Russia

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The United States government has played down reports that Russia provided intelligence to Iran about American military targets across the Middle East amid the ongoing war involving the US, Israel and Iran.

The report was first published by The Washington Post. It claimed that Moscow had supplied Tehran with information about the location of US military assets in the region.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth addressed the issue during an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes on Friday. He said the US military is closely monitoring developments and incorporating any relevant information into its operational planning.

Since the conflict began on February 28, Russia has reportedly passed details to Iran about US military positions, including warships and aircraft. Three officials who spoke anonymously told The Washington Post about the alleged intelligence sharing.

“It does seem like it’s a pretty comprehensive effort,” one of the sources told the newspaper.

However, other unnamed officials who spoke to The Associated Press said US intelligence agencies have not found evidence that Moscow is instructing Iran on how to use the information. The conflict has continued with US and Israeli forces carrying out air strikes while Iran responds with attacks targeting American assets and allies in the Gulf region.

Hegseth dismissed concerns that the reported intelligence sharing could endanger US citizens.

“The American people can rest assured their commander-in-chief is well aware of who’s talking to who,” Hegseth said.

“And anything that shouldn’t be happening, whether it’s in public or back-channelled, is being confronted and confronted strongly.”

He added: “We’re putting the other guys in danger, and that’s our job. So we’re not concerned about that. But the only ones that need to be worried right now are Iranians that think they’re gonna live.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also responded to the report on Friday. She told journalists that the alleged intelligence sharing has not affected US military operations in Iran.

“[the report] clearly is not making any difference with respect to the military operations in Iran because we are completely decimating them,” Leavitt said.

She declined to comment on whether President Donald Trump had discussed the matter with Russian President Vladimir Putin or whether Russia might face consequences. She said the president would address the issue himself if necessary.

President Trump also reacted sharply when asked about the report later on Friday. During a White House meeting focused on college sports, Fox News reporter Peter Doocy raised the issue during a question-and-answer session.

“I have a lot of respect for you, you’ve always been very nice to me,” the US president said to Peter Doocy, the Fox News reporter.

“What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time. We’re talking about something else.”

The intelligence report marks the first indication that Russia may have taken steps to involve itself in the conflict that began about a week ago.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Tehran has not requested military assistance from Moscow. He noted that Russia continues to maintain communication with Iranian leaders.

“We are in dialogue with the Iranian side, with representatives of the Iranian leadership, and will certainly continue this dialogue,” he said.

When asked directly whether Russia had provided military or intelligence assistance to Iran since the start of the war, Peskov declined to comment.

Russia and Iran have strengthened their ties in recent years. Moscow has relied on Iranian missiles and drones during its ongoing war in Ukraine. Both countries have maintained cooperation even as Iran faced long-standing Western sanctions linked to its nuclear programme and its support for armed groups across the Middle East.

By Anas Abbas

Russia and China have publicly criticised the ongoing military campaign by the United States and Israel against Iran, warning that it risks destabilising the Middle East and undermining diplomatic efforts.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made direct contact with his Israeli counterpart, urging an immediate halt to the bombardment of Iranian territory. China has framed the strikes as a setback to negotiations that had been making headway in addressing Iran’s nuclear programme and regional security concerns. According to him, military action interrupted progress that was being achieved through talks.

In a statement released by China’s foreign ministry, Wang stressed that continued fighting would deepen instability, increase civilian suffering, and fray international norms governing sovereign relations. He reaffirmed Beijing’s preference for diplomatic engagement over force and called for all parties to resume peaceful negotiations without delay.

On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov echoed similar concerns in Moscow, questioning the justification for the attacks. He pointed out during a press briefing that there is no credible evidence that Tehran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, the publicly stated reason for the military action.

Lavrov argued that the strikes could have the opposite effect of what their architects intended, potentially driving Iran and other states to seek nuclear capabilities as a deterrent.

Lavrov warned that the conflict may prompt a broader nuclear arms race in the region if countries feel compelled to arm themselves in response to military threats. He also criticised the US and Israeli approach as “unprovoked aggression,” underscoring that such actions violate international norms and threaten regional peace.

Russia has offered to assist in diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis but has firmly rejected any justification for the current offensive campaign.

