Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, June 11, 2025
- Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with WHO Regional Director for Europe Hans Kluge
- Talks between Sergey Lavrov and Indonesian Foreign Minister Sugiono
- The 28th St Petersburg International Economic Forum
- Ukraine crisis update
- Defamatory anti-Russian publication in the Canadian outlet The Globe and Mail
- IAEA performance in the context of the Zaporozhye NPP situation
- Statements by Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the United Nations Secretary-General
- Pentagon’s plans to construct an integrated combat training and testing centre at Elmendorf-Richardson Military Base in Alaska
- Confrontational and militaristic statements by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte during a recent conference at Chatham House
- Finnish authorities drafting a law restricting the rights of Russian and Belarusian citizens to purchase real estate in Finland
- Slovak politicians refuse to support anti-Russia sanctions
- Meeting of the World Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots
- Fake stories about the Foundation for Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Abroad
- Escalation of tensions between Iran and Israel
- Anniversary of MGIMO University’s ASEAN Centre
- Third International Forum of Ministers of Education
- Celebrating Russia Day
-
Closure of the Russian Science and Culture Centre in Chisinau
-
Persecution of the head of Rossiya Segodnya’s office in Berlin
-
Russia’s role in settling the situation concerning Iran’s nuclear programme
-
West’s response to Ukrainian Armed Forces using civilian infrastructure
-
Need for a dialogue of civilisations to enhance global peace
-
Risks to the negotiation process due to the latest conflict escalation
-
Information about Israel’s transfer of an air defence system to Ukraine
Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with WHO Regional Director for Europe Hans Kluge
A meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Regional Director for Europe of the World Health Organisation Hans Kluge is scheduled for June 16. Mr Kluge is on a working visit to Russia at the invitation of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation.
The agenda for the forthcoming talks will focus on key aspects of Russia’s collaboration with WHO and its Regional Office, as well as prospects for deepening this cooperation across the CIS. Particular attention is expected to be given to WHO reform in light of the pressing challenges facing global healthcare.
Talks between Sergey Lavrov and Indonesian Foreign Minister Sugiono
On June 17, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Sugiono will visit Moscow.
During discussions with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the parties intend to exchange views on a broad range of bilateral issues, including enhanced political engagement – particularly at the highest levels – as well as collaboration in security, trade, economic affairs, and cultural spheres, alongside strengthening the legal framework governing relations. Key international and regional matters will also be addressed.
Additional materials on this subject will be published on the website and on the official social media accounts of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
The 28th St Petersburg International Economic Forum
The 28th St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF 2025) is scheduled to convene in St Petersburg from June 18 to 21, 2025. The venue, in accordance with tradition, is the ExpoForum Convention and Exhibition Centre.
The SPIEF has solidified its reputation as a distinguished international platform for dialogue among business leaders, government officials, academia, and expert communities, tackling issues in the global economy, sustainable development, and technological transformation. Anticipated participants include heads of state, leaders of international organisations, representatives of major corporations, as well as civil society and media.
The focal theme of the forum is the pursuit of common benchmarks and the formulation of sustainable development strategies amidst global turbulence. The business programme encompasses over 150 sessions covering topics such as the digital economy, environmental sustainability, healthcare, international collaboration, technological innovation, and regional development.
International interest in the SPIEF continues to be robust: in 2023, it drew more than 17,000 participants from 130 countries, whereas in 2024, attendance surpassed 21,800 delegates from 139 nations. The most recent forum resulted in 1,073 agreements valued at approximately 6.5 trillion roubles, highlighting the high level of trust and business engagement. Under the patronage of the President of the Russian Federation since 2006, the SPIEF is organised by the Roscongress Foundation with the support of pertinent ministries and agencies, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation.
We believe that the St Petersburg Forum remains an essential instrument for constructive international engagement, promoting a multipolar world, reinforcing economic stability, and seeking balanced solutions to contemporary challenges.
Senior officials and representatives of the Foreign Ministry will take part in thematic sessions and panel discussions on issues devoted to shifts in the global economy and trade, integration processes, regional cooperation, energy and food security, technological advancement, as well as country-specific business dialogues and BRICS and SCO business forums. Noteworthy sessions include “Shaping a Multipolar Economy: The Role and Place of Russia and Eurasia”, “International Trade and Climate Regulation: Barrier-Free Solutions for BRICS, SCO, EAEU, and APEC”, and “The Yalta-Potsdam System of International Relations: Lessons from the Past or a Vision of the Future”.
In accordance with tradition, the Information and Press Department will actively contribute to the forum, hosting two panel discussions this year: “Shaping a Just and Sustainable World Order by Strengthening the Shared Values of the World Majority Countries” – on June 19, 2025, and “Combating Fakes: Formation of Global Infrastructure and Consolidation of Efforts” – on June 20, 2025.
Our next briefing will, as is customary, occur on the sidelines of the SPIEF.
Russia’s compliance with the Istanbul agreements has been addressed extensively. Nevertheless, certain questions remain, and I would like to examine them in greater detail.
Following the second round of direct Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul on June 2, Russia immediately commenced the implementation of the humanitarian package of the agreements.
On June 6, we sent a list of 640 wounded and seriously ill military personnel to Kiev, as well as a list of soldiers under 25 years of age, all designated for a prisoner-of-war exchange.
The exchange operation began on June 9, as we received the first group of young military personnel at the Belarus-Ukraine border. The second stage of the exchange was conducted yesterday, June 10. The Russian service members are receiving necessary psychological and medical support. They are happy to be back home and thankful to the country for doing everything to rescue them from captivity. I believe you have seen their comments.
As part of the repatriation of 6,000 bodies of dead Ukrainian soldiers, on June 7, Russia delivered the initial batch (forgive me the word “batch”, we are talking about dead people, but this is common terminology) of 1,212 bodies to the agreed area of the Belarusian-Ukrainian border. However, in a decision that has shocked everyone, the Kiev regime refused to accept them.
Russia is fully prepared to implement the agreements reached in Istanbul. We hope the Ukrainian side will demonstrate similar commitment to these agreements.
This is not the first and not the only, but indeed the most definitive proof of the Kiev regime’s inhumane nature. Throughout the past week, the Kiev regime persistently targeted the civilians and the civilian infrastructure in Russian regions, further confirming its transformation into a terrorist organisation. Notably, for some reason, they continue to refer to the residents of these regions as Ukrainian citizens.
On June 2, an UAV dropped an explosive device on a private house in Khotmyzhsk, Belgorod Region, injuring a man. Two other men sustained injuries near the village of Dobroye when an FPV drone struck a civilian GAZelle minivan.
On June 3, four civilians were injured, including an 18-year-old man who picked up an object resembling a cigarette lighter from the ground that subsequently detonated in his hands.
On June 5-7 in Belgorod, Volchya Aleksandrovka and Novaya Tavolzhanka, UAV attacks resulted in 13 civilian casualties. On June 9, an 8-year-old boy sustained injuries from falling drone debris in Belgorod.
On June 2, deliberate strikes targeted a school and a community centre in Skorodnoye, Kursk Region.
On June 3, a Ukrainian drone attacked Korovyakovka village in Glushkovsky District, killing a 31-year-old man. In the early hours of June 4, Ukrainian UAVs attacked the town of Rylsk, injuring a woman aged 66. A repeated enemy strike on the same town on June 5, this time using multiple rocket launchers, killed two women and wounded five other people. One of the victims had three minor children.
On June 6-7, five people, including a 65-year-old man, were wounded by a Ukrainian UAV attack in the villages of Martynovka and Karyzh in Belovsky and Korneyevsky Districts. On June 8, the enemy attacked the 110-kW electric substation Rylsk. Then an enemy drone attacked the Assumption Cathedral in the same area.
According to the head of the Porechnoye rural council, Yelena Zhadanova, all residents left in Russkoye Porechnoye village were killed after the Ukrainian troops occupied that village in the Kursk Region. She said that 92 residents, mainly elderly people, remained in the Sudzha District since its invasion, and only 10 of them managed to get out of there. By the time of liberating the village in March, 2025, 48 people were dead and 34 were missing.
On June 5, the enemy delivered a strike on an agricultural facility in Demyanki village, Bryansk Region, wounding three workers.
On June 3, one civilian was wounded in the Donetsk People’s Republic. On June 7, two civilians were injured, including a teenager born in 2009, as a result of firing 20 pieces of various ammunition by the enemy.
In the Lugansk People’s Republic, Ukrainian Nazis dropped a bomb from the drone right at the crowd of people near a shop in the village of Svatovo: two civilians were injured. A civil passenger car was attacked on the Starobelsk-Svatovo motor road – the driver was injured.
In the Zaporozhye Region, a woman born in 1948 was wounded as a result of the enemy attack on June 5.
On June 4-5, three civilians were wounded in Alyoshki and Proletarka villages, Kherson Region. On June 8, Ukrainian fire at Radensk resulted in injuring a man born in 1969. All this will be subject to punishment.
Russian courts continue to investigate war and other crimes committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis and mercenaries and to pass sentences.
