- July 15, 2026
- 6:22 pm
- World News
Russian state propaganda once again scored a convincing victory over a phrase that no one uttered.
This time, the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, entered the information battle. The occasion was a remark by former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk about the possible name ‘Rus’.
“So, has the Kyiv regime already abandoned the ‘Ukrs’? Now they are ‘Rus’?” Zakharova inquired.
The joke was supposed to show Kyiv’s confusion, the crisis of Ukrainian identity, and another ‘split’ within Ukraine. However, as a result, Russian propaganda primarily demonstrated its own inability to read sentences in full.
Because there was no decision to rename Ukraine. There was no bill, presidential decree, government initiative, or even a political campaign.
There was a hypothetical question from a journalist. There was a conditional answer from a former diplomat. And there was the Russian information machine, which once again needed to urgently defeat its own invention.
How the word ‘if’ disappeared on the way to Moscow
The interview with Borys Tarasyuk was published by RBC-Ukraine on July 14, 2026. The conversation mainly concerned Ukraine’s relations with Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia, historical conflicts, and obstacles to the country’s accession to the European Union.
The journalist recalled North Macedonia, which had to change its state name to resolve a dispute with Greece, and asked whether Ukraine might face similar demands from neighbors.
Tarasyuk responded very clearly: no one is demanding that Ukraine change its name.
And only after that did he add that in a hypothetical situation, he would propose the name ‘Rus’, as he considers it the original name of the Ukrainian state and the heritage of Kievan Rus.
In normal journalism, this phrase would sound something like this:
‘Tarasyuk: no one is demanding to rename Ukraine, but hypothetically I would propose the name ‘Rus”.
But Russian propaganda is arranged differently. The conditional ‘if’ is an unnecessary detail for it, hindering the production of sensation.
Therefore, the word ‘if’ first disappeared from the sentence. Then the phrase ‘no one is demanding to change the name’ disappeared. After that, the personal reflection of the former minister turned into ‘Kyiv’s idea’. And a few hours later, Russian media already reported that ‘Kyiv authorities wanted to rename Ukraine’.
This is how the information conveyor works: at the entrance is a real quote, and at the exit is a convenient opponent that can be ceremoniously defeated.
The former minister suddenly became the ‘Kyiv regime’
Russian media treated Borys Tarasyuk’s status especially touchingly.
He indeed headed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine twice and has extensive diplomatic experience. But at the time of the interview, Tarasyuk did not hold the position of head of the Foreign Ministry and did not represent the current Ukrainian government.
Moreover, on August 20, 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky relieved him of his duties as Ukraine’s permanent representative to the Council of Europe. The corresponding decree is published on the official website of the president.
But for Russian propaganda, this does not matter.
As soon as any former Ukrainian official utters a phrase suitable for a headline, he instantly turns into ‘Kyiv’, ‘Kyiv authorities’, or ‘Kyiv regime’.
Apparently, by the same logic, any statement by a former Russian minister should be considered a new state course of the Kremlin. But for some reason, Russian state media are in no hurry to use their own rules against Russia itself.
Zakharova argued with a character invented by Russian propaganda
After the necessary processing of the quote, Maria Zakharova appeared on the scene.
TASS reported that the representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry reminded the ‘Kyiv authorities’, who allegedly wanted to rename the country, that they used to consider themselves heirs of the mythical ‘Ukrs’.
Here, Russian propaganda performed an especially beautiful somersault.
First, it attributed to the Ukrainian authorities a proposal that the Ukrainian authorities did not make.
Then it declared Ukrainians ‘Ukrs’.
After that, it decided that Ukraine allegedly abandoned the name invented by Russian propagandists.
And finally, it mocked Kyiv for a contradiction entirely created within the Russian information system.
This is no longer just a dispute with a straw man. This is a full-fledged state theater of one actor, where the propagandist independently writes the opponent’s lines, independently gets outraged by them, and independently declares themselves the winner.
NAnews — Israel News notes: Zakharova’s phrase says much more about the Russian attitude towards Ukrainians than about Ukraine’s position.
The word ‘Ukrs’ is not an official self-designation of the Ukrainian people. It is a mocking designation that has been spread for years precisely in the Russian propaganda environment.
The Ukrainian state could not ‘abandon’ this word because it never accepted it.
With the same success, one could ask why the French suddenly stopped calling themselves ‘frogs’, or why Americans no longer consider themselves ‘pindos’. The answer is obvious: offensive nicknames exist primarily in the mind of the one who uses them.
