Bez tytułu

Kutrashev’s Middle East Messaging Unravels Under Pressing Questions

During a live interview on Iraq’s Al Sharqiyah TV, Russian Ambassador to Iraq Elbrus Kutrashev struggled to address challenging questions, often avoiding clear answers or resorting to statements that appeared dismissive of the audience's intelligence. Accustomed to more favorable media treatment, Kutrashev attempted to undermine journalist Husham Ali by labeling him a “friend of Russia,” implying that this would put him under American surveillance. The journalist rejected this insinuation, emphasizing his commitment to maintaining a balanced and neutral approach with all interviewees. Denying Involvement in Assad’s Inner Circle The interview began with questions about Syria and the country's ousted leader, Bashar al-Assad. When asked about an alleged attempt to poison Assad in Moscow, Kutrashev responded that he "knew nothing about it" and claimed that if it had happened, he would "almost certainly" be aware of it. When questioned about whether Russia’s embassy in Iraq had assisted Assad’s brother, Maher, in leaving the country, Kutrashev replied mockingly, asking, “Does he have no other friends in Iraq?” He then added that such assistance would have been impossible because it would contradict diplomatic protocols. Kutrashev also stated that the Russian embassy is guarded by Iraqi security forces and is under constant surveillance by both American drones and British intelligence services. At the same time, Kutrashev claimed that Russia does not conduct surveillance on anyone in Iraq because it lacks the technological capability—such as drones—and because, according to him, Russia "does not settle scores with other countries" in Iraq, unlike the United States, which, he alleged, "gathers information on various politicians." However, he refused to specify what kind of information is allegedly being collected or about whom, raising questions about how he could have such knowledge if, as he claims, Russian intelligence operates no activities in Iraq. This exchange highlighted the contradictions in Kutrashev's statements, as the journalist continued to press him, forcing the ambassador to either evade the questions or trivialize the topic. Ultimately, when asked again about Maher al-Assad, Kutrashev stated that the embassy had no contact with him and that he did not know whether Maher was currently in Moscow. A Selective Moral Compass: Assad Versus Tsurkov When asked about the possibility of reaching an agreement with Syria's new authorities on the extradition of Bashar al-Assad, Kutrashev stated that Russia "does not participate in immoral deals." This statement stood in stark contrast to his later response regarding Russia’s inaction in the case of Elisabeth Tsurkov, an Israeli journalist with Russian citizenship who was kidnapped in March 2023 in Iraq by armed groups known as the muqawama—Shiite militias linked to Iran, supported by Russia, and with whom Kutrashev reportedly maintains close relations. Kutrashev explained that Russia had taken no action because it had not received any official, written notification about her abduction. This suggests that, according to Kutrashev, handing over a dictator responsible for the mass killing of his own people would be "immoral," while taking action to protect a kidnapped Russian citizen is "impossible" without paperwork. Against this backdrop, Kutrashev’s earlier claim that Russia prioritizes its international reputation comes across as highly cynical and disingenuous. Russia’s Embrace of “Resistance” and Its Colonial Legacy As for the muqawama itself (a term meaning "resistance" in Arabic), Kutrashev claimed that Russia does not support the muqawama as an organization, but rather the idea of "resistance" in general, which, as he put it, "is in our soul and blood." He further asserted that "since the days of the USSR, we have supported resistance against occupation, colonialism, and imperialism. We played a key role in the collapse of colonialism. And now we continue the same efforts against neo-colonialism." However, such statements stand in stark contrast to historical reality. Russia remains one of the last colonial empires and openly embraces this identity, as widely reflected in Russian state media and political discourse. Throughout the 19th century, and later under the Soviet Union in the 20th century, Russia expanded its borders by conquering numerous nations and states, colonizing them with ethnic Russians. The USSR also occupied nearly all of Central Europe for over 45 years. Kutrashev’s claim that "Russia was not a colonial power in the Middle East or anywhere" and that "whenever we enter a country, we establish equal relations" presents a distorted narrative that is characteristic of the propaganda tactics he employs. Justifying Attacks on U.S. Bases as “Resistance” Kutrashev’s evasive responses to questions about supporting the muqawama reflect Russia’s desire to maintain ties with these groups without openly endorsing their attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq—bases that operate with the official authorization of the Iraqi government. At the same time, Kutrashev dismissed any comparison between the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Russia’s presence in Syria, framing the former as an occupation. This was a deliberate manipulation, as U.S. forces, which entered Iraq in 2003, were withdrawn in 2011, formally ending the occupation. The current U.S. military presence is based on Iraq’s 2014 request for international assistance in the fight against ISIS. Nevertheless, this narrative allowed Kutrashev to justify muqawama attacks on U.S. facilities as legitimate acts of resistance under the UN Charter. He further claimed that Russia’s response to U.S. airstrikes against muqawama groups is that "150 million Russians are praying" for their fighters. Kutrashev also implied that Russia would express similar solidarity if Iran were to come under attack. In the context of developments in Syria, Kutrashev was also asked why Russia appears to be abandoning its long-time partners, such as Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Russian ambassador strongly rejected this accusation, claiming that Assad's downfall was the result of Syria’s internal dynamics. He added that "Russia was the last to carry out airstrikes against opposition forces in Idlib." However, when asked about the transfer of Russian heavy military equipment from Syria to Libya, Kutrashev stated that this equipment was needed in Libya because of ongoing fighting there and the need to target terrorists. This response directly contradicted his earlier claim that Russia had already ceased military operations in Syria. Kutrashev further argued that Russia no longer has any military targets in Syria because, according to him, there is no ongoing war and the groups previously targeted by Russian forces have now formed the Syrian government. He dismissed the suggestion that this represented a failure for Russia, stating that Syria has experienced many regime changes in the past and that Russia has always managed