Moscow’s Indigenous Rights Report Exposes Russia’s Own Hypocrisy

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation has published a new report accusing nine countries; Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, of failing to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The report addresses serious issues, including historical dispossession, forced assimilation, residential schools, the erosion of Indigenous languages, inadequate political representation, environmental damage and the exploitation of natural resources without the free, prior and informed consent of the peoples affected.

These are legitimate human rights concerns. Many have been documented extensively by Indigenous communities, national inquiries and international institutions. Moscow’s decision to invoke them, however, exposes a fundamental contradiction: Russia condemns abroad many of the same policies that it continues to pursue against Indigenous peoples under its own control.

A report designed to accuse others, not to uphold universal rights

The political purpose of the document is made clear in its introduction. The Russian Foreign Ministry alleges that the United States, Canada and their allies are attempting to divert international attention from problems in their own countries by raising what Moscow describes as alleged violations of Indigenous rights in Russia and in certain developing countries.

The report therefore does not apply a universal standard. Russia excludes itself from scrutiny, dismisses criticism directed at its own conduct as politically motivated, and then selectively uses Indigenous suffering as an instrument against its geopolitical rivals.

If Moscow genuinely believes that assimilation, dispossession, language loss and the denial of Indigenous self-government are unacceptable, it must explain why it refuses to confront these same issues within the territories it controls.

The Circassian case Russia refuses to examine

The contradiction is particularly stark in the case of the Circassians, the Indigenous people of the north-western Caucasus.

After more than a century of war and colonial expansion, the Russian Empire completed its occupation of Circassia in 1864. Mass killings, destruction of settlements, forced displacement and deportation removed the overwhelming majority of the Circassian population from its ancestral homeland. Millions of their descendants now live in diaspora, while the Russian Federation continues to deny the Circassian Genocide and rejects meaningful responsibility for its consequences.

The surviving Circassian population in the homeland remains administratively divided among several regions and is officially classified under separate labels; including Adyghe, Kabardian, Cherkess and Shapsugh. These classifications are used as though they represent unrelated ethnic communities, weakening the recognition of a single Circassian people and restricting common national organisation.

Russian state policy has also steadily weakened Circassian-language education. Mother-tongue instruction that was once compulsory and provided for several hours each week has been reduced, made optional and, in many schools, marginalised. The broader policy of privileging Russian as the dominant language of education, public administration and social advancement accelerates assimilation across generations.

At the same time, independent Circassian activism is routinely treated as a security problem. Peaceful demands concerning historical recognition, cultural rights, national unity, political representation or the right of return are frequently portrayed as separatism, extremism or threats to the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. This environment restricts independent organisations and encourages fear and self-censorship both in the homeland and throughout the diaspora.

Russification is not limited to Circassia

The same contradiction extends to many Indigenous peoples and national communities across the Russian Federation.

United Nations mechanisms and independent human rights organisations have documented pressure on Indigenous defenders, restrictions on traditional livelihoods, inadequate consultation over extractive projects, environmental damage, unequal access to essential services and the decline of Indigenous languages. Activists and organisations working on minority and Indigenous rights have also been affected by Russia’s expansive laws on “foreign agents,” “undesirable organisations,” extremism and terrorism.

In 2025, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation reported an intensification of repression and the use of an increasingly broad legal framework to suppress peaceful dissent. UN economic and social rights experts have also raised concerns about Indigenous peoples’ access to land, resources, healthcare, education and meaningful participation in decisions affecting them.

Yet none of this appears in Moscow’s report. Russia demands accountability from other states while exempting itself from the standards it invokes.

Indigenous rights cannot be selective

The Russian Federation cannot credibly lecture other countries about colonial injustice while denying the rights of peoples whose ancestral homelands remain under Russian colonial control.

If Russia is genuinely concerned about the survival of Indigenous languages, it should end policies that marginalise Circassian and other non-Russian languages in education and public life.

If it opposes forced assimilation, it should cease using state institutions to impose Russian linguistic, historical and political identity upon distinct peoples.

If it supports Indigenous participation, it should allow independent national organisations to operate without intimidation or criminalisation.

If it condemns historical dispossession, it should recognise the Circassian Genocide, acknowledge the continuing consequences of the mass exile of 1864 and respect the right of Circassians to return to their ancestral homeland.

If it believes that Indigenous peoples have rights to their lands, resources and political future, it must respect those rights not only in countries it considers adversaries, but also in Circassia, the North Caucasus, Siberia, the Volga-Ural region and the Russian-controlled Arctic.

The rights described in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s report are not privileges to be invoked selectively. They are universal principles.

Russia’s document ultimately reveals more about Moscow’s foreign-policy strategy than about its commitment to Indigenous peoples. A government that weaponises Indigenous suffering abroad while suppressing Indigenous claims at home is not defending human rights. It is exploiting them.

Indigenous rights cannot be used as a weapon against political rivals and discarded when Indigenous peoples demand those same rights from Russia.

Reference documents

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Indigenous Peoples Rights Situation in Certain Countries (2026): https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/reports/2121333/

UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, report A/HRC/60/59 (2025): https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session60/advance-version/a-hrc-60-59-aev.pdf

UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, consideration of the Russian Federation’s seventh periodic report (2025): https://www.ohchr.org/en/meeting-summaries/2025/09/experts-committee-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-commend-russian