Propaganda lost its own historical line
But the main problem for Zakharova lies even deeper.
For years, Russian state propaganda has claimed that Russia and Ukraine are supposedly ‘one people’, that Ukrainian identity is artificial, and that the historical heritage of Rus belongs to Moscow.
And suddenly, when a Ukrainian diplomat talks about Ukraine’s right to the heritage of Rus, the representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry responds: ‘Now they are Rus?’
It turns out to be quite awkward.
If Ukrainians, according to the Kremlin, are part of some ‘single Russian people’, why does Zakharova find it surprising that a Ukrainian politician refers to the history of Rus?
If Ukrainians have no relation to Rus, then on what basis does the Russian government continue to talk about ‘one people’?
Russian propaganda simultaneously tries to prove two opposing ideas:
Ukrainians are ‘actually Russians’, so Ukraine has no right to separate statehood.
Ukrainians have no right to call themselves heirs of Rus because Rus supposedly belongs exclusively to Russia.
Both constructions are used alternately — depending on which one is more convenient to pronounce in a particular television program.
Logic in this case is considered an unnecessary luxury.
No one is renaming the state — but propaganda is already having fun
The story becomes even more absurd if we recall the legal side of the issue.
The name of Ukraine is related to the provisions of the Constitution. A real renaming of the country would require a complex constitutional procedure.
At the same time, Article 157 of the Constitution of Ukraine establishes that the Constitution cannot be changed under conditions of martial law or a state of emergency. This has been repeatedly confirmed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
So even if such an initiative did appear in Ukraine, it would be impossible to implement it under current conditions.
But discussing real legal procedures is not interesting to Russian media.
It is much more convenient to create a picture in which the ‘Kyiv regime’ woke up in the morning, urgently decided to abandon Ukraine, chose a new name for itself, informed a former minister about it, and immediately received a witty response from Zakharova.
This construction has nothing to do with reality, but it is perfectly adapted for distribution in Telegram channels and television talk shows.
NAnews — Israel News notes another characteristic detail: Russian media were almost not interested in the content of Tarasyuk’s interview itself.
He spoke about problems in Ukraine’s relations with neighbors, Polish-Ukrainian historical disputes, the need for compromises for EU accession, and how the Kremlin uses conflicts between European states.
But from the large conversation, one conditional phrase was extracted.
Because discussing the complex relations between Ukraine and Europe is difficult. It requires facts, context, and at least minimal respect for the reader.
And writing ‘Ukraine decided to rename’ is much easier.
When propaganda tries too hard
Russian propaganda constantly strives to present Ukraine as a state without its own history and identity.
However, every time Ukrainians discuss their own history, Moscow starts to get nervous.
If Ukraine recalls Kievan Rus — it is declared ‘theft of Russian history’.
If Ukraine emphasizes its own national identity — it is accused of ‘artificial separation’ from Russia.
If Ukrainians talk about a European future — it is called ‘rejection of roots’.
If Ukrainians talk about their own roots — they are told that these roots have already been privatized by Moscow.
As a result, Russian propaganda finds itself in a trap it built itself.
It wants to simultaneously deny the existence of an independent Ukraine and be outraged by every manifestation of Ukrainian independence.
Therefore, Zakharova’s response looks less like mockery of Tarasyuk and more like a symptom of its own ideological confusion.
The Russian Foreign Ministry tried to joke about the ‘crisis of Ukrainian identity’, but accidentally demonstrated a crisis of the Russian propaganda manual.
What actually happened
No renaming of Ukraine is happening.
Former Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk was answering a hypothetical question about possible demands from neighboring countries during negotiations on joining the European Union.
He stated directly that no one is demanding that Ukraine change its name.
After that, Tarasyuk added that personally, in a conditional situation, he would propose the name ‘Rus’.
Russian media removed the conditional context from his response, turned the personal opinion of a former diplomat into an initiative of the current government, and passed the resulting construction to Maria Zakharova.
Zakharova, in turn, mocked Ukrainians for rejecting a word that Ukrainians never called themselves.
The whole story took less than a day.
First, Russian propaganda invented an event.
Then it spread it itself.
Then it reacted to it itself.
And in the end, it congratulated itself on the victory.
A rare case when the information machine simultaneously acted as the author of the news, the source of indignation, the main commentator, and its own victim.