Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 11, 2022
- Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with Foreign Minister of Venezuela Carlos Rafael Faría Tortosa
- Sergey Lavrov to participate in the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers
- Sergey Lavrov to meet with university graduates accepted into the diplomatic service
- Presentation on the Republic of Karelia
- The crisis in Ukraine
- Hostile statements by the Estonian Foreign Minister following the terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge
- Outcome of the 52nd General Assembly of the Organisation of American States
- Anniversary of the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom by the United States and the United Kingdom in Afghanistan
- Attack on the Russian Embassy in Moldova
Answers to media questions:
- Statements by the Mayor of Turku, Finland
- Remarks by UK Minister of State for Security
- French government official spokesperson’s statements
- The situation around seven Sri Lankan nationals in the Kharkov Region
- Suggestions to establish anti-Russian media
- Statements by US National Security Council official spokesperson
- Peace talks on Ukraine
- Former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s statements
- Russia-Kyrgyzstan relations
- The EU mission at the Armenia-Azerbaijan border
- Russia-Canada relations
- Canada’s response to attacks on Ukrainian territory
- The Crimean Bridge terrorist attack
- US response to the OPEC+ decision to curb oil production
- The US National Strategy for the Arctic Region
- The reaction of Poland and Estonia to the Crimean Bridge terrorist attack
- The European Political Community meeting
- The United States’ destructive activity in the world
- Recent decisions by the Security Service of Ukraine
- The Crimean Bridge terrorist attack and its impact on the grain deal
- The United States’ signals to Russia
Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming meeting with Foreign Minister of Venezuela Carlos Rafael Faría Tortosa
On October 11-14, a Venezuelan delegation headed by Foreign Minister of Venezuela Carlos Rafael Faría Tortosa is visiting Russia to take part in the Russian Energy Week International Forum.
The two foreign ministers will meet this evening. They are expected to discuss the key topics on the bilateral and regional agendas, as well as the main areas of political cooperation considering the common intention to comprehensively promote relations of strategic partnership between Russia and Venezuela.
Sergey Lavrov to participate in the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers
As we said at the last briefing, tomorrow, on October 12, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a regular meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers that will take place in Astana.
The CIS foreign ministers will discuss current international and regional issues as well as the prospects for cooperation development, and they will approve the Plan for Multilevel CIS Foreign Ministry Consultations for 2023.
Particular attention will be given to security issues in the CIS and the external borders. The Russian Foreign Minister will inform his counterparts about the course of the special military operation, the results of the referenda in the Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, and the accession of these territories to the Russian Federation.
A number of decisions are expected to be made in the cultural, humanitarian, law enforcement and human rights spheres, in particular, the Action Plan for holding the Year of Russian as a Language of Interethnic Communication in the CIS in 2023 and the Plan of Priority Actions in Humanitarian Cooperation in the CIS Member States for 2023-2024.
Several bilateral and trilateral meetings are expected to be held on the sidelines of the event. We will keep you informed on these.
Sergey Lavrov to meet with university graduates accepted into the diplomatic service
On October 18, Sergey Lavrov will hold his traditional meeting with the 2022 university graduates accepted into the diplomatic service.
The Foreign Minister will deliver a welcome speech, answer question, and wish the students success in their future careers as the new generation of Foreign Ministry staff, as he traditionally does.
The event will also be attended by veterans of the diplomatic service and representatives of the Council of Young Diplomats of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Presentation on the Republic of Karelia
On October 20, the Cultural Centre of the Foreign Ministry’s Main Administration for Service to the Diplomatic Corps (GlavUpDK) will host a presentation on the economic, investment and tourism potential of the Republic of Karelia. An exhibit showing the region’s achievements in various areas of socioeconomic development, as well as its history, culture and nature, will be presented.
Federal and regional officials, representatives of the diplomatic corps, business circles, and Russian and foreign media are invited to the event.
Welcome speeches by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Head of Karelia Artur Parfenchikov are planned.
On October 8 of this year, an explosion on the Crimean Bridge seriously damaged its infrastructure. The preliminary results of the investigation into this crime, conducted by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, show that this was an act of terror planned by Ukrainian secret services with a view to destroy this large piece of civilian infrastructure that is critical to the Russian Federation, especially Crimea.
For a long time now, the Kiev regime has been actively using terrorist methods for political purposes and the suppression of opponents. It is doing this not only on the territories of other countries. It started with itself, its citizens, and the territories that belonged to it at that time.
I’d like to recall that the Kiev regime is to blame for the loss of thousands of human lives and the large-scale destruction of civilian facilities in Donbass. This list includes publicist Oles Buzina shot in his courtyard, journalists Pavel Sheremet and Darya Dugina, killed in car bombings, the murdered children of the Alley of Angels in Donetsk and other victims of the Ukrainian neo-Nazis.
We should not forget about the continuous shelling of cities and villages of the DPR, the LPR, the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions and acts of nuclear terrorism against the Zaporozhye and Kursk nuclear power plants. Representatives of the Kiev regime of all stripes are proud of this. For many years, the Mirotvorets website has published information on who was eliminated, cynically crossing out the family name of each one. They are hailing the bombing and destruction of infrastructure and the murder of people.
It could be explained by the lack of anything else to be proud of. They don’t make, so all they can do is break. But I will explain it differently because this is not the point. Everything is much more serious. The bottom line is that this is their global ideology – not creation but destruction, not light but darkness; endless lies, flip-flops and global hypocrisy that conceals hatred and a misanthropic ideology.
They came to power via a coup, cruelly and in cold blood making short work of whom they called their political opponents – people whom they had to fight in the Verkhovna Rada during debates, exchange, interviews or remarks. No. They have long stopped concealing their essence behind some laws, which they think can be rewritten every hour. This is exactly what they have been doing for years. Now they have turned to the tactic of destroying everything that prevents them from reaching their goal.
What is their goal? To endlessly receive handouts, money, resources and promises of more material blessings from their curators. They want to do as they are told and sometimes improvise. These people came to power by staging a bloody unconstitutional coup.
