Russian Ambassador Confirms Iraqi Deaths in Ukraine War as U.S. Blacklists Militias in Baghdad

ERBIL (Kurdistan24) – The Russian ambassador to Baghdad has confirmed that Iraqi nationals have been killed and wounded while fighting in the war in Ukraine, a rare public acknowledgment that underscores the human cost of a distant conflict on Iraq’s citizens and reopens a sensitive debate about sovereignty, neutrality, and foreign influence at a moment of intense geopolitical pressure on Baghdad.

According to an AlArabiya report dated Dec. 19, 2025, Russian Ambassador Elbrus Kutrashev stated that Iraqi fighters were among those killed and injured in the Russian-Ukrainian war, while emphasizing that their numbers were not large.

Speaking during a televised program, Kutrashev added that Moscow had granted visas to the families of the deceased Iraqis “for humanitarian considerations in return,” a remark that implicitly acknowledged official Russian awareness of Iraqi participation in the conflict and suggested a degree of post-facto accommodation for affected families.

The ambassador’s comments land amid mounting scrutiny of how Iraq’s young men have been drawn into Russia’s war effort and how Baghdad is navigating its declared neutrality in the conflict.

They also intersect with a broader political dispute inside Iraq over foreign leverage, particularly the role of the United States in shaping Iraq’s future governments.

Kutrashev dismissed reports alleging an American “veto” over the participation of certain factions in Iraq’s next government, asking pointedly: “Is there an American mandate over Iraq?”

In November, Kurdistan24 reported that Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein revealed the United States had placed six Iraqi armed groups on a prohibited list, effectively barring them from participation in any future government as part of Washington’s effort to curb Iran’s influence and protect what it calls Iraq’s international standing.

The disclosure marked a significant escalation, transforming long-standing American warnings into explicit political exclusion.

Kutrashev’s rejection of the idea of an American veto must therefore be read against this backdrop of intensifying U.S. pressure, including sanctions, blacklists, and blunt military warnings.

Beyond the diplomatic sparring, the ambassador’s confirmation of Iraqi casualties draws renewed attention to the phenomenon of Iraqis fighting in Ukraine, a development Baghdad has repeatedly sought to discourage.

In September, the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow issued a formal warning against attempts to lure Iraqis into participating in the war, responding to claims circulating on social media by an individual falsely presenting himself as a representative of the Iraqi community in Russia.

The embassy categorically denied those claims, stating they had “no basis in truth,” and reiterated Iraq’s firm position of neutrality regarding the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, alongside its call for peaceful solutions through dialogue.

That warning reflected growing alarm within Iraqi official circles over recruitment efforts targeting vulnerable citizens abroad.

Previous Kurdistan24 reporting has detailed how jobless Iraqi youth, facing chronic unemployment and disillusionment at home, have been enticed by promises of high salaries, bonuses, and even foreign passports to join Russia’s ranks.

While Baghdad maintains an official posture of neutrality, the reality on the ground has proven far more complex, with economic desperation, social media recruitment, and lax oversight combining to pull Iraqis into a conflict far removed from their national interests.

Kutrashev’s acknowledgment effectively confirms what families and investigators have long suspected: that some of those who left Iraq or joined from abroad have paid with their lives.

By stressing that the number of casualties was limited, the ambassador appeared to downplay the scale of the issue. Yet even a small number carries symbolic weight in a country scarred by decades of war and loss.

Each death abroad reverberates domestically, reinforcing public unease about the erosion of state authority and the vulnerability of Iraq’s youth to foreign conflicts.

The mention of visas granted to families “for humanitarian considerations” introduces another layer of complexity. While framed as a compassionate gesture, it also underscores the absence of clear mechanisms to prevent Iraqis from being drawn into the war in the first place.

For families seeking answers or closure, such measures may offer limited solace. For Iraqi officials, they raise uncomfortable questions about accountability and the extent to which foreign governments acknowledge responsibility toward non-citizen combatants.

The timing of Kutrashev’s comments is particularly sensitive.

Iraq is approaching a critical political juncture, with government formation talks looming under the shadow of external pressure. Washington’s campaign to marginalize armed factions it deems proxies of Iran has already altered the calculus of coalition-building.

Yet Moscow’s own role, as highlighted by the presence of Iraqi fighters on Ukrainian battlefields, is not without controversy.

Indeed, Russian statements about Iraqi participation have previously drawn sharp criticism. Earlier remarks suggesting that large numbers of Iraqis might join the Russian army provoked condemnation from Iraqi human rights groups, which argued that recruiting civilians from a neutral country violates international law and Iraqi sovereignty.

Against that history, Kutrashev’s more restrained confirmation can be seen as an attempt to clarify Moscow’s position while avoiding further diplomatic fallout.

Still, the broader implications remain unresolved. Iraq’s declaration of neutrality has been repeatedly tested—not only by the actions of its citizens abroad but also by the competing demands of global powers operating within its borders and political system.

The war in Ukraine, though geographically distant, has thus become another arena in which Iraq’s fragile sovereignty is contested, both symbolically and materially.

For the Iraqi government, the challenge lies in translating neutrality from rhetoric into reality. Embassy warnings and judicial actions against trafficking networks signal intent, but enforcement remains uneven.

Economic conditions that make foreign recruitment attractive persist, as does the influence of regional and international actors pursuing their own strategic objectives in Iraq.

Kutrashev’s comments, brief as they were, crystallize these tensions. They confirm Iraqi casualties, acknowledge humanitarian gestures, and reject claims of American veto power, all in a single intervention. Each element touches a nerve in Iraq’s current political discourse, from the fate of its youth to the boundaries of foreign influence.

As Iraq navigates this fraught landscape, the human stories behind the statistics continue to accumulate quietly. Families await news of sons who left in search of opportunity or survival, only to find themselves engulfed by another nation’s war.

Their losses feed a growing sense that Iraq’s struggles, far from being confined within its borders, are increasingly entangled with global conflicts beyond its control.

In that sense, the Russian ambassador’s confirmation does more than acknowledge casualties. It serves as a stark reminder that Iraq’s neutrality is not merely a diplomatic stance but a fragile shield—one that can be pierced by poverty, propaganda, and power politics alike.

Whether Baghdad can reinforce that shield, and reclaim greater agency over the destinies of its citizens, remains an open question as external pressures continue to mount.