By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following separate calls with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Iranian President Pezeshkian, President Putin condemned Israel’s strikes on Iran as violations of the UN Charter and international law. The Kremlin emphasized Russia’s readiness to mediate to prevent further escalation and highlighted the potential for disastrous regional consequences. Russia’s Foreign Ministry similarly denounced the strikes as unacceptable acts of aggression threatening global security, particularly given their timing during ongoing international discussions. This condemnation underscores Russia’s position amidst heightened tensions between Israel and Iran.
Read the original article here
The Kremlin’s condemnation of the Israeli strikes on Iran as a “dramatic escalation” is, to put it mildly, ironic. Their outrage rings particularly hollow given Russia’s own history of military actions and disregard for international law. The statement itself feels almost performative, a calculated move rather than a genuine expression of concern.
The timing of the condemnation is also telling. The disruption to Iran’s weapons supply lines, crucial to Russia’s war effort in Ukraine, likely fuels a significant portion of the Kremlin’s displeasure. The potential reduction in the flow of drones and other weaponry to Russia is a tangible loss, one that overshadows any professed concern for Iranian sovereignty.
Furthermore, the Kremlin’s accusations of Israel violating the UN Charter and international law are strikingly hypocritical. Russia’s own invasion of Ukraine constitutes a blatant violation of international law, a fact conveniently ignored in their official pronouncements. This hypocrisy underscores the shallowness of their condemnation, making it seem more like a calculated political maneuver than a sincere expression of concern.
The Kremlin’s protestations about “unprovoked military strikes” against “sleeping peaceful cities and nuclear energy infrastructure” are particularly rich. Considering Russia’s own tactics in Ukraine, where civilian targets are frequently hit, this statement reads as remarkably self-serving. The contrast between their words and their actions highlights a deep-seated lack of credibility.
It is also interesting to consider the Kremlin’s potential motivations beyond concerns about military supply chains. The rise in oil prices, a direct consequence of increased regional instability, could actually benefit Russia, providing additional funds for their ongoing war in Ukraine. This potential financial gain likely tempers any genuine distress they might feel about the situation.
The Kremlin’s position reveals a deeper, underlying strategic calculation. While publicly condemning the strikes, the Kremlin’s actions might belie a more complex, self-serving agenda. Maintaining a precarious balance between supporting its ally Iran and protecting its own interests seems to be their primary concern. The condemnation is thus a carefully crafted message aimed at navigating this complex situation, rather than a reflection of principled opposition to military action.
Ultimately, the Kremlin’s statement exposes the chasm between their rhetoric and their actions. Their condemnation serves primarily to further their own geopolitical agenda, obscuring their own history of military aggression and disregard for international norms. This hypocrisy renders their words hollow and their concerns suspect. The condemnation itself is arguably just another piece in the broader chess game of international relations, a maneuver designed more to project a certain image than to express genuine concern for peace and stability in the region.