Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 28, 2022

As is traditional in the run-up to Victory Day, we pay tribute to the memory of our predecessors and colleagues, primarily employees of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, who, together with their colleagues from the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Trade, made an important contribution to our common Victory over Nazism at the cost of their own lives.

On May 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, as well as representatives of the Council of Veterans and the Council of Young Diplomats of the Ministry will take part in a flower-laying ceremony at memorial plaques in the lobby of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Members the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs of the USSR defended their Motherland with honour, fighting on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War. On July 5, 1941, the People’s Commissariat staff decided at a general meeting to set up a volunteer detachment, and 163 of them signed up to join the militia. Basically, those were people who had exemptions from military service or active duty. In the same month, the militias engaged in their first battle in the Smolensk Region, from which 72 fighters never returned. The survivors joined the 160th Infantry Division and liberated Western Ukraine, Belarus and Poland. They completed their military service in East Prussia.

Overall, during the war years, 237 employees of the People’s Commissariat voluntarily joined the people’s militia or were drafted to active duty. Not all of them returned home. Many of our colleagues were awarded orders and medals; some were awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. The names of 106 former employees of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs who lost their lives are inscribed in golden letters in the annals of our department, as they are engraved on the memorial plaque installed in the lobby of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Their feat will never be forgotten.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to attend the CIS Foreign Ministers Council meeting

On May 13, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend the regular meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the CIS, to be held in Dushanbe.

During the meeting, the foreign ministers will exchange views on current regional and international issues, discuss promising areas for the development of multifaceted cooperation in the CIS, and review inter-MFA cooperation in 2021.

The discussion will specifically focus on international security issues, as well as on ways to strengthen cultural, humanitarian and research ties in the CIS.

Armed provocations in Transnistria

We are alarmed at the escalation of tensions in Transnistria, where several incidents involving the shelling and explosion of official facilities and infrastructure have taken place in recent days.

We regard these actions as acts of terrorism aimed at destabilising the region. We expect a thorough and unbiased investigation of all the circumstances of what happened.

We firmly condemn any attempts to pull Transnistria into what is happening in Ukraine. Every now and then “sensational” statements are heard from there about the preparation of Russian peacekeepers, the Tiraspol airfield and Transnistrian conscripts for some kind of offensive action.

All these statements do not cast doubt on the fact that the situation on the left bank of the Dniester River, including in the Security Zone, is reliably controlled by the Joint Peacekeeping Forces. What is worrying, however, apart from the events of recent days, are the attempts to use the special operation in Ukraine to ratchet up the blockade pressure on Transnistria. Shipments of essential goods, including medicines, are being blocked, and industrial enterprises are being artificially obstructed.

We call for restraint and calm in Transnistria, and for Chisinau and Tiraspol to return to the practice of constructively seeking optimal solutions to the issues of cooperation between the banks of the Dniester in the interests of the population.

Update on Ukraine

It will soon be eight years since the terrible tragedy in Odessa. As a reminder for all those international players who talk about the humanitarian disaster and human rights violations, and use the word “genocide” on a daily basis, on May 2, 2014, Ukrainian nationalists, acting with blatant cruelty, came down on their fellow citizens protesting against the nationalist radical forces that came to power as a result of the Western-inspired armed coup in Kiev in February 2014. These people were collecting signatures for a referendum on the federalisation of Ukraine and granting the Russian language the status of a state language. Forty-eight people were burned alive, died from carbon monoxide poisoning, or fell to their death from the upper floors of the House of Trade Unions which was set on fire by the nationalists.

The “civilised” West kept silent in an uncivilised manner. Despite the fact that we have been drawing attention to this tragedy for eight years (publishing books and presenting private and journalist-led investigations), all international organisations remained silent in spite of the abundant facts. The events were videotaped; there was no need for a different view of the situation. There was plenty of documentary evidence of the atrocities to form an unbiased opinion about what happened. It was only necessary to do one thing: find the perpetrators. The whole world saw almost live what happened there. There was no question about what happened. The question was who did it and what responsibility they would bear. What punishment should they get in the form of a “reward” for their actions?

This is about the question of how much everyone is really concerned about the situation in Ukraine now, although it is not the word that should be used here. This is all the result of provocative actions that are necessary to keep the issue of Ukraine afloat. The suffering of the people is enormous, and the flow of refugees is great. What about 2014 and all those years after it? Our Western partners find it convenient not to see history. For them, it starts from the day that is good for them and ends at the moments or dates that they consider unnecessary, unfavourable or inconvenient for them. This heinous crime has not yet been investigated. This would seem unbelievable to the public in Italy, Spain, Portugal and France, perhaps the UK, Germany, the Czech Republic and many others. Kiev and the Western countries turned a blind eye to it, as well as to the neo-Nazism that is growing in Ukraine like a cancerous tumour.

We will never forget this atrocious crime. We will work to identify and punish all those involved in this tragedy.

The cyclical nature of history is appalling. In the 1920s, Petliurites stripped Jews naked and hung them from the ceiling over burning wood, cut open the stomachs of pregnant women and shot fleeing civilians. In the mid-20th century, Banderites killed people in entire villages and did so with ostentatious cruelty, hacked people with axes and burned them alive in their homes.

Now their descendants are using Ukrainians, including women and children, as a human shield. Entire cities are being held hostage by Ukrainian nationalists. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, about 13.5 million people cannot leave dangerous areas. Over 5 million people were forced to flee Ukraine, and more than 7.1 million people are now internally displaced persons.

With the help of the NATO countries, which have invested significant forces and resources into the military and ideological training of local nationalists, Ukraine has become a centre of attraction for terrorists and mercenaries of all stripes with combat experience in the hot spots of the world, as was the case in Iraq and Syria. According to the Russian Defence Ministry, over 6,800 foreign mercenaries from 63 countries have flocked to Ukraine since the beginning of the special military operation. Most of them are citizens of Poland, the United States, Canada, Romania, Great Britain and Georgia.

At the same time, the West does not stop flooding Ukraine with weapons. Washington and its NATO and EU allies are preparing to make dozens of large-caliber howitzers, artillery mounts, thousands of artillery shells and hundreds of armoured personnel carriers available to Kiev. All of this is being done with the sole purpose of prolonging the hostilities in Ukraine as much as possible and hindering a peaceful settlement.

However, neither the United States nor its NATO partners are in a position to track the final destination of their weapon supplies and guarantee their use by the armed forces of Ukraine and no one else. Europe seems to have forgotten how it first sponsored “moderate” militants in the Middle East and North Africa (for example, in Syria and Iraq) and then became the victim of their terrorist attacks. There is no such thing as moderate extremists. It’s either an extremist who engages in corresponding activities, or not. Can the EU guarantee that it can keep its citizens safe from the “instructors” who have gained even more “experience” after spending some time in a place with hundreds of thousands of uncontrolled small arms coming home and turning these weapons against their own citizens? Europe has been through this. It had to listen to a “story” about why this happens. Allegedly, someone else is to blame for this, not the leaders of the EU and NATO countries. This is not true.

Clearly, this situation can be likened to Syria where weapons supplied by the West to “moderate” Syrian opposition were sold in large quantities on the black market and fell into the hands of ISIS terrorists. Remember who the West, including the United States, the UK, France, Germany and Italy, fought against later? ISIS, right? The same pattern can be seen here. It’s a vicious circle. We do not rule out (in fact, we predict) a scenario where Western weapons in Ukraine will follow the same path. All borders are open. No one is checking anyone’s affiliation with an extremist organisation amid the flow of refugees. The Westerners aren’t doing this. They don’t understand. If they start checking (at least with obvious indications like tattoos) to see if a person is a member of the nationalist battalion or a sympathiser, then their illusion that such people don’t exist will go down in flames. Accordingly, they are not doing this. So, a large number of people professing neo-Nazi, Nazi and nationalist ideology are already infiltrating Europe.

We have already commented on the statement made the other day by British Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces James Heappey about Ukraine’s strikes against military targets in Russia being “completely legitimate.” In other words, the West is openly encouraging Kiev to attack Russia using weapons supplied by NATO countries. Kiev took this as a call to action. Over the past several weeks, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have shelled the border areas of the Belgorod, Bryansk, Kursk, and Voronezh regions resulting in casualties and destroyed property. Once again, this goes to show that the Zelensky regime is not independent in its decision-making and fully depends on its external curators. I do not rule out the possibility that the Zelensky regime does not share this view. I do not rule out the possibility of Western curators instilling in him the idea that he acts independently when making decisions or taking actions, etc. I’m sure this is what the group of people we call the Kiev regime is thinking. They are confident that they are in complete control of the situation. This is a false sense. They are being used.

These criminal activities by the Armed Forces of Ukraine against our territory cannot remain unanswered. I would like Kiev and the Western capitals to take seriously the Russian Defence Ministry’s statement that continually provoking Ukraine into striking Russian targets will necessarily lead to a very strong Russian response, and the advisers from Western countries located in Ukrainian decision-making centres “will not necessarily be a problem for Russia’s response.” We do not recommend testing our patience any longer. Russia is determined to achieve the goals set for the special military operation, which is to protect the people in the DPR and LPR, demilitarise and de-Nazify Ukraine, and eliminate any threat to Russia emanating from Ukraine.

We continue to prioritise the goal of overcoming the humanitarian challenges in Ukraine by providing our own large-scale aid to the people in need and partnering up with our international partners such as the UN and the ICRC. In particular, about 14,000 tonnes of humanitarian supplies (food and essential supplies) were delivered from Russia to communities in the LPR and DPR, as well as a number of Ukrainian regions. Another 22,000 tonnes are ready to be shipped from collection centres. Lump-sum benefits are being paid to pensioners, doctors, teachers, and other public sector employees in the portion of Ukraine that has been abandoned by the right-wing radicals.

Every day, the Russian Defence Ministry announces the opening of corridors for the safe evacuation of civilians from Kharkov and Mariupol, including for the militants from the Azovstal Steel Plant. In addition, we are ready to act quickly to create such corridors in any other direction and ensure the safe evacuation of civilians. Unlike the Ukrainian side, which prevents the evacuation of civilians to Russia, the Russian side is creating every opportunity to do so, which must be used despite the Kiev regime’s intimidation. To date, over 2.75 million Ukrainians have applied to leave for our country. There are about 9,500 temporary accommodation centres for refugees in Russia. Volunteers and humanitarian organisations are actively helping them.

Despite the fact that Kiev is blocking evacuation to Russia, over 1 million people, including more than 183,000 children, were able to come to us. Humanitarian supplies from Russia are the only source of actual assistance for the residents of eastern Ukraine, the LPR and the DPR. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian side is using humanitarian pauses to stage provocations and redeploy its troops.

EU and NATO countries forego basic principles of control over arms exports to conflict areas when supplying Ukraine with weapons on a large scale

Instead of compelling the Kiev regime to fulfil the Minsk agreements in a timely manner to ensure a political settlement of the Ukraine crisis, which is directly related to stopping the genocide against the people of Donbass, the US-led Euro-Atlantic allies have been “developing” Ukraine militarily over the past eight years, equipping its army and training its nationalist units to suppress dissent by force in the east and south of the country. This explains pumping modern arms and ammunition into Ukraine as part of the West-declared proxy war “to the last Ukrainian” against the true patriots of Ukraine and Russia.

Once again, we draw the attention of the international community to the fact that by acting in this manner, the Euro-Atlantic allies are increasing the risk of the conflict spreading further. Moreover, this self-appointed “support group” for the Kiev regime is violating many important international commitments. We will list some of these.

The EU’s “common position” prohibits the export of arms if they create the obvious risk of use for domestic reprisal in a recipient country, or will lead to the violation of international humanitarian law, or facilitate the emergence or aggravation of armed conflict. So, what about your commitments? These are not commitments that the EU has given to someone else. This is the EU’s own position.

The EU’s brainchild – the International Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires its participants to objectively assess the potential that any arms exported would “contribute to or undermine peace and security” or could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law, as well as acts of violence against women and children. This treaty bans the transfer of conventional arms or where there is knowledge that the items will be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians. This matches exactly the list of crimes being committed every day by Ukrainian neo-Nazis and the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which they lead.

Many international commitments aimed at preventing the illegal trafficking of precision weapons are crudely violated. This applies to UN General Assembly Resolution 62/40 of 2007 on the “Prevention of the illicit transfer and unauthorised access to and use of man-portable air defence systems” and the 2003 elements of arms control over these weapons, as agreed to under the Wassenaar Arrangement over conventional arms export controls.

We note with concern that the Euro-Atlantic allies are crudely violating the long-standing international practice of strict observance of the provisions of end user certificates. One of them bans the re-export of arms by an importer state without the written consent of the exporter state or the owner of the relevant technological intellectual property.

The US-led countries of the collective West bear all responsibility for these reckless violations of their commitments on arms transfer control.

The UN High Commissioner’s statement on violations of international humanitarian law in Ukraine

We have noticed a statement made by United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet on numerous cases where international humanitarian law was violated, and on war crimes in Ukraine.

We note with regret that the statements made by the chief UN human rights official are far from the standards of objectivity and impartiality that all United Nations employees, especially at such a high level, must uphold. We have noted the statement’s obvious unfounded accusatory imbalance with regard to Russia, in line with the politicised statements we hear from Western countries. It is obvious that the High Commissioner and the Office entrusted to her have not been able to comprehend and analyse the situation in an independent and balanced manner, relying on irrefutable facts and evidence, including those provided by the Russian side. They have used speculations, fake stories and staged footage as an argument and a foundation on which they make their case.

We note that Michelle Bachelet, in her statement, still casually mentions the crimes committed by the Ukrainian military and nationalists against their own civilian population. However, the real scale of such crimes, as openly evidenced by Ukrainian residents who suffered from them, is monstrous. There is irrefutable documentary evidence that proves their crimes. The Ukrainian armed forces and nationalist battalions did not comply with the requirements of international humanitarian law during the eight years of the conflict in Donbass. They are not complying with them now either. I know that Michelle Bachelet was not yet there in 2014 (she took office much later), but she could clarify what her predecessors and the Office had been doing to attract the international community’s attention, and to alleviate the suffering those people endured for eight years. It is quite possible now, with all the attention riveted on that region. Look what the UN Office has done so far. Have any statements been made on this scale? Russia regularly provided the respective materials, publicly through diplomatic channels. Russia convened conferences, held events, including at the UN headquarters in New York, and in Geneva.

We can recall that Russia has been consistently advocating the strict observance of international humanitarian law, and has been a responsible party to key international agreements on this score. Ever since the special military operation was launched, the Russian side has been making every effort to protect the civilian population and civilian infrastructure, deliver humanitarian aid and safely evacuate the population.

In this regard, we support Michelle Bachelet’s call for respect for international humanitarian law, including in relation to prisoners of war. We believe that this call will be heard in Kiev.

In turn, we call on the High Commissioner and the Office she heads to be guided by the principles of objectivity and impartiality, and to draw their conclusions and make assessments from carefully verified information only. We are ready for closer cooperation in addition to the ongoing work.

Former members of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine detained in Donetsk and Lugansk

Competent bodies of the LPR and DPR are amassing evidence of the illegal activities by some members of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in Ukraine. The facts of systemic cooperation of some observers with the Ukrainian Armed Forces and security services are a source of special concern.

It is reported that SMM members provided them and foreign intelligence agents with information on the location of the people’s militia units of both republics, as well as other data that could damage the security of the republics and its civilians. It transpired that they used for this purpose the SMM cameras designed to monitor ceasefire compliance and the fulfilment of the sides’ commitments to keep equipment and heavy weapons in depots. Several former SMM employees from among local residents have been detained by the investigative bodies of the republics and are giving testimony. All international personnel of the mission was evacuated in early March

During this evacuation of the international personnel, the SMM members destroyed a big part of their archives, including e-documents. Why was this done? Does the OSCE always act like that? This is how representatives of the conflicting sides and secret services act. But why did this international organisation destroy its materials? I’d like to point out that the international community, the OSCE countries, including Russia, pay for its activities, for the collection of this information and the devices for storing it. Judging by all, we will learn many interesting facts when the investigators delve a bit more deeply. Much of what was thoroughly concealed may be restored and serve as evidence.

These circumstances show that the SMM personnel and its top officials were acting in a politicised and biased way. They were involved in illegal activities that led to the aggravation of the situation. In fact, the goal of the SMM was just the opposite. A number of its employees were serving the interests of Kiev and its Western curators. Earlier we heard the assurances that the mission was guided by an objective approach, professionalism and lack of bias under any circumstances. Now the OSCE Polish Chairmanship has stooped to such statements as “the lack of bias is out of the question.” If Poland makes such statements as a country, this is its own business. History will pass its judgment. However, Poland has no right to such statements and even ideas if it is speaking on behalf of its Chairmanship in this international organisation. Nobody has authorised anyone to take sides. Warsaw chairs the organisation that has a clear mandate and powers. Please abide by the rules. Unfortunately, similar conduct and the attending circumstances did not come as a surprise. The Western countries often use international organisations as a cover for conducting illegal activities in conflict areas.

The actions of some SMM members have done serious damage to the reputation of the OSCE, including those of its observers who performed their functions honestly and in good faith. We urge the OSCE leaders to take necessary measures to redress the situation. In part, they should conduct an investigation to find out how and on whose instructions information from the SMM’s devices was transferred to the Ukrainian party.

Let’s recall that the SSM mandate expired on March 31 and the mission stopped its activities. According to the sensible practice established in the OSCE, its Permanent Council adopts a separate decision upon the completion of the mandate. Based on this decision, the personnel of the mission is engaged in institutional and administrative issues linked with its closure for a specified period. This was the case, for instance, when the OSCE group of observers completed its work at the Russian checkpoints at Gukovo and Donetsk. No decision on the SMM has yet been made. However, it must be made. This is a demand rather than a statement.

US Department of State using information and communications technologies to discredit Russia’s policy in Ukraine

We noted the article posted on the website of the US State Department on April 21, titled What Is a “Special Military Operation”? It calls on US citizens to join the anti-Russia propaganda campaign using Western information and communications technology. To reiterate: the US agency in charge of foreign policy addresses its citizens saying that an information and communication technology toolkit has been created. It can be used to conduct a cyber aggression against Russia. Is there an all-out American cybermobilisation going on? What are the legal grounds for this?

In particular, the US authorities suggest that American volunteers launch a direct dialogue with Russians using special software for computers and mobile apps. The State Department shares links leading to corresponding websites operating on the “click the button” principle: the programme will find a receiver and write the message. All of this will be presented as a personal opinion, contribution and position of a US citizen on the situation in Ukraine. No futurist could have come up with such a thing. Only people with a perverted psyche, on the verge of psychiatry, are capable of this. We ask all specialists on cybertechnology, security, and cyber environment research, to give this qualification and a specific name. We have not yet encountered this in practice. We understand what these bullets to be loaded into US citizens’ guns are made of. Lies, threats, and propaganda – that much is clear. But this should be qualified somehow. It’s an advance in violating all possible and impossible cybersecurity laws adopted at the national level and international platforms.

Perhaps this can be explained by the helplessness of the State Department, which is experiencing another bout of Russophobia. There are no more resources left. They need a general US mobilisation. Is CNN failing? Now they are calling ordinary people? Apparently, the US diplomatic department understands the futility of all attempts to make Russia the source of all evil by using controlled media. It is impossible to demonstrate the same thing day after day and convince people that they themselves have come up with it. People start asking questions; there is objective information and irrefutable evidence of the American lies. In addition to this, there is also the effect of fatigue and the lack of interest in consuming this kind of content generated by the American authorities. Now they decided to take a different approach.

When the Americans were preparing the anti-Iraqi campaign, did they ask ordinary people to call or send emails to support the actions of the US military personnel or personnel from other coalition members? This is surrealistic, but in fact it is our reality. You cannot believe this, but it’s a fact. In fact, ordinary Americans’ personal means of communication are used to spread propaganda and fakes. Who came up with this? They are being put on the front lines of the information war in order to conceal the truth from the public and use them to spread lies about the situation in Ukraine.

We resolutely condemn the actions of the US authorities aimed at direct interference in Russians’ private lives and our domestic affairs. But it’s not just about that. US citizens are involved, which means interference in their private lives. When Americans click the links and send messages from their computers, they will leave traces. Are they sure that they will not receive a response to their actions later? Are they sure that their IP addresses or phone numbers will not be used (inside or outside the US) and that they will not fall victims of their own illegal actions?

It is not the first time that we see how Washington manipulates people’s databases, collects information, and makes private corporations disclose this data. But we could never have imagined that they could use this as part of information warfare in the information and cyber environment.

These methods of cyber privateering from the US are a flagrant violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This disdainful attitude towards the task of ensuring the protection of personal data once again demonstrates Washington’s policy of double standards in relation to its international obligations. Now I understand why they gave cover to the Mirotvorets (Peacemaker) website. They posted personal data of journalists, public figures, and politicians who did not align with the Kiev regime and its American patrons. Maybe it was their innovation, this know-how of the State Department? This was put into practice by the relevant structures in Ukraine.

Statement by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine Mikhail Fedorov on organising hacker attacks against companies in Russia and Belarus

We regret to inform you that 20 years of efforts by the world community aimed at countering the use of information and communications technologies by states for purposes incompatible with ensuring international stability, security and integrity of the infrastructure of states, have been crossed out by the “historic” statement of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine Mikhail Fedorov to the Spanish newspaper El Pais about the formation of “the world’s first cyber army of 300,000 cyber soldiers.” This is just what I was talking about. There are “cyber soldiers” and there are also “cyber guerrillas.” The State Department urged the latter to join the ranks, and Ukraine recruited “cyber mercenaries.”

For the first time, a UN member state openly declared cyber aggression and ICT warfare against other countries. There have been more than 660 hacker attacks against Russian and Belarusian companies, banks and institutions. This was officially done by the state of Ukraine.

In fact, we are witnessing an outburst of “cyber Makhnovism” in the very centre of Europe. The authors and masterminds of this concept (by the way, the Spanish newspaper rashly fell for sensational statements, providing the provocateur with a platform for inciting an escalation) should understand that these “cyber troops” will not just steal assets and savings from enterprises. Surely, their victims will not be limited to citizens of Russia and Belarus. In this sense, nothing will be able to slow them down. They will go further and direct their criminal activities against other countries. Given the globalisation and involvement of businesses and the banking sector, many Western entities will fall victims to the onslaught of “cyber troops” (basically hackers, legalised by Ukraine with the consent of the NATO countries). But they will explain that these are Russian hackers. Keep in mind that it will not be possible to pass this off as cybercrimes committed from the territory of the Russian Federation or by Russian citizens. The Kiev regime, the United States, the “collective West,” NATO and the EU launched preparations for a large-scale provocation in the cyber environment. We talk about this regularly, and we will continue to give you specific examples.

The confessions of this “digitiser” from Ukraine, made, it seems, in order to report to the curators in Washington and Brussels, are the subject of investigation by law enforcement agencies. We are convinced that Russian and Belarusian specialists will not only give a qualified assessment of this case, but will also find legal opportunities to bring Kiev to justice. This is an alarm call for international organisations involved in information security.

The West shows double standards in assessing democracy in Ukraine

We are seeing an acute shortage of signs that Ukraine corresponds to even the minimal standards of democracy. The excuse of protecting this “democratic” state is used to continue pumping it with heavy weapons. In the meantime, the West is doing all it can to create these signs artificially. It is using the most hypocritical and surrealistic tricks for this purpose. Thus, the President of Ukraine is bestowed with various international prizes for his invented achievements in building a democratic state. This state is now forming cyber forces, recruiting its citizens to commit cybercrimes and preventing civilians from using humanitarian corridors and other ways of leaving conflict areas. It is urging extremist actions in various parts of the world. These people in Ukraine and specifically the man who is associated with its leader receive prizes all over the world for their contribution to promoting freedom, democracy and genuine values.

Thus, in Germany Vladimir Zelensky received an annual Media Freedom Award. How many TV channels has he shut down? How many laws limiting the media has Ukraine adopted? This prize is given to public figures who demonstrate special commitment to the freedom of expression, political dialogue and democracy. In which of these areas has Zelensky distinguished himself? Freedom of expression? After the closure of the media and criminal prosecution of dissenters? Could a political dialogue be his hobbyhorse? Let’s not even mention democracy.

At the same time, the media reported about an upcoming ceremony where he will receive the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. Apparently, courage has many profiles. As the founders of this award say, Zelensky is an outstanding fighter for democracy. I will remind all those who say that his contribution to the democratic development of a state automatically proves his renunciation of everything linked with nationalism, racism, extremism, etc. In the 1930s, Germany shaped its political landscape in quite a democratic way, using democratic institutions. These were the institutions used in the process.

I like the arguments regarding Zelensky’s ethnicity. It is argued that as a Jew, he cannot connive at neo-Nazi regimes. This is a very strong argument. Its logic escapes me but this is all about the same thing. The existence of statements in support of democracy does not mean at all that in practice the state in question even remotely meets the proclaimed noble principles and ideals. Just as the personal characteristics of a person by no means show that the country he leads has no problems with racism, xenophobia, neo-Nazism and other forms of extremist ideology. To avert all questions, a lot is being done all over the world to present the Kiev regime as a freedom fighter. This is a surprising story but this is not the first time it happens.

We saw the same approach of the collective West to extremists and international terrorists in the North Caucasus. The Westerners called them separatists but did everything they could to support the idea of their secession from the Russian Federation. They linked this with a choice of freedom. They gave awards to rabid cutthroats whose arms were covered in blood to the elbows. The most horrible acts of terror were associated with them (Beslan and Dubrovka, to name a few).

How interesting. People in Donbass, Donetsk and Lugansk are also called separatists although they have never preached any extremist or terrorist ideas. They are fighting for their land and the laws that existed there for decades. If separatists conduct terrorist activities and want to separate part of the territory by force, the West welcomes it. When people want to preserve their lawful government after an anti-constitutional coup on their territory without demanding secession from the state but simply because they want to save their lives, the West does not support them. This is a dichotomy. An insoluble contradiction.

A big part of practically every briefing is devoted to a list of “achievements” made by the Kiev regime in general and Vladimir Zelensky in particular in defending the freedom of speech, human rights and democratic ideals. This has been the case since the bloody anti-constitutional coup in Kiev in 2014, the subsequent aggression against the people of Donbass and the adoption of a state policy on the eradication of the Russian media presence and dismantling of the Russian-language information space. The grotesque character of these “awards for democracy in Ukraine” is well illustrated by the fact that the news of this cascade of prizes almost coincided with the reports about the prevention of attempts to kill a number of Russian journalists, which had been prepared by Ukrainian security services, who denied these reports, claiming they were not involved.

When the performance with Arkady Babchenko was prepared, Ukrainian secret services talked about it everywhere. The news came when the former Foreign Minister of Ukraine was speaking in the UN Security Council. If he had been told that Ukrainian security services had been involved in this case, he would have dismissed it as Russian propaganda. However, later it transpired that they were actually involved in this bloody performance. And now they are claiming they are not involved. Why are they doing such somersaults? Why are they so modest? Let’s recall the story of several staged interviews by Ukrainian “journalist” Dmitry Gordon. He said every day that he was working in cooperation with the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). Ukrainian security services have long been involved in the information war against Russia. No need to pretend their hands are clean.

I will not try to predict how long the Western curators of the Kiev regime will manage to continue fooling the public opinion of their countries about the true status of democracy in Ukraine by raising the level of absurdity with endless media fakes and bogus stories. I will just emphasise that in practical terms, this very hypocritical simulation of reality only strengthens the anything-goes attitudes in the Ukrainian leadership. Europe will soon see for itself “the young democracy” that has developed in Ukraine in the past few years. Europe will see what it is like, who created it and will learn about the views and philosophy of many new arrivals in the EU countries.

The humanitarian situation is difficult. People are going through hard times. But Brussels will still have to realise and assess how many adepts of an aggressive nationalist ideology currently reside in Europe, in the EU countries.

Outcome of the IMF and the World Bank governing bodies’ spring session

The outcome of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank governing bodies spring session in 2022 were, unfortunately, overshadowed by the excessive politicisation of their work and a lack of focus on the significant challenges in global development, financial sustainability of states, the escalating food and energy crisis and the disruptions in traditional supply chains and markets. The activities of these purely economic and specialised institutions have, in fact, at the instigation of their Western shareholders, been centred on attempts to condemn Russia for the events in Ukraine. Thus, there is no evidence of strict adherence to the mandate laid down in the statutory documents of these institutions. This is deeply regrettable and creates additional risks with respect to post-Covid reconstruction and the achievement of sustainable development goals. It demonstrates once again the hypocrisy of the West and the intensification of its notorious double standards in relations with various "undesirable" states.

Russia is a full-fledged participant of the Bretton Woods institutions and contributes substantially to their objectives, executing all its financial obligations in a bona fide and timely manner. In this regard, it is regrettable that these platforms are being used to promote policies and approaches imposed by certain groups of states.

We consider it counterproductive to discuss the accusations hurled by the West and to cite political, historical, cultural, humanitarian, socio-economic and other arguments in favour of launching the special military operation in Ukraine at international financial and economic platforms and at specialised sectoral organisations. There are other authorised entities for this purpose. Each specialised institution should deal with its own topic. ICAO is for flights. The Bretton Woods institutions are to deal with finance, economics, logistics and crises. UN humanitarian organisations and NGOs are to engage in the issues of human rights and aid to civilians. If it is arranged like that, we will get a lot done together. If everyone "trespasses" on another area, co-existing under such a political superstructure as the dominant factor, everything will collapse. This is the last thing that somehow still works in international law. It is impossible to be effective if ideology dominates and moreover, if such ideology is based not on a realistic approach and serious analysis, but rather, imposed as a political set up.

We want to point out that the statements issued by the chairpersons of the International Monetary and Financial Committee and the Development Committee containing anti-Russia fragments in connection with the situation in Ukraine are not the final consensus documents of the Spring Session, but merely the biased views of some representatives of the IMF and the World Bank member states on the Ukrainian crisis. If politics is so important in the work of these institutions, where have they been for all these eight years? Why haven't they seen the economic blockade of Donbass, a large part of a European state? Why haven't they seen the water blockade of Crimea? This concerns their direct sphere of activity (food, financial institutions, etc). Haven't they noticed the blockage of money, social benefits, salaries and pensions transfers from the Ukrainian territory to the then Ukrainian regions? Even within the framework of the Normandy format, they discussed developing special mechanisms for money transfers and easing the financial burden on the civilian population. Where have the Bretton Woods institutions been? We've been talking about this for eight years. Now it turns out that all of this is important, necessary and interesting.

US and its allies’ crimes in Syria

In the midst of drummed-up discussions on observing the norms of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts it is reasonable to speak about it in substance. For example, it is worth recalling an important and sad anniversary so as to reveal the true face of those who, like Washington, London and other capitals, are hypocritically speculating about the sufferings of ordinary civilians and aspiring to teach others. Hypocritically, because they themselves were the catalyst for the events and because they were pursuing the traditional logic of destruction in the process.

Three years ago, on March 18, 2019, the US F-15 jets dropped two air bombs weighing 225 and 907 kg on al-Baguz refugee camp in Syria. The 2.5-square-kilometre camp on the bank of the Euphrates in the southeast of the country bordering on Iraq was the last foothold of ISIS militants who were holding thousands of civilians hostage. Initially, the Americans and their allies in the “international anti-ISIS coalition” cordoned off the camp expecting the militants to surrender because of the danger of starvation. Following that, when several thousand people still remained in al-Baguz, including women and children, the air strike came.

Under public pressure, including investigative reporting by the New York Times among others, the US Command acknowledged the death of 80 people in the attack. However, it is obvious that the real number of victims was much higher, as the figures were deliberately understated and there were no proper investigations into the arbitrary use of force against civilians. Moreover, the allies rushed to bulldoze the air strike site to cover the corpses whereas all the reports about the incident, according to witnesses, were promptly moderated and classified.

Overall, in 2019 alone the coalition made more than a thousand strikes on Syria and Iraq using over 4,700 bombs and missiles and acknowledged the death of just 22 people without even mentioning al-Baguz. Let me remind you that nobody ever invited the US to Syria. The legitimate and lawful leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic said that they did not see a meaningful role for Washington in peacemaking, while they called the role the US was playing aggressive, invasive and anti-human. I realise that many those in NATO countries who deal with foreign policy and international affairs are really bad at geography nowadays, yet Syria, a non-nuclear state, does not border on the US. It is in an entirely different continent. Whatever is happening there cannot pose a direct threat to the US. One can only invent stories. In reality, the developments in Syria did not involve a border conflict and did not pose a territorial threat or any other kind of threat. Damascus presented and presents no aggression evolving into a threat to Washington. However, the US sent their planes there.

They arranged a coalition and do not want to leave despite Syria’s daily demands and a lack of any reasons to stay there. This is despite the fact that their actions are beyond anything imaginable. They are raiding and plundering natural resources and have become breeding grounds for extremism which somehow still remains in the region. They are the “supporting force” that must carry out Washington’s orders when it sees fit.

Prior to this, the US and its allies had spent six months erasing the district of Hajin, which has an area of 2.5 to 3 kilometres. On September 8, 2018, two US F-15 jets dropped white phosphorous munitions, which are banned by the Protocol Additional to the 1949 Geneva Convention. But who cares when “democracy” and natural resources are at stake?

It should be noted that overall the operations by the US-led coalition in Hajin and al-Baguz provoked a mass exodus of the civilians to the al-Hawl camp. Its population increased seven-fold from December 2018 to March 2019 to peak at 73,000 people with 90 percent of them women and children. The new arrivals had to settle in the open air after several days of walking through the desert, without tents, beds, warm clothes and other essentials. Hundreds of refugees died including children under one year old, from hypothermia and infectious diseases among acute shortages of food, drinking water and medicines. Where have you all been? We have been mentioning this every single week.

Finally, we must not forget the so-called coalition’s battle for Raqqa from June to October 2017 whereby the city was virtually erased. According to UN data, the allies’ carpet bombings damaged or destroyed about 11,000 buildings (40 per day), including 8 hospitals, 29 mosques, five universities and over 40 schools as well as the city’s irrigation systems. The number of civilians killed, according to the most modest estimates, exceeded 1,600. What will the Bretton Woods institutions say about the situation in Syria? Do they see the connection between the situation in the region and the policy of the US and those who share this dreadful ideology?

With that in mind, Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad recently appealed to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres with a demand to raise international awareness, including within the UN Security Council, of the actions by the US-led coalition which entailed mass casualties among Syrian civilians and qualify as military crimes and crimes against humanity under international humanitarian law. There are no doubts that events in al-Baguz, Hajin and Raqqa must be investigated and the perpetrators brought to account. These are just individual examples. What has been going on there for years amounts to volumes of criminal cases against high-ranking officials in the US as well as the EU and other NATO countries.

Israeli air strikes on Syria

According to incoming reports, during the night of April 27, Israeli air strikes hit targets in the towns of Sumaria, Qudsaya and Kiswah near Damascus, killing four Syrian servicemen, wounding three and causing serious damage to the area.

It is important to note that the ongoing Israeli air strikes on the Syrian Arab Republic that are carried out in violation of the fundamental norms of international law are unacceptable. We firmly condemn irresponsible actions like this, which increase the number of victims among the military and civilians and pose a real threat of an uncontrolled escalation of tensions in the region. We again point out that unprovoked attacks like this impair the Syrian armed forces’ combat potential, having a negative impact on the effectiveness of the efforts to fight terrorism in Syria. We link the responsibility for the spread of terrorism in Syria directly to US activities in this region. We demand that Israel abandon this vicious and dangerous practice.

New Diplomatic Dictionary

I would like to tell you about an interesting project initiated by the Foreign Ministry Diplomatic Academy: the New Diplomatic Dictionary.

It is an electronic resource containing a systematised database of current terms and definitions, which international relations specialists might need in their daily work. This dictionary will be helpful to undergraduate and postgraduate students, university lecturers and employees at ministries and agencies involved in international cooperation.

Experts in diplomacy, international relations, international law and the world economy from the Foreign Ministry Diplomatic Academy have contributed to the New Diplomatic Dictionary. This collaborative initiative is being led by Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Alexander Yakovenko, who is the Rector of the Academy, Doctor of Law and Professor.

The dictionary is replenished with terms on a weekly basis. It is available on the Diplomatic Academy website and a special banner has been added on the Foreign Ministry website.

Last week, to support the project, the Diplomatic Academy launched the New Diplomatic Dictionary Telegram channel, so that important new terms on the current international agenda can be posted daily. I believe many of them may be helpful.

Answers to media questions:

Question: The Ukrainian Justice Ministry and Vladimir Zelensky’s office have devised a mechanism to recover Russia’s frozen assets abroad and use these funds to pay compensation to those negatively impacted by Russia’s special operation in Ukraine. This is what Zelensky’s Deputy Chief of Staff Andrey Smirnov said. What will the consequences of these measures be, in your opinion?

Maria Zakharova: We do not see any need to comment on the extravagant interpretations of international law and its enforcement mechanisms which the Kiev regime regularly concocts, fuelled as it is by energy drinks. Even thinking about this can make one sick. As far as we know, the international community has not asked Kiev for its ‘expert’ advice or any solutions of this nature. They have come up with this on their own.

As for the assets owned by the Russian Federation which are currently blocked in foreign accounts, we have emphasised many times that we believe the freezing of these assets to be illegitimate, violating all principles and norms of international law and contrary to the principle of impartiality in the operation of the global financial system. These actions by the Western countries can be viewed as a flagrant act of infringement on the sovereign property and an outright and overt act by a group of countries to steal the assets belonging to another country. Make no mistake, this is not because Russian assets and funds are involved. This is our principled position, as we have said many times regarding other states and in the context of the situation they faced. Many other countries start paying attention to a problem only when they face it themselves. Not us. For Russia, this is a matter of principle and our unwavering position. You can easily see this in the Foreign Ministry statements, comments, and briefings. We voiced the same position whenever the West enacted illegal freezes or confiscated funds from the accounts of certain states.

This gives the world yet another opportunity to question the reliability of the dollar and the euro as reserve currencies and the main currencies for international transactions, as well as the impartiality and stability of the current global financial order as imposed by the West. We will treat any attempts to use the funds of the Russian state or its citizens without the consent of their legal holders as an illegal and overtly unfriendly step by the country in question and its government, giving us every right to take adequate retaliatory measures, including legal action.

The refusal by the West to work within the strict confines of the existing legal framework and any further deterioration, undermining the ability of states or specific individuals to access their assets, creates an extremely dangerous precedent for all parties to the Bretton Woods system. This would mean that nothing guarantees the sovereign status of assets anymore. This is already obvious. With every shift in the geopolitical situation, certain actors can always revise this order by benefitting from their ‘privileged’ standing.

This is not theory anymore. These are facts and reality.

Question: How would you comment on Russia’s withdrawal from the World Tourism Organisation?

Maria Zakharova: The Secretariat of the World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) published a press release saying that at an extraordinary UNWTO General Assembly session on April 27, 2022, Russia was suspended from UNWTO “losing with immediate effect its rights and privileges as part of the United Nations specialised agency.” We consider it an example of political hypocrisy that has become a tradition for this organisation led by its Secretary-General Zurab Pololikashvili.

If fact, before the politically motivated and unjustified decision was made, Russia announced its withdrawal from the World Tourism Organisation right after the beginning of the General Assembly session. We believe that the organisation has been de facto monopolised by the Western countries that use this platform in their interests, including to discriminate against our country.

At the same time, Russia voiced its stance that politisation of the organisation’s activity is unacceptable both during the extraordinary session of the UNWTO Executive Council on March 8, 2022, and the General Assembly session; Russia also submitted a note of withdrawal to the UNWTO Secretariat. Given Russia’s decision to leave the World Tourism Organisation, all comments by its Secretariat, made post factum, on Russia not being able “to exercise the rights or enjoy the privileges of UNWTO membership, receive services from the organisation, participate in any UNWTO meetings or events, or to vote in elections to UNWTO organs” look inadequate, like an attempt to save face after the show aimed at punishing Russia, conceived by its leadership with active participation of its Western members, has failed.

It was a bad decision. They used the same tactics in the Council of Europe, obviously at the behest of NATO. Unfortunately, the Council of Europe is ruled by NATO (not the NATO member countries, but the structures). They used the same tactics in the Council of Europe when we announced our withdrawal. They made up a story saying that we are suspended after we submitted a withdrawal note.

Question: Did Russia receive a response from Ukraine on its agreement proposals? If not, how long is Russia ready to wait for it?

Maria Zakharova: At the time of preparations for this briefing, Russia has not received a response.

Question: How would you comment on Japan’s announcement about its support of Ukrainian refugees?

Maria Zakharova: We noted the campaign to accept refugees from Ukraine in Japan, advertised by the official Tokyo. We are not surprised by this active propaganda of the so-called humanitarian efforts which the current administration of Fumio Kishida is using to improve its political image in the eyes of its Western partners. They are carrying out these policies.

We believe that these actions are opportunistic. There is evidence of that: the Japanese party has ignored the human tragedies that have been happening in the DPR and the LPR for the past eight years. They never mentioned anything, it was not their concern. They were on and off about sanctions, but as for humanitarian issues, Japan did not care much. How is this possible? Some 13,000 people had died over eight years. Japan did not see that. They should have continued to turn a blind eye, which is dishonourable but closer to some truth, or they should have looked and acknowledged what was happening.

Unfortunately for Ukrainian nationals, the Japanese authorities are not willing to take up responsibilities to assist them with building a normal life, with finding a job. It is easier for them to assign dilapidated abandoned student dormitories and a beggarly allowance without any liability, than to stop the political, economic and military assistance – including the deliveries of drones – to the Kiev regime. It provokes further bloodshed. Maybe Tokyo does not see a logic here. So I just explained it. Now they will know. All this leads to the destabilisation of the situation in the region as well. The number of refugees and victims will keep growing. The Fumio Kishida administration and Japan as a state that makes such decisions are partly responsible for it.

Question: What is Russia’s assessment of the mediating efforts undertaken by different sides following the UN Secretary-General’s visit to Turkey, Russia, and Ukraine? Does the visit contribute to resuming other channels of communication?

Maria Zakharova: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on this topic in detail both at his joint news conference with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on April 26 and at his joint news conference with Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh on April 27.

I can only reiterate that at his talks in Moscow UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres focused, among other things, on the humanitarian aspects of the current situation. For our part, we informed him about the really impressive Russian efforts to solve the humanitarian problems in Ukraine. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also spoke in favour of the UN, jointly with the International Committee of the Red Cross, providing assistance in organising humanitarian convoys and evacuating civilians. We appreciate the UN’s aspiration to play a constructive and unbiased role. We have explained to the UN delegation how the Organisation could make a concrete contribution to solving the humanitarian problems. From our point of view, there is huge potential for collaboration in this area.

I also would like to remind you that Ukraine was not speaking about mediation as such at the previous stages of talks. Our teams met four times face to face: three times in Belarus, and once in Turkey. These were negotiating venues and we are grateful to both Belarus and Turkey for their hospitality and organisation. At this stage, it is still too early to speak about mediators.

As for the talks themselves, we have repeatedly stated that we favour the negotiating process in any event, be it in the context of the situation in Ukraine or other times of historic importance. When Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky suggested holding talks, Russia gave its consent – the offer was not turned down. But the Ukrainian delegation’s behaviour at the talks was depressing. Still, it is a sign of their true attitude to the negotiating process. In all evidence, they are not particularly interested in negotiated solutions. Let me reiterate: we are committed to a peaceful settlement. We are expecting the materials outlining what they are prepared to offer, based on the assumption that they have not officially withdrawn from the negotiating process. Let me remind you that the materials were tendered practically two weeks ago. But we know well how reliable Kiev is, as it has demonstrated for years.

Question: What diplomatic efforts can Russia make, and will Russia maintain diplomatic dialogue with NATO and other East European countries to prevent military conflicts from spreading to other countries?

Maria Zakharova: You know about our stand, which is that the spread of military conflicts is highly undesirable. However, in the context of the reckless build-up of the NATO countries’ military supplies to Kiev, individual countries and the NATO and EU authorities in Brussels are openly discussing an escalation scenario. You remember Josep Borrell’s statement that “this war will be won on the battlefield.”This view is supported by members of the political leadership in the UK, some US representatives, and several EU countries. They make no secret of their aggressive stand and the fact that an escalation is what they want. We have been consistently advocating the creation of a fair architecture of European security based on the principle of indivisible security.

I would like to remind you that the growth of the factor of power in international relations is rooted in the fact that the Americans and their satellites have replaced international law with a “rules-based order.” It means a US-led unipolar world where all other countries are subordinate to Washington to the extent that suits it or that it deems necessary. This “order” has never been discussed in a public format, and its meaning is not clear. It is a smokescreen for the ideology of hegemonism promoted by one country. This new “order” and its functions have not been discussed with anyone or sealed in a document.

Moreover, there is a host of temporary or “pontoon associations” (it is a new term in our diplomatic vocabulary), which, according to the ideology of the collective West, should replace the existing organisations based on international law, for example, the UN human rights bodies such as the Human Rights Council and the commissioners and offices in charge of humanitarian matters. Parallel structures are being created. There are agencies, conferences and committees at the OSCE, the UN and other organisations based on international law, which are dealing with IT, security and cybercrime matters on the basis of consensus or voting. They are being replaced with alliances, unions and a collective narrative. It may look like a global orchestra of countries, but nobody is trying to coordinate its performance so as to attain the desired effect. This is a deception, the creation of non-binding organisations and formats whose goals are not committed to paper and whose actions and strategies are not defined. They are designed to replace the existing organisations that are based on international law, have charters and a collective system of decision-making, are transparent and open to its members.

The fiction called “a rules-based order” only exists in the heads of politicians who have lost connection with reality. The “rules-based order” has not been recognised by Russia, China or the majority of members of the international community.

Who is creating this “order”? Those who have always upheld the theory of controlled chaos. Once again, their actions are illogical. Chaos means complete disorder. Those who uphold the theory of controlled disorder cannot restore order in the world or prove that this order is much better than the existing system based on international law.

As you know, Russia did not refuse to talk with NATO, despite its adversarial policies. We put forth numerous practical de-escalation and confidence-building proposals for the continent. The Alliance has disregarded all of them. The United States and its allies refused to respect our main interests and concerns or the philosophy we offered. This was accompanied by NATO’s expansion, the increased scale of military exercises, the deployment of strike systems near the Russian border, and the aggressive attempts to militarise the post-Soviet space and to turn it into a hostile bridgehead on our doorstep. Instead of reducing miliary-political tensions, the NATO countries actively joined in the efforts to turn Ukraine into a bridgehead for containing our country. In fact, they are using Ukrainian nationalists to wage a proxy war against Russia. We pointed this out on numerous occasions.

We strongly recommend that the United States and NATO countries harbour no illusions that their aggressive behaviour towards nations will remain unpunished. They should start thinking about the possibility of resuming discussions on a new architecture of European security after what they have done and intend to do. Moreover, the matter does not concern only European security. Just look at the developments in the Asia-Pacific region and what the United States has perpetrated in Latin America and the Caribbean.

They should think about ways to resume discussions on the rules of coexistence with the main global players, namely Russia and other independent centres of global power. We urge our colleagues to sober up and to ask themselves how they can implement the political obligations on the indivisibility of security in Europe, which they adopted at the top level during the OSCE summits in 1999 and 2010. Maybe they will disavow them or will say, just as they have done before, that it is history which must be left behind. It is unclear what they can do (this is unclear to them as well) to implement the principle of the sovereign equality of states, which is the fundamental principle of the UN Charter and the current world order based on international law.

Moscow has always been open to constructive dialogue with all members of the international community, including NATO countries, on condition of equality and respect for each other’s interests based on international law. For this dialogue to be effective, our Western “partners” must abandon their warlike rhetoric, the policy of militarisation on the continent and attempts to divide Europe and other parts of the world into zones of influence, of which the countries of the collective West have been blaming Russia, and they should start working to create a fair and equitable system of international security. We will continue to rely above all on diplomatic methods of settling international disputes. We are ready to strike back on the ground, in practice, whenever we see a direct threat to our country. We will continue to rely on these principles.

Question: Head of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin said that it is becoming increasingly important to carry out Arctic projects in order to ensure Russia’s security and defend its national interests. In your opinion, how will this new environment affect the future of the Arctic Council, which Russia currently chairs?

Maria Zakharova: You were right to note that the Russian chairmanship of the Arctic Council is underway. It covers the period from 2021 through 2023. The Arctic Council has been a key and, overall, quite effective mechanism for promoting multilateral cooperation in the Arctic for a quarter of a century now. All Arctic states without exception supported the priorities as set forth by the Russian chairmanship. These priorities are based on ensuring responsible governance for sustainable regional development and balancing the region’s social, economic and environmental aspects. Unfortunately, activities within the Arctic Council are currently suspended. Let me remind you that the United States, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland suspended their participation in the Council in early March, citing Russia’s special operation in Ukraine. At the same time, the Council’s Western member states noted that they were ‘temporarily pausing participation,’ as they called it, which does not require any changes in the composition of participants, working formats, etc. I am referring to the format in which this structure operates. It is obvious that without Russia, a country covering about 60 percent of the Arctic coastline and home to over half of the region’s population (2.5 million people), ensuring sustainable development in the Arctic would be extremely challenging.

It must be noted that all the Arctic states without exception agree in their assessment of the Arctic Council that it has demonstrated its worth, as I have already said, as an effective international institution for devising collective solutions for sustainable development in the region. Adopted in Reykjavik on May 20, 2021, the ministerial declaration of the Arctic Council notes the commitment by all Arctic Council states to maintain peace, stability and constructive cooperation in the Arctic. We believe that attempts to artificially draw Ukraine into the Council’s orbit fail to meet these goals. However, just today we have already mentioned the Bretton Woods institutions, and other international governmental and non-governmental organisations which opted to prioritise this political construct, as unfortunate as this may be.

In the current situation, as the current Arctic Council chair, Russia continues its consistent efforts to carry out the programme of its chairmanship and the Action Plan, focusing the existing interagency cooperation mechanisms on the needs of the Russian northern regions in keeping with the goals and purposes set forth in the Basic Principles of Russian Federation State Policy in the Arctic to 2035 and the Strategy for Developing the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation until 2035.

This includes efforts to substitute for the foreign presence in the region, including by stepping up domestic interaction and making it more effective. The establishment of two research and educational centres in Russia’s Arctic zone, one in the Arkhangelsk Region and the other in Yakutia, is expected to contribute to achieving these aims. The Floating University programme has a lot of potential. This is an initiative to study water areas, including in the Arctic Basin. In addition to this, the ice-resistant vessel Severny Polyus will also serve as a platform for scientific cooperation. This is in fact a floating laboratory. All these steps will greatly reinforce the scientific component of the national Arctic programme.

Overall, Russia remains committed to constructive Arctic cooperation, while reinforcing its sovereignty in the northern latitudes. We remain open to working with all interested states and organisations, both from the Arctic and extra-regional actors, who share our understanding of the need to promote sustainable development for this region.

Question: Was the question of prisoners of war, the terms for exchanging them and the conditions of their detention in Ukraine discussed in the context of UN Secretary-General’s visit? How many prisoners from the Ukrainian Armed Forces are currently in Russia?

Maria Zakharova: There was no specific discussion of this matter. At the same time, the UN Secretary-General put forward several ideas, and we are studying them very carefully.

He suggested establishing a trilateral contact group (Russia, Ukraine, and the UN) to exchange information and ensure the effective operation of the humanitarian corridors and deliveries.

At the same time, Antonio Guterres proposed using the UN-ICRC format to engage with the Russian and Ukrainian armed forces and he suggested developing and carrying out a plan to evacuate civilians from Mariupol and deliver humanitarian aid there.

As for the number of prisoners of war from the Ukrainian Armed Forces, this question falls within the purview of the Russian Defence Ministry, as you know.

Question: What is happening in our diplomatic relations with Ukraine? There are reports that Ukrainian diplomatic missions abroad are almost openly staging provocations against Russian citizens. Could you comment on this?

Maria Zakharova: First, due to Kiev’s initiative, we have no diplomatic relations with Ukraine. Kiev severed them on February 24, 2022. We received a relevant note from Ukraine via official channels. Our countries’ embassies have been closed. The consular offices no longer function, either.

As for the information about the participation of Ukrainian diplomats in provocations against Russian citizens in foreign countries, yes, indeed. There are many facts and we have often spoken about them. They are recruiting militants to the area of hostilities, cyberforces of extremists and cybermercenaries. We have mentioned these facts today, too. These are large-scale violations of all international legal standards. But there are also facts that are not linked with the general activities of Ukrainian embassies. They concern specific individuals, Ukrainian ambassadors. In addition to openly recruiting mercenaries, employees of Ukrainian embassies in some countries are not just acting on instructions from the centre but are making a personal contribution to these efforts. The Ukrainian Ambassador in Berlin is one of the most odious figures in this respect. He is literally spewing Russophobic venom. Here’s a quote. In an interview with the leading German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on April 5, he said that he “does not distinguish between good and bad Russians but simply considers all of them to be enemies.” The nationalists have preached this logic for eight years, and for many of them it is 80 years old. Just regard all of us as enemies, it’s as simple as that. One needs to make an intellectual effort to make such a statement. But we should probably thank him for outlining the nationalist ideology of the Kiev regime so openly and clearly. It is hardly possible to express it better. It is hardly possible to say it any worse from the point of view of human logic. But his statement is the best description of the Kiev regime’s true approach to the situation. Importantly, this approach is many years old.

According to the German Interior Minister, over 380 crimes against people from Russia have been recorded in Germany in the past two months. The Ukrainian Ambassador in Berlin is directly involved in fuelling tensions. Naturally, Ukrainian citizens have to deal with problems as a result. Ukrainian nationalists and their supporters regularly attack Russian shops; Russian children in European schools are bullied; Russian students are ousted from local universities; and Russian performers and athletes are denied access to European contests and competitions. When Ukrainian diplomats motivate Europeans for such actions, they don’t care what will happen to them. Unfortunately, Europeans get involved in criminal cases. No matter what political slogans are used as an excuse, such actions are listed as criminal offenses. Looting a shop is a criminal offence. It is serious and involves a financial liability. Beating someone up or other forms of violence are punishable by law. Despite the political bias of the leaders of the EU countries, law exists, as well as the right to a defence. All these facts are recorded and attorneys are working on them. We help our compatriots in many cases. Local human rights agencies are also making a considerable input. The work on such cases is ongoing. Those who are fuelling hatred are encouraging aggressive actions. Those who commit such actions and violate the law will be brought to justice.

Question: Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov said that the Bank of America blocked the accounts of Russian consulates-general in Houston and New York. How would you comment on that?

Maria Zakharova: He already commented on that. I can only once again draw attention to his words. It is truly unprecedented pressure on our diplomats who work all over the world and in Washington in particular. This pressure is coming from the US authorities and includes blocking the accounts of consulates-general. It happened suddenly without any prior notice. We find it obvious that the Bank of America could not have taken such actions without the approval or a direct order from the US Department of State.

Now the American foreign policy agency, in order to avoid trouble for the US diplomatic mission in Moscow, promises assistance in opening new accounts of the consulates-general at another bank. We hope that the situation will be resolved to our satisfaction and we will not have to take similar steps in response. But we are not going to hold back if this situation is not put right for our diplomats in the near future.

I would like to emphasise that blocking accounts is only a part of the hostile campaign launched against the Russian diplomatic missions in the United States. Their employees and family members receive threatening calls and emails; they find packages, parcels and mail items with threats. Diplomats face obstacles in doing their professional duty and are being denied meetings and work contacts at various agencies. Only after our embassy’s insistent requests and protests did the police curb demonstrations that hindered entrance and exit to the embassy premises. The authorities take their time in investigating cases of vandalism on the fences and buildings of the Russian diplomatic missions.

We urge the American party to take the necessary measures to ensure the normal operation of Russian diplomatic missions and to avoid undesirable consequences.

Question: The situation in Transnistria has escalated in recent days: a radio centre that broadcasted Russian programmes was blown up, a military base was attacked and shooting was heard near military storage facilities. How does the Foreign Ministry assess these events?

Maria Zakharova: I started today’s briefing by assessing the developments in Transnistria. I have nothing more to add; please use the information I have already given.

Question: How does the Foreign Ministry view the decision of the Turkish authorities to close its airspace to Russian planes flying to Syria? Could this decision escalate disagreements between Russia and Turkey?

Maria Zakharova: Over a month ago, Ankara addressed the Russian party with a request to stop using this route. We understand the reasons behind it.

Russia does not currently use this route. This story has been developing for a month, not just for several days.

Question: The US Department of State has announced a reward of up to $10 million for information leading to the identification or location of any of the six Russian intelligence officers the US authorities are accusing of allegedly being involved in the 2017 NotPetya cyberattack. The US claims that Russian intelligence conspired to deploy “destructive malware and took other disruptive actions for the strategic benefit of Russia through unauthorised access to victim computers.” What is Moscow’s response to such accusations?

Maria Zakharova: This is an absolutely insane action by the American authorities and reflects their true attitude towards international law and the sovereignty of other states. Essentially, the State Department is trying to buy pseudo-witnesses. It is not trying to provide material support to actual witnesses, but to buy pseudo-witnesses who will provide evidence that would be convenient for the administration in return for those rewards. Why are they doing this? They need to justify their own version of Russia’s alleged involvement in this cybercrime. All this is being done amid a situation where aggressive cyber activity against our country is being carried out from the territory of the United States.

Russia has repeatedly reaffirmed its willingness to cooperate with the United States in strengthening international information security with the involvement of competent government agencies. Let me remind you that in February of this year, after the REvil hacker group was thwarted and a number of its members were arrested in Russia, our specialised agencies sent proposals to the American side to work out joint measures to protect critical infrastructure in our countries against cyberattacks. However, instead of responding, the White House announced a unilateral termination of cooperation, withdrew from the negotiation process and closed off the cybersecurity communication channel. This is all we need to know about their true approach to the resolution of all existing or potential concerns in this area.

The Americans are taking similar destructive steps on international platforms. In particular, Washington has long sabotaged every effort to work out universal conventions under the auspices of the UN to combat cybercrime. This is also revealing. This story involving the NotPetya virus was actually on the agenda and was to be considered at bilateral interagency consultations in Geneva in February 2018. The consultations were derailed; the American side cancelled them at the last moment without any explanation. As you can well understand, we never received any specifics on this issue from the United States, before or after this.

Washington seems to think it can make the whole world believe whatever it has been inventing – stories about a Russian cyber threat, Russian hackers, and so on. They are blocking the Russian mass media, consequently, they do not have this information, apparently; but we have voiced it. They will not be able to punish any suspects appointed by the US administration without a trial or investigation because everyone will see it is groundless and absurd. Not that this tactic is new. It has been repeatedly practiced in the fight against nasty regimes (as they call them), “exposing” their alleged crimes.

US law enforcement agencies have far better things to do, such as dealing with cybercriminals and their accomplices on their own territory. They could at least bring to justice tech corporations such as Apple and Meta (designated “extremist” in Russia). As you know, they regularly leak the personal data of their clients from various continents, including IP addresses and phone numbers that attackers use to attack, hack, and steal technology and financial resources. The American authorities continue to require IT companies, including those in third countries, to use hidden malware in the interests of their special services, and cyber criminals make use of that functionality as well. Their current policy, which clearly speaks of an aggressive confrontation with Russia, has already brought Washington to a dangerous line, where cyberattacks against our country are no longer condemned; moreover, they are being encouraged. These are just a few obvious examples. This is something everyone can see, something they are not even hiding. Imagine how much more the United States is doing “under the veil of night.”