Both Beijing and Moscow are pushing for renewed diplomatic channels to be opened, including through international institutions and direct talks, emphasising that military solutions cannot resolve deeply rooted political disputes. Their positions signal widening international concern over the conflict and mounting pressure for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has proposed sending his country’s leading drone interception specialists to the Middle East. He said the support would be provided if Gulf leaders persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to accept a temporary ceasefire in Ukraine.

Zelensky made the proposal after a series of Iranian drone strikes targeted countries including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He noted that Ukraine has built strong expertise in countering such attacks after four years of war with Russia.

One of the Iranian-made drones struck the British Royal Air Force base in Akrotiri, Cyprus, on Monday. Security forces intercepted two other drones hours later.

“I would suggest the following: leaders of the Middle East have great relations with Russians. They can ask Russians to implement a month-long ceasefire,” Mr Zelensky told Bloomberg. “In exchange, we will send our best operators of drone interceptors to the Middle East countries.”

He said the ceasefire could last two months or even two weeks. He explained that the pause would allow Ukraine to deploy assistance aimed at protecting civilians in affected countries.

Kyiv and its European partners have repeatedly called for an unconditional ceasefire. Moscow has turned down those appeals. Russian officials insist they are prepared to discuss what they describe as a “lasting peace,” while placing strict conditions on any settlement.

On Monday, President Putin held phone conversations with leaders from Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar. These countries have faced recent Iranian drone attacks. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia remains “in constant contact with the Iranian leadership.”

“For sure, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar have good relations, first of all economic, with Putin,” Zelensky said. “We can help Israel in the same way.”

Zelensky stated that Russia has launched more than 57,000 Shahed drones at Ukraine since the invasion began four years ago. He said the drones often target power facilities, warehouses and residential areas.

The drones were first designed by an Iranian firm, Shahed Aviation Industries Research Centre. Russia now produces many of them at a factory in Yelabuga, located in the Republic of Tatarstan.

Ukraine uses a coordinated air defence structure that combines mobile ground units, anti-aircraft missiles and radio-electronic systems. Zelensky described the system as “irreplaceable.”

He voiced support for recent US and Israeli military action against Iran. He argued that Tehran “chose to become Putin’s accomplice” by supplying military equipment to Moscow.

At the same time, Zelensky warned that a prolonged conflict in the Middle East could affect Ukraine’s access to air defence supplies. Kyiv depends heavily on US-made Patriot systems, which are also deployed by American forces in the region.

“We understand that a long war… and the intensity of the fighting will affect the amount of air defence equipment we receive,” he said.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said recent developments show weakening support for Moscow among its allies. “Assad, Maduro and now Khamenei. Putin has lost three of his closest pals in little more than a year,” he said. “The domino of deposed dictators must continue, and Putin’s fall one day is inevitable.”

Meanwhile, Putin has presented Russia as a potential mediator in the crisis. He condemned what he described as the “cynical” killing of the Iranian Supreme Leader and held discussions with leaders in Iran and the Gulf region.

Some pro-Kremlin commentators have argued that US military action could disrupt peace efforts in Ukraine. “Diplomacy was destroyed as a tool on Saturday,” said Vladimir Solovyov on Russia-1 television. “It is now completely obvious to us that any negotiation process is nothing more than part of a military operation designed to pacify the enemy.”

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Authorities in Ghana have initiated international legal steps through INTERPOL against a Russian national accused of secretly filming intimate encounters with Ghanaian women without their consent.

The action was taken by the Ghana Police Criminal Investigations Department (CID). Officials said the measure is intended to ensure the suspect can face prosecution under Ghanaian law if he travels outside the Russian Federation.

They described the step as part of a wider diplomatic and law-enforcement push to secure accountability.

The Minister for Communication, Digital Technology and Innovations, Samuel Nartey George, disclosed this on Wednesday after a joint ministerial engagement with the Russian Ambassador to Ghana. He stressed that the government is committed to pursuing the matter through all lawful means.

“Working with the Ghana Police CID, we have activated international legal action through INTERPOL to ensure that once the individual sets foot outside Russia, we have a legal route to make him answer for his actions within Ghana,” he stated.

The suspect, identified as Vladislav Luilkov, allegedly recorded Ghanaian women without permission and circulated the videos online.

Authorities said early findings suggest that parts of the content may have generated revenue on digital platforms.
“This is not a matter of morality or private relationships,” the Minister emphasised. “It is a clear criminal offence under Section 67 of the Cybersecurity Act, 2020 (Act 1038), which prohibits the non-consensual recording and dissemination of intimate images.”

