Press Conference by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia on the Attack on the College in Starobelsk
Vassily Nebenzia: Ladies and Gentlemen,
As you know, on 22 May, Ukraine’s armed forces launched a deliberate strike on a college and dormitory in Starobelsk, Lugansk People’s Republic. At Russia’s request, the UN Security Council convened for an emergency meeting on Friday, but we wanted to give you more details on what happened.
86 students aged 14 to 19, along with one staff member, were living in the dormitory. These were children and teenagers. They were not on the front line, they were unarmed, and they neither participated nor could possibly have participated in hostilities. They were asleep. It was at that moment when the strike happened, turning an ordinary night in thestudent dormitory into a nightmare.
According to the latest reports, 21 people, mostly young girls, were killed and 63 students were injured in this horrific attack. Many of the wounded remain hospitalized, some in critical condition. The target was not a command center, a fortified position, a weapons depot, or military barracks, but a civilian facility. There were no military installations, government offices, or security service facilities near the dormitory. The deliberate nature of the attack is further confirmed by the fact that 16 UAVs targeted the same location in three successive waves, causing the five-story dormitory building to collapse down to the second floor. It’s yet another glaring manifestation of the Nazi and terrorist character of the Kiev regime, which does not hesitate to kill minors in cold blood. Russian investigative authorities have opened a criminal case on charges of terrorism. All those responsible will be identified and will face inevitable and severe punishment.
At the UN Security Council meeting on Friday, we once again heard the habitual set of excuses routinely used whenever the West seeks to shield the Kiev regime, and I quote: “There is no independent verification.”; “UN representatives do not have access to the site.”; “We cannot confirm the authenticity of the information.”; “Russia is exploiting this for propaganda purposes.”, and so on and so forth. The cynicism displayed by certain Western delegations was really staggering.
The Permanent Representative of Denmark stated that it was “difficult to comment on statements made by the Russian Federation until they are independently verified,” before effectively suggesting that, “unlike Ukraine, there is no free media in Russia or in the occupied territories.” When we asked whether they felt any shame, we received a response that has become emblematic of the moral decline of European diplomacy: “No, we do not feel ashamed.”
The Permanent representative of Latvia went even further, calling the strike on the college a “provocation and a Kremlin fake,” thus denying the very existence of the destroyed dormitory, the dead and wounded students, the rescue efforts, and the grief of their families. Equally appalling was the statement by the representative of the Kiev regime.
To remove any doubt, on 24 May the Russian Side invited more than 50 foreign journalists from 19 countries – including Austria, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Venezuela, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Qatar, China, Cuba, Lebanon, the UAE, Pakistan, the United States, Turkey, Finland, and France – to visit the site of the tragedy in Starobelsk so as to see with their own eyes what happened there. As a result, they acknowledged the accuracy of the information we had presented.
Some Western media outlets, however, preferred to continue speculations regarding the “unverified claims” without ever approaching the scene itself. Tokyo barred its journalists from participating in the visit, the BBC officially declined the invitation, while CNN representatives were reportedly “on vacation.”
The video footage, that you’ll see shortly, features victims and witnesses speaking about the tragedy. Their accounts eloquently confirm that the facilities were strictly civilian in nature. No matter how much representatives of the Kiev regime claim that the strike targeted military site in Starobelsk, firsthand eyewitness accounts completely refute their claims.
The question goes: where does this brutality come from? And what is the cause? The answer is simple: it is Kiev’s revenge against the people of Lugansk People’s Republic who chose Russia. Zelensky is actually killing his own former compatriots. I would like to emphasize this one more time: he is exterminating his former fellow citizens for refusing to live under his neo-Nazi rule.
How can he hypocritically argue that people matter more than territories when he is responsible for such terrorist attacks? We’ll play the following footage on mute because it’s simply too heartbreaking to watch here. You can find it among the materials from this press conference, which are accessible via the QR code on the screens before you. You can clearly see just how much suffering Kiev has brought upon these people.