I will recall how Kiev was ablaze and how proud they were of inventing a new tactic of burning tires to prevent people and cars, and, most important, security forces and police from getting close to them. They threw Molotov cocktails at people. Then they started shooting and destroying everything that was related to the state, law and the security system. Then they resorted to even crueler, more cynical violence by putting everyone on their knees and compelling them at gunpoint to bend the knee to those who destroyed Ukraine’s entire statehood.
The current acts of terror are not an exception but the continuation of the line that has prevailed in Ukraine during the last few decades. The West has been heavily supplying it with money and arms, giving it an opportunity to train militants on the territory of NATO countries (primarily Poland and the Baltic states). The West has also provided Ukraine with enormous political and information support. This is what the Kiev regime has received from its Western curators for lawless actions staged in the traditions of the worst terrorist cells. There is nothing special to prove – it is enough to look at the response of these so-called “people” who treat others as “creatures.”
Today, I saw the opinion of the ambassador of Ukraine in Britain, a NATO country. Unabashed, he told the Western media that the Kiev leaders have always dreamed of destroying this piece of civilian infrastructure. They do not conceal anything but are truly proud of their doings.
The cynical response of Ukraine’s military-political leaders to the terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge, which is being presented as the official position, is revealing. At first, Kiev was gloating and openly praised the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) for their “brilliant job”, flaunting their ability to attack sensitive targets in Russia. We remember their twits and publications on social networks and websites. We saw how people had their pictures taken in front of posters depicting the explosions on the Crimean Bridge.
When their sponsors and guides woke up in Washington, there was a sudden change of tack. They started to cowardly deny their involvement and deflect. This is either childish silliness or the influence of some substances with limited duration that periodically end. In their rare moments of sobriety, they start denying everything they said under the spell of something.
The same departments put out contradictory statements during a single day. At first, they were in raptures and this was a matter of pride for the nation. They all recorded it as a win. All “state institutions” of Ukraine expressed solidarity and shared in the success. Half a day passed. Apparently, people from Washington cut them down to size by explaining that states within the framework of international law differ from quasi-state terrorist formations.
Admiration-filled, pompous and heartfelt congratulations came from NATO countries officials in connection with the act of a terrorist nature on the Crimean Bridge. These are the same countries that have been talking for decades about human rights, creating specialised institutions to protect any human whim outside the realm of basic needs and elevating any craving to cult status. Now, abruptly losing the last sign that made them look like people of reason and tripping over each other in an attempt to be louder and more convincing than the others, they congratulated the Kiev regime on a successful terrorist attack. They have thus cleared any doubt as to who was actually behind it. They openly congratulated the Kiev regime on a successful act of sabotage in the 22nd year of the 21st century. After that, these people will see each other at conferences and talk about environmental protection, the suffering endured by flowers and trees, and that experiments involving animals are a no-no. Now I understand what they are talking about. Experimenting on animals is wrong, but experiments on humans are okay. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin emphasised, in the event of more attempts to conduct terrorist attacks on our territory, Russia's response will be harsh and commensurate with the threats posed to the Russian Federation. Do you know what the most cynical part is? They are alleging that we are the ones hiding behind the interests of our country alone.
For eight years we have been issuing calls to protect people in another country, Ukraine. We were reprimanded for doing that as well. They told us it was another country and we shouldn’t dare think about those people, that they would deal with them themselves. Now, the people whom we really cared about and tried to have their future taken care of by the international community as well, through incredible suffering and with great civic courage, mustered whatever strength they had left and became part of our country. We are now protecting our citizens who have lived here for centuries, as well as the people who once lived here and have now come back. Don’t tell us it is only about our own interests. We are protecting the people whom the Kiev regime has been trying to destroy for many years now. What would the future be for the people of Donbass (DPR and LPR) and other regions of Ukraine who would not swear allegiance to the Kiev regime or do the Nazi salute? According to Vladimir Zelensky, they are some “species” and, since they are not their kind, they can be treated like the neo-Nazis are treating them now, flaunting it and being proud of it. The only thing that unites them is hatred and terrorist ideology.
The massacres outside Kupyansk, Kharkov region, after the Russian forces pulled out from there, is further shocking proof of the Kiev regime's crimes. A video was posted online by former commander of the Azov nationalists Maxim Zhorin, which shows inhuman abuse of civilians by Ukrainian Nazis. It’s a terrifying video of staggering cruelty. The cockiness and unchecked cruelty of the Nazi killers has gone so far that they are not concerned about posting such videos and are not hiding their identity. They don’t even think about masking it, as they did with everything else, like the Crimean Bridge, and the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines. This is something they think they can be proud of.
History is repeating itself. This is not the first time this has happened. The gas chambers in the 1940s were also considered an achievement in the centre of Europe and a high point in the development of humankind, which, from the perspective of Nazism and fascism, was getting rid of those who prevented them from moving forward and perfecting themselves. This was several short decades ago. To prevent this from happening again, it was important to improve themselves and to squeeze every drop of Nazi blood out of themselves. Not everyone was able to make it; not everyone pursued this. Many people cultivated it in themselves for big money. And this is the result.
When Kiev saw this video, they got scared by the prospect of the international reaction, and started covering their tracks. As always, it didn't work out very well for them. The Azov gunman deleted his entry below the video and called it a “video from an invader’s phone” accusing the Russian military of the killings in Kupyansk. However, the metadata shows that the video was taken on October 9, when Ukrainian neo-Nazis were in control of Kupyansk. Nice try, but blaming Russia for the Kiev-sanctioned murder of its own people will not work. Aren’t “filtration camps” proof of how the Kiev regime treats the people it calls “its citizens liberated from the invaders?” Murdering Kharkov region residents is on the conscience of the Kiev regime, and it will not go unpunished.
We would like to see the international community eventually rise up from its anabiotic state and demonstrate its unbiased approach and adherence to its principles when assessing Ukraine’s latest moves and statements. We want it to show that it is still an international community and is willing and able to show empathy, sympathy and compassion and that this is not just a group of ideology-driven bureaucrats bought with Western money.