Government sources said the investigation carries international implications. This development prompted diplomatic communication with Russian officials.

Mr. George, alongside the Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection, Dr. Agnes Naa Momo Lartey, held formal discussions with the Russian Ambassador, H.E. Sergei Berdnikov. The meeting focused on briefing him about the case and the progress of investigations.

“We had very fruitful deliberations where we presented information available to us in relation to the Russian national alleged to have engaged in non-consensual recording of ladies,” Mr. George said. “We reiterate our commitment to using all legal means at our disposal to ensure that the law is upheld and the protections of Ghanaian citizens are enforced at all times.”

In his response, the Russian envoy confirmed receipt of Ghana’s official communication. He assured the ministers that the brief would be forwarded to authorities in Moscow.

He noted that Ghana and Russia do not have an extradition agreement. He, however, said the alleged acts could also amount to offences under Russian law. He pledged ongoing diplomatic collaboration.
Officials said investigations are still in progress. Cybersecurity experts and law-enforcement operatives are examining digital trails and financial transactions connected to the allegations.

Authorities also cautioned members of the public against circulating the alleged footage. They warned that redistribution constitutes a criminal violation under Ghanaian statutes.

“The public is urged to refrain from sharing or redistributing the illegal material,” the statement said. “Anyone found culpable will face the full rigours of the law.”
The administration of President John Dramani Mahama, according to the ministers, remains resolute in protecting citizens’ privacy and dignity.
“We will pursue all lawful avenues to ensure justice is served,” Mr. George affirmed.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection has created a victim support desk. Clinical specialists have been assigned to provide psychological and emotional care to affected persons. Officials assured that all interventions will remain strictly confidential.

Ukrainian authorities have announced the recovery of the bodies of two Nigerian nationals in the Luhansk region, alleging that they were fighting on the side of Russia in the ongoing war between both countries.

In a statement issued on Thursday, Ukraine’s Defence Intelligence identified the deceased as Hamzat Kazeen Kolawole, 42, and Mbah Stephen Udoka, 38.

According to the agency, the two men were enlisted in the 423rd Guards Motor Rifle Regiment, military unit 91701, under the 4th Guards Kantemirovskaya Tank Division of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

“Both served in the 423rd Guards Motor Rifle Regiment of the 4th Guards Kantemirovskaya Tank Division of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation,” the statement said.

The report stated that the Nigerians signed contracts with the Russian Army in the second half of 2025. Kolawole reportedly enlisted on August 29, while Udoka signed on September 28.

Ukrainian intelligence disclosed that Udoka was deployed on October 3, five days after signing his contract, despite lacking prior military experience.

“Udoka had no documented military training before his deployment,” the statement noted, adding that no training records were found for Kolawole, which suggested he may also have been sent to the battlefield without proper preparation. It added that Kolawole left behind a wife and three children in Nigeria.

The agency said the two Nigerians died in late November during a drone strike. The incident occurred while they were allegedly attempting to launch an attack on Ukrainian positions in the Luhansk area.

“Ukraine’s Defence Intelligence warns foreign citizens against travelling to the Russian Federation or accepting any form of employment on the territory of the aggressor state,” the statement cautioned.

It further warned that such travel carries a “real risk of being forced into so-called ‘suicide’ assault units and ultimately dying on Ukrainian soil.”

The development followed a recent report by CNN which alleged that several Africans, including citizens of Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and Uganda, were recruited to Russia under the guise of civilian employment such as drivers and security guards. The report claimed that many were later compelled into military service and deployed to combat zones with little training.

However, the Russian Ambassador to Nigeria, Andrey Podyelyshev, dismissed the allegations. He denied claims that Russia engaged in deceptive recruitment or forced enlistment of foreign nationals.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

A report citing the Russian government’s denial of recruiting Nigerians to fight in Ukraine is facing direct challenge from evidence within Nigerian communities.

This follows an article published on 10 February 2026, which relayed the Russian Embassy’s statement refuting any state-sponsored recruitment program.

The rebuttal, provided by a Kaduna state resident, presents a concrete counter-narrative. The individual states that a neighbor, a Nigerian national, voluntarily enlisted in the Russian military, was deployed in connection with the Ukraine conflict, but he doesn’t detail his recruitment process and contract terms to family and community before leaving.

“This direct evidence renders the blanket denial incomplete and misleading,” the source wrote in a communication to the Daily Reality editorial team. The account suggests recruitment is operational through pathways potentially involving private military companies or intermediaries, even if not an official government scheme.

The source argues the situation of the four deceased Nigerians previously reported—Adam Anas, Akinlawon Tunde Quyuum, Abugu Stanley Onyeka, and Balogun Ridwan Adisa—may represent only the most tragic outcomes of a broader phenomenon.

The Russian Ambassador’s offer to investigate “illegal organisations or individuals” if provided details is cited as an implicit acknowledgment that the recruitment of Nigerians is occurring.

The challenge calls for amended reporting that separates diplomatic rhetoric from ground truth, proposing a revised summary.

The core issue, the source contends, is no longer if Nigerians are fighting, but how they are recruited, under whose authority, and with what safeguards. The families of those recruited and the Nigerian public, they state, require answers beyond a simple denial.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

A report citing the Russian government’s denial of recruiting Nigerians to fight in Ukraine is facing direct challenge from evidence within Nigerian communities.

This follows an article published on 10 February 2026, which relayed the Russian Embassy’s statement refuting any state-sponsored recruitment program.

The rebuttal, provided by a Kaduna state resident, presents a concrete counter-narrative. The individual states that a neighbor, a Nigerian national, voluntarily enlisted in the Russian military, was deployed in connection with the Ukraine conflict, but he doesn’t detail his recruitment process and contract terms to family and community before leaving.

“This direct evidence renders the blanket denial incomplete and misleading,” the source wrote in a communication to the Daily Reality editorial team. The account suggests recruitment is operational through pathways potentially involving private military companies or intermediaries, even if not an official government scheme.

The source argues the situation of the four deceased Nigerians previously reported—Adam Anas, Akinlawon Tunde Quyuum, Abugu Stanley Onyeka, and Balogun Ridwan Adisa—may represent only the most tragic outcomes of a broader phenomenon.

The Russian Ambassador’s offer to investigate “illegal organisations or individuals” if provided details is cited as an implicit acknowledgment that the recruitment of Nigerians is occurring.

The challenge calls for amended reporting that separates diplomatic rhetoric from ground truth, proposing a revised summary.

The core issue, the source contends, is no longer if Nigerians are fighting, but how they are recruited, under whose authority, and with what safeguards. The families of those recruited and the Nigerian public, they state, require answers beyond a simple denial.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Russian government has dismissed reports that it is hiring Nigerians to participate as soldiers in the ongoing war with Ukraine.

Russia began a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The offensive led to the occupation of several Ukrainian territories and marked the most significant conflict in Europe since the Second World War.

Recent media reports alleged that four Nigerians — Adam Anas, Akinlawon Tunde Quyuum, Abugu Stanley Onyeka and Balogun Ridwan Adisa — lost their lives while fighting on the frontlines. The report stated that the men were lured with promises of a “security job” but were later drafted into the war after only three weeks of training.

According to the publication, the deaths occurred on different dates between December 2025 and January 2026. It also claimed that news of their deaths first surfaced in a private WhatsApp group reportedly created by African mercenaries.

Further allegations suggested that the Russian Embassy in Abuja issued the recruits single-entry tourist visas without biometric capture or full application procedures. The men were allegedly promised a monthly salary of 200,000 rubles, estimated at about ₦3.6 million, alongside allowances and other benefits.

The report added that upon arrival in Russia, the Nigerians were forced into military service. They were said to have received minimal training before deployment to combat zones. It also alleged that they signed military contracts written in Russian without legal guidance or translation. Some claims indicated that their passports were seized, which made escape difficult.

Russia has rejected these allegations. Authorities insisted there is no state-sponsored programme aimed at recruiting Nigerians or any other foreigners to fight in Ukraine.

The Russian Ambassador to Nigeria, Andrey Podyolyshev, addressed the issue on Tuesday in Abuja. He responded directly to the circulating reports.

“There is no government-supported programme to recruit Nigerians to fight in Ukraine. If there are illegal organisations or individuals trying to recruit Nigerians by unlawful means, this is not connected with the Russian state.”

“If anybody has this information, we are ready to send it to Russian law enforcement authorities so they can investigate those cases,” he said.

