen the scope of who is positioned as bearing responsibility. (Citation: RIA News)