While many on the American political left and the Zelensky Government in Kiev ridiculed the assassination of Charlie Kirk for different reasons, at a time that the American Right (including President Trump and his policymakers) grieved him, the Putin Government in Moscow—which is at war in the Ukraine, and in direct negotiations with the Trump Government about that war—seems to be firing mixed signals about what they truly think of Charlie Kirk and his assassination.
One would think that the Russians would stand with the position of the Trump Administration to foster good will negotiations aimed at bringing the war in Ukraine to an amicable end. However, taking the temperature in Moscow reveals a very complex web of mixed emotions within the Putin Administration, which turns the table of Strategic Ambiguity on its head.
On one hand, Kirill Alexandrovich Dmitriev who is Putin’s negotiator with the United States, is a Russian businessman who is also the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (a fund that is worth some 10 billion dollars) rushed to social media to make a comment on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, “Pray for Charlie, Pray for Charlie, Pray for Charlie, the voice of the light will not silenced.”
Why would a Kremlin official, a man appointed by President Putin himself, make such a comment? Does his comment represent the official stance of the Kremlin?
Bear in mind that Kirill has been tasked by President Putin to bring the Americans to the negotiating table by encouraging the policy makers of the Trump administration—the likes of Steven Charles Witkoff (an American lawyer and real estate investor who has served as the United States special envoy to the Middle East and special envoy for Peace Missions since 2025), Howard William Lutnick (an American businessman and philanthropist who has served as the 41st United States secretary of commerce since February 21, 2025), Scott Kenneth Homer Bessent (an American government official and former hedge fund manager serving since 2025 as the 79th Secretary of the Treasury of the United States), and Stephen Andrew Feinberg at the Pentagon (an American businessman and investor who has served as the 36th United States deputy secretary of defense since 2025).
Kirill has been ordered by President Putin to persuade these core policy makers for Trump to go soft on sanctions, allow Russia to finish the war on Russian terms and reestablish a long-awaited business relationship that will benefit the Russian Federation. Therefore why would a prominent Russian operative like Kirill make statements, which has implications outside of the United States, about a paid propagandist like Charlie Kirk, who has, from the Russian perspective, puffed hot and cold about President Trump’s pressure on President Putin in the Ukraine war? What kind of political message is he sending and in what context is Kirill expressing this view?
On the other hand, for a better understanding of the context, Maria Vladimirovna Zakharova, who is a Russian politician, who serves as the director of the information and press department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, and who has been the spokeswoman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation since 2015, also made a statement on Charlie Kirk’s assassination. She said, “We cannot and we will not draw any conclusions before the suspect of the people involved in this crime are found and taken into custody.”
Maria’s comments, at the face of it, were deeply diplomatic—neutral and realistic, with an aversion to any kind of bias on either side of the views on Charlie Kirk. Clearly, she avoided any speculation on the matter. Yet, Maria did not end there. She remarked that Charlie Kirk’s assassination had sparked unprecedented exaltation among the supporters of the Kiev Regime in Ukraine. She noted that the Ukrainian social media space were jubilant, obviously about what the Ukrainians felt were anti-Ukrainian negotiating positions espoused by Charlie Kirk. Finally, Maria admitted that “the reaction to the [assassination of Charlie Kirk] has become yet another manifestation, deeply rooted in the ultra-liberal west, the perception of violence and terror as acceptable means to crack down on dissent.”
Still, Maria’s comments, neutral and measured, were completely different from Kirill’s comments. She avoided the discussions about Charlie Kirk as such, and focused instead on the reaction from the Kiev Regime and its supporters. Former President of Russia, Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev, who is also now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia since 2020, tweeted to this effect, “Political crimes and assassinations are being carried out lately by a variety of left-wing liberal scum who support Banderite Kiev. Fitso [the Prime Minister of Slovakia], Kirk. Who’s next? Maybe it’s time for the MAGA team to realize that by supporting the Ukraine, they’re supporting murderers.”
Dmitry’s comments were relatively neutral considering the context. The owner of Telegram, Pavel Durov, perhaps in an attempt to promote his brand said, “Charlie Kirk’s death threatens freedom of speech around the world.” That simple. No doubt, Durov wanted to advertise himself and the Telegram as the epitomes of freedom of speech and to imply that the west—in particular that France, where he is involved in litigation with the French government—remains the antitheses of free speech. Of note however are the comments of the prominent Russian Nationalist Orthodox Philosopher, Alexander Dugin, who juxtaposed the assassination date of Charlie Kirk with that of the Christian Orthodox celebration of the beheading of John the Baptist. Dugin’s messages imply that Kirk’s death represent the kind of Christian traditional values that Russia is defending on the battle field in Ukraine.
Whether Charlie Kirk’s assassination represents a detente for the business elites of Russia, led by Kirill Dmitriev, putting pressure on President Putin to end the war quickly and make the concessions necessary to reset business and investment relations with the USA, to the mockery of what Russians (the General Staff, the Intelligence Services, the Foreign Ministry) generally understand and want, or whether Kirk’s death represents a celebration of (Christian, Orthodox) traditional values by former President Dmitry and Alexander Dugin, the neutral comments together with the celebrations of Kirk’s life by the Kremlin all grind against the Kiev Regime’s jubilation at the death of Charlie Kirk.
In this way, the war in the Ukraine continues both militarily and ideologically.
They are not enemies.intact the wider MAGA supporters don’t want the u.s.a to go to war but build economic ties.
By commemorating the beheading of john the Baptist with that of charlie Kirk’s death,it means Kirk is a matyr which is the obvious.
Donald Trump and Russia are not at war but building friendship and the signal is good.for Donald Trump to state emphatically that Ukraine’s war with Russia is that of Joe Biden’s creation or war?it means one thing we are not interested in this war.
Alexander Dugin’s position is similar to that of Putin towards Trump America nothing else.They are not enemies.intact the wider MAGA supporters don’t want the u.s.a to go to war but build economic ties.
By commemorating the beheading of john the Baptist with that of charlie Kirk’s death,it means Kirk is a matyr which is the obvious.
Donald Trump and Russia are not at war but building friendship and the signal is good.for Donald Trump to state emphatically that Ukraine’s war with Russia is that of Joe Biden’s creation or war?it means one thing we are not interested in this war.
Alexander Dugin’s position is similar to that of Putin towards Trump America nothing else.