Western capitals may speak endlessly about children’s rights, but their reaction to the tragedy in Starobelsk shows that, in their political worldview, children have long been divided into “convenient” and “inconvenient” victims. If the suffering of a child can be used against Russia, it immediately becomes an international scandal. But when children die because of the premeditated actions of the Kiev regime, the tragedy disappears behind caveats, doubts, and references to “context.” This is not merely double standards. It is a moral failure and complete disgrace.
The Zelensky regime and its Western accomplices supplying Ukraine’s armed forceswith weapons for committing crimes against our people have shown to the whole world their rude disdain for the norms of international humanitarian law. They are openly trampling upon the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols that regulate the protection of the civilian population during conflicts, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and some other prominent international acts.
Of particular concern is the conduct of the UN Secretariat, which has once again chosen intentionally vague language in order to avoid offending the Kiev regime by calling a spade a spade. We are told that the organization lacks access to the territory and, therefore, cannot confirm the details of what happened. Despite us repeatedly confirming to the Secretariat that they are permitted to visit frontline areas, but only via Russian territory due to security concerns, the UN has consistently refused, citing its respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
This is a political choice by the Secretariat, not any unwillingness on our part to provide access. Anyone wishing to visit the Lugansk People’s Republic, Donetsk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye or Kherson regions are welcome to do so via the territory of the Russian Federation. It’s not our whim; it’s done for the security reasons. We cannot guarantee the security of all those who would like to cross through the line of combat. Let me underline this – the absence of access does not remove the UN’s responsibility to provide an objective assessment of the strike on a civilian educational facility and dormitory, housing teenagers.
We regularly provide the UN Secretariat with materials documenting crimes committed by the Kiev regime against civilians, yet Secretary-General Guterres chooses to ignore them. If additional materials are required, we are ready to transmit them.
Tellingly, the UN Secretariat faces no such difficulties while commenting on the cases when Ukraine is presented as a “victim” of the so-called “Russian full-scale invasion.” The Organization quickly finds the “right” language, including the emotional condemnations, the political emphasis, and the calls for action. Yet, in the case of Starobelsk, we once again hear the same biased, muted, and lukewarm language that does little to conceal the selective nature of this approach.
The contrast becomes even more obvious when recalling other cases in which the Secretariat and UN structures showed no such restraint. One example is the Bucha provocation, which has become a textbook case of hypocrisy and double standards. For several years, the Russian Side has requested the Secretariat’s assistance in obtaining the list of those killed in Bucha, but without success.
Earlier this month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent a letter to António Guterres containing specific questions regarding the Bucha incident. We are awaiting detailed and elaborate answers. So far, however, we continue to see evasion, delays, and an unwillingness to examine anything that could undermine the version of events convenient for the “Collective West”.
The same selectivity is evident in humanitarian incidents in territories controlled by Kiev. When the UN humanitarian convoy was struck near Belozerka, the Secretariat promptly issued a statement, without establishing the facts or conducting an investigation. By relying solely on claims made by the Ukrainian Side, it placed full responsibility on the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. A similar situation occurred with the Ukrainian NGO “Proliska Humanitarian Mission.”
This raises an obvious question: why is the UN Secretariat ready to speak firmly regarding situation in Ukraine, yet suddenly hides behind the phrases like “we do not have access” when it comes to the strikes on Russian territories, including Starobelsk?
Such an approach is clearly politically selective. It undermines trust in the United Nations and demonstrates that universal principles for the protection of civilians have been turned into political tools used against those the Western self-proclaimed “democracies” oppose.
When children in Donbass are killed, the West speaks of “unverified information.” But when similar accusations are directed at Russia, the presumption of guilt appears immediately, and the entire machinery of political pressure begins operating without hesitation, doubt, or demands for access.
The Kiev regime does not exist in a vacuum. Its numerous atrocities are fueled by the certainty that, after every crime, its Western sponsors will either remain silent, cast doubt on the obvious, or simply blame Russia instead. This approach effectively encourages further attacks on civilians, as those responsible know they will not be held accountable.