Sniper Ruslan Orlov and medical attendant Artyom Novikov, members of the Azov nationalist battalion (recognised as a terrorist organisation and banned in the territory of Russia) have been sentenced to 26 and 24 years imprisonment, respectively, for killing civilians in the Donetsk People’s Republic. Another four Ukrainian militants – riflemen Igor Drebeda and Vladimir Golodnyak, and machine-gunners Yevgeny Kopaigora and Vladimir Samorodchenko – were given 15-year sentences each for the armed blocking of the village of Olgovka, Kursk Region. Grenade launcher operator Sergey Stokoz has been sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for firing at civilians in the village of Pogrebki, Kursk Region. Daniil Ovcharenko of Azov battalion will spend 23.5 years at a maximum security prison camp for killing a civilian in Mariupol.
Now let us turn to the financial sponsors and providers of materiel and equipment that stand behind all this.
On June 4 of this year, Brussels hosted the 28th meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (Ramstein format). For the first time, it was held without any, even “virtual”, presence of US representatives. The meeting was chaired by German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius and UK Defence Secretary Denis Healey.
The attendees were clearly primed for conflict escalation, as evident from their cynical congratulations to the Kiev regime on what they called its «impressive attacks” on Russian strategic aviation airfields.
Against this background, Mr Zelensky, who joined the assembly via videoconference, repeated the same old story about the need to supply air defence systems as soon as possible and increase Western investment in Ukraine’s military-industrial complex so as to start joint production of various types of weapons, specifically drones. This is much more than investment in the Ukrainian war industry; rather it is an investment into the annihilation of Ukrainians, whose dead bodies Zelensky is unwilling to take back.
Judging by all appearances, however, he failed to convince his sponsors. His European allies preferred not to shell out for Kiev’s constantly growing appetites and reported about their own “achievements” in bankrolling the Kiev regime’s military spending and terrorist undertakings.
The UK intends to allocate 350 million pounds to boost drone deliveries to Ukraine tenfold, to 100,000 in 2025, as part of the previously announced 4.5-billion-pound military aid package for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. What was it London always said about human rights? Have they forgotten their old tales? Since the beginning of this year, Britain has shipped 140,000 artillery shells to Kiev. The country also earmarked 250 million pounds to train more AFU militants under the Interflex programme in 2025.
Germany has confirmed a new military aid package to Kiev worth 5 billion euros, which includes the production of long-range weapons, as well as the transfer of air defence systems and ammunition. Berlin will continue to collectively raise funds to provide the Ukrainian army with air defence systems as part of an initiative they plan to make permanent.
Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov has been boasting about their other allies’ plans to provide defence assistance to the Zelensky regime. Norway is going to provide $700 million for UAVs and contribute $50 million to the trust fund of the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU mission) in Wiesbaden, Germany. Is this their way of financing Ukraine’s “security”? The Netherlands will provide 400 million euros for a minesweeper ship, boats and naval UAVs; Sweden will contribute 440 million euros for the purchase of artillery shells, and Canada, 45 million dollars for UAVs, electronic warfare equipment and software. Belgium intends to spend 1 billion euros annually until 2029 to support Ukraine and transfer a minesweeper ship. Belgium, Italy, Türkiye, Sweden and Estonia expressed interest in joining the “electronic warfare coalition” created at the previous Ramstein Group meeting. Other ideas put forth there included aligning the “Ramstein investments in the defence industry” initiative with the EU’s 150 billion “rearmament programme,” SAFE.
This is direct evidence exposing what NATO’s EU infrastructure is geared for, and what their thoughts revolve around. They are not interested in their own population’s needs, in economic growth, or in resolving the issues facing the European continent as well as the whole world. They seek an escalation of the conflict and the continued use of the Kiev regime and Ukraine for their own purposes. What are these purposes? Good question. It should be addressed to them.
Along with that, on June 4, France announced it will provide Ukraine with 1.5 billion euros in financial guarantees for defence purchases from French companies and joint military production. On June 6, French Minister of the Armed Forces Sébastien Lecornu announced that the French automaker Renault would be manufacturing drones in Ukraine.
Lisbon plans military assistance to Kiev worth 220-225 million euros in 2025.
All of the above is further proof of the persisting aggressive policy of Kiev’s Western European allies and their obsession with escalating the conflict whatever it takes.
Ukraine continues to implement forcible conscription. Facing frontline personnel shortages, Kiev has to invent new methods of forced mobilisation.
Between February and June, some 1.5 million persons eligible for military service with previously recognised limited fitness were compelled to undergo repeated medical examinations in Ukraine. It is not surprising that over 90 percent of them had their previous deferment status revoked.
The Verkhovna Rada has approved in the first reading a draft law on “voluntary mobilisation” of men over the age of 60. They will be offered a one-year service contract contingent upon approval by commanders and the General Staff, with a two-month probation period and possible termination.
Ukrainian Banderite activists are now asserting that Ukraine is approaching a point where not only men but also women and youth 18 years old and above should be prepared for a potential draft. This subject is widely circulating in the media. Notably, no such requirement currently exists; however, the situation may change thus the entire adult population of Ukraine without exception must realise the possibility of mobilisation and be prepared.
On June 9, Ukraine’s Education Ombudsperson Nadezhda Leshchik confirmed the fact of mass emigration of high school students abroad. According to her, records show significant attrition rates between enrollment in the 10th and 11th grades and at completion of the academic year. Female students began leaving Ukraine in a similar trend. The Ombudsperson also noted that one factor affecting such developments is government plans to conscript 18-year-olds as soon as this autumn. I want to stress that these statements come from Ukraine’s own officials.
Driven by the instinct of self-preservation, the Zelensky regime will stop at nothing, including sacrificing schoolchildren, and will send them to die without hesitation.
The Kiev regime seeks to complicate people’s lives as much as possible for tiniest deviation from imposed doctrines.
On June 4, the Verkhovna Rada approved a draft law criminalising violation and circumvention of economic sanctions. The law establishes criminal liability, including for negligent breach of sanctions, applying not only to designated individuals but also to third parties. Penalties include fines of 425,000 to 2.04 million hryvnias (800,000 to 3.8 million rubles), imprisonment of up to ten years, potential disqualification from holding certain public offices or engaging in specified activities for up to 15 years, and confiscation of property.
I will repeat that these are separate facts from different spheres but even they demonstrate the relevance of the special military operation, focused on the denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine and the elimination of threats coming from its territory. As the Russian leadership has repeatedly stated, all the goals of the special military operation will be achieved.
Defamatory anti-Russian publication in the Canadian outlet The Globe and Mail
On May 29 this year, the Canadian outlet The Globe and Mail published an article with a headline seemingly derived from the tabloid playbook: Satellite Data Shed Light on Russia’s Modern-Day Gulags for Ukrainian Children. This is not simply fake news – this is something far more pernicious, a disinformation campaign that has now been integrated into the operations of a mainstream media outlet.
The article indulges in grotesque fantasies, detailing how certain NGOs, funded by Canadian resources, scour open sources for information on allegedly missing Ukraine’s children, monitor the social media accounts of social workers and minors, analyse satellite imagery, and employ artificial intelligence. In essence, they labour tirelessly – all for the purportedly noble cause of returning these underage individuals to Ukraine. But are they aware that we have just received a list from the Kiev regime of those they claim to be searching for? Three hundred and thirty-nine children – previously, they spoke of 20,000, and before that, they even referred to some millions.
According to the Canadian outlet, this painstaking method has supposedly enabled them to “rescue” 129 individuals and flag 136 social institutions allegedly housing Ukrainian children.
Joseph Goebbels would have given this Canadian outlet a standing ovation. Only one question remains: Why go to such lengths? It is nonsensical. We have repeatedly emphasised the existence of a well-established mechanism for locating children if they go missing, if questions arise, or if suspicions emerge. If someone is searching for their child and believes they may be in our country, they need only to contact the Office of the Russian Residential Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, and representatives of the children’s ombudsperson will process the request. All contact details are available and fully operational. If the child is indeed in Russia, there will be no obstacles to his or her reunification with relatives. Moreover, the relevant authorities will provide all necessary assistance – as they have repeatedly stated and, most importantly, demonstrated. To date, 101 minors from 81 families have been reunited with parents or relatives residing in Ukraine and other countries. Twenty-two children from 15 families have returned to Russia from Ukraine.
On June 2 this year, during direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in Istanbul, we received from Kiev’s representatives a list of 339 children who, due to various circumstances, have lost contact with their relatives. We are meticulously examining each name – verification is underway. There was no need to wait for direct negotiations. All they had to do was pick up the phone and call, send an e-mail inquiry, or write to the social media accounts of Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova.
The aforementioned Canadian publication (I am obliged to call it a “publication,” though in reality, it is nothing short of a libellous screed) tells its readers that in youth patriotic camps run by the Young Army Movement – which the authors dub a “modern-day GULAG” – Ukrainian children are allegedly forcibly assimilated, banned from speaking their native tongue, and virtually held against their will.
Let us set the record straight. First, participation in Young Army is strictly voluntary. Have you ever seen children tied up with ropes, forced to travel somewhere, recite poetry, or sing songs under the auspices of the Young Army? I certainly have not. But then again, the Canadians must know better – especially with their artificial intelligence and satellites.
Second, a child may join the Young Army only with the consent of their legal guardian, and the requisite documentation must be completed. Third, according to the movement’s charter, its purpose is “the upbringing and shaping of the younger generation, the comprehensive development of children and adolescents, and the fulfilment of their individual needs for intellectual, moral, and physical growth.” These goals are achieved by “fostering among youth a sense of responsibility, collectivism, and a moral framework based on principles of justice, equality, unity, responsibility, love for others, and respect and tolerance toward them.” Has anyone at The Globe and Mail read this? Of course not – why would they? They were too busy operating satellites to bother. There is not a word about erasing Ukrainian identity, banning the Ukrainian language, hatred toward Ukrainians, or anything of the sort. In fact, there is not a single mention of Ukraine at all.
The Canadian outlet that disseminated this defamatory anti-Russian content inexplicably neglected to inform its readers that Ukraine has institutionalised the militarisation and indoctrination of minors. From an early age, children are taught not to love their neighbours or live in peace with them but to harbour hatred toward Russia, Russians, and the Russian language – trained to “slit the throats of moskals” with knives and to glorify Nazi collaborators such as Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevich, and other Hitlerite henchmen. Ukraine has openly established an entire network of children’s Nazi camps, where instructors include militants from terrorist organisations banned in Russia, such as Azov and the Right Sector. The Ukrainian state funds this abomination, including with money received from abroad.
This began long before the special military operation. In 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019, Western publications (Daily Mail, NBC, Associated Press, El Confidencial) reported on this issue. Have The Globe and Mail not perused their colleagues’ work? It is high time they did – especially following such disgraceful reporting. At the time, representatives of foreign media were appalled by the levels of hatred, aggression, and militarisation among young Ukrainians, who were being openly prepared for war with Russia.
In April 2025, Vladimir Zelensky’s regime announced the establishment of resistance centres in all regions of Ukraine. These centres’ instructors, specifically, militants from nationalist and neo-Nazi formations, will train civilians in subversive operations. On May 23, 2025, Irina Vereshchuk, Deputy Head of the Ukrainian President’s Office, noted that, regardless of whether peace agreements are signed, Russia would remain Ukraine’s enemy for decades, if not centuries. She said that their children should train, and they should know what war is all about. Unfortunately, The Globe and Mail failed to see this.
The Kiev regime completely follows in the wake of German Nazis, its ideological inspirers. Paramilitary neo-Nazi camps for children in Ukraine resemble those for Hitlerjugend members, and resistance centres are similar to the Volkssturm levee en masse. Does not Canada that accommodated many Nazis and collaborators, who hid from tribunals, international-law prosecution, know this?
The Volkssturm was established in the closing days of the Third Reich to engage non-mobilised civilians in hostilities. However, those Ukrainians who are following the example of their Nazi idols should not forget about their ignominious end. Eighty years ago, the raging Fuehrer committed suicide, fearing a justified retribution, and surviving Nazi leaders were tried by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Many were convicted in their respective countries, and many were treated kindly elsewhere. I believe that Canada knows this very well. Maybe, The Globe and Mail should run a story on this, instead of printing such fakes?
To save their lives, Vladimir Zelensky’s junta is ready to sacrifice the future of Ukraine, namely, its children and young people. However, the Canadian, British, French and German press will not write about this. Nevertheless, we can see that some people in Western countries are now trying to find out the truth. Why is Canada writing about this? They are sponsoring the Kiev regime. How can they see the truth? They want to exacerbate and escalate the crisis, and they want to elevate all this to a new level of confrontation. They are not interested in the truth, and they absolutely do not care that children and young people are being crippled both physically and morally.
IAEA performance in the context of the Zaporozhye NPP situation
Starting September 1, 2022, IAEA Secretariat employees are present on a rotating basis at the Zaporozhye NPP (nuclear power plant) at our country’s invitation. We took the decision to give them access to that Russian nuclear facility in view of the regular missile and artillery fire at the station and its satellite city Energodar by the Ukrainian Armed Forces and their attempts to assault the ZNPP. That step was intended to make Kiev display greater restraint with respect to the station itself and its personnel.
IAEA Secretariat experts regularly make rounds of the station and record the consequences of the Ukrainian strikes at the facility, interact with the NPP management and staff, monitor the radiation situation jointly with the Russian specialists, and take part in the inspection and supervisory measures at the station.
In view of the regular attempts to present the experts at the station as some “mission” allegedly sent there at the Ukraine’s request, we noted on many occasions that the group of the Secretariat experts are present at the ZNPP on the basis of an agreement between Russia and the IAEA management.
During 2022-2024 rotation of the IAEA Secretariat staff at the ZNPP were carried out across the front line. The rotation was many times accompanied by provocations on the part of the Ukrainian troops. Given that, we decided to perform the rotations exclusively across the Russian territory. The success of these measures has shown that we, notwithstanding the grave obstacles posed by the Kiev regime, are doing our best to provide for an efficient and safe presence of the IAEA Secretariat specialists at the Zaporozhye NPP.
The IAEA experts there had many opportunities to see Kiev’s provocations against the station. Specifically, the series of Ukrainian drone strikes at the ZNPP training centre on June 5.
Under the pressure of the West, the Agency’s leadership is still reluctant to publicly find Ukraine guilty of creating threats to the ZNPP nuclear and physical security, even though the IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi witnessed the Ukrainian attacks during his visits to our station.
As for us, we regularly provide information on the Kiev regime’s provocations against Russian Zaporozhye NPP and its staff to the IAEA member-states at the sessions of the Agency’s policy-making authorities as well as by preparing and disseminating relevant information letters.
Statements by Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the United Nations Secretary-General
During the May 27 news conference, Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the United Nations Secretary-General, showed up with another biased statement regarding the Ukraine crisis, which runs counter to his high position at the UN Secretariat.
He claims that Antonio Guterres “condemns” allegedly large-scale Russian strikes on Ukraine on May 24-25 of this year whereas he is just “concerned” over Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian territory. The Secretary-General predictably ignored that Russia was only hitting Ukrainian defence industry enterprises with high precision weapons whereas the Kiev regime was deliberately targeting our country’s civilian population. It is indicative that he presented the Russian strikes as an established fact while the Ukrainian drone attacks as “reported.” How could this possibly be? Is it not shameful for the UN Secretary-General’s representative to allow himself to make such statements and, moreover, to attribute these words to Antonio Guterres?
We regard this statement by Antonio Guterres as another evidence of bias and double standards of the UN leadership. The Secretary-General and his subordinates have long been unscrupulously hushing up outrageous violations of international law by the Kiev regime, or calling on some “parties” to restrain, at best. They stick to this script even when all facts decisively point at AFU’s responsibility. No sympathy or empathy. Regrettably, they do not recall either human rights or people’s sufferings.
The examples abound. We have repeatedly called on Antonio Guterres and other high-ranking UN officials to condemn the terrorist invasion of the Kursk Region in August 2024 and other high-profile and well-documented crimes by the Banderite regime. But the Secretariat functionaries repeatedly evaded commentaries to the point by repeating their calls to restraint and conducting independent investigations. This is an option. But in this case, the same approach should be applied to everyone – calling to restrain, finding smoothed-up wording, stressing that they do not have data to make unequivocal conclusions. Otherwise, an interesting picture emerges: they seem to have lenses pointed only in one direction whereas their eyes are blindfolded to look in the other one.
Stéphane Dujarric showed a similar reaction to a question from a Russian journalist at the June 3 news conference regarding the bridges blown up by the Kiev regime terrorists in the Bryansk and Kursk regions. When the UN official was asked if Antonio Guterres wants to condemn those heinous acts, he just brushed off by expressing sorrow over all the civilian victims of the Ukraine conflict. That was impressive. Could he please keep doing it at all time?
Meanwhile, Antonio Guterres and other top bureaucrats of the UN Secretariat willingly pick up and spread libels cooked up on Bankova Street or in the Western capitals to discredit our nation. It is regrettable that they do not draw on reliable sources and do not bother to double check the facts.
Antonio Guterres goes beyond his mandate with his statements and grossly violates the ethical norms of an international official and Article 100 of the UN Charter which commands that the staff of the UN executive bodies shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organisation. The Secretary-General undermines our trust in the UN Secretariat political leadership and in fact forfeits opportunities to act as a fair broker in the context of the Ukraine crisis.
We trust that Antonio Guterres will find strength to shake off the influence of the Western political adventurers so as to take up a measured neutral position on the Ukrainian issue and from now on will avoid making such ill-conceived and biased statements.
We do remember, appreciate and support his fight against infodemics. But he should not become its sponsor.
We have observed reports in the media concerning the United States’ plans to establish yet another Pentagon megaproject in the Anchorage region – specifically, an integrated combat training and testing centre for the US Air Force at Elmendorf-Richardson Air Base. This facility is purportedly intended to train American and NATO pilots to confront a “near-peer adversary,” a term Western journalists unequivocally associate with Russia, as well as to counter “growing challenges” posed by China. Alaska is depicted as a strategic platform for power projection in the North and a pivotal defensive frontier for the United States in the Arctic.
This development is unsurprising. Under the flimsy pretext of countering imaginary threats from the East, the United States and NATO persist in their reckless pursuit of aggressive militarisation in the Arctic, expanding their military presence in the region and intensifying training operations – often of an offensive nature.
Such actions do nothing to foster trust among Arctic nations. Instead, they undermine peace and stability in a region that has long been a zone of constructive cooperation and dialogue.
The Russian Federation has never posed a threat to anyone in the Arctic and remains steadfast in its commitment to resolving all regional issues through political and diplomatic means. We will continue to take all necessary measures to safeguard our legitimate national interests in the high latitudes and ensure the security of our northern borders.
We have noted the highly aggressive remarks made by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at London’s Chatham House Institute of International Relations on June 9 this year. The Dutch official claimed the alliance is working on “building a better NATO.” But what precisely constitutes this “better” version? Greater efficiency? A commitment to the well-being of member states’ populations? Clear objectives for maintaining peace? No. The organisation, he declared, must become “stronger… and more lethal.” This is nothing short of Koshchei-the-Deathless fairy tale character’s confession. As usual, Russia is cited as the reason NATO must make a “quantum leap” in its development. Our country, they claim, poses a threat that will “not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends.” Rutte persists in stoking fear among populations in NATO member states, parroting the alliance strategists’ favourite new refrain – that “Russia may be prepared to use military force against NATO within the next five years.”
But these are mere figures of speech. In reality, Russia is already employing military force against the alliance – by countering NATO’s threats, manifested through the terrorist provocations of the Kiev regime. This is what the Secretary General should have addressed at these conferences. He should have explained how NATO turned its political puppets in Ukraine into terrorists and extremists, how it unleashed a hybrid war against our country, and how it has become a threat to Global Majority. But no – they are singing a different tune.
According to NATO’s leadership in Brussels, the only way to avert this supposed crisis is through a massive escalation of military capabilities, defence-industrial expansion, and increased military spending. Plans include quadrupling air and missile defence capacity. Otherwise, the Secretary General warns, they will “learn to speak Russian.” Here, I cannot help but agree – they should start now. But their motivation should be different. Why are they so afraid? It is baffling. Had they familiarised themselves with the great Russian language earlier, they would never have entertained such foolish ideas. They would not have wasted resources trying to cancel our culture, history, and economy. They would not have indulged in these reckless games – games they have been playing too long. They might have had different thoughts. Only now are they beginning to realise that learning Russian is not just possible, but necessary.
Rutte insists that NATO remains a defensive alliance. When – and against whom – has the bloc last defended itself? Can anyone cite a single instance in recent decades? How can this claim hold water when NATO is openly preparing for war – and with a clearly designated adversary? This is yet another lie.
There should be no doubt whatsoever that this is an aggressive bloc, acting against the genuine interests of the people in its member states.
In April, the Finnish parliament adopted a law that prohibits citizens of states that “violate the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of other countries, pose a threat to the national security of Finland,” and “may improperly use their citizens” to the detriment of Finland's security, from purchasing real estate in Finland.
Do they mean US citizens, or representatives of NATO? Do they mean people living in the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance when they say that they violate the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of other countries? Maybe the Finnish Parliament will recall the twenty-year-old story of another European country, Serbia? Who bombed Belgrade and how? Perhaps they have heard anything about Iraq, or about Libya and who did it to it, haven’t they?
This ban also applies to legal entities registered in such countries or controlled by their citizens.
Although Finnish legislators tried to clumsily obscure the phrasing, it is clear from the very beginning that citizens of what country, which Helsinki recognises as the main threat to Finland and to all of Europe, they mean. There is no plot twist.
Now, after the Finnish government has published the official list of countries affected by the new law, any remaining ambiguity has vanished. Alongside Russian citizens, the restrictions are being extended to Belarusians as well. I wonder, whom has Belarus attacked in recent decades? Is there a list of victims? I doubt anyone in the Finnish Parliament could even point to Belarus on a map. And yet, Finnish authorities justify their decision with, “Minsk acts in Russia’s interests, though it has no independent motivation to undermine Finland’s national security.” It is truly fantastic.
So, around 20,000 Russians and several hundred Belarusians residing in Finland on temporary residence permits will now lose the right to purchase property. But whom does the Finnish government really harm with this move? First and foremost, its own country.
In their obsessive desire to seal themselves off from Russia by every conceivable means, and having fully surrendered to outdated Russophobic paranoia, Helsinki is now making decisions that not only run counter to international human rights norms, such as the unilateral closure of the Russian-Finnish border, but also amount, quite frankly, to open segregation on the basis of nationality. If you are a Russian or Belarusian citizen, your rights can be revoked without investigation or cause. History has seen that before, including on Finnish soil. Finland once narrowly escaped descending into the abyss of a Nazi state. The world remembers how swiftly militant nationalism can devolve into full-blown fascism. Western and Northern Europe provides ample examples. I hope that there are still those in Helsinki who remember this.
And yet, amid these troubling trends, others emerge.
Slovak politicians refuse to support anti-Russia sanctions
Apparently, one can remain committed to national sovereignty and public interest even despite unprecedented pressure from the Brussels bureaucracy. The recent example of the Slovak Republic is a clear proof of that.
In recent months, a significant part of Slovak society has expressed disagreement with the policy of anti-Russia sanctions imposed by the European Union. One of the most obvious manifestations of this trend was about 400,000 voter signatures collected to support a referendum on the rejection of restrictive measures against the Russian Federation, which cause tangible damage to the country’s economy, business and living standards of the population. This is a big enough proportion of Slovakia’s population to indicate broad public support for the initiative.
Slovak parliamentarians harmonised with their voters’ sentiment – the National Council of the Slovak Republic passed a resolution instructing the country’s government to oppose the introduction of new anti-Russia sanctions at the EU level.
We believe that the Slovak politicians’ actions reflect their desire to protect national interests and their citizens’ well-being. The European Union proclaims democracy, so they are supposed to listen to their people. Yet, the majority of Europeans have no say in important decisions. Why? Because no one asks their opinion. When they try to speak, their attempts are dismissed as inappropriate.
It is clear that the EU sanctions policy, initiated under pressure from certain NATO member states, is seriously damaging not to Russia, but precisely to the EU countries themselves. According to experts, European businesses’ direct losses from the sanctions have exceeded 1.3 billion euros by now.
Unfortunately, despite the legitimate political discussion governed by democratic mechanisms, the European Commission continues to pursue a confrontational policy. They recently announced plans to unveil the next package of sanctions against our country, No. 18. How thoroughly did that follow democratic procedures? On what grounds are they adopting new sanctions? Was this a request from the people? From which countries? Were any procedures followed at all? Or was that an ideology-based decision? The answer is obvious.
This proves that the Brussels bureaucracy is totally oblivious to Europeans’ voices, and exposes the growing deficit of genuine democracy in the European Union itself.
We firmly believe that sooner or later, a rational and pragmatic approach will prevail in other EU countries as well. We are also certain that the rejection of the destructive and illegitimate policy of sanctions and the restoration of dialogue can help start a discussion on ensuring sustainable security on the European continent.
Meeting of the World Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots
On June 17-18, the Victory Museum in Moscow will host a meeting of the World Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots to be attended by representatives of the Government Commission on the Affairs of Compatriots Abroad.
During the meeting, its participants will discuss the implementation of the set of events timed to the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, preservation of historical memory and countering the falsification of history, including the concept of holding the World Thematic Conference of Russian Compatriots Living Abroad (Moscow, October 29-30, 2025).
Special attention will be given to human rights issues, patriotic education of young people, support for the Russian language, promotion of the Russian culture and the outcomes of the regional conferences of compatriots in Asia, Europe and North America. Reports by the thematic commissions under the World Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots are also among issues to be discussed at the meeting.
The participants will lay flowers in the Victory Museum’s Hall of Remembrance and Sorrow.
Fake stories about the Foundation for Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Abroad
The provocative media campaign continues against the Foundation for Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad, a Russian non-governmental non-profit organisation, a purely human rights structure.
This mechanism for providing legal assistance to the Russian diaspora abroad was established by the Foreign Ministry and Rossotrudnichestvo back in 2011. It helps our compatriots, providing them with legal consultations, lawyer protection, and humanitarian cooperation in cases where they face difficult life circumstances for various reasons.
Today, a detailed statement was published on the Foundation’s website, which refutes fakes and insinuations about its activities.
For a third year in a row, the Foundation for Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad gets in the hair of hateful Russophobes. This organisation, that really helps Russians protect their legal rights abroad, is currently the target of a deluge of slander and outright disinformation. Under the guise of a so-called “journalistic investigation,” a consortium of European media outlets has launched a large-scale provocation, clearly aimed at distorting the Foundation’s mission and discrediting its noble mission.
The timing is no coincidence. The leadership of certain European countries, obsessed with propping up a collapsing Nazi regime, is scrambling to find new ways to antagonise Russia. They have once again turned their attention to our compatriots abroad: specifically, to the support they receive in moments of genuine need, when they are subjected to open persecution in Western Europe for supporting Russia’s policies and goals of the special military operation to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine. They are being hunted, intimidated, and punished. This is regressive Russophobia in its most grotesque form.
The goal of this smearing campaign is clear: to compromise the Foundation’s reputation, force it out of Europe, scare off its partners, and, above all, intimidate our compatriots into severing their ties with Russia.
Let me repeat once again: the foundation has never collaborated with any intelligence services. There have never been such personnel among its staff. Any media assertions to the contrary are crude lies and deliberate provocations, drawn straight from Cold War-era playbooks. Most accusations can be derived to platitudes about “cooperation with Russian intelligence services to conduct influence operations in EU countries.”
In addition to clearly distorted public information, these so-called investigations are based on hacking the foundation’s internal emails. The correspondence stolen by the hackers (and perhaps also intelligence services) are framed as leaks. It was hacked intentionally. So much for it. Is this what your “civilised world” looks like?
Let me stress: the foundation’s main objective, enshrined in its Charter and grounded in the legal framework of the Russian Federation, is to support compatriots living abroad in defending their fundamental rights and freedoms, and in pursuing their legitimate interests. Our effort is focused on ensuring that Russians living outside their homeland can live free from discrimination, as equal members of the societies in which they reside. These individuals contribute daily, through their hard work and intellect, to the economic, cultural, and social development and prosperity of their host countries.
We will continue to comply with the principles and rules of the international law on human rights, providing respective legal assistance and support to all compatriots in need.
Escalation of tensions between Iran and Israel
We have noted the growing number of media reports about rising tensions between Iran and Israel, including speculation about possible attacks on nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran. One does not need to be a military expert to understand the disastrous consequences such a reckless adventure may entail, including far-reaching humanitarian and radiological fallout for the region.
In 2024, against the backdrop of continued escalation in the Gaza Strip, the Iran-Israel confrontation exacerbated after Tehran and West Jerusalem exchanged a series of missile strikes. Back then, the region narrowly avoided sliding into a full-scale war. However, bellicose rhetoric has not subsided.
For our part, we remain convinced that military means will not resolve the existing differences. In this regard, we have consistently urged all parties involved to refrain from steps that could lead to more violence and loss of control over the situation.
We count on the effectiveness of the ongoing indirect Iran-US dialogue. As far as we know, the next round of Iran-US consultations may take place soon. We operate on the premise that diplomacy is the way forward that can offer a mutually acceptable and viable solution based on international law and a balance of interests. Russia reaffirms its willingness to contribute constructively to the negotiating process.
Anniversary of MGIMO University’s ASEAN Centre
June 15 marks the 15th anniversary of the Foreign Ministry MGIMO University’s ASEAN Centre.
Our relations with ASEAN are high on the list of Russia’s foreign policy priorities. In the past more than 30 years, they have become truly comprehensive as they encompass cooperation in politics and security, as well as in the economy and culture.
The ASEAN Centre has become a key tool for promoting humanitarian and educational cooperation with the Association and its member countries from Southeast Asia, as well as for expanding ties between business and academic circles. In 2023, at the Centre’s initiative, MGIMO launched a two-year Master’s Programme for specialists from Russia and ten ASEAN countries.
The Centre makes it possible to expand channels of interaction with its partners, including through the Network of ASEAN-Russia Research Centres, the ASEAN Regional Forum’s Track Two on security, and the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific. Its effective work has been rightfully recognised by the countries of the region.
We would like to wish the Centre’s senior officials and staff, each of them a true professional who is passionate about their work, a happy anniversary, and wish them creative inspiration, success, and new exciting projects.
Third International Forum of Ministers of Education
On June 11-12, Kazan is hosting the 3rd International Forum of Ministers of Education, Shaping the Future. The function is organised by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation in cooperation with the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Tatarstan, and stakeholder agencies and organisations with the support provided by the Foreign Ministry.
The Forum’s goal is to coordinate efforts in education which is one of the most important areas of the humanitarian cooperation with friendly countries. The participation of approximately 112 high-level foreign guests from 33 countries speaks volumes about the high value of this dialogue.
President Vladimir Putin sent a video address to the Forum’s guests emphasising that free and equal access to knowledge, innovative technology, and scientific breakthroughs is among the key factors for sustainable development and for building a just and secure multipolar world.
In his video address to the participants, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov highlighted Russia’s commitment to respectful educational partnerships based on recognition of the world’s cultural and civilisational diversity.
Forum delegates will exchange experiences and discuss ways to strengthen national education systems, explore new learning formats and cutting-edge solutions for teacher training, and effective cooperation between educational institutions amid global digital transformation.
We are confident that the dialogue at the Forum will be meaningful and that its recommendations will be implemented in practice for the benefit of our respective nations.
June 12 marks Russia Day - a most important and widely loved national holiday in our country.
Festivities on this day, from Kamchatka to Kaliningrad, reflect the great diversity and unity of our vast nation. Concerts, exhibitions, sports competitions, and public festivities create an atmosphere of genuine popular celebration. Major cities host large-scale events, while smaller towns and villages hold warm, traditionally Russian, multi-ethnic and multi-religious celebrations marked by their own unique ways and customs. It is symbolic that residents of the historical regions of the Federation - Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions - will celebrate Russia Day for the third time. Our troops - heroes of the special military operation - will mark this day with special feelings.
Following the tradition, celebrations will also be held abroad at Russian diplomatic missions and venues of the UN and other international organisations, where our representatives consistently and firmly uphold our national interests. Undoubtedly, Russia’s true friends - those who sincerely support the building of a more just, multipolar world order free from diktat and neocolonial practices - will join us in these celebrations.
With a sense of rightful pride and joy, we mark Russia Day - a holiday of a sovereign and independent state with a glorious past that looks to the future. Russia boasts powerful economic, scientific, and intellectual potential. Preserving the unbreakable continuity between generations, and remaining faithful to our roots and spiritual and moral foundations, we will overcome all challenges facing us with confidence and inevitably achieve our goals.
Happy holiday! Happy Russia Day!
Of course, we have Presidential executive orders on spiritual and moral values, and cultural and humanitarian policy concepts. Many initiatives have been adopted. We also have a rich treasury of literature and outstanding films about what Russia, the Motherland, and the Fatherland truly mean.
However, each time, I encourage everyone to turn to our national anthem, which expresses in powerful and heartfelt words and with factual accuracy what Russia is and who our people are.
Question: On June 4, in an interview with the Financial Times, Moldovan Prime Minister Dorin Recean said that Russia was allegedly interested in the Moldovan opposition winning the upcoming parliamentary elections in the autumn, because this will male it possible for Russia to deploy 10,000 Russian soldiers in Transnistria. Would you comment on this statement? What is the overall situation with the Transnistrian settlement?
Maria Zakharova: As for deploying 10,000 Russian soldiers, I would like to ask to make it clear: what sources does the prime minister of Moldova refer to when saying this nonsense? Perhaps this is a consequence of the anti-Russian frenzy in which the current Moldovan leadership has been living for a long time. What are his allegations based on? Where did he get such information? Perhaps he was hacked and reset. Perhaps the Moldavan prime minister is affected by his conversations with European Union officials and MPs. Perhaps it was them who told him this. He was in Brussels. Was he told something there? Let us ask him where he got this information. Perhaps, he dreamt this. It should be clarified.
Let us have a look at the facts. The number of Russian servicemen stationed on the left bank of the Dniester, both within the peacekeeping contingent operating in the Security Zone under a clearly defined mandate and as part of the Operational Group of Russian Troops tasked with guarding military equipment stockpiles, is significantly smaller than the exaggerated figures cited by the prime minister of Moldova. In fact, it stands at just 1,200 personnel. Their presence in the region depends directly on the settlement process in the Transnistrian conflict.
The Russian troops remain the only true guarantor of stability and peace along the Dniester. For the sake of the prime minister of Moldova, let us be clear: there is no need to increase the current number of peacekeepers. More importantly, it is becoming increasingly evident that the real threat to regional security originates from a very different direction. I refer here to the recent analytical report published in The Washington Post, which indicates that the Kiev regime is actively considering a military incursion into the left bank of the Dniester.
Actually, I am not sure: perhaps, the prime minister of Moldova, who clearly speaks Romanian, has become a servant of the Kiev regime and won’t mind being associated with the “non-state” of Ukraine along with Romania. These are the very forces who claim the Moldovan language does not exist, and who appear ready to surrender Moldovan statehood for nothing. Perhaps that’s where the prime minister’s fantasies really come from.
Unfortunately, the situation in the Transnistrian settlement has not improved. Clearly, a direct Chisinau-Tiraspol dialogue cannot replace talks in a multilateral format. Instead, the Moldovan side continues attempts to exert economic pressure on Transnistria. We are convinced that these attempts are ineffective and are leading the settlement process into a dead end.
Against this backdrop, the pause in the work of the 5+2 multilateral negotiating format, in which our country serves as a mediator and guarantor, has been unjustifiably drawn out. We believe that this is the only internationally tested platform that can and should continue to contribute to resolving the pressing issues of the Transnistrian settlement.
We are told that it is impossible to bring Russia and Ukraine to a table. This is rather surprising. In Istanbul, two rounds of direct talks have been effectively held. Talks are possible at the meetings of the Joint Control Commission which is the governing multilateral body of the peacekeeping operation in Transnistria. Why can’t the 5+2 format take place then? These are concrete questions. There’s no need to fantasise. These questions should be directed at the very same people who, on behalf of the current official Chisinau, are making such statements.
Russia’s position on resolving the Transnistrian issue remains unchanged. We see our mission in this process primarily as maintaining peace and predictability on the left bank of the Dniester River. We support the normalisation of dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol and the observance of previously reached agreements.
But in general, we would like to hear why the Prime Minister of Moldova is citing these figures. Who falsely advised him?
Question: The Moldovan authorities continue implementing measures aimed at terminating the 1998 Russia-Moldova agreement on cultural centres. Denunciating it would mean the closure of the Russian Science and Culture Centre in Chisinau. What can you say about this?
Maria Zakharova: The actions of the Moldovan authorities to denunciate the 1998 agreement are part of the anti-Russia Russophobic campaign led by Maia Sandu regime and aimed at destroying Russian-Moldovan relations. All of this goes hand in hand with endless fake claims and false accusations against our country of some kind of interference in Moldova’s domestic affairs. We have just provided a concrete example. Now, the Russia House has been declared a source of disinformation ad accused of propaganda and “subversive activities.” This is dead flat delusional.
The absurdity of such fabrications is obvious. The Russian Science and Culture Centres in Chisinau and other capitals carry out projects that are exclusively humanitarian, educational, and cultural in nature, and promote the development of cultural dialogue between the peoples of Russia and Moldova.
What is it about the Russia House that bothers the Moldovan authorities so much? With the parliamentary elections scheduled for September 28 approaching, the ruling regime in Chisinau has decided to follow a well-rehearsed playbook of using the “Russian threat” narrative in order to create favourable voting conditions, to throw in an argument in its favour, and to divert attention from the horrendous socioeconomic problems that Maia Sandu has created for her people.
Let’s look at the facts. On June 4, the Moldovan Foreign Ministry announced that, in the upcoming elections, voting by mail will only be available to Moldovans living in the United States, Canada, the Nordic countries, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. Tens of thousands of Moldovans residing in Russia will not have access to voting in this format. Political analysts unequivocally agree that this will allow the authorities to create conditions for large-scale manipulation of the voting outcomes. More importantly, the core issue lies elsewhere. Everyone has acknowledged the fraud. It is simply unacceptable and incompatible with the democratic procedures to cut off eligible voters based on these criteria. This is not about a technical impossibility, but an unwillingness to give a voice to a segment of their own population. What kind of democracy is that?
Representatives of the Moldovan opposition predict that the official authorities in Chisinau will do everything possible to minimise the number of polling stations in Russia during the upcoming elections. I would remind you that during the 2024 presidential elections in Moldova, only two polling stations were opened - both at the Moldovan Embassy in Moscow. As a result, thousands of Moldovans in Russia were deprived of the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.
Censorship in the Moldovan media is intensifying. The mandate of the government-controlled Audiovisual Council is being expanded. A draft amendment to the Code on Audiovisual Media Services has been filed with the country’s parliament. It envisions hefty fines for “disinformation that could harm national security, and democratic and political processes.” It’s a well-crafted wording, but everyone knows what its real target is. Here, for example, is a fake claim that I just commented on - a statement by the Prime Minister of Moldova claiming that Russia wants to deploy troops there, to increase their number, and so on. Yet, no one will impose any fines on him, nor on the agencies that spread this falsehood from the Moldovan Prime Minister. No one will come and hand out a fine. Why not, though? In reality, this is just another tool to apply pressure on those who the authorities find undesirable such as bloggers, journalists, public figures, and politicians who will be running during the elections.
Meanwhile, the socioeconomic situation in the republic is rapidly deteriorating. According to independent experts, over 80 percent of the country’s population cannot afford a healthy diet, and 25 percent suffer from malnutrition. This is a direct consequence of the decline in agricultural output and exports. By the end of 2024, exports fell by 12.2 percent, including a nearly 10 percent drop in exports to EU countries. Moldova’s total public debt has reached nearly $7 billion. One-third of the state budget is financed through Western grants and loans.
Against this backdrop, accusing Russia and the Russian House of interference in Moldova’s internal affairs appear absurd. Moldovans don’t believe it, either. How can one believe such a thing? What does Russia House has to do with what’s going on in their agriculture?
The Moldovan authorities’ plans to shut Russia House down pain the people of Moldova. Last week, a group of activists from the Russian community in Moldova and the Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots declared their plans to uphold the Russia House.
The determination and courage of Moldovan citizens deserve respect and admiration, considering what is being done to them by those who claim to be serving the Moldovan people.
Question: The German authorities continue to exert pressure on representatives of Russian media. For instance, the head of the Rossiya Segodnya International News Agency’s bureau in Berlin, Sergey Feoktistov, was previously denied the right to continue working in the country and ordered to leave no later than August 19. Moreover, on June 6, he was prevented from disembarking a flight arriving in the German capital, and later, local police visited his family, who remained in the country, confiscating the passports of his wife and daughter under the pretext of concerns that they might abscond and fail to comply with the order to leave Germany by 19 August. How would you comment on this?
Maria Zakharova: We have already commented on this matter, but since you have raised the question, we will address it again.
We have consistently underscored that the German authorities have adopted a political course aimed at expunging, at any cost, any Russian media presence from their information space. There have been far too many instances warranting such remarks, particularly from Germany, concerning nearly every Russian media outlet operating there. The methods vary: at times, they block broadcasts; at others, they withhold accreditation; and now, they resort to outright coercive measures against journalists and their families, even launching smear campaigns. The conduct of the so-called Journalists’ Union of Germany, led by its chair, transcends not merely journalistic ethics but basic human morality.
This time, the targets of pressure and grotesque harassment include the journalist’s family members – his wife and daughter – whose passports were confiscated as though they were enslaved individuals (a practice reminiscent of historical document seizures). They are being denied access to their husband and father, despite the fact that the departure deadline unilaterally imposed by the German authorities is still over two months away. The treatment of ordinary people, including a minor – a seven-year-old girl – is akin to that of hardened criminals placed under house arrest. This is pressure; these are unacceptable methods of coercion against a journalist and his family.
One must ask: why? There must be some stated reason. What justifies such measures against them? Is it because they had the misfortune of residing in “liberal” Germany as family members of a Russian journalist? Is that the sole pretext? Official Berlin must provide an explanation. Why are they being persecuted in this manner? Why are they being hounded? It seems the next step will be an attempt to brand them with some sort of label or badge to mark and segregate them from the rest of German citizens. Perhaps they will paint the badge a bright colour and affix it. Germany has prior experience with such marking – we all remember it well.
This reflects the total degradation in that country not only of democratic principles but of fundamental human morality. These are the actions of thugs from low-grade crime dramas, not representatives of a government that considers itself civilised. There is a blatant desire to literally hound a man and his family, sending an unequivocal signal to other correspondents – indeed, to anyone who dares hold an independent opinion or the courage to speak their mind. It is a black spot, a signal of what awaits them. This is a horrifying trend.
Germany has already experienced an economic failure in tandem with such ideologies and methods of coercion against individuals.
We will inevitably respond to these acts of primitive Russophobia and political censorship. We have already stated as much. However, specialised international bodies – such as the UNESCO Director-General, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media – must also react. And not only those whose mandate includes safeguarding freedom of expression and media pluralism, but also human rights advocates in general. How do they view the settling of scores with a journalist through pressure on his family? What comes next? They are obliged to speak out.
By contrast, German media representatives in Russia – both journalists and their families – have always enjoyed more than comfortable conditions. You may ask them yourselves – on camera or privately. The difference is, they dare not speak openly, for they must eventually return to their Germany, which is evidently succumbing to an encroaching liberal dictatorship.
Regarding this campaign of harassment against Russian journalists – including the correspondent of RIA Novosti and those of Channel One, who are similarly persecuted, denied accreditation extensions, and visas – we will deliver an appropriate response. Measures are under consideration and will be implemented imminently.
Question: US President Donald Trump has shown his interest in Russia assisting negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Is Moscow ready to make its contribution to this process?
Maria Zakharova: The Russian side has never slackened its efforts to attain a political and diplomatic settlement of the Iranian nuclear programme. The mediated contacts between the United States and Iran that started in April gave some faint hope that they are still able to steer the situation from the danger point by leaving out any use-of-force scenarios that are regularly announced to the Islamic Republic of Iran. We assume that Washington understands perfectly well the disastrous nature and inadmissibility of military strikes against Iran’s nuclear power infrastructure and willfully opted for diplomacy. Russia has called on using political and diplomatic resources in full on many occasions, without hints on any other options. Evidently, there is a lot of hard work ahead that requires political will and tenacity.
We continue to keep close contact with our Iranian partners on this subject. The Americans also have a clear view of Russian approaches. Both Tehran and Washington know about Russia’s readiness to render necessary assistance in working on this or that aspect of the desired negotiation solution, which would make it possible to remove suspicions and bias against Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme with an unswerving respect for international law. In its time, our country made a sizeable contribution to the achievement of a carefully calibrated balance of interests that served as a basis for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. As we see it, even today the final result of the indirect US-Iranian dialogue largely depends on the depth of the desire of rapprochement and specific steps toward each other, given due consideration of mutual claims.
Iran’s legitimate rights to peaceful nuclear development, including uranium enrichment for civil purposes, are undoubted and recorded in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We acknowledge Tehran's firm determination to continue discussions with its US counterparts on the possible parameters of a potential agreement based on voluntary reciprocal commitments. Should the process be regulated properly and further contacts continue steadily and constructively, the confrontation level will inevitably decrease and the achieved negotiation results will be converted to practical advance, which could only be welcomed.
As for us, we are completely prepared to contribute to this for the sake of strengthening international peace and security. In short, we are ready.
Question: In one of its recently published articles, El País wrote about residential buildings in frontline areas that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have converted into drone-manufacturing shops. According to the article, it is impossible to know what is happening inside these buildings, but their number continues to grow. In your opinion, how much more evidence is needed to finally prompt Ukraine’s Western handlers to exert pressure on them, given that the Ukrainian army is clearly using civilian infrastructure for military purposes? How might such tactics affect Russia’s position in the negotiating process?
Maria Zakharova: Remember how we described this kind of tactics? It is the same tactics we’ve described earlier as “the Kiev regime hiding behind civilian infrastructure.” We’ve spoken about the human shield tactics. It’s not just about using civilian buildings where Kiev’s militants take cover and then falsely portray the resulting attacks as Russia’s strikes on civilian infrastructure. This is about the use of live human beings. Please don’t bring it down to walls, stones, roofs, windows, or the sites themselves. Talk about the people. They have no regard for human life. They are not hiding in abandoned empty apartment blocks. They position their weapons not in deserted park spaces or empty children’s institutions. They do all of this in places where people live, walk, receive medical care, and raise and give education to their children. That is why we call it human shield tactics.
Let me remind you of Amnesty International, an organisation that certainly cannot be suspected of being sympathetic or playing along with Russia. They wrote and provided evidence that weapons were being stored in non-military warehouses, and that heavy weaponry and air defence systems were being placed in residential quarters. UAF positions are being established in schools and hospitals, among other social institutions. They wrote about this quite a while ago.
This is yet another report, not the only one of this kind. You ask how long this can go on and how much more evidence may be needed. This piece, like others, reflects a gradual shift in how the Ukraine crisis is being perceived. Not long ago, despite all the factual evidence we had to offer, the West persistently turned a blind eye to the barbaric warfare methods used by the Ukrainian army. As you may be aware, the use of civilians as human shields is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.
How else can you describe the establishment of UAV production for military needs in blocks of flats? You just can’t. The more frequently and more explicitly people write and speak about this - calling things by their proper names - the stronger the public outcry will be. It’s hard to tell how much effort this may take. But the point is not to run the numbers, but to act. Then, hopefully, this will stop being just isolated news items and become a widely recognised fact - something essential that will wake up the Western community. I’m referring to those who are still harbouring doubts.
We are tracking these facts and regularly cite them. This also becomes a resource and factual base for journalists who rely on these materials.
Our approach to resolving the Ukraine crisis remains unchanged. Russia is seriously committed to continuing the negotiating process in order to reach concrete agreements. Once again, I want to emphasise that all the parameters of these talks have been outlined by the Russian leadership. Please use these exact phrases if you do the quoting in the context of the previously defined negotiating approaches formulated by the Russian leadership.
Question: June 10 marked the first International Day for Dialogue among Civilisations. This initiative was put forward by China and adopted unanimously by consensus at the 78th session of the UN General Assembly in 2024. In his message, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres pointed out that dialogue is the path towards peace and that affirming the diversity of civilisations is more relevant than ever. Amid current global challenges, how do you assess the key role and the urgent need for civilisational dialogue in promoting global peace and development?
Maria Zakharova: We place high value on efforts both within the framework of existing specialised bodies and through what is referred to as popular or people’s diplomacy.
People are coming together or convening events in order to prevent the aggression we discussed today from gaining the upper hand. This is one of the most important elements - something we often talk about - of the emerging multipolar world, where states cease to be passive objects of geopolitics and strive to strengthen their national identity, sovereignty, to preserve their uniqueness, and to defend their historical and cultural heritage. And they do so not through aggression, but through cooperation.
Question: Does Russia see any risks to the negotiating process on Ukraine stemming from the most recent escalation of the conflict? You mentioned strikes on Russian infrastructure and statements by NATO country politicians about a 400-percent expansion of air and missile defence.
Maria Zakharova: I think there is a contradiction in your question, because it’s either about risks or about escalation.
Question: I meant to say risks to the negotiating process resulting from escalation.
Maria Zakharova: I’d say it’s either risks or escalation. If the issue is about escalation of the conflict, then we are no longer talking about risks, but about a direct threat to the political and diplomatic process. Risks imply something that may or may not happen. You’re downplaying it.
By taking a leading role in providing military and financial support to Zelensky regime, the Western European party of war (which is exactly how they position themselves) continues to show an aggressive determination - just as you accurately noted - to escalate. Not to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis, but to push for continuation and to even scale up the conflict. They’re not hiding it - look at the funding, the geography of shipments, the arms deliveries, and their own militarisation.
In this context, the outcomes of last week’s meeting of the Contact Group on “defensive” assistance to Ukraine in the “Ramstein format,” which were discussed today, are quite telling. Did anyone at that meeting speak of peace or talks? Of course, not. It’s not about risks, but about a direct threat and not just to the negotiating process, but to peace in Europe at large.
They understand and discuss - perhaps not openly, but behind closed doors and through indirect remarks - that peace agreements, from their perspective, would lead to the neo-Nazi Kiev regime crumbling, and that doesn’t sit well with them. They almost admit this openly. They fear that outcome and are willing to do anything to prevent it from materialising. Why exactly - and for what purpose - that’s a question for them to answer. Perhaps, it’s a fear of appearing less dominant than the masters of the world that they’ve tried to portray themselves as. Maybe there are other reasons. That’s a question for political analysts to address. I would speak of a large-scale threat, not just about risks.
Question: Russian Ambassador to the United States Alexander Darchiev said that Russia and the United States have made a preliminary decision to move talks on restoring relations between the two countries to Moscow, Washington, and Istanbul, and that the next meeting will take place in Moscow soon. Do you have a timeframe for when this meeting will take place?
Maria Zakharova: He said we will let you know. As soon as the date and logistics are finalised - there have been a lot of questions in this regard - we will update you.
Question: In the coming days, Yuri Previtali, an Italian national with a neo-Nazi background who is currently fighting on the side of the Ukrainian army, will speak at a cultural centre owned by the Bologna city council. At the same time, the Bologna city officials shut down the Villa Paradiso community centre on the grounds that it allegedly hosts “pro-Russia” events. What can you say about this?
Maria Zakharova: This is an outrageous disgrace. Indeed, the January 2025 decision by the Bologna authorities to evict the Villa Paradiso cultural centre from its historic premises under the pretext of its administration’s plan to screen the Russian film Witness directed by David Dadunashvili is one of the most egregious examples of the trampling of the fundamental democratic values and freedoms in Italy. It violates the principle of freedom of speech enshrined in international legal documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - the very values that Italy’s leadership claims to prioritise.
It’s no secret that the authorities of most Western European countries are blocking their citizens’ access to alternative, objective, and occasionally non-mainstream information. One must remember, first, that censorship is prohibited in many of these countries. Second, this is not about caring for citizens, but is a tool of stringent control, a precursor to dictatorship, something Western Europe is familiar with as well. The people in the EU are increasingly finding themselves living in a digital information concentration camp, where the space for freedom is reduced to narratives approved not even by their own governments, but by a collective Brussels entity and imposed - through institutions like NATO, the EU, or the European Commission - onto the capitals of supposedly sovereign states. This is no longer just a violation of Europeans’ fundamental right to know more than what their governments let them - this is something else entirely.
However, the Italian people’s desire to figure things out is genuinely strong. They want to know the truth, they travel to Russia, write books, conduct interviews, follow developments closely, and are not afraid of local government bans, or even threats coming from delusional Banderites.
Italy was the first EU and NATO country to host, on May 30-31, the documentary film festival, RT.Doc: Time of Our Heroes, designed to present an objective view of the special military operation. Viewers saw a variety of documentaries featuring the developments in the region and on the front lines, and the stories of real people. These are not fantasies, but genuine facts. This became possible thanks to the courage and engagement of Italian citizens.
Special thanks go to representatives of the Kulturni Dom cultural centre in Gorizia and to Italian journalist and public figure Vincenzo Lorusso, who is a genuine modern-day anti-fascist, shares universal human values, and is willing to combat neo-Nazism. Thanks to his efforts, in 2024, more than 100 screenings of RT films were held in 40 cities across Italy. Not fiction films, not fairy tales, not cartoons, but documentaries.
At the same time, the festival was subjected to yet another wave of attacks coming from the European Parliament, Italian lawmakers, and mainstream media. Quite an irony, isn’t it? Showing the atrocities committed by Bandera Nazis in Ukraine is forbidden, because, as we’re told, it’s “Russian propaganda” and “strongly influences public opinion.” But these are facts. Meanwhile, tours across Italy by an Italian mercenary who fought on the side of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including his appearance in the building of the cultural centre that had been so offhandedly evicted, are widely promoted and even supported by the parliamentary parties.
Is he the first Italian mercenary used in this way that openly admitted his crimes and got away with it? No. The actions of Italian national Giulia Schiff, who fought on the side of the Ukrainian army, spoke at pro-Ukrainian rallies in Italy, publicly spoke about her service in the Ukrainian army, and admitted to killing Russian soldiers, have not received any legal assessment. No one in the Italian parliament has paid any attention. Not just the parliament - Italy’s law enforcement and government should take a much closer look at this.
This egregious and unprincipled display of double standards reveals the true motives and genuine nature of those who, serving a political agenda, continue to ban Russian public and cultural awareness events under far-fetched pretexts.
Question: Not long ago, Russia fully restricted entry to a Greek official in response to refusal to renew accreditation for a RIA Novosti correspondent in Greece. You haven’t so far revealed the name of this person. Are you not going to?
Maria Zakharova: We go by the rule of not giving out names. There are countries for which we do list the names and positions of individuals subjected to Russian sanctions. We don’t do that with regard to the EU countries.
Question: More recently, Greek media have reported that Greece was sending warplanes and accompanying personnel to Romania. Do you have any information about NATO’s plans in the region? They say a no-drone zone over and around Ukraine may be introduced soon. Can you share your thoughts about these plans and actions?
Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly noted that NATO is using exaggerated and false pretexts of an alleged “Russian threat” to continue its expansion and aggressive activities. NATO’s presence on the eastern flank is growing. The Black Sea region is no exception in this regard. Coalition combat tactical groups are being deployed there, and new projects to expand the bloc’s military infrastructure are being implemented. NATO’s aviation is widely used to patrol airspace over the Black Sea area. All these actions, steps, and obvious expansion are, of course, being monitored by our relevant agencies.
We would like to once again emphasise that NATO’s military buildup in the region is unjustified and only leads to further military and political escalation. If you have more detailed questions, we will be happy to examine them in conjunction with our experts.
Question: Where does the Foreign Ministry stand with regard to the latest attempt by the Latvian Saeima to legislate a ban on Russian people speaking Russian in public spaces in Latvia?
Maria Zakharova: It’s a disgrace for a country that postures itself as a civilised country. I’m not even sure the government and the current regime in Latvia can be described as civilised in the first place. But what they are doing is a disgrace.
Latvia is one of the European countries where all things Russian and Russian-speaking population are facing the most egregious discrimination. Riga continues to pursue a policy of building a monoethnic state, ignoring all key human rights documents including, first and foremost, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as numerous OSCE commitments in this sphere. This is unadulterated Nazism, neo-Nazism, hybrid Nazism - call it what you want. This is how it manifests itself.
Regularly, including at all relevant international forums, we draw the attention of the international community to this outrageous situation. Riga is conveniently hiding behind its senior EU patrons. We are convinced that Europeans cannot possibly fail to understand how deeply the policies of the Latvian authorities contradict the “democratic values” that Brussels so zealously claims to uphold. Lately, though, this zeal has faded, because it has become embarrassing - things have clearly come to a deadlock. To admit that Riga is acting in the spirit of neo-Nazism would be to admit their complicity.
Banning the use of any language in one’s own country is a disgrace for any country ruled by law, especially if the issue is about the native language of a significant portion of the population. How intense the irrational fear of the mythical threat coming from Russia (which is made up either by themselves or by Brussels) has to be, and how deep the hatred for everything Russian - including the language and culture - has to be for them to fight it using such barbaric, or even beyond barbaric, methods?
We will not tolerate this. We will continue to oppose Latvia’s unlawful actions against our compatriots and to demand that Riga fulfill its international human rights obligations, using every means at our disposal to achieve this.
Question: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that Russians understand only the language of force, and that Europe is currently in a weak position. He also believes that Hungarians do not want to die for Ukraine, do not want to see it become a new Afghanistan, and demand that politicians take control of the situation from the military. What is the Foreign Ministry’s comment on what Mr Orban had to say?
Maria Zakharova: I need to check that quote to understand the context. At this point, I’m unable to comment on the first part of your question.
As for the fact that Hungarian citizens don’t want to die for Ukraine, well, no one in the European Union does. That’s why they are forcing the Kiev regime to carry out forcible mobilisation in Ukraine, which now includes 18-year-old schoolchildren or university students, very young people. That’s the first point.
Second, I’ve known Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban for many years as a principled politician who firmly upholds Hungary’s national interests and is unafraid to assert his views despite constant pressure from Brussels. He is known for his balanced stance and approach to the situation in Ukraine, his deep understanding of the root causes of the conflict, namely, the lack of independence of Vladimir Zelensky, who is entirely controlled from abroad. Orban has said this repeatedly and constantly urged many EU officials, bureaucrats, and leaders to take a responsible view of the situation.
Question: Recently, as part of the Individual Partnership Cooperation Programme between the Defence Ministry of Azerbaijan and NATO for 2025, a training session was held on Operations Planning Process, during which theoretical and practical exercises were conducted on planning and managing NATO operations, as well as on other topics. Joint military exercises between Azerbaijan and one of NATO’s leading members -Türkiye - will be held soon. What do you think about Azerbaijan’s broad cooperation with NATO, and how might it affect stability and security in the South Caucasus?
Maria Zakharova: We have repeatedly stated that NATO is not good news for the South Caucasus when it comes to security.
On the contrary, the main goal of Westerners - as we know well - is to destabilise the region, pit the countries against each other, and create new hotbeds of tension. We hope that both Baku and Yerevan equally understand our well-founded concerns in this regard and fully recognise the risks of deepening their engagement with aggressive military blocs.
Question: Speaking about negotiations with Armenia not long ago, Azerbaijani Presidential Aide Hikmet Hajiyev said there was no need for continued presence of foreign military forces in the region. Considering that only Russia has armed forces deployed in the region, this effectively amounts to a call for Armenia to have the Russian military base withdraw from its territory. Please share you comment.
Maria Zakharova: That is your take on it. I haven’t heard him say that. Let me have the quote where he says this, and we’ll take it from there.
On the contrary, we are aware of Baku’s rightful concerns regarding the EU mission’s activities in Armenia. It is well known what the personnel of that “mission” are doing there. They are spying on Armenia’s neighbouring countries. They certainly do not report to Yerevan, nor do they promote stability in the region.
As for the Russian military base stationed in Armenia, we have not heard Yerevan say anything about possible withdrawal. The officials of the Republic have confirmed, including publicly, that this issue was not on the agenda. Yerevan understands that the Russian military presence is an important element of the region’s security architecture both in Armenia and the South Caucasus at large.
The deployment and functioning of the base are regulated, as you may be aware, by relevant bilateral agreements between Armenia and Russia, and this matter has nothing to do with Azerbaijan. To my knowledge, this matter has never been raised in the context of our interaction with Azerbaijan. This issue has no basis.
By the way, this March marked the 30th anniversary of the agreement on the Russian military base in the Republic of Armenia. Congratulations!
Question: Azerbaijan continues to destroy historical monuments, including monuments to heroes of the Great Patriotic War, in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). Quite recently, they destroyed yet another monument in the village of Yemichshan. Earlier, the Union of Armenians in Russia reported these facts to the Investigative Committee of Russia. We would like to know your opinion. Did you receive any reply as to why they are destroying monuments to heroes of the Great Patriotic War?
Maria Zakharova: Yes, we are working with our Azerbaijani colleagues. I can assure you of that. But I would like to ask you a question. Are you concerned with monuments that are being pulled down in other countries? I have never heard or seen any evidence in this regard. I have never seen Armenian masses defending the memory of Soviet soldiers whose names bespeak their Armenian origin.
We always do everything to perpetuate their memory by laying flower tributes, tending graves, protecting these from desecration, and restoring them. Why do you never feel compelled to ask these questions in your own country? What sort of joint efforts are there in this regard? Look at what was going on just a while ago. And what about Ukraine? The Ukrainians exhumed bodies and destroyed monuments. Were not there Red Army soldiers with Armenian roots among them? I don’t recall hearing your questions or seeing your willingness to discuss this topic.
You and I are well aware why and in what context you are broaching this theme. Please, don’t do that. To a degree, this is beginning to verge on sacrilege. I mean, asking me these questions. Regularly! It is all clear. Next time, when you are in the mood for talking about monuments, let us have an interview. I will tell you a lot of things.
Question: But I represent an Armenian media outlet.
Maria Zakharova: I repeat: Red Army soldiers, who were your fellow countrymen… their remains, monuments with their names are regularly desecrated in the EU countries. Where are you all? Where are your reactions? Where is your willingness to defend these monuments? It appears, my country is alone in protecting them by all means available to it. What are you talking about? This topic is off your information space or your focus.
I beg your pardon, this is beyond the bounds. To reiterate: this is neither a burning issue, nor a difficult topic. But this is on the verge of sacrilege, really.
I will be pleased to speak in a special interview with you. I will cite facts and cover the whole ground. And possibly you will at last pose this question to someone in another country, such as your own. Why the public in your country is so indifferent to the destruction of monuments and gravestones of Armenian soldiers, among others? Why are they being defended by other countries?
You have nothing to show for it, really. I have studied this subject thoroughly.
Question: How do you assess reports about Israel supplying air defense systems to Ukraine?
Maria Zakharova: This was reported by Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Mikhail Brodsky. It is not for the first time that he makes statements of this sort. A comment from the Foreign Ministry of Israel said that this news was not true to fact.
Why do the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the State of Israel allow their ambassador, who has an official status, to make such statements? It would be wrong to ask us. But let me repeat: we have received an explanation from the Israeli Foreign Ministry to the effect that this assertion is at variance with the facts.
We are orientated to the official assurances by representatives of the Israeli leadership, who said that Israel had not supplied and had no intention to supply any weapons to Ukraine. We are certain that it is this approach that meets the national interests of Russia and Israel and helps to preserve and promote the existing constructive bilateral collaboration in various areas, including those of strategic importance for both countries.
***
I congratulate everyone on the upcoming holiday. I wish you peace, wellbeing, and all the best to you and your relatives and friends. Greetings on the upcoming Russia Day!
Zusätzliche Materialien
-
Foto