Question: How much attention is Russia giving to the development of economic relations with Azerbaijan? How does Russia assess Azerbaijan’s interest in economic cooperation?

Maria Zakharova: Promoting economic and regional cooperation is a priority within the framework of the multifaceted cooperation between Russia and Azerbaijan. Let me remind you that in 2021, our bilateral trade exceeded pre-COVID levels and reached a record $3.4 billion. Russia is one of the leading trade partners for Azerbaijan, and the total volume of its investment [in Azerbaijan] is estimated at $6 billion. Our trade and economic cooperation is based, among other things, on the pro-active interaction between over 70 Russian regions and Azerbaijan. A key venue for promoting this kind of cooperation is the regularly held Russia-Azerbaijan inter-regional forums, which we often report on. All these matters were discussed in detail during the 20th anniversary meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation between Russia and Azerbaijan, held in Baku on April 25-26. Governor of the Astrakhan Region Igor Babushkin paid an official visit to Azerbaijan as part of this important event. The parties reviewed plans to further increase bilateral trade between Astrakhan and Azerbaijan (last year, trade grew by 18 percent to $17 million) and the development of mutually beneficial contacts in industry, transport, and so on.

Director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Fourth CIS Department Denis Gonchar provided a comprehensive assessment of the state of and prospects for bilateral cooperation, including in trade and the economy, in an interview with the Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, published on April 25.

Question: In the past, no matter how tense the relations between Russia and the Western countries became, the OSCE Minsk Group was the format for a continued constructive dialogue between Russia, the United States, and France. However, Sergey Lavrov said that today the US and France are refusing to work with Russia at the same table within the framework of the Minsk Group. Armenia made more optimistic statements as regards the continuation of this format. An exchange of views might have taken place after that. Can you give a more detailed comment on how the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement is going and in what format it will be continued?

Maria Zakharova: As a reminder, we provided sufficiently detailed comments not long ago – on April 21 of this year. We said that the high diplomatic activity of the US and French co-chairs of the Minsk Group had actually increased, paralysing the once concerted effort of the three co-chairs, as the former two refused to cooperate with Russia. We did not see any chance coincidence in this, and also took note of Brussels’ unabashed attempts to arrogate the subject of the well-known Russia-Azerbaijan-Armenia top-level agreements and the agenda that the OSCE German Group co-chair suggested last year. You can find an up-to-date comment on the Foreign Ministry website.

To reiterate: we see bilateral top-level agreements as the basis for promoting the process of normalisation in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. You know these agreements. We continue to work with Baku and Yerevan on all tracks, including the unblocking of economic and transport ties, delimitation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, and coordination of the peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Unblocking the connecting routes was discussed at a meeting between Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, held in Baku on April 26 of this year on the sidelines of a meeting of the bilateral Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation. We also reported earlier that Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to hold a regular meeting of the Trilateral Working Group soon, to be co-chaired by deputy prime ministers.

As for the border issues, there are plans to hold foreign ministerial meetings in Baku before the end of this week.

Regarding the peace agreement, Special Representative of the Russian Foreign Minister for Normalising Armenian-Azerbaijani Relations Igor Khovayev held consultations in Yerevan and Baku on March 28 and April 25 of this year, respectively. We see this as a positive sign that both sides are ready to meet each other halfway. High-level trilateral meetings on this subject are being discussed.

As I see it, it is obvious that the real efforts made within the related institutions and formats are yielding results. Anyway, we remain within the existing formats, but we see that the work there is proceeding in a half-hearted way. But still there is some progress and we are involved. Of course, we attach primary importance to the formats, policies and efforts to give effect to the documents that, taken together, are yielding palpable results. And these results bring benefit to peaceful civilians, businesspeople, the state, and the region as a whole.

Question: These are two parallel processes. Is Russia overseeing one and the West the other?

Maria Zakharova: There are different formats. We see that one of them is effective, and we focus our attention on what can produce a constructive result that will suit both Baku and Yerevan. If it suits them, it suits us as well. There is also a second format, which has its own history. We are working within this framework as well, but we do not see any concrete result from it so far. It does exist, and we are working on it as well. But our attention is focused on the effective tracks.

Question: What is Moscow’s stand on the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic? Will the status be determined in a peace agreement or will Russia continue advocating the delimitation of the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the unblocking of communication links, leaving the issue of the status of Artsakh for later?

Maria Zakharova: When helping Baku and Yerevan prepare a peace agreement, Russia is acting on the basis of the proposals for the basic principles of establishing interstate relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia. They were prepared in Baku, and Yerevan responded to them constructively. We regard them as an acceptable basis for coordinating the parties’ positions. As for the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, there are basic differences between Baku and Yerevan on this matter, as you may know. We believe that our role should be to promote rather than hinder a rapprochement between their positions. This is also true of our publicly visible efforts.

Question: On April 22, Ilham Aliyev again made threats against Armenia if it refuses to sign a peace treaty on the terms formulated in Baku. On April 12, he said that Baku would regard the allocation of funds for the armament of Armenia as an unfriendly step. What is Moscow’s attitude towards Azerbaijan’s threats against its CSTO ally?

Maria Zakharova: We believe that it is extremely important, in fact, it is crucial to respect the letter and spirit of the trilateral agreements during the process of normalising Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. Everything is set out clearly in these agreements, including bilateral relations. It is also important to refrain from the rhetoric of confrontation and to use political and diplomatic methods to deal with the issues. This is our traditional approach and point. We have been acting in this spirit, and we call on all parties to do the same.

Question: Senator Konstantin Kosachev spoke during a recent videoconference with compatriots, discussing the mounting Russophobia and persecution of Russian compatriots in the West, and he said that “Russia must be ready for the most diverse options,” even the potential need to evacuate them to the Russian Federation if continuing to live in other countries becomes impossible. At the same time, we are aware of recent cases where compatriots returning to Russia encounter difficulties and obstacles when crossing the border and going through customs, have problems with accommodation, obtaining documents, etc. Is Russia doing anything now to really facilitate the process of returning or repatriating compatriots? Have there been any changes recently?

Maria Zakharova: I do not think I need to give you an intro to the State Programme for the repatriation of compatriots; you must know its provisions better than I do. This is your professional activity, your destiny, your life, etc. So I will add a few things to what you already know.

Applications are processed by local representative offices of the Interior Ministry of Russia, and ad-hoc groups involving employees of the Interior Ministry and the Foreign Ministry in countries with the greatest migration potential such as Kazakhstan (Nur-Sultan, Alma-Ata, Uralsk, Ust-Kamenogorsk), Azerbaijan (Baku), Belarus (Minsk), and Moldova (Kishinev). Our consular offices are also doing this.

Russian agencies are now considering the possibilities for improving the mechanisms and expanding the state programme.

The procedure for entry and stay in Russia is regulated by the current laws on migration and citizenship and concerns both Russian and foreign citizens (Russian compatriots who live abroad actually qualify for both categories). In the current situation, the government’s policy is to simplify the entry procedures for compatriots. For example, in autumn 2021, Russia began to issue multiple-entry private visas to relatives of Russian citizens for up to one year, allowing them to stay in the Russian Federation during the entire period of validity. Their Russian relatives are no longer required to register invitations with the Russian Interior Ministry before their visitors can apply for a visa. The new edition of the Federal Law On Citizenship of the Russian Federation opens up wider opportunities; the State Duma has already passed it in the first reading. This presidential bill stipulates more than 20 categories of beneficiaries that are entitled to Russian citizenship through a simplified procedure. The text of the bill is available on open sources.

For its part, the Foreign Ministry is ready to continue to make every effort to provide assistance to compatriots, including in the context of the anti-Russia campaign launched by the West on the diplomatic front. We are referring to the recent unilateral decisions taken by the Baltic states and the Czech Republic to close Russian consulates general on their territories. We understand what this strike is aimed at. The numerous expulsions of diplomatic workers also affected the consular departments of Russian embassies. This, of course, significantly increased the workload on the staff at our foreign missions. Accordingly, this also affects compatriots, because they cannot take advantage of the relevant services from our foreign missions in a proper manner, in full, and as fast as before.

But we are ready to deal with this and continue to do everything possible to provide assistance to Russian compatriots abroad within the limits established by the current Russian laws and international agreements. Each of us will accept the dramatic situation that is now developing in the world as the new reality and will do everything in their power at their diplomatic posts, in their line of duty.

Zusätzliche Materialien

Foto

Wichtigste Neuigkeiten der Außenpolitik

Internationale Sicherheit

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 28, 2022

Zusätzliche Materialien

Foto

Wichtigste Neuigkeiten der Außenpolitik

Internationale Sicherheit

Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное