Russia Eager to Show it Still Has International Economic Partners : State of the World from NPR Ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the majority of western countries have been working to marginalize Russia by imposing sanctions and moving away from dependence on Russian oil. This week NATO announced most member countries would dramatically increase defense spending, a move they said was meant to counter threats posed by Russia.

But Russia is eager to show it still has many partners around the globe and quash talk of a possible economic recession at home. Our correspondent takes us to an international conference in Saint Petersburg where the Russian government is putting it’s best face forward.

State of the World from NPR How Russia Sees Itself in the World How Russia Sees Itself in the World Listen · 6:35 6:35 Ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the majority of western countries have been working to marginalize Russia by imposing sanctions and moving away from dependence on Russian oil. This week NATO announced most member countries would dramatically increase defense spending, a move they said was meant to counter threats posed by Russia.

But Russia is eager to show it still has many partners around the globe and quash talk of a possible economic recession at home. Our correspondent takes us to an international conference in Saint Petersburg where the Russian government is putting it’s best face forward. Sponsor Message Sponsor Message

The outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Iran is replete with opportunities for Russia. Moscow is navigating a delicate path, balancing a complex mix of interests and relationships, in seeking to leverage the crisis to its advantage.

At one level, Russia’s response has been entirely orthodox and predictable.

Moscow was quick to “strongly condemn” the Israeli strikes on Iran last Friday as “unprovoked” and “categorically unacceptable”, a “clear violation” of international law, while calling also for restraint, warning of the risks that the war could lead to wider regional destabilisation.

Russia has also engaged in high-level diplomacy, with President Vladimir Putin speaking not only with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but also with US President Donald Trump, offering Russia’s services as a mediator. Moscow has also sought to internationalise the issue, calling for an urgent meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors to discuss the crisis.

Given Iran’s support for Russia in its war with Ukraine, notably through Tehran’s provision of much-needed drones and missiles, and the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreement signed by the two countries in January this year, it might have been expected that Moscow would come out with a more sharply one-sided response to Israel’s attack on Iran.

Yet Moscow’s response has, in fact, been more nuanced and cautious, looking to balance Russia’s complex interests and web of relationships in the region, and beyond.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (Kremlin.ru)

In particular, Russia has been careful not to allow itself to be boxed in to supporting Iran but instead sought to preserve room for manoeuvre. While Moscow’s relations with Tehran have certainly intensified over the past few years, they’ve remained limited, qualified and transactional, notwithstanding the flowery political rhetoric. The underlying suspicion and rivalry that has historically characterised Russia-Iran relations remain strong. This is apparent in Syria, where Moscow’s wish to prevent Damascus falling completely under Iran’s sway was an underlying factor in its 2015 intervention in support of the Assad regime. Similarly, Russia sees Iran as a strategic rival in the South Caucasus and is wary that Tehran has been looking to take advantage there of Moscow’s preoccupation in Ukraine.

Moreover, Moscow may now be less dependent on Tehran’s military assistance, especially with substantial local production of Iranian-designed Shahed drones underway in Russia. And the impressive-sounding Comprehensive Strategic Partnership doesn’t really seem to add up to much in practical military and security terms; it doesn’t oblige Moscow to provide wartime military support for Tehran, but rather merely stipulates that Russia not provide military support for Iran’s adversary – an unlikely contingency anyway in the case of Israel.

It is important to remember that Russia, no less than Israel and the United States, does not want to see Iran acquire a nuclear weapons capability, for all the support it has historically provided for development of Iran’s civil nuclear energy facilities. This is why Moscow was a key party in diplomatic negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015.

In responding to the Israel–Iran crisis, Russia is trying to stand above the fray and keep all its options open.

Moscow will also relish the renewed conflict in the Middle East dominating global media bandwidth, distracting political and public attention, in the United States and Europe, away from Ukraine.

Moscow’s primary interest is to demonstrate and reinforce its global relevance. Russia sees a role for itself as a power broker in the Middle East, leveraging its diplomatic expertise, experience and influence with all parties.

While Russia–Israel ties have cooled over the past few years, as Moscow openly sided with Arab states in opposing Israel’s war in Gaza and southern Lebanon, both sides have been careful not to burn their bridges and to keep channels open.

