Russians React to Strikes on Iran: Condemn US, Welcome Its Diversion From Ukraine, No Concrete Help to Iran

Having taken a pause in his comments on Iran after the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 22, Russian President Vladimir Putin weighed in on June 23 to describe the strikes as a “completely unprovoked act of aggression against Iran” that is “without foundation or justification” during the public part of his meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi that day. In his public remarks during that meeting, Putin also told Araghchi that “we are committed to supporting the Iranian people through our continued efforts,” but chose not to elaborate on what that support could be and how it might be rendered. 

When asked that same day whether Tehran had requested military support from Moscow, Putin’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov offered no direct answer. “We are working with Iran in various areas, and it would be irresponsible to disclose some details of this cooperation,” he told Interfax. Ryabkov’s ministry was actually the first Russian government agency to criticize the June 22 strikes by the U.S., which Western commentators described as a “gamble” within hours, stating that "Russia strongly condemns” them. Some other Russian officials who offered their hot takes on the strikes warned of increased risks of a World War III (e.g. Leonid Slutsky of the State Duma) and of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (e.g. Konstantin Kosachev of the Russian Senate). Others (e.g. Dmitry Medvedev) welcomed the diversion of Washington’s attention from the Ukraine crisis to the Iran crisis and claimed Iran’s nuclear program will rebound and continue. Like Putin and Ryabkov, most non-governmental Russian commentators, whose opinions I came across when scanning Runet for hot takes on June 22-23, refrained from calling for assistance to Tehran. These commentators (one exception was conservative oligarch Konstantin Malofeev) refrained from doing so even though Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian¹ described their countries as allies last year,² and the two signed a bilateral strategic partnership treaty. That January 2025 accord has no mutual military aid clause and does not describe the two countries as allies, but it does refer to “military” and “military-technical” cooperation³ between Moscow and Tehran.

The absence of public information on Russia’s material help to Iran has prompted some commentators to doubt if Russia is really an ally of Iran. Eventually, Putin—who has already lost two allies (Syria and, arguably, Armenia)—had to confront these doubts. On June 20, at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, Putin was asked, “What do you say to those who say or write that Russia is an unreliable ally because it has not joined Iran?” The Russian leader offered the following explanation: "Those who promote such narratives about Russia's unreliability as an ally are provocateurs. … As for the reliability and unreliability of Russia as an ally, it has already been said here that we must show a certain solidarity—and that is true. But in each case, any conflicts are still quite unique. ... I would like to draw your attention to the fact that almost two million people live in Israel—immigrants from the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation; it is almost a Russian-speaking country today. We, of course, always take this factor into account in modern Russian history." I don’t know whether the Iranians have accepted this explanation, but it is, perhaps, telling that Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi described Russians as “colleagues, friends” rather than allies while being hosted by Putin on June 23.

Below you can find Russian reactions so far to the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The comments open with Putin’s remarks and are then arranged in alphabetical order.

Vladimir Putin, Russian president: 

• Said while hosting  Foreign Minister of Iran Abbas Araghchi: “The completely unprovoked act of aggression against Iran is without foundation or justification. Russia has long-standing, strong and trustworthy relations with Iran, and we are committed to supporting the Iranian people through our continued efforts. ... Your visit provides us with an important opportunity to discuss these sensitive issues in depth and to explore ways we might work together to navigate the current situation.” (Kremlin.ru, 06.23.25)
• Said at a meeting with graduates of Russian military academies: “The current international situation is changing dynamically. We see how the situation in the Middle East has sharply worsened. Extra-regional powers are also being drawn into the conflict. All this is bringing the world to a very dangerous point.” (Kremlin.ru, 06.23.25)

Andrei Baklanov, head of the Higher School of Economics' Middle East and North Africa Studies department: "The risk of conflict escalation following the U.S. strikes on Iran cannot be ruled out. A great deal depends on what decision the Iranian leadership is going to take. If it involves missile strikes on American ships, serious reputational damage for Washington should be expected. Such a decision by Tehran is quite possible.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Alexander Baunov, exiled analyst, editor of Carnegie Politika: “Now Russia, bogged down in Ukraine, cannot afford such an ultimatum verbal intervention. The instrument of verbal nuclear blackmail has already been used during the Ukrainian war. No one will believe that Moscow, not having dared even symbolically to cross the nuclear threshold for its own sake, will go to greater lengths for Iran. ... Vladimir Putin can only watch as one of what he considers to be completely sovereign countries is destroyed, and refer to the fact that Russia’s treaties with Iran do not include military obligations, and he was not asked to do so.” (Zahav.ru, 06.23.25)

