Moscow Calling – July 29
Medvedev: The U.S. will not dictate to Russia when to start negotiations on Ukraine
Dmitry Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, responded harshly to a statement by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, saying that neither he nor Donald Trump has the right to decide when Russia should “sit down at the negotiating table.” According to Medvedev, peace will only be possible once all the goals of the “military operation” have been achieved. Medvedev’s response followed Graham’s remark that “you will also soon see that Joe Biden is no longer president” and his warning to Moscow not to underestimate Trump’s position (TASS).
Intended effect:
The rhetoric aims to demonstrate Russia’s sovereignty in decision-making on Ukraine and downplaying the role of the U.S. as a potential mediator. Medvedev’s insulting tone shapes the image of a firm and unyielding political course.
RIA: Brother of Zelenskyy’s chief of staff accused of drug trafficking from Afghanistan
RIA Novosti has published an audio recording in which the voice of Denys Yermak, brother of the Ukrainian president’s chief of staff, can allegedly be heard. In a conversation presumably with an assistant, he discusses details of a trip to Kabul, including booking tickets and hotels. Earlier, the news agency reported that in 2024, Yermak brought a shipment of drugs from Afghanistan with two companions. According to the source, the shipment was intended for Ukrainian political leaders. RIA Novosti also reports on Yermak’s military service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and his work in intelligence (ria.ru).
Intended effect:
The material aims to discredit Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s inner circle by linking them to drug trafficking and intelligence. Despite the lack of verifiable evidence, the use of unconfirmed audio recordings and references to anonymous sources creates the impression of exposure.
RIA: Houthis threaten to strike U.S. ships for cooperating with Israel
Muhammad al-Bukhaiti, a spokesperson for Yemen’s Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement, said in an interview with RIA Novosti that U.S.-owned ships would be targeted if they interacted with Israeli ports. According to him, this is part of their support for the Palestinians and the fight against the blockade of Gaza. Al-Bukhaiti stressed that such actions do not violate the truce with the U.S., which was reached in May through Omani mediation. He added that previous strikes on U.S. ships were a response to aggression against Yemen (ria.ru).
Intended effect:
The article highlights the Houthis’ hostility towards Israel and their determination to continue attacks, including on U.S. targets, despite the truce. The RIA Novosti article portrays the Houthis as an independent and legitimate force acting within the framework of international law to protect Palestinians. While Russia does not officially support the Houthis, it provides them with a platform in its media, including RIA Novosti, thereby legitimizing their positions and actions.
Qatar threatens to halt gas supplies to EU over new climate directives
According to Welt am Sonntag, Qatar’s Energy Minister Saad al-Kaabi sent a letter to the European Commission warning that if the EU does not abandon the implementation of the CSDDD directive, Doha may stop supplying liquefied natural gas, according to an article on RIA Novosti. The directive requires compliance with environmental and social and ethical standards, including reform of corporate governance, taxation, and gender equality issues. QatarEnergy, the world’s largest LNG producer, risks facing fines of up to $5 billion. Against the backdrop of the EU-U.S. agreement to purchase $700 billion worth of American gas, Brussels’ actions look like protectionism in favor of Washington, the author notes (ria.ru).
Intended effect:
The article uses Qatar’s discontent to portray the EU as dependent and lacking independence. The contrast between Qatar and the U.S. further emphasizes the narrative of the degradation of European energy policy and the loss of economic sovereignty.
Podgornaya: Baku is acting against Russia in the interests of the West, but Putin has energy trump cards
Economist Elena Podgornaya has stated that the escalation in relations between Baku and Moscow is caused by Azerbaijan’s desire to take Russia’s place in energy supplies to Europe, Tsargrad reports. According to Podgornaya, Ilham Aliyev feels strong and is acting in the interests of external partners, primarily London and Ankara, seeking to control the Zangezur corridor and turn Azerbaijan into a transit hub. However, according to Podgornaya, Russia is invulnerable thanks to three “energy trump cards” — China, India, and Brazil — and should use the conflict as an incentive to develop its own industry (Tsargrad).
Intended effect:
The article portrays Azerbaijan as a tool of Western pressure on Russia, while promoting the idea that the Kremlin is invulnerable thanks to “alternative markets” and a strategic rethinking of its economic model. The conflict is interpreted as an opportunity for national strengthening rather than a geopolitical loss.
EADaily: Pashinyan behaves like a boy with a construction set, building fantasies about Armenia’s future
In his article “The Boy with the Construction Set” published in Voice of Armenia, journalist Ruben Margaryan criticized the foreign policy of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, according to the Russian propaganda outlet EADaily. The journalist notes that Pashinyan is acting on the principle of “breaking the mold,” simultaneously declaring rapprochement with the EU and NATO while remaining in the EAEU and the CSTO. The author believes that the prime minister’s policy is based on dreams rather than historical and political realism. “The lives lost during the war, the tragedy of Artsakh — all for the sake of the great goal set by the Armenian prime minister,” the outlet quotes the journalist as saying. “However, the problem is that he takes ‘responsibility’, while others pay for his vision of a bright future” (EADaily).
Intended effect:
The article aims to discredit Pashinyan by portraying him as an irresponsible leader who endangers the nation for the sake of abstract ideals. It contrasts the prime minister’s personal “responsibility” with the real cost to the country — lives, institutions, and historical experience.