Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of Russia’s State Duma, announced that Moscow will not provide funding to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, calling the body a “sabbath” that has drifted away from genuine parliamentary work. The assertion was reported by TASS, noting that his stance reflects a broader critique of the OSCE PA’s alignment with Western agendas.
Volodin clarified the position by stating that the organization funds itself in a way that no longer serves the interests of Russia or its parliamentary institutions. He emphasized that the assembly has become more of a platform for political theater rather than a forum for substantive legislative engagement, and he suggested that Russia should reallocate its resources toward national institutions that accurately reflect the will of its people.
In parallel, Volodin instructed the committee responsible for international relations to draft a formal resolution outlining Russia’s intended approach to participation in the OSCE PA going forward. The move signals a potential shift in how Moscow engages with the organization and could influence allied and partner countries’ expectations regarding its involvement in regional security deliberations.
On the morning of June 19, Vladimir Dzhabarov, the First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council’s International Relations Committee, supported the suspension of Russia’s participation in the OSCE PA. His position was echoed by Valentina Matvienko, the speaker of the upper house, who indicated she backed a pause in engagement until the organization reconsiders its direction and practical value for Russia’s interests. The stance underscores a bipartisan willingness within Russia’s top legislative chambers to reassess ties with international bodies that are perceived as overstepping or misaligning with national priorities.
Leonid Slutsky, a senior figure in the LDPR and the chairman of the Duma’s International Relations Committee, has likewise argued that Russia should depart from the OSCE PA if conditions for constructive cooperation do not materialize. Slutsky’s remarks reflect a broader skepticism among some Russian lawmakers about the utility of ongoing parliamentary cooperation within the OSCE PA framework, especially in contexts where Moscow perceives the organization as pursuing political objectives over legitimate parliamentary dialogue.
In related developments, regional actors have signaled divergent responses regarding participation in the OSCE PA. Earlier, Romania announced that Belarus would not join the OSCE PA, a decision that adds to a pattern of cautious or selective engagement with the Assembly among member states. Analysts note that such moves can influence the overall tenor of OSCE PA deliberations and highlight the varying degrees of willingness among regional partners to support or challenge Moscow’s stance on the organization. The evolving dynamics of the OSCE PA’s membership and participation are shaping conversations about how parliamentary diplomacy fits into broader security and strategic considerations in Europe.