The ambassador also reacted to reports from Western media that Nigerians were deceived into joining the war.

“You are receiving information from Western sources. Their main task is to demonise Russia. If you want to know the real situation, you should send journalists to Russia to understand what is really happening,” the Ambassador said.

While he acknowledged that Nigerians may be present within the conflict environment, he maintained that the Russian government has no official recruitment policy targeting them.

“There are such Nigerians, I know, but there is no government-supported programme to recruit them. If there are agencies, including Russian agencies, violating Russian law, we are ready to transmit this information to our law enforcement authorities,” he said.

Podyolyshev also spoke about bilateral relations. He called for stronger economic cooperation between Russia and Nigeria. He noted that the last meeting of the Russia–Nigeria Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation took place about a decade ago.

He further highlighted Nigeria’s strategic role in Africa. He referenced the country’s peacekeeping missions in Liberia, Sierra Leone and The Gambia.

“Nigeria showed readiness to take responsibility for regional stability. Within ECOWAS, Nigeria is the core of the organisation in terms of population, economy and military potential,” he said.

On energy collaboration, the ambassador disclosed that both nations are discussing long-term partnerships. He said this includes projects in the nuclear energy sector.

By Iranloye Sofiu Taiye

The world has entered a phase in which power no longer feels compelled to wear moral disguises. From Eastern Europe to the Middle East, from East Asia to Latin America, coercion has re-emerged as an acceptable instrument of statecraft, and sovereignty has become increasingly conditional, least respected when convenient and violated when costly restraint disappears.

The Russia–Ukraine war, China’s posture towards Taiwan, Israel’s war in Gaza, and the long-standing pressure campaign against Venezuela are not isolated crises. They are symptoms of a systemic transition: the erosion of post–Cold War restraint and the reassertion of raw power politics in a crowded, mistrustful, and increasingly multipolar international system.

For Africa, this moment is not abstract. It is existential. The same forces reshaping Europe, Asia, and Latin America are already present on the African continent through resource competition, security outsourcing, debt diplomacy, sanctions regimes, proxy alignments, and political conditionality. The difference is that Africa often confronts these forces without a unified strategy, relying instead on appeals to history, morality, or international goodwill. That approach is no longer sufficient.

Realist theory, as articulated by thinkers such as Hans Morgenthau and John Mearsheimer, offers a brutally honest diagnosis of the international system. It reminds us that global politics is characterised by anarchy, not law; that survival, not virtue, motivates states; and that power, not rhetoric, ultimately determines outcomes.

Recent conflicts confirm realism’s core claims: Russia acted in Ukraine not because of moral failure but because it perceived a narrowing window to secure its sphere of influence. China’s pressure on Taiwan is driven less by ideology than by long-term assessments of capability, timing, and strategic opportunity. Israel’s conduct in Gaza reflects the logic of overwhelming deterrence in an insecure regional environment. The United States’ treatment of Venezuela illustrates how economic warfare substitutes for direct military intervention in an era of reputational constraints.

In each case, capability trumped legality, and vulnerability invited pressure. Yet realism, while accurate in diagnosing power behaviour, becomes dangerous when treated as destiny. Taken to its logical extreme, it suggests that weaker states have only three options: submission, alignment, or destruction. This is analytically lazy and politically paralysing.

History and current global practice demonstrate that survival is not reserved for the strongest but for the most strategically positioned. The key distinction between states that withstand pressure and those that collapse is not moral standing but strategic architecture.

Ukraine did not survive Russia’s invasion because it matched Moscow militarily. It survived because it transformed a bilateral war into a multilateral stake. By embedding its security dilemma within NATO, the EU, and global norms, Ukraine increased the cost of Russian victory beyond the battlefield.

Taiwan’s resilience lies not only in its arms but also in its economy. Its centrality to global semiconductor supply chains converts any military action into a worldwide economic crisis. Invasion becomes irrational not because it is impossible, but because it is prohibitively disruptive.

Palestine commands unprecedented global sympathy yet remains structurally vulnerable. Without credible security guarantees, economic leverage, or institutional power, moral legitimacy alone has not translated into sovereignty.

Venezuela’s leadership adopted confrontational rhetoric without building defensive alliances, diversified economic networks, or institutional shields. The result has been isolation, sanctions, and internal fragility, confirming that outrage without insulation invites coercion. The lesson is stark: states do not survive because they are right; they survive because they are costly to dominate. Afghanistan’s resilience is a case study. 