to build relations with successive governments. He added that "our relations are not only with regimes but, first and foremost, with people, so the fall of a regime does not change our attitude towards a country." Notably, Kutrashev did not explain whether by "people" he meant those whom Russia had previously bombed for years, labeling them as terrorists—only to later recognize them as legitimate partners once they took power. Claiming Victory Over ISIS While Avoiding Real Engagement In this context, Kutrashev was also asked about Russia’s role in combating the ongoing presence of ISIS in Syria. He responded that, at present, no one had officially requested Russia’s assistance. Nevertheless, he insisted that Russia was fighting ISIS "with all its might" and claimed that it was thanks to Russia that ISIS had been defeated in Syria. In reality, however, ISIS was largely defeated by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a coalition dominated by Kurdish fighters and supported by the United States—not by Russia. Kutrashev further asserted that, in Iraq, the fight against ISIS would have lasted much longer if not for Russia’s involvement. He also argued that the perception of U.S. and coalition airstrikes as decisive in defeating ISIS was the result of people "listening to U.S. media instead of Russian media." Kutrashev added that Russia is not part of the international anti-ISIS coalition because, according to him, "it was not invited." Taken together, these statements seemed aimed at portraying Russia as a marginalized actor unfairly excluded by the international community—framing it as a victim of global politics. The Russian ambassador also avoided answering the question about Russia’s official position on Syria’s new leader, Ahmed Ash-Shara. This evasion appeared to reflect Russia’s attempt to balance two conflicting interests: on the one hand, maintaining constructive relations with the new Syrian leadership, and on the other hand, preserving its close ties with the muqawama, which considers Ash-Shara a terrorist. This diplomatic balancing act serves as yet another example of Russia’s contradictory and opportunistic foreign policy, bordering on hypocrisy. Kutrashev also avoided answering questions about Saddam Hussein, since Russia had supported him until the very end, and his execution was carried out by the same Shiite factions that Russia now seeks to engage as partners to expand its influence in Iraq. At the same time, Russia does not want to alienate the large Arab audience—both in Iraq and beyond—that still views Saddam as a hero and martyr. In the end, Kutrashev responded that there were both positive and negative aspects to this issue, but that it happened a long time ago and was better left in the past. He added that national reconciliation was more important than seeking punishment. "I am a friend of Iraq," he stated, "and I don’t want my words to offend my Iraqi friends. I avoid commenting on certain issues because they are sensitive for Iraqis." In doing so, Kutrashev effectively acknowledged that Russia delivers contradictory messages, carefully crafted to appeal to different audiences. When challenged to provide a clear position, however, Russia opts to evade the issue. This kind of diplomatic maneuvering borders on hypocrisy, making it all the more important to critically scrutinize and expose such tactics. Downplaying Strategic Ties with Iran and China Kutrashev also denied the existence of an alliance between Russia, Iran, and China. He emphasized that BRICS is not a military or political alliance, but rather a group of countries with shared economic interests—which is factually correct. He further claimed that Russia does not maintain a "sphere of influence" in the Middle East, describing it as an imperialist concept supposedly foreign to Russian policy. Kutrashev described the "strategic partnership" signed with Iran in January 2025 as a strong signal to the international community. However, as journalist Husham Ali pointed out, the agreement merely states that Russia will not assist countries that attack Iran, rather than providing any direct commitment to defend Iran if it comes under military attack. When asked why Russia had not signed a similar agreement with Iraq, Kutrashev once again portrayed Russia as a victim of American dominance, claiming that the United States had allegedly blocked such a partnership. In response to a question about whether Russia supports the pro-Iranian "Axis of Resistance"—which includes Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—Kutrashev once again avoided a clear answer, stating that Russia supports the general "idea of resistance." He added, however, that Russia does not support attacks on Israel, citing the presence of one million Israelis of Russian descent as a reason for this position. Whitewashing Russian Aggression in Ukraine Kutrashev’s statements on Ukraine reflected familiar patterns of Russian rhetoric. Responding to a quote from Russian ideologue Alexander Dugin, cited by Husham Ali, suggesting that "Ukraine is a path to an agreement on spheres of influence," Kutrashev dismissed the idea as "a Western, imperialist notion," claiming that "we don’t think that way." Kutrashev stated that Russia wants Ukraine to remain a single, neutral country serving as a buffer between NATO and Russia, and that Russia "will not allow Ukraine to be divided." When Husham Ali asked whether Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territories constitutes a division of the country, Kutrashev argued that it does not, because those territories are now recognized as part of Russia under the Russian constitution. The journalist then challenged him further, asking whether, since Kyiv could also be declared part of Russia in the same way, Russia might seek to capture it. Kutrashev responded by claiming that Russia had the opportunity to enter Kyiv twice, in 2015 and 2022, but "did not want to launch an invasion," because it supposedly does not wish "for Ukraine to collapse as an independent state." Kutrashev further argued that Russia’s problem is not whether President Zelensky is aligned with the United States, the European Union, or Israel (the latter mentioned likely to provoke anti-Israel sentiment among Iraqi viewers, despite the fact that Israel does not provide substantial support to Ukraine), but rather that "Zelensky was elected in democratic elections promising normalization with Russia and later became its enemy." These statements exemplify Russia’s contradictory and misleading narrative on the war in Ukraine. Claiming that the occupation of parts of Ukraine does not violate its territorial integrity—simply because Russia unilaterally declared those territories as its own—reflects an imperialist logic that disregards international law and the sovereignty of other nations. Moreover, suggesting that Russia had no intention of occupying Kyiv contradicts the reality of the 2022 invasion, during which Russian forces advanced toward the Ukrainian capital but were ultimately repelled. Such claims undermine the credibility of the Russian ambassador’s narrative.

