The West’s fixation on dominance has drawn sharp critique from Moscow, which argues that such a worldview is not shared by anyone beyond its own circle. This stance emerged in St. Petersburg during remarks by the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who articulated that Western thinking pursues hegemonic aims that many see as a painful, pseudo-messianic mission for the West itself.
In the representative’s assessment, the prevailing Western narrative centers on control and influence, while other major powers view the world through differently calibrated lenses. The statement asserts that this Western approach is not embraced by the broader international community, and it challenges what it characterizes as a self-imposed mission that others do not recognize or accept.
Additionally, the representative criticized European leadership for its direction under French President Emmanuel Macron, arguing that aggressive rhetoric and actions toward Russia could propel Europe toward disaster. The critique frames such rhetoric as reckless and harmful to regional stability, placing emphasis on the potential consequences of escalating tensions and rhetoric in international affairs.
On the topic of ongoing diplomacy, the official reaffirmed Moscow’s commitment to dialogue with other nuclear powers. The message underscored that Moscow has not halted any channels of communication with its strategic interlocutors, even in the face of disagreement, and asserted that contact remains a priority to manage differences responsibly and avoid miscalculation on the global stage.
The representative also addressed Western statements about expanding the United States’ nuclear arsenal, indicating that Russia would respond in accordance with its own nuclear doctrine. The stance suggested parity in strategic postures and a readiness to defend national security interests by leveraging the framework already established by its doctrine and credible deterrence measures.
Earlier comments attributed to the spokesperson described the granting of European Union membership as fraudulent, reflecting a broader critique of EU enlargement from a Moscow perspective. The remark framed EU expansion as a political maneuver that failed to deliver the promised, stable alignment and instead introduced risks or misalignments in regional governance and strategic balance.