We are fully aware of the fact that the United States and other Western countries will never allow this to happen. They will do their best to create the illusion that the above crimes have not come to the attention of human rights institutions, agencies, and public figures. They are not just blindly covering up Kiev's unchecked behaviour and impunity, but they are demanding that others do the same, and they are putting unprecedented pressure on them.
Given the circumstances, there is only one option left which is to continue the special military operation with the stated goals. As Russian leadership has repeatedly expressed, all its goals and objectives will be fulfilled.
Hostile statements by the Estonian Foreign Minister following the terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge
Following the provocative statements by Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Reinsalu – who is on the list of individuals who are banned from entering our country – that justify, praise and call for terrorist acts against the Russian Federation, the Russian Foreign Ministry is preparing a request to the Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office about initiating legal proceedings against this Estonian citizen.
At the same time Russia believes that even in the worst times of crisis, it is important to keep open diplomatic channels for communication. This is our basic approach. However, time will tell.
In this context, the hypocrisy of the relevant international agencies, primarily the UN and the OSCE, which, obviously, are not in a hurry to condemn the malicious statements by the Estonian Foreign Minister, is plain to see. In other similar situations that don’t involve Russia, they respond quickly and always call to attention those who have lost touch with reality.
Is it a case of double standards? We can call it that. And it is what’s eroding international law today. Double standards have gone too far and have started affecting our world order based on international law. What they are doing is corrosive to international relations, which need to have a clear, explicit and transparent, as our Western “partners” say, basis. It is important to understand what principles all of us are guided by when we act.
Unfortunately, many organisations among those mentioned have proved to be obedient executors of the collective West’s will. Are they following their own best judgment or have they been taken hostage? There is much to be said on this score. I expect political scientists and experts to talk about this a lot now and in the future.
Outcome of the 52nd General Assembly of the Organisation of American States
Washington took another attempt to use the platform of the Western hemisphere’s regional organisation, the Organisation of American States (OAS), to promote its own anti-Russia agenda. They are only capable of uniting against us in what Washington considers as the sole effective unifying agenda today.
At the 52nd session of the General Assembly in Peru’s capital, Lima, on October 5‒9, the United States pushed an anti-Russia statement (which is not even an official document) condemning Russia’s special operation in Ukraine.
However, despite the pressure on the countries in the region and the painstaking efforts of the White House, the initiative was not supported by the countries with authority and influence in the region: Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, as well as Bolivia, Honduras, El Salvador, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Dominica. Bearing in mind the non-participation of Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua in the session as they have left the organisation or are in the process of leaving it, almost one third of the countries in the Western Hemisphere did not join the anti-Russia rhetoric initiated by Washington. That outcome reflected Latin Americans’ unwillingness to submit to the United States’ will without reservation. The Americans’ plan to organise solidary condemnation of our country at the OAS essentially failed.
In this regard, we cannot help but note that this kind of steps are instigated by a country with a long record of interfering in other countries’ affairs, including military interference. Latin America remembers and knows what I mean. Everybody is aware of the outcome of this kind of actions which are absolutely deplorable and have led to loss of life and destruction. This region is a rule rather than an exception. This is the kind of action the United States has allowed itself and made the core of its reasoning.
I would like to remind you that the countries in the region have already burnt its fingers once at the OAS by taking cues from the United States and its interests: specifically, when they were used against the legitimate government of Venezuela (do you remember that incident?) whose place in the organisation was unlawfully handed over to a representative of self-proclaimed president Juan Guaido in 2019. The United States played a key role in that incident. After Washington’s unsuccessful attempts to topple the official leadership in Caracas, his presence in the Organisation of American States is increasingly looking absurd.
Now Washington is pursuing different interests. Following certain events on the global energy markets, the United States suddenly recognised Venezuela’s official leadership. Everybody who had to bend under the US pressure earlier, now feel like fools. This lesson is the one to learn only once. The Americans always act for their own benefit, forcing others to give up their own core national needs, traditions and sometimes future. When the wind in Washington changes, it usually turns out that nobody else but Washington has interests.
Although the pseudo-representative has not been dismissed for procedural reasons, everybody understands that it is only a matter of time. The reality dictates this. We believe that even Washington understands this fact: it is not by chance that the Americans thought it best not to show off Guaido’s emissaries at the forum and advised them against attending the General Assembly. The United States is duping everybody, both those who were forced to recognise Guaido and those who are now in his camp. It is not even the first time this kind of thing has happened. It has always been the case, wherever you look.
The incident at the Organisation of American States indicates how the interests of the United States run against the interests of Latin American countries that are less concerned about the Russophobic hysteria and more about the pragmatic issues of energy and food security, migration, countering drug trafficking and overcoming the pandemic and its aftermath.
On these tracks we are open to constructive cooperation with the countries in the region, as Sergey Lavrov confirmed in his recent interview with Argumenty i Fakty: “We do not force them to make the choice of ‘who you are with.’ We are in favour of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation [with the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean] based on pragmatism and the avoidance of ideology-driven approaches.”
What is happening now around Ukraine makes perfect sense as the predictable finale of a typical campaign, so ingloriously conducted by the West and the Anglo-Saxons.
We have cited plenty of historical examples during our briefings. Today is an occasion to recall one more. About this time, a little more than 20 years ago (October 7, 2001) the US and NATO launched the “Enduring Freedom” military campaign. Where do you think the region of enduring freedom was? It was in Afghanistan.
The United States and NATO’s declared goal was thwarting terrorism and retaliating for the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York. That is, they carried out a 20-year operation in retaliation for terrorist acts committed on United States territory. They condone similar behaviour by their closest allies, without even considering whether they are right or wrong. But we are not allowed to defend our territory even after many years of listening to threats, curbing attempted terrorist attacks (there were many of them), and consistently choosing peaceful diplomacy, negotiations, and international legal solutions to existing problems. We are now denied the right to protect ourselves from those who commit such acts on our territory.