Africa today occupies a paradoxical position. The continent is: Central to the global energy transition (critical minerals), demographically pivotal, geopolitically courted by rival powers, and numerically powerful in multilateral institutions; alas, Africa remains strategically fragmented. Most African states still approach global politics through the language of gratitude, alignment, or moral appeal rather than through calculated leverage. The continent’s diplomatic posture is often reactive rather than anticipatory.

This is dangerous in a world where: aid is weaponised, debt is politicised, sanctions are normalised, and security assistance comes with strategic strings. Africa risks becoming the quiet theatre of the next great-power contest, not because it is weak, but because it is insufficiently coordinated.

What Africa requires is neither idealism nor cynicism, but strategic realism with agency a doctrine that accepts power politics while refusing subjugation.

Such a doctrine would rest on five pillars.

1. Strategic Indispensability: Africa must move beyond raw resource exportation toward value-chain centrality. Countries that control processing, logistics, and industrial ecosystems are harder to coerce than those that merely supply inputs.

2. Networked Sovereignty: Sovereignty in the 21st century is not isolationist. It is embedded on favourable terms through regional blocs, trade regimes, and security compacts that dilute unilateral pressure.

3. Institutional Power, Not Institutional Faith: Africa must stop treating international institutions as moral referees and start using them as arenas of contestation. Voting blocs, agenda-setting, and procedural leverage matter.

4. Strategic Non-Alignment, Not Passivity: Non-alignment must evolve from rhetorical neutrality into active hedging, diversifying partnerships, avoiding dependency traps, and exploiting multipolar competition without becoming a proxy.

5. Continental Coordination: No African state, regardless of size, can negotiate effectively alone in a hardened global system. Continental coherence in economic, diplomatic, and security-related is no longer aspirational; it is existential.

Conclusively, power will not wait for Africa to be ready; the defining feature of the emerging world order is not chaos, but selective constraint. Power will be exercised where resistance is weak, fragmented, or sentimental and restrained where costs are high, and consequences diffuse. Africa cannot afford another century of learning this lesson too late. The continent must abandon the illusion that shared history, moral standing, or international sympathy will shield it from coercion. Those narratives did not protect Ukraine, Palestine, or Venezuela. They will not protect Africa.

What will protect Africa is a strategy: the ability to anticipate pressure, restructure vulnerability, and convert relevance into leverage. In a world where power has shed its disguises, survival belongs not to the loudest protester, but to the most strategically prepared.

Iranloye Sofiu Taiye is a policy analyst and wrote via iranloye100@gmail.com.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Ukraine’s sports minister has criticised Fifa president Gianni Infantino over comments suggesting that world football’s governing body could reconsider the ban placed on Russia, describing his remarks as “irresponsible” and “infantile.”

Russian national teams and clubs were suspended by Fifa and Uefa in February 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a decision that has kept the country out of major tournaments, including the 2022 World Cup, Euro 2024 and the 2026 World Cup.

Despite the ongoing war, Infantino said the ban “has not achieved anything” and “has just created more frustration and hatred,” adding that “having girls and boys from Russia being able to play football games in other parts of Europe would help.”

Reacting in a post on social media, Ukraine’s sports minister, Matvii Bidnyi, said: “Gianni Infantino’s words sound irresponsible – not to say infantile,” adding that they “detach football from the reality in which children are being killed.”

Bidnyi stated that more than 650 Ukrainian athletes and coaches, including over 100 footballers, have been killed since the start of the war, and added: “War is a crime, not politics,” insisting that Russia’s flag and national symbols “have no place among people who respect values such as justice, integrity and fair play.”

Serhii Palkin, chief executive of Ukrainian club Shakhtar Donetsk, also condemned Infantino’s comments, saying they “represent a complete detachment from reality” and amount to “an attempt to pretend that war and aggression do not exist.”

He warned that football cannot ignore events outside the pitch, stating: “Football cannot exist outside reality and it has no right to turn a blind eye to evil,” while stressing that any move to reintegrate Russia would carry “responsibility for complicity in the silencing of war crimes.”

Although Russia has played matches against some non-Western nations outside the Fifa and Uefa framework, the ban remains in place, even as Ukraine continues to oppose any steps toward Russia’s return to international sport.