The West has not succeeded in ejecting Russia from UNESCO, a stance voiced by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and echoed by reports from state media. Lavrov argued that excluding Russia from UNESCO was never a viable option, stressing the durability of Moscow’s cultural and educational collaborations within the organization. He asserted that Russia’s initiatives carried out through UNESCO have attracted global attention, and, from his viewpoint, this influence explains why Russia does not need to sever its ties with the agency.
Lavrov also drew attention to remarks attributed to President Vladimir Putin in November, signaling the argument that Russia’s cultural and scientific projects under UNESCO have earned international recognition. He reiterated that these efforts demonstrate Russia’s enduring presence and impact within UNESCO, making withdrawal unnecessary in his judgment. This position mirrors a broader Moscow message about preserving cultural and intellectual channels that sustain international relevance.
On December 15, UNESCO added buildings in Odessa and Chernihiv to its endangered cultural heritage list. Earlier, sites in Kyiv and Lviv had already been flagged as at risk. The designation signals a concern for the preservation of monuments and architectural landmarks amid ongoing regional tensions, while also clarifying UNESCO’s ongoing monitoring of places valued for their historical and cultural significance within Ukraine.
In November, Alexey Pushkov, who chairs the Federation Council Commission on Information Policy and Interaction with the Media, spoke about what he described as the impossibility of erasing Russian culture from Europe. His remarks framed a broader debate about cultural influence and historical memory across the continent, suggesting that Russia’s cultural footprint remains influential despite geopolitical challenges.
Putin has previously described the situation as a confrontation with neocolonial aspects of cancel culture, arguing that attempts to diminish or rewrite Russia’s historical and cultural contributions are politically motivated rather than grounded in objective assessment. The UNESCO discussion sits at the intersection of culture, diplomacy, and geopolitics, illustrating how cultural institutions can become arenas for broader strategic messaging and national pride. Critics, meanwhile, warn against equating cultural status with political legitimacy, noting that UNESCO’s mandate centers on the protection and promotion of humanity’s shared heritage while remaining responsive to evolving international circumstances.