- Sergey Lavrov’s forthcoming visit to the Kyrgyz Republic
- Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers meeting
- Ongoing Iran-Israel escalation
- Assistance to Russian citizens in leaving the area of the Iranian-Israeli conflict
- Israel’s position in the context of international efforts to establish a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles
- Ukraine crisis update
- UN Secretary-General’s Annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict
- Council of Europe signs an agreement with Ukraine to establish a Special Tribunal
- NATO summit
- Norwegian leaders accuse Russia of creating nuclear and radiation security risks in Ukraine
- Russian threat assessed in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service 2024 Public Report
- Retaliatory measures against the harassment of Russian journalists in Germany
- UN Charter’s 80th anniversary
- The first anniversary of signing the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between Russia and the DPRK
- 25th anniversary of the Joint Declaration on the Foundations of Friendly Relations between Russia and Myanmar
- 65th anniversary of the proclamation of independence of the Federal Republic of Somalia
- The 20th anniversary of Russia’s accession to the OIC
- Russian Embassy to re-open in Togo and Russian Embassy to open in The Gambia
- International Olympic Day and Russia’s participation in the Olympic movement
- Viktor Bout’s artwork exhibited in Beijing
- BRICS+ Open Science Week
- Finnish president’s Russophobic statements
- Ban on Russian and Belarusian athletes at the European Kickboxing Championship
- Moldova’s “European” integration
- Russia and China’s role in the Middle East settlement
- Increase of NATO’s defence spending
- Russia-China interregional ties
- Next round of Russian-Ukrainian talks
- Russia-Iran cooperation outlook
- Russia-US relations outlook
- Suspension of Iran’s cooperation with IAEA
- New package of anti-Russia sanctions
- Ukrainian language study in Russia
- Some individuals’ influence on global politics
- Russia-Iran cooperation
- Israel-Iran ceasefire
- Russia’s role in settling the Iran-Israel conflict
- Threats coming from Baltic States
Sergey Lavrov’s forthcoming visit to the Kyrgyz Republic
On June 29-30, at the invitation of Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kyrgyz Republic Jeenbek Kulubayev, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay an official visit to the Kyrgyz Republic (the city of Cholpon-Ata).
The head of Russian diplomacy will be received by President of the Kyrgyz Republic Sadyr Japarov and will hold talks with his counterpart, Jeenbek Kulubayev.
The objective of the visit is to continue and enhance the intensive interstate dialogue and collaboration between Russia and the Kyrgyz Republic in the spirit of strategic partnership and alliance. Discussions will encompass matters of collaboration in political, trade and economic, military and technical, cultural and humanitarian, and other domains, with the aim of further expanding multifaceted bilateral ties.
An exchange of views will take place on pressing issues on the regional and global agenda, pathways for advancing Eurasian integration, and intensifying coordinated actions on international platforms – including in the context of Kyrgyzstan’s current chairmanship of the CSTO and forthcoming assumption of the SCO presidency in September 2025. Significant attention will be devoted to regional security in Central Asia, particularly to enhancing joint efforts to counter threats posed by international extremist and terrorist forces, as well as attempts to destabilise the region from the outside.
Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers meeting
As part of his official visit to Kyrgyzstan, Sergey Lavrov will attend the regular meeting of the CSTO Council of Foreign Ministers on June 30 in Cholpon-Ata, chaired by the Kyrgyz Republic.
The foreign ministers of the CSTO member states will exchange views on the state of international and regional affairs, discuss prospects for furthering cooperation within the CSTO framework, and review preparations for the next session of the Collective Security Council in the fourth quarter of 2025.
A series of joint political statements is expected to be adopted following the meeting.
Ongoing Iran-Israel escalation
Numerous questions and requests for commentary have been received regarding the Iran-Israel escalation. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that today, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov provided detailed responses to relevant questions during a news conference following his meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic Thongsavanh Phomvihane.
To summarise the inquiries addressed to us, I can state that we welcome reports of Iran and Israel’s readiness to observe a ceasefire. There is now hope that the wheel of the most dangerous military escalation – set in motion on June 13 this year by Israel’s aggressive and unlawful actions against Iran, which were joined by the United States on June 22 – will be halted. From the very outset of the hot phase of this conflict, Russia, alongside the overwhelming majority of the international community, has persistently called for precisely this outcome.
The attempt by West Jerusalem and Washington to use brutal force to restrict Tehran’s legitimate right to a peaceful nuclear programme has, quite predictably, provoked serious alarm across the world. This is corroborated by the series of emergency sessions convened by both the UN Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors over the past fortnight. It is noteworthy that this was not just an act of unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state, but a strong blow to the global nuclear non-proliferation regime based on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
The fact that Iranian nuclear sites, operating under the IAEA scrutiny, were deliberately targeted by American and Israeli missile strikes constitutes an open affront to the NPT regime. Now, the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement between Iran and the IAEA faces tangible challenges. The integrity of the Agency’s global verification system – a system that has reportedly been exploited as an intelligence source for planning these attacks – has been seriously undermined. The US and Israel bear direct responsibility for the enormous damage inflicted upon the IAEA’s authority and operational credibility, regardless of their efforts to shift the blame onto Tehran.
We must not allow the bombing of nuclear facilities to become a new norm. And yet, this is what segments of the Western media, both overtly and subtly, appear to be normalising. An impartial assessment of these events is needed to ensure that such acts of aggression are never repeated. The truth is that the strikes launched by Israel and the United States were unlawful from the very start and stand in stark contradiction to the UN Charter and relevant Security Council resolutions, which explicitly define attacks on nuclear installations as unacceptable. Claims that these actions were justified by supposed threats emanating from Iran’s nuclear programme do not hold up to scrutiny – a fact repeatedly confirmed by the IAEA leadership, which has found no evidence of military nuclear activity in Iran. We hope that the Agency will not deviate from its assessments for political considerations or under pressure from certain countries.
It is imperative to preserve and build upon the fragile truce in order to steer the situation back towards a diplomatic path without delay. A durable settlement to the Iranian nuclear issue – as well as to other crises in the Middle East – can only be achieved through negotiations and diplomacy. No credible alternative exists.
Russia will continue supporting this process, as reaffirmed during the meeting between President Vladimir Putin and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Moscow on June 23.
The practical proposals put forward by the President of Russia, designed to find a balanced and mutually acceptable solution, remain on the table. These initiatives were brought to the notice of all the parties involved: the United States, Israel, and Iran. That said, Russia is not seeking to impose anything on anyone. We just offer a constructive vision for resolving the crisis – one that guarantees Iran’s legitimate right to develop peaceful nuclear energy, while also addressing Israel’s security concerns. We believe that such a solution is both possible and necessary.
Assistance to Russian citizens in leaving the area of the Iranian-Israeli conflict
Russian diplomats have been doing an immense amount of work to assist Russian citizens in the zone of conflict, and not only them but many of those who turned to Russian foreign missions for help having other passports and citizenship.
Amid the escalation of tensions in the Middle East, relevant units of the Russian Foreign Ministry and other agencies, embassies, air carriers and travel companies continue their coordinated efforts to provide for the departure of our citizens from dangerous areas.
All in all, the departure of over 1,000 people – families of Russian foreign missions’ employees, delegations, artists, business people, our tourists and fellow country men and women – has been arranged since June 14.
Thus, about 900 people have left Iran. The routes via the border crossings to Azerbaijan (checkpoint Astara), Armenia (Agarak) and Turkmenistan (Bajgiran) have been developed.
Over 130 Russians, including families with seriously ill children, received assistance in leaving Israel via Egypt (checkpoint Menachem Begin/Taba) and via Jordan (Allenby, Yitzhak Rabin, Jordan River Crossing/Sheikh Hussein Bridge border crossings).
Eighty-five people have left Iraq.
Priority is given to assistance in the safe departure of our citizens. This work continues. We are grateful to the authorities of Iran, Israel, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Turkmenistan for their help.
We call on our citizens to continue exercising utmost caution and observe personal security measures. In view of the dynamically changing military and political situation in the region, the situation in the airspace of Iran, Israel and other countries, and the possibility of resuming direct flights to Russia, please monitor the reports and warnings of Russian foreign missions, air companies and tour operators.
Contact information of Russian embassies: in Iran (+98-21-6670- 1161/63, +98-993-814-7226; msembiran@mid.ru; t.me/russianembassytehran); in Azerbaijan (+994-12-597-0870, +994-50-270-2659; embazerbaijan@mid.ru; t.me/embrusaz); in Israel (+972-53-600-3847, +972-54-962-2341; cons.israel@mid.ru; t.me/Russialnlsrael); in Armenia (+374-10-58-98-43, +374-77-49-50-01; consannenia@mid.ru; t.me/rusembassyarm); in Egypt (+20-128-009-50- 99; rusembegypt@mid.ru; t.me/rusembeg); in Jordan (+962-7-75-52-81-25, +962-7-77-42-66-18; rusembjo@mid.ru; t.me/rusembjo) and in Bahrain (+973-3940- 3237; bahrain@mid.ru; t.me/RusEmbBahrain).
Round-the-clock hotline of the Foreign Ministry Crisis Management Centre (department): +7-495-695-4545; e-mail: dskc@mid.ru; t.me/DSKC__MID_Russia; mobile application Assistant Abroad.
We have taken note of the fact that a number of Western political and state figures have recently begun referencing the need to establish a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons. Many commentators have asserted that these unlawful bombardments of Iran constitute precisely such efforts to create a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region. It is necessary to clarify the terminology and revisit the chronology of this issue.
