Excerpts from the briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, May 23, 2024
- Africa Day
- The past and upcoming CIS events
- The Ukraine crisis
- Developments in Moldova
- EU’s denial of their own statements about the necessity to defeat Russia “on the battlefield”
- Statements by UK Secretary of State for Defence on NATO
- Norway restricted entry rules for Russian citizens
- Denmark’s financial support to the White Helmets organisation in Syria
- The German Foreign Ministry’s reply to the note from the Russian Embassy in Berlin
- Moldova-EU security and defence partnership agreement
- Summit on peace in Ukraine in Switzerland
- Recognition of the State of Palestine by several Western countries
- Statements by the prime minister of Romania
- Ukraine and Moldova’s EU aspirations
- Russian resolution on banning weapons in space rejected
- Russia-China relationship
- Statements by the prime minister of Armenia
- Britain’s stand on using UK-supplied weapons to strike targets inside Russia
- Attacks on the Estonian Orthodox Church
- Violations of Russians’ rights in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
- US pressure on Georgia
- ICC ruling on Israel
- Developments in New Caledonia
- Azerbaijan-Iran relationship
- EU’s decision on using income from frozen Russian assets
- US stand on the Middle East conflict
- Redefining Russian maritime border coordinates in the Baltic Sea
- Russia’s alleged involvement in New Caledonia riots
- Turbulence in international affairs
- Julian Assange’s case
- Vietnam’s stand on the Ukraine crisis
- Russia’s attitude to the “peace conference” in Switzerland
- Exhibition of captured foreign weapons on Poklonnaya Gora
On May 25, the international community marks Africa Day as the symbol of African nations’ unity and victory in the struggle for national independence and sovereign development. As usual, an official reception will be held on this occasion on May 23 on behalf of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. This year, the minister will address the diplomatic corps.
I would like to remind you how this date is marked and why it has been on the list of vital international events.
The establishment of the Organisation of African Unity on May 25, 1963, launched the continent’s gradual movement on the path of political and economic integration. That cause was taken up by the African Union, a key player in the modern world order, which was granted permanent membership in the Group of Twenty (G20) in 2023 with active support from the Russian Federation.
The development of comprehensive multi-format cooperation with African states is a priority area of Russia’s foreign policy. The Second Russia-Africa Summit, which was held in St Petersburg in July 2023, gave a fundamentally new impetus to Russia’s relations with African countries.
President Vladimir Putin said that the Russia-Africa summits held in Sochi in 2019 and in St Petersburg in 2023 had become “a real breakthrough.” The documents adopted at the summit in St Petersburg, in particular, the political declaration, three sector-specific statements and the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum Action Plan for 2023-2026, outlined the mainstream areas of our cooperation with the continent.
During the summit in St Petersburg, we reaffirmed our common foreign policy priorities in the rising multipolar system of international relations based on the principles of the sovereign equality of states, mutual respect, strict compliance with international law without any double standards, and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.
A new format – ministerial conferences of the Russia-Arica Partnership Forum – has been created to compare views on the comprehensive development of Russia-Africa relations and prepare for the next summit scheduled for 2026. The first ministerial conference of foreign ministers from 54 African countries and heads of regional integration associations is scheduled for November 2024 in Sochi. Preparations for this event are in full swing.
The past and upcoming CIS events
Russia continues to perform its functions as CIS Chairman, implementing the Chairmanship Concept and the large-scale plan for its implementation on schedule and with much success. As of today, more than 35 events have taken place.
In February-March of this year, Russia held Games of the Future and the World Youth Festival, which were attended by large delegations from almost all CIS countries. In late March of this year, Moscow hosted a deputy prime ministerial meeting of the CIS Economic Council and the International Economic Forum of the CIS States with over 2,000 experts from the Commonwealth countries as attendees.
On April 12, Sergey Lavrov chaired this year’s first meeting of the CIS Foreign Ministers Council in Minsk, Belarus. The ministers discussed in detail current international and regional issues as well as guidelines for further cooperation within the CIS. The meeting approved statements on ensuring safe conditions for journalists' professional activities and on the 30th anniversary of granting the CIS observer status at the UN General Assembly. As CIS Chairman, Russia circulated the statements at the UN and the OSCE. The texts of these documents are available on the Foreign Ministry website.
Some other recent events were the Session of the Council of Heads of CIS Customs Services, and the meetings of the Coordinating Committee for Air Defence under the Council of CIS Defence Ministers and the Joint Consultative Commission on Disarmament. In February, CIS foreign ministries held consultations on interaction within the CIS in 2024, in April – on interaction at UNESCO, and the day before yesterday – on arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation.
On May 24, Russia will chair a meeting of the Council of Heads of Government in Ashgabat. The participants will consider current issues of trade and economic cooperation in the CIS, as well as a number of draft documents related to power generation, transport, environment, intellectual property protection, and cooperation in culture and the humanitarian sphere.
Within the next few months, it is planned to hold events involving CIS human rights commissioners, defence ministers, heads of migration services, heads of security and special services, as well as those of financial reconnaissance units. Foreign ministries will hold consultations on counteracting new challenges and threats and also meetings on consular and legal issues, economic cooperation within regional associations, etc. Many other events are in the pipeline as well.
The CIS Heads of State Council meeting scheduled for October 8 in Moscow will be the centerpiece of the Russian Chairmanship. As usual, it will be preceded [on October 7] by a regular meeting of the CIS foreign ministers.
The Kiev regime continues to seek revenge on Russia for its own military setbacks; this is its essence. They continue to launch terrorist attacks against Russian citizens and civilian facilities. In an attempt to kill as many innocent women and children as possible, pro-Bandera supporters are using Western weapons, including US-made ATACMS and HARM missiles, as well as British-French Storm Shadow/Scalp missiles.
Washington, London and other Western capitals that usually “sympathise” with the civilian population and staunchly defend human rights are making cowardly statements denying complicity in the terrorist attacks against Russia’s peaceful population unleashed by Vladimir Zelensky. At the same time, they are unequivocally stating that the Kiev regime will independently select targets to hit using Western weapons. However, their wards from Kiev are not concealing the origin of intelligence information, satellite photos, or the names of those planning and approving attacks. The Western press has started writing about this, little by little. According to The Wall Street Journal, Ukrainian Nazis are asking the administration of Joe Biden to help determine targets in Russia that the Armed Forces of Ukraine can attack, including with the US-supplied weapons.
We have been saying all along that the West serves as, if not an “inspirer” (a term that might not fully capture the concept – it implies the presence of a soul), then certainly a driving force behind the crimes of the Kiev regime. We've also mentioned how Westerners effectively act as spotters for the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other units under the regime's control. Now, even Western journalists are beginning to take note of this.
No matter how hard the Kiev regime and its Anglo-Saxon masters may try, they are unable to change the situation at the forward edge of the battle area. The Russian Armed Forces are confidently accomplishing all objectives of the special military operation. Russian law enforcement agencies meticulously record crimes committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis. They do not overlook any heinous acts of the Kiev regime, exposing the culprits and bringing them to account. This process will continue.
On May 20, 2024, we celebrated two memorable dates in our recent history: the liberation of Mariupol in 2022 and Artyomovsk in 2023, two major cities in the Donetsk People’s Republic.
In the past two years, a tremendous amount of work has been completed to rebuild Mariupol, where two-thirds of all buildings, including residential buildings, were destroyed. This work continues. Today, the city resembles a huge construction site. A new embankment with pedestrian lanes has been opened. An industrial park and a logistics centre are being built in place of the former Azovstal plant. Local streets are swarming with cars, municipal vehicles and public transport. By the way, experts from St Petersburg helped launch tram and bus traffic in Mariupol. This holds historical symbolism because experts from Mariupol helped rebuild the tram network in besieged Leningrad in 1942.
The revival of Mariupol, rightfully called the Pearl of Azov, fills us with optimism and inspires its residents, too. Each month, more and more Mariupol residents who had left their hometown are coming back.
The proximity of the line of contact and the shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces continue to hold back the efforts to rebuild Artyomovsk. However, demining is underway, and power and food supply has been restored. The DPR authorities plan to start the construction work as soon as the military situation permits.
In all, 170 blocks of flats and over 350 housing and utilities, energy, administrative, socio-cultural and community services facilities have been restored or built anew in the DPR and the LPR, as well as the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. A 2024 plan to restore and build over 5,500 new facilities has been approved.
Our country has once restored the populated centres in Donbass and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions after Nazi occupation in 1941-1944. Unfortunately, almost 80 years later, they had to once again go through the horrors of Nazism and suffered at the hands of modern-day Nazis. We are convinced, though, that with the help of the entire nation they will quickly heal their wounds and emerge as even more beautiful towns and villages.
Based on the evidence provided by the Russian Investigative Committee, the Russian courts continue to hand down sentences on Ukrainian gunmen who committed grave crimes against civilians.
Ukrainian commanders Andrey Gnatov and Konstantin Tsymbal have been sentenced in absentia to 28 and 20 years in prison, respectively. In July-September 2019, Gnatov and his subordinates fired at population centres located in the Telmanovsky and Novoazovsky districts, DPR, as a result of which one civilian died and another one was wounded. On April 25, 2022, while shelling the town of Nizhneye in the LPR, Tsymbal put the lives of its residents in mortal danger and caused significant damage to blocks of flats. Both of them were put on a wanted list.
On May 16, Chairman of the Investigative Committee of Russia Alexander Bastrykin held in Lugansk a meeting of the headquarters for the investigation of crimes committed by the Ukrainian armed forces against civilians and Russian military in the DPR and the LPR, as well as the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. A report on the Kiev regime’s high-profile crimes against peace and security of humanity was delivered. Despite the fact that these crimes were committed in Donbass a long time ago, the Investigative Committee will continue to hunt down and bring to justice everyone involved in them. Numerous evidence of the mercenaries from many countries who participate in the hostilities on the side of the Ukrainian armed forces is also under investigation. Alexander Bastrykin issued an instruction to continue to document the criminal acts of Ukrainian neo-Nazis and to establish the extent of the damage inflicted by them.
Despite these terrorist attacks and despite the fact that Russia is rebuffing them and using constructive efforts (this can now be clearly seen by everyone) to oppose dehumanisation, all those who were involved in the terrorist attacks and other crimes of the Kiev regime will be brought to justice. The West is trying to show support for the path (not even political) it has set for Ukraine.
