Former Defence Minister Dr Wayne Mapp says the government is right to neither confirm nor deny Russian claims that a New Zealand citizen was spying for New Zealand's intelligence service in Russia.

Mapp, who was Defence Minister under Prime Minister John Key, told RNZ that refusing to comment on any part of the case — what he called "a blank canvas" approach — makes sense when the only information available is coming from Russian state sources (RNZ).

"Even a denial says something, whereas a confirm nor deny says much less," Mapp said.

The case involves the arrest of a 55-year-old man in the Russian city of Khabarovsk. The arrest was first reported by The Moscow Times and came with video footage released by Russia's federal security service, the FSB. The man is accused of using email and instant messaging to pass information to the SIS, New Zealand's domestic intelligence agency. If found guilty of treason under Russian law, he could face life in prison.

The New Zealand government and the SIS have both refused to comment. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been briefed on the matter, according to Mapp. Russia's Ambassador to New Zealand, Stanislav Krans, declined an invitation to be interviewed on RNZ's Morning Report.

Mapp raised concerns about the circumstances of the arrest and the information released by Russian authorities. He said the availability of footage showing the arrest on a street was unusually convenient, and suggested there could be "Russian disinformation" involved. He also pointed out that the man was shown being arrested and then appearing in court, which he called "a prepared narrative."

Commenting on the arrest footage, Mapp said: "He does not look like James Bond, that's for sure."

Mapp described Russia as "a paranoid state that believes it's surrounded by enemies." He said Russia likely sees the Five Eyes partnership — an intelligence-sharing arrangement between New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States — as "the worst of their enemies." He called Russia "a police state."

Security analyst Paul Buchanan and Waikato University law professor Al Gillespie separately said they had reasons to be highly sceptical of the Russian statements, echoing Mapp's caution about trusting the FSB-released material.

The broader context here is that Russian state media and security services have a well-known pattern of producing staged or selectively edited footage to support spying stories. For a government in the Five Eyes group, the thinking is simple: saying yes or no to any detail gives the other side useful information. The "neither confirm nor deny" approach — standard practice among allied intelligence agencies — is designed exactly for situations like this, where the other side controls all the information.

This case is unusual because it involves an alleged human source — someone accused of secretly providing information — rather than a technical matter like intercepted phone calls. Human intelligence is the most sensitive type of spying, and any public comment, even a denial, could put the person at greater risk. The government's silence is not just diplomatic caution; it is the standard practice for allied intelligence services when a source is exposed.

Mapp's view carries weight because he was Defence Minister, a role that would have given him access to intelligence matters. His decision to speak publicly while backing the government's approach, rather than criticising it, suggests both sides of politics agree on how to handle this. That agreement — that engaging with the Russian story in any way is a mistake — is notable when so much of New Zealand politics is contested.

For the government, the political risk is low as long as the silence holds. The opposition has no clear way to attack the government when it is following standard intelligence practice. That could change if the case moves forward in Russia — with more court appearances, a trial, or a verdict — and pressure builds at home for some kind of response. For now, the government's position and Mapp's backing of it follow the long-standing rule that intelligence matters are not debated in public.