More broadly, Russia attaches priority to developing closer relations, especially economic, with other key regional states in the Middle East – all of whom harbour deep suspicions of Iran. This includes Saudi Arabia (Moscow’s key partner in managing the global oil market) and the United Arab Emirates (an increasingly important commercial partner for Russia in a sanctions-complicated world). Meanwhile, Russia’s relations with Türkiye, a regional rival to Iran, are complex but functional – and increasingly important, not least economically (Türkiye is a major importer of Russian energy while Türkiye values the economic injection provided by large numbers of Russian tourists facing travel restrictions elsewhere).

Another factor weighing on Moscow’s calculations is its relationship with the United States.

In contacts with the Trump administration over recent months, Russia has underlined the scope for Moscow and Washington to work together to deal with global issues where interests align. Russia can portray the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran as one such opportunity, with Moscow as a potential partner in efforts to defuse the crisis, whether as intermediary or in the context of a longer-term agreement – a view evidently shared by Trump. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov has alluded to a possible role for Moscow in reprocessing Iran’s highly enriched uranium, in the context of an eventual settlement of the Iran nuclear issue.

Moscow will also relish the renewed conflict in the Middle East dominating global media bandwidth, distracting political and public attention, in the United States and Europe, away from Ukraine.

The spike in oil prices, and wider market uncertainty, following Israel’s attack on Iran will also be a helpful windfall for Moscow, given the crucial importance of energy revenue in funding Russia’s war economy.

For all the obvious risks that the Israel–Iran conflict poses for wider regional security and stability, Russia will nonetheless seize on the crisis as an opportunity to advance its interests, reinforce key relationships, and enhance its regional and global standing.

Published : Jun 23, 2025 19:28 IST – 18 MINS READ

The United States’ bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites on June 22 represents an unprecedented escalation that has forced America to abandon diplomatic pretence and enter direct military confrontation with a non-nuclear state for the first time in history, according to Syed Akif Zaidi, an Indian scholar who has lived in Iran for over 15 years and witnessed the attacks first hand. Speaking to the senior journalist Saba Naqvi as part of Frontline Conversations, Zaidi described the strikes from Qom, near the targeted Fordow facility, calling them a “historic turning point” that marks the culmination of a 45-year ideological conflict between what he calls the “American-led imperial axis” and Iran’s “Islamic Resistance Axis”.

Despite the gravity of the attacks, which targeted the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities, Zaidi reported that daily life in Iranian cities continued normally, with shops open and traffic flowing as usual. He argued that rather than weakening Iranian resolve, the strikes have only strengthened public unity and “patriotic, nationalist, religious fervour” among Iranians, who he says view the conflict through a civilisational lens as a moral struggle that will ultimately reshape the global order and establish “a bright new age for all humanity”. Excerpts:

The US has attacked three nuclear sites in Iran. As an Indian citizen who has lived in Iran for over 15 years, what is happening now in Iran? We are going through historic times. This morning was an important turning point. The United States bombed three nuclear sites in Iran, one not far from where I live in Qom, near the Fordow site. This marks the first instance where declared nuclear powers—the USA and Israel—have attacked a non-nuclear state and NPT [non-proliferation treaty] signatory. We should add that the United States is the only country that has used nuclear weapons against civilian populations in August 1945, after Imperial Japan had already entered surrender negotiations. There has been a conflict in West Asia for 45 years between two ideologies. On one hand, the American-led imperial axis with Israel as its important component. This axis has existed for 200 to 250 years, earlier led by European colonial powers, but since World War II, America leads this colonial imperial axis. Forty-five years ago, a challenge emerged when the Islamic Revolution occurred in 1979, leading to the formation of the Islamic Resistance Axis led by Iran. Today is historic because the Western imperial axis has been forced into direct military confrontation with Iran for the first time. Until now, they pushed forward other elements—Saddam Hussein, ISIS, or recently Israel. But now the head of this axis has dropped all pretence. Regarding life in Iran—this attack began on June 13, today is June 22. Life has carried on normally. This morning’s attack on Fordow and other locations—I don’t know anybody in Qom who heard the explosion. We learned from the news. While I was out this morning, life was normal. Shops open, traffic, everything running as usual. Iran faces two nuclear powers. How will Iran fight back? The Americans and Israelis keep talking about regime change. This conflict has begun to clarify the reality of the balance of power versus what exists in media bubbles. In any long-term conflict, odds are stacked against America and Israel. The USA hasn’t won a single military conflict since 1945—Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Without exception, when military conflicts drag on beyond a couple of days, the US military machine has folded and been defeated. When the Israeli attack began on June 13, on June 14—which was Eid al-Ghadir anyway—immediately following the attack, Tehran saw 3 million ordinary residents come out to celebrate this religious holiday. The Israeli attack was continuing on June 14. A couple of days ago we had Friday prayers—historic in Iran because I’ve attended many but never seen such a massive turnout. Men, women, children, old people. So much crowd and traffic that prayers ended with people still stuck trying to reach the location. For two hours in 40-degree heat, those who made it to Friday prayers and the large number who couldn’t reach in time got together in a protest procession, calling out to America and Israel, challenging them to a much harder fight. There are three emotions visible in the Iranian population. First, joy and happiness at having rained collectively more than a thousand missiles and drones on the Zionist entity. Second, amazing willingness to fight—we are on the right, we were wronged, we did nothing wrong, we were targeted illegitimately. That brings enormous desire to fight back. Third, immense sense of hope and confidence that victory is near because when somebody’s on the right, God will support them. After American strikes, could they not come back with nuclear weapons against cities? What are the concerns? The possibility of nuclear weapons use against civilian population by America is real—it’s the only country that’s done that. Their willingness isn’t in question. What’s holding them back is fear of consequences. Not public opinion protests—since October 7, 2023, they’ve decided they cannot afford to care about public opinion, especially on European and American streets. What concerns them is that Iran and the Resistance Axis have been preparing for every scenario for decades, including nuclear weapons use by the USA. Iran is large. Missile production, storage and launch facilities are dispersed around the country. A large chunk are underground deep inside rocky mountains covering almost all of Iran. Iran has been strategically gaming for every possibility, including this horrifying one. It is this fear of consequence holding them back. But they may still miscalculate and pay a commensurate price. Iran is not in need of military assistance from other forces, at least not at this point, because it has been preparing for this and much larger conflict for a long time.

Also Read | India’s interest is in seeing Israel-Iran conflict de-escalate: Navdeep Suri

To keep a long war going, you need supplies. Is there any support from China, Russia? The Iranian Foreign Minister is going to Moscow. China, Russia, and Iran are on the same page challenging American and Western hegemony. They share common interest in a multipolar world emerging rapidly partly because of these three countries. Diplomatic support exists between them. But I don’t see military support on the horizon. Russia condemned strikes and declared it will not pull technicians from the Bushehr nuclear energy plant, providing moral backing. But when [Russian President Vladimir] Putin was asked three days ago about getting into war with supplies and forces, he said we have no defence cooperation agreement with Iran. He added that some time ago we broached defence cooperation with them, and Iran didn’t show interest. While diplomatic and moral support from China, Russia, and several other countries exists and will continue, I do not foresee any coming to Iran’s military aid in the foreseeable future. What about the region? Iran is supposed to have taken losses. Hezbollah got badly hit after October 7. There has been regime change in Syria. How will this regional chess play out? All countries in the region except Syria, which is not genuinely independent any more, have condemned Israeli and American aggression. These countries don’t wish to see war because they understand this war will end with American hegemony greatly diminished, if not entirely vanquished. These powers are largely dependent on American backing. Present rulers of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Gulf states cannot realistically expect to survive without Western backing. They’re afraid because any war ends with Western hegemony greatly declined. But their Western backer, America, has been forced to choose war because it sees its hegemony diminishing anyway. So it’s a gamble America was forced to take by attacking Iran. Militarily, Iran will fight alone for the foreseeable future and has been preparing for that. In terms of public support within Iran and the larger Muslim world, and even beyond, support and sympathy exists with Iran and will grow as this war carries on. Pakistan has just nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. How do you see Pakistan’s role as a nuclear weapon state? Pakistan, Turkey, or other countries at this point do not have a decisive role at this stage. All these countries openly express support for Iran and condemn attacks. But none wishes to see this war continue. More than diplomatic support or passing messages, I don’t see any playing a fundamental, decisive role. This is fundamentally a fight between Iran and America, with their respective networks of allies.

Do you think Iran will be patient or directly attack American presence in the region? I believe there’s been an announcement that Ayatollah Khamenei will make his third public statement since the Israeli attack began, which will clear things up. My estimation is that attacks on Israel will continue as a separate file associated with unprovoked Israeli aggression on June 13. A new file will open regarding retaliation against American interests. But I don’t see that happening suddenly and dramatically. Iran has never acted emotionally or suddenly. I expect Iran will go through demanding a UN Security Council meeting, insisting they condemn this unprovoked attack. Since America won’t let that reach a conclusion, it will be placed on historical record that diplomatic effort was made. After that, it will begin in an escalatory, step-by-step fashion targeting American interests. American interests are multiple—tens of thousands of American soldiers in countries seconds away when talking about hypersonic missile attacks. It’s literally seconds to get to those bases using missiles travelling at Mach 10 or higher. There’s the international oil economy, financial markets, and so forth. The range of options for Iran are immense, and it can go on picking and escalating for perhaps months to come. Israeli intelligence seemed to have penetrated Iran in the first strike, taking out Revolutionary Guards leaders. Are there forces within Iran happy to see the regime challenged? There is a network of Israeli and American intelligence agents within Iran. That network was able to play a role from June 13 to about June 16. Most attacks inside Iran were launched from within using small drones, car bombs or improvised explosive devices, causing minor damage. This network has been damaged greatly over the last week. Hundreds of individuals, perhaps thousands, have been arrested. Many locations storing explosive material have been discovered. Today is the last day of general amnesty declared for anybody associated with this intelligence operation to turn themselves in. There is no serious political force that wishes to overthrow the present government at this point. Are there any internal challenges you foresee? Iran does oppress minorities, women, and dissent is crushed. When there is external aggression, people rally around the flag. Iran is no exception—if anything, it’s exceptional in the high degree of unity created. People who are not particularly warm towards the Islamic establishment have strong nationalist feelings. They understand it needs to be supported to defend this country and retaliate against unprovoked aggression. The level of unity is enormously high. This is a good example of how Iran is consistently misread by its enemies and others. When Israel began attack on June 13 or the American attack this morning, these were not devastating military attacks. They were shocking because [they were] unprovoked and unexpected, but on June 13, less than 100 people were killed in all of Iran with 90 million population. Perhaps three or four civilian infrastructure were affected. In a large country like Iran, these numbers don’t add up to anything. About eight senior commanders were killed—a loss, but cannot break the back of armed forces. Why was this attack carried out when it cannot objectively be called devastating? Because there was a miscalculation and misreading. The misreading was that this attack would create shock and awe in the Iranian public, leading to disappointment with the ruling establishment. The public would blame them, saying, “You never solved our economic problems, but told us you kept us safe, but you’re not even able to keep us safe any more.” This was the plan. Even this morning’s attack on three nuclear sites—it’s unprovoked, must be condemned, there will be retaliation. But this doesn’t break the back of the nuclear industry or nuclear science community, where there are thousands of researchers, scientists, institutions. By targeting three sites, what are you going to do? These will be rebuilt or better sites built. Dropping bombs cannot eradicate technology or science that exists in a country. The attempt is to send a message to Iranian people that “we can do whatever we want, so don’t try to fight us.” This is misreading because every threatening statement or action by Israel and America has had no consequence other than increase in patriotic, nationalist, religious fervour to fight. Why do people use the word “regime” when describing Iran’s ruling establishment, but won’t use it for the murderous American system or Israeli genocidal machine? Multiple factors cause this misreading, even by decent people. One is a simple lack of information. People don’t know Iran has its own world of books, theory, movies, music, poetry—a whole civilisation people are unaware of. There is misinformation—an enormous propaganda machine exists globally to spread misinformation about Iran. Third, we cannot disregard the role of stereotypes that decent people have absorbed. We’ve been taught that religion and government relationship is bad without exception. We’ve been taught that Mullahs rule Iran—this stereotype of the Islamic evil person controlling simple-minded Muslim masses. In the context of the present attack, there’s this iconic episode—the attack on central state television in Tehran two days ago. There were intelligence reports that this building would be attacked. Small-scale attacks had begun, but staff chose to stay on to continue reporting. There’s this lady, Sahar Imami, the television news presenter. She was live on television, attacks happening, she could hear sounds, then a direct attack on her studio caused her to leave her seat. But a few moments later, she was back on air live. For Iranians and their understanding of what freedom is, what an ideal woman should be, she represents for many what an ideal woman is—somebody modestly dressed but very fearless, with clarity about goals and willing to risk death for higher ideals. This is their understanding of what freedom means.

“Iran has demonstrated over 45 years that, without nuclear weapons, deterrence against nuclear powers can be achieved.”

What happens to Palestinians when this becomes a pitch battle between nuclear states? What about October 7, which began this spiral? What’s happening in Gaza and attacks on Iran are intimately connected—different chapters of a larger story. These may appear to be conflicts between countries, but fundamentally these are conflicts between two fronts. The old colonial front led by America with Israel as critical outpost in West Asia. The newer challenger front beginning 45 years ago—the Islamic resistance front led by Iran. The Palestinian cause has changed from being a nationalist Palestinian cause facing Jewish nationalism, acquiring Islamic character. That’s why it’s now led by Islamist organisations like Hamas and other resistance groups, which are part of the Islamic Resistance Axis led by Iran. These are interconnected conflicts. Whatever is the outcome of any one has consequences for all other battlefronts. Recently we had America submitting to the Yemenis, signing a ceasefire agreement without mentioning Israel. This was a great victory for Yemenis when the American military machine decided to withdraw from Yemen, but it emboldened all other elements of the Islamic Resistance Axis. Same with what happened in Syria—a setback when Israelis with the Turks were able to overthrow the government and put their puppet in place. As this war moves toward a climax, the outcome in Palestine, in Gaza particularly, will be greatly affected by whatever happens. How does faith play out in this fighting? Muharram is beginning soon and Iran is a religious society. The Islamic Resistance Axis is fundamentally faith-based. Iran leading it with components like Hezbollah, Yemenis—they’re bound together by faith in their righteousness and belief that if they serve humanity’s cause, God will assist them at the most difficult times. Unless we understand this, it’s difficult to comprehend, but this is fundamentally a faith-based movement centred in Iran with allies across the region. The belief is that if we are righteous and do the right thing—choosing not to make nuclear weapons despite threats from America and Israel for decades because religiously and morally it’s wrong—we will still win because we have the greatest power backing us, which is God. Muharram, related to the epic battle of Karbala of Imam Hussein choosing death over submission, is the central theme running through Iranian society all year. It’s highlighted in the holy month beginning in five days. As this war stretches forward, Iranian and Muslim morale will rise continuously, both because of war and because of additional role that Muharram mourning ceremonies will create. India has civilisational links with Iran. What about India-Iran relations now? If we look at India and Iran as civilisational states, there’s so much in common. Both went through imperial experience and fought against imperialism—India achieving independence in 1947 from direct imperialism, Iran in 1979 from indirect imperialism. But these civilisational links haven’t prevented distance emerging between ruling establishments, particularly over the last 10 years. The gaps began as India underwent political and economic reorientation with liberalisation in 1991. India chose to weaken its non-aligned position and move closer to America and consequently Israel. Awkwardness has developed at the government level—neither country sees open confrontation in its interest, but the warmth that existed earlier doesn’t exist any more. As India moved closer to America and Israel, Iran feels India has taken Iran and the Resistance Axis for granted, believing we can do whatever we want but Iran will have no choice but to be nice and sell oil to us. This assumption has driven Indian policy and has been noticed in Iranian strategic circles. As this war continues, India will find itself in an increasingly challenging strategic spot as regimes and institutions it cultivated relationships with over two decades rapidly lose influence in the Muslim world and West Asia, while those parts sidelined or ignored by India rapidly rise to greater prominence.

Also Read | Israel, the rogue nation the West keeps above the law

Do you think the Strait of Hormuz will be closed? Will oil prices go through the roof? I’m not in a position to predict timing. Iran has an enormous menu of retaliatory options and has gamed well in advance how it will run down and check off items one after the other. Closing the Strait of Hormuz is definitely on that menu—Iran has declared that repeatedly. But will that be day one, day 10, or day 100? Perhaps tonight, perhaps not for next year. Fundamentally being a civilisational and faith-based political movement, Iran’s horizon and goals aren’t limited to securing national interests. Iran sees itself as the vanguard of a bright new age for all humanity. It may take decades or longer, but it sees that as its civilisational mission. Its present area of focus is West Asia, where by ejection of American and Western hegemony and collapse of the artificial state of Israel, a great milestone will be achieved in this global quest for greater justice, brotherhood, and humanity. Iran is careful about never being labelled as an aggressor. It waits and waits till it is attacked openly and brutally till it retaliates. It chooses not to make a nuclear bomb despite the fact that the whole world will justify it. It will retaliate but not by lashing out at anyone and everyone, because it understands it has to build itself up to play a leadership and civilisational role in the longer term that goes much beyond your lifetime and my lifetime. Is there not regret that Iran does not have nuclear weapons? My reading is Iran will not go the nuclear route, no matter what happens. Iran has demonstrated that the proposition “if you want to stay safe and have deterrence, you need to go nuclear” is wrong. Iran has demonstrated it has deterrence even without going nuclear. The attack this morning or June 13 were not large-scale, devastating military attacks—they have more performative usage, inclined toward encouraging the Iranian public to feel disappointed rather than actually causing devastation. Iran has demonstrated over 45 years that, without nuclear weapons, deterrence against nuclear powers can be achieved. It has also demonstrated that you can be a nuclear power like Israel, supported by three other nuclear powers—the UK, the US, France—but a non-nuclear power like Iran can rain almost 2,000 missiles and drones on you. You do not have deterrence despite going nuclear. Same with Russia—a formidable nuclear power but finds itself harassed at every step. Iran has, through experience and observing others, come to the conclusion that in cost-benefit analysis terms, it doesn’t make sense to go nuclear. More importantly, Iran sees itself in a moral fight, not a military fight. Because it sees its fight as fundamentally moral and civilisational, not about grabbing resources, it understands that if it achieves a military victory with moral superiority by not having nuclear weapons, it will set itself up for much greater civilisational victory in decades to follow. Despite whatever happens, Iran will stay within the NPT and not choose to create a nuclear weapon.

Saba Naqvi is a Delhi-based journalist and author of four books who writes on politics and identity issues.

As the chances of President Donald Trump’s peace deal in Ukraine seemingly recede, attention turns back to the question of Vladimir Putin and his war aims. What does the Russian president want to achieve from the conflict? And when – and under what conditions – will he be willing to make peace? Thousands of lives and billions of dollars hinge on the answers to these questions.

Important insights into Putin’s worldview on this and other matters can be gleaned from a new 90-minute documentary, “Russia. Kremlin. Putin. 25 Years,” released by the state broadcaster Rossiya on May 4, 2025, and available on YouTube.

The documentary looks back on Putin’s quarter century in power.

I see the film as the Kremlin’s attempt to make its case to the Russian public. The film explains how Putin sees his place in history and why he is waging the war on Ukraine. Its release coincides with the commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, which Russia marks on May 9, as opposed to May 8 in the rest of Europe.

As would be expected from a Kremlin-sponsored look at Russia’s leader, it is more hagiography than hard-hitting journalism. But as a scholar who has tracked Russia’s post-Soviet slide into authoritarianism, it is nonetheless revealing. It shows us the image that Putin wants to project to the Russian public, one that has been fairly consistent during his time in office.

Softening the strongman

The film starts with the loyal and somewhat obsequious journalist Pavel Zarubin interviewing Putin at the end of his long working day in the Kremlin, at 1:30 a.m. The chat with Zarubin is interspersed with archival footage of key events and earlier speeches by Putin.

Putin shows Zarubin around his apartment, which includes a chapel, a gym – Putin says he works out for 90 minutes every day – and a kitchen, in which Putin awkwardly prepares snacks for their chat. The rooms are immaculate but lifeless, albeit with a surfeit of gold leaf.

The new documentary is carefully curated with clips showing Putin as a humble man of the people. “I don’t consider myself a politician, I breathe the same air as millions of citizens of Russia,” he says at one point. We do not see anything of his chain of lavish palaces, yachts and other assets.

While Putin’s predominant image in the outside world is that of a ruthless strongman, for domestic audiences the Kremlin has tried to soften this image.

Here, the documentary is treading familiar ground. On the eve of Putin’s election in May 2000, the Kremlin published an autobiography and released a documentary packed with heartwarming anecdotes about Putin’s childhood and daily life. The image being put forward contrasted to the realities of his early presidency, when Russia was waging a brutal war in Chechnya.

Blaming the West

A common thread running through the film is Putin’s commitment to restoring the sovereignty and independence of Russia, which he sees as under threat by the Western powers. Prominently displayed behind Putin in the apartment is a portrait of Czar Alexander III, apparently a role model for Putin. Alexander III is not well known in the West. An avowed nationalist, during his short rule from 1881 to 1894 he pursued economic modernization and avoided starting any foreign wars.