But let’s go back to the US experience of imposing “enduring freedom” in Afghanistan. That occupation ended in late August 2021 with the hasty flight of the US-NATO forces from Kabul, where by that time, the Taliban had come to power.
The dishonourable outcome of Washington's longest military campaign is obvious. The experiment that several administrations carried out in order to forcibly impose democracy (in their interpretation of the word) in Afghanistan has failed. Terrorism has not been defeated and continues to be a threat. Afghanistan is facing an economic and humanitarian crisis. Why? Because the country was being destroyed for 20 years.
Now representatives of the Baltic countries, Germany, and Poland are screaming that we have no right to build a bridge in a region that’s not part of Russia. Don’t even start. As to what’s part of Russia and what’s not, a referendum has been held. We must respect the will of the people. We built it, but you, NATO members, have been acting in foreign territories that aren’t part of your countries, you never even built anything, but you destroyed everything there. Afghanistan is a case in point. And then you just stole all the country’s money. Apparently, your need was greater. I know that the US has a debt of $31 trillion. I am not sure that the money you took from the Afghan people will help much. On the other hand, this move certainly sheds light on the essence of what is happening with “democracy” Western-style.
Even though the full responsibility for the current situation in Afghanistan lies with Washington (and NATO, as a group run by Washington), the Americans are evading obligations for the post-conflict rebuilding of that state. Moreover, the US and Western countries continue to hold Afghan assets, depriving the local authorities of resources to rebuild the economy, to ensure security, and fight terrorism. We strongly urge Westerners to unblock the accounts of Da Afghanistan Bank as soon as possible. We believe that such half-measures as an Afghan trust fund established with stolen money (okay, let's keep saying “frozen”) are insufficient for a full-scale reconstruction of the Afghan economy and infrastructure. In addition, we consider it unacceptable to link the provision of humanitarian assistance with any political conditions.
Attack on the Russian Embassy in Moldova
On October 7, the Russian Embassy in Moldova was attacked. The attacker shot firecrackers at our diplomatic mission. Fortunately, none of the staff or their families were hurt, but damage was caused to the Embassy building.
All this happened with the direct connivance of the Moldovan Carabinieri members guarding the complex, who did nothing to curb the act or thwart the attacker in a timely manner. The Moldovan Interior Ministry officers summoned to the scene arrived only an hour later. The republic’s information or security services did not react at all. Could they have done this without an order from above? Of course not.
The Russian Embassy sent a note of protest to the Moldovan side demanding an investigation into the incident, that the perpetrators be brought to justice and similar incidents be prevented in future. We hope that we will be heard in Chisinau.
Apparently, they have taken a leaf out of their “big brothers” book. Such acts against our diplomatic missions are quite common in the United States, in Canada and in the EU countries.
The situation is outrageous, in particular after the incident in Moldova. Almost from the very beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine, anti-Russia rallies started outside the Russian Embassy in Moldova, interfering with the Embassy’s regular operations. Recently, they have been accompanied by attempts to openly intimidate our employees. The Moldovan authorities are stepping aside and not interfering in the situation.
In response to repeated demands to comply with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which says the host state is obliged to prevent any disturbance of the peace of diplomatic missions or insults, we are told that “every effort” is being made. What kind of effort? To keep this going? Meanwhile, the ugly antics at our Embassy in Chisinau continue.
We would like to hope that the Moldovan side will find an opportunity to fulfil its international legal obligations or admit that it cannot do so, or does not want to, that it does not feel bound by any conventions. Chisinau has obligations to ensure the functioning and security of the Russian diplomatic mission, as Russia does with regard to the Embassy of Moldova in Moscow.
Answers to media questions:
Maria Zakharova: This is a new attempt by Russophobic Finnish politicians to earn cheap popularity, provoking another confrontational move against
The implementation of such initiatives will entail immediate retaliation from the
Question: Tom Tugendhat, Minister of State for Security of the
Maria Zakharova:
I don't even need to remind you of what the British have done in the Middle East and
If we speak about the situation in
Therefore, the answer to the question of who is, in fact, the war criminal indulging and covering up the atrocities of the Ukrainian military is beyond a doubt in our minds. Let
Question: According to TASS Russian News Agency, French Government Spokesperson Olivier Veran said in an interview with French radio station RMC that
Maria Zakharova: Traditionally,
As such, we have no idea what diplomatic channels and explanations the French Government spokesperson was talking about. Naturally, we remain open to a serious conversation with the French side on a wide range of issues on the international and bilateral agenda, while heeding and respecting each other’s interests, primarily in the field of security. Today, it is precisely the West that irresponsibly speculates on the nuclear issue and accuses
Instead of conspiracy theories regarding
It would therefore be appropriate to address your question to representatives of French authorities. We have stated our position.
Maria Zakharova: On September 16, Vladimir Zelensky accused
Vladimir Zelensky’s claims have been refuted by Sri Lankan media that reported on September 20, citing the Foreign Ministry of Sri Lanka, that the seven persons involved were not students but illegal migrants transiting through
I also want to note that any foreign nationals detained in the area of the special military operation on suspicion of cooperating with the
It is obvious that we are dealing with yet another media provocation in which seven disoriented foreigners are being cynically used by the
Maria Zakharova: I know nothing about this. But to my knowledge, Igor Kolomoisky likes to use clowns in everything he does.
Question: NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communication John Kirby said that both sides,
Maria Zakharova: A commentary on that has been posted on the ministerial website.
Since you asked me, though, and without going over what was posted yesterday, I will answer your question. You said, citing John Kirby, that the
I'm not surprised that John Kirby and the government he represents are not seeing things. Why is this happening? Because it's convenient not to see.
As a follow-up to yesterday's commentary, I would like to reiterate that mixed signals continue to come from the Biden Administration, where speculation about the “Russian nuclear threat” is interspersed with assurances that the
This kind of rhetoric comes amid massive arms supplies to the Ukrainian regime, the neo-Nazi nature of which
I’ll say it again specifically for the American side: the tasks that the Russian leadership has set for the special military operation will be fulfilled.
Maria Zakharova: There was nothing more to add to what Russia said yesterday, during preparations for this briefing. Russia did not receive any specific proposals on holding talks between Moscow, Berlin, Washington, London and Paris in Türkiye via the diplomatic channels.
The situation is developing dynamically. I do not know what will happen next.
Maria Zakharova: Answering in the style of your question, I think this is an indicator of Mr Bolton’s mental health. Let me remind you that during the past two decades, this man held top posts in the US political system. He is a prominent representative of the US establishment and served various US regimes and administrations. Something of this sort transpired through his rhetoric even before. I remember well how in the early 2000s John Bolton declared that the Iranian problem should be resolved by force. He suggested launching an attack on Iran. In this case, I believe, a more important detail characterising his personality and his state is that, according to US diplomats (I know this for certain, since eyewitnesses told me these stories), he used to throw heavy objects at his subordinates. This is more important than what he said over the decades. In the larger scheme of things, he is a hate figure even for US politicians. John Bolton, Michael McFaul and their ilk are all marginal personalities.
Maria Zakharova: I would like to remind you that CSTO Secretary-General Stanislav Zas had successful contacts with President Sadyr Japarov in Bishkek on October 3-5. Their results indicate that the parties intend to strengthen the CSTO’s role in ensuring security and stability in the Central Asian region.
As for the CIS, Kyrgyzstan is an important partner to Russia within the Commonwealth, and it is due to assume the CIS chairmanship in 2023.
As a rule, Bishkek participates in the work of the chartered CIS bodies at the highest level. Foreign Minister Jeenbek Kulubaev and President Sadyr Japarov are scheduled to participate in the upcoming meetings of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers and the CIS Heads of State Council, respectively, which will be held in Astana on October 12 and 14 of this year.
I am always happy to comment on the development of bilateral relations, including with Kyrgyzstan. I feel somewhat uncomfortable commenting on these matters instead of our Kyrgyz colleagues and friends. I think it would be quite right to ask them directly for more details. I hope they will not be angry with me for answering your question.
Maria Zakharova: We saw these reports. As far as we understand, the European Union has not yet made a formal decision on this matter. We see this as yet another attempt by the EU to butt by whatever means into the endeavour to settle relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia and sideline Russia’s mediation efforts.
As to the EU representatives’ alleged mediation potential – well, Berlin and Paris, though involved in Ukraine-related developments for eight years, failed to prevent the situation there from sliding into a hot phase of conflict. All this time, they bore the proud name of intermediaries, “puffed their cheeks,” made statements, convened meetings, and ... big nothing as a result. You can tell me that they did that in their national capacity, while being members of the EU. I agree. But they are the grandees, the largest countries of the European Union.
Now let me say a few words about the EU’s role and mediation. Yesterday, Josep Borrell, the EU foreign policy chief, lamented that their economic prosperity had ended with the cheap and high-quality Russian gas, and now they had to fend for themselves. That would be difficult, what with their approaches. Josep Borrell said as much. I would like to remind Mr Borrell of the role played by his predecessor, Baroness Catherine Ashton, who led the European diplomacy and assumed the role of a mediator on behalf of the entire European Union on the Ukrainian Maidan. It was a long time ago. She represented Britain on the EU at the time and shaped the European diplomatic strategy. What did the EU mediation on the Maidan lead to? They were the ones to butt into it. She strutted around the Maidan. True, she did not distribute cookies, apparently, they did not have enough money for that, but she smiled as best she could. They walked hand in hand with ArsenyYatsenyuk and others, waved flags, and pinned badges… All in the best traditions of Western PR campaigns! So what? Where is that mediation role now? British subject Catherine Ashton’s role ended up with Britain’s exit from the EU. It is clear what kind of policy she had been promoting on the “outer perimeter” of the European Union. Pro-British, of course! Given that London left the EU, and apparently that had been planned in advance, knowing what future awaited the European Union, a future Britain had contributed to. These are just two specific examples, but there are many more.
I also remember a few constructive attempts by the European Union, coupled with collective efforts. With the Iran nuclear deal, the European Union’s approach was indeed active and constructive. True, Europe was not acting alone, but jointly with other international players.
Give me some other examples that could prove otherwise. At the same time, Brussels prefers not to think about the consequences of such a step for regional stability. We know from history that the EU’s “missions” have never led to any real settlement. To reiterate: if you know any sound recent examples, do cite them. I would say that they have failed not only as mediators for others, but also as defenders of their own interests at the level of both the European Union as a whole and its individual member countries.
Let us go back to yesterday’s statement by Josep Borrell about Europe now having to re-adjust, rebuild its economy, and fend for itself in the current situation. But who brought about this situation? They were the mediators and called the tune. They fully embraced and supported the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine, promising that country and its people a rosy future, then joined the Normandy format as one of the moderators in charge of ensuring the implementation of the Minsk agreements. What was the end result? A gigantic disaster in their own home! For the third time, I urge you to read yesterday’s EU statement. They cannot achieve the realisation of their own interests. How can they take care of others?
We proceed from the premise that the only key to a reconciliation between Baku and Yerevan and the establishment of a lasting peace and long-term stability in the region is the full implementation of the trilateral statements by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia of November 9, 2020, and January 11 and November 26, 2021. We maintain regular contacts on this issue with our Azerbaijani and Armenian colleagues. We hope to make some progress at the upcoming meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers in Astana.
Maria Zakharova: Unfortunately, Russia-Canada relations are in a deep crisis. We openly say that, in our opinion, it is the fault of official Ottawa that is following in the wake of the anti-Russia course that has been charted – and has been for a long time. At Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s initiative, almost all ties between our governments have been severed, with the exception of purely technical diplomatic contacts.
Unfortunately, even when it comes to the normal operation of Russian diplomatic missions in Canada, we have not seen a proper response from Canada as per its obligations under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
After all, an incident occurred. In the early morning of September 12, an unknown individual threw a Molotov cocktail on the territory of the Russian Embassy. It is extremely lucky there was no fire or other consequences.