Russia will spare no effort in establishing the full circumstances of this crime and bringing everyone involved to justice, including those who gave the orders, enabled the strike, supplied the weapons, provided political cover or attempted to suppress information about the tragedy.
The man-made tragedy in Starobelsk cannot be erased through diplomatic maneuvering, media silence or references to “unverified information.” This premeditated crime is further evidence of the lengths to which the Kiev regime is prepared to go to intimidate civilians and of how low its Western backers are willing to sink to preserve a narrative that suits them.
In response to this and many other multiple crimes of the Kiev regime, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are beginning to launch consistent and systematic strikes on Ukrainian defense industry enterprises in Kiev, including facilities dedicated to designing, manufacturing, programming and preparing drones for operation. The Ukrainian militants use these drones with the help of NATO specialists, who supply components and provide reconnaissance and target acquisition data. The strikes will target decision-making centers and command posts.
As the aforementioned facilities are scattered across Kiev, we are urging foreign citizens, including diplomatic and international organization personnel, to leave the city as soon as possible. We further urge residents of the Ukrainian capital to refrain from approaching military and administrative infrastructure facilities belonging to the Zelensky regime.
All the objectives of the Special Military Operation will be achieved. The neo-Nazis who are spreading terror and chaos across this long-suffering land will be destroyed.
Thank you.
Q: Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador, on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association, for doing this briefing. My name is Edith Lederer from the Associated Press.
The world is witnessing an escalation. We are seeing more intense Russian attacks on Ukraine, including Kiev, and more widespread attacks by Ukraine in Russia. What is the prospect for ending this conflict? We see that the Trump administration is focused now on Iran. Are there any new negotiations planned on this conflict between Russia and Ukraine?
A: Thank you, Edith.
I will start with the first part of what you were saying about the escalation. The usual narrative by our Western colleagues, not just in the Security Council but elsewhere, as well as by the Ukrainians themselves, in particular by the current Ukrainian PR, who excels in that, is telling us that Russia is stalling on the front, it is not moving, the gains that it achieved during the four years are minimal, Ukraine’s victory is imminent, Russia will collapse in a month or two, etc. All this – how would I put it diplomatically – language.
The problem is, or rather the answer to it is, that we deliberately refrained from making major strikes on Ukrainian territory, specifically because these are the people who live in Ukraine. Do you recall any strikes on major cities in Ukraine or on Kiev, except for certain military infrastructure that we did earlier? These people are not foreign to us, and we have mercy on them.
But the Kiev regime won’t stop before anything, as it did in Starobelsk. It was really a disgrace to hear what they were saying after we called that meeting to demonstrate what happened there and how deliberately it was planned and executed.
On the talks with the Ukrainian side, there are no talks. We put our conditions forward. We said what the real talks are. It is not the freezing along the front line, which Kiev desperately wants, despite the message that the Ukrainian PR is sending. I asked him a rhetorical question at the last meeting of the Security Council: “If you are so confident in your imminent victory, why are you calling for an immediate ceasefire? Then do it. It does not match with the military objectives on the battlefield – your narrative and the narrative by your authorities.”
Nothing meaningful is happening. We put our conditions forward. We said that before we achieve whatever agreement, the core reasons why the whole thing started should be eliminated, and we should be able to talk about them. They are very well known. This is NATO membership. This is the threat that Ukraine poses to Russia, neo-Nazi nature of the regime, the persecution of the Russian-speaking population in the country, and a whole lot of these things.
And we were very close to achieving that before Bucha happened, if you remember, in 2022, when Boris Johnson rushed to Kiev and basically forbade Zelensky to sign anything, encouraging him to continue, assuring him that the West would never leave Ukraine and that victory was just behind the door, etc. It all collapsed then.
But now we don’t see any willingness on the part of the regime to participate in whatever negotiations. Yes, President Trump indeed, I think, quite genuinely wanted and still wants this conflict to be finished. But the problem is that you cannot finish this conflict before addressing the root causes why it started.
And indeed, the Trump administration now is busy with other matters. We all know which. And perhaps the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is not on their priority list. There were talks that Kushner and Witkoff would go to Moscow shortly. As far as I know, they have not been there yet, and I don’t know whether they are coming shortly or not either.
