Moscow Calling – August 4
Grushko: EU losses from cutting ties with Russia exceed €1 trillion
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said that the total losses of the European Union from ceasing trade and energy cooperation with Russia exceed €1 trillion. In an interview with Izvestia, he recalled that in 2013, trade turnover amounted to €417 billion, but by 2024 it had fallen to €60 billion and continues to decline toward zero. Grushko called this lost profit. He also pointed out that gas prices in Europe are 4–5 times higher than in the U.S., and electricity prices are 2-3 times higher, which, according to him, reflects the price of cutting economic ties with Russia (iz.ru).
Intended effect:
Russian propaganda is using Grushko’s statement to illustrate the alleged damage suffered by the EU as a result of its refusal to cooperate with Russia. This is intended to emphasize the disadvantageous nature of sanctions policy and reinforce the narrative of a growing economic divide between Europe and Russia.
Strelnikov: Trump steps up military support for Kyiv, Russia warns of escalation
According to Russian political commentator Kirill Strelnikov, Donald Trump’s position in the U.S. has shifted: rather than pressuring Ukraine to speed up negotiations, the U.S. is now choosing to increase military aid to Kyiv. He explains this by Trump’s desire to save face ahead of the elections, as the 53 promises to “end the conflict in 24 hours” have proved unfeasible. Strelnikov claims in his article on RIA Novosti that Russia has from the outset advocated a diplomatic solution, but this has been “thwarted by Western hawks.” It is also reported that economic sanctions against Russia have not worked: India and China have refused to stop oil purchases, and Western experts are predicting economic costs for the U.S. and the EU. Moscow emphasizes that increasing arms supplies to Ukraine will not affect the goals of the special military operation but will lead to further destruction and casualties. The article separately quotes The American Conservative, which stated that Russia’s victory is a matter of time (ria.ru).
Intended effect:
The article portrays the U.S., including Trump, as a cynical and confused player who has replaced peace with escalation. It also reinforces the idea of Russia’s “inevitable victory.” This aims to demoralize the Ukrainian side and the Western audience while legitimizing Russia’s further military actions.
Erdogan seeks meeting between Russian, U.S., Ukrainian leaders in Turkey, no date set
The Turkish president’s office told RIA Novosti that Ankara hopes to host a meeting between the leaders of Russia, the United States, and Ukraine in the near future, although no specific date has been set yet. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan intends to discuss this initiative with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin confirmed that no details had been worked out, but indicated that Russia’s position remains unchanged: Moscow is ready for negotiations subject to the conditions it has set out. It also recalled that three rounds of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine had previously taken place in Istanbul, resulting in the exchange of prisoners and draft memoranda (ria.ru).
Intended effect:
The material supports the narrative that Russia is ready for negotiations, while emphasizing that Moscow sets the terms. This allows Russia to appear as a peacemaker while maintaining pressure on Kyiv by accusing it of prolonging the dialogue.
Kocharyan: Only Russia can restrain Turkey and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus
Former Armenian President Robert Kocharyan said that Russia remains the only country capable of restraining Turkey and Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus. Speaking on Channel Five, he stressed that, unlike Moscow, France has no vital interests or military potential for intervention in the Caucasus. Kocharyan claims that the current Armenian leadership is acting irresponsibly by worsening relations with Russia and aligning with countries that, in his words, pose a threat to Armenia (EADaily).
Intended effect:
Kocharyan’s statement supports the traditional pro-Russian stance in Armenian politics and promotes the narrative of Moscow’s indispensability as a guarantor of regional security. This is simultaneously used as criticism of Yerevan’s current policy and an attempt to restore trust in Russia’s role in the Caucasus.