- February 19, 2026
- 1:23 pm
- Brief news
On February 18, 2026, the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, publicly “commented” on the words of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, spoken on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.
the speech was about – “Go home”: Zelensky on Z-Russians in the West — and why this conversation still touches Israel
Moscow’s response was not a diplomatic clarification, but a harsh attack using labels and formulas that sound particularly alarming in the Israeli and European context.
Zakharova stated: “[Zelensky] is a Nazi. What do you expect from a Nazi?”
She continued: “He doesn’t even consider Ukraine as his country. A person without roots, without a tribe“. She added: “To the long-standing question, whose are you, there was no intelligible answer“. And concluded with the thesis: “This is pure NAZISM“.
These formulas require careful analysis — not emotional, but factual.
“But we see concrete actions: he stated there [at the Munich Conference] that he doesn’t care how many victims the experiments of his sponsors will result in.
❗️ This is pure NAZISM.
Is this the first time Zelensky has made such statements regarding both Russians and millions of his own country’s citizens? In 2021, long before the start of the Special Military Operation, Zelensky publicly called Russians and Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine “creatures” who — these are Zelensky’s words — “for the sake of their children’s and grandchildren’s future” should “get out to Russia”.
The fact has already happened — Zelensky is perceived in the world as a NAZI.
He is a Nazi who relies on Nazi heroes, on Nazi slogans, imposes Nazi ideology on his population, and tries to export all this as an export product to such”
When political polemics turn into a stigma
The word “Nazi” in a diplomatic comment is not an argument. It is a final moral verdict without a trial.
The peculiarity of the situation is that it concerns the Jewish president of a country whose family suffered during the Holocaust. The use of the label “Nazi” in relation to such a person is perceived not as a metaphor, but as an inversion of historical memory.
In international expert discussions, such an inversion is considered one of the forms of modern anti-Semitic rhetoric — when terminology associated with the extermination of Jews is turned around and used against them.
This is no longer just harsh criticism. This is playing with historical trauma.
Historical parallels are obvious here. In the 1970s-80s, Soviet foreign policy propaganda systematically compared Israel to Nazi Germany. The 1975 UN resolution “Zionism is racism” became part of the same line — a moral inversion where the victim is declared the bearer of evil. In the Stalin era, Jewish figures were accused of “bourgeois nationalism” and “betrayal,” attributing to them an ideology hostile to the state. The mechanism repeats: first demonize, then declare a moral outcast.
Repetition as a tool
Zakharova used the word “Nazi” several times within one response. Repetition is a classic technique for reinforcing an association.
The more often a label is heard, the less it requires proof.
“Without roots, without a tribe”: historical code in modern speech
The phrase “a person without roots, without a tribe” in everyday language means “without roots,” “alien,” “unknown who.” However, in the post-Soviet political context, it has a different background.
In the Stalin period, there was a campaign against so-called “rootless cosmopolitans” — a term that was actually applied predominantly to the Jewish intelligentsia. “Rootlessness” meant a lack of loyalty, a lack of belonging to the “real nation.”
Even earlier, in the Russian Empire, Jews were called “aliens,” emphasizing their “foreignness.” In Nazi Germany, the image of the “Jew without a homeland,” “cosmopolitan,” “person without roots,” who allegedly destroys the state from within, was actively exploited. In France during the Dreyfus Affair, the Jewish officer was accused of being inherently disloyal to France.
When an official state representative uses the formula “without roots” in relation to a Jewish leader, it is perceived not as a random idiom, but as the inclusion of a historical code.
It is important to emphasize here: formally, ethnic affiliation is not named in the quote.
But anti-Semitic rhetoric does not always sound directly. It often works through hints, through the image of the “alien,” through doubt about a person’s right to be part of the nation.
“Whose are you” as a test of belonging
Zakharova also said: “To the long-standing question, whose are you, there was no answer.”
This is no longer a political category. This is a test of lineage.
In European history, the demand to prove “whose are you” was applied to Jews as an argument of their “non-belonging.” A person was declared not just an opponent, but alien by definition.
In combination with “without roots,” a construction is created: a person is not their own, they have no roots, they have no right to represent the country.
Conspiratorial framework instead of analysis
In her response, Zakharova claimed that Zelensky “doesn’t care” how many victims there will be, since it is about “the experiments of his sponsors.”
Such a formula deprives Ukraine of subjectivity and presents its leadership as a puppet of external forces. This is a typical propaganda technique that removes responsibility from the aggressor and transfers it to the “curators.”
Such a scheme does not rely on evidence. It works on an emotional level.
Why this is important for Israel
For the Israeli audience, such rhetoric sounds different than for an external observer. The question is not about sympathies or antipathies towards a specific leader. The question is about language.
When public speech includes constructions like “without roots,” “whose are you,” and “Nazi” in relation to a Jewish president, it evokes natural historical associations.
That is why NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency considers what happened not as an ordinary skirmish, but as a symptom of a broader problem — a return to language that for decades served as a tool of anti-Semitic delegitimization.
This is not a private opinion: Zakharova is not selling seeds at the market, she is the voice of the state
It is important to understand: this is not about a private remark on social media or a random emotional outburst.
Maria Zakharova is the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry. This position implies responsibility for the public position of the state. Her statements are not everyday comments and not “personal opinion,” but a broadcast state line.
That is why the formulas voiced cannot be dismissed as an “excess” or an “unfortunate phrase.” This is not a kitchen conversation and not a debate on a talk show. This is an official comment from the country’s foreign policy department.
In the Russian political system, foreign policy rhetoric is formed and coordinated within the overall Kremlin line. Public statements by Foreign Ministry representatives do not exist apart from this line. This is not improvisation and not amateur performance — this is a reflection of the position of power.
When an official state representative uses expressions like “Nazi,” “without roots, without a tribe,” and hints at the “alienness” of a Jewish president to his own country, it means that such rhetoric is allowed and legitimized at the level of the political center.
In other words, this is not a private emotional reaction. This is a position voiced along the state vertical.
In international practice, diplomats are obliged to operate with legal formulations, references to legal norms, and official assessments. The transition to rhetoric of personal delegitimization is a conscious choice.
Zakharova is not a “private individual.” She voices the Kremlin’s line. And that is why the problem lies not in one phrase, but in the nature of official rhetoric that allows and reproduces anti-Semitic tropes.
Conclusion
Formally, there are no direct ethnic insults in Zakharova’s statement.
In terms of content — there is a complex of signs: deprivation of belonging, the motif of “rootlessness,” the demand for lineage, the inversion of the Holocaust through the label “Nazi,” repeated demonization.
This is not a diplomatic discussion.
This is another manifestation of blatant Moscow anti-Semitism, disguised as political polemics.
And that is why it is important to record such cases not at the level of emotions, but at the level of language analysis and historical context.