Remarks to the Press by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia on the UN Secretary-General’s Report on Conflict-Related Sexual Violence
Vassily Nebenzia: We requested you to come because we would like to comment on the recent report on the alleged acts of sexual violence by the Russian Armed Forces.
We are extremely disappointed and, I would say, indignant by the clearly biased and politicized decision of the UN Secretary-General to include the Russian armed and security forces in the list of parties responsible for acts of sexual violence.
The draft annual report contains information on crimes that not only cannot be verified due to the absence of necessary data, but also do not demonstrate a systemic nature of the alleged violations, which is a key criterion for listing.
The incidents described in the report are superficial, poorly structured, and contain virtually no substantive analysis. It gives the impression that the document was prepared perfunctorily and intended to reach a predetermined outcome: to discredit Russia and conceal the unlawful actions of the Kiev regime. And to us, this is not surprising.
Let us recall 2022, when, amid the wave of media attention around the situation in Ukraine, Ms. Patten accused the Russian military of using medical drugs. She specifically mentioned Viagra to carry out sexual attacks against civilians as, as she put it, “military strategy.”
That was a claim based on fragmentary information provided by the so-called “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine”, established pursuant to a voted Human Rights Council resolution, as the Special Representative herself later acknowledged. She also noted that the information from this Commission is difficult to verify.
The false nature of these statements is clear, but we have not heard any apology or withdrawal of those statements as false.
The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine also routinely demonstrates anti-Russian bias. Its mandate is based on an agreement between Ukraine and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which raises questions about its authority to conduct investigative activities. Moreover, it is well known that this Mission works as a laundering machine for Ukrainian narratives.
It is precisely on the basis of materials from these two structures that the accusations against us are built. Such an approach is methodologically flawed as well: while the report is submitted pursuant to specific Security Council resolutions, while its verification is carried out by the UN entities that have no mandate under those resolutions.
The open bias is also confirmed by the absence of information on hundreds of civilians who have been subjected to torture, beatings, abuse, killings, sexual violence, and ill-treatment by Ukrainian armed formations.
I’ll give you just a few examples. For instance, in 2025, at the village of Russkoye Porechnoye in the Kursk Region, during the inspection of private residential houses after the liberation from Ukrainian territorial incursion, the bodies of 22 murdered local residents were found; 8 of them had been subjected to sexual violence prior to their deaths.
We should also recall the case of Vladimir Parafilo, a militant of the Assault Brigade (Ukrainian, of course), who together with three of his comrades, raped a 55-year-old woman, also subjecting her to torture, including with the use of a stun device.
Another captured soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Yevgeny Fabrisenko, gave a confession regarding the commission of a series of rapes and murders of civilians.
The Committee against Torture of the United Nations also drew attention to the issue of sexual violence in Ukraine in 2025.
We have to recall the recent acknowledgement by Ukraine’s military ombudsperson, Ms. Reshetylova, that she receives numerous complaints about unlawful actions by members of the Ukrainian armed formations, who commit acts of violence not only against Russian soldiers, but also against their own military personnel and civilians – torture, rape, extortion, and similar abuses.
We consider the UN’s omission of these cases unacceptable.
We reaffirm that the Russian Federation consistently and systematically supports international efforts to protect civilians, ensure rights of the prisoners of war, and strict compliance with the norms of international law.
However, cooperation is a two-way process, and we have repeatedly requested additional information regarding the allegations against our Armed Forces, yet we have never received a response.
The discussion of such serious allegations must be based on the principles of professionalism, impartiality, and reliance on verified facts rather than politicized assessments and unilateral approaches.
Thank you.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, in wars, crimes do happen, violations of human rights take place, in many cases by all sides. Are you here denying that Russian soldiers and Russian military did not commit any crimes?
A: I do not confirm or deny anything. I’m just commenting on the report that Ms. Patten issued, and in fact the Secretary-General issued, based on the data that was provided by the so-called “Independent Commissions in Ukraine”.
If there are allegations, they should be substantiated, and what I’m saying is that the basis for including us into the report does not stand a fair trial, frankly, because this data cannot be verified.
You know how this body of data is collected? When there is another prisoners-of-war exchange, Ukrainian soldiers arrive to their homeland, and they are immediately made to write confessions that they were sexually abused or tortured, and then these documents come to these “independent” commissions, which form the basis of their accusations.
That’s as simple as that. Again, I’m not whitewashing anyone. I’m just saying that the report that was prepared was based on the data which cannot be independently verified.
Q: Ambassador, the UN claims that Russia has denied UN investigators access to detention facilities. What is your response to that? Is that true or not?
A: If we are properly addressed and when we are requested to get access, we would provide it. But we were inviting the UN officials to come, say, to the Russian new regions, they always refused, citing Ukrainian territorial integrity, and they do not want to cross the borders of this territorial integrity, in their view, preferring it to informed knowledge of what is happening in the Russian facilities.
The Russian law provides for the strict adherence to the humanitarian principles, and there are codes of conduct by the Russian military which prohibit them from abusing prisoners of war or any civilians, which they strictly comply with.
Q: Good morning, Mr. Ambassador. Several weeks ago, Minister Lavrov sent to the Secretary-General a letter about the provocation in Bucha with several questions. Have you received any reply from the United Nations?
A: That was one of the many letters that Minister Lavrov sent to the Secretary-General. This time it was a letter specifically citing 12 questions that we want to receive answers to. In my cover letter, I addressed the Secretary-General with a request to do it as soon as possible. So far, we have not received anything.
And indeed, the Bucha provocation is a milestone. In fact, it prevented us from reaching a fair agreement with Ukraine back in 2022, when it was very timely made. And after that, you know that the Ukrainian side withdrew from negotiations with Russia. Of course, with the help of their Western friends, in particular Boris Johnson and others.
But Bucha, which is a very indicative case, we have not received replies to numerous, multiple requests by the Russian side.
Q: Do you think that’s intentional, Ambassador, that the Secretary-General hasn’t replied, or are you disappointed in that?
A: We are disappointed at that because this case served, as I said, as milestone to continue hostilities when they were on the verge of finishing with the negotiations in Istanbul, where we already penciled the future agreement that could have been reached. Then this provocation came to the surface.
We have not yet received the names of those unfortunate people that were demonstrated to the world public, and Bucha became symbolic, while the facts are ignored completely – that these corpses appeared on the streets of Bucha three days after it was vacated by the Russian troops.