On May 20, the 22nd video conference of the contact group to provide the Ramstein-format defence assistance to Ukraine was convened on a short notice to accommodate Kiev’s alarmist pleas to provide it with urgent mass-scale military aid, primarily including air defence equipment and various munitions.
The participants discussed the modalities of using the $2 billion tranches allocated by Washington, which were announced by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Kiev on May 15. Ukraine was given the green light to place defence orders with third countries in addition to the United States. This shows that, just like the Europeans, the Americans are now facing calls from the Kiev regime to pull them “out of the dead” and that they have exhausted their defence industry’s capabilities and are trying to find a way out by using the manufacturing resources of their foreign partners in order to support Zelensky.
In order to support the steadily declining morale of the Ukrainian armed forces, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin said the United States would be shipping a wide range of military products needed by Ukraine almost on a weekly basis.
However, there was a sense that few among the Kiev regime’s allies believed in its success. No one is ready to tackle another dangerous round of escalation, or to assume responsibility for the ongoing developments. The meeting did not result in any sensational news or groundbreaking solutions. The Bankovaya Street’s hopes for having foreign military contingents sent their way, or NATO protecting Ukraine’s skies from Russian missiles fell through.
However, the Kiev regime is trying to approach it from different angles and is using every opportunity to demonstrate to the West its commitment to “Western values” which runs counter to logic, historical truth, and common sense. This is just another example.
May 18 marked the 80th anniversary of the Crimean Tatar deportation from Crimea. Sure enough, the Kiev regime took advantage of this tragic chapter in the history of the Crimean Tatar people for its exclusively self-serving propaganda purposes. Another memorial site was laid down in Kiev on that day. Can you believe that monuments to people, military leaders and public figures who liberated Ukraine from Nazis are being demolished at the same time? History is being rewritten literally before our eyes. The historical accuracy of the monuments commemorating the Great Patriotic War is being distorted. New meaning is being imparted to them for them to emerge as monuments commemorating different events. What is happening is nothing short of barbarism. However, there is a place in Ukraine for new monuments. During the ceremony, Zelensky, as he always does, delivered a theatrical and teary-eyed piece about the suffering of the Crimean Tatars and “the horrors of the Russian occupation” of the peninsula. However, he failed at his role of a fervent defender of the rights of ethnic minorities despite his thespian talents. It all looked false, precisely because everyone knows perfectly well what it is all about.
Given the systematic and massive violations of human rights and the rights of ethnic minorities (actually, the abolition of these rights across Ukraine during the years of Vladimir Zelensky’s rule) and the eradication of the Russian language, which is spoken by millions of the country’s citizens as their native tongue, this ostentatious “reverence” and “concern” with regard to a particular ethnic, cultural and religious group looks extremely hypocritical. No one believes it.
The Kiev regime had never been bothered by the Crimean Tatars’ situation – neither under Vladimir Zelensky, nor under Petr Poroshenko, nor earlier. The only part they were ever interested in in this regard was its anti-Russia aspect, in much the same way as the [1930s] famine that swept through a number of regions of the USSR. Clearly prompted by their Western manipulators, they have singled out the part that was exclusively related to Ukraine. Despite numerous comments and recommendations of international human rights agencies (including the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Human Rights Committee, the OSCE, the Council of Europe), which have expressed concern since 1998 (!) over the unresolved land, property, social and other problems of the Crimean Tatars, or their underrepresentation in local authorities, Kiev has done nothing to resolve the situation, to equalise citizens’ rights or address their most pressing issues.
These problems had never been addressed until after the reunification of Crimea and Sevastopol with Russia in 2014. Russia has channelled over 18 billion roubles into relocation programmes for former residents returning to their homeland, mainly Crimean Tatars. Over the past 10 years, an extensive infrastructure has been built for the repatriates, including kindergartens for 1,440 children, more than 223 kilometres of gas, electricity, water supply and sewerage networks, blocks of flats and other socially and culturally significant facilities. The Crimean Tatar language, along with Russian and Ukrainian, is a state language in the Republic of Crimea.
Today, the Ukrainian legacy associated with the current Kiev regime has been eliminated, and Crimea has turned into a prosperous Russian region, a territory of ethnic accord, where people of all ethnic backgrounds have equal rights and opportunities, live in peace and mutual understanding. This does not mean that there are no problems. This means the problems are being resolved peacefully, based on respect for the rights of various ethnic and religious groups.
The only thing that gives a hard time to Crimea residents is the terrorist regime in Kiev. This “ring” of murderers is incapable of creating, sharing, or defending good – they can only destroy. Gritting their teeth in anger, they are retaliating against the Crimeans for the choice they made in 2014 in favour of a future with Russia and for continuing to make that choice daily, not only emotionally, not only by remaining firm, but also with painstaking work, with real steps to defend that choice together with Russia. For all Vladimir Zelensky’s grandstanding for the rights of various ethnic and religious groups (we are well aware that it is just nonsense), I will tell you what the situation is really like with their rights in Ukraine. The Kiev regime continues to attack canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine.
In the early hours of May 17, the Sts Vladimir and Olga Chapel of the Tithes Monastery, which belonged to the UOC, was demolished in Kiev. It was located next to the place where the historical Church of the Tithes once stood, built in the late 10th century. The first stone church in Russia, it was destroyed in 1240 by the armies of Batu Khan. In tribute to the lost house of worship, small churches were erected there at different times, but none of them survived to this day. The chapel was built with the permission of the authorities in 2007. After the February 2014 coup, when the UOC began to face persecution, clouds began to gather over the chapel. Ukraine’s Ministry of Culture called for its demolition, suddenly deciding it had been built illegally, allegedly because it was “located in the buffer zone of UNESCO heritage, where new development is prohibited,” and “disharmonised the ensemble of the Church of the Tithes historical and archaeological site.”
At the same time, the demolished chapel is going to be replaced by a new building of the National Museum of the History of Ukraine – apparently, this project is not going to violate any regulations for the “UNESCO buffer zone.” Brandishing a dubious court decision, the authorities staged a whole military operation to destroy the religious facility, involving the police and the Security Service of Ukraine. Obviously, this symbolic landmark has been disturbing Ukrainian God deniers so much they were determined to wipe it off the face of the earth.
On May 21, 2024, Acting Culture Minister of Ukraine Rostislav Karandeyev ordered the monks of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to vacate the Lower Lavra, where the main premises of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra stand, within a month. If they don’t do this by the deadline (June 20), forceful methods would be used, he said.
The same day, the European Solidarity party led by former president Petr Poroshenko and the Golos (Voice/Vote) party blocked the speaker’s stand in the Verkhovna Rada to demand that the parliament immediately adopt the discriminatory law prohibiting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the final reading. Nobody was deterred by the negative conclusions of the parliament’s Main Legal Department, which questioned, in particular, the “relevance” of that law “for protecting the national security of the country.” The parliament’s lawyers noted that in accordance with the norms of international law “this cannot be regarded as a sufficient reason for restricting the rights of faith.” It is shocking that the declaration of the principles of human rights and religious freedoms have produced an absolutely opposite result in Ukraine.
No matter how hard Zelensky’s regime is trying to fulfil the orders of its American masters and its client states, it will not eliminate canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine. (We will talk about this later on because an open persecution of the Orthodox Church is underway in the Baltic and other countries.) It will continue to live in the hearts of millions in Ukraine. This is evident from the trials they are facing and the way they are overcoming them.
The above facts reaffirm yet again the relevance of the goals of the special military operation – the denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine, as well as the elimination of all and any threats coming from its territory. All of them will be achieved.
Look at the situation in Moldova, which is similar to the scenario the Western curators have prepared for Ukraine. The Moldovan authorities are trying to intimidate people with “the Russian threat” in order to increase public support for the so-called “European integration project.”
On May 15, 2024, President of Moldova Maia Sandu said: “Those … who are ready to help the Kremlin overthrow the government and stop reforms should know that … it will be like in Donbass and in other regions where the Russians have come.”
That phrase produced an uproar in Moldova. Reporters pointed out in their comments that the incorporation of the Donbass republics into Russia put an end to civilian genocide, restored real democracy, law and order, and launched economic revival and construction, which we have mentioned today. They noted ironically that Maia Sandu cannot say the same about her government because completely opposite processes began in Moldova after she came to power, namely, political persecution, rampant corruption and economic decline. Nobody has heard about “construction projects of the century” during her rule. Here are a few fresh examples to illustrate this.
On May 15, 2024, Maia Sandu said that money from European funds should only be sent to pro-government mayors, and that this money “must not be available to those who stand against the European Union.” Is this democracy? Is this the plurality of opinion? Is it? Is this the freedom of speech? No, this is open segregation of Moldovan citizens based on the principle of “political loyalty.”
On May 16, 2024, the Moldovan parliament adopted amendments to the law on international restrictive measures. In accordance with these amendments, the Security and Intelligence Service of Moldova may initiate denaturalisation proceedings against individuals under Western sanctions. Local experts have pointed out that the authorities now have the ability to cancel the citizenship of members of the opposition and to exclude them from political activities. This is what Western democratic values are about.
An attack on the freedom of speech is ongoing in Moldova. On May 16, 2024, the Moldovan Audiovisual Council initiated the inspection of the TVC21 cable television network on disinformation suspicions. The decision was taken after the network broadcast a statement by opposition politician and former head of Gagauzia Irina Vlah, who said that Moldovan citizens “are afraid to speak openly even in their homes” because of the dictatorial regime.
The Moldovan authorities are mounting pressure on the Gagauzian leaders and trying to block the construction of the family rest and recreation park, Gagauziya Land. Additional ungrounded examinations have been held there, and administrative measures have been applied to its general contractor and subcontractors. This is probably the Western “value” of free competition.
Special mention should be made of the shameful practice of hours-long checks of people, including Moldovan citizens, returning from Russia in Chisinau Airport. According to witness reports, if they ask for a drink of water, Sandu regime officials say that they can drink “from the toilet tank.” I can’ believe I have said it. This is an abominable disregard for human dignity. It is impossible to imagine that people can be humiliated and denied a drink of water on the border.
The most cynical part is that on May 18, 2024, Maia Sandu received the Robert Blum Award for Democracy, endowed with €25,000 in Leipzig, for her “exemplary…, unwavering commitment to democracy” and “respect for the principles of the rule of law.”