Vladimir Batyuk, senior researcher, the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of U.S. and Canadian Studies told Interfax "Trump has crossed the 'red line.' The threat of a large-scale military conflict is obvious. Iran could deliver a retaliatory strike on U.S. military facilities in the Middle East. Consequently, the United States will carry out new strikes following the Iranians' response. It would mean Washington's involvement in the protracted armed conflict. ... All this could have a very strong negative impact on the positions of Trump ... The price of oil in the United States is sacred, just like the price of bread in Russia.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Georgy Bovt, pro-Kremlin commentator, wrote on Telegram: “Tehran is not yet in a position when it has nothing left to lose in what would force [Iranians to] act in accordance with the principle of ‘Why do we need a world where there is no Ayatollah?’” (RM, 06.22.25)

Dva Mayora, pro-war Russian Telegram channel: Israel has “succeeded in dragging the U.S. power into the conflict, while the divided U.S. elites have had a hard time finding a common solution.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Russian Foreign Ministry: "Russia strongly condemns the U.S.' strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran in the early hours of June 22, which followed Israeli attacks on the Islamic Republic … The irresponsible decision to deliver missile and bomb strikes on the territory of a sovereign state, no matter what arguments are used to justify it, is a gross violation of international law, the U.N. Charter and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council, which previously unequivocally qualified such actions as unacceptable.” (RM/TASS, 06.22.25)

Yuri Kotyonok, pro-war Russian blogger, wrote on Telegram: “Alas. Trump struck Iran on the night of June 22, [the day when Germany invaded the USSR]. He must be a symbolist. ... The timing is meant to send a clear signal to us ... The nighttime U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities were measured, as if to signal Trump’s desire to give Tehran the opportunity to save face.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Konstantin Kosachev, Federation Council deputy speaker, wrote on Telegram: “Why don't the Westerners bomb the four countries that are not participating in the non-proliferation regime and the corresponding Treaty? ... Because these four countries, unlike Iraq, Libya and Iran, have actually created nuclear weapons. Hence the inevitable conclusion (as one might assume) for all ‘threshold’ countries: if your plans do not include getting bombed by the West—become strong, arm yourself, go forward to the point of creating weapons of mass destruction. ... A monstrous mistake of the Trump regime. The pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize is taking on extremely dangerous and ugly forms.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Alexander Kotz, Russian pro-war journalist wrote on Telegram: “I do not expect any sensations from Iran's response ... Tehran is simply not capable of inflicting critical damage on the U.S. in the region, unless it already has a nuclear bomb.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs wrote on Telegram: “The trap that Trump may now fall into is simple but effective. If Iran now responds [by striking] American targets, the U.S. will automatically have to be drawn into further military action. If it does not respond or responds sluggishly... the Israeli leadership and its American neocon allies will increase the pressure on the White House [arguing that] the Iranian regime must be finished off while it is weak. ... It is doubtful whether Trump will be able (and willing) to resist such pressure.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Konstantin Malofeyev, pro-war Russian billionaire called for Moscow to come to Iran's assistance, as well as to mediate peace talks—something Putin has offered to do several times since the conflict between Iran and Israel began. "It's time for us to help Tehran with satellite intelligence data, air defense systems and missiles," Malofeyev wrote, describing it as "a historic chance." (The Washington Post, 06.23.25)

Sergei Markov, Pro-Kremlin commentator, wrote on Telegram: 

“Why did the U.S. attack Iran now...? Because the U.S. was afraid to do so before. They were afraid of a massive wave of mass terrorist attacks in response. ... But the Israeli war in Lebanon showed that there are no hundreds of sleeper cells. And then Israel and the U.S. realized that they could strike Iran without risking a serious response... 

[My] Forecast. A U.S. military operation in Iran is impossible for several reasons.

1. U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ended in strategic failure.
2. Iran is much larger than Iraq and Afghanistan together.
3. Iran is an ancient civilization, a powerful Persian, Islamic and Shiite identity.
4. Therefore, there will be no U.S. intervention in Iran.
5. They will bomb and bomb and wait for capitulation or semi-capitulation.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, wrote on Telegram:

“This whole mess between Israel and Iran is obviously not harmful to our affairs. Most Americans don’t even know where the dying Ukraine is, and the Trump team, which is not at all eager to spend money on a conflict that is not theirs, is now very stressed.

What did the Americans achieve with their night strike on three points in Iran?

1. The critical infrastructure of the nuclear cycle, apparently, was not damaged or was damaged only slightly.
2. The enrichment of nuclear materials, and now we can say directly—and the future production of nuclear weapons—will continue.
3. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their nuclear weapons.
4. Israel is under attack, explosions are thundering, people are in a panic.
5. The United States is drawn into a new conflict with the prospect of a ground operation.
6. The political regime of Iran is preserved, and with a high degree of probability it has become stronger.
7. The [Iranian] people are consolidating around the spiritual leadership, even those who did not sympathize with him.
8. Trump, who came to power as a peacemaker president, started a new war for the USA.
9. The absolute majority of countries in the world are against the actions of Israel and the USA.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Alexey Naumov, expert at the Russian International Affairs Council, said: “Iran did not pose a threat to U.S. security, and a war with it does not serve the national interests of the U.S. But it does serve the interests of maintaining American hegemony very well.” (Kommersant, 06.22.25)