 

During a live interview on Iraq’s Al Sharqiyah TV, Russian Ambassador to Iraq Elbrus Kutrashev struggled to address challenging questions, often avoiding clear answers or resorting to statements that appeared dismissive of the audience’s intelligence. Accustomed to more favorable media treatment, Kutrashev attempted to undermine journalist Husham Ali by labeling him a “friend of Russia,” implying that this would put him under American surveillance. The journalist rejected this insinuation, emphasizing his commitment to maintaining a balanced and neutral approach with all interviewees.

Denying Involvement in Assad’s Inner Circle

The interview began with questions about Syria and the country’s ousted leader, Bashar al-Assad. When asked about an alleged attempt to poison Assad in Moscow, Kutrashev responded that he “knew nothing about it” and claimed that if it had happened, he would “almost certainly” be aware of it.

When questioned about whether Russia’s embassy in Iraq had assisted Assad’s brother, Maher, in leaving the country, Kutrashev replied mockingly, asking, “Does he have no other friends in Iraq?” He then added that such assistance would have been impossible because it would contradict diplomatic protocols. Kutrashev also stated that the Russian embassy is guarded by Iraqi security forces and is under constant surveillance by both American drones and British intelligence services.

At the same time, Kutrashev claimed that Russia does not conduct surveillance on anyone in Iraq because it lacks the technological capability—such as drones—and because, according to him, Russia “does not settle scores with other countries” in Iraq, unlike the United States, which, he alleged, “gathers information on various politicians.” However, he refused to specify what kind of information is allegedly being collected or about whom, raising questions about how he could have such knowledge if, as he claims, Russian intelligence operates no activities in Iraq.

This exchange highlighted the contradictions in Kutrashev’s statements, as the journalist continued to press him, forcing the ambassador to either evade the questions or trivialize the topic. Ultimately, when asked again about Maher al-Assad, Kutrashev stated that the embassy had no contact with him and that he did not know whether Maher was currently in Moscow.

A Selective Moral Compass: Assad Versus Tsurkov

When asked about the possibility of reaching an agreement with Syria’s new authorities on the extradition of Bashar al-Assad, Kutrashev stated that Russia “does not participate in immoral deals.”

This statement stood in stark contrast to his later response regarding Russia’s inaction in the case of Elisabeth Tsurkov, an Israeli journalist with Russian citizenship who was kidnapped in March 2023 in Iraq by armed groups known as the muqawama—Shiite militias linked to Iran, supported by Russia, and with whom Kutrashev reportedly maintains close relations.