People in Moldova have an opposite view of Sandu’s performance. They describe it as “the enforcement of hybrid democracy,” and their support for the idea of European integration is rapidly diminishing. Moldovans are not against democracy as such, but they see that what her regime is doing has nothing to do with it. Aware of their attitude, on May 16, 2024, the Moldovan authorities amended the question for the October 20 referendum on European integration. Initially, the question at the referendum was, “Are you for the Republic of Moldova’s accession to the European Union?” The modified question is ambiguous: “Are you for amending the Constitution to permit the Republic of Moldova’s accession to the European Union?”
Moldovan experts say that by changing the question the authorities have actually testified to failing to implement the project of European integration financed by the West.
In plain words, Moldova and Moldovans were promised questionable and unattainable financial benefits for the betrayal of themselves and their language. They have gone a step further now, saying that there is no such thing as Moldovan ethnicity. Moldovans are being urged to betray their forefathers, themselves and their future generations, their children.
This act of self-exposure connected with the West is not over.
EU’s denial of their own statements about the necessity to defeat Russia “on the battlefield”
It’s hard to believe, but EU members are now claiming they never expressed a desire to defeat Russia “on the battlefield.” They assert that anyone referencing such statements is supposedly misleading the public.
Official Brussels asserts that the European Union maintains a supposedly peaceful stance regarding the Ukraine conflict. This position involves direct fabrications and manipulations, which have become a hallmark of EU diplomacy. For instance, during a European Commission press briefing on May 13, 2024, when a journalist inquired about the EU’s intention to resolve the conflict on the battlefield, the European Commission’s spokesperson, Eric Mamer, responded with a question: “Who started this war, who wants to resolve this on the battlefield? It’s Russia, it’s not the European Union.” Wow. It’s astonishing how people are denying the obvious. The internet remembers everything, and so do we. That’s where we get direct quotes. And I have them.
I would like to draw your attention to the comment posted on the digital resources of the Russian Permanent Mission to the EU, published on May 13. It includes quotes from the aggressive, militaristic statements of the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, about the European Union’s desire to resolve the Ukrainian crisis “on the battlefield.” Specifically, Borrell emphasised this point on April 9, 11, and 21, 2022, May 5, 2023, and February 7, 18, March 25, and May 3, 2024. Not to mention Josep Borrell’s admission that he could end hostilities within two weeks by ceasing the supply of weapons to the Nazis in Kiev, but he chooses not to. He believes it is advantageous for the EU to continue the hybrid war against Russia, using Ukrainian lives and support for the military-industrial complex to try to pull the EU economy out of the crisis caused by its current leadership.
The European Union is now trying to deny its own statements, to deny what it has been insisting on all this time.
We have consistently highlighted the transformation of the EU from a peaceful and economically beneficial project into a militaristic appendage of the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance. This shift is evident in the EU-NATO joint declaration of January 10, 2023, particularly in paragraph 8, which explicitly states that the European Union is an extension of the bloc.
It's evident to everyone how the EU is globally rewriting history. The unfolding narrative we witness in real-time is now revealed to be part of the same Western-centric idea of a “rules-based world order” that we have discussed extensively. We are sure that the world has once again learned what the EU’s words are worth. Such unreliable partners don’t deserve trust.
There are no steadfast rules – they are invented and discarded as convenient. This raises serious doubts about how one can negotiate with them when they not only break promises but also disavow their own words and the principles underlying their speeches, statements, and philosophical, political, and economic concepts. Partners who act this way don’t merit trust.
Here is a piece of advice for them. We just discussed how they are denying their own words. Allow me to remind you, considering the significant influence of American authorities on the European Union, of psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, who famously outlined the five stages of accepting the inevitable, as seen in her book on death and dying. These stages include denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. It seems the European Union is currently stuck in the first stage – denial. We hope they swiftly progress to the fifth stage – acceptance.
Statements by UK Secretary of State for Defence on NATO
We have noted a British media preview of remarks by UK Secretary of State for Defence Grant Shapps at an upcoming security conference in London. Addressing the event, he will presumably insist that non-NATO countries should join the bloc.
We perceive such intentions as yet another confirmation of the fact that that UK authorities strive to use the alliance as a tool for strengthening their own influence in the European region and facilitating its further militarisation.
We are alarmed by the fact that there are plans to expand the bloc’s potential still further by drawing neutral European states into its orbit. We can see that Finland and Sweden have renounced their long-time policy of neutrality and non-alignment with military alliances. They are not even asking their population. It’s just the decision of the leadership of those countries. NATO continues to expand cooperation and deepen its relations with Austria, Ireland, Malta and Switzerland. Some of these countries continue to openly insist that they, nevertheless, remain neutral and retain all bonuses of this status. At the same time, we know what processes are taking place there. We are convinced that this does not strengthen even those remaining elements of the old-time European security concept. A diametrically opposite situation is shaping up.
At the same time, according to a NATO tradition, the bloc overlooks the opinion of these countries’ population. Nobody is asking them. NATO representatives do not think that the people are participants of the democratic process. We can see that they do not publish various documents on relations between neutral European countries and NATO, and they sign agreements behind the scenes. They are doing this in order to deprive their own population of information. They tell the people that they advocate peace, and that, as before, they stick to the concept of their states’ neutrality and non-alignment with military-political alliances. The real situation is slightly different, and the authorities in the capitals of these countries believe that their own people should remain ignorant of that.
The experience of Ireland shows that the country’s authorities are methodically expanding their interaction with the alliance under the pretext of certain illusory threats to the state’s security and defence capability that allegedly emanate from Russia. At the same time, the government of Ireland is studying the possibility of mitigating national legislation that regulates the deployment of the Irish armed forces abroad. It appears that Dublin prefers not to think about the consequences of renouncing the policy of neutrality. Well, this is an ill-conceived approach.
Norway restricted entry rules for Russian citizens
Today, the Norwegian government has announced yet another anti-Russia step expressed in introducing new, stricter entry rules for Russian citizens travelling to Norway with tourist purposes. Actually, the Norwegian Embassy in Moscow suspended the issue of tourist visas back in 2022. Under the new procedure, Russian holders of a current Schengen visa issued by Norway or any other Schengen country arriving to Norway with tourist purposes will be denied entry as of May 29, 2024.
According to the Norwegian authorities, this decision conforms to Norway’s stance on the need for aligning its response towards Russia with that of its allies. Previously, however, Norwegian officials repeatedly claimed that Oslo’s restrictive measures were not directed against the Russian people. These high-sounding words, as we can now see, have nothing to do with reality.
Oslo’s new unfriendly step is of an openly discriminatory nature and targets none other than Russian citizens. It is aimed at destroying for good any ties between the people of Russia and Norway.
We proceed from the premise that the Norwegian leaders are aware that there will be retaliatory measures in response to these unfriendly steps, measures that we will draw up and implement based on our interests.
For our part, we have no intention to shield ourselves from Norwegian citizens. We are always glad to welcome those, who come to our country with good intentions. To reiterate: this does not mean that there will be no retaliation. Retaliatory measures will certainly be introduced.
Denmark’s financial support to the White Helmets organisation in Syria
Concerning the matter of duplicity and the breach of their own commitments and international law by representatives of the collective West.
We have noted information regarding the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ intentions to allocate $5.6 million, facilitated through the US Agency for International Development, over the next two years for the purported “humanitarian” activity of the non-government organisation White Helmets.
Allow me to emphasise that this is a pseudo-humanitarian entity functioning in regions of the Syrian Arab Republic not controlled by the Syrian government. Why aren’t these territories under the control of the Syrian government? It’s because Western powers are restricting access to them. According to Danish authorities, their support, framed as backing the “invaluable” work of this organisation, reflects their dedication to fostering comprehensive peace and stability.
The so-called non-government organisation White Helmets (which we’ve dubbed pseudo-humanitarian) was established in the Syrian city of Idlib in 2014, conceived by the intelligence services of several Western nations. It’s worth noting that this pseudo-humanitarian initiative was created to orchestrate provocations against the legitimate Syrian authorities, the Syrian people, and to undermine Russian counter-terrorism efforts in the Syrian Arab Republic. For these objectives, the US, the United Kingdom, and their closest allies in the anti-Assad coalition, which includes Germany, Denmark, Japan, and others, allocated a substantial amount of foreign funding to the White Helmets in 2013-2016, estimated at around $150 million. This figure is only based on publicly available data and media reports. The actual amount and sources of funding provided to them are yet to be fully investigated.
Behind the political and public advocacy for the White Helmets, founded by the late retired British military officer and leader of the non-government organisation Mayday Rescue, James Le Mesurier, lies the private company Syrian Campaign, registered in the UK. Who owns it? It is owned by the Breakthrough Media agency, which, since 2012, has established over 70 “humanitarian” non-government organisations in the territories of Syria controlled by illegal armed groups.
What is it? Primarily, it’s a corporate network established by the deep states of the collective West – primarily the United Kingdom and the US. It’s funded by the governments of Britain and other countries of the collective West, as well as by entities masquerading as humanitarian and non-government organisations. In reality, this organisation functions as a consortium serving the interests of intelligence agencies in the UK and the US.
Allow me to refresh your memory about James Le Mesurier. On November 11, 2019, he was found dead in Istanbul under suspicious circumstances. Just three days prior to his death, he sent an email to foreign donors of the White Helmets, acknowledging his involvement in the financial irregularities conducted by the Mayday Rescue company with funds designated for supporting this organisation. Three days later, he passed away under mysterious circumstances. It’s worth noting that during that time, certain Anglo-Saxon ideologists attempted to attribute blame to our country. However, they soon ceased their accusations, likely due to the damning nature of the revelations, prompting them to swiftly drop the matter.
The White Helmets cooperated directly with international terrorists who helped them create false “evidence of the crimes committed by the Assad regime.” In particular, they have established particularly close ties with the murderous thugs from Jabhat al-Nusra which is al-Qaeda’s Middle Eastern offshoot and is now known as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which remains active in the Idlib de-escalation area. All of the above organisations have been banned and outlawed.
The White Helmets have repeatedly been caught red-handed fabricating and planting blatantly fake claims, including staged pieces of news about the Syrian military allegedly using chemical warfare agents against civilians. They have stained themselves by participating in actions to intimidate local residents (arsons and water blockades of a number of population centres) and by committing war crimes in Syria, including executions and torture of military personnel and civilians, just like the terrorists, including Jabhat al-Nusra.
