- March 25, 2026
- 12:16 am
- World News
The phrase that Moscow was a swamp where frogs croaked while Kyiv was already the capital of one of the largest European powers was not uttered in a talk show studio or in an emotional comment after a meeting. It was spoken at an official meeting of the UN Security Council on Ukraine — on March 23, 2026, in New York, at the 10124th meeting on the topic of maintaining peace and security in Ukraine. Ukrainian publications are dated March 24, as they were disseminated after the meeting according to Kyiv time.
The remark itself was a response to an old and well-known Russian scheme: first, Moscow tells the world about the alleged “historical unity” of Ukrainians and Russians, then it appropriates Kyivan Rus, and then it tries to derive from this construction the right to speak on behalf of Ukraine, rewrite its past, and justify current aggression. It was precisely along this line that Ukraine’s permanent representative to the UN, Andriy Melnyk, struck.
Where and on what occasion it was said
The Security Council meeting was dedicated to the worsening situation in Ukraine. According to the Ukrainian side, it was not just about current hostilities, but about a new wave of Russian strikes and ongoing pressure on the civilian population. In this forum, Melnyk returned to the words of Russian Permanent Representative Vasily Nebenzya, which he had spoken at the previous meeting on February 24, when he again promoted the narrative of the so-called united people.
“He even mumbled something about Kyivan Rus, which we, Ukrainians, allegedly sold for 30 pieces of silver,” Melnyk said. “Allow me to set the historical facts straight.”
The Ukrainian diplomat formulated it extremely harshly. According to the retelling published on March 24, he said that Nebenzya last time again wasted time on the “familiar nonsense” about the historical unity of Ukrainians and Russians and even tried to interpret the topic of Kyivan Rus in his own way. After that, Melnyk essentially proposed to “set the historical facts straight.”
And then the very phrase that spread through the media was uttered: in the early 12th century, Kyiv was already the capital of one of the largest and most powerful states of medieval Europe, while the territory of modern Moscow was just “a swamp where frogs croak.”
“And the territory of modern Moscow was then just a swamp where frogs croak,” he noted.
This was not an academic lecture or a dispute among medievalists. It was a political formula aimed at an international audience, to which Ukraine once again explained a basic thing: Russian historical argumentation is not based on facts but on the appropriation of someone else’s past.
Why this formula worked
Because behind its external sharpness, it has a simple historical logic. Kyiv was indeed the capital of Kyivan Rus since the late 9th century, while Moscow first appears in written sources only in the 12th century. In diplomatic language, this means the following: Russia cannot endlessly use the Kyiv heritage as an ideological lever against Ukrainian statehood without receiving a response directly in international institutions.
But Melnyk did not stop there. He also reminded of the year 1169, when the troops of Andrey Bogolyubsky sacked Kyiv.
“Moscow betrayed Kyiv. And to this day, it continues this very cruel policy: bombing Kyiv, destroying our Golden Gate, raping and killing civilians.”
In his version, this is not just a reference to a distant episode from the chronicle, but a direct bridge between the past and the present: Moscow essentially betrayed Kyiv then — and continues the same cruel policy now, when it bombs the Ukrainian capital and other cities. In the retelling of the speech, this thought already sounds like a political accusation, not a historical excursion for the sake of a catchy phrase.
Why this is important for the Israeli audience
At first glance, it may seem like just a successful diplomatic episode: a harsh remark, a strong metaphor, Moscow’s irritation, applause from the Ukrainian audience. But in fact, the moment is much more serious. Ukraine at the UN is arguing with Russia not only about the war of 2022–2026 but about Moscow’s right to determine who Ukrainians are, where their statehood comes from, and to whom the historical center of Eastern Europe belongs.
For Israel, such a plot is especially understandable. When a state has to simultaneously defend itself from a military threat and from attempts to rewrite its history, the dispute over the past ceases to be academic. It becomes part of security. In this sense, what was said in the Security Council is important not only to Kyiv. It is an example of how a country responds to aggression also at the level of concepts, meanings, and international language.
That is why such episodes naturally fall into the field of view of NANews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency. Here it is not about a beautiful quote for the sake of a headline, but about how Ukraine, in front of the whole world, dismantles one of the central Russian myths — the myth of Moscow’s “natural” right to speak for Kyiv, explain Kyiv, and replace Kyiv with itself.
The finale, which was addressed not only to Russia
Addressing the Russian delegation, he stated that Ukrainians do not need “distorted historical lessons about imaginary unity.”
“Kyiv has stood firm for over 1000 years and will stand for another thousand. It will thrive, remain invincible, and Russia will not succeed in conquering it.”
In conclusion, he quoted in Russian:
“The ball is over, the candles are out… Take your overcoat — go home.”
“So take your overcoats — and get out of Ukraine!” added the diplomat.
It was a rough, deliberately direct finale. But after all the logic of the speech, it did not look like a random outburst, but the final point in a rather coherent construction: Ukraine refuses to accept both military aggression and Moscow’s historical dictation simultaneously.
Therefore, the main news here is not the image of frogs, no matter how well it spread through the feeds. The main news is something else: Kyiv is increasingly translating the dispute with Russia from the plane of justifications to the plane of accusation. And it is doing this not only on the front but also in the very center of international diplomacy.