Kutrashev explained that Russia had taken no action because it had not received any official, written notification about her abduction. This suggests that, according to Kutrashev, handing over a dictator responsible for the mass killing of his own people would be “immoral,” while taking action to protect a kidnapped Russian citizen is “impossible” without paperwork.

Against this backdrop, Kutrashev’s earlier claim that Russia prioritizes its international reputation comes across as highly cynical and disingenuous.

Russia’s Embrace of “Resistance” and Its Colonial Legacy

As for the muqawama itself (a term meaning “resistance” in Arabic), Kutrashev claimed that Russia does not support the muqawama as an organization, but rather the idea of “resistance” in general, which, as he put it, “is in our soul and blood.”

He further asserted that “since the days of the USSR, we have supported resistance against occupation, colonialism, and imperialism. We played a key role in the collapse of colonialism. And now we continue the same efforts against neo-colonialism.”

However, such statements stand in stark contrast to historical reality. Russia remains one of the last colonial empires and openly embraces this identity, as widely reflected in Russian state media and political discourse. Throughout the 19th century, and later under the Soviet Union in the 20th century, Russia expanded its borders by conquering numerous nations and states, colonizing them with ethnic Russians. The USSR also occupied nearly all of Central Europe for over 45 years.

Kutrashev’s claim that “Russia was not a colonial power in the Middle East or anywhere” and that “whenever we enter a country, we establish equal relations” presents a distorted narrative that is characteristic of the propaganda tactics he employs.

Justifying Attacks on U.S. Bases as “Resistance”

Kutrashev’s evasive responses to questions about supporting the muqawama reflect Russia’s desire to maintain ties with these groups without openly endorsing their attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq—bases that operate with the official authorization of the Iraqi government.

At the same time, Kutrashev dismissed any comparison between the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Russia’s presence in Syria, framing the former as an occupation. This was a deliberate manipulation, as U.S. forces, which entered Iraq in 2003, were withdrawn in 2011, formally ending the occupation. The current U.S. military presence is based on Iraq’s 2014 request for international assistance in the fight against ISIS.

Nevertheless, this narrative allowed Kutrashev to justify muqawama attacks on U.S. facilities as legitimate acts of resistance under the UN Charter. He further claimed that Russia’s response to U.S. airstrikes against muqawama groups is that “150 million Russians are praying” for their fighters. Kutrashev also implied that Russia would express similar solidarity if Iran were to come under attack.

In the context of developments in Syria, Kutrashev was also asked why Russia appears to be abandoning its long-time partners, such as Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Russian ambassador strongly rejected this accusation, claiming that Assad’s downfall was the result of Syria’s internal dynamics. He added that “Russia was the last to carry out airstrikes against opposition forces in Idlib.”

However, when asked about the transfer of Russian heavy military equipment from Syria to Libya, Kutrashev stated that this equipment was needed in Libya because of ongoing fighting there and the need to target terrorists. This response directly contradicted his earlier claim that Russia had already ceased military operations in Syria.

Kutrashev further argued that Russia no longer has any military targets in Syria because, according to him, there is no ongoing war and the groups previously targeted by Russian forces have now formed the Syrian government. He dismissed the suggestion that this represented a failure for Russia, stating that Syria has experienced many regime changes in the past and that Russia has always managed to build relations with successive governments. He added that “our relations are not only with regimes but, first and foremost, with people, so the fall of a regime does not change our attitude towards a country.”

Notably, Kutrashev did not explain whether by “people” he meant those whom Russia had previously bombed for years, labeling them as terrorists—only to later recognize them as legitimate partners once they took power.

Claiming Victory Over ISIS While Avoiding Real Engagement

In this context, Kutrashev was also asked about Russia’s role in combating the ongoing presence of ISIS in Syria. He responded that, at present, no one had officially requested Russia’s assistance. Nevertheless, he insisted that Russia was fighting ISIS “with all its might” and claimed that it was thanks to Russia that ISIS had been defeated in Syria.

In reality, however, ISIS was largely defeated by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a coalition dominated by Kurdish fighters and supported by the United States—not by Russia. Kutrashev further asserted that, in Iraq, the fight against ISIS would have lasted much longer if not for Russia’s involvement.

He also argued that the perception of U.S. and coalition airstrikes as decisive in defeating ISIS was the result of people “listening to U.S. media instead of Russian media.” Kutrashev added that Russia is not part of the international anti-ISIS coalition because, according to him, “it was not invited.”