The film is laden with anti-West propaganda. It argues that Western powers were behind the movement for independence in Chechnya, which threatened to break apart the Russian Federation. Putin goes on to blame the West for the current “special military operation” in Ukraine. In the Russian president’s telling, it was the West’s failure to implement the Minsk accords of 2014-2015, which were supposed to bring peace to the restive Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. He suggests that the West used the Minsk accords as “a pause in order to prepare for a war with Russia.”

Zarubin asks Putin, “Why does the West hate us, do they envy us?” It’s a question that launches Putin into a potted summary of 1,000 years of Russian history.

A similar thing happened during Putin’s notorious 2024 interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Putin argues that since the rift between the Roman Catholic Church and Byzantium in 1054, the West has prioritized material wealth, while in Russia spiritual values come first. The film has several prominent references to the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russian identity.

Early in Putin’s presidency he had been open to cooperation with the West, taking tea with Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace and developing close relationships with Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder.

But since the 2012 demonstrations protesting his return to the presidency, Putin has increasingly used the argument that the West has abandoned “traditional values” by promoting issues such as gay rights.

Russian revisionism

This is the first major official biographical documentary of Putin since the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and it may be the closest we will get to an explanation of why Putin launched this war.

There is a long feel-good segment about the “unification” of Crimea with Russia in 2014, which is presented as the most important achievement of Putin’s time in office.

The film shows images of destruction and suffering during the current war in Ukraine, without pointing out that it was Russia that started the war. It shows the devastated city of Mariupol and states incorrectly that the city was “destroyed” by Ukrainians.

The documentary portrays the war in Ukraine as a direct continuation of World War II and a struggle against the “neo-Nazi” regime in Kyiv allegedly created by the West as part of its goal to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia.

The film shows Putin visiting wounded soldiers and meeting the widows and mother of fallen warriors. Putin thanks the women for their sacrifice – and they thank him for the opportunity to serve the motherland. This illustrates one of the central themes of the Kremlin worldview: that Russia is strong because its people are ready to sacrifice themselves.

Another 25 years?

Zarubin asks, “Is it possible to make peace with the Ukrainian part of the Russian people?” It’s phrasing that denies the existence of Ukraine as a sovereign nation.

Putin replies, “It is inevitable despite the tragedy we are experiencing.”

He expresses regret that there are only 150 million Russians – as a great power, Russia needs more people. He also suggests he may need more territory, something that will be alarming for Russia’s neighbors. In one clip, Putin asks a boy, “Where do the borders of Russia end?” The boy answers, “The Bering Strait with USA.” And Putin responds, “The borders of Russia never end.”

This framing also suggests that Putin is not interested in a peace deal with Ukraine in which Russia would see only limited territorial gains, which puts the breakdown of talks over a potential U.S.-sponsored deal in context.

Asked about the recent falling out between Trump and Europe sparked in part by Washington’s more pro-Russian stance, Putin answers, “Nothing has changed since Biden’s time,” adding that the “collective West” is still bent on destroying Russia.

Toward the end of the documentary, Zarubin asks whether Putin is thinking about choosing a successor. The Russian president says he constantly thinks about succession and would prefer a choice between several candidates. But the program does not provide any clues as to who that successor could be – and none of the potential successors are given any exposure.

The Russian people have been told for years that it is impossible to imagine Russia without Putin. This film lies firmly in that tradition.

The main intended message is clear: Putin is willing and able to fight on until he achieves victory on his own terms.

‘Why would we play Putin’s game?’: Ukrainians see Russian lull as sideshow

7 May 2025 Share Save Joel Gunter BBC News Reporting from Kyiv Share Save

Getty Images Russia is celebrating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War Two

Russia is expected to begin a self-declared three-day pause in fighting against Ukraine on Wednesday night, in a move derided by many Ukrainians and described by President Volodymyr Zelensky as little more than a “theatrical show”. Russia’s Vladimir Putin proposed the three-day ceasefire to coincide with the anniversary of the end of World War Two in Europe – a public holiday in Russia on Friday known as Victory Day. But in doing so Putin has rejected a much more substantial proposal from the Trump administration for a 30-day ceasefire and negotiations – a proposal that was accepted by Ukraine. Zelensky has in turn rejected Russia’s unilateral three-day ceasefire and said that Ukraine will not guarantee the safety of a celebratory military parade in Moscow’s Red Square on 9 May.