In an interview with NBC on June 22, 2025, US Vice President JD Vance expressed support for nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East. Once again, it must be emphasised that many have recently presented their own vision and interpretations of this concept. While the idea is correct, we stress the importance of logical coherence and consistency in this matter. Let us recall that the United States, alongside Russia and Britain, is among the co-sponsors of the 1995 resolution on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems (WMDFZ), adopted at the Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
However, the United States has become overly fixated on advancing the postulate that Iran, in particular, must not possess nuclear weapons, while neglecting the fact that, under international law, Israel is equally prohibited from maintaining such weapons. The recent strikes by Israel and the US against civilian, peaceful nuclear facilities in Iran – conducted under a fabricated pretext – inevitably bring the issue of Israel’s nuclear capabilities back to the forefront and further underscore the urgency of establishing a WMDFZ in the Middle East. For years, complex yet intensive and productive discussions on this matter have been underway, with the states of the Middle East playing the leading role.
The sole country persistently evading these efforts is Israel. On the one hand, it extols the lofty ideals of nuclear non-proliferation, while on the other, it reduces everything to purported threats emanating from Iran, clearly unwilling to bind itself by any non-proliferation commitments: it neither signs the NPT nor subjects its entire nuclear programme to the IAEA safeguards. The United States indulges this conduct. Meanwhile, West Jerusalem deems it acceptable to exploit the obligations of non-nuclear NPT signatories as leverage against them – a tool for political score-settling and even a pretext for launching military operations. This is a misguided and opportunistic policy founded on illegitimate premises.
We remain convinced that efforts to establish a WMDFZ in the Middle East must continue. We observe a commitment to this goal among Arab states and Iran, which – jointly with Egypt – initiated the 1974 UN General Assembly resolution on the Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East. West Jerusalem has no objective reason to disregard this responsible process, which aligns with its own national interests. Since 2018, five sessions of the annual WMDFZ Conference have been held (with the exception of the pandemic-affected year of 2020). The next round is scheduled for November of this year in New York. This platform offers the most conducive conditions for all regional states, including Israel, to participate in discussions and contribute to shaping the corresponding security architecture. The longer West Jerusalem sabotages these efforts, the greater the pressure it will face – along with the attendant negative repercussions in the region.
Let me reiterate: since 2018, five sessions of the annual Conference on the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction have taken place. When addressing this issue, one must be cognisant of its historical context. It has already assumed an international legal dimension. This is not mere deliberation or debate – it is the work of states within the framework of international law.
Kiev’s neo-Nazi regime keeps launching terrorist attacks against civilians and civilian facilities in Russia.
Over the past week, 114 civilians have fallen victim to Nazi’s strikes – 13 lives were lost, including 2 minors, with 101 people wounded. Let me highlight some facts so that the numbers are not discarded as some sort of pallid statistics.
Belgorod Region. Three women were wounded when a Ukrainian drone struck on a pharmacy branch in Graivoron on June 17. A man mowing hay in Shebekino was killed in a cluster submunition blast on June 18. Two civilians were injured, including a 16-year-old teenager, due to a Ukrainian drone strike on the section of the Urazovo-Borki motor road on June 22. An AFU drone assaulted an ambulance vehicle in the village of Rzhevka. They targeted not just any civilian object but specifically an ambulance vehicle, hitting at doctors. As a result, the ambulance crew – a doctor, a nurse and a driver – were wounded.
Bryansk Region. Two firefighters were injured in a Ukrainian UAV attack in Maznevo on June 21. The strike was targeted not just on a civilian facility but on an agency that is supposed to help people in emergencies.
Kursk Region. Two local residents were killed in an MLRS strike on the village of Zvannoye on June 17. On the same day, a woman, born 1962, was killed by a Ukrainian drone attack on a passenger car in the village of Korenevo.
Zaporozhye Region. On June 18 and 19, Ukrainian drones assaulted civilian passenger cars in Vasilyevka and Pervomaiskoye, wounding two people. On June 20, the AFU drones targeted private houses in Grozovoye and Konstantinovka, with two victims again. On June 22, a man, born in 1965, was injured as a result of a drone attack hitting a block of flats in Vasilyevka.
Kherson Region. Four civilians were injured by a Ukrainian drone raid on the villages of Kairy and Vinogradovo on June 18. On June 22, Novaya Zburyevka village was shelled by artillery, with two locals wounded in the strike. One person was killed in Kozachyi Lagerya due to artillery shelling. Two men were injured by the shelling of Kalinovka.
Donetsk People’s Republic. On June 20, the head of the Donbass Water production facility in Mironovsky was killed by a kamikaze drone targeting a service vehicle on Svetlodarsk – Mironovsky motor road. Two more of the personnel were severely wounded. On June 21, the AFU used large-caliber artillery to shell a residential quarter in Gorlovka. A woman born in 1996 was wounded.
Lugansk People’s Republic. On June 16, two teenagers, aged 16 and 17, were killed by a drone assault on a residential community in Kremennaya. My heart shrinks now that I am saying this. On June 18, a man, born in 1951, was killed in a drone attack on a block of flats in the town of Rubezhnoye. On June 20, the AFU used a drone to hit an ambulance vehicle in the centre of Lisichinask, severely wounding a paramedic, while a nurse and the driver got shrapnel wounds. On the following day, a 5-year-old girl was admitted to hospital with a mine-blast trauma in the same city.
All those AFU members will be punished for all that. Russian courts keep passing judgements to Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries for their war crimes and other offenses.
According to the Investigative Committee of Russia, more than 7,300 criminal cases have been initiated since 2014 regarding crimes committed by the Kiev regime, including those involving representatives of Ukraine’s leadership, security agencies, and members of radical nationalist groups. To date, investigations have been concluded against 637 individuals, with 577 defendants convicted.
The Russian Investigative Committee has identified commanders of the Ukrainian Armed Forces responsible for the unlawful displacement of civilians from the Kursk Region. These individuals include Major General Eduard Moskalyov, military commandant, and Colonel Alexey Dmitrashkovsky, press officer of the commandant’s office. They are suspected of committing crimes under articles pertaining to terrorism and hostage-taking. Investigative findings indicate that, under their orders, Ukrainian security forces seized civilians as hostages in Sudzha before forcibly relocating them from Russia and unlawfully detaining them in the Sumy Region until May of this year.
UAF militants have been convicted for crimes committed in the Kursk Region: Yevgeny Kraivanov (14 years’ imprisonment), Natalia Balaklitskaya and Andrey Shevchenko (15 years each), Sergey Borisov, Alexander Dudnik, Vasily Katanyuk, Alexander Titenko (16 years each), and Alexander Petukhov (17 years). The majority of their sentences will be served in a strict-regime correctional colony.
Belgian national Martin Jacques and Georgian national David Khositashvili have been sentenced in absentia to 14 years’ imprisonment each.
In light of the Nazi-terrorist Kiev regime’s actions, we’ve taken note of reports by Iranian media regarding the arrest on June 22 by Iran’s Security Service and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of three agents of Ukrainian military intelligence. They attempted to infiltrate a Shahed drone assembly facility in Isfahan to plant explosive devices. The group was neutralised before causing damage. According to available information, Iran’s Supreme Court has sentenced the detainees to death by hanging, with the verdict expected to be carried out within two weeks. This further underscores the terrorist nature of the Kiev regime, whose criminal activities extend beyond Russian territory and include readiness to conduct attacks in other regions of the world.
We are acutely aware of their atrocities, past and present, on the African continent. Yet their campaign targets not only people but also culture. The suppression of the Russian language and Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine has escalated to new heights. Fascist elements seek out victims on social media, in public spaces, and at sporting events, inciting persecution. Some even attempt to gain notoriety through such provocations.
Recently, a young football player and self-styled blogger publicly criticised prominent Ukrainian footballer Yevgeny Seleznyov for speaking Russian during a match. One might wish all such “bloggers” would direct their grievances at Vladimir Zelensky, who speaks Russian everywhere – at home and at work, if terrorist acts can be termed “work.” The blogger filmed the incident and posted it online, presumably to attract an audience and boost followers. Ironically, neither the management of his football club nor his subscribers endorsed the provocation. The blogger was dismissed, and commentaries revealed significant dissent among his followers. Yevgeny Seleznyov continued playing. Notably, the blogger later admitted to using Russian in daily life, reserving Ukrainian for public appearances.
Another Ukrainian athlete, gymnast Vlada Nikolchenko, faced vilification from so-called “language activists” for refusing to abandon her native Russian. Online, she was branded with shame, subjected to death threats (a favoured tactic), and called for expelling her from the country.
These activists have now targeted the legendary Soviet and Kiev Dynamo football coach Valery Lobanovsky, who passed away more than 20 years ago. Who could possibly be disturbed by this in today’s Ukraine? He was accused of “deliberately and systematically fostering a Russian-speaking environment,” “demonstrating contempt for the Ukrainian language,” and “obstructing Ukrainisation” in the 1990s. As alleged proof of his guilt, a quote from the Sovetsky Sport newspaper is cited, in which the coach criticises those who raise the language issue in Kiev, stating that the Ukrainian language was never suppressed. For this alone, he is now posthumously vilified. Neo-Nazis, in their fury, are demanding the demolition of Lobanovsky’s monument. What more can be said, except that they expose themselves by such actions?
These grotesque displays of intolerance, unthinkable in any sane society, have been enabled by state-sponsored, primitive Russophobia and virulent nationalism. Ukrainian citizens are being indoctrinated to believe that their primary enemies are Russia and the Russian people. In a country where diverse nationalities once coexisted peacefully before the neo-Nazis seized power, society is now being artificially saturated with Russophobic ideology and hatred towards undesirable citizens.
In Ukraine, all sporting and other achievements in the nation’s honour are nullified if one speaks the “wrong” language. It has reached the point where brainwashed individuals demand that Russian speakers be barred from bomb shelters – because, apparently, the sound of Russian “makes them cringe.” Would they recoil from holy water if it were sprinkled on them, too?
These facts underscore and reaffirm the necessity of the special military operation to denazify and demilitarise Ukraine, eliminating threats emanating from its territory. As the Russian leadership has repeatedly stated, all objectives will be decisively achieved.
UN Secretary-General’s Annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict
The point is that on June 17, the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict was distributed at the UN Security Council. As per the UN Secretariat, 2024 was marked by a significant growth of gross violations against children.