Taken together, these statements seemed aimed at portraying Russia as a marginalized actor unfairly excluded by the international community—framing it as a victim of global politics.

The Russian ambassador also avoided answering the question about Russia’s official position on Syria’s new leader, Ahmed Ash-Shara. This evasion appeared to reflect Russia’s attempt to balance two conflicting interests: on the one hand, maintaining constructive relations with the new Syrian leadership, and on the other hand, preserving its close ties with the muqawama, which considers Ash-Shara a terrorist.

This diplomatic balancing act serves as yet another example of Russia’s contradictory and opportunistic foreign policy, bordering on hypocrisy.

Kutrashev also avoided answering questions about Saddam Hussein, since Russia had supported him until the very end, and his execution was carried out by the same Shiite factions that Russia now seeks to engage as partners to expand its influence in Iraq.

At the same time, Russia does not want to alienate the large Arab audience—both in Iraq and beyond—that still views Saddam as a hero and martyr. In the end, Kutrashev responded that there were both positive and negative aspects to this issue, but that it happened a long time ago and was better left in the past. He added that national reconciliation was more important than seeking punishment.

“I am a friend of Iraq,” he stated, “and I don’t want my words to offend my Iraqi friends. I avoid commenting on certain issues because they are sensitive for Iraqis.”

In doing so, Kutrashev effectively acknowledged that Russia delivers contradictory messages, carefully crafted to appeal to different audiences. When challenged to provide a clear position, however, Russia opts to evade the issue. This kind of diplomatic maneuvering borders on hypocrisy, making it all the more important to critically scrutinize and expose such tactics.

Downplaying Strategic Ties with Iran and China

Kutrashev also denied the existence of an alliance between Russia, Iran, and China. He emphasized that BRICS is not a military or political alliance, but rather a group of countries with shared economic interests—which is factually correct. He further claimed that Russia does not maintain a “sphere of influence” in the Middle East, describing it as an imperialist concept supposedly foreign to Russian policy.

Kutrashev described the “strategic partnership” signed with Iran in January 2025 as a strong signal to the international community. However, as journalist Husham Ali pointed out, the agreement merely states that Russia will not assist countries that attack Iran, rather than providing any direct commitment to defend Iran if it comes under military attack.

When asked why Russia had not signed a similar agreement with Iraq, Kutrashev once again portrayed Russia as a victim of American dominance, claiming that the United States had allegedly blocked such a partnership.

In response to a question about whether Russia supports the pro-Iranian “Axis of Resistance”—which includes Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—Kutrashev once again avoided a clear answer, stating that Russia supports the general “idea of resistance.” He added, however, that Russia does not support attacks on Israel, citing the presence of one million Israelis of Russian descent as a reason for this position.

Whitewashing Russian Aggression in Ukraine

Kutrashev’s statements on Ukraine reflected familiar patterns of Russian rhetoric. Responding to a quote from Russian ideologue Alexander Dugin, cited by Husham Ali, suggesting that “Ukraine is a path to an agreement on spheres of influence,” Kutrashev dismissed the idea as “a Western, imperialist notion,” claiming that “we don’t think that way.”

Kutrashev stated that Russia wants Ukraine to remain a single, neutral country serving as a buffer between NATO and Russia, and that Russia “will not allow Ukraine to be divided.” When Husham Ali asked whether Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territories constitutes a division of the country, Kutrashev argued that it does not, because those territories are now recognized as part of Russia under the Russian constitution.

The journalist then challenged him further, asking whether, since Kyiv could also be declared part of Russia in the same way, Russia might seek to capture it. Kutrashev responded by claiming that Russia had the opportunity to enter Kyiv twice, in 2015 and 2022, but “did not want to launch an invasion,” because it supposedly does not wish “for Ukraine to collapse as an independent state.”

Kutrashev further argued that Russia’s problem is not whether President Zelensky is aligned with the United States, the European Union, or Israel (the latter mentioned likely to provoke anti-Israel sentiment among Iraqi viewers, despite the fact that Israel does not provide substantial support to Ukraine), but rather that “Zelensky was elected in democratic elections promising normalization with Russia and later became its enemy.”

These statements exemplify Russia’s contradictory and misleading narrative on the war in Ukraine. Claiming that the occupation of parts of Ukraine does not violate its territorial integrity—simply because Russia unilaterally declared those territories as its own—reflects an imperialist logic that disregards international law and the sovereignty of other nations.

Moreover, suggesting that Russia had no intention of occupying Kyiv contradicts the reality of the 2022 invasion, during which Russian forces advanced toward the Ukrainian capital but were ultimately repelled. Such claims undermine the credibility of the Russian ambassador’s narrative.