⚡️ Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova's statement on the strike on a market in Tokmak carried out by Ukrainian militants (July 3, 2026)

💬 On July 3, Ukrainian neo-Nazis carried out a deliberate UAV strike on a busy market in Tokmak, Zaporozhye Region.

According to preliminary data, the attack resulted in the deaths of five people and injuries of varying severity to 18 others.

But that was not enough for Ukrainian militants. They continued attacking those who rushed to help the victims, obstructing the evacuation of people to medical facilities and taking out on them their powerless rage over their own military failures.

An operational headquarters has been set up at the site of the tragedy. According to the Zaporozhye Region Health Ministry, 14 people have been taken to Tokmak Hospital and four others, with more serious injuries, to Melitopol Hospital.

❗️ The Investigative Committee of Russia has opened a criminal case into the terrorist attack. All those involved in committing it will be identified and brought to justice.

We strongly condemn this vile war crime committed by Zelensky’s Nazi regime, which, with the tacit approval of its Western handlers, has unleashed a gruesome war against defenceless women, elderly people and children.

▪️ We express our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of those killed and wish all the injured a speedy recovery.

We call on all responsible governments, relevant international bodies and independent media outlets to give an honest assessment of this barbaric attack by the Ukrainian armed forces against civilians.

Ignoring this attack, like all other inhuman atrocities committed by Kiev, would amount to tacit consent to its actions and give it carte blanche to continue.

#KievRegimeCrimes

🎙 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova regarding the EU Court of Justice judgment on the legality of criminal prosecutions for the dissemination of RT materials (July 2, 2026)

💬 Maria Zakharova: On July 2, the EU Court of Justice handed down a judgment concerning the lawfulness of criminal prosecutions within European Union member states against individuals who make materials from media outlets banned within the EU territory available in the public domain via their internet resources – effectively treating such individuals on a par with telecommunications operators.

In practical terms, this judgment applies primarily to those distributing content from RT and other Russian media outlets against whom Brussels has imposed so-called sanctions. Moreover, as indicated in the press release issued by the Court, this approach applies irrespective of whether materials from the “banned” media are retransmitted for the purpose of deriving commercial gain or otherwise.

The impetus for this judgment arose from criminal proceedings initiated in Germany against three German nationals, accused of repeatedly reposting video materials from the RT DE channel on their publicly accessible website.

❗️ Notably, it was not the content of the specific publications that was deemed unlawful, but solely their origin.

In order to lend an appearance of legitimacy to this process – a process that utterly fails to conform to the principles of the rule of law – the German authorities sought an opinion of the highest echelons of the European Union’s judicial system, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and ultimately secured its endorsement for the continuation and expansion of the methods of such show-trials.

The precedent thus established grants carte blanche to the authorities of any member state within the bloc to carry out mass repression against ordinary residents who hold their own view of world events – a view that diverges from the narrative imposed from above.

☝️ We characterise this judgment, along with the practices of persecuting dissenters that it legitimises, as a gross violation by the EU and its member states of their international obligations in the sphere of the protection and promotion of fundamental human rights, including the right to unhindered access to information and freedom of expression.

This judgment stands as yet another unmistakable example of the European Union’s mockery of justice designed to whitewash the bloc’s degeneration into a space characterised by the most severe political censorship, legal arbitrariness, and hypocrisy. At its core lies the intent to instil a reflexive fear among citizens of the European Union’s member states towards any sources of information “not authorised” by Brussels, to seal off societies within information “bubbles” impervious to inconvenient truths, and to deprive them of the ability to form an independent opinion regarding events and processes of significance to their lives.

This latest step taken by the EU towards totalitarian censorship, the exacerbation of antagonism, and the dismantling of the democratic foundations of society must receive a proper assessment from the relevant multilateral institutions.

Otherwise, silence on their part would be difficult to interpret as anything other than solidarity with the actions of the European bureaucracy, and acquiescence in the further perpetuation of this pernicious practice.

⚡️ Statement by Aide to the President of Russia Yury Ushakov following a telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump (July 4, 2026)

Read in full

💬 Yury Ushakov: On July 4, the US celebrates its national holiday: 250 years since independence. On the eve of this date, President of Russia Vladimir Putin sent a congratulatory message to US President Donald Trump, expressing confidence that establishing constructive, equal and mutually beneficial ties meets the interests not only of our peoples, but also of the entire international community.

The conversation, already the fourth this year, was naturally not only protocol-related, but also businesslike and highly constructive. It allowed for a frank discussion of current issues on the bilateral and international agenda. The conversation lasted one hour and 25 minutes.