The Russian proposal has been met with widespread cynicism in Ukraine, where polls consistently suggest that about 95% of the population distrusts Russia. “I don’t believe there will be any ceasefire,” said Tetyana Kondratenko, 42, a shopkeeper in Khotin Village in Sumy, a heavily bombarded region about six miles (10km) from the Russian border. “Lately the shelling has only intensified, for half the day today we have heard boom after boom,” Ms Kondratenko said in a phone interview.

Getty Images Ukraine’s Sumy border region has been heavily bombarded by Russian forces

Zelensky was right to reject the proposal “because you know how they operate, like what happened at Easter”, she added, referring to the Russians. “They announced a ceasefire, then used it to bring in more equipment and started attacking again. What kind of ceasefire is that?” Last month, around Easter, Russia proposed a similar 30-hour cessation in hostilities but was later accused by Ukraine of violating its own suggested truce nearly 3,000 times. On that occasion, rather than rejecting the proposal outright, Ukraine said it would mirror Russia’s actions. A senior Ukrainian military officer told the BBC at the time that frontline units received an order to stop firing at Russian positions, but to record evidence of Russian violations and return fire if needed. By Wednesday Ukrainian officials had not said categorically whether they would adjust their military action over the three-day period. Asked if Ukrainian forces planned to continue military operations, a source in the presidential office told the BBC: “We’ll see.” From Novosofiivka village, in the very badly hit region of Zaporizhzhia, Antonina Sienina, 35, said that any ceasefire worth agreeing to should come with “solid guarantees” for Ukraine’s safety and sovereignty – not something included in Putin’s plan for the next three days.

But Ms Sienina had mixed feelings. Her parents were killed in a Russian strike, her brother has been wounded, and her village has been pounded, so “maybe it wasn’t right to refuse” the three-day proposal, she added. “Because honestly, we would be happy even for just one day without explosions. Just to take the kids somewhere, to a shopping mall, to a playground, to some attractions,” she said. “We dream of the war being over, or at least a temporary ceasefire, because my children are exhausted. The nerves, the medications, the sleepless nights. It’s too much.”

Reuters Ukraine’s south-eastern region of Zaporizhzhia has come under repeated bombardment

Residents of the Ukrainian capital Kyiv were kept awake in the early hours of Wednesday morning by Russian drone and missile strikes on the city. A ballistic missile was successfully shot down by air defence systems but a drone hit a block of flats, killing a mother and her son and injuring at least six more, including a child. The mayor of Moscow said on Wednesday that Russian air defences had downed 14 Ukrainian drones overnight. The Kremlin said that the drone attacks had no bearing on its plans to pause fighting for three days. The pause is not being taken seriously in Ukraine, for the most part. It has been greeted instead as more of a propaganda exercise. Pavlo Klimkin, the former foreign minister of Ukraine, told the BBC it was simply another Russian show of force. “This is all about Russia framing the agenda on its own terms,” Klimkin said. “It has nothing to do with a real ceasefire. It is all about messaging – messaging internally, messaging to the US, messaging to Europe to say that we, Russia, are in control.” Talks directed at a substantial ceasefire process began back in February, with US President Donald Trump sending officials to negotiate separately with the leaders of Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine has since agreed to a US proposal for a 30-day unconditional ceasefire, Russia has not.

Getty Images Trump envoy Steve Witkoff met Putin several times but was unable to secure a 30-day ceasefire

The months since have been a deadly period in the war. Russia has intensively targeted Ukrainian cities with drones and missiles, killing 19 people including nine children last month in a strike on a playground in Kryvyi Rih and 35 people a week later in an Easter strike on the city of Sumy. According to the UN, at least 848 civilians were killed between 1 and 24 April – a 46% increase on the same period last year. The level of civilian deaths meant that any ceasefire should be accepted, even on Russian terms, said Oleksii Kamchatnyi, 38, a scientist living in Kyiv. “It is about saving lives,” Mr Kamchatnyi said. “I’m originally from Donbas, from Pokrovsk. I managed to evacuate my mother but my father stayed there. I haven’t had any contact with him since 9 March.” Still, Mr Kamchatnyi supported the temporary ceasefire, he said, “even if it means giving up territory.”