That seems like proper caring. But let us take a closer look at the report.
The condition of children in the context of the Ukraine crisis is a separate part in the document. UN representatives somehow managed to “record” a sharp increase in the number of killed and maimed children. The Russian Federation has been designated for third year as a party responsible for such violations in Ukraine. In most cases, full responsibility for denying humanitarian access, assaults on schools and hospitals, killings, injuries and even recruitment of children is absolutely unfairly placed on the Russian Armed Forces and “aligned armed groups.”
You might ask, “How about evidence?” There is none.
Against the backdrop of an outright anti-Russia bias of the Ukraine section of the report, the absence of the AFU in the list brings out particular indignation. Moreover, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres contrives to praise the Kiev regime for its cooperation with the UN. Meanwhile, the UN Secretary-General feels merely concerned about the impact on the situation with children from the Kursk invasion and assaults by the Ukrainian militants in the Russian border areas.
We resolutely condemn the biased political decision by the UN Secretariat to include the Russian Armed Forces in the list of those responsible for violations against children in Ukraine. We view it as none other than a policy of double standards pursued by the UN leadership since the 2014 anti-constitutional coup in Kiev. Regrettably, the world organisation has become used to consistently hushing heinous violations of the basic norms of the international humanitarian law and its other provisions by the Kiev regime.
We have to state that the UN Secretariat has once again neglected a thorough examination of the data for the documents they present to the UN member-states. It is particularly essential in view of the large-scale anti-Russia information campaign waged by the Western countries. For our part, we regularly submit to the office of the UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict current information about the situation with children in Ukraine, the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions and other areas of Russia which suffer from the Kiev regime’s actions. Such instances are being recorded and checked on a regular basis and must definitely be reflected in the UN Secretariat’s reports.
The Russian Federation is invariably committed to protecting children in armed conflicts. We will continue to take steps to minimise victims among civilians during the special military operation.
As a UN Security Council permanent member, we will keep actively participating in drafting and adopting effective decisions by the Council for Children and Armed Conflict, including by its Working Group.
Council of Europe signs an agreement with Ukraine to establish a Special Tribunal
There have been reports that on June 25, the Council of Europe signed an agreement with the Kiev regime’s ruling clique to establish what it called a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. On this occasion, Vladimir Zelensky went as far as travel to Strasbourg and address the plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
As you know, the Council of Europe was among the first to speak out in favour of creating these quasi-legal mechanisms to target Russia. PACE with its radical posturing stood at the root of these initiatives. It has long morphed into a driver of Western Russia-hating attitudes and double standards. And the Committee of Ministers supported its destructive ideas about setting up the so-called Special Tribunal, which basically amounts to a mock trial. On June 24, 2025, the Committee of Ministers authorised the Council of Europe Secretary General to execute this cynical deal with the neo-Nazi junta’s head.
For the Western politicians who took this decision, this act amounts to writing yet another shameful page in the Council of Europe’s history book, which already has quite a few pages of this kind, by the way. This regional structure aspires to play a special role in defending democracy, human rights and the rule of law, but all its efforts have been in vain. They have no idea what the notion of human rights means and have failed to voice any concerns regarding the status of the Russian language or Russian speakers, or the years-long efforts by the Kiev regime to persecute those who want to know and speak their mother tongue.
I am referring to those who want to remember their past and where they come from, who want future generations to benefit from their achievements, their creativity and their culture. And there was not a single report or statement in the Council of Europe on any of these topics, never.
Russia has presented its principled position on this matter many times: the Council of Europe lacks the mandate for creating any criminal tribunals, establishing that an act of aggression was perpetrated, and does not have the authority to do that. Nevertheless, Strasbourg does not see fit to “go into the details.” Why not? They can pretend anything, since paper cannot blush, as the saying goes.
The bureaucrats in the Council of Europe are ready to sacrifice anything for the sake of launching this pseudo-legal Special Tribunal, primarily the legal norms and standards by de facto throwing international law under the bus. At the same time, they are trying to effectively contain Russia by escalating the Ukraine crisis.
By the way, from a purely formal perspective, this Special Tribunal was designed as a Ukrainian tribunal with an international element. What does this mean? I think that academia must ponder this matter. This suggest that it lacks and will never have any legitimacy internationally, while its mandate to indict Russian nationals would not go beyond the authority Ukrainian courts have in this regard. Despite all their attempts, those who conceived this would-be tribunal failed to agree on anything bigger even with European countries. In fact, the signing of the agreement will not pave the way for establishing the tribunal, since there are still several stages the European bureaucrats will have to go through before this happens.
Either way, Russia will treat the operation of and verdicts by this structure as null and void. For us, any country joining this tribunal will be viewed as taking a hostile step against Russia and seeking to make the ongoing Ukraine crisis worse instead of settling it. There will be restrictive measures as per the Russian law regarding this partisan judicial tool, while actions of its most zealous promoters will be examined from a criminal law perspective.
We hope that all reasonable countries distance themselves from the reckless undertakings by the Council of Europe in its current shape.
There are many questions about the NATO summit. I would like to note once again that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has issued a detailed comment on that subject today.
In reply to all the questions we have received, I can tell you that the results of the NATO summit held in The Hague on June 24-25 have reaffirmed what has long been known. Despite a show of unity regarding the need to repel “numerous” threats to the Alliance, the summit was held in accordance with Washington’s plans, regardless of the other members’ opinion. The US administration forced the allies to agree to increase their defence spending from 2 percent to 5 percent of GDP, which can always be presented as their own desire. Although they tried to hide their feelings, that decision was so painful for many US allies that differences over the new defence ceiling have become public knowledge. Spain was the first to state that it could not overheat the state budget this way, and several other leaders said off the record that their countries would be unable to meet the new target too. Nevertheless, all the member states have signed the new commitment.
How is this possible, you may ask? But we have seen this happen before. The favourite explanation for this radical build-up of NATO’s defence spending and rearmament programme is “the long-term threat posed by Russia.” To keep up panic sentiments, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has stated again that Russia might attack the allied states “three, five, seven years from now.” I wonder if they can’t determine the timeframe more precisely or just want to indicate that the defence spending target will be further increased and everyone must be ready to pay more. But he couldn’t answer questions about what made him think that Russia would attack. He cited the news that Russia was “reconstituting” its armed forces.
NATO has been heavily relying on the demonised image of Russia in the past decades. The “Russian threat” they have invented seems to be the only explanation why the public is being fleeced again. However, we know that they are doing this primarily to please the United States and to convince it that Europe is ready to pay its share. It is a US business project aimed at encouraging Europe and the West in general to place long-term orders with US defence companies.
At the same time, NATO plans to increase its defence spending and production within 10 years, by 2035. How does this target relate to the potential Russian threat “three, five, seven years from now”? The fever pitch was so high at the summit as if Russian forces were expected to break into the conference room any minute.
They have been spreading more rumours, alleging that Russia would invade the Suwalki Gap or send a landing force to the Bornholm Island any day. In short, they discussed many subjects and tried to frighten each other. But the truth is that the United States wants to secure contracts for its defence industry. They need money, but where to get it? This is simple: from those whose economy they have ruined recently and who they are forcing to increase their defence spending so that they can pay the US defence industry. However, they can’t say this in plain English because they will lose votes in their countries.
In 2024 alone, the aggregate defence budget of the NATO countries amounted to about $1.5 trillion or more than the defence spending of all the other countries taken together. But they are afraid, nevertheless. I have a question: If Western Europe spend on defence more than all other countries taken together, why can’t they use these funds efficiently? Or do they have ineffective weapons? The latter can be true, though. We know what is happening to the much-touted German weapons. We have demonstrated these arms, in particular, damaged German tanks, in the central squares of our cities. The NATO countries plan to increase their aggregate defence budget next year. How does this relate to their statements about the defensive nature of the alliance? Who are they defending themselves from if they spend more on defence than all the other countries in the world?
The NATO allies have not coordinated their stance on many other issues, including Ukraine, at their summit. Nevertheless, they don’t intend to stop supporting the Kiev regime. They have announced their intention to allocate over 35 billion euros to Ukraine’s regime this year. They will continue to support it, because the collective West wants the conflict which they have created in the region to continue. They have openly stated that their aim is “to keep Ukraine in the fight today, so that it can enjoy a lasting peace in the future.”
If they interpret peace in Ukraine as “cemetery silence,” they can achieve it, but in this case, they should say so plainly, because everything NATO is doing is killing Ukraine and completing its destruction.
As for NATO’s other promises to Ukraine, its secretary general assured that the fact that Ukraine’s NATO membership was not mentioned in the final declaration did not mean anything. Ukraine’s path to NATO membership remains irreversible, he said. This is remarkable.
Overall, the Hague summit has fortified the bloc’s return to its roots and the initial meaning of its establishment, that is, confrontation with Russia just like during the Cold War. As they have stated in the declaration, they are resolved to protect “our one billion citizens” from Russia, the very same “golden billion” whose superiority the collective West has been vigorously trying to maintain.
Norwegian leaders accuse Russia of creating nuclear and radiation security risks in Ukraine
I would like to comment on a statement made by Norway’s leaders. This is something fantastic! I’d call it the-other-way-round fest. The thing is that high-ranking Norwegian officials constantly accuse our country of this or that, but what they have done now is just incredible. They always claim that Russia is creating threats, risks, and so on. Now Oslo is charging us with attacks on nuclear power facilities, along with “schemes” in the military, hybrid, digital, misinformation and other fields.
I would like to ask the Norwegian leaders: Has someone cut their cable so that they are now unable to switch on their TV sets? Or is it that internet news is not within reach? Or maybe radio broadcasts are jammed in Norway? Are they unaware of who is attacking nuclear facilities? The attackers are the United States and Israel. It is they that delivered strikes at nuclear facilities in Iran. What Russia has to do with that? Why invent tall tales? It is an absolute shame to tell stories about Russia striking at nuclear power facilities in recent days.
One of these talkers is Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide, who said in the same breath that Oslo had a good mind to assist safe power supplies and prevent nuclear accidents. Where? In Iran? No, he said, in Ukraine. This is something you can’t believe because it is an absurdity.
In theory, you can understand Oslo’s concern with preventing a nuclear accident in Ukraine. But what does it have to do with the situation on the ground? It is the Russian Federation that primarily has a vested interest in nuclear security. Unlike the Kiev regime, Russia pursues a responsible policy in the atomic energy area and actively cooperates with the IAEU in the matter of ensuring security at nuclear facilities, including in Ukraine. At the same time, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) regularly create threats to security of nuclear infrastructure facilities, specifically the Zaporozhye and Kursk nuclear power plants. The Norwegian authorities are turning a blind eye to these facts. What further speculations are needed, if they failed to see the US and Israeli attacks on Iran’s peaceful nuclear infrastructure?
This only reaffirms our conviction that the Norwegian officials’ conclusions about sources of nuclear risks are guided by things other than interests of nuclear and radiation security. What guides these in reality is Russophobia that commands them to peremptorily lay blame for all existing risks on the Russian Federation and close their eyes to the true sources of these risks. It must also be noted that Oslo is inconsistent in its policy. The Norwegian leaders failed to denounce the US and Israeli strikes at Iranian nuclear facilities, including the Bushehr nuclear plant. They did not see them. They turned away at that moment. They shut their eyes and plugged their ears.
Norway is to blame for the petering off of its nuclear and other cooperation with Russia. Oslo prefers playing up to the Kiev regime’s provocative line rather than maintain constructive ties with Russia, aimed at supporting peace and stability.
For our part, we will continue to ensure national nuclear and radiation security in a reliable way and do whatever we can to strengthen the international regime geared to safe use of nuclear power. What we would like to advise the Norwegian leaders is to switch on their televisions.
Russian threat assessed in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service 2024 Public Report
We have reviewed the latest annual report from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). To give them credit, it is consistent with previous editions – just as Russophobic as ever.
There is nothing new in Canadian intelligence’s distorted and far-fetched perception of Russia. It seems all they did was update the publication date, repeating the same tired assessments about Russia from last year. The usual cut-and-dried clichés – allegations of “hostile actions” such as espionage, sabotage, and interference in Canada’s internal affairs (who, might I ask, would even want to meddle in Canada’s affairs?) – remain as unfounded and unconvincing as ever.
In response to claims about the imaginary threat to Canada’s Arctic region, it should be emphasised that Ottawa, like other member states, has refused to cooperate with our country within the Arctic Council. It is widely known that Russia operates in the Arctic in strict compliance with international law and remains open to constructive collaboration to ensure the region’s sustainable development.
Ottawa’s accusations of Russian “disinformation” are especially cynical. Wasn’t it Canada that removed the Russia Today television network from its authorised list of programming services and stations – effectively suppressing freedom of speech and persecuting dissent? Canada has imposed countless sanctions against Russian media, journalists, and public figures, while its neoliberal media obsessively peddle lies about the developments in Ukraine and fabricate absurd tales about our domestic politics for their biased news.
Rather than inciting hatred, fuelling Russophobic hysteria, and justifying their confrontational policies, Canadian authorities should take a cue from better examples, which are closer than they might think. There are nations bold enough to consider forging an equal, mutually respectful dialogue in the interest of actual security, both national and global, rather than acting to suit select influence groups.
Retaliatory measures against the harassment of Russian journalists in Germany
Canada isn’t alone in its persecution of media professionals. The German authorities’ treatment of Russian journalists and media outlets has reached new heights of cynicism, amounting to a blatant violation of their international obligations.
German officials continue their relentless campaign against Russian journalists accredited in that country, employing administrative pressure, outright harassment, and propaganda designed to demean them. These tactics aren’t limited to targeting Russian media organisations or individual journalists – they extend even to family members.
No method is off the table in their efforts to force Russian correspondents to cut their professional assignments short and leave the country.
The incident involving Sergei Feoktistov, head of the Rossiya Segodnya bureau in Berlin, along with his wife and seven-year-old daughter, stands as an egregious example of this persecution. We have repeatedly commented on this case during Foreign Ministry briefings. However, Berlin obstinately ignores our demands to cease targeting media representatives and to honour its international obligations to uphold press freedom and opinion pluralism. Similar pressure is now being applied to Channel One and VGTRK.
In response, as previously indicated, we have prepared retaliatory measures. The German ambassador to Moscow will shortly be summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry to be formally notified of these actions.
This day, June 26, marks an important event – the UN Charter was signed 80 years ago.
Establishing the United Nations marked a major landmark for the international community in its progress. It resulted from the centuries-old effort by the humankind to devise an inclusive and effective mechanism for consolidating peace, human rights and promoting socioeconomic development. The fact that this organisation came to be followed the logic of history and resulted from a whole range of objective conceptual, historical, political as well as other factors. But it was what happened during World War II that served as a trigger which enabled all these factors to come to fruition.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that our country made a major contribution to establishing the United Nations. In fact, it was by and large the Soviet proposals which defined the way the United Nations would operate and the provisions of its Charter. Andrey Gromyko signed the UN’s founding document on behalf of the USSR in San Francisco. The Soviet Union rightfully claimed a permanent seat within the UN’s Security Council.
The UN has always played a special role in our country’s foreign policy. We have consistently relied on the tools it offers for strengthening national sovereignty, making our economy more competitive, finding answers to the challenges we face in the present-day world, and asserting the Global Majority’s interests. It is largely thanks to our country that the UN has adopted decisions which laid the foundation for the emergence of a multipolar world order. Take the decolonisation process – it started with the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples at the initiative of the USSR in 1960.
The UN has built a track record of success in terms of settling various international conflicts, reinforcing the arms control framework, promoting disarmament and non-proliferation, fighting poverty, hunger, and dealing with many other matters. We must praise the UN for its peacekeeping operations in various hotspots around the world and its efforts to ensure stability, defend civilians and promote political processes.
Throughout its history, the UN has had to face criticism many times, and these reproaches have been increasingly vocal in recent years. Some claim that the UN is unable to resolve any of the challenges the world is facing today. Moreover, the West has been increasingly seeking to intentionally diminish the UN’s role, relegate it to the background or impose its agenda on it. The infamous concept of a rules-based order and the persistent efforts to impose it as an alternative to international law offers a telling example of this trend.
All these developments notwithstanding, we still believe that the United Nations must play a central coordinating role in international affairs. It is our firm belief that the organisation’s Charter sets forth the key principles governing interstate relations, must remain the cornerstone of the present-day world order and guide member states through the rapid emergence of a multipolar world order. It is essential that we all understand that the provisions contained in this founding document are complementary and form a single whole. They must be honoured in a comprehensive manner without trying to single out specific principles at the expense of others.
In this connection, it is instrumental that all countries reaffirm their commitment to the Charter’s purposes and principles considering their complementary and interconnected nature in an unambiguous manner and without any reservations. This would serve as an important step for fully restoring the UN’s authority and making it effective. The Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations has been at the forefront of these efforts as a key tool for making the voice of the Global Majority heard, countering the Western narrative and building a multipolar world order with greater justice for all.
In accordance with agreements, reached at the Russian-Korean summit. that took place on June 19, 2024 in Pyongyang, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and Chairman of State Affairs of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Kim Jong-un signed the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between our countries.
This fundamental document reflects an entirely new level of traditionally friendly and neighbourly relations between Russia and the DPRK that have evolved in conditions of a drastically altered international situation.
Historical experience shows that Russian-Korean ties, based on mutual respect, trust and common strategic interests, have passed a serious test of time. In this context, the implementation of provisions of the Treaty’s Article 4 acquires special significance. Under this article, units of the Korean People’s Army took part in joint efforts to liberate temporarily occupied districts of the Kursk Region from armed formations of the Kiev regime and foreign mercenaries.
I would like to emphasise the high appraisal of the courage and selflessness of Korean service personnel by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin. The Russian side is moving to perpetuate the memory of fallen Korean heroes.
The treaty is already being effectively filled with real content. Since the signing of the document, a series of high-level meetings has taken place, and there are plans to hold multiple new events, including joint celebration of the 80th anniversary of liberating Korea from Japanese colonial domination on August 15, and the 80th anniversary of establishing the Workers Party of Korea on October 10.
Cooperation in the cultural, humanitarian, scientific, technological and youth spheres is developing dynamically; interregional and party exchanges are becoming more active. More profound collaboration is highlighted by the construction of a motorway bridge across the Tumannaya River, as well as the resumption of direct railway services between Moscow, Khabarovsk and Pyongyang.
Yesterday, on June 25, the Pyongyang – Moscow passenger train arrived at Yaroslavsky Railway Station for the first time in the past five years. The train left Pyongyang on June 17, and spent eight days en route to Moscow, traveling via Khasan, Ussuriysk, Khabarovsk, Chita and other cities. Passenger traffic between Russia and the DPRK was suspended in February 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Russian Federation consistently fulfils its obligations and is confident that the implementation of the Treaty will help strengthen strategic partnership between our countries and will also make a weighty contribution to maintaining stability and security in Northeast Asia.
July 3 marks 25 years since the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Foundations of Friendly Relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar.
This pivotal document laid a solid foundation for the progressive development of bilateral ties across a wide range of areas. Russian-Myanmar relations are distinguished by their traditionally friendly nature, grounded in mutual respect and support.
Political dialogue is developing dynamically. This year, Chairman of the State Administration Council and Prime Minister of Myanmar Min Aung Hlaing visited Russia twice – on an official visit in March and to participate in ceremonial events marking the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. Regular delegation exchanges have been established, and contacts between government agencies, business circles, and academia are expanding. Joint projects are being implemented in various areas of mutual interest. Thanks to the proximity or alignment of approaches to key issues on the global and regional agenda, our countries effectively coordinate efforts on international platforms.