Naturally, the Presidents touched upon the Ukrainian settlement, including in light of Donald Trump’s upcoming participation in the NATO summit in Turkey on July 7-8.

The US President once again confirmed his readiness to facilitate the earliest possible cessation of hostilities and the search for peaceful solutions to overcome the crisis. His Special Envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner will continue their mediation efforts and will be ready to visit Moscow at a convenient time.

The Russian Side once again emphasised its preference for a political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict, provided Russia’s well-known principled approaches are duly taken into account.

However, Kiev and its European handlers are betting on prolonging and even escalating the conflict, as well as on terrorism against civilians. Meanwhile, the European “party of war” proceeds from a false perception of the overall situation and the state of affairs on the line of contact.

Our President described the real situation on the battlefield, where the Russian Armed Forces are steadily advancing, liberating one settlement after another.

Speaking about bilateral relations, the Presidents underscored the importance of continuing contacts, including on military-political and, of course, economic issues. Here, enormous prospects for mutually beneficial cooperation between our countries are taking shape. To this end, Donald Trump stressed, the Ukrainian conflict should be brought to an end as soon as possible.

The Leaders agreed to remain in contact and hold another telephone conversation in the near future.

🤝 Our President recalled that Donald Trump’s standing invitation to visit Russia remains in force.

It is worth mentioning that the Russian Side initiated the previous telephone contact, on June 14, the day of Donald Trump’s 80th birthday. This time, it was our American partners who proposed holding the conversation specifically on the day marking the 250th anniversary of US independence.

And that says a great deal.

🇷🇺🇺🇸 #RussiaUS

📰 Article by Dmitry Ryakhovsky, Senior Adviser of the Department for Multilateral Human Rights Cooperation of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, published on the Arctic.ru information portal – Indigenous Peoples in the International Arena: Who Belongs to the Group and How to Protect Their Rights.

Read in full

✍️ The principal reason for disputes over the status of indigenous peoples lies in different national approaches. Each state has its own criteria for determining which peoples should be regarded as indigenous.

In many Asian countries e.g. researchers emphasize centuries of migration and population mixing. As a result, the traditional Western understanding of indigenous peoples is often considered inapplicable, since it is not always possible to determine with certainty which ethnic group originally inhabited the territory in question. The Indian subcontinent is frequently cited as an example, where centuries of migration have made it virtually impossible to identify the first ethnic communities to settle the region.

In Africa, the concept of indigenous peoples is often applied to communities whose traditional way of life is under threat. These include, for example, the San (Bushmen) of the Kalahari Desert, the Mbuti (Pygmies) of the tropical forests of Central Africa, and the Maasai nomadic cattle herders.

There is likewise no uniform approach across Latin America. In Peru, the term “community” is used instead of “indigenous people”. Ecuador recognizes “Indian nationalities”, each of which encompasses several related peoples, whereas Uruguay officially denies the existence of indigenous peoples altogether.

☝️It can therefore be concluded that the concept of indigenous peoples varies across countries, reflecting each state’s historical experience and national specifics.

***

At the international level, there is likewise no universally accepted definition of indigenous peoples, despite repeated attempts to develop one.

As Erica-Irene Daes, Chairperson of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, observed, it is extremely difficult to come up with a definition that is both accurate and universally applicable across all regions of the world. In her view, definitions that are too broad become vague, while those that are too narrow exclude many communities that are equally in need of protection.

Instead of relying on a rigid definition, international practice generally takes into account a number of identifying characteristics such as historical ties to a particular territory, cultural distinctiveness, continuity across generations, the preservation of a traditional way of life, as well as self-identification.

Nevertheless, none of these characteristics can be regarded as decisive in itself, and international organizations have largely avoided adopting rigid definitions. Despite the absence of a common understanding, the international community has continued its efforts to establish mechanisms for protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted in 2007 was one of the most significant documents in this regard.

Importantly, the Declaration does not provide a universal definition of indigenous peoples. Instead, it sets out a list of rights that such communities should enjoy, including the rights to preserve their cultural identity, to participate in decision-making on matters affecting their interests, and rights relating to lands, territories and natural resources.

☝️ Thus, international law places greater emphasis on creating mechanisms to protect the rights of communities that meet the characteristics of indigenous peoples, rather than on finding a single universal definition.

***

In conclusion, the concept of “indigenous peoples” remains one of the most complex categories in contemporary international law. The modern international approach focuses on protecting the rights of individuals and communities that preserve their identity.