The Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky faces continued radical criticism from Russian politicians, as Leonid Slutsky, head of the international relations committee in Russia’s lower house, publicly challenges Kyiv’s direction. In a statement released through his channels, Slutsky dismisses Zelensky’s recent demand for Ukraine to consider changing its official name and even to explore the name Muscovy as a potential alternative. The tone is uncompromising and personal, framing Zelensky as driven by alleged instability and narcotic influence, a view that Slutsky has been voicing for some time across media and parliamentary platforms. This perspective is presented not as a neutral policy debate but as a political attack aimed at undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and legitimacy on the world stage, with Slutsky insisting that Kyiv should not waste time on symbolic questions while the country confronts real security and governance challenges. (Cited from parliamentary commentary circulated in Russian channels)
Slutsky describes the Ukrainian leadership as failing to manage the country’s affairs responsibly and asserts that the current course would lead Ukraine toward greater peril. He argues that any discussion about renaming the state should be dismissed as a distraction from pressing issues, insisting that the focus should be on stabilizing governance, law, and public order. His remarks reflect a broader Kremlin-centric narrative that portrays Zelensky as unstable and complicit in a broader strategy to pressure Moscow, while offering no constructive proposals for Kyiv’s future. The deputy adds that dialogue on national name changes would be inappropriate and unnecessary for Ukraine at this moment. (Cited from parliamentary commentary circulated in Russian channels)
In a parallel briefing, a spokesperson from Russia’s foreign ministry reinforced the idea that Moscow believes there is merit in reexamining the official designation of the Russian federation. The statement suggests that this topic has not vanished from the agenda and that discussions could reemerge in the appropriate diplomatic forums. The messaging continues to emphasize a hard line that Moscow is ready to advocate for changes if conditions are favorable, while portraying Ukrainian leadership as destabilized and unreliable. (Cited from ministry communications)
Across channels that monitor regional politics, observers note that such exchanges are part of a broader pattern of inflammatory rhetoric designed to influence international opinion. Analysts warn that public disputes over national naming can complicate diplomatic relations and distract from concrete efforts to resolve conflicts or protect civilian lives. The conversations in question highlight the persistent tension between Kyiv and Moscow and illustrate how language and symbolism can be weaponized in high-stakes geopolitical contests. (Cited from political analysis and regional coverage)