In March this year, Russia provided assistance to the friendly people of Myanmar in mitigating the consequences of a devastating earthquake. On the instructions of President of Russia Vladimir Putin, five Il-76 aircraft from Russia’s Ministry of Emergency Situations were dispatched to the country. The combined task force included rescuers from the Centrospas aeromobile unit and the Leader Special Risk Operations Centre, as well as canine teams, anaesthesiologists, and psychologists. The Federal Centre for Disaster Medicine of Russia’s Ministry of Healthcare deployed a field hospital and provided qualified medical care to the injured. A team from the Emergency Paediatric Surgery and Traumatology Clinic headed by Dr Leonid Roshal also arrived in Myanmar.
We are confident that the mutual commitment to advancing multifaceted cooperation will help identify new opportunities to strengthen traditional friendship and expand practical collaboration in military and technical, trade, economic, and cultural spheres – for the benefit of both nations and in the interests of stability, security, and sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.
65th anniversary of the proclamation of independence of the Federal Republic of Somalia
On July 1, the Federal Republic of Somalia will celebrate the 65th anniversary of its independence.
In the 19th century, Somali territory was divided between Britain and Italy. In 1960, after a hard-fought struggle for freedom and the right to determine their own destiny, the two colonies formed a single independent state. On September 11, 1960, the USSR was among the first to establish diplomatic relations with Somalia. The Soviet Union provided assistance in the formation of Somali statehood. Large quantities of machinery and equipment were supplied to Somalia, hundreds of Soviet specialists participated in the construction of local infrastructure facilities, and over 20,000 Somalis received education in the USSR – among them former Presidents Abdiqasim Salad Hassan and Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed.
Today, Somalia is resolutely advancing along the path of stabilising the internal political situation, which deteriorated sharply in the 1990s and led to civil war in the country. Mogadishu is increasingly integrating into the global community: in 2024, Somalia became a member of the IAEA and was elected as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for 2025-2026.
Russia and Somalia successfully maintain political dialogue and are expanding trade and economic interaction. A significant boost to our inter-parliamentary cooperation was provided by the official visit to Russia on June 1-5 this year by Speaker of the Senate of the Federal Parliament of Somalia Abdi Hashi Abdullahi, during which he held meetings with Speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of Russia Valentina Matviyenko, Speaker of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of Russia Vyacheslav Volodin, and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Mikhail Bogdanov.
We sincerely congratulate our Somali friends on their national holiday and wish them prosperity and well-being.
The 20th anniversary of Russia’s accession to the OIC
June 30 marks the 20th anniversary of Russia’s accession as an observer to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Over the years, the OIC, which brings together 57 countries from Asia, Africa, Europe, and South America, has become a significant factor in positively oriented international politics. The desire of Russia, which is home to a multi-million Muslim population, to join the OIC was first expressed by President Vladimir Putin during his official visit to Malaysia in 2003. The subsequent decision in 2005 for our country to join the OIC was a logical extension of the long-standing friendly relations between Russia and Muslim countries elevating our cooperation in various fields to a whole new level.
Today, we regard the nations of Islamic civilisation as our reliable partners in building a multipolar world order, ensuring international security and stability, and addressing global and regional economic challenges.
We highly value that, considering the international situation compounded by Western attempts to impose its slipping dominance, the Islamic world refuses to relinquish its independence and remains committed to the principles of sovereign equality among countries and relations based on international law and the recognition of civilisational and cultural diversity.
OIC Secretary-General Hissein Brahim Taha’s participation, at the invitation of President Putin, in the celebrations of the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War was a compelling demonstration of the Muslim countries’ desire to engage with Moscow in this spirit.
The Islamic world and Russia share common approaches and joint efforts in resolving crises, particularly the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Together, we counter terrorism and extremism, promote interreligious and intercultural dialogue, uphold traditional spiritual and moral values, and combat discrimination and persecution on religious grounds, including Islamophobia and Christianophobia. We attach great importance to establishing cooperation with the OIC member countries in creating universal legal frameworks for international information security, including combatting information crimes and the imposition of false mass culture values.
Russia - OIC political dialogue has become firmly established on this foundation, and cooperation through parliamentary channels is maintained as well. Interaction in education, scientific research, and culture with the involvement of specialised OIC institutions among other avenues, as well as interaction in the spiritual sphere, is on the rise. Joint projects to study the cultural heritage of Russia’s Muslim peoples will go live soon. Contacts are underway between Russian and OIC human rights organisations. Activities under the OIC Youth Forum are being successfully implemented. Students from Russia are studying at theological institutions in Muslim countries, while thousands of citizens from Islamic countries are studying at Russian universities.
Russia regularly participates in the annual ministerial sessions of the OIC’s Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation in Istanbul, as well as in the OIC-sponsored meetings of ministers of economy, finance, and information technology.
We are committed to further developing cooperation with Muslim countries through the Russia -Islamic World Group of Strategic Vision, which includes prominent representatives from Russia and the Islamic world.
The International Economic Forum Russia - Islamic World: KazanForum is held annually in the capital of Tatarstan and is an effective interaction mechanism covering a wide range of issues, including the economy, trade, finance, investment, and digitalisation, to name a few. The 16th session of the forum was held recently with great success. The Kazan Forum has also become a unique platform for global interreligious dialogue and direct engagement between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Islamic world.
Cooperation is underway in areas such as ensuring safety and reliability of infrastructure construction in seismic zones and the use of artificial intelligence in video production based on an agreement between the Sputnik news agency and the Union of OIC News Agencies.
Importantly, the strengthening of Russia - OIC ties enjoys broad public support, including the support of business circles, religious associations, youth organisations, and figures of science and culture. Russian regions, where Muslims have historically lived in harmony, peace, and mutual respect with followers of other religions, are making significant contributions to these efforts. Notably, Kazan has been designated the Cultural Capital of the Islamic World for 2026.
To mark the anniversary, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and OIC Secretary-General Hissein Brahim Taha will exchange of congratulatory messages. Commemorative events will be held as well.
We will keep you informed through the Foreign Ministry’s social media accounts and otherwise.
Russian Embassy to re-open in Togo and Russian Embassy to open in The Gambia
Efforts to expand Russia’s diplomatic presence in Africa continue.
On June 17, the Russian Government issued a directive to resume the operations of the Russian Embassy in the Togolese Republic.
On June 18, the Russian Government released a directive to establish the Russian Embassy in the Republic of The Gambia.
Russia maintains traditionally friendly relations with Togo and The Gambia. The opening of diplomatic missions in Lomé and Banjul will ensure stable practical engagement with the local authorities across various fields and facilitate consistent efforts to advance Russia’s interests in these republics.
Organisational steps are being implemented to launch the operation of these foreign missions.
International Olympic Day and Russia’s participation in the Olympic movement
Every year, we mark International Olympic Day on June 23. This used to be an uncontested occasion for celebrating unity, commitment to perfection, and fair play, as well as promoting the Olympic values. The roots of this holiday can be traced back to 1894 when Pierre de Coubertin, a Frenchman and the founder of the modern-day Olympic movement, announced the establishment of the International Olympic Committee on June 23 of that year.
For over 100 years now, our country has been playing a prominent role in the Olympic movement as one of the world’s leading sports powers. Outstanding Russian athletes have achieved all-round acclaim and glory not only at home, but far beyond our borders. Since the Imperial era, Russian Olympic champions and medallists won over 1,800 Olympic medals and have always served as role models for the younger generations.
At the same time, we cannot fail to mention the present-day challenges the Russian sport is facing. They result from the effort by international sports structures to impose illegal, unfair and groundless sanctions, restrictions and all kinds of discriminatory measures against Russian athletes. We believe that this is an outright attempt to impose a political agenda on the sports world, which will seriously damage the international Olympic movement. What they are trying to impose on the Olympic movement runs counter to its very essence – they are pushing for segregation on ethnic, racial and religious grounds.
This year is special since it marks Kirsty Coventry’s inauguration as the new IOC President. She became the first woman and the first African to assume this office, as well as the youngest head of the Olympic movement since Baron de Coubertin. Russia hopes that the plans Kirsty Coventry had presented earlier to enable and empower all athletes without exception to take part in international competitions will pave the way for actual steps in this direction.
Russia believes that the true mission of sports and the Olympic movement consists of uniting nations and their people, as well as reducing international tension. The Olympic Games must be open to all athletes without exception, regardless of their passport, racial or ethnic background, gender or political views. Guided by these principles, we reaffirm our commitment to promoting cooperation in sports on equal terms with all the interested countries.
Viktor Bout’s artwork exhibited in Beijing
On July 3, a unique art exhibition will open in a ceremony in the very heart of Beijing – at the Beijing World Art Museum international exhibition centre. The display, My Coastline, A Pencil’s Trace, is a monumental project showcasing a stunning collection of artwork as part of the Cross Years of Culture between Russia and China (2024–2025).
Who is this artist? It’s Viktor Bout. We have lived to see this day. For years, we have been demanding his release from this rostrum, defending his rights. It took an immense effort of advocacy and relentless action to secure the release of someone thrown behind bars in America – unjustly (to put it mildly), illegally, and in defiance of all human logic and morality – a person also dehumanised and mocked by the system. And all along, he continued to paint – and his artwork is beautiful.
A Russian businessman and public figure, deputy of the Ulyanovsk Region Legislative Assembly, Viktor Bout is now also a member of the Creative Union of Artists of Russia. What’s remarkable is that he refuses to revel in his pain or cling to grievances over the injustice he suffered, over what he lost and what was stolen from him. Instead, he miraculously channels his strength into advancing a positive international agenda. Today he is helping to promote the Russian-Chinese cultural dialogue.
It’s unbelievable. His biography is a symbol of an indomitable spirit. Let me remind you that Viktor Bout spent more than 15 years in US prisons on charges fabricated by the US special services. His artwork mirrors his life’s journey – nearly 300 works created in solitary confinement, his cell transformed into a workshop, a library, and a fortress of the spirit.
