INSIDE RUSSIA
Russian President Vladimir Putin has conversed with US President Donald Trump by phone today.
The conversation lasted for about an hour, Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov told journalists.
“50 minutes, to be precise,” he clarified.
Ushakov also revealed that:
The conversation was useful, with the two leaders discussing the escalating situation in the Middle East.
Putin informed Trump about his recent phone contacts with the president of Iran and the prime minister of Israel.
Putin reminded Trump of Russia’s proposal to seek mutually acceptable agreements on the Iranian nuclear issue.
Trump assessed the situation in the Middle East as highly alarming.
The presidents did not rule out a return to the negotiating track on the Iranian nuclear program.
Putin also informed Trump about the implementation of the Istanbul agreements reached in Turkiye on June 2
Russia is ready to continue negotiations with the Ukrainian side, Putin said.
Putin informed Trump that Russia is ready to resume negotiations with Ukraine, as agreed, after June 22.
Putin congratulated Trump on his birthday and Flag Day, Ushakov added.
During the conversation, the leaders noted the wartime brotherhood of the two countries during World War II and expressed satisfaction with their current relationship, which allows for addressing pressing issues.
OUTSIDE RUSSIA
Russia ready to mediate between Israel, Iran — Kremlin aide
“The importance of preventing the conflict from growing and the Russian side’s readiness to carry out potential future efforts were emphasized,” YuryUshakov said
MOSCOW, June 14. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Russia is ready to serve as a mediator between Israel and Iran, Kremlin Aide YuryUshakov said following the Russian leader’s phone conversation with his US counterpart Donald Trump.
“The importance of preventing the conflict from growing and the Russian side’s readiness to carry out potential future efforts were emphasized,” Ushakov said.
Overnight into June 13, Israel kicked off Operation Rising Lion aimed against Iran’s nuclear program. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said that 200 fighter jets attacked more than 100 targets in Iran, including nuclear facilities.
On the evening of June 13, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced that Iran retaliated by attacking dozens of targets in Israel with missiles, including military facilities and air bases, striking, in particular, the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv. Israel said some targets were hit but most of the missiles were intercepted.
Lavrov expresses condolences to Iranian counterpart over victims of Israeli strikes
The Russian Foreign Minister and Abbas Araghchi have agreed to continue interaction on the situation with Israel
MOSCOW, June 14. /TASS/. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in a phone conversation with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi emphasized that Moscow is ready to continue facilitating efforts on settling the situation around the Iranian nuclear program and assisting in de-escalating the conflict between Iran and Israel, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
“The readiness was confirmed to continue facilitating efforts on settling the situation around Iran’s nuclear program as well as on de-escalating the conflict between Iran and Israel,” the ministry noted.
“To continue the June 13 phone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President MasoudPezeshkian, the Russian side has repeatedly stressed that Moscow condemns Israel’s operation against Iran, carried out in violation of the UN Charter and the norms of international law,” the diplomatic agency pointed out.
“Lavrov has expressed his condolences over numerous fatalities, including among civilians, as a result of strikes on the Islamic Republic of Iran’s territory,” the ministry said.
“It was agreed to continue communicating on this issue, including in relation to its discussion at the UN Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors, as well as within the SCO and BRICS framework,” the Russian Foreign Ministry noted.
‘Perverted logic’ to call Israeli attack on Iran self-defense
West Jerusalem has carried out “a very dangerous provocation,” Dmitry Polyansky has told RT
Framing Israel’s attack on Iran as self-defense is a form of “perverted logic,” Russia’s deputy envoy to the UN, Dmitry Polyansky, has told RT, accusing West Jerusalem of flagrantly breaching the global body’s charter.
On Friday, Israel struck Iranian uranium enrichment sites, while also killing several senior military commanders and scientists in targeted assassination operations, describing its acts as preemptive steps aimed at stopping Tehran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Iran, which denies pursuing a military nuclear program, responded by launching multiple volleys of ballistic missiles at targets in Israel, including in the country’s largest city, Tel Aviv.
In his interview on Saturday, Polyansky accused Western politicians claiming that Israel’s attack on Iran was “self-defense” of having “very perverted logic.”