Q: Thank you so much, Mr. Ambassador. Abdelhamid Sayam from the Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi.
Palestinians are used to this double standard. When one Israeli is wounded, then there are so many statements, but if thousands of Palestinians are killed, then it is collateral damage or self-defense. But my question is about the double standard in this unjustified, unlawful attack on Iran. I haven’t seen flagrant cases of condemnation of this. They just talk about condemning Iran by attacking the Gulf, but I didn’t see reference to the root causes of what happened in the Gulf.
A: Did you hear the reference by whom?
Q: By the UN officials and many delegations. And there were meetings of the Security Council. There was even a resolution 2817, which condemned the Iranian attack on the Gulf, but they didn’t mention, even mention, the original flagrant case of aggression on Iran by the US and Israel.
A: We have mentioned it. We are addressing the root causes of what is now happening in Iran all the time. We vetoed one resolution together with China exactly because it didn’t address the root causes, putting the cart before the horse.
Now, the Gulf countries – we sympathize with them, they are all our friends. The Strait of Hormuz, the attacks on these countries – we condemn the attacks on civilian infrastructure. But without mentioning or addressing how it all started, this resolution becomes one-sided and misses the point, basically. That’s why we are not very much enthusiastic to adopt it.
Freedom of navigation is very important. We are suffering from the lack of freedom of navigation ourselves, because our ships are often stopped arbitrarily in the open seas by our former European partners. We have a draft resolution that we prepared together with China on that issue.
But the Gulf countries are focused on the Hormuz thing. I understand it is important to them. We are telling them: you are not condemning the aggressor. And they say: we were prepared to condemn the aggressor, but before we did it, Iran already struck at us.
Iran was warning in advance that, had this started, it would attack the military infrastructure that the US built in those countries. I’m telling them: you are hostages of the American policy in the Middle East. And we were saying a long time ago that if something like that happened, you would inevitably get into this crisis, whether you want it or not.
But indeed, the UN is again lukewarm on addressing the root causes. The IAEA Director General is also trying to evade the subject. But the subject is simple: it is unprovoked aggression by two countries against Iran on a false pretext. We all know it.
Q: I would like to ask whether there are plans to seek a UN-led international investigation, and do you believe an international objective assessment of this tragedy is still possible today?
A: I think I know the answer in advance. There will be no UN investigation of this tragedy because of these things to which I referred in my presentation. They will say, "Yeah, but this is the sovereign territory of Ukraine. We have to respect the territorial integrity. We can only enter this territory from the Ukrainian side." And so on and so forth.
And we had this similar experience with that prison in Yelenovka that was destroyed, and many people died there. We had the same experience and nothing happened. Besides, you know, in Ukraine there are a few commissions which they call independent. But their independence raises a lot of questions, at least for me. Same with the UN. Some of them bear names – UN mission, human rights mission in Ukraine, for example. And who is supplying data to that mission? We know who. So I'm skeptical about the UN-led investigation of the tragedy. That's if I put it shortly.
Q: During the recent drone and missile attacks on Kiev, the ARD studio was severely damaged. What's your statement to that?
A: Well, the easiest answer I can provide, I don't know the details, is that the media studios were not the target of the attacks. There should have been something around which was not related to media.
But look, these are hostilities, and things happen, and we do not deny that some civilian people are losing their lives in these hostilities. That's true. And some damage is caused to the infrastructure. But I mean, I stress it all the time, we stress it all the time, and our leadership stresses it all the time: we do not target civilians deliberately. Unlike what Ukraine's armed forces are doing, not just in Starobelsk, which we are discussing today, but they were doing that on a regular basis even before that. You know, I was referring to at one of the meetings, the previous meeting on Ukraine, that they have a system of these drone operators who are deliberately targeting civilian objects because this became a kind of a game. For the targets they destroy, they get promoted and receive upgraded drones. And that completely makes the point different.