The exhibition features more than 50 selected works in various techniques, from graphite pencil sketches to oil painting. His works have come to embody the courage and unbroken spirit of the Russian people, because even under the harshest conditions of imprisonment, Viktor Bout (now an artist) never lost faith in himself or his future. Each piece – painted in solitary confinement, I repeat – is a testament to love in its purest form: love for homeland, for his people, for family, for the world and nature itself. Every brushstroke radiates confidence in justice; every work is powerful and inspiring. Along with the paintings, the exhibition includes posters and the artist’s personal belongings, things he used while in the US prison – the books he read, the letters of support he received from Russia and other countries.
Viktor Bout’s Russian Seasons project in China is more than a cultural event; it’s an emotional bridge between the two great powers. Through his extraordinary life story, it reveals the depth of the Russian spirit to the Chinese public. His journey shows how art can be the ultimate lifeline for the human spirit.
We invite representatives of Russian and foreign media to attend this international event.
The BRICS+ Open Science Week will be held for the first time in Brazil from June 30 to July 7. A key event of the Decade of Science and Technology declared by President Vladimir Putin in Russia, it will be held within the framework of the federal project Popularisation of Science and Technology of the Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Federation State Programme. The project is aimed at promoting scientific and technical knowledge among the general public and helping people discover the wonderful world of science and establish a community of science popularisers.
The programme of the BRICS+ Open Science Week in Brazil will include the Forum of Science Popularisers, events of the NAUKA 0+ International Festival, the Innovation Day, the Science in Faces exhibition, the Scientists to Schools project and many other interactive science promotion events such as workshops, walks with leading scientists, Art & Science film screenings, intellectual competitions and science shows.
The event has been organised by the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education and Lomonosov Moscow State University with support from the Russian Academy of Sciences, the government of the state of Rio de Janeiro, and the City Hall and University of Rio de Janeiro.
Taking part in the BRICS+ Open Science Week will be the leading scientific and educational centres and major technological companies of Russia and Brazil. Over 50 full and non-voting members of the Russian Academy of Sciences will participate in the week.
The main events will be held at the universities, the Planetarium and the City Hall of Rio de Janeiro.
The main themes relate to the priority spheres of BRICS activities, namely, food security and agriculture, energy security and sovereignty, healthcare, sustainable development, AI technologies, and space exploration.
We invite media representatives to cover the upcoming BRICS+ Open Science Week. You will find it interesting.
Answers to media questions:
Maria Zakharova: It’s an old song about what is evidently the main thing for them. President Stubb has made new Russophobic statements, another series of Russophobic allegations in Japan. In particular, he has called for increasing the sanctions pressure on Russia. It sounds ridiculous, but he spoke about the “last gasp of Russian imperialism.” This is nonsense. It looks as if he has no other subjects to speak on, that he is fixated on Russia and can’t stop talking about it. Is there anything else in his life apart from these feats of Russophobia? This is not just our feeling. There are facts proving that his activities are focused entirely on false allegations about Russia and Russia alone. He keeps talking like a maniac about “inflicting strategic defeat on Russia,” just like the other NATO leaders.
Here is what I’d like to know. Alexander Stubb is president of Finland. Is he concerned, to any degree, about the future of his compatriots? Or does he think about Russia all the time? When he calls for tighter sanctions and more restrictions, he should know that this will backfire on his country. More than that, it will not only backfire on Finland as a country but also on the citizens of Finland, who have elected him to make their lives better. But this depends on him more than on us.
Maria Zakharova: It would be laughable if it were not so tragic. This is yet another manifestation of the inadequacy of Maia Sandu’s regime.
The decision by the Moldovan authorities to bar Russian and Belarusian athletes from an international (I must emphasise) sporting event is blatantly political and contravenes the fundamental principles of sport, such as neutrality, objectivity, and the inadmissibility of discrimination on national or any other grounds.
Let me remind you that the tournament organisers had announced the championship as an international event under the auspices of a sporting body. Yet, at the last moment – just two days before the start – Moldovan state authorities expressed their opposition to its holding, citing unspecified “foreign policy circumstances.” Perhaps we are missing something about kickboxing. Maybe Maia Sandu’s regime can enlighten us. It seems to me that they ought to explain precisely what foreign policy circumstances could, within a single day, derail an international kickboxing tournament in Moldova.
When pressed with numerous questions about what was happening, Moldovan officials claimed – without a hint of irony – that this was all linked (no less) to Moldova’s national security. One cannot help but ask: who is safeguarding their security if a handful of athletes arriving for a kickboxing tournament could pose a threat to it?
Consider this: they justify their actions by suggesting that members of our national team might include individuals allegedly affiliated with Russian security services, former military personnel, or athletes from so-called “occupied territories” promoting aggression against Ukraine.
It appears that people connected to Russian security structures may indeed be present on Moldovan territory – individuals who, for years, have contributed to the country’s well-being. After all, not so long ago, we were part of the same state. Is it really so shocking that some – not one, not a hundred, not a thousand – might have served in the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union, or perhaps even the Russian Federation, lived in Russia, or have family ties there, including children residing abroad, particularly in Russia? What is the solution, then? To ban all competitions in Moldova altogether? On the one hand, commenting on this only risks getting endlessly mired in their absurdity. On the other, silence would mean turning a blind eye to the problems Maia Sandu and her regime have inflicted upon the hardworking and good-natured people of Moldova.
This is neither the first nor, we suspect, the last time. Maia Sandu’s regime and her officials are imposing what they call a “European future” on Moldova. Apparently, this is how it manifests – under the guise of “multicultural diversity” (a mantra they endlessly invoke), they continue to propagate Russophobia, which can now be broadly defined as racism, racial discrimination, and a campaign to erase all things Russian – and now Belarusian as well.
This is a fusion of racism, discrimination, and vulgarity. It has crossed the bounds of reason. Sometimes, things are bad but at least follow some logic. This is not just bad – it is downright crass.
Let me remind you that last week, during the World Congress of Vine and Wine held in Moldova, a similar incident occurred. Once again, there were those who supposedly “threatened” Moldova’s security. Under pressure from Ukrainian Russophobes, the Moldovan side restricted the participation of Russian winemakers, demanding the removal of the Russian flag and other national symbols from the venue.
What next? Will they start covering up Russian-related names on maps, confiscating state symbols? How will they determine which way the wind blows? How far will this go?
Twice in the past week, the Moldovan authorities have managed to make themselves a laughingstock before the civilised world. Blinded by their political short-sightedness – verging on outright blindness – they fail to grasp that cancelling, isolating, or inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia is impossible. Many may wish for it, but no one has ever succeeded, no one is succeeding now, and no one ever will.
These incidents, the sheer stupidity of Maia Sandu’s regime, have demonstrated that attempts to politicise neutral international platforms and events find no support – either from organisers, or from participants, and certainly not from the Moldovan people, who are weary of being portrayed in such a light.
The International Kickboxing Federation unanimously decided to cancel the championship and postpone it to next year. This is a profound disgrace for Maia Sandu’s regime and all those forced to be associated with it.
The tournament, as I understand it, will now take place not in Moldova but in another country – one that respects fundamental human rights and freedoms and does not stoop to endorsing racism in any form.
It seems Maia Sandu’s regime operates on the principle of “in for a penny, in for a pound.” I get the impression that nothing restrains them anymore – not even the fact that, to outsiders, this all looks like utter, inexplicable folly.
Maria Zakharova: I have a question for you. Does this resolution of the EU Parliament mention anything about kickboxing? Does it praise Maia Sandu’s regime for its effective failure to host an international European competition?
I am referring to the European Kickboxing Championship. In my opinion, the European Parliament should have at least released a statement or even adopted a resolution about cancelling European championships in certain sports disciplines in a European country on the grounds of ethnic and racist discrimination. They had a pretext for making their voice heard on this matter, but no – instead, they highlighted some kind of progress, even if no one seems to know what kind of progress they are talking about. All this amounts to a crass Russia-hating attitude.
If the European Parliament wants to elaborate on the developments in Moldova, and taking into account that it has always focused on democracy-related matters, it must start by stating that this country has basically gone into receivership and is governed by foreign forces. For example, the European Union referred to the need to counter foreign influence ahead of the September parliamentary election in Moldova to announce that it was giving its partnership mission a bigger mandate in Moldova. This mission has been working there since 2023. In early June 2025, it sent an additional Hybrid Rapid Response Team to the country to help it “protect its cyberspace and counter Russian propaganda.” This was a clear act of interfering in the country’s domestic affairs. In fact, it went beyond interference and amounted to governing the country from abroad.
Of course, there was no evidence to demonstrate Russia’s interference, since this evidence does not exist. What does exist are these missions and Hybrid Rapid Response Teams – they are the ones interfering in Moldova’s internal affairs.
People in Moldova, political observers and the few remaining journalists who are still free and were not arrested, they all understand what these Hybrid Rapid Response Teams represent and what objectives they pursue.
They are there to ensure and guarantee that the West obtains the results it needs in Moldova, in particular, in the elections. These are their true goals and purposes.
Turning to your question on what the European Parliament designated as the progress achieved by Maia Sandu’s regime. I think that you must refer this question to the people of Moldova. They know all this very well, even if they do not view these developments as progress. This is especially true of the third of the country’s population suffering from extreme poverty. These people can tell you a great deal and even show you a lot. In fact, the numbers coming from Moldova’s National Statistics Bureau are completely at odds with the optimistic statements by the European officials about what they describe as macroeconomic stability. These figures demonstrate that Moldova is about to enter a lasting recession. What kind of progress is this?