“Of course, every country has the right to defend itself. But in this case, Israel launched an aggression – an attack against Iran – totally violating and breaching the UN Charter and international law… I cannot imagine how it can be framed as legitimate self-defense,” he said.
The authorities in Moscow “totally support the Iranian position… that this is absolutely inadmissible and that nobody should be permitted to act as Israel does,” the diplomat stressed.
The attack on Iran is “a very dangerous provocation against international law, against everything that really keeps our world together, and it can trigger very-very serious consequences regionally and internationally,” he warned.
According to Polyansky, the goal of the Israeli strike was to “undermine” the US-Iran nuclear talks, the next round of which is scheduled to take place on Sunday.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson EsmaeilBaghaei said on Friday that diplomacy was made “meaningless” by the Israeli attack on Iran, which he claimed was “allowed” by Washington. However, in a later comment Baghaei clarified that Tehran had not yet made a decision to call off Sunday’s meeting in Oman.
Moscow wants the talks between the US and Iran to continue, Polyansky said. When it comes to resolving “the controversy around the Iranian nuclear program… we, of course, favor the way of diplomacy and restraint,” he stressed.
SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION IN UKRAINE
Russia and Ukraine hold another POW exchange
The Defense Ministry in Moscow has confirmed the swap was in accord with the agreement reached during talks in Istanbul earlier this month
Russia and Ukraine have conducted a new prisoner swap, both nations have confirmed. The exchange on Saturday is the latest in a series that have been held since the start of the week.
During the latest round of direct talks in Istanbul on June 2, Moscow and Kiev agreed to carry out a series of exchanges, focusing primarily on seriously injured, ill, and younger captives. Russia also unilaterally decided to repatriate the bodies of more than 6,000 fallen Ukrainian troops on humanitarian grounds.
In a statement on Saturday, the Defense Ministry in Moscow said that earlier in the day, “another group of Russian service members was returned from the territories controlled by the Kiev regime.” Russian military officials added that Ukraine similarly received an undisclosed number of its soldiers who had been held in Russian captivity.
The ministry accompanied its message with a short video showing the released Russian troops, saying they were currently receiving psychological and medical assistance in Belarus, before being transferred to Russian military hospitals for treatment and rehabilitation.
In a post on Telegram on Saturday, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky confirmed the “fourth [POW] exchange in a week.”
Earlier in the day, Ukraine’s Coordination Headquarters for the Treatment of Prisoners of War reported that Moscow handed over another 1,200 bodies of fallen Ukrainian troops to Kiev, as quoted by local media.
Similar POW exchanges took place on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, with neither Moscow nor Kiev disclosing the number of captives they handed over and received.
Russia’s top negotiator in Istanbul, Vladimir Medinsky, previously said around 1,200 prisoners each were expected to be handed over by Moscow and Kiev respectively.
On Wednesday and Friday, Russia handed over the remains of 1,200 fallen Ukrainian soldiers on each occasion.
Russian Armed Forces Take Control of ZeleniyKut Settlement in Donetsk People’s Republic
MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Russia’s Tsentr (Center) group of forces has established control over the settlement of ZeleniyKut in the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Saturday.
“As a result of decisive actions of the units of the Tsentr group of troops, the settlement of ZeleniyKut of the Donetsk People’s Republic was liberated,” the ministry said in a statement.
Enemy losses in 24 hours:
▪️1,295 Ukrainian troops eliminated
▪️11 armored combat vehicles destroyed
Precision strikes:
▪️Russian forces hit Ukrainian attack drone production workshops and storage facilities
Air defense dominance:
▪️110 enemy drones shot down (including 63 outside the special operation zone)
INSIGHTS
Whispering giant: Russia’s quiet power leaves the West in the dust
Global responsibility and Moscow’s foreign policy: Between autonomy and a changing world
One of the central paradoxes of Russia’s foreign policy is this: while its primary goal has always been to secure full autonomy in its decision-making, success has often hinged on the international environment in which it pursues that aim. Even today, as Russia enjoys a degree of internal stability unmatched in the past 25 years, global shifts are helping shape the country’s ability to resist what can only be described as the increasingly destructive efforts of the collective West.