They are interested in hitting as many civilians and civilian objects as they can. They pursue civilian cars, for example, because this becomes a computer game, and they are getting promoted for it. There is a system of upgrade of their drone facilities that they can get for the victims that they can find in open fields. I am not saying that the war is a good thing. I am not enjoying it. But I mean, in this kind of hostilities, yes, there are civilian victims, but the difference is that we never go after civilians deliberately.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. My name is Susan Tehrani from WeOn. Does Russia believe that the current US-Iran talks are genuinely moving towards some kind of peace, or does Russia believe that more military action is inevitable? And also, can you talk to us about the possibility of Iran transferring some of its enriched uranium into Russia? Has there been any talk regarding that, and would you welcome that? Thank you.
A: I would like to believe that the talks are moving forward – although there are no talks per se. These are indirect exchanges of papers that one side or the other is studying. The sides are not agreeing on everything, but we hear comments saying, you know, that they agreed on this, they did not agree on that, but that the deal is close. Whatever the deal may be, if Iran accepts it and if it is acceptable to the United States and the parties involved, we would welcome it. But that is ultimately Iran’s decision, not ours, and not the US decision either.
Talks are supposed to lead the sides to decisions and to a deal that would satisfy both sides. The alternative – strikes and further escalation – is something we would, of course, like to prevent, because it is fraught with consequences not only for Iran, but for the whole region, which is already in very bad shape. On the second part of your question, regarding the uranium enrichment material, we have said that we are ready for it. That is a sovereign decision by Iran. If Iran were to ask us to take that material to Russia, and if that were part of a deal, why not? Yes, we said this a long time ago, but so far we are not there yet.
Q: Has Iran maybe said that they are willing to do that?
A: We are not at the stage when Iran said anything on it.
Q: Thank you, Ambassador. Farnoush Amiri with the Associated Press. I want to talk about the– both the resolutions that you and China have on freedom of navigation and then the Bahrain resolution. Has there been any discussions about when those two would come for a vote? And then separately, today you mentioned during the Security Council session that the Iranian ambassador – I'm sorry, the Iranian Foreign Minister was denied a visa. Did the Iranians tell you that themselves? Because the UN, has said that they're not aware of that, and then the US has not responded.
A: I was not talking about the Iranian Foreign Minister not receiving a visa, although it is in itself a bit strange to me because I think the host country could have used the opportunity of the Iranian Foreign Minister being in the States, since they are in the process of whatever indirect negotiations. I was talking about the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, who was denied a visa to participate in the Chinese signature event without any plausible explanation.
The person who is responsible in the Foreign Ministry for UN affairs – how would you qualify or treat it, or how could you explain it? Of course, we will not leave it at this stage; we will follow up on the case. But this is not just an insult to us, it’s an insult to the Chinese presidency because the Chinese presidency was asking for the highest possible level of participation.
Q: And then, sorry, the resolutions.
A: It’s exactly the same question I’m asking my Gulf friends. They didn't come with any definitive answer yet. There were some talks about it this week, but I'm not sure if we are going to have more this week because we have the Muslim holiday tomorrow, then the week is expiring. They haven’t announced the date yet.
Q: Thank you so much, Ambassador. Aleksey with RIA-Novosti News Agency. I have a follow-up on Starobelsk strike. Are you ready to invite your Security Council colleagues to visit Starobelsk? Thank you.
A: I'm ready to invite my Security Council colleagues anytime I'm not sure that all of Security Council colleagues would answer my invitation. During our last [Security Council] meeting I was inviting the Ukrainian Permanent Representative to Russia to make sure himself “how bad the shape of the Russian economy is, and how it is decaying, how soon it will collapse”. He specifically answered to the invitation that under no circumstances, even “if Russia would come on the knees to beg Kiev for mercy”, he would never go to Russia. That was his answer, but that’s separate.
But my Security Council colleagues, some of them would like to go, perhaps. But you know, for that to be a Security Council visit, you need to have all the 15 ambassadors. You cannot just pick and choose the council members, then that will not be the Security Council members visit. So I'm ready to invite, but I'm not sure that all of them will accept the invitation.
Thank you.