Moldova’s GDP decreased by 1.2 percent in the first quarter, and this was the third quarter in a row when the country reported a lower GDP figure. We have already mentioned these trends. Moldova’s foreign currency reserves reduced almost by $400 million, while government debt continued to move in the opposite direction and exceeded $7 billion. Is this the progress achieved by Maia Sandu’s regime? Exports fell by 19 percent, and experts believe that this was to be expected considering the reckless attempts by the Moldovan authorities to make local producers switch from their traditional markets within the CIS to the European Union. Does the EU need anything from Moldova? There were no public opinion polls on this matter. This resulted in failures on both fronts. At the same time, Moldova is becoming increasingly dependent on imports, which have already exceeded its exports by a factor of three, with the trade deficit in excess of $6 billion. Does the EU parliament view this as progress? It probably does. The Europeans managed to weaken yet another country, which seemed to have everything it needed in terms of resources, labour, human resources, etc., and also make it subdued and dependent.
Lavish foreign funding, mostly loans, accounts for about a third of spending from the state budget – this is the only factor which enables the Moldovan economy to remain afloat. According to independent experts, Moldova is gradually losing its ability to exist on its own. This is precisely what the Western curators of Maia Sandu’s regime want. I think that this is what they call progress, but what they mean is not progress for Moldova, but progress in advancing their vision. What they want is not to foster development in the country but to turn it into a territory where they can be in full control, which means turning Moldova into a neo-colony.
I have regular contacts with people in Moldova, and for that reason I know that they can see through all this and understand where this forced European integration policy by the current national government will lead the country. It is for this reason that the public support for this policy has been waning. The bright future awaiting Moldova under Maia Sandu’s rule is a myth which requires these clumsy and incongruent confirmations in order to cover-up the actual figures and the reality of life, even if everyone can see through these attempts.
Maria Zakharova: Russia and China keep to similar positions on Middle East settlement. Our countries have resolutely denounced the recent Israeli attacks on nuclear facilities and civilian infrastructure in Iran, attacks accompanied by the killing of high-ranking military officers and nuclear physicists. They have also come out against the violation of sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic. Moscow and Beijing have also resolutely condemned the June 22 US strikes on a number of nuclear facilities in Iran.
The joint statement by the leaders of Russia and China adopted in the wake of PRC President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Russia on May 8 of this year says, among other things, that Moscow and Beijing intend to play an active constructive role in the settlement regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, emphasising that it will facilitate the maintenance of the international non-proliferation regime, peace and stability in the Middle East. Russia and China call on all countries involved to resolve their differences peacefully by political and diplomatic means, noting the need to uphold in practice the authority of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and be guided by the goals of both nuclear non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy in order to reach a solution heeding the reasonable concerns of all participants in the process via dialogue and negotiations.
Maria Zakharova: Let me once again draw your attention to today’s comment on this issue by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
Let me also remind you what President Putin said during his recent meeting with the heads of world news agencies. He described statements by a number of countries, primarily NATO members, to the effect that Russia was going to attack Europe and NATO countries as a “legend.” He also called it a lie that they are trying to force the population of Western European countries to believe. He even used the word “delirium.” He stressed that Western European leaders do not believe it themselves. But, in all evidence, they should.
To be sure, this boils down to Russophobia. The fabricated “threat from the East” serves the sole purpose, which is to make the European rank-and-file put up with the barbaric emptying of their pockets not for the sake of Europe’s prosperity, but rather to truckle to Washington, so that to please the overseas Big Brother, while being cautious lest people in Western Europe understand what is going on.
We discussed today how they vehemently insisted on spending 5 percent of the GDP. Even though these countries signed the commitment with their own hand, they immediately declared that this could not be done and that the burden was unbearable for their economies and people.
We also mentioned NATO’s “defensive” status today. This is not true to fact, of course. They are openly aggressive in their rhetoric and strategy. The Hague Summit has only confirmed NATO’s global ambitions, given that it has laid claim to domination, rather pseudo-domination, not only in the Euro-Atlantic area but also in the Asia Pacific Region.
Where this domination was implemented constructively and yielded positive results is anyone’s guess. There is no such place. I would like to stress that all these geopolitical maneuvers and militaristic efforts will have no effect on Russia’s determination to achieve its goals.
We will not be defeated. I think they know it and this is the reason why they are running wild. It is high time they admitted this fact to their citizens. But they obviously fear the people’s wrath.
Maria Zakharova: Region-to-region ties exemplify the strategic depth of Russia-China partnership. Recently, exchanges between the Russian regions and the provinces of China saw an explosive growth. The intensity of contacts in trade, economic, cultural, humanitarian, educational, and other spheres has increased by orders of magnitude. This represents a significant growth point for practical bilateral cooperation, as many participants at the recently concluded SPIEF noted.
Over the past year, more than 40 heads and deputy heads from the Russian regions visited the People’s Republic of China to establish foreign economic ties and present their regions’ potential. Around 50 delegations at the level of regional ministers and their counterparts participated in international forums, exhibitions, and fairs in China.
Today, two-thirds of Russia’s regions have cooperation agreements with Chinese provinces. Nearly 400 partnership pairs have been formed at the federal and municipal levels. The geography of bilateral interaction continues to expand with new regions and cities joining regularly.
For obvious reasons, Russia’s Far Eastern regions tend to establish closer ties with their Chinese partners. The Intergovernmental Russian-Chinese Commission on Cooperation and Development of the Russian Far East and Northeast China is giving a significant boost to this cooperation. On May 20, another meeting of its co-chairs - Deputy Prime Minister and Presidential Envoy to the Far Eastern Federal District Yury Trutnev and Vice Premier of China’s State Council Zhang Guoqing - was held.
The unparalleled Volga-Yangtze region-to-region cooperation format between Russia’s Volga Federal District and China’s upper and middle Yangtze River regions chaired by Presidential Envoy to the Volga Federal District Igor Komarov and Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Guoqing, is highly effective as well. Notably, on May 21, the 5th meeting of the Volga-Yangtze Council was successfully held in Kazan, and later this year, Chongqing will host the 10th anniversary Russia-China Youth Forum as part of this framework.
The Made in Russia Festival and Fair has proven to be an effective and highly popular way to promote Russian brands, including regional ones. Launched in 2024, this initiative by the Russian Export Centre comes with an extensive cultural programme and is widely popular with the people in Chinese provinces.
Very soon, on July 7-10, Yekaterinburg will host a major bilateral congress and an exhibition event, the 9th Russia-China EXPO. The 5th Russia-China Region-to-Region Cooperation Forum, a convenient platform for expanding practical collaboration between Russian regions and Chinese provinces will take centre stage.
We are convinced that the potential of Russia-China region-to-region cooperation is far from being exhausted, and vast opportunities lie ahead for our two countries in the new international realities.
Maria Zakharova: We operate on the understanding that Istanbul remains the venue. We are grateful to Türkiye for its hospitality and unwavering support in facilitating the negotiating process.
As for the timeframe of the next round of direct Russia-Ukraine talks, it will be determined by the heads of the delegations - Aide to the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky and Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov.
We look forward to receiving information from Mr Medinsky.
Maria Zakharova: As you are aware, Russia has condemned, in the strongest possible terms, the US strikes on civilian nuclear facilities in Iran, which followed Israeli attacks against the Islamic Republic. We categorically reject any attempt to employ brute force in order to curtail the legitimate rights of a sovereign state to pursue a civilian nuclear programme. Our well-documented collaboration with Tehran in the field of peaceful nuclear energy is fully compliant with international law and serves the national interests of both our countries. It will continue. Allow me to underscore: this cooperation has never been – and can never be – called into question by any party or in any form. It has received the endorsement of specialised agencies within the United Nations system.
With regard to the broader trajectory of our cooperation with Iran, it will continue to advance constructively across all domains, in accordance with the 2025 Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Maria Zakharova: The US strikes on Iran have had implications for international law. That, I believe, constitutes the core issue at hand. The global majority – and, indeed, certain members of what is typically considered the global minority – have expressed a unified position that these actions were devoid of any legal basis under international law.
Both the Israeli and US strikes have dealt a serious blow to the authority of the IAEA – not in some abstract sense (whether it is reputable or not), but in terms of its actual operational capacity and the trust it commands. The concept of “trust” bears extraordinary significance in legal contexts; it is a foundational pillar. That, I would contend, is now the principal subject for discussion.
Naturally, these developments have had a detrimental effect on the non-proliferation regime. Today, I have repeatedly emphasised that non-proliferation is not merely a stated principle or a ratified document – it constitutes a sophisticated structure rooted in international law and mutual trust, ensuring that obligations are upheld and guarantees are not breached.
The world now stands at a crossroads: how to proceed, and what course of action to adopt. The harm inflicted is not solely material or technical in nature – it has struck at the international legal order.
We remain fully open to all forms of dialogue and engagement with international partners, provided our legitimate interests are duly respected. Our stance on this matter is unwavering. Let me reiterate: we have categorically condemned the actions undertaken by Washington, which represent an egregious violation of international law, the Charter of the United Nations, and resolutions of the Security Council. You are all well acquainted with our assessments.
Maria Zakharova: I would once again refer you to the answer previously given by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to a similar question.
Naturally, we are aware of the decisions taken by the Iranian parliament. Our experts will carefully examine the relevant materials and closely follow Tehran’s concrete actions in implementing this decision. We caution against making hasty or politically motivated assessments, as such reactions could further escalate tensions surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme.
We note that the decision by Iranian lawmakers was made under exceptional circumstances, in response to acts of military aggression by the United States and Israel, including missile and aerial strikes on peaceful nuclear facilities operating under IAEA safeguards. As we understand it, this initiative also reflects dissatisfaction with the ambiguous stance of the IAEA leadership, which failed to condemn the actions of Washington and West Jerusalem. The Agency’s credibility has suffered significantly. However, I would like to stress once again that this is not merely a matter of reputation – it concerns the IAEA’s core functions and its ability to fulfil its mission.
We hope that the significant damage inflicted on Iran-IAEA cooperation and on the Agency’s verification activities in the country as a result of the US-Israeli airstrikes can be repaired over time. Achieving this will require appropriate conditions, foremost among them being a lasting peace and reliable assurances that Iran’s nuclear facilities, along with the associated materials, equipment, and personnel, will not be subjected to further attacks. It is also essential to ensure that the IAEA’s verification mechanisms are not exploited for purposes that run counter to international law, including the provisions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Maria Zakharova: Different people have different associations with the word “package.” Some associate it with the EU’s “garbage bag.” Others associate it with “a bag of bags.” Do you know what my association is?
Doctors in Western countries – I have seen this when I worked in the United States – recommend those who have panic attacks to breathe into a paper bag to help regulate breathing. You’ve probably seen this on the screen or in real life. I’ve seen this happen in real life. I think that the EU needs all these packages because it is having constant panic attacks over what is happening to it and its economy because of its own problems and actions. But they are using bags instead of seeking treatment for their problems.
I apologise for sharing my view, but it does look like this to me. Those who need a paper bag during a panic attack always look for a bag and shout that they need it immediately. Likewise, the EU and its diplomats are shouting hysterically that they need a new package.
I have no desire to comment on this. We have expressed our view on numerous occasions. I believe that Kaja Kallas can’t be described as a European diplomat. She is an anti-diplomat. They themselves should grapple with her problems and actions.
It is clear that Brussels, which has adopted increasingly more anti-Russia sanctions since 2014, is recklessly moving towards self-destruction. Its “disease” has deteriorated since February 2022. The adoption of every new package makes the absurdity of their restrictions against Russia more obvious. Pauses between the sanction packages are becoming shorter. They are gasping for breath. They must do something, seek treatment, but they demand a new bag instead.
Moreover, they know that this is not an effective solution and that it won’t produce the desired effect but will only lead to the opposite result. They want to inflict strategic defeat on us while inflicting it on themselves. Yet they can’t stop doing this.
It is obvious to everyone that the EU’s restrictions are not related to the situation in Ukraine. The goal they have proclaimed and keep chanting is to inflict strategic defeat on Russia because it is preventing the liberal globalist elites from building the world based on a distorted logic – not on the conditions that will benefit them, but on a distorted logic.
The sanctions packages they have approved over the past 11 years have not helped them achieve the result they wanted, which is to make Russia change its policy. What do they need the 18th, 19th or 121st package for? I’d like them to answer this question.
They should know – please, tell them – that Russia will never stop protecting its legitimate national interests under any conditions. They must accept the simple truth that their packages, or anything they put into or remove from them, won’t secure the desired result. They will have to accept this, and the sooner the better it will be for them. The hard fact is that no decisions they coordinate will help. It will only show that they don’t want to face the truth. They are probably afraid to do it.
Maria Zakharova: I believe that this is yet another malign way of interpreting facts in bad faith. In fact, we have noted the catchy headlines, so we turned to our colleagues to double check. Of course, things are not the way you have just presented them. These were not your allegations, but you asked your question based on them.
On June 23, 2025, the Federal Portal of Acts and Regulations published a draft order of Russia’s Ministry of Education to amend its orders dealing with federal education programmes, general primary education, etc.
This document contains a provision whereby the Ukrainian language is no longer included in mandatory curriculum of federal educational programmes. The most important thing to understand in this regard is that this should not be treated as policy statement. This is a practical way of responding to popular aspirations and the current trends.
Let me explain what this means. In simple terms, the demand is not there. If nobody wants this, should students be forced to study this discipline? After all, we are not in Ukraine where they force students to learn the Ukrainian language. People in Russia do not want to study it, and no one is going to force them. But there is always an option to take Ukrainian as an elective course. No one prevents students from doing so.
I suggest that we now look at facts and figures. Within the Russian educational system, it is up to the parents or legal representatives to choose the mother tongue their children study. The federal education system has an educational standard which provides for studying the mother tongue. The Ministry of Education conducts annual reviews of what languages people choose as their mother tongue, and saw that there has been practically no demand for studying the Ukrainian language in Russian schools, including in our historical regions. Less than 4,000 students across the country study it. Not a single student chose this discipline in 2023/2024 in DPR despite the fact that it was part of the mandatory curriculum. No one applied for this course.
Therefore, there is an objective case for excluding the Ukrainian language from the mandatory curriculum. However, I must reiterate that this is not about banning the Ukrainian language in any way. It simply becomes an elective course with the possibility to study it as an option or as an extracurricular activity. The Ministry of Education will send the corresponding teaching recommendations to educational institutions by September 1, 2025.
This decision reflects what most students and their families need. Let me reiterate that forcing students to study subjects they do not want does not make any sense and is impossible.
There is another important aspect in this regard. I suggest that those who will now start speculating on this topic by making all kinds of insinuations, be it in the West or in Ukraine, look in the mirror. There are so many children and families begging them and demanding the possibility to study the Russian language. Has it changed anything? We are not talking about hundreds, or thousands, or even tens of thousands of people. Hundreds of thousands of people across the post-Soviet space, and now also in other countries of the world, have expressed their desire to learn the Russian language. They flock to our Embassy schools, our foreign missions, Russian houses, and join online programmes. This is a real challenge when the Baltic states and Ukraine effectively ban studies in the Russian language or of the Russian language despite this massive demand.
This massive demand is the key factor here. This goes beyond ticking the box –there is massive popular demand. Moreover, people are ready to risk political, economic, and financial repression, even criminal prosecution for the sake of studying their mother tongue. Still, they are fighting for the Russian language to exist.
You have seen what is going on with people in the Baltics. They know that they can end up in prison for claiming their right to study in Russian and teach their children to speak it. This massive demand is there, but the ban is in place.
There is no demand for studying the Ukrainian language in Russia. However, there is an option for school students to take it as an elective course.
Maria Zakharova: I would say Donald Trump’s attention should rather be commented on by his representative or personally by the US President. Why don’t you address your question to them? As we have seen from the most recent developments – and previous ones, too – that as soon as Vladimir Zelensky feels that the international community’s interest is waning, diverted by other matters much more significant than he is, he becomes desperate to regain attention.
This was what happened ahead of May 9, when he began issuing loud threats and terrorise everyone, trying to prevent veterans and foreign guests from attending the celebrations in Moscow (he threatened WWII veterans!). He even threatened terrorist attacks. Those hysterical demarches were designed to derail the grand celebration of the Great Victory. To reiterate, he went so far as to threaten the people who fought in that war, as well as their families.
Clearly, a narcissist like Vladimir Zelensky would perceive anything that diverts attention as a threat – and react with extreme aggression.
Maria Zakharova: As previously noted, the 2025 Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran outlines cooperation across multiple domains and formats, including defence and military-technical cooperation.
The Majlis (parliament) of Iran recently ratified this Treaty. It has just entered into force. Please keep this fact in mind.
For further details on potential defence collaboration and strategic technology sharing between Russian and Iran, we recommend contacting the Russian Ministry of Defence.
Maria Zakharova: We commented on this in detail at the beginning of the briefing.
Russia welcomes the reports that Iran and Israel are ready to observe a ceasefire. We truly hope that the dangerous spiral of military escalation, triggered by Israel’s aggressive actions against Iran on June 13 with the United States joining in on June 22, will be brought to a halt.
Above all, without in any way diminishing the human tragedy of civilian casualties, we realise that the toll could have been far worse had a missile struck a nuclear facility housing radioactive material. This is the reason we focus on the nuclear issue: not to belittle the loss of innocent lives, but to highlight a greater danger.
We cannot let the bombing of nuclear facilities become normalised in public discourse, where the focus shifts to whether a missile will hit its target. The very idea of onlookers watching missile launches at nuclear sites and casually speculating whether they will reach their targets is apocalyptic.
That’s why I’m directing you back to the initial statement from this briefing for the details you asked for. We need to consolidate this fragile truce and steer the situation back to negotiations as quickly as possible. It is imperative to achieve a settlement on Iran’s nuclear programme issue, as well as on other Middle East crises, through diplomacy and negotiation. This is the only way forward. They have already tried the other option. And where did that get us? The world watched it in horror.
Maria Zakharova: Let me remind you that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed this matter during the Primakov Readings scientific and expert forum on June 24, as well as during his meeting on June 25 with officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan, along with faculty and students of the Institute of International Relations. Russia’s proposals for resolving the current situation have been communicated to all interested parties. I assume you have been following the updates on the Kremlin’s official website and the Russian Foreign Ministry’s portal. These proposals are aimed at addressing and overcoming the existing disagreements related to the implementation of nuclear programmes. Given the sensitive nature of the issue, we are not bringing it into the public domain. However, should our proposals be of interest to the parties involved, we stand ready to continue fulfilling a mediating role.
Maria Zakharova: We have addressed this issue on numerous occasions. In our view, the real threat posed by these political figures is primarily to their own people. It is difficult to regard them as true statesmen, despite the fact that they have been elected or appointed through formal democratic processes. A statesman is generally understood to be someone of substance and vision, whose actions are guided by a sense of responsibility and measured by tangible outcomes. In contrast, many of these individuals appear to be short-term political actors driven by agendas that are disconnected from the genuine national interests of their countries.
What constitutes a national interest? It is the set of goals and priorities that serve the well-being of the people and contribute to their long-term development from a historical perspective. In this context, I believe that the political “lightweights” currently active in the Baltic states are not only ineffective but also detrimental to their own societies. The real threat they pose is to their own citizens.
This isn’t just a rhetorical point; there is clear evidence to support it. Just look at the decline in key areas such as science, industry, the humanities, and education, not to mention culture. The demographic situation and the overall condition of state institutions also speak volumes. Bureaucracy has overwhelmed the system. And the data show a stark contrast: these sectors once thrived, but much of that has now been lost.
It’s not that the people themselves lack the capacity for achievement, far from it. For generations, individuals of diverse backgrounds and nationalities have lived in these lands, contributing to the wealth and accomplishments of their countries. There is much in that shared history to take pride in. Unfortunately, much of this legacy has been diminished, disregarded, or rewritten. And who bears responsibility for this? It would be more accurate to say that it is the result of the actions of certain short-sighted political figures whose influence has proven toxic to their societies.