Anatoly Nesmyan, Russian blogger, wrote on Telegram: “Trump is not a supporter of the use of force, of waving a club, of intimidating and writing posts in the style of [Dmitry] Medvedev. But if a problem arises that can only be solved by force, he solves it without reflecting too much. This was the case in Syria, and this is probably the case in Iran, if the Iranians themselves do not escalate. However, they [Iranians] have nowhere else to go—if the key facilities are destroyed, then the nuclear program will shut down on its own.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Vladimir Orlov, director of the PIR Center: "All this has happened before [in Iraq]. Twenty-two years ago. They were ‘"looking’" for weapons of mass destruction. Under this propaganda slogan, they cleared out an entire country. They changed the regime. Then they admitted that they never found WMD. But who cared about that at that point?.” (Kommersant, 06.22.25)

Vladimir Pastukhov, exiled Russian commentator, wrote on Telegram: “Trump did what he could not refrain from doing any longer. Israel's actions and his own rhetoric have brought him to the point where the absence of action creates more political risks than the risks of any action... What follows is a war of survival: either the Iranian regime falls apart at the seams—and Trump is all good, or the regime stabilizes and goes into deep defense—and Trump is not all good… the [U.S.] strike on nuclear facilities in any case is not the end, but only the beginning of some gigantic changes." (RM, 06.22.25)

Dmitry Peskov, Kremlin spokesperson: 

• Told Russian media that Putin has no plans to call Trump after the U.S. strikes. "Not yet," he said when asked whether a telephone conversation between the leaders of the two countries is being planned. "But if necessary, such contacts can now be organized quite quickly." (RM, 06.22.25)
• Sidestepped a question on whether Russia would be willing to offer arms to Iran, instead focusing on Moscow's efforts to press a diplomatic solution. "It depends on what Iran needs," he said. "We have offered our mediation efforts. This is concrete. We have stated our position. This is also a very important manifestation. This is a kind of support for the Iranian side." After the meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, Peskov said the situation remained "very tense" but did not comment on whether Iran had sought military assistance. "Various issues were discussed, primarily in the context of possible prospects for a peaceful resolution," he said. (The Washington Post, 06.23.25)

Sergei Ryabkov, deputy foreign minister:

• Said Iran’s partnership with Moscow is “unbreakable” and Iran had “the full right to defend itself.” (RIA Novosti/Financial Times, 06.23.25)
• When asked whether Iran had requested military assistance, said: “We are working with Iran in various areas, and it would be irresponsible to disclose some details of this cooperation.” (Interfax, 06.23.25)

Russian television underscored the limits to Moscow's assistance to Iran on June 22, "to prevent inflated expectations." It spelled out that Moscow's obligation was to not assist the aggressor and to help ensure that the conflict was settled "on the basis of the United Nations Charter and different applicable norms of international law." (The Washington Post, 06.23.25)

Leonid Slutsky, State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, wrote on Telegram: "The consequences of increasing the degree of escalation threatens to go beyond the region. Washington understands the inevitability of Tehran's response. All this takes the spiral of confrontation to a new level and increases the risks of World War III.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Igor Strelkov (Girkin), pro-war ex-“defense minister” of Donbas, serving time for criticizing the Russian authorities, had the following remarks posted on Telegram on his behalf: “I think that this is not the last blow, that the blows will be repeated until Iran is forced to respond. Unfortunately, Iran has no chance against the American-Israeli coalition if it is left alone. Russia will not be able to help Iran, because we ourselves are bogged down in the Ukrainian war ... Therefore, the only country that Iran can count on in this regard is China.” (Telegram, 06.23.25)

Maria Zakharova, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman: "Obviously, this is a threat to the whole of the world," she said, commenting on the escalation between Israel and Iran. (TASS, 06.22.22)

Mikhail Zvinchuk’s pro-war Rybar Telegram channel: “The strike on the Fordow facility could become the point of no return for the Iranian nuclear program: now the Iranians will most likely go down the path of secretly continuing the process. If Fordow and other facilities could previously have been an element of bargaining, and Iran could have agreed to limit their work there in exchange for an ephemeral lifting of sanctions, now the situation has changed dramatically. The only question remains how much damage Iran's nuclear facilities have sustained and how long it will take to restore them.” (RM, 06.22.25)

Footnotes

1. Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian and Vladimir Putin are both reportedly planning to be in Minsk this week.
2. Putin twice referred to Iran as Russia’s ally in remarks in October 2024, while Pezeshkian did the same in July 2024. At the same time, however, October 2024 saw Iran’s ambassador in Armenia, Mehdi Sobhan, declare with regard to Iran and Russia: “We are not allies.”
3. “Military-technical cooperation” is a term Russian government agencies use to describe supplies of arms from Russia to other countries (and vice versa), among other things.

Simon Saradzhyan is the founding director of Russia Matters. Opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author. Photo by Alexander Kazakov, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP.