On 10 June 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin convened a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council, which had previously been presented by state media as a pivotal event.
The meeting was widely expected to address Russia’s response to Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb, the high-profile drone strike that destroyed or disabled long-range bombers used by the Kremlin to conduct sustained attacks on Ukrainian cities.
Contrary to expectations, however, the Security Council session took place in virtual format, and its agenda diverged markedly from military or strategic themes. Instead, Putin and senior officials—including Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu—focused their discussion on the defence of “traditional values”, which they characterised as central to Russia’s identity and now enshrined in the Russian constitution.
Shoigu, speaking after the meeting, pledged to carry out all of Putin’s instructions regarding the protection of these values, framing them as the ideological foundation of Russia’s domestic and foreign policy. The discussion included themes such as the rejection of “liberal totalitarianism” and the preservation of historical memory, presented in opposition to Western social models.
The timing and content of the meeting drew significant criticism from Ukrainian and international observers, particularly in light of a Russian missile strike against Ukrainian cities carried out in the early hours of the same day. The strike damaged, among other sites, the 11th-century Saint Sophia Cathedral—a historic Orthodox landmark deeply rooted in the cultural and religious heritage of Kyivan Rus—as well as the Odesa Film Studio, a key institution in the history of both Ukrainian and Soviet cinema.
Analysts have noted the dissonance between Russia’s proclaimed defence of cultural and moral values and the destruction of cultural landmarks in Ukraine. Critics argue that this rhetorical posture serves a dual purpose: it masks the ongoing campaign of indiscriminate missile attacks against civilian infrastructure, and it aligns Russia with far-right movements in Europe and North America, many of which promote similar narratives of traditionalism and cultural purity.
The decision to hold the session virtually, with no specific announcements on military escalation, also suggests that Russia may not currently possess new, unused instruments of retaliation—either because it is already operating at the limits of its strike capability or because it wishes to avoid further direct confrontation with NATO-aligned states.
Nonetheless, commentators warn against interpreting the lack of a formal escalation plan as a sign of de-escalation. Russia’s tactics—employing missile and drone attacks against civilian centres—have remained consistent throughout the war, and did not begin in response to Spiderweb. The campaign of bombardment against Kyiv, Odesa and other cities pre-dates Ukraine’s operation and continues regardless of specific battlefield events.
The Security Council’s focus on “traditional values” has also been interpreted as a message to foreign audiences, particularly those sympathetic to right-wing populist or authoritarian ideologies in Europe and the United States. Within these circles, Russia is often viewed not as an aggressor but as a bulwark against liberalism, immigration, and globalist structures. By presenting itself as the global defender of cultural continuity, Russia aims to appeal to political factions whose rise could disrupt international support for Ukraine and delay its Euro-Atlantic integration.
President Putin’s rhetoric in this context can be seen as part of a wider campaign to build ideological bridges with European ultranationalist movements. His messaging reinforces the view—held by some fringe elements in the West—that Russia represents a legitimate alternative to the liberal democratic model. This alignment may have significant implications for European security policy, particularly in countries where far-right parties hold or are seeking power.
Observers also note that Putin’s discourse contains ideological echoes of 20th-century fascist movements. References to “traditional values” and warnings against liberal decay are common to historical authoritarian regimes, and the juxtaposition of such language with military aggression against cultural targets recalls propaganda techniques employed during the interwar period. The invocation of “totalitarian liberalism”—a term repeatedly used by Russian officials—is an example of this rhetorical inversion, framing democratic societies as ideologically repressive.
Further complicating matters is Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, a key ally of Putin, who has previously made favourable references to aspects of Adolf Hitler’s governance—a matter of record in Belarusian and international media. This context lends additional weight to accusations that Russia’s ideological platform increasingly mirrors that of far-right authoritarianism.
While the Russian public remains largely passive in the face of such developments, Western audiences—particularly those aligned with far-right or sovereigntist parties—are key targets of the Kremlin’s narrative. The virtual Security Council meeting thus served not only as an internal demonstration of control, but as an external signal to likeminded political factions abroad: Russia is willing to act as the ideological standard-bearer for movements opposed to liberal internationalism.
The underlying message is clear. Putin aims to position himself not merely as the leader of a state at war, but as the figurehead of a transnational ideological project. In this framing, attacks on Ukrainian heritage, civilian life and sovereignty are presented not as acts of aggression, but as necessary measures in a cultural and civilisational struggle against perceived Western decline.
By placing “traditional values” at the centre of a Security Council meeting on the same day Russian forces damaged historic Ukrainian sites, Putin has underscored the symbolic dimension of the war. It is not only a conflict over territory, but a deliberate challenge to the ideological and cultural foundations of Europe.
Read also:
Ukraine’s Bid to Join EU Roaming Zone Marks a Small But Symbolic Step Toward Integration
