Excerpts from the briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, May 30, 2024
Table of contents
- The 27th St Petersburg International Economic Forum
- Events planned for Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship
- Ukraine crisis update
- Another report on human rights situation in Ukraine
- Moldova update
- European Union hits Russia with new sanctions regime for alleged human rights violations, reprisals against civil society and the democratic opposition
- Poland’s decision to restrict Russian diplomats’ movement around the country
- Belarus’s decision to send humanitarian aid to the Orenburg and Kurgan regions
- Launch of Novawind’s project to build a solar power station in Mali
- International Day of UN Peacekeepers
- The 10th anniversary of the EAEU Treaty
- Visits to the exhibition of captured weapons and military equipment on Poklonnaya Gora
- A charitable golf tournament involving foreign diplomats as well as Russian athletes and stars
- The 80th anniversary of the Allied troops’ landing in Normandy (June 6, 1944)
- SPIEF 2024 events
- Outcomes of the Japan, Republic of Korea and China Summit
- Poland’s Foreign Minister’s statements
- Investigations by Western media on right-wing views among Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel
- Statements by Romania’s Prime Minister on the Moldovan language
- Statements by Sweden’s Commander-in-Chief
- China State Council’s Report on Human Rights Violations in the United States in 2023
- Several European countries recognise the State of Palestine
- Incidents involving US citizens in Russia
- US interference in Russia-China relations
- Bans on several Russian media outlets in EU countries
- Russia joins flood relief efforts in Armenia
- Statements by the Prime Minister of Georgia
- Russia-Azerbaijan relations
- Delineation of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border
- European security update
- Jens Stoltenberg’s statements on Ukraine
- The EU imposes prohibitive duties on Russian grain
- Palestine’s recognition by the United Nations
- Israel’s strike against Rafah
- South Caucasus transport corridors
- The expiration of the Ukrainian president’s term in office
- Efforts to destroy traditional cultural values
The 27th St Petersburg International Economic Forum
The 27th St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), one of the world’s largest and most important events for both Russia and the entire world, will take place on June 5-8, 2024. It has enjoyed this status for many years now. This year, Oman and Bolivia will be the forum’s guest countries.
Several heads of state, vice presidents and prime ministers are expected to attend the SPIEF, along with sectoral ministers, political and civil society leaders, speakers of legislative assemblies, as well as heads and senior executives representing international organisations, major corporations, the business community, experts and academia. We expect to see representatives from about 130 countries at the forum. So far, 12,000 guests have registered to attend it.
As per tradition, the plenary session will start with President Vladimir Putin’s remarks. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be taking part in the forum on behalf of the Foreign Ministry. His schedule includes a series of bilateral contacts with our foreign partners.
The agenda builds on last year’s discussions and can be viewed as their extension. It can be described by the forum’s slogan: The Formation of New Areas of Growth as the Cornerstone of a Multipolar World.
A new multipolar world order is taking shape on our watch, and these shifts in the geopolitical balance of power go hand in hand with the emergence of new centres of gravity as regional powers seek to assert their sovereignty and benefit from their competitive advantages. In this context, the central question is whether states are able to come up with adequate responses to complex present-day challenges, engage in equal and constructive dialogue, cooperate in a civilised manner and share responsibility for the future of all nations around the world.
The forum’s business programme includes over 150 events revolving around four thematic tracks: (1) The Transition to a Multipolar World Economy, (2) Goals and Objectives of Russia’s New Economic Cycle, (3) Technologies for Leadership, and (4) A Healthy Society, Traditional Values and Social Development: The Priority of the State.
These tracks echo the forum’s key mission of building a multipolar international architecture by promoting international relations and business-to-business ties based on a genuine sense of equality, taking into account each other’s legitimate interests, and respecting cultural and civilisational diversity of states and their peoples.
During the forum’s thematic sessions, participants will discuss a wide range of matters dealing with developing the global and the Russian economy, as well as the way sanctions have been pressuring our national economic development opportunities (as it stands, the US-led collective West declared an outright trade war against us), shifts on the global energy market, the climate agenda, efforts to enhance technological sovereignty, social policies, cultural and humanitarian cooperation, and stepping up business ties within structures like the CIS, the EAEU, BRICS, the SCO and ASEAN.
The session titled The Greater Eurasian Partnership as a New Pole of Growth: Potential and Prospects has special importance in terms of the present-day geopolitical processes. It will focus on Russia’s flagship initiative to embark on an effort to integrate integration projects across the continent in order to build a single space of wellbeing and prosperity. We are certain that this discussion will inject substantial momentum into integration processes spanning this macro region.
The forum will also focus on topics such as preserving the population and improving demographics, enabling people to live healthier lives and improve their wellbeing, supporting families and empowering everyone to fulfil their human potential and unleash their talent.
There will be business dialogue events on the sidelines of the forum, including Russia-Oman, Russia-Azerbaijan, Russia-Brazil, Russia-Venezuela, Russia-India, Russia-Iran, Russia-Kazakhstan, Russia-China, Russia-Kyrgyzstan, Russia-South Africa, Russia – Central Asia, EAEU – ASEAN, and Russia – Latin America.
As per tradition, the forum will also host the Business 20 (B20) Regional Consultation Forum, the International Youth Economic Forum, the SMEs Forum, the Creative Business Forum, the Ensuring Drug Security Forum, as well as the SPIEF Investment & Business Expo.
The forum also boasts a rich cultural programme. Its participants will be treated to classic and pop music performances, film premieres, exhibitions and sightseeing tours, and art fairs. There will also be sports events. Sports lovers and athletes will be invited to take part in the SPIEF Sports Games offering competitions in 18 sports disciplines.
In addition to this, we will hold our next briefing on the SPIEF sidelines, as I will inform you later.
Events planned for Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship
We regularly inform you about the events held within the framework of Russia’s 2024 BRICS Chairmanship.
On May 29-30, 2024, the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute hosted a Meeting of the Heads of Academies of Sciences of the BRICS Countries.
Both its theme – Academic Partnership in the Interests of Peace, Mutual Development, and Prosperity – and the meeting itself reflect the participants’ resolve to join efforts to address current global development issues for a better future. Actually, this goal underlies cooperation within the framework of BRICS.
Cooperation between the academic communities of countries that represent different civilisations is aimed at the substantive deepening of interaction in relevant fields, expanding research projects, promoting dialogue between young scientists, and popularising science.
Between June 5 and 10, 2024, Nizhny Novgorod will host the BRICS Skate Cup, a skateboarding and roller sports competition of professional athletes from BRICS states and athletes from other countries who applied for participation. This sports event was timed for the BRICS foreign ministers meeting scheduled to be held in Nizhny Novgorod on June 10-11, 2024.
This year, the sports project of the Grand Skate Tour in Nizhny Novgorod will be attended by athletes from over 20 countries, including Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt,, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, the UAE, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Thailand, Turkiye, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Everyone is free to attend the competition as a guest.
In addition to a sports programme, visitors will be able to attend cultural events, such as the first screening of documentaries and video clips, including about sports, open lectures delivered by foreign experts, Russian businesspeople and public opinion leaders in the fields of sports, culture, urban development and park projects. The programme includes location shooting of sports talk shows, the broadcasting of activities from the BRICS Forum and an exhibition of contemporary artists and photographers.
The BRICS Skate Cup has been organised by the Russian Federation of Skateboarding. We invite media representatives to take part in covering these events.
We will regularly update information about Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship.
I would like to start with what Western countries are doing. On the one hand, they are talking about peace in the context of the upcoming conference in Switzerland they are trying to organise. They are inviting virtually everyone to participate and pretending it is going to be about some sort of peacebuilding. In reality though, this can’t be farther from the truth, considering their actual actions in recent years and months, such as supplying weapons to Ukraine and consistently increasing funding for the hostilities. Their alleged ignorance of – or pretended unconcern about – the terrorist acts carried out by the Kiev regime and its henchmen, in fact, indicates with total clarity that they (I mean the collective West) are the global party of war. The announced conference will not be about peace at all. It is just an attempt to bring together a certain number of countries and try to give some legitimacy to Western narratives and approaches, and to unconditionally legitimise Vladimir Zelensky and his regime along with all of his monstrous extremist and terrorist acts.
Amid Ukraine’s military failures near Kharkov, the Kiev regime seeks to take out its anger on Russian civilians, using NATO weapons to shell peaceful communities.
In the meantime, Western countries, apparently oblivious to the terrorist activities of their Ukrainian minions, are publicly encouraging them to strike at Russian regions. On May 26, Swedish Defence Minister Pål Jonson said the Armed Forces of Ukraine “had the right” to do that, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg urged European capitals to lift all restrictions on Kiev’s use of Western-supplied weapons at a joint meeting with EU defence ministers on May 28 in Brussels. The weapons that they have been supplying the Kiev regime with all this time expose the true plans and goals of the collective West. Everyone understands perfectly well that these weapons are not intended for defence. The striking range and other technical specifications of these systems, which are now in possession of the extremist Kiev regime, confirm exactly what NATO capitals have now begun to openly admit by encouraging Vladimir Zelensky and the Armed Forces of Ukraine to strike at civilian infrastructure in our country.
On May 28 in Berlin, at a meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron argued, a Russian-Ukrainian border area map in hand, argued that Ukraine was to be allowed “to strike targets inside Russia.”
And what about Washington? The United States, having allegedly disagreed with the use of American missiles against Russia, on the face of it, has actually given Ukraine the go-ahead. This is clear from the unrelenting ATACMS missile attacks on Crimea. One of these acts was committed on May 24 of this year.
The Russian Armed Forces always respond in kind to every strike. This will continue to be the case. Our responses are proportionate to their actions. Russia’s security will be ensured, among other things by creating “a security area” in Ukraine, as President Vladimir Putin said on May 28.
Courts in the Russian Federation continue to sentence Ukrainian militants, found guilty of committing grave crimes against civilians, using evidence provided by the Investigative Committee of Russia.
AFU militants Oleg Kolmychevsky, Dmitry Dobrovolsky, Alexander Romashin and Vladislav Kulyk were sentenced to life. It has been established that three civilians were wounded, including one who succumbed to the injuries, between February 24 and April 12, 2022 in Mariupol, as a result of their criminal orders and actions.