And what do you think happened next? Your colleagues from Canadian media were not disturbed by the incident at all, reporting that they did not find any trace of destruction and vandalism. At least Canadian journalists did not succumb to the general Western trend and did not accuse Russian diplomats of attempted arson at their own office, thank you very much.
After the incident, Canada promised to conduct a professional investigation. A month has passed. Canadian police have not informed the Embassy of preliminary findings. May I risk to suggest that, as with other hostile acts against Russian diplomatic missions, no culprits will be identified. I would love to be wrong and hope that the perpetrators will be found and punished. It would serve as a precedent for others plotting similar extremist acts. But I am more than certain that, unfortunately, no guilty parties will be found.
We told the Canadian Ambassador, who was summoned to the Foreign Ministry after the incident, that we hope conclusions will be drawn. We request that the security of all Russian diplomatic offices, their staff and family members be hardened. The least they can do is put up a stationary police post outside the Russian Embassy as they do in civilised countries. I want to add that this step to ensure the security of Russian diplomats, considering the high degree of Russophobia in Canada maintained at such a high level, must be taken immediately to prevent further attacks. The Canadian authorities will bear full responsibility for the consequences of such attacks, should they occur.
Maria Zakharova: The Canadians are thus sponsoring continued hostilities and completely reversing the peaceful development of the situation, dooming any and all political and diplomatic opportunities and encouraging the Kiev regime to carry out terrorist attacks. What happened with the Crimean Bridge, the shelling of civilians and the killing of civilians never provokes any reaction in official Ottawa.
Question: Regarding sovereignty and territorial integrity, what should Canada expect as an immediate neighbour of the Russian Federation?
Maria Zakharova: We are committed to all our obligations under international law, sovereignty and territorial integrity. We have stated this repeatedly. If you link this issue to the situation with Ukraine, there has been a war by the Kiev regime against its own citizens for many years. They have been crying out for protection, for justice, for security, holding referendums and trying to make their voices heard by the international community through a plebiscite (a democratic procedure). Eight years of nothing but active warfare by the Kiev regime against its own citizens. There have been violations of these people's rights: from the inability to exercise their civil rights in their native language to harassment on ethnic, religious grounds, and so on.
If you are asking how Russia approaches issues of territorial integrity and sovereignty, we are fully committed to our obligations under international law, including the UN Charter. Don't forget that the UN Charter refers not only to territorial integrity but also to the right of peoples to self-determination.
As regards the Arctic, I am ready to send you our position papers on our approaches to developing cooperation with all the participants in the regional dialogue.
Maria Zakharova: A response to a terrorist attack cannot be restrained. It has to be effective and resolute. It must demonstrate the impossibility of similar actions occurring in the future.
Maria Zakharova: Russia greatly appreciates the OPEC+ cooperation format. The events of recent years, especially the COVID-19 pandemic, have proven the effectiveness of this mechanism for resolving crises in the oil sector.
The global oil market is facing new challenges that are caused by man-made problems and the actions of the West rather than by man-made disasters, natural phenomena or events of planetary scale that are beyond human control. This insane, absolutely illegitimate and destructive logic underlying the sanctions that is coming primarily from Washington may well push the global economy into a recession, which will impact demand. Supposedly, these considerations prompted OPEC to adopt the decisions it had taken in Vienna. I think our agency in charge of these matters will give you more details about this situation.
The rhetoric coming from Washington is nothing short of naked cynicism. Criticism of OPEC and its individual members, made-up stories about collusion, threats and blackmail coming from a state that calls itself civilised and adheres to the principles of a liberal economy is beyond good and evil. After all, all of that is happening amid the US attempts to cobble together a cartel of buyers by manipulating shipping and insurance. Literally right before the Vienna meeting, they were leading the rhetoric about capping oil prices and imposing sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil or are in any way related to Russia's infrastructure that has been hit by sanctions. Following this barrage of absolutely illegal actions that cripple the economy and put a barrier in the way of natural demand, supply and economic self-regulation, they dare complain about the activities of OPEC +.
In fact, the West has been trying to dismantle the OPEC+ format for a long time now in order to use the oil market in its own interests, as was the case in the past. They never concealed it. In many ways, the situation around Ukraine was triggered precisely by energy concerns, because they needed a barrier in the way of Russian energy to Europe. They found a “valve” that they could use at they saw fit, since Ukraine was the transit country. They used the Kiev politicians and high society to leverage energy processes. From there, things got out of hand.
Regarding US officials’ statements, this is not so much diplomacy as it is a medical concern. The White House and Congress are constantly trying to come up with more ways to put pressure on the countries that are unwilling to share collective responsibility with the United States.
Everyone is clear on the fact that Washington is trying to manipulate oil reserves for its own gain. We are talking about dumping extra oil on the domestic US market and pushing through their decisions internationally, in particular, introducing some price caps on Russian hydrocarbons that are absolutely unrelated to how the market works. Why is the White House doing it at this particular point? Clearly, they need to create, at all costs, the appearance of economic “successes” for the Biden administration and to stabilise fuel prices in order to achieve a favourable outcome during the November elections to US Congress and to maintain Democratic control over the legislature. They denied the previous administration’s economic successes. They said they would be the ones to boost the economy. Now here comes a recession on their watch. They deny it, but it is there. So, they need to show some proof that things are going well.
We can suggest a simple and straightforward solution for the United States to overcome the ongoing energy crisis and stabilise oil prices. They need to drop all sanctions and illegal restrictions and embark on a path to the stated goal which is free economy mostly based on self-regulation on the foundation of existing international legal norms and rules. That will give them the chance to keep their economy and the entire system of liberal values from falling into a critical state.
I’m not sure they will heed what I said, but this is an effective and fail-proof way forward. Dropping illegitimate restrictive measures against energy suppliers will provide Washington with a way out of the current energy crisis and stabilise oil prices.
Maria Zakharova: On October 7 of this year, the White House published an updated version of its National Arctic Strategy. The new document consolidates the US approaches to promoting its national interests in the region in the next 10 years and projecting power in the entire Polar area, including through the use of the resources of its regional allies.
Security issues are again at the top of the US national strategy. The document mentions the entire range of security issues from national defence and domestic policy to the protection of commercial and scientific activities throughout the region. Russia, which accounts for the majority of the land and population in high latitudes, and its activity in the Arctic are described as a threat and a key challenge. This seemed like a peaceful area, where we had an experience of cooperation. But even here, Washington needs to engage in subversive activities.
With numerous references to Russia's special military operation in Ukraine (which means bringing extra-regional issues to the Arctic agenda), the document argues that tensions in the region are growing and the risks of unintended escalation have increased.
Why won't the US refer to its own actions? Why wouldn’t they mention Iraq or Afghanistan (after all, it’s the anniversary), and other places they have been destabilising as well? They could refer to their own actions against Taiwan. Why is it always about Ukraine, with or without reason? They definitely have something to mention from their “rich” experience.
At the same time, the United States declares its intention to build up its military presence in the region, including the icebreaker fleet, which is supposed to be used in the future to ensure the permanent presence in the Arctic zones of the European partners of the United States. Washington’s plans include larger Arctic exercises with its allies. That, after the regular NATO exercise, Cold Response Norway hosted in March 2022, which involved about 35,000 personnel, 40 surface ships and submarines, 150 aircraft, including F-35 fifth-generation fighters, from 27 states, including non-aligned ones.
It was noteworthy that the United States is trying to impose certain “rules, norms and standards” to replace international law, to which Russia (and many other states except Western ones) is invariably committed. Reaffirming, in words, its commitment to multilateral formats of interaction in high latitudes, including the Arctic Council, Washington, with the support of other Western powers, especially Russophobic Ottawa, is trying to shut out Russia, when cooperation in the Arctic is impossible without it. This is similar to the recent attempts by the EU and NATO to invent a format for building European security without Russia. Perhaps they think that Poland or the Baltic States are where Europe ends. Then they just need to say so. Last time I checked, the European continent stretched a little farther. It's the same here. Inventing cooperation formats in the Arctic without Russia is absurd, wild and insane.
America’s updated national strategy for the Arctic has become more politicised, with distinct anti-Russia attitudes, but its essence has remained unchanged – it is conceptually consolidating the projection of Washington's national interests throughout the Arctic and using its allies in the region and NATO to the maximum for this. This is a logical continuation of the series of strategic Arctic documents adopted by the US security agencies – the Pentagon, the Coast Guard, the US Air Force and the US Navy. The tendency to militarise Washington's Arctic policy and escalate military confrontation is obvious.
Maria Zakharova: I have already noted the OSCE and UN response. They do not see any terrorist attacks or the support for these actions from “civilised” countries, members of these organisations. We maintain almost no relations with Poland, which Warsaw has wrecked. We maintain limited diplomatic contacts for supporting the citizens of our countries in Russia and Poland, and this implies solely diplomatic aspects. What kind of full-scale, sensible relations can we talk about?
I will certainly post a story on how countries that call themselves civilised have responded to terrorist attacks, including the one against the Crimean Bridge.
Maria Zakharova: The first meeting of the European Political Community in Prague convincingly confirms the ideologically motivated and confrontationist nature of this format. It is dismaying that there was no positive agenda; nor was there any opportunity for addressing problematic issues in a professional manner. The meeting’s theme should have been something like “opposing Russia as friends” or “let’s meet and scold Russia.” The participants did not hide their anti-Russia bias. Many reacted sceptically to this event because they comprehended its empty nature.
Pressured by Big Brother, the European Union, which is working to fence itself off from Russia, has made yet another attempt to establish a new mechanism for involving non-EU member states in its foreign policy line, to impose politically motivated concepts on other countries contrary to their national interests and to unite them with an anti-Russia agenda.
Reasonable forces in Europe realise that it is impossible to build a new continental security system without Russia, as the organisers of the European Political Community want. History knows many examples of such futile attempts, initiated by these very same countries. Nothing came of it. This is by no means the first EU geopolitical project that really threatens the common European region with possible long-term fragmentation and destabilisation.
There is the OSCE. Those now initiating such gatherings have seen to it that people now perceive this Organisation as something marginal. Each time, we can see one and the same pattern: ruining the long-term results achieved over many years, destroying positive experience and promptly moving to create something new, incomprehensible and obviously impracticable. The “sandbox” of international law contains many of these “mud pies” that fall apart once they are removed from the pail. Who needs this? Who will be doing this? What is the added value? If we need a political science format, then there is the Munich Security Conference, but this format’s reputation was also tarnished. We need something that would not be associated with failure, dysfunction and the absence of real achievements. This probably explains the attempt to invent something new.
These are political games and jockeying, while ordinary citizens of the EU states will have to answer for the bureaucrats in Brussels with their own money and safety. Yesterday, Josep Borrell said the prosperity of the European Union had ended with the end of cheap Russian gas. You have ended this prosperity, and you have cut off the EU. You have invented a game that has led to defeat, and that was insane from the very beginning. Now, you are simply telling your citizens that this is it, the game is over, the end. The situation will be the same.
A declaration on the situation in relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan was released on the sidelines of the European Political Community summit, and I have already commented on this issue. All the time, they are trying to pretend that they can do something. If they were able to, they would have fulfilled their obligations under the Normandy format, and they would have displayed their ability to implement the Minsk agreements. They have been unable to do this for a long time.
Maria Zakharova: What war? Let’s define the terms before we get carried away in this curious dance. You said “an act of war.” I am not arguing with you, only clarifying. When did the war start?
Question: In February 2022.
Maria Zakharova: It doesn’t add up. The Kiev regime spoke about plans to destroy the Crimean Bridge long before February 2022, openly threatening sabotage and destruction. It was part of the indoctrination of its own population. They promised their citizens that there would be no bridge. This is why we are calling it a terrorist attack. The Kiev leadership considered it. It was an intentional, long-meditated plan to destroy civilian infrastructure. And those plans were voiced when everybody was focused on fulfilling the Minsk Agreements, willing to overcome this crisis using political and diplomatic means.
Crimea held a referendum. It is your right not to recognise it. But we do. We have this right. It is a territory of the Russian Federation. An object of civilian infrastructure was built there.
You represent Yahoo News. Let me give you an example that you may understand better than the situation in Ukraine. The United States currently operates on the Syrian territory. They occupied part of a sovereign state. They are not building bridges or buildings, only facilities that help them pump Syrian oil. Didn’t you know that? Entire regions are occupied. I can send you coordinates, addresses and other data, so you will know where US representatives and their units (private or official, I am not sure) are pumping oil. We have been speaking about this for several years.
Is the United States at war with Syria? Every day Damascus tells Washington to leave and stop using Syrian infrastructure, resources, stop pumping oil and selling it, including to militants. The United States claims it has the right to be there. Has there been a referendum? Do the people of Syria want to give any territory away to America or join it? No.
Another example. The US Armed Forces were stationed in Iraq for a long period of time, managing its mineral and energy resources. What do you call it? Was it a war or maybe a special operation? How do you qualify it? There are as many opinions as there are political analysts if we live according to the West-imposed concept of a rules-based world order. We have always supported the law, with clear wording and ability to properly assess each other’s steps and check with a single law. But we are constantly denied this opportunity.
Question: I don’t know about Syria.
Maria Zakharova: How could you know about it if neither US officials nor journalists speak about it?
Question: But we are talking about Ukraine, and not about the American forces.
Maria Zakharova: We are talking about common approaches. You say you do not recognise the referendums. But we do. I just gave you an example. Many do not recognise what the US does. But the US wants to do it and does it. We need a unified approach. There is the UN Charter and international law. It says in black and white: there is sovereignty and territorial integrity, and there is the right of peoples to self-determination. This is complemented by the fact that most countries have agreed that democracy is good. Each country may have its own nuances, but in general it is good. Democracy is the ability of people to exercise their will in various spheres (political, economic, cultural, etc.) by legal, legitimate means. One of the ways to implement it is through elections. The other is referendums, plebiscites, etc. You can’t pretend it does not exist. It does exist whether you like it or not.
I heard that the UK is going to have referendums soon. Why do people have the right to do it there, but not in other countries?
Question: But the referendums are not held somewhere in India, but in the UK. There is a difference.
Maria Zakharova: Thank you for saying that. Crimea held more than one referendum. In the 1990s the legitimate (we recognised them) authorities in Kiev did not allow their citizens to hold a referendum. None of them was recognised. But there is a referendum that was even recognised by the United States: it was held at the end of the 1980s in the Soviet Union about whether the republics want to stay within the USSR or gain independence. Then the United States, the European Economic Union, and all other countries recognised it. The republics said they wanted to stay together. This was violated, no one referred to referendums, the USSR collapsed, and no one asked Crimea where it wanted to be (although it had the right to express its will). After 1990, Crimea fought for the right to hold a referendum. It did it while it was part of Ukraine. The Kiev authorities did not give their permission, but they were illegal. At that time, the legitimate government had been overthrown in an anti-constitutional coup d'état.
You could say that the people of Ukraine rebelled and decided to stage a coup. No. There was the intervention of Washington, Berlin, Paris, London, the EU as a whole. All of them: ministers, high representatives for foreign policy, even some presidents walked around Maidan and encouraged people to take anti-constitutional actions. That’s the story as it happened.
Question: What was the goal behind the shelling of Kiev? Was it achieved?
Maria Zakharova: I would like to return you to the path of attentiveness and professionalism. This question has already been answered by Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting with permanent members of the Security Council. He said: “At the proposal of the Defence Ministry and according to the plan of Russia’s General Staff, a massive strike was launched with long-range precision air, sea and land-based weapons against Ukrainian energy, military and communications facilities.
In the event of more attempts to stage terrorist attacks on our country, Russia’s response will be harsh and commensurate with the threats posed to the Russian Federation. Nobody should have any doubts about that.”
As for the goals, the Russian Ministry of Defence also commented on this issue: “The goal of the strike was achieved. All designated targets were hit.”
Maria Zakharova: I can tell you where I am now – in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, in the Press Centre hall. I don’t conceal it. There was an announcement.
Question: Are you worried that this may affect international travel for you or life in general?
Maria Zakharova: Are you worried that a regime in the centre of Europe is preaching extremism and terrorism as a state ideology? Do you think they will stop doing this one day? People who don’t reject but carry out and praise this method of doing business will never give it up. They themselves brushed away all roads to conducting talks and settling the situation by political and diplomatic method based on international law. They signed some papers and produced some executive orders but this is the only method they have chosen.
Aren’t you worried? This is the centre of Europe. Everyone thinks this is far away and will not affect anyone. Study history better. Look what happened in other zones of US experiments. They first created monsters that got out of Washington’s control afterwards. Shall I remind you about them? Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, ISIS, which appeared on the ruins of the Iraqi state. Nothing new. The world has been through all of this. At first, people thought that this wouldn’t hurt them but only those whom the extremists and terrorists threatened. Later, they didn’t know where to hide and what to do. When an ideology of misanthropy, terror and extremism emerges, the world should unite, close its ranks and say a resolute “no” to these manifestations. Otherwise, this would be a common problem for humanity. This is what it is at the West’s instigation.
Question: Will the explosion on the Crimean Bridge affect the grain deal?
Maria Zakharova: First, this wasn’t an explosion. Second, we qualify it as an act of terror. At any rate, our law enforcement bodies are leaning towards this version.
If this was an act of terror, this will be finally confirmed based on Kiev’s involvement and response. It affects more serious things than one deal, needed and useful as it is. It affects human lives and the spread of extremist logic. This is one of its main consequences.
Maria Zakharova: I cannot speak about all of Russia’s signals to the US. Not everything is for the air.
Zusätzliche Materialien
-
Video
-
Foto
