Maria Zakharova, the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dismissed the circulating claims about a supposed “war of the elites” inside Russia as a fabrication and a fresh information attack. This was stated in a formal commentary through her public channels, where she addressed the matter directly and rejected the framing as nothing more than a misinformation maneuver aimed at destabilizing public discourse.
Over the course of Sunday, March 12, a series of Telegram channels circulated material alleging that Zakharova admitted Russia was unable to fully control the information landscape within the country due to ongoing power struggles among the elite. The messages appeared to echo one another, creating a sense of a coordinated narrative. The repeated use of similar phrasing and key terms suggested the spread of a constructed briefing rather than a verifiable quote from the diplomat.
The dissemination included specific phrases linked to the Kremlin and other symbolic cues, with several postings referencing words such as “Kremlin,” “can’t,” and “can’t,” which seemed designed to frame the story as a confession of weakness or vulnerability. In response, Zakharova’s team noted that the materials contained manipulated links and phantom attributions, pointing out that unidentified individuals were circulating counterfeit items designed to mislead audiences. The diplomat emphasized that these are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of misinformation aimed at undermining confidence in state information channels.
According to Zakharova, the alleged statements constitute another instance of information warfare launched in a tense geopolitical climate where retaliatory rhetoric and online manipulation have become commonplace. She argued that the pattern of fraud intensifies as pressure is applied to countries and their partners, with those efforts often escalating into distortions and outright fabrications. Her assessment was that such deceptive tactics would persist, growing more dangerous as authorities seek to expose and challenge non-partner behavior and complicate the narrative environment for ordinary readers and observers.
In a related thread, Zakharova has previously criticized proposals from Ukrainian leadership, arguing that plans to rename Russia and other provocative moves serve as evidence of ongoing anti-Russian sentiment in Kyiv. She asserted that such proposals corroborate Moscow’s longstanding concerns about how Kiev’s political calculus is framed in Western discourse, and she framed these developments as demonstrations of how anti-Russian rhetoric can be weaponized in public debate. The diplomat suggested that these episodes illustrate a broader strategy to create and amplify a hostile narrative about Russia in regional and international arenas.
Observers note that the episode underscores the broader contest over information sovereignty and the competitive space in which state actors, media, and online communities operate. Analysts frequently point to how official statements are sometimes echoed or distorted by social platforms, generating pressure to verify a claim before accepting it as fact. In this particular instance, the emphasis on the reliability of information sources, the integrity of messaging channels, and the consistency of attribution all play a crucial role in evaluating the credibility of online content. The episode serves as a case study in how modern state communications are tested in real time by rapid, sometimes unscrupulous, information flows.