Chief among these global changes is the unmistakable decline of Western Europe’s centrality in world affairs. Though the region still remains geographically and symbolically important – given its proximity to Russia and its alignment with the United States – it has lost the capacity to act as an independent player in global politics. Simply put, Western Europe no longer matters as much. It is no longer the center of decision-making or initiative, but a stage on which others perform.
The true centers of gravity today are countries like China and India. Their behavior no longer forms the “background noise” of international affairs – it drives global developments. For Russia, this transformation is both a strategic opportunity and a conceptual challenge.
On the one hand, it liberates Moscow from the old and often fruitless task of seeking allies within the West to safeguard its interests, particularly along its most dangerous frontiers. On the other hand, it compels Russia to reconsider the nature of its role in the world. What does global responsibility look like for a nation whose foreign policy has never been driven by messianic ideals or the desire to impose its values on others?
A civilization apart
Historically, Russia’s strategic posture has not been animated by ideological expansionism. Unlike the Western European colonial empires, Russia never pursued dominance over distant territories to extract resources or spread its worldview. Even during the height of its imperial strength, such as in the 19th-century annexation of Central Asia, the Russian Empire did not develop a colonial policy comparable to that of Britain or France. The reason lies not in a lack of capacity, but in a fundamentally different orientation: Russia has always been more concerned with preserving its internal sovereignty and strategic autonomy than with exporting its model.
Even the oft-cited concept of “Moscow as the Third Rome” is misunderstood in the West. It was never a call to global proselytizing. Unlike the United States, which often ties its foreign policy to ideological missions, Russia’s approach is deeply pragmatic and rooted in the idea of national self-preservation.
The Soviet period, of course, was an exception. The revolutionary zeal of 1917 gave Moscow a temporary ideological edge, and during the Cold War, the USSR promoted its values as part of a broader geopolitical confrontation. But even then, ideological outreach was quickly subordinated to the central strategic aim: maintaining national stability in opposition to American-led containment.
Divide and endure
Another consistent feature of Russia’s foreign policy has been the tactical use of divisions within the West. Whether confronting Sweden, Napoleonic France, or Nazi Germany, Russia always benefited from securing at least one Western partner. In the Crimean War of the 1850s and again during the Cold War, Russia suffered political setbacks in part because the Western front was unusually united.
After the Cold War ended unfavorably for Moscow, Russian strategy relied on the hope that the EU would eventually drift from Washington’s orbit and reclaim some degree of autonomy. That, clearly, has not happened. Internal crises, the erosion of elite leadership, and the rise of bureaucratic inertia have left Western Europe politically paralyzed. When the Ukraine crisis escalated into a military confrontation, the region’s powers not only failed to act independently – they leaned even harder on the United States.
This failure of EU emancipation has not strengthened Washington, however. On the contrary, Western Europe’s strategic irrelevance only underscores the West’s shrinking role in global affairs. That chapter of world history – where Europe stood at the helm – is now closed.
A global stage, a national strategy
Today, Russia faces a world where resistance to Western pressure no longer requires fractures within the Western alliance. What matters now is the emergence of a truly global system – one in which power is no longer concentrated in Euro-Atlantic hands. In this environment, Russia’s ability to assert its interests has improved not because the West is weaker per se, but because the world is more balanced.
The failure of the previous US administration to “isolate” Russia is significant not only as a diplomatic defeat for Washington, but as evidence of this wider trend. The global South has not turned against Russia. On the contrary, many emerging powers are increasingly assertive in defining their own paths, free of Western tutelage. This structural shift works to Russia’s advantage.
And yet, this new reality also imposes obligations. In a world that is waiting for Russia’s presence, Russia must now ask: what kind of global actor does it wish to be?
This is not a question of abandoning its historical pragmatism or inward-facing strategic culture. Rather, it is about integrating that realism with the unavoidable demands of global responsibility. Unlike the missionary democracies of the West, Russia does not seek to reshape the world in its own image. But as one of the few nations capable of independent action on the global stage, it must now participate in shaping that world, not simply reacting to it.
This is the conceptual challenge of the coming years. How can Russia remain true to its tradition of self-defined interest while also engaging with a multipolar world that increasingly demands initiative, leadership, and presence?
The answer will not be found in grand ideological blueprints or universalist visions. It will lie, as it always has for Russia, in a careful balancing of national sovereignty with the strategic realities of a changing global order.