Ukrainian Nazi Dmitry Danilov was also sentenced to life in absentia for his criminal order to shoot civilians on March 20, 2022 in Mariupol. Two civilians were killed at that time.
Pro-Bandera supporter Sergey Sobko was sentenced to 27 years in absentia for killing a civilian, attempted murder and shelling of civilian infrastructure facilities near Gorlovka, the Donetsk People’s Republic, in 2017.
Alexey Domashov, Head of Pre-Trial Detention Centre No 23 in Poltava, was sentenced to 22 years in absentia after being found guilty of mistreating prisoners of war since April 2022 until today.
Ukrainian Nazi Yury Shevchuk received a 24-year sentence for deliberately killing a civilian in Mariupol in March 2022. We have repeated, are repeating once again, and will continue to say that all the crimes of the Kiev regime will be duly assessed in line with the law, and that no one will go unpunished.
We have noted a decision by Kiev’s Shevchenko District Court to quash a former high-profile case regarding the dispersal of the Maidan protesters in the early hours of December 1, 2013, known as the Berkut case.
In effect, the court dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s nine years on, after admitting that commanders of the Berkut riot police unit had acted according to the law. They have been exonerated, and the confiscation of their property has been annulled. On that night in 2013, they invented the catchphrase “they are children” and terrible media leaks and conjectures and “fake news” about members of the inhuman Berkut unit beating up “children.” All this served as legal grounds for countries of the collective West to blame Russia for Ukrainian developments. As you remember, they claimed that the Russian Federation had allegedly inspired all this. In addition to Berkut’s far-fetched crimes, they tried to create favourable conditions for pitting the people of Ukraine against each other and to turn foreign-inspired Maidan protests into a civil war.
A pretext for launching an aggressive political and media campaign against Ukrainian law-enforcement agencies turned out to be fake. Even the puppet justice system of Ukraine’s “main democrat” Vladimir Zelensky proved helpless when confronted with the truth. It was impossible to conceal it. There are no documents or facts testifying against Berkut; no such evidence has surfaced in the past nine years.
Hopefully, we will also learn, sooner or later, who was, in fact, behind the “snipers case” and issued the criminal orders to shoot at people in downtown
At the same time, we are aware that the
June 7 (May 27) marks the 230th anniversary of the Highest Rescript issued by Russian Empress Catherine II to establish a navy harbour and merchant pier in Khadjibey, a former Turkish community on the
Today, the
When making the submission for the historic centre of
We are confident that a day will come when historical justice will prevail and Odessa will be free again, forever free from those who are trying to make its residents forget the glorious past of the city they love, forget the heroism it showed in both labour and arms. How can one forget the founders of their city, unless the nation and its leaders suffer from “historical amnesia”?
Vladimir Zelensky is once again travelling around
Even before the monstrous law On Mobilisation was adopted and came into effect,
On May 24, the press service of the General Staff of Ukraine reported that its staff would be reduced by 60 percent. The released military personnel will be sent to the front. At this rate, there will be no one left to supply NATO weapons to.
At the same time, more cases are recorded in various regions of
We receive confirmations from
Despite
In addition to
These facts reaffirm once again the importance of the special military operation’s goals to denazify and demilitarise
Another report on human rights situation in Ukraine
This is an oxymoron. We have to use it to collect and analyse facts, in part, for a future assessment in terms of international law. I am using this expression in the legal context because it is possible so assess this now, too, but more in political dimension. We are collecting this information for the future in legal terms – as evidence for punishment for crimes.
Yesterday, the Foreign Ministry’s website carried yet another report on the human rights situation we had prepared.
We must note that the human rights situation has steadily deteriorated in that country over the past few years. We should have called this report not on the observance of human rights but on the failure to do this or even on the violation of human rights in Ukraine. The current situation in this area is so critical that every independent thinker considers it obvious that the power in Kiev belongs to the overtly Nazi regime that is committing countless number of crude and systematic violations of human rights in all areas of public life. It is also perfectly obvious that these authorities are unable to create even a semblance of efforts to resolve a host of accumulated serious problems. It fails to prosecute perpetrators of many crimes, including those guilty of the horrible tragedy when people were burned alive in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa in 2014. Now this monstrous logic is manifest in the abuse of POWs, deliberate cruel murder of civilians including children on the territory of civilian facilities and infrastructure, and staging of terrorist attacks against civilians.
We have noted more than once that Ukraine has practiced neo-Nazism for a long time. It is enough to recall the aggressive propaganda of Nazi ideology, falsification of the history of the Great Patriotic War and WWII with a view to glorifying Nazis and their accomplices, and the imposition of Nazi attitudes in Ukrainian society.
The report contains many facts of neo-Nazi manifestations in that country, starting with annual torch marches. At that time, we rang all the bells trying to compel the Westerners to see these torch marches. Now we realise that it was absolutely the right thing for us to do. You will agree that history could have been reversed had the collective West stopped sponsoring dehumanisation that was taking place before its eyes. It would have made a change if the West had tried to call down the Kiev regime. These torch marches are staged to honour Nazi criminal Stepan Bandera, glorify the SS Galicia division, and sing praises to the few survivors of that criminal group. Ukrainian publishers put out books glorifying Nazis and memoirs by big Nazi leaders, former collaborationists who sided with Hitler (one of the recent examples is the publication of memoirs by Ante Pavelic, head of the Government of Croatia, an ally of Nazi Germany in 1941-1945).
Kiev is making full use of its Nazi approaches as regards the Russian speakers of Ukraine. Everything Russian (language, culture, education, printed matter and the media) are prohibited. The process of de-Russification has reached its climax in education. Instruction in Russian and its study in schools are banned.
Do you remember how a decade ago we were told that we were inventing things, that in reality everyone is fond of Russian in Ukraine and speaks it. However, the authorities are doing exactly the opposite. They stamped loads of different laws, instructions and concepts to minimise the spread of Russian in Ukraine, to prevent people from speaking it in the future and to create a semblance that it is not the main language in Ukraine. Now everyone sees this – those who want to see. Many are still turning away, even though there is nowhere to turn away anymore.
Now everyone sees that we were absolutely right then, and what consequences this approach produced. All literary works by Russian and Soviet authors (with the exception of Ukrainian (with the ethnic background) have been removed from literature syllabus at schools. Books in Russian are withdrawn from libraries and recycled. School pupils and teachers are banned from speaking Russian not only during classes but even during breaks. In addition, the Kiev authorities are doing all they can to support the harassment of the canonic Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Attacks on its churches are sanctioned by law, and its clergy are denigrated.
The servile willingness of the current Ukrainian leadership to move the country along the path of self-destruction against the interests of its people, creating a Russophobic “anti-Russia” project out of it, is the reason why overseas handlers ignore the neo-Nazi nature of the Kiev regime.
This suggests a parallel with the attitude of Western countries to the Hitler regime on the eve of WWII. This policy received broad popularity under the name of “the policy of appeasement.” It led to the bloodiest war in the history of humanity. Luckily for the current generations, this war ended in the victory of the anti-Hitler coalition with the USSR’s decisive role. The idea of preventing such a calamity became a fundamental principle of the UN Charter.
Moldova has become yet another country to be subjected to the monstrous Western experiment disguised as a push to promote the so-called Western values.
On May 23, 2024, Moldova’s Foreign Minister Mihai Popsoi once again accused Russia of trying to undermine the Moldovan economy and help what he referred to as criminal groups of some sort to come to power in the country. This is how the Moldovan authorities call their political opponents.
It is quite obvious that these groundless accusations are just an attempt to blame Russia for their failed economic policies and justify rampant corruption and lawlessness, as well as to justify the reliance by the Moldovan authorities on the so-called Western values. Maia Sandu’s regime offers a spectacular example of adherence to these Western values. Let me share with you some of Maia Sandu’s recent achievements.
Moldova’s foreign trade continues to shrink. In January-March 2024, the country’s exports decreased by 14 percent compared to the same period last year, re-exports of foreign-made goods declined by 38.6 percent, exports to EU countries were down by 9.3%, and there was also a 28.7 percent drop in exports to the CIS. Imports to Moldova followed a similar pattern with an overall decrease of 6.6 percent, including minus 8.7 percent with the EU and a decrease by 61.9 percent in imports from CIS countries.
Independent observers have been sounding the alarm regarding Moldova’s steady effort to destroy its education under the pretext of streamlining this sector, while it actually resulted in closing educational institutions. The rural school system is on the brink of collapse. In 2023, there were just 226 university students and 57 students enrolled in vocational training schools per 10,000 residents, falling far behind any other country in the CIS or the EU, experts say. I have a question for Maia Sandu in this regard. She likes to denigrate the Soviet era and keeps claiming that back then Moldova was almost a complete ruin or falling into the abyss. But can she share some statistics on the way Moldova lived under the Soviet rule? We were the ones who shared these statistics (1, 2, 3, 4) and she is free to use them. Has she anything to show for her efforts based on the so-called Western values?
Moldova’s birth rate has been following a downward trajectory. According to official statistics, there were 24,000 newborns there in 2023, down 11 percent compared to 2022. This is to say that Moldova is not going through any major upheavals like wars or external conflicts, etc., so this situation results from Maia Sandu’s policies.
The effort to militarise the country and push it toward NATO is picking up steam. In 2024, the country hosted 17 military exercises and gatherings, with American and Romanian troops taking part in some of them. This may explain Moldova’s falling birth rate. Having to take part in as many as 17 military exercises involving American and Romanian service personnel, men in Moldova simply do not have the time to have children. They spend all their time mastering the NATO standards. A new stage of the Regex-2024 tabletop exercise started in Moldova on May 20, 2024. On May 24, 2024, Moldovan and Romanian defence ministers signed a Protocol Amending the 2012 Cooperation Agreement. Independent Moldovan experts view this document as a step towards placing Moldova’s armed forces under the command of the Euro-Atlantic structures, which constitutes a serious blow to Moldova’s sovereignty and its neutral status.
We have talked about the shameful hours-long security checks for people arriving from Russia to Chisinau’s airport. This is what happened on May 28, 2024, to Alexey Lungu, who heads an opposition party called The Chance. He was returning from Moscow after taking part in the BRICS 2024 international forum. Moreover, people travelling from Chisinau to Russia are also subjected to these degrading security checks. On May 23, 2024, a group of youth activists wanted to fly to Moscow for taking part in Discover Russia, a cultural and humanitarian outreach programme, but had to go through a lengthy security check before boarding the plane so that they actually missed the flight. What a handy solution!
People in Moldova have been appalled by these policies. They know that the incompetent government which does not believe in its own country is the main reason behind the serious challenges the country is facing. These leaders are just killing Moldova as a country. So Russia with its allegedly harmful actions has nothing to do with this. If the country’s leaders keep telling their own people that they do not have their own language, lack national identity and history, while imposing alien values and destroying everything left from the preceding generations, this is the real cause of all these scourges. According to the latest opinion polls, 56 percent of respondents believe that in terms of the country’s domestic affairs Maia Sandu “did little, too little or nothing at all.” She simply does not have the time, since she spends all her time travelling abroad to collect prizes and awards of all kinds. After all, these prizes come with money. Everything is clear.
Importantly, Maia Sandu publicly recognised that she was a Romanian national and an adept of the so-called Western values, and that all her cabinet members were like her. She also said that they believed that there are no such things as the Moldovan language or nation. They are all Romanian. Judging by the statements of Maia Sandu regime’s representatives, they went as far as question whether Moldovans constitute a nation, an ethnic group, and argued that these people may be in fact Romanians. But most people believe that the economic situation in the country deteriorated and poverty increased in 2021-2024, i.e., under the rule of the Party of Action and Solidarity.
Moldovan political scientists have been saying that even Western spin doctors failed to teach Maia Sandu’s team to manipulate facts. The West excels in this, but she has been a bad student.
On May 27, 2024, the European Union introduced another anti-Russia sanctions regime under a far-fetched pretext for alleged human rights violations, reprisals against civil society and the democratic opposition. This sounds rather inventive. It is possible to call this regime something new only tentatively. We have already lost count of Brussels’ similar illegitimate moves. They highlight the EU’s destructive policy with respect to human rights, which they pay so much lip service to. To call a spade a spade, they have created another openly discriminatory mechanism for punishing Russian citizens for their striving to live in a country free from foreign pressure, to uphold their national interests, to speak Russian, just to be citizens and to love their Motherland.
We see these sanctions as a rude violation of international law, including the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. This is an open manifestation of neo-colonial approaches. When they use the concept of upholding human rights to accomplish their own narrow mercenary objectives, they turn it into a tool for dealing with undesirable countries. Thus, international relations devolve from equitable cooperation into a diktat of certain “correct democracies.” The European Union plays a leading role in this process. In turn, Russia consistently counters attempts to manipulate the human rights narrative for the sake of political interests. This is why it regularly becomes the target of “punitive” measures from “collective” Brussels. The EU’s policy of sanctions has nothing in common with concern for human rights and the real-life situation in our country.
It is noteworthy that the new sanctions have been imposed ahead of the June 6-9 elections to the European Parliament. As nationally oriented political forces are expected to consolidate their positions, EU bureaucrats have invented nothing better than diverting attention from real socio-economic challenges in EU countries to the Russia issue once again. They have invented what looks like a new sanctions regime, conducting searches in order “to expose Russia’s influence in EU countries.”
We resolutely reject the striving of the Brussels leadership to use the Russia issue in their dirty election-campaign technologies for slandering political opponents and making short work of them, for conducting reprisals against media outlets, journalists and public activists that provide alternative viewpoints.
It is surprising that those living in the blooming EU garden (as Josep Borrell once put it) fail to notice obvious things: Such self-exposing Russophobic stunts merely serve to further consolidate our society that clearly sees the real goals of the European Union and the West with regard to Russia. All these escapades cannot influence our determination to act in accordance with our own national interests and to ensure the security of our citizens, as well as the real protection of their rights and freedoms.
Poland’s decision to restrict Russian diplomats’ movement around the country
This is another example of a policy that’s not exactly innovative, but is still being hailed as an effective measure. Incidentally, it is also harming the EU countries themselves.
A few days ago, Warsaw announced it was restricting the free movement of Russian diplomats around the country. Our diplomats in Poland are facing so much pressure, including physical threats, humiliation and insults that it would be too long to list it all right now. Remember what they did to our ambassador Sergey Andreyev who attempted to lay flowers at a World War II (for us, the Great Patriotic War) memorial. Do you remember what a group of clearly deranged persons, directed by NATO officials, did to him? Was that not too much? Apparently not. Wait, this is not even the main reason. The European Parliament elections are around the corner, with the “collective Brussels’s” major interests at stake. They just had to ratchet up their Russophobic rhetoric by doing whatever they can – conducting searches, introducing anti-Russia regimes and sanctions, restricting human rights, and naturally, making Russian diplomats bear the brunt of it.
On May 28, the Russian Embassy in Warsaw received a note from the Polish Foreign Ministry introducing restrictions on the free movement of Russian diplomats in Poland. Effective June 1, we are to notify the Polish Foreign Ministry in advance of their intentions to travel outside the respective voivodeships where the Russian Foreign Ministry is present. We are to give them the names of the respective employees of the Russian Embassy in Warsaw, the Russian consulates general in Gdansk, Krakow and Poznan, and inform them of the dates and purpose of the planned trip, the means of transport to be used and the route. Exceptions will be made, however, for the Russian Ambassador, consuls general and the head of the Embassy’s consular department.
The note does not contain any explanations for the new requirements. However, Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski and other high-ranking officials at the Polish Foreign Ministry did link them to some “hybrid war” Russia is allegedly waging against Poland. Poland is providing military aid to the Kiev regime and directing Vladimir Zelensky’s anti-Russia efforts hands-on on Bankova Street. But it turns out that it is Russia that is waging a hybrid war against Poland now. Such absurd accusations by the Polish side have long ceased to surprise us.
This is far from the first step taken by the Polish authorities to complicate and cripple the work of the Russian diplomatic mission in that country. Over the past few years, the Polish side has been deliberately creating artificial problems for the Russian Embassy, freezing bank accounts and seizing funds, expelling Russian foreign missions’ employees on a mass scale, as well as obstructing various everyday processes for those still posted there.
The move is largely pointless. Just like in all of the previous cases, Russia will take retaliatory measures against the Polish Embassy in Moscow and the consulates general in Irkutsk, Kaliningrad and St Petersburg.
So what does Warsaw stand to gain? The Polish Foreign Ministry’s bizarre decisions will create further inconvenience for its own colleagues, Polish diplomats working in Russia. To reiterate, apparently, they did it to enhance the general anti-Russia discourse in the run-up to the European Parliament elections.
Belarus’s decision to send humanitarian aid to the Orenburg and Kurgan regions
On May 22, the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus adopted a resolution to allocate and deliver humanitarian aid to the Orenburg and Kurgan regions, the Russian regions affected by floods.
We thank our Belarusian friends for this timely decision and the support and care they show to our citizens who find themselves in a difficult life situation because of a natural disaster. We consider this step as evidence of true fraternal friendship, compassion, and unity of our peoples.
We treasure our alliance. We believe that the Belarusian aid will get to everyone in need, and this contribution will become tangible when fulfilling the task set by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to overcome the effects of the natural disaster and restore the affected areas as quickly as possible.
Launch of Novawind’s project to build a solar power station in Mali
On May 24, a ceremony was held in Sanankoroba (a city in Mali located near its capital, Bamako) to lay the corner stone for the construction of a solar power plant with a capacity of 200 MW to be carried out by the Russian company Novawind (subsidiary of the Rosatom State Corporation). The event was attended by the head of state: Interim President of the Republic of Mali Assimi Goita.
This event symbolises the launch of major energy projects in Mali with Russia’s assistance. Next, it is planned to build a solar power plant with a capacity of 200 MW in the Ouélessébougou village, as well as a wind park with a capacity of 100 MW. These projects should make it possible to cope with the current acute power shortage the population of Mali is seriously suffering from. Infrastructure facilities will be built by Novawind on the basis of public-private partnership.
Russia intends to continue to provide necessary support to the friendly people of Mali who are striving to overcome the accumulated difficult socioeconomic problems and ensure true sovereignty and independence of their country.
International Day of UN Peacekeepers
Yesterday, on May 29, we marked the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers. It was established in 2002 in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 57/129. For more than 20 years since then, we have paid tribute to the professionalism and courage of the veterans and current military, police and civilian peacekeepers.
Russia has made a major contribution to the UN peacekeeping force. The efforts of our Blue Helmets have always been praised for helping settle armed conflicts worldwide, from West Sahara and South Sudan to the Middle East and Cyprus. Russia is among the top ten contributors to the budgets of UN peacekeeping operations. Russian and foreign peacekeepers have been trained at Russian centres based on programmes certified by the UN Secretariat.
Regrettably, the UN peacekeeping efforts are currently facing hard times. UN peacekeeping operations often disregard the requirements and concerns of the host countries, and their focus has shifted to issues of secondary importance, which are not directly connected to conflict settlement. The struggle against disinformation is often used as a pretext for censoring the reasonable criticism of the Blue Helmets, provoking disappointment in the host countries and damaging the prestige of the UN. It is not a coincidence that the UN Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) has been pulled out and the UN Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) is being withdrawn.
Russia’s consistent view is that the mandates of peacekeeping operations must be clear, well-calibrated, realistic and based on the available resources and the main purpose, which is the reconciliation of the conflicting sides. Focusing attention on issues of secondary importance to suit the Western agenda is counterproductive and can only foment conflicts. It is equally important to ensure strict compliance with the basic peacekeeping principles, namely, consent of the parties, impartiality and non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate. They are designed to help maintain the neutral status of Blue Helmets, prevent them from turning into a party to the conflict, and minimising risk to their lives.
We believe that only a balanced and non-politicised approach based on the established priorities will help overcome the crisis of peacekeeping and restore its prestige and effectiveness.
The 10th anniversary of the EAEU Treaty
May 29 marked 10 years since the signing of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
The Treaty on the EAEU is a document that laid the foundation of Eurasian economic integration. The consistent and system-wide work done by its member countries – Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan – in areas outlined by the document helped to turn the EAEU into an important pole of international economic relations. An evidence of this is a network of the EAEU’s international contacts, which includes free trade agreements with Vietnam, Serbia, and Iran, as well as a non-preferential agreement with China and over 80 memorandums on cooperation under the auspices of the Eurasian Economic Commission, the EAEU’s supranational body. Currently, work is under way to coordinate trade agreements with Egypt, Indonesia, the UAE, and Mongolia. Of no small importance is also its active collaboration with observer states, such as Uzbekistan and Cuba.
These international achievements are due to the fact that the EAEU is a reliable partner guided by the principles of trust, respect for the interests of all parties and regard for these. This generates a growing interest in cooperation from third countries and integration associations.
I congratulate our colleagues from the EAEU member states and the Eurasian Economic Commission, who were instrumental in this high performance.
Let me draw your attention to the detailed interview by Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin posted on the Foreign Ministry website and the ministry’s official pages in the social media.
Visits to the exhibition of captured weapons and military equipment on Poklonnaya Gora
On May 31, the Department of State Protocol jointly with the Ministry of Defence of Russia is organising a visit to the exhibition of captured Western weapons and military equipment on Poklonnaya Gora for the entire diplomatic corps. Over 890,000 people visited the exhibition during its period of functioning.
The diplomats will be able to see with their own eyes NATO’s “vaunted” military equipment, including Germany’s Leopard 2 and a US-made Abrams, which have been disabled by soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
The pieces on display dispel the myth about the superiority and excellent combat characteristics of Western weapons, dozens of which are destroyed in the course of the special military operation.
The diplomats’ visit is of much importance ahead of the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, since it exposes the cynicism of our former allies, who landed in Normandy in 1944, and of other leaders of unfriendly states, who now declare that the weapons they supply to Ukraine could be used for strikes at Russian hinterland.
A charitable golf tournament involving foreign diplomats as well as Russian athletes and stars
On June 1, the International Day for Protection of Children, the Moscow Country Club, a branch of the Main Directorate for Servicing the Diplomatic Corps under the Foreign Ministry of Russia will host the 28th International Charitable Golf Tournament.
Russia’s oldest, this golf charity is attended by foreign diplomats, Russian politicians, business people, athletes, performers, and public figures. The collected charity money will be contributed for targeted aid to gravely ill children and to charity funds, such as Vera, Important People, Home with a Lighthouse, Konstantin Habensky Foundation, and the Boarding School under the Foreign Ministry of Russia.
The festival programme includes morning exercises supervised by three times Synchronised Swimming Olympic Champion Svetlana Kolesnichenko; creative, athletic and entertainment groups; film shows; concerts by popular performers, and a meeting with Russian author and scriptwriter Alexander Tsypkin.
We invite the media to take part in covering this undertaking.
The 80th anniversary of the Allied troops’ landing in Normandy (June 6, 1944)
June 6 marks the 80th anniversary of the landing of Allied troops on the French coast in Normandy, which marked the opening of a second front in Europe. Today, Western countries portray D-Day as the main event that pre-determined the outcome of World War II. We hear the leadership of Western countries say so. Just look at the leadership of the United States and its closest allies claiming they were the ones to save Europe and the world from Nazism. A considerable portion of the biased Western historical community shares this position. We see such approaches make it to school textbooks (not to mention publications and articles) at the behest of the collective West’s authorities. Sure enough, the West keeps silent about the fact that no landing in Normandy would have been possible without the Red Army’s successes. They are making every effort to not only forget it, but to erase it from everyone’s memory.
These kinds of “historical findings” suffer from total oblivion of the events that actually took place on WWII fronts. We are talking about regular blasphemous attempts to drill in the heads of the post-war generations not only in the West where the brainwashing has been going on for quite a while now, but also in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics ideas about the Allies’ decisive role in defeating Hitler’s Reich and the silencing of the true liberating role of the Red Army. They act cynically when they do not mention the fact that Great Britain and the United States used various pretexts to postpone the opening of the second front waiting for the outcome of the deadly battle between the Red Army and the forces of evil, which were the Wehrmacht troops.
For three long years, left one-on-one with the enemy, the Soviet Union urged the Allies to open a second front in Europe. In the extremely difficult circumstances of the first months of the Great Patriotic War, Moscow found the opening a second front extremely important. The Soviet leadership first used this term on September 3, 1941 in a letter to Winston Churchill, urging him to open a second front in the Balkans or in France. However, Britain and the United States prevaricated, delayed the landing of their troops, and adopted an openly wait-and-see stance. The Red Army alone bore the brunt of the war when it stopped the German offensive near Moscow in the autumn of 1941; in 1942, when the Battle of Stalingrad broke out; and in the summer of 1943, when the Kursk Bulge battles determined the outcome of the war. As a result, by June 1944, with the beginning of the heroic Red Army’s active military operations in Europe, the outcome of the war was predetermined.
However, the Soviet leadership was grateful about the Allied troops’ landing in Normandy. In June 1944, fulfilling its Allied duty, the Red Army launched a massive offensive along the entire eastern front line. During Operation Bagration the enemy was thrown 550km-600 km back to the west. According to German sources, Wehrmacht lost over 916,000 troops in June-August 1944. Thanks to the effective actions of the Soviet command, Army Group Centre was gutted, and the most favourable conditions were created for the advance of the Allied forces in the Western theatre of military operations.
Later, about 7 million Red Army soldiers fought on the Central European front in 11 European countries to liberate them from Nazi invaders. Irrecoverable losses of the Red Army during the liberation of European countries amounted to nearly one million soldiers and officers. The Soviet Union suffered the greatest number of losses – about 600,000 soldiers – during the liberation of Poland. About 140,000 died during the battles for Hungary and exactly the same number died in Czechoslovakia, where the Nazi defence was the strongest. Over three million Red Army soldiers were wounded or missing in action.
In 1944-1945, the Red Army completely or partially liberated the territories of 10 European countries, including Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Denmark, Norway, and Germany. We would have nothing against the Western Allies liberating the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. This would have saved the lives of our soldiers who died in 1944-1945 outside the borders of the Soviet Union. Hundreds of thousands of our soldiers would have returned home alive. They died outside their country liberating Europe from Nazism. The leadership of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people waited for the Allies to help. But to do so, London and Washington would have had to open a second front much earlier and be prepared for millions of lost lives.
As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Allied landing in Normandy, we commemorate the Allied soldiers and officers who died in battles against the Nazis. But we will not allow the heroic feat of our ancestors to be diminished, downplayed or forgotten.
We would like to remind those who are persistently promoting the narrative about the “genuine liberation by the Allies of the Europeans in the West from totalitarian dictatorship” that unlike their “brethren” in Central and Eastern Europe, where, allegedly, “the Nazi occupation was replaced by the Soviet occupation” about the massive efforts to build peaceful life and to provide free aid to the population of the liberated countries at a time where the Soviet Union itself was in the grips of post-war devastation.
In his memoirs, Victory Marshal Georgy Zhukov paid tribute to the dedication of the Allied troops, but did not overstate the importance of the second front, noting that “the Allies helped the Red Army and the military industry, but should not be assigned a role greater than it actually was.”
As per tradition, the Foreign Ministry will hold a series of events on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.
We will hold our briefing in the morning of June 7. Journalists will be able to attend it in person and join it via videoconference. Meeting with journalists covering SPIEF has become a tradition for us. We invite you to attend this briefing and ask your questions about Russia’s foreign policy. Of course, we will publish the corresponding announcement on the Foreign Ministry website soon.
Right after the briefing, the Foreign Ministry will hold a session titled International and National Experiences of Artificial Intelligence Regulation: Best Practices. Its participants will discuss risks and opportunities caused by artificial intelligence as it penetrates our lives, as well as resulting from efforts by several countries to abuse this technology. Experts, political and civil society leaders will talk about the kind of AI regulations we need today at the international and national levels, as well as the cooperation frameworks for enabling international actors to overcome the Western technological monopoly.
On June 8, The International Affairs, a magazine published by the Foreign Ministry, will hold a debate titled Polycentricity: The Norm of a Future World without Colonies and Hegemons.
During this event, officials representing executive agencies and legislative assemblies, as well as researchers and experts will discuss the prospects for building a new architecture of international relations, as well as Russia’s role in building a fairer multipolar world order, and a strategy for countering present-day neo-colonial practices and manifestations coming from the collective West.
I invite all forum guests and the accredited media to take part in these events. We will live stream them on the Foreign Ministry website as well as on our social media accounts. See you in St Petersburg or online.
Question: How can you comment on the results of the recent trilateral summit between Japan, the Republic of Korea and China in Seoul on May 27?
Maria Zakharova: I would like to note that it was the ninth trilateral summit in this format, albeit after a five-year pause. In any case, it is up to Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo. I would like to reiterate our principled position: it is up to each sovereign state to build relations and meet in whatever format they see fit. There is no reason why China, the Republic of Korea and Japan should not deepen their cooperation in a close neighbourly manner that would contribute to security, stability and prosperity in Northeast Asia. We can only welcome such intentions.
At the same time, we consider attempts by several Pacific allies of the United States to politicise this process and drag extra-regional issues, including the Ukraine crisis, into the trilateral agenda, as inconsistent with the goals declared.
The Chinese phrase “hide a knife behind a smile” (Xiào li cáng dāo) very accurately describes the actions of Japan and the Republic of Korea, which participate in Washington-sponsored narrow selective military-diplomatic “clubs” with clear anti-China and anti-Russia bias in the Asia-Pacific region. The activities of such groups undermine the ASEAN-centric security architecture in the region and provoke growing tensions in Northeast Asia, in the South China Sea and around Taiwan.
The approach we share with our Chinese friends is set out in the Joint Statement signed by the leaders of Russia and China following their Beijing summit on May 16.
Question: Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski said in an interview with Gazeta Wyborcza that the authorities could send troops to Ukraine in the future. “We should not rule out any possibility,” he said. How would you comment on this statement?
Maria Zakharova: We have already mentioned the topic of certain statements claiming that permission to carry out strikes on the territory of Russia is being discussed. Some “allow” it, some Western countries say that they “will look into it”, and others say that “they do not allow it yet.” This is all nonsense. They do not just allow it, but they have long been planning all the attacks on the territory of the Russian Federation with the hands of the Kiev regime. We must call things by their proper names.
I will tell you what it means. Who forms the flight mission? Is it Bankovaya Street? Vladimir Zelensky or who? There is no one and nothing left there to form it. Where do satellite data, geolocation and intelligence materials come from? They come from the Westerners: they use space reconnaissance. I mention this regularly. I do not recall Ukraine joining the club of great space powers and launching such objects into space. Nothing like that ever happened. The West does everything for Ukraine and the Kiev regime. No confrontation, counteraction, or conduct of hostilities is possible without this information in today’s realities.
The Westerners do everything themselves: they destroyed Ukraine, deprived it of freedom and independence, brought in their own politicians, began to set Ukrainian citizens against each other, and then set them against Russia. Their instructors, representatives of the special services, have been there not for two or three years, but for a decade already, both in Kiev’s government institutions and in the regions, in southeast Ukraine. They got people on the streets, including during Maidans, and trained them in camps in Poland and the Baltic countries, and they continue to do so today. They supply weapons, instructors, technologies, and intelligence information; and, most importantly, coordinate military operations by the hands of the Kiev regime. But now these hands are becoming fewer and fewer.
Playing “permission” or “non-permission” is from the devil. In fact, this is exactly what the Russian leadership has been talking about all these years: a hybrid war of the collective West led by the United States (actually the Anglo-Saxons) against Russia by the hands of the Kiev regime.
In an interview with Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland), published by May 28, Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski did not rule out possible deployment of Polish troops in Ukraine. Later, Polish Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Paweł Wroński said that though his country is not sending troops to Ukraine currently, this cannot be ruled out in the future, since it is unknown how the situation there will develop. But it is known. Certain political circles in Warsaw are dreaming about the time when they will be allowed to do what they have long wanted: to occupy the western part of Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail yesterday.
The Polish leadership at all levels and all platforms repeats the mantra about the necessity of inflicting strategic defeat on Russia and is among the main sponsors of the Ukrainian regime and this entire project. In the past, Warsaw believed that Ukraine would be able to win alone, but now it seems that the prognosis has changed and various options are being discussed, including those that involve Polish military contingent. In fact, though it is not said officially, Polish military personnel have been sent to Ukraine for several years now. We talk about this all the time. Militants from Ukraine (for instance, Azov) were trained in camps in the Baltic countries and Poland. Many Polish mercenaries, often from among professional military personnel, are fighting on the side of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
In the current international situation, Warsaw sees a possibility of inflicting strategic defeat on Russia, as they say. They talk more freely behind closed doors: it is a historical chance for Poland to get even with Moscow for the geopolitical confrontation lost in the past and strengthen its position in the east, as well as to scratch the itch regarding the Western Ukraine. The Polish authorities have said on numerous occasions that they are interested in restoring Ukraine. We know how the current Polish political establishment helped restore other countries in different regions of the world. The experience is huge. It was the Soviet Union that restored them following World War II, or the Great Patriotic War for us. What did they restore? Nothing. We are aware that the words about “restoration” mean deploying military contingents in the western regions and it may drag on forever.
Question: What can you say about the publication in France’s Mediapart about the presence of neo-Nazi ideology supporters among the extremely right-wing AFU servicemen being trained in France?
Maria Zakharova: Why do you refer to the Mediapart publication whereas we have repeatedly spoken about that for a while? The above-mentioned publication specialises in various investigations. Information about the adherence to neo-Nazi ideology by members of the AFU’s 3rd Separate Assault Brigade who are being trained at the La Courtine camp in Nouvelle-Aquitaine emerged long ago. We are talking about the confirmed facts of Hitler salutes and various fascist symbols being used by the ‘heirs’ to the Azov battalion. Journalists correctly conclude that official France, in particular the military and the army, ‘cannot be unaware of this’. We have been talking about it for years. We have shown photographs and sent materials to international organisations. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has handed over stacks of documents with relevant data during negotiations, including with Westerners.
What is surprising is that this is becoming a revelation to Western journalists. There is an idiom: better late than never. But maybe they will be more active? Meanwhile there is also another question. The neo-Nazi nature of the Kiev regime is manifested not solely in symbolism, greetings and tattoos; it has been around for a long time, just like the torch marches we talked about. It is not even about the fact that this regime proclaims collaborationists, collaborators of the Nazis of World War II, such as Stepan Bandera, as its national heroes and spiritual teachers.
First of all, this is seen in the desire to decimate any dissent, including on the ethnic and religious principles. There is a struggle against the Russian language being waged by the Kiev regime and the community of all sorts of experts and political scientists who were supposed to provide an ideological basis for the official authorities to legitimise discrimination against the Russian language. This is an attitude towards Russians and a humiliating perception of the role of the peoples inhabiting Ukraine in the restoration of this state, as well as belittling of their role, distortion of history, abuse of monuments, and indoctrination of heroism in favour of new anti-heroes. This is a massive years-long persecution of Russians and the Orthodox Church, now physical. This is the punitive war in Donbass, the killing of civilians and torture of prisoners of war, and targeted attacks on the population and infrastructure of Russian cities and villages. The things committed by the Nazis in the 20th century that made them notorious. The international community caught them in the act and laid charges against them. This is now being reincarnated in the Kiev regime.
We would rather the French (and other) journalists be more persistent, open the next doors and go further with their investigations. We would like to expect that. We are realists, though; we realise what will happen next – ‘men in black’ will come to this publication now, with searches, arrests, detentions or preventive talks to detect Russian influence. Paris is well aware of who supports, finances, provides arms and trains the Kiev regime.
But one of the West’s mottos is that all means are good against Russia. The Azov battalion and terrorism of the Kiev regime – anything goes. The key is to inflict on Russia, as they say, a ‘strategic defeat.’ In 1938, Western “democracies” colluded with German Nazis in Munich, actually trying to set them against our country. Today, they are using Ukrainian Nazis, again hoping to inflict a ‘strategic defeat’ on us. We have already talked about appeasement of the aggressor. It was not just to appease Hitler’s aggressor, but also make him turn around against the Soviet Union. Today they are using Ukrainian Nazis, again hoping to inflict the notorious ‘strategic defeat’ on us, first a dream of Napoleon, then Hitler, now of the ‘collective West.’
It won’t work. 80 years ago, we ourselves liberated our country from Nazism, which attacked us, and Europe in the process. We continue to oppose this hateful ideology in all forms with the utmost determination. We recognise Nazism at once and fight it. This is part of our national policy, our interests as a state, a nation, and a civilisation.
Today, the Rossiya Segodnya agency hosted a foresight forum entitled ‘What kind of victory do we need?’ We sent our greetings. We would like to learn about its outcomes and use them in our work.
Question: On May 26, Prime Minister of Romania Ion-Marcel Ciolacu said that in Moldova and Ukraine they ‘managed to eliminate the distorted Soviet concept – the Moldovan language.’ What can you say about this?
Maria Zakharova: Don’t you think this is the same manifestation of Nazism? This is the same thing. When those who identify themselves as people of a specific ethno-cultural and national group are convinced and then forced to believe they belong to another group, this is Nazism. This is an element of genocide, that is, destruction of people.
Earlier, we commented on the attempts to cancel the identity of the Moldovan people. I am not even talking about a form here. It is impossible to hear and read all this in the 21st century. A person who speaks Moldovan and whose books, manuals, documents and national laws speak about the Moldovan language, culture, identity and statehood, is suddenly being told that he should rename them into Romanian if not learn this language. Essentially, this should be altogether unacceptable in theory, but we see it in practice.
This has basically nothing in common with the historical truth. The Moldovan language is mentioned in the works of all prominent Moldovan chroniclers of the 17th and 18th centuries, such as Grigore Ureche, Miron Costin and Dimitrie Cantemir. They would be quite surprised to hear Prime Minister Ciolacu’s statement claiming that their native Moldovan language is a “Soviet concept.” Just imagine, people had lived and created 300 years before the Soviet times, but now they are being told that they were the harbingers of socialism. What kind of idioteque is this?
Let’s give the floor to residents of Moldova. According to a poll conducted in May this year, 72 percent of the republic’s residents consider themselves Moldovan, and a mere 11 percent Romanian. Almost half of all respondents said they speak Moldovan, which allegedly does not exist, according to the leaders of Moldova and Romania.
This is exactly the forced, artificial Romanisation comparable with other rewritings and re-wirings of the past of other countries, peoples and communities. We have seen this. Nazis, in particular, made forcible changes in the human cultural code.
On the one hand, what is happening is absolutely inhuman. On the other hand, it has the opposite effect on what Bucharest and Maia Sandu’s official Chisinau had hoped for. All this only consolidates Moldovan society that is ready to uphold the right to its own statehood, unique language and culture.
I have many friends in Moldova and I socialise with many Moldovans. They describe themselves as people oriented to kindness, peaceful coexistence and good-neighbourly relations. They say that Maia Sandu needed this shake-up for only one purpose – to see what plans the collective West has as regards this kind and peace-loving nation. I think if it hadn’t been for the monstrous steps by Ms Sandu and the Romanian leaders, who are now staging experiments on Moldovans, the Moldovan citizens wouldn’t have believed all that if they were told about it five or six years ago. They would have called it a conspiracy theory. Now they exist in this surrealistic post-modern society. I think they do not just exist there but are starting to actively resist it.
Question: Could you comment on the Swedish Armed Forces’ press service denying Supreme Commander Micael Bydén’s statement on a military threat to Gotland from Russia?
Maria Zakharova: When I first saw the news on the Swedish Supreme Commander Micael Bydén’s statement about a military threat to Gotland, my first reaction, frankly speaking, was the question: is there really a sequel to Harry Potter? It must be something from there. Some surrealistic vocabulary, fairy tale characters, some of their own terrifying news. Then I read it and understood that Micael Bydén is real and he believes that Gotland is under some threat. And the threat shall be posed by Russia.
They started preparing some denial. All of a sudden, the fairy tale has a sequel. The Swedish Armed Forces Press Service has refuted its own head. As far as I understand, they also had some disagreement with NATO statements.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Chair of the NATO Military Committee Admiral Rob Bauer said on many occasions about the absence, in their opinion, a threat of Russian attack against NATO member states. I mean, he must have hit the wrong place and it ricocheted into his head.
What does it mean? His statements may and must only be analysed from one point of view. They are engaged in mythologising. The West is inventing various concepts to demonise Russia. Now they need to adopt a military budget, now they need to drag the country, which was previously deemed and considered itself neutral, into NATO without a referendum. Many people in Sweden continue to want neutrality for themselves. Sometimes it is necessary for some elections. The collective Brussels is now in another electoral cycle –European Parliament election.
Polish statements regarding Russian diplomats, searches in apartments and other places associated with the European Parliament one way or the other, searches for Russia’s clout. We have talked much about it today; this is a contribution to the common pool. Perhaps Swedish Supreme Commander Micael Bydén overdid it somewhere and people in Sweden got excited, or it contradicts the attitude that the NATO command needs at present. This is not the first case.
We heard many similar statements from Northern Europe. Then they were refuted, because residents in these countries demanded credibility and facts to support such rhetoric; they were never presented, so the refutations followed. This is just like the notorious ‘Russian submarines’ and ‘divers’ that took turns ‘surfacing’ in countries that did not even have access to the sea. We saw all sorts of things. Then it turned out that those were some buoys that had broken off, or some local fishermen’s boats that had sunk earlier, or some other debris in the water. There was a lot of uproar at first, too, then a short retraction, and that was it.
I am inclined to see it as part of the information campaign that the collective West needs on the eve of the European Parliament election. At least everything is indicative of that.
Question: The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China released a Report on Human Rights Violations in the United States in 2023 on May 29. The report includes seven parts: Foreword; Civil and Political Rights Become Empty Talk; The Chronic Disease of Racism; Growing Economic and Social Inequality; Persistent Violations of the Rights of Women and Children; Heart-wrenching Struggles of Undocumented Migrants; and American Hegemony Creates Humanitarian Crises. What do you think about this report and the current human rights situation in the United States?
Maria Zakharova: I try not to think about whether the human rights are observed in the United States for one simple reason: it is a destructive thought if you think about what is happening there. But I have to analyse it as part of my job. We will come to this shortly.
Moscow welcomes Beijing’s efforts to reveal the actual human rights situation in the United States which is getting worse every year, which can be seen from the facts and figures cited in the annual reports of the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, as well as from the reports of American bloggers, journalists, and media outlets. The mainstream US media can’t afford such things, but the blogosphere shows a harrowing picture of what’s going on there.
The hypocrisy and deceit of American democracy were accurately highlighted in this newly released report and cause serious concern of the international community. They are on the receiving end of the criticism coming from the relevant international agencies and non-governmental organisations, if the latter are allowed doing so and if, after such criticism, the United States does not impose sanctions on them, or stoplist the experts who dared to state a fact.
We have scrutinised the report. All I can say is the Russian side is well aware of the human rights issues in the United States which it describes and which seriously hinder the international community’s efforts to actually uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Many of these issues were raised in the Foreign Ministry’s report released in April and titled “The human rights situation in the United States,” which also states that, despite Washington’s unsubstantiated claims about its commitment to respecting the principle of the universality of fundamental human rights and freedoms, in reality the situation with respect for human rights and freedoms in the United States is very far from international standards.
In the international arena, the Americans continue to play the role of the “defender of human rights” claiming to be a moral judge and ignoring serious and long-overdue domestic issues in the sphere of human rights protection, which negates their ambitions in this sphere. The United States interferes in the internal affairs of other countries, including under the pretext of bringing things in the human rights sphere up to standard. In reality, they catalyse the self-destruction of entire nations, which we keep saying regularly. The situation in Ukraine provides a compelling proof of that.
The United States is conducting all sorts of military operations in Europe and the Middle East, creating secret floating prisons around the world, and implementing a policy that is extremely harsh and illogical, remains at odds with the law and statements, and is prone to chaos when it comes to implementing it. Many other violations of human rights and freedoms showcase not only the ambivalent nature of that country’s stance with regard to human rights standards, but also its connivance with regard to the international law as such.
The unchecked power of the United States in a world where they know they will not receive a rebuff, feel free to take over new markets and don’t have to be mindful of the deterrents following the collapse of the Soviet Union have created a sense of entitlement among the US elite, which they refer to as exceptionalism. The practice of them using not just military, but also economic tools, as well as information resources and financial mechanisms as means of force is expanding.
The US authorities are making wide recourse to the tactics that involves using proxies in false flag operations, in particular, against our country and our people. First of all, this can be seen in them sending massive military aid to the Kiev regime and putting pressure on the United States’ NATO allies to do the same. Undisguised pressure is being exerted on sovereign states, including through the use of human rights mechanisms in an attempt to create an appropriate negative image of the Russian Federation and its allies and partners in the international arena.
Washington’s practice of using double standards when assessing certain situations and phenomena is among the most serious issues when it comes to countering the challenges faced by the modern international community in the sphere of human rights. As we found out lately, it is, in fact, the actual lack of standards. The ongoing demonstrations in the United States in support of Palestine and violence used when dispersing them and the way these demonstrations are cracked down on negate everything the US State Department ever said to other countries urging them to let peaceful protesters express their will and exercise the right to freedom of opinion.
Unfortunately, the United States continues to use this approach widely and hypocritically in order to escalate confrontation and to interfere in the internal affairs and to violate the sovereignty of independent countries. There’s evidence showing that the United States has seriously violated fundamental human rights in the Middle East and elsewhere, and caused irreparable damage and losses to countries and peoples.
The nature of US hegemonism, the cruelty and toxicity of its policy of force in the eyes of the international community are making the American understanding of democracy increasingly emasculated and manipulative and further discredit democratic principles and values.
The commitment to the international rule-based order, which is primarily designed to secure Washington’s self-serving interests, the condescending tone, partiality, and total oblivion of the concept of sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, which is another basic and fundamental principle of international law enshrined in the UN Charter, has led to a severe disappointment in Western values that have been tantalising other civilisations and societies for centuries, bringing sizable political, financial, and economic dividends to the West and the United States.
We believe that Washington’s actions such as unleashing wars, mass killing civilians, creating a situation marked by the clash of civilisations, and abusing imprisonment and torture, as well as other crimes and violations of international law are unacceptable and unforgivable. They must be made public and receive an international legal assessment. All of the above corroborates the importance of such reports.
Question: The governments of Norway, Spain and Ireland officially recognised the State of Palestine on May 28. In the context of the deteriorating humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, these three countries’ actions have attracted a lot of attention. European Council President Charles Michel also expressed his support for recognising the State of Palestine. He believes that recognition of Palestine should be a way for the EU to demand “important steps towards reform.” On the other hand, Washington supports the “two-state solution” only verbally. How do you regard the divergence in actions between the United States and Europe?
Maria Zakharova: I do not want to repeat myself. I have already commented on this at the last briefing.
Question: Recently, there have been several outrageous incidents involving US citizens, including representatives of the diplomatic mission, in Russia. The list includes drunken brawls, resisting arrest, and even theft. How acceptable do you think foreigners’ antics are, especially coming from Americans, a nation that is led by the idea of its own exclusivity, puts itself above others, imposing its will on the entire planet? What conclusions could be drawn? And how do the American authorities behave after another incident with their citizens in our country?
Maria Zakharova: I will give you an example. I remember it well. It happened back in 2005-2006, when the Americans (as I understand now) set up a plot in New York. They did not even frame it as an incident, but came up with a story that supposedly a Russian diplomat working at Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN, somehow touched – not hit or shot – but somehow touched an American police officer when getting out of the car.
We saw and heard a lot back then: there were protests in front of the Russian mission and petitions received from some senators. They shouted and demanded that the Russian diplomat was stripped of immunity. Though, in fact nothing of the kind had happened. It was about a car with diplomatic license plates that was illegally stopped and a Russian diplomat was dragged to some police station. Apparently later, realising that they were violating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, they came up with a story about something like an assault.
Unfortunately, back then the Russian media were used to publish the American version of the events. It was difficult for us to refute anything in the flaw. They used statements made by Americans. Just a few weeks later it became known that an American embassy employee abroad almost crashed into the convoy of the local leadership. Perhaps the Americans came up with the story about the Russian diplomat in order to informationally mask the situation with their diplomat who actually committed a serious transport accident.
What does it show? First of all, we are people. It can happen to anyone.
Second, the Americans (or the Anglo-Saxon duet again) do not respect other opinions but only their own goals, tasks, and time-serving interests. There is no need to mention the law and legitimacy. They act how they find necessary.
Third, when specific numbers, facts or data on their own employees’ inappropriate behavior are presented, the Americans do not draw any conclusions. They start some kind of information disavowal campaigns, or create an information smokescreen in order to hide it all, or come up with some ridiculous stories in order to get themselves out of harm’s way. We can see this political course in real life.
Please note that specific statistics on incidents involving the detention of foreign citizens upon committing any offenses on the territory of Russia are recorded by the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation.
We remember well that back in 2021 an employee of the American embassy (it is frightening to recall it) stole a turnout sign on the railway in the Tver Region. In 2021, an employee of the American embassy, you understand in what condition, stole the belongings of a Russian child psychologist in a bar. This also happened.
I think you are right that about where it comes from. Let me repeat that cases can be different. People may find themselves in some kind of a situation when in a foreign state. Diplomats, though they are trained not to do this, can also fall victim either to circumstances or their own internal problems. Anything can happen.
The question is how to react: either admit that you were wrong, respecting the laws and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, or disrespect all of the above. The reason is one’s own exclusivity.
Question: Deputy National Security Advisor to the US President Daleep Singh said on May 28 that Washington and its partners are ready to use sanctions and export control tools for stopping trade between China and Russia in goods and technologies threatening the security of the United States and its allies, and also take other measures to prevent Russia from using its shadow tanker fleet for oil supplies to evade the price cap set by the G7. How does the Foreign Ministry see these statements and what Russia can do to prevent US interference in relations between Moscow and Beijing?
Maria Zakharova: It is possible to asses these actions differently depending on what goals, tasks and real steps the collective West makes.
You have mentioned the United States of America. But it is not alone. It is subverting its "allies," its "comrades in NATO's misfortunes."
We regard such steps by Washington as an interference in the trade and economic relations of sovereign countries. This can also be described as a compensation for its own failures in the economy. Probably, this is a desire to somehow catch up or reduce its own lagging behind in certain areas of the economy, science and technology through such illegitimate methods. This can be described as a trade war, as part of hybrid aggression, hybrid war against our country, against other states, as a policy of containment, of inflicting a "strategic defeat." There are quite a lot of terms and words that could describe this. We have no problem with terminology. And the entire world has problems with the response to such disruption of the global economic ties.
We believe that the uncontrolled abuse by the United States of the sanction tools will finally lead to a gradual international community's refusal to use the financial and logistics infrastructure of the West. No public and regularly repeated threats by the US administration to use unilateral illegal restrictive measures against the Russian Federation will make our country abandon mutually beneficial and fully compliant with international law cooperation with partners from third countries, including China. I make it a point because it was mentioned in your question, however it equally concerns all those who are prepared to establish relations with us on such a basis.
We categorically reject the attempts at artificial, politicised interference in the mechanisms of the world energy markets. We are resolutely against such politically motivated measures as establishment of price caps, introduction of unilateral restrictions on the transportation and sale of oil and other raw materials from some country or a group of countries and attempts to create buyers’ cartels. The most ridiculous demand is a demand to lower the price. The same applies to a declaration that a buyer or its cartel will form purchasing prices rather than demand and supply. This is insane.
As we are seeing today, such dishonest and illegal practices are leading to the destruction of mechanisms of international energy cooperation that it took decades to create, the fragmentation of the markets, a considerable increase in the cost of energy sources and, as a consequence the inflation pressure. All these factors result in the degradation of global security, including energy security.
Responsible participants in international economic relations are compelled to remedy the consequences of these myopic steps. In this context, Russia is actively interacting with constructive partners in both bilateral and multilateral formats. Today, I spoke about Eurasian economic interaction.
Supplies of Russian energy resources to the Global South countries have a steady upward trend. Used to manipulate energy prices for the benefit of their own domestic political environment and geopolitical ambitions, the Western countries have to consider this reality. Hence, such nervous US statements about the adoption of some “additional measures to thwart Russia.” These measures have nothing to do with the market. They are aimed at creating exclusive competitive advantages and ousting other key players, including Russia, from the global markets.
Russia’s actions are consistent. By tradition, it is trying to maintain global energy security to promote the development of states and their constructive cooperation along the lines of mutual respect and international law.
I would like to mention separately that now we also have to disavow the lies of global leaders. They claim that Russia allegedly undersupplies energy resources to the Western markets (this is what London has allowed itself to do). This is absolutely untrue. We are supplying products to anyone who wants to buy them and with whom we agree on prices and form of supplies. We have not rejected a single deal out of some political considerations of expediency. We haven’t done it once. For us, these are market relations of mutually acceptable trade and economic interaction, as well as financial and economic benefits.
It is the West that tries to curb all this and put it under its own control. When it failed, it literally cut off all of its own opportunities to receive our normal energy supplies. I am referring to the European Union that fell victim to US policy in this area.
We were building steady ties and relevant infrastructure with them. For many years, we heard US appeals to the EU not to receive Russian energy resources, not to develop interaction and not to take part in relevant projects. After they failed to dissuade and intimidate the EU, they detonated Nord Stream-1 and Nord Stream-2. The evidence is provided by relevant statements by US President Joseph Biden and former Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland.
Of course, it is necessary to conduct a final investigation. We are conducting our own inquiry. The North European countries curbed their investigation despite their promises to conduct it. Apparently, Germany is also wrapping up its investigation. Anglo-Saxons blocked the Russian proposal to the UN Security Council to conduct international investigation under the Secretary-General’s aegis. But we will continue and complete our own investigation in any event. Obviously, the US stands behind all this.
Question: Not so long ago the EU prohibited RIA Novosti, Izvestia, Rossiyskaya Gazeta and the Voice of Europe to broadcast on its territory. Approximately at the same time you said that Russia would certainly respond to these actions. At what stage is the work on this response now? What kind of response it is going to be?
Maria Zakharova: The work is at the final stage. We have prepared our proposals, which will undergo interdepartmental approval soon. We will inform you about the result.
Question: Does the Foreign Ministry know about any response from Yerevan to the Russian Emergencies and Defence Ministries’ offer of assistance to Armenia in view of the catastrophic flood? As far as it is known the 102nd Russian military base command has been instructed to provide personnel and necessary equipment should the Armenian side’s request be received.
Maria Zakharova: We have seen a positive response from the Armenian side. I will repeat – all the offers made are in force. Being allies we are always ready to lend a hand based on the Yerevan’s needs.
The Russian-Armenian Centre of Humanitarian Response joined the relief efforts at once and supplied the necessary equipment to the Rescue Service of the Armenian Ministry of the Interior. The Russian Ministry of Defence has expressed its readiness to assist using the forces and means of the 102nd Russian military base.
A number of Russian companies operating in the republic are also contemplating the question of providing assistance. Specifically, South-Caucasian Railway working on the Yerevan-Tbilisi line is currently active in restoring the railway communication interrupted by the flooding.
Our various specialists have been seconded to the site. Together with the Armenian Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure they are looking for solutions to complex issues to rehabilitate the infrastructure.
We offer our condolences to the near and dear of those who died as a result of the disaster and wish a speedy recovery to the victims. We will also provide the necessary aid for restoring normal life in the regions hit by the flood.
Question: What is your opinion of the statement by Prime Minister of Georgia Irakli Kobakhidze that Georgia together with its Abkhazian and Ossetian brothers and sisters hopes to become a full member of the European Union by 2030?
Maria Zakharova: I will not quote the statements of Abkhazian and South Ossetian foreign ministries. You know about them. I will start with the key expression that renders the answer to the aspect embedded in your question unnecessary.
The point is that the European Union has no full members. It includes countries subordinated to some narratives, a command and administrative system. They are exhausted by the devastating impact of their own decisions on their own economies although they were aimed against Russia at the outset. But they cannot do anything. They are still forced to adopt anti-Russia measures.
Second point. They are “killing” their own economy by rejecting Russian energy resources. Do they really do so out of self-interest? No. Their interest in Russian energy resources was so strong that the EU countries built infrastructure for them together with us. Later it was prohibited for them to do so. Is it a full membership?
Now they are forced to cut funds from their budgets in favour of the Kiev regime. Of their own accord? No. They are forced to. By whom? By those who rule in the European Union through collective Brussels set up under the aegis of the United States and Great Britain, which are not EU members. The EU has become a NATO economic office, its superstructure. They do not enjoy full rights. They only have to pay the duty out of own budgets and take decisions that are prepared in their name. This is the key point of your question, not just rhetoric or polemics.
Question: Isn’t the fact that Russia has military bases in the regions and has pledged to defend Abkhazia and South Ossetia in direct conflict with the Georgian authorities’ statements?
Maria Zakharova: No, it isn’t. I have mentioned what is of key importance in this case. The foreign ministries of the two sovereign states have stated their case on their own. If it was a fantasy about the future, let us reply in the same vein.
If there are actions calling for retaliation, we know how to do that as well. So, right now, our answer is matching your question.
Question: In recent time, we have seen Russia and Azerbaijan cooperate closely at the highest and high levels. At the same time, we notice alarming tendencies in the South Caucasus. There are protests in Georgia and Armenia. How does the Russian Foreign Ministry assess relations between Moscow and Baku against this background? Are the two countries’ positions in sync with the regional and global challenges and with the effort to build a multipolar world?
Maria Zakharova: Relations between Russia and Azerbaijan are approaching the level of strategic partnership and alliance. Last Tuesday, we marked the Independence Day of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Speaking at the official reception organised by the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin gave a detailed appraisal of Russian-Azerbaijani ties. You can see the video.
This is Baku’s narrative. As for us, we provide the analysis. Why the West is doing this? They want to destabilise the region. From their point of view, countries in the region should be hostile to each other rather than work to establish ties, with neighbours constantly sorting things out instead of focusing on the economy, trade, or infrastructure. They want to squeeze Russia out of the South Caucasus. I think that Baku and other capitals can see through these trends.
Question: Azerbaijan and Armenia have delimited part of their border and both sides say they are ready to move towards signing a peace treaty. How can the new wave of protests in Armenia influence the peace process? One has the impression that the Armenian opposition wants to reverse the processes that have emerged between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus in recent years. What is Russia’s perspective on the situation?
Maria Zakharova: We have been monitoring the early stage in the practical work on delimiting the state border between Azerbaijan and Armenia. This effort is of much importance for regional stability.
We support the settlement of all delimitation-related issues solely through political and diplomatic methods. We proceed from the premise that agreements should be stable, balanced and mutually acceptable, and that they should serve as the basis for a durable peace in the region.
We reaffirm our commitment to provide consultative assistance to both sides, based on the trilateral agreements between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.
As for the protests in Yerevan and other parts of Armenia, the protesters, as far as we can judge, are displeased with what they regard as unfair delimitation in a number of enclave villages, among other things. In any case, we consider political processes in Armenia as its internal affair.
For our part, we intend to promote friendly and extensive ties with the people of Armenia, ties that manifest themselves, among other things, in a truly fraternal aid, which we provide instantaneously if we see that the neighbouring state is in trouble.
Question: You spoke about the Westerners’ influence on the South Caucasus. Yesterday the Schuman Security and Defence Forum kicked off in Brussels. There, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell said that the European Union intended to create a global network of defence agreements with third countries, that two agreements, with Moldova and Norway, had already been signed, and that the European Union was supplying weapons to Ukraine through the European Peace Facility. The Armenian Defence Minister said there that Yerevan expected EU support in matters of security of the republic. Is this a continuation of the West’s attempts to put pressure?
Maria Zakharova: European security collapsed because of people like Josep Borrell, who failed to see the opportunities and implement the true interests of the European continent. They became victims of the Atlantic-European (and not Euro-Atlantic) mentality, when the political will of a non-European country, the United States, dominated the fate of Europe. Before promising other countries to ensure their security, it is necessary to guarantee it for Europe itself (at least in its traditional understanding, as considered in the OSCE).
Second, where are the examples of how the European Union helped someone to improve something in the field of security, state building or resolving conflict issues? Are there any? There are none. This can be called the Labour or Much Ado About Nothing pantomime. When it is necessary to build, Westerners only tend to destroy. Sensible forces in the EU countries (Josep Borrell is not one of them) should start thinking about their vision of security on the European continent. All their previous concepts have failed.
Now Russia is talking about Eurasian security. I hope sincerely that there are enough interested people with fundamental knowledge in the EU countries, who will be able to approach the Russian developments constructively.
Question: Sergey Lavrov said that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg exceeded his authority by saying it was necessary to allow Kiev to launch strikes at Russian territory with Western weapons. What does “exceeded authority” mean? How do you assess Jens Stoltenberg’s role in the conflict in Ukraine and the escalation of the NATO-Russia confrontation?
Maria Zakharova: I have spoken a lot and in detail about this today. Let me stress once again: when Westerners (as countries, bloc associations or in their socio-political status) declare that they are considering the possibility of allowing the Kiev regime to launch strikes at Russian territory with Western weapons, they are lying. They have been doing this for a long time. This is simply a figure of speech to cover up for their criminal steps, of which they have already committed many.
Question: The EU is introducing prohibitive duties on Russian grain. How do you feel about it? How independent is this decision to your mind? Who do you think stands to lose from it?
Maria Zakharova: When the West starts speaking about prohibitive duties on Russian grain, I recommend them to review their own statements regarding food security, something they became concerned about two years ago. In their opinion, everything was at stake to feed the needy countries. Are these the same people speaking or are these their doubles, who take microphones and are saying quite the opposite?
Western countries, their leaders and official representatives must answer the peoples of different continents when they said the truth: when they called on feeding the poorest countries and regions and demanded implementation of all kinds of grain deals altogether explaining this by “care” for the needy people in the world, or now, trying to direct all their efforts to prevent Russian grain from still being a reliable commodity and our country from being a tested food supplier. I know the answer.
The Westerners lied two years ago. They did not care for any world food security. They just wanted to help fill the pockets of the big global players – mainly American and Anglo-Saxon companies – who were engaged in resale and made a colossal fortune on the margin. They used the market situation of the time, the political crisis in Europe and the world, and the situation in Ukraine to create opportunities for enrichment. And it was not just illegal. It was bloody. Now they have moved on to the next phase.
The reports of this decision (whether taken or not) came out during the briefing. They will have to be analysed in terms of status.
It is understandable ideologically. The Westerners want to oust Russia from everywhere. They expected our country to go as far as destroying our own agriculture by joining the WTO and sticking to their rules. It did not happen. The agriculture has been restored and began to feed the entire world realising the opportunities of the Russian Federation and its natural wealth, responding to the call and obvious needs of various countries. Of course, the collective West has got fed up with that.
The Westerners always give us a place at their discretion. In their opinion we should not trade in our energy resources, agricultural produce, participate in the humanitarian and cultural areas. They won’t be able to implement it. We have been, are and we will be reliable partners in international cooperation, suppliers of energy resources and food. We will engage in trade and financial interaction, and realise our contacts with the countries, which are interested in this and know what equal rights and fair, just and mutually beneficial dialogue are.
Question: How does Russia assess Palestine’s chances at the UN, considering the US’s position? How possible do you think it is that the US will veto the decision at the Security Council?
Maria Zakharova: On April 2, Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations Riyad Mansour sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres a letter asking to resume the consideration of Palestine’s 2011 application to become a full UN member.
On April 18, the UN Security Council held a vote on Algeria’s draft Council resolution that recommended providing this status to Palestine, with 12 Security Council members, including Russia, voting in favour. Who was against it? Great Britain and Switzerland abstained. The US blocked the adoption of the document. Once again, for the fourth time since October 2023, the United States has used its veto power, blocking the work of the Security Council.
Next, the issue of accepting Palestine to the UN was moved to the General Assembly. On May 10, at the 10th Emergency Special Session of the UN General Assembly, resumed at Algeria’s initiative, a vote was taken on the corresponding draft resolution. The document was supported by an overwhelming majority of 143 states, including Russia, while 25 countries (mostly the collective West, the EU, and Ukraine) abstained. In addition to Israel and the United States, seven countries opposed it: Argentina, Czech Republic, Hungary, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and Papua New Guinea.
The adopted UN General Assembly resolution confirms that Palestine complies with the criteria necessary to acquire the status of a UN full member. Moreover, it includes a recommendation that the Security Council should once again consider this issue to make a positive decision. According to updates, the discussion on the Palestinian application at the Security Council will continue in the coming period.
At the same time, a number of countries decided to recognise the state of Palestine at the national level without waiting for a decision from the UN Security Council paralysed by the Americans. We gave an appropriate comment on this matter. In particular, in April and May, Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas joined the list, as well as Spain, Ireland and Norway. Now, 147 states have recognised Palestine, supporting the idea to grant it full membership in the UN and advocating the realisation of the legitimate aspirations of millions of Palestinians for self-determination and the creation of their own independent state within the 1967 borders, with its capital in East Jerusalem.
Question: Despite international reaction, Israel continues to kill Palestinians. A few days ago, Israel attacked a district in Rafah that it said was safe. Forty-five innocent people, mostly children and women, were killed. Photos and videos of the results of the attack were published by many media outlets. Did you see this too? How do you assess this incident?
Maria Zakharova: Any normal person can only have one reaction to these shots and this fact proven information: shock and empathy. We wish speedy recovery to all the injured and convey our deepest condolences to the families of the victims, as well as the entire nation and leadership of Palestine.
It is particularly sad that this tragedy occurred in a refugee tent camp, a place where, as the Israeli authorities claimed, people who were forced to leave their homes could take refuge from the bombing, feel safe, and escape from the war. What happened clearly demonstrates that the entire territory of the Gaza Strip has now actually turned into a continuous zone of mortal risk for its residents. The risk is not theoretical but real. Look at the number of victims. You are talking about 45 victims, but this is just one attack. At the beginning of the conflict, tens of thousands of people, civilians, including women and children, died.
We believe this incident to have become a direct consequence of the Israeli side ignoring several decisions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly demanding to cease combat in the Gaza Strip and ensure reliable humanitarian access to the enclave.
Due to this, we are once again calling to fulfill these resolutions immediately for a long-term ceasefire to be established, the necessary assistance provided to Gaza residents, and conditions created to translate the efforts to settle the conflict into political and diplomatic actions.
Question: How important for Russia’s geopolitical interests are the transport corridors leading to the Eurasian space via Verkhny Lars and Nizhny Zaramag in South Caucasus? What can be done to defend these interests and promote peace and stability in the region?
Maria Zakharova: Russia attaches much importance to the prompt upgrading of the existing transport corridors and the development of promising international transport routes. The focus is on using the transit and logistical potential of routes linking Russia with countries in the East and the Global South, the new centres of global economic growth. Plans include creating a unified transport and logistical framework in Eurasia, which will allow for diversifying freight flows through more effective, reliable and safe supplies.
In this regard, we prioritise the North-South International Transport Corridor being created in European Russia. This route will link Baltic and Arctic ports with those on the Gulf and Indian Ocean coast, and will contribute substantially to the implementation of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s flagship initiative to create a Greater Eurasian Partnership.
Verkhny Lars and Nizhny Zaramag are the only operating vehicle checkpoints on Russia’s border with Georgia and South Ossetia. We regard them as important intermediary points on the freight route incorporated in the North-South International Transport Corridor leading from Russia through South Caucasus to the Middle East and South Asia.
As for your second question, we would like to note that the South Caucasian countries are our immediate neighbours. We are pro-active in developing trade and economic cooperation with most of them, with both trade and passenger flow on the upswing. Obviously, the Georgian Military Road leading through Verkhny Lars and the Transcaucasian Highway leading through Nizhny Zaramag are essential regional arteries.
Regrettably, however, South Caucasus is yet to tap its transport potential to the full. Routes linking Azerbaijan and Armenia are not yet unlocked on account of Armenian-Azerbaijani disputes. The persisting antagonisms between Abkhazia and South Ossetia, on the one hand, and Georgia, on the other, are the reason why the transport routes passing through these republics are still blocked.
Much effort is being invested in developing the North-South International Transport Corridor, including a focus on upgrading the existing railway and building its western stretch that will run through Azerbaijan and Iran. Work is in progress to increase the throughput capacity of the existing checkpoints on the Russian border, including Verkhny Lars, Nizhny Zaramag, and Yarag-Kazmalyar, as well as to improve the road infrastructure.
We are in favour of developing all routes in a harmonious manner and use them with account taken of the interests of all states in the region. This would help tap their logistical and transport potential and serve the interests of all countries in the South Caucasus.
Question: Vladimir Putin told journalists in Uzbekistan that the Verkhovna Rada and its Speaker remain the only legitimate authority in Ukraine. Can we regard any actions by Mr Zelensky (convocation of international forums and the signing of agreements after May 20, when his presidential powers finally expired) as devoid of any legal force? Is it true that Russia will not recognise legitimacy of the Ukrainian president? If so, who is the former Ukrainian president, Mr Zelensky, for Russia today? Will Russia issue an international arrest warrant for a man, who has killed over one million people, and what will be the monetary reward for catching the criminal? (Interior Ministry Order of June 6, 2018 No 356 On Approving the Statute on the Police Assigning and Paying Remuneration for Assistance in Solving Crimes and Detaining Persons Who Have Committed Them).
Maria Zakharova: I will answer just one question, because the rest are follow-ups.
We regard Vladimir Zelensky as the head of the Kiev regime whose legitimacy is being challenged in Ukraine.
Question: The Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to International Organisations in Vienna will unveil an exhibition of the Mother and Children in National Costumes international photo contest at the Rotunda of the Vienna International Centre at noon on Russian Language Day on June 6. The contest is taking place under the auspices of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO with the support from the Russian Federal Agency for Ethic Affairs and the Russian Geographical Society. It is meant to demonstrate the national flavour of ethnic groups living in Russia as well as their traditional family values. How do you assess Europe’s replacement of traditional cultural values?
Maria Zakharova: We do not regard this as a replacement. It is about destruction first and foremost. To begin with, the collective West sought to destroy the traditional notions of everything – culture, the family, religion, and so on.
Later, when they saw that this did not work and they were unable to cancel the family or distort the attitudes of many people towards the traditions of their countries, they decided to try replacement. The West started to introduce totally different meanings, while seemingly leaving, in form or in content, some elements of people’s traditional views on the civilisation, their countries, ethnic groups, culture, and so on. This is a blow to the entire civilisational experience amassed by mankind and our planet throughout the history of its existence.
This happened more than once. In this case, the Western countries and regimes that have been instrumental in creating this situation took it to the next level of self-destruction.
Zusätzliche Materialien
-
Foto