It is a well-known fact that obscure schemes portrayed as humanitarian efforts were used to direct foreign fund to support the White Helmets in 2014-2017. Mostly British tranches in the amount of at least 200 million pounds were eventually deposited with the bank accounts held by the functionaries from al-Nusra and other Syrian neo-jihadist organisations. It is a series of terrible crimes, political opportunism and corruption, as is always the case with the West.
Over time, their deceitful activities have led to the White Helmets losing its credibility, especially after their failed attempts to stage chemical attacks. Do you remember the harrowing footage of them supposedly rescuing children, trying to wash their faces and rinse their eyes and mouths with water? Later, it transpired that it was a staged performance, not a chemical attack allegedly carried out by the Syrian government. Meanwhile, their Western sponsors had more urgent tasks to attend to outside Syria. The pragmatic interest of the Westerners in this organisation has clearly subsided.
Now, mainly under the pretext of providing relief to a devastating earthquake in Syria in 2023, London and Washington have a convenient excuse to save money on the upkeep of the White Helmets, as they try to bring other Westerners over to help this “non-governmental organisation” stay afloat. They have made this battle-tested resource fully operational, so there’s no reason to give up on it. This is where the Danish government came in.
Danish officials have agreed to allocate $5.6 million under another two-year USAID programme, this time concocted specifically to be carried out by the White Helmets allegedly to help the civilians affected by the natural disaster and the ongoing Syria conflict. Judging by the amounts involved, these funds are peanuts compared to the amount of the Western funds poured into the White Helmets earlier. Now that the direct political payoff from their activities in Syria is not too large, they can be put on a stricter funding diet with the participation of Copenhagen, but still used whenever their services are needed.
Funding provided by Denmark to the terrorist accomplices in Syria is a compelling example of Copenhagen’s direct involvement in Washington’s subversive plans to destabilise unwanted sovereign countries in its reckless push to please the United States. Sponsoring the White Helmets and other irresponsible steps by the Danish authorities, including flooding the neo-Nazi Kiev regime with armaments, have long undermined Denmark’s credibility, even though it continues to paint itself as a champion of international law and is seeking election as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for 2025-2026.
The German Foreign Ministry’s reply to the note from the Russian Embassy in Berlin
The Government of Germany is making the same statements at various international organisations and pseudo-international human rights organisations (that live up to their designation and names) that their country’s people remember specific mistakes and lessons that Germany, its people and ruling elites learned from the tragedy that happened in the first half of the 20th century. At that time, Germany started spreading a monstrous Nazi ideology, and it placed the world on the brink of a nightmarish disaster, from which the Soviet Union and its allied countries, members of the Anti-Hitler Coalition, saved the planet.
German authorities are saying all the time that they are guided precisely by a feeling of responsibility for historical crimes, while implementing their current foreign policy. They are apparently guided by a feeling of guilt, while taking various steps in international relations or implementing their domestic policy. They are constantly citing the lessons of the past that they have learned so well, plus efforts to correct their mistakes in the name of future generations.
However, German authorities stubbornly refuse to officially recognise crimes against humanity, perpetrated by the Third Reich in the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, as acts of genocide, primarily the siege of Leningrad. This ensues from the recent reply by the German Foreign Ministry to a respective demand from the Russian side.
At the same time, the German side is displaying open hypocrisy and duplicity. I believe that it violates everything, including ethics, morals and legality. Earlier, the German side confirmed at political level that such terrible acts of the German state as the annihilation of the Jews during World War II and the methodical extermination of the Herero and Nama peoples in 1904-1908, amounted to acts of genocide. It appears that Berlin is trying to impose a convenient scale for grading various atrocities and crimes against humanity on the international community. They are inventing a system for grading various levels of dehumanisation, various tiers and a scale for measuring these atrocities. Does the German leadership think that no one remembers history, while accusing other states of something all the time? We remember, and we know that they prompted us and were virtually forcing us to forget history. We know the reason why. However, we remember history, and we will never forget it.
We strongly condemn and reject the position of German authorities on this issue. There is an expression “mixed feelings.” No, this position evokes a permanent feeling of disgust because it is immoral.
Berlin has unveiled the hidden motive of its political approaches towards Germany’s dark historical past, with German politicians and diplomats actively boasting that they have assessed it down to the smallest detail. German actions aim to erode and forget Germany’s historical guilt for committing horrendous crimes against millions of Soviet citizens of various ethnicities and religious affiliations.
However, we are not only talking about ourselves, and we are not forgetting other nations either. Russia will continue to demand the reinstatement of historical justice, as well as the recognition of the obvious fact of the Third Reich’s genocide of the Soviet Union’s nationalities, at all levels and international platforms.
Question: On May 21, the EU and Moldova signed a security and defence partnership. Could you comment on this?
Maria Zakharova: According to media reports, the agreement is formally aimed at “combating disinformation,” terrorism and cyber threats, and strengthening the Moldovan armed forces.
However, given the Moldovan leadership’s policy of integration into Euro-Atlantic bodies, and bearing in mind that the European Union has long turned into a NATO appendage, there is no doubt that the agreement you mentioned is actually aimed at pulling Moldova even closer to NATO, further militarising the republic and eroding its neutral status enshrined in the Constitution. Independent Moldovan experts are openly saying that Brussels – and Washington, which is egging it on – are vigorously preparing Moldova for becoming a new Ukraine.
Or this may be even worse – and perhaps more cynical. With Ukraine, Washington at least decided to destroy the country through a nationalist confrontation, inciting discord between different ethnic groups, which eventually devolved into a Nazi conflict. In Moldova, they are using a hitherto unseen practice of cancelling people’s ethnic identity and declaring them part of a different ethno-cultural group. Although closely related, that group is still different.
Now, I will take work home and make a list of historical examples where people were forced to sign themselves out of one ethnic group and henceforth identify with another. I cannot think of a single historical example – but I assume there must be gaps in my knowledge, which I will make an effort to fill. I can’t remember a case where a language would be “renamed.” Perhaps my memory fails me, so I will read up on this. A situation where people would be forced to admit that their ethnicity did not exist, and told to be called something else, while the same policy was being applied to their language. I cannot think of such historical crimes in their totality. I believe that these are elements of genocide. Humanity has already gone through many trials and learned to destroy itself in different ways, but this is something new.
The details of the EU-Moldova security and defence partnership agreement have yet to be assessed. On the other hand, history shows that no “assistance” of the West, which is guided by its centuries-old colonial (and largely racist) experience, has ever led to prosperity, stability, security, or development. Unfortunately, it never ended well for the recipients of such assistance. I am confident that this fully applies to Moldova. But at the same time, I would like to note that the people in Moldova, its citizens, representatives of various ethnic or cultural groups, are putting up strong resistance. They are not about to allow this blasphemous crime to be committed against them.
Question: According to media reports, Kiev has changed the agenda of the “peace summit” on Ukraine in Switzerland. Its new priorities allegedly include nuclear safety, food safety and prisoner exchanges. Vladimir Zelensky told Reuters about this. How does this change the prospects for this forum?
Maria Zakharova: I would advise you not only to double-check what Vladimir Zelensky says or at least cross-reference it with his previous statements, but also to make a broader fact-checking effort, as they say in the West. For one simple reason: everything you have just said quoting his statement to a Western agency, was on the peace summit agenda anyway.
This does not rule out the consideration of the other components of the failed Zelensky formula at subsequent stages.
In fact, we have at our disposal the draft final communiqué of the summit. I will quote from it (the draft is expected to be signed, adopted, and approved):
“We instruct our authorised representatives to refine this framework [for a peace settlement] during a series of dedicated conferences and meetings that will take place in the coming months.” That is followed by a list of subjects the conferences will focus on, which includes nine out of the 10 points of the Zelensky formula. These include ultimatums to Russia to withdraw troops, a return to the 1991 borders, the “justice” clause, which implies the establishment of an anti-Russia tribunal, the payment of reparations and the use of Russia’s frozen assets as compensation for damage. The 10th point, which refers to signing an international treaty confirming the end of hostilities, is not included.
It is clear from the above that the organisers of the Ukraine summit in Switzerland have not taken a different approach or changed the agenda. I think that, to avoid propagating misinformation, such quotes from Western agencies should be replicated with a footnote and a reference to documents. I am more than sure that a Western agency would have little difficulty obtaining this draft communiqué, given that all the documents for the Kiev regime are written in Western capitals.
The planned meeting in Bürgenstock and subsequent events are an extension of the Copenhagen process, which has already failed. Any follow-up is also doomed to failure.
Question: Ireland, Spain and Norway have announced they will recognise the independence of Palestine. How could you comment on these countries’ decision?
Maria Zakharova: Indeed, Ireland, Spain and Norway have announced their recognition of the State of Palestine to take effect on May 28. This is a sovereign decision of these nations. Our country recognised the State of Palestine back in 1988; we have diplomatic relations and corresponding diplomatic missions.
The move by the three European countries testify that the ongoing tragic events in the Gaza Strip, dozens of civilian deaths every day and the unprecedented humanitarian crisis cannot but provoke a response from the international community, which is becoming increasingly aware of the need to achieve peace in the Middle East through the two-state solution. This is yet another evidence of Russia’s consistent diplomatic stance and its foreign policy.
Russia has consistently advocated the two-state solution during all stages of the conflict since 1947, when the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the partition plan for Palestine. We see this approach as the most reliable way to fulfil the Palestinian people’s hopes, ensure Israel’s national security, and stabilise the situation in the entire Middle East in the long-term.
I should note that the decisions taken by the aforementioned states amidst tragic events are driven not solely by their political, emotional and humanitarian assessment of the current developments. They are based on international law: these states act in accordance with and in the spirit of the UN-adopted relevant documents, with many of those having been formalised throughout decades. As regards international law, these countries’ actions are legitimate.
I have noted Washington’s derogatory assessment of their actions, with the White House and the State Department, through experts or just directly, claiming that they allegedly do not have the right to do this or should not do so.
The United States has demonstrated both double standards and a lack of those on numerous occasions. But this one is the most glaring case of unprincipled behaviour. The mentioned countries – Ireland, Spain and Norway – act in accordance with corresponding international laws.
Obviously, symbolic gestures and declarative statements are not enough today. We have seen the outcome of the discussion that have taken place within the collective West during recent months, which has once again ignored the humanitarian catastrophe in the region. Then they made attempts to play with words, hiding behind certain statements and trying to develop some sort of stance without defining a principled position. They failed to find words of condemnation for all their partners in the alliance who blocked the UNSC decision aimed at achieving peace or, at least,. The Security Council made efforts to act primarily in the interests of civilians in the region. The collective West failed to condemn those who undermined the work of the Security Council in this regard. This has led to this humanitarian catastrophe becoming global, an unprecedented case in recent years and decades. The region has gone through many tragedies, but the scale of the ongoing crisis is truly outstanding.
The need to move from words to action is urgent. Double standards should be abandoned in order to overcome the growing confrontation in the region, which risks plunging into a major armed conflict.
In this context, we once again emphasise the urgent need to take collective diplomatic efforts and coordinate work to provide necessary conditions for launching the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations on a set of permanent status issues. This process should take place through a multilateral support mechanism, with a key role played by regional states, and result in establishing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, living in peace and security with Israel under internationally approved legal principles.
Question: On May 14, Romanian Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu said “there are only Romanians and no one else in the Republic of Moldova. There are no more Moldovans, there is no more Moldovan language, there is the Romanian language and there are Romanians.” What can you say in this regard?
Maria Zakharova: I have a counterquestion. Will the Romanian Prime Minister who said there are Romanians and no one else in the Republic of Moldova, clarify if there are, for example, Jews in Moldova? I’d love to know that. I’ve heard and read something along these lines before.
Remember the narrative about true Aryans and destroying everything that doesn’t fit the mould? We remember the stance adopted by Romania during the years of triumphant and extremely destructive Nazism and fascism in Europe.
Is that about Nazism reincarnation throughout the world? Where is everyone? We are fully aware of the razor-sharp responses invariably provided by the Israeli government. What about this time? Will they let it go unnoticed? What are we supposed to think about a high-ranking Romanian official saying that there are only Romanians in Moldova? What about other ethnicities? We will provide our assessment and continue to do so going forward. However, everyone should do so as well, including monoethnic countries that protect the people of their ethnicity throughout the world, international organisations that are funded solely to protect human rights and to prevent the rebirth of Nazism and fascism, or any other anti-human practices.
Clearly, Bucharest is engaging in wishful thinking when it comes to matters of history. I would like to remind them that Moldovan statehood, the Moldovan language and culture are much older than the Romanian statehood, language and culture. This is a historical fact. Never in my life could I imagine that our country would protect Moldovan culture, history and language and that the Foreign Ministry will protect, literally on a weekly and sometimes even daily basis, the citizens of Moldova, ethnic Moldovans, from encroachment on their ethnic and cultural identity.
Let us refresh the memory of the Prime Minister of Romania and all other members of this “sect” of the proponents of this ideology and remind them about the historical facts related to Bucharest.
The independence and statehood of modern Moldavia date back to 1359, and the terms “Moldavians” and the “land of Moldavia” were widely used since the second half of the 16th century. Meanwhile, ethnonyms “Romanian” in Romanian sources first appeared in 1521, and then in 1602. The name “Romania” did not exist until the 19th century. Officially it began to be used only in 1862. That is, the time difference between the early statehood of Moldavia and the official mention of the name “Romania” is over 500 years in favour of Moldavia. This is what the real history looks like. These are facts. No one in Bucharest can dispute them. This is unadulterated history, which is not marred by political considerations, ideological manipulations, or the influence of any isolated groups.
Interestingly, such provocative statements by Romanian officials, which constitute a flagrant interference in Moldova’s domestic affairs, remain without a proper response from official Chisinau. Moldovan authorities are fond of accusing Russia of “disrespect” and “disinformation”, but chose to keep silence this time. Why? Maia Sandu is pursuing precisely this policy. She is against the people of Moldova. She holds a Romanian passport and clearly plays on the side of Bucharest.
Not only she, though. Almost everyone in the Moldovan government, including President Sandu, is a Romanian citizen. The high-ranking officials of the republic openly state that they are Romanians, and are doing everything to wipe out concepts such as “Moldovan culture,” “Moldovan history,” or “Moldovan language” and to dissolve them in the “European family” which is something completely different and involves respect for language and ethnic minorities and recognises their every interest no matter how small. Seen from the perspective of the European values, democracy is the power of the majority with account taken of the opinion of the minority, respect of their positions and preservation of their cultural, historical, and ethnic identity.
According to independent political analysts in Moldova, Maia Sandu does not believe in viability of the Moldovan state, does not respect it and has set a goal to have Moldova join the EU as part of Romania. She does not say so, though. She keeps promising bright future in the form of European integration and saying that Moldova will have an independent position. They are doing everything to wipe out the notion of Moldova.
Moldovans remember what similar Anschluss ended up with earlier in history. The Romanian occupation of 1918-1940 was marked by robberies and shootings of the people of Bessarabia. Local analysts draw parallels with the events of those years, spotlighting the Sandu regime’s crackdown on opposition, the suppression of freedom of speech and dissent in Moldova, as well as wide presence of Romanian ex-officials in the Moldovan government.
To reiterate, we will take your questions and stand up for the truth, justice, and history in the context of our international legal obligations.
However, the position of Moldovan citizens, who are desperately trying to uphold their history, the future of their children and their identity, culture and ethnicity is what really matters.
Question: The EU plans to start formal membership talks with Ukraine and Moldova on June 25, Politico writes, citing five diplomats. How realistic is their accession to the EU? What effect could this have on the member states?
Maria Zakharova: I have talked about this just now. This is not the new members’ accession to the EU but their dispersal in NATO-centric entities or mechanisms.
It is not an equal or full participation like membership in the CIS, the SCO, BRICS, the CSTO or even G20. The accession conditions are humiliating, for example, they include requests to change domestic life, from culture to the economy and from history to legislation, to be able to get to a step or a shelf the Western ideologists designate for the candidate country.
They are doing this to have free access to the candidates’ resources in the interests of the collective West; to replenish Western pantries with Ukrainian and Moldovan wealth; to freely use their workforce and territory; and to expand Western influence in the region without feeling obliged or giving anything in return. This is not the membership of Ukraine and Moldova in the EU but NATO’s eastward expansion. This has been proved true. It is exclusively a geopolitical instrument of promoting rivalry and domination in Europe used by those who for centuries passed on the ideology or legacy of inequality, imperialism and colonialism from one generation to another.
The EU authorities’ imperial expansionist plans do not have a leg to stand on and are being implemented contrary to the approved accession criteria, which is weakening the EU’s political and economic positions in the multipolar world. They did it in 2004, during the largest enlargement stage when the EU significantly expanded its borders to the east, and they are trying to do the same now. The EU’s tricks with Ukraine and Moldova’s integration reflects the essence of the rules-based world order built on the exclusive right of the West to arbitrarily change conditions and agreements depending on the current situation, without giving anything in return or compensating the losses of those who are being deceived this time.
The attempts to draw new dividing lines in Europe will not strengthen stability, security or trust of the Global Majority countries in the EU. The West engaged in the same kind of geopolitical engineering in Africa and Asia. There is no doubt that these developments don’t meet the fundamental interests of Europeans, whom the EU’s leadership is forcing to pay for the West’s confrontation policies and strategic mistakes.
It should be said that the European Union was established as the European Economic Community on the principles of equality and equal possibilities, so as to minimise outlays and hence accelerate economic growth. The main objectives were to cut unnecessary spending, tightened economic ties and mobilise economy, in particular after WWII, as a way to revive Europe and overcome the horrible consequences of Nazism and fascism.
It was in this atmosphere that the European Economic Community was established and eventually became the European Union. They spoke about simplifying border crossing and reducing the number of dividing lines to stimulate humanitarian, cultural, education and other exchanges and aligning capabilities to improve economic results. It was their main goal.
Look at the current situation: their economies are not and will not be growing (a total failure in this area), and there are new dividing lines, including those resulting from the implementation of geopolitical scenarios written in Washington. During the pandemic, the EU split into more and less contagious countries overnight, without any solid reason for the division. And then they started fighting for vaccines, over vaccines and over the cost of vaccines. But the worst part is that the goal of economic growth, which was at the top of their agenda, has become unattainable because of imbalances created by geopolitics imported mostly from Washington but also to a large degree from London.
Regrettably, this scenario will be enacted in the candidate countries, where large sections of the economy, domestic life and legislation will be paralysed. The new members will weigh down on and increase the cost of living for people in the “old” EU countries. We can imagine the result of the next stage of this “engineering.”
The outgoing EU leaders, who have become the loyal vassals of the US, keep trying to involve the union into reckless geopolitical schemes, knowing that it will be the next generations of EU citizens who will have to find solutions. Add economic problems and open conflicts on the European continent, and you will see what this will come to.
Question: Recently, the UN Security Council rejected the Russian resolution on banning all weapons in space. Why did this happen? What are the main obstacles to maintaining security in outer space?
Maria Zakharova: We commented on this on May 21.
We are disappointed by the vote on Russia’s draft resolution on preventing an arms race in space and on space security, which was co-sponsored by China. Despite all our steps to take into account US proposals, the United States and its allies voted down our constructive and comprehensive initiative.
As a sponsor of a number of significant initiatives on preventing an arms race in space, the Russian Federation will invariably continue to contribute to keeping outer space free from weapons of any type and preventing it from being turned into yet another sphere of tensions and armed confrontation. We will consistently keep true to our commitment to space exploration being undertaken solely for peaceful purposes, for the benefit of the whole of mankind, and on an equitable basis.
The main obstacle to maintaining security and to the peaceful use of outer space is the US-led collective West’s destructive and uncooperative approach. Thus, these destructive moves have dealt yet another blow to the UN Security Council.
Question: In his remarks at the 32nd Assembly of the Council for Foreign and Defence Policy on May 18 of this year, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said: “I have read the materials drafted by some CFDP members, including reflections on what constitutes “true alliance” in our times, an alliance that aligns with Russia’s interests. This issue deserves a special discussion. We are willing to debate and discuss the ideas from these articles that are aimed at building a genuine alliance with China.” What did he mean by saying a “true alliance” with China? What could distinguish this alliance from the existing relations between Russia and China? Does it imply a military alliance between the two countries?
Maria Zakharova: President of Russia Vladimir Putin stressed in his public addresses that we do not create military alliances or blocs with anyone, including with the People’s Republic of China. This is a position of principle enshrined in the doctrinal documents. Both Moscow and Beijing are averse to bloc thinking and closed military alliances in principle, regarding them as vestiges of the Cold War era.
Our friendship is not directed against anyone and is meant to benefit the two of us. As the world’s biggest neighbouring nations with a long land border, we consistently promote close interaction in the defence area and strengthen military-technical cooperation. This is one of the aspects of our multifaceted ties. At the same time, Russia and China have no clandestine agenda and cooperate as equals. There are no leaders or those led, while our bilateral relations are not steeped in ideology. Both Russia and China prioritise protection of their own national interests and pay much heed to the partner’s position. But they do not bind each other by formal commitments. This enables both sides, at this stage, to retain flexibility, while ensuring efficiency in decision-making. It is this trust-based and constructive approach that underpins our mutually respectful dialogue.
This is radically different from the heavy-handed administrative discipline and a strict, inequality-based hierarchy existing within NATO and transplanted to its emerging “branches” in the Asia Pacific region, where the United States commands the parade “with one voice,” disregarding the views of its “allies,” both “old” and “new,” whose basic interests are sacrificed to the Anglo-Saxon ideology. These rules of the game are unacceptable for Moscow and Beijing.
It is for this reason that we say that current Russian-Chinese relations represent a more advanced type of interstate collaboration as compared to the military-political alliances of the Cold War era. They are not based on a bloc or confrontational approach, nor directed against third countries. This formula is enshrined in the Joint Statement on Enhancing Russian-Chinese Relations of Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic Cooperation Entering a New Era in the context of the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The document was approved by the presidents of Russia and China during President Vladimir Putin’s state visit to the PRC on May 16-17.
Moreover, Russian-Chinese relations, which are going through their best period in history, are developing in an environment other than a vacuum. They are constantly adjusted to new challenges and threats and filled with new content in a situation of rapid geopolitical transformations. This is an entirely natural and active process. But this assessment of advances in our bilateral relations does not mean that they cannot be improved still further.
Question: What can you say about yesterday’s statement by Nikol Pashinyan that at least two CSTO countries were involved in preparations for the war in Karabakh against Armenia in 2020?
Maria Zakharova: There’s that song that says “go figure it out on your own, handsome.” I wonder what countries Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan was talking about? Should we make our own guess? Or will they tell us later? When we are talking about such serious statements, it would be logical to make them public. However, let us leave this to official Yerevan.
Speaking of Russia, it did everything possible, so that, as Vladimir Putin said live on Russian television on November 17, 2020, “I can assure you that Armenia did not feel abandoned or forgotten.”
Since the first days of the armed conflict that erupted in the autumn of 2020, the Russian side exerted the most active political and diplomatic efforts to achieve a ceasefire. The relevant statements, media reports and press releases were posted on the website of the President of the Russian Federation and the Russian Foreign Ministry. Official commentaries, including those by the Foreign Ministry, followed every step that we made.
Vladimir Putin had multiple telephone conversations with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan. An initial truce was declared following talks between Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers that were organised by Sergey Lavrov on October 10, 2020.
I would like to recall that it was possible to sign a ceasefire agreement as early as in October. Back then, Vladimir Putin persuaded Ilham Aliyev to stop the war, and he was ready to do so, but Nikol Pashinyan insisted on continuing hostilities. Consequently, Shusha was seized, and the road to Stepanakert lay open. Everyone remembers this well. There are documents to prove this.
President Vladimir Putin’s personal involvement made it possible to facilitate the signing of a tripartite agreement on November 9, 2020; the document announced a complete ceasefire. The document, as well as the tripartite agreements between national leaders of 2021 and 2022, remains the only roadmap for the sustained process of normalising relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan to which there’s no alternative.
Question: Is it possible to say that the United Kingdom has changed its position on British missile strikes against Russian territory? Secretary of State for Defence Grant Shapps has noted that London still forbids Kiev to deliver such strikes. In effect, he disavowed a statement by his colleague, Secretaryof State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development AffairsDavid Cameron, who noted that Ukraine could make independent decisions on this issue. Whom should we trust?
Maria Zakharova: You should trust the Russian Foreign Ministry. In retrospect, we regularly remind everyone about our forecasts and statements that are now coming true.
This is not the first time that UK defence and foreign secretaries contradict each other. Think about stupid and mean statements by their predecessors, including UK prime ministers. Boris Johnson made numerous statements, while serving in multiple positions. The same is true of Liz Truss, Theresa May and others. There have been so many false accusations, threats and slander with regard to Russia. You should not trust them. You should record their statements and present them as evidence when they start going back on their words.
I said today that the European Union is trying to backpedal and to claim that it has never said that the outcome of the Ukraine crisis should be decided on the battlefield, and that Russia had allegedly called for this. We presented evidence. This is the same situation. You are aware of the statements by the Prime Minister of the UK and the King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about the upcoming general election and the appointment of a new government. Statements by Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs David Cameron are irresponsible and mean. We can say the same about the incoherent and contradictory response by the Secretary of State for Defence. They will probably sink into oblivion pending the establishment of a new government. We should look at new personalities and assess their statements. Such are the vicissitudes of Western and liberal democracy.
I would now like to say a few words about our steps. On May 6, 2024, His Majesty’s Ambassador in Moscow, Nigel Casey, was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry. During the conversation, he duly confirmed that London would stick to its official position to allow the Kiev regime to use long-range British weapons for launching strikes within internationally recognised Ukrainian borders. However, this does not prevent high-ranking British officials, including his direct superior and the British establishment to make eloquent statements that can be interpreted, as one sees fit. Maybe, His Majesty’s Ambassador does not answer to David Cameron; you should ask them about this. Most important, the Kiev regime is interpreting their words this way.
It is common knowledge that, during his visit to Kiev, David Cameron told Reuters that Ukraine had a right to hit Russian territory using British weapons. Was this an unsuccessful PR stunt, or did he disavow the official position? This is up to them to find out. Maybe, this also caused the current domestic political crisis.
We have drawn our conclusions. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement of May 6, 2024 warns openly that any British military sites or equipment on Ukrainian territory and elsewhere might be targeted in response to Ukrainian strikes involving British weapons against Russian territory. Verbal gymnastics by London’s official representatives, including Grant Shapps’ statements, will not change this position. As I have already said, the UK is in for changes. We shall wait and see what new Downing Street and Foreign Office residents will have to say.
Question: The Estonian Orthodox Church is under attack in Estonia. The authorities are calling on the Orthodox Church leaders to sever canonical relations with the Moscow Patriarchate. In addition, Estonia has declared Russian Orthodox Church an “institution of justifying aggression.” Why have the authorities started to interfere in the internal church affairs right now? How can Russian Foreign Ministry help in such a case, does it have the relevant instruments?
Maria Zakharova: We are active in promoting the defence of traditional values on the international agenda. We have been saying for many years that they are in jeopardy. They want to annihilate them. This is happening against the background of the West’s speculations about the protection of religious freedoms, pluralism of opinions, and so on. In fact, they are being destroyed by the collective West and all those whom its hand and funding touches. It delivers blows against traditional religions.
The Foreign Ministry organised many events in defence of Christians all over the world, including in the Middle East, where international terrorists and those who were behind them (their Western sponsors) did everything to destroy Christianity, including the Orthodox Christianity in the Middle East and North Africa. We have seen such “runs” for many years and in different forms.
In Ukraine, destruction of the Orthodox Christianity has been gaining momentum for many years. They call it church “separation” or “division.” Actually, this is an attack that was to undermine the positions of Christianity and strike at the believers by dividing them and setting them against each other and directly against religion. Destruction of churches, re-registration of the parishioners, the use of the parish for absolutely other purposes, distortion of the canonical interpretation of the tenets and oppressions against Orthodox clergy – this is a short list. We have published a large report.
In other countries these trends have no less speed. Here comes the turn of the Baltic countries. I commented on this subject in detail at the April 25 briefing. These are direct threats, attempts of direct interference of authorities and law enforcement agencies in the internal affairs of the church, religious organisations and imposition of political ideology, including through intimidation under the pain of liquidating parishes. This is a violation of all the commitments undertaken. But the main thing is a terrible goal, connected not just with a split of Christianity, but with an attempt to destroy or pervert the tenets and values that have been sacredly kept by the followers of this religion for centuries and have been meaningful for them.
It seems that the Baltic countries, specifically Estonia, are pushing people of one religion against each other, setting them against various institutions of government, civil society, and the church itself. These are heinous, terrible processes. But there is nothing new about them. Nobody invented them now. They are just repetition of the scenarios that have been practiced in other countries.
Question: Russia consistently complains about violations of the rights of Russians in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to international organisations. However, leaders in these republics have been known to engage in discriminatory actions against our compatriots, such as urging them to give up their native language. These actions also include deportations and attacks on the Russian Orthodox Church. Why Russia is being disregarded? Why is this happening?
Maria Zakharova: The rights of Russians and Russian speakers in other countries are always a priority for us.
In the Baltic countries, this issue is not only chronic but it has become aggravated in recent years. Historically, the Russian-speaking population there has faced significant challenges to their rights, spanning several decades. The official authorities seem to have shed their historical complexes and are operating outside the bounds of legality. It is evident that in these states, as well as in other Western countries, there is a blatant and widespread discrimination against Russians, Russian speakers, and all things Russian. The same applies to your previous question. You asked about the interference by the Estonian authorities into the internal affairs of the Estonian Orthodox Church. This can be attributed to Tallinn’s aggressive agenda to dismantle all aspects associated with Russia and the Russian world, including the language, culture, and the Russian Orthodox Church. They are exploring the entire system of ties that keep people together, both now and in the historical context.
The problem of widespread statelessness in Latvia and Estonia remains unresolved. The non-citizens (the majority of whom are Russian speakers) are denied various political, social, and economic rights. Despite recommendations by the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities urging the member states to root out statelessness as the main obstacle to people’s full involvement in social and economic life, no progress has been made in practice.
We see gross violations of linguistic, educational, civic, and political rights of non-citizens, ethnic minorities, and ethnic groups. By contrast, when refugees or migrants come to the European Union or the Baltic countries, they are entitled to humanitarian aid, jobs, school or kindergarten education for children, and specialised healthcare programmes. This is an entire system of support for people, who have never had any relation to the history, culture, or the economy of a country they have entered. The reasons for their arrival vary. We will not discuss here whether their coming is legal or otherwise. This is a matter for relevant procedures and authorities. Nevertheless, upon entering a country, they are entitled to a comprehensive package of benefits, often on a long-term basis. This means that those who have lived in the same Baltic states for ages, investing their labour, love, soul, and heart into these places, including their cultural heritage passed down through generations, find their contributions nil and void. Despite their significant inputs into the economy, industry, and science… They want to live in peace, speak their language, and receive education in that language, and they have every right to do so, as per their permanent residency in these states and the international obligations of these countries. However, they are deprived of these rights solely due to the political and opportunistic stances of these regimes. This manipulation is directly funded by the Anglo-Saxons, who exploit these regimes to strip the Russian-speaking population of their rights. It is a horrible, unprecedented and manipulative story.
We remember and will never forget the crimes of Nazism and the ideology of Nazism and fascism. We believe it is completely impossible to justify them even one iota. We would like to state that this was announced in public – domination of one nation over another. The legislation based on international law, which was signed by the Baltic countries, have fixed completely opposite ideas – preservation of the rights of national minorities, respect for their culture, the preservation of their language and a guaranteed right to education in native tongue. Meanwhile, they are doing the opposite and it is even worse than Europe’s monstrous experience in the 1940s because it is aggravated by terrible perfidy, hypocrisy and lies.
After all, we are seeing how crudely the language, education, civic and political rights of non-citizens and ethnic minorities are violated. International human rights structures are not just ignoring this ideology. They are promoting it directly. Thus, the European Court of Human Rights recognised the legitimacy of the education reform in Latvia. Meanwhile, its implementation eliminated the two-language education system. All schools and kindergartens have been transferred exclusively to instruction in Latvian. Access to education in mother tongue is absent at all other levels as well. We are talking about a state where Russian is the second most common language. It cannot be even called a language of a minority. It is not respected as a language of a national minority. It is denied even this mandatory status.
I cannot fail to mention the humiliating practice of forcibly testing “non-citizens” for the knowledge of the state language. Why is this humiliating? Because quite often, even native speakers cannot pass this exam. It is politicised to the utmost. It is opportunistic. It is an instrument of segregation. One more humiliating aspect is the need to fill in forms for a test of loyalty. These forms have questions about the affiliation of Crimea and the reasons for the special military operation. Those who give “wrong” answers may be labelled as disloyal and deported. This is exactly what is happening now.
Lithuania is not free of Russophobic manifestations, either. It is enough to mention a disgraceful decision to deprive Russian ballerina Ilze Liepa of Lithuanian citizenship for making statements that differed from the official position. Figure skater Margarita Drobyazko was also subjected to illegal discriminatory persecution.
Estonia is not falling behind in its offensive on the rights of national minorities and the Russian language. Even the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted in its reports on Estonia the “punitive approach” of the Tallinn authorities to the observance of the language law and systematic discrimination of a part of the population, mostly “non-citizens” for insufficient fluency in Estonian. The country has stopped educating Russian language teachers. Russian has been ousted from the system of universities, including private ones. The interests of the Russian ethnic minority and Russian speakers are completely ignored.
To sum up, combined with rewriting of history and whitewashing of collaborationism, this Russophobic attitude and the West’s encouragement of the Nazi regime in Kiev are giving the Baltic countries a powerful impetus to step up their struggle against monuments and memorials in honour of Red Army fighters. Let me recall that they died in the battles for Europe’s liberation from Nazism and fascism.
I am not even talking about persecution of pro-Russian activists, a total ban of the Russian media and many other crude violations in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. This attitude has already become a norm in these countries. It is their shameful stigma but they present it as a system of values. Such are their values.
We believe the reason for this lies in a deep crisis of international human rights institutes and the absence of monitoring. This situation is being exploited by the states that have proclaimed themselves “models of democracy” but cannot and do not want to get rid of discriminatory and racist attitudes.
The Foreign Ministry is closely and regularly monitoring the observance of human rights of Russian citizens living abroad. We are paying special attention to unprecedentedly large and cynical harassment of Russians and Russian speakers in the Baltic countries.
We are focusing on all aspects pertaining to the violations of rights of Russian citizens and persecution of our compatriots and reflecting them in our information materials.
A regular report by the Foreign Ministry on the violations of the rights of Russian citizens and compatriots abroad contains a detailed analysis of Russophobic manifestations. The ministry published it on its site in January 2024. There is no doubt that this is a far from complete list of violations of the rights of Russian citizens. It simply provides examples of such violations. We will supplement, expand and double-check it regularly.
We will continue reporting objective information about the discrimination of Russian citizens to the international community. We will help them uphold their rights and provide them with other assistance in the aforementioned countries. We intend to continue working with the heads of international organisations on these issues and demand proper response. We will present such cases to the authorities of the aforementioned countries and demand an end to this discriminatory approach. As you know, we don’t leave our own behind.
Question: The United States has offered the Georgian authorities support in exchange for abandoning their anti-Western rhetoric which they interpret as anti-democratic. What do you think Russia can offer Georgia for it to maintain its neutral status in the Russia-West conflict? What does the decision-making in such matters depend on?
Maria Zakharova: Your question implies that national identity, pride and freedom are up for sale and can be had by the highest bidder. Is that how you frame your question? This is not the proper way to do so. Each country should have its own stance depending on its history, plans for the future, culture, philosophy, ideology, or domestic and foreign policy. It is about a sovereign state that is willing to delegate, to give, or perhaps to put its independence and freedom up for sale.
We are witnessing the United States cynically and rudely interfering in the affairs of sovereign states. This time, Washington did not like the Georgian law On Transparency of Foreign Influence. What’s next? What other law may the United States not like? By and large, this is a trial balloon. If Georgia and its people give in to this blackmail, they will thus send a signal that they can take any kind of treatment. No doubt about that. It unfolded the exact same way in Ukraine. As soon as that country showed that any law regulating the domestic life of Ukraine, Ukrainian people and society can be drafted with the US funding, implemented as a legislative act and executed, the West realised they can anything with that country, which they effectively did. There is no such thing as Ukrainian statehood now. There is no sovereignty or independence of Ukraine which have been torn apart by the collective West led by the United States.
Look at what the United States is saying. Since Tbilisi did not succumb to pressure and influence coming from Washington, Georgia was instantly accused of “undermining democracy” and had to be “punished.” The United States and its allies threaten the Georgian authorities with personal sanctions, blocking the country’s Euro-Atlantic perspective, depriving it of its EU candidate status and suspending visa-free travel for Georgian citizens.
This is just one law. What is it about? It is just about having all the funds received within the borders of Georgia officially declared and their origin accounted for if they are about to be used to influence domestic political processes. Most importantly, we have discussed this as well.
There is a law like that in the United States which everyone is copying. It is the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Sixty countries, including the EU countries, have a similar law. The European Union itself is drafting a similar law. The “flagship of Western liberal democracy,” Paris is doing something along the same lines as well. However, we see the West offering its handouts in a humiliating and condescending manner, showing no respect whatsoever for the honour and dignity of the Georgian people, in case Georgia chooses to change its mind. Do they want to buy their loyalty? Westerners have no clue who they are dealing with. Where did the West get this attitude from? It looks like same old colonial practice of intimidating, breaking down and cheating where they promise the world to them in exchange for gold, but slip them glass beads instead.
We are not Westerners, and threats and blackmail are not what we do. We are building ties based on the fundamental interests of the Russian and Georgian people even amid inexistent diplomatic relations. As a reminder, we were not the ones to sever them. We are aware that the United States was behind those provocations. Considering the circumstances, we are emphasising trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian cooperation with no strings attached.
Question: Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Wang Wenbin expressed hope that the International Criminal Court would be objective in deciding whether it should issue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as three Hamas leaders. What do you think about the consequences of this move?
Maria Zakharova: Our principled stance on the International Criminal Court (ICC) remains unchanged. We have a negative attitude towards this body. We are saying this frankly and openly. Our attitude is unrelated to its opportunistic position on Russia. This is our principled approach. It stems from an understanding of the principles that underpin its operation and the entities that influence it. The most misguided idea, including from the ethical and moral perspectives, is that for some reason, ICC prosecutors, in particular Karim Khan, believe that the court is entitled to administer “justice” against citizens of all countries, including states that have not ratified the Rome Statute. This viewpoint has no legal grounds.
The ICC sometimes claims that it is acting on behalf of the entire “international community,” although if you add up the populations of the states that are not parties to the Rome Statute, the majority of the global population is outside the ICC jurisdiction. Who has not signed the Rome Statute? You know about Russia, but I will mention a few others. India, China, Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia and almost all the states of the Arab East have not signed the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Incidentally, the United States has not signed it either.
However, British prosecutor Karim Khan is not someone to waste his talents on trifles – in a self-promotion effort, he has requested warrants for the Israel and Hamas leaders. Maybe he should go further? Why not seek a warrant to arrest George W. Bush? As a reminder, the United States has led the military aggression against Iraq. Karim Khan might also want to add a warrant against Tony Blair for British war crimes in Iraq. And how many war crimes have the United States and its coalition partners committed in Afghanistan? Why don’t Karim Khan go there to exercise his powers? I do not see why this was never done.
We could add Vladimir Zelensky to this list, as he continues to authorise missile strikes on civilian infrastructure in Russian cities, as well as numerous Western leaders who are showering the Kiev regime with weapons. But there is no appearance of objectivity, and he is reluctant to go through with this.
So far, all we have is a request from the ICC prosecutor. Let’s see if the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber grants his request, given the threats from US lawmakers to impose personal sanctions against ICC members. They have done this before. The previous composition of the ICC is under US sanctions now.
The reactions we have seen from the Anglo-Saxon nations and the EU is the funniest and most tragicomic story ever. When the ICC and its prosecutors moved to issue arrest warrants against Russian representatives, the entire collective West immediately declared their support, literally giving a standing ovation to the decision, and some even said they were ready to go and actually arrest them. Now Joe Biden has described Khan’s request for arrest warrants against Israeli officials as “outrageous.” So what are the criteria? What legal provisions are they guided by? There are none, because they are guided by a rules-based order with nonexistent rules.
London was also quick to distance itself from its citizen’s actions. Even some of the EU countries that always swear allegiance to the ICC have condemned Khan’s move against Israel as “unacceptable.” Where is a measure that countries could use to calibrate their policies against that of the ICC, which has been praised so much in recent years?
Unlike Washington, London or Brussels, we are not changing our stance on the ICC depending on the political situation or current expediency. We have always insisted that this body has no jurisdiction over citizens of countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute, and that its politicised activities do little to achieve a peaceful settlement. As we know from experience, the ICC’s interference has, if anything, always complicated conflict resolution. Furthermore, we would like to remind you of the generally recognised norms of international law regarding the immunity of state officials from criminal prosecution by foreign or pseudo-international courts. This provision stems from the basic principle of sovereign equality of states. The ICC cannot overturn this rule.
At the same time, we once again call on the Israeli leadership to immediately stop the bloodshed in the Gaza Strip and resume peace talks to resolve the conflict in accordance with the applicable UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions providing for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and to comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law.
Question: A new hot spot has recently appeared on the world map. New Caledonia is a French overseas territory where Paris has sent troops to suppress a revolt. People have died in clashes, social networks have been switched off, and protesters are being persecuted. What does Moscow think about the developments there, including Paris’s actions?
Maria Zakharova: It is one of numerous examples of amoral, criminal and suicidal actions of the liberal Western democracies that have invented the “rules” they themselves do not abide by, and which other countries have no notion of. They are paying with these rules in violation of international law, which stipulates the equality of all countries and the possibility of acting in accordance with the norms which are clear to everyone and which all sies have signed. We commented on that situation on May 18, 2024.
We do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. However, we answer such questions in light of numerous problems and systematic Western speculations with the ideas of democracy and freedom. We have published a comment on our position of principle according to which we do not offer or press advice on the settlement of domestic problems and crises.
The tragic developments in New Caledonia were precipitated by its old contradictions and the growing dissatisfaction of indigenous people with their life. Just to remind you, indigenous people account for 40 percent of the islands’ population.
We believe that the sociopolitical crisis in New Caledonia stems from the incomplete process of decolonisation in that territory and worldwide. It is the latest proof that France’s policy towards its former colonies, which have been renamed overseas territories, has reached an impasse and is part of Paris’s colonial imperial thinking.
We call on the French authorities to refrain from the unreasonable use of force towards protesters, to ensure respect for the rights and freedoms of the indigenous population of New Caledonia and other overseas territories under France’s control, and to live up to the high demands it sets to other countries without good reason.
Question: What does Russia think about the improvement of Iran-Azerbaijan relations, as evidenced by plans to open an Azerbaijani embassy in Tehran and the inauguration of the Khoda-Afarin and Qiz Qalasi dams on the Aras River? How can the constructive Iran-Azerbaijan relationship influence the implementation of regional projects?
Maria Zakharova: We can only welcome the normalisation trend in Iran-Azerbaijan relations you have mentioned. We believe that it will have a positive effect on the situation in the South Caucasus and the Caspian region as a whole. There is great potential in the development of regional projects between the South Caucasus countries and their neighbours. This logic underlies our project to expand the North-South international transport corridor.
We are committed to promoting close cooperation between Baku and Tehran, including within the framework of the Russia-Azerbaijan-Iran dialogue format and the 3+3 Consultative Regional Platform (Russia, Iran and Türkiye plus Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia). We are sure that regional players should themselves look for solutions to arising challenges and problems without foreign interference. There is a relevant positive experience, which should be taken advantage of.
Question: The EU has approved the move to use profits from the Russian Central Bank’s frozen assets to help Ukraine. The countries will send about 90 percent of the 3 billion euros to the Ukrainian army this year. What’s your take on this EU decision?
Maria Zakharova: Our position in this regard remains unchanged. We consider any encroachment by the EU on Russia’s assets as unlawful actions that violate the fundamental principles of international law. The assertion that these “windfall” profits are not part of Russia’s sovereign assets does not hold water. This is bigotry. They are as much Russia’s money as Russia’s principal state reserves, regardless of whatever pseudo-legal tricks the Brussels masterminds engaged in pettifoggery and pseudo-jurisprudence may pull. Their references to the UN General Assembly resolutions are untenable, since these resolutions do not imply “punitive sanctions.”
We are witnessing another attempt to legitimise theft at the state level. Is this the first time the collective West is doing this? Of course, not. This goes to show time and time again that the EU can no longer be considered a reliable jurisdiction for foreign investors, since their funds can be seized and plundered any time under any pretext. Investors from the leading countries of the Global Majority, the Global South, are withdrawing their assets from Western jurisdictions. We are confident that this process will speed up significantly after EU’s unprecedented lawless decision.
The entire world is watching the Westerners destroy the international monetary system that they themselves created for the sake of prolonging the days of the Kiev regime which is an Anglo-Saxon project. The Western international monetary system uses the US dollar as a tool of punishment or political control rather than a common currency, and exactly the same goes for payment monetary systems. They’ve laid their hands on assets once again. We are not the first and not the last in this chain of events.
Clearly, the future lies with the newly arisen centres of power which are ready to interact on an equal and mutually beneficial footing, without ultimatums, or illegitimate restrictions, or seizures of assets. There is room for disputes, different points of view and mutual complaints. However, these matters should be resolved in court or arbitration court based on the corresponding existing laws, procedures and rules, which do not get rewritten, and are the same for everyone.
We have an arsenal of retaliatory political and economic measures that we can use against unfriendly countries.
The Russian side outright rejects such a decision and will take all the necessary steps, including legal action, to unconditionally uphold its national interests. There is no doubt that the EU will fully feel the effectiveness of our response.
We took note of the fact that the EU plans to use the majority of the profits from Russia’s sovereign assets not to “rebuild Ukraine” (as they claimed earlier), but to flood the Kiev regime with weapons, and eventually - let’s be straightforward about it - to support the defence industry of the EU countries as part of the course on accelerated militarisation of the European project.
What will Ukraine end up with? It will end up with an all-out destruction, collapse and extinction of its people because of these actions by the collective West.
The EU states are not willing to abandon their aggressive policy implying that the Ukraine conflict should be resolved exclusively on the battlefield, even though they now started playing with their own approaches. I quoted EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell earlier today.
The EU remains bent on its anti-human logic regarding Ukraine which involves continuing the “war to the last Ukrainian,” even despite the failure of the original plans of the Western liberal “democracies” to inflict a “strategic defeat” on our country and even despite the damage that our armed forces are inflicting on the terrorist Kiev regime on the battlefield. Against all odds, they stick to their ideology-driven policies as they continue to literally lay Ukraine to waste, and not planning to rebuild it. If Brussels were going to rebuild Ukraine, they would have used these funds, even if they were illegally seized, for peaceful purposes such as reconstruction or humanitarian aid. They refer to funds to support Ukraine as “peace funds,” and have been collecting money for this purpose for many months now. What peace, reconstruction, and humanitarian aid are they talking about amid the ongoing developments?
All of the above goes to show the timely nature of the special military operation’s goals which, as stated by the Russian leadership, will be achieved in full no matter what.
Question: ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan applied to the Preliminary Examinations seeking an arrest warrant for Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that the decision was completely wrong and it will complicate reaching an agreement on ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. Could you comment on this statement by Antony Blinken? Perhaps the decision would, instead, stop Israel’s military activity in Gaza?
Maria Zakharova: I believe the stance that the United States holds on the Middle East conflict is both dichotomic and destructive, primarily for the countries in the region, although this stance is equally destructive for Joe Biden’s administration.
Americans have made many mistakes in the past years. They are not ready to admit them and have replaced the entire international law and the entire structure of diplomatic efforts on implementing international legal decisions in favour of the peoples populating the regions – replaced them not just with a unilateral approach but with a concept of their own exclusivity according to which they can do anything, they know better than anybody else and they cancel the entire agenda to implement... And then nothing. To implement what?
We have heard and seen different polar concepts in the past years. This is why I call this position of the United States dichotomic. New people came to the White House, but it does not make life in the Middle East easier. Ideologically, the United States has incessantly changed not only horses in the mid-stream but even their course and direction. As a result, the situation has escalated to the point that we can say that, even considering the most dramatic chapters in this region’s history, the countries and peoples there have never experienced anything like this.
Second, I would like to note that not only the US Department of State “made its mark,” but the White House National Security Council Official Spokesperson Adrienne Watson did, too. In a comment for the media, she claimed that Joe Biden “is a strong supporter of a two-state solution and has been throughout his career;” that he “believes a Palestinian state should be realised through direct negotiations between the parties, not through unilateral recognition.” This statement was made in the context of several countries recognising Palestine as a state (which we mentioned earlier today).
Would you like to know why I was interested in this remark and why it could be qualified as a dichotomic position? Because it is the same administration of the same Joe Biden. Now that he is US President and back when he was Barack Obama’s Vice President (who served as the president for two terms), they did not offer or use an idea of a unilateral recognition in itself being legitimate and even acceptable. Look at the US President’s view on Kosovo.
I will remind you that Belgrade and Pristina never had any direct talks that would bring about a common understanding on the status of Kosovo. The decision on Kosovo’s independence was made unilaterally by the United States and the entire NATO crowd, despite Belgrade’s opinion. But most importantly, and you need to understand that, the countries recognising Palestine as a state, while acting unilaterally, still comply with international law, as I said earlier. There are UN General Assembly resolutions to this effect and resolutions of the UN Security Council on settling the situation that mention this. Back then, the US authorities, including the Obama-Biden “opposition,” recognised Kosovo unilaterally, and not only without international legal grounds but also against UN General Assembly Resolution 1244 that directly supports Serbia’s integrity.
How can these people claim any leadership, to say nothing about peace, even in their own group of the NATO minority if they have no principles that they could apply to different world conflicts and situations? Obviously, these principles come out in double standards and especially in the opposite approaches of the same people to law, realities and anything at all. These are completely opposite approaches.
Question: The Defence Ministry proposed revising the Russian border coordinates in the Baltic Sea off Finland. To justify this move, the Ministry is saying the old nautical charts of 1985 are inaccurate and do not reflect “current geographical situation.” Does this move contain a political undercurrent or is it a tit-for-tat step in response to Finland’s actions?
Maria Zakharova: You are not the only one to raise this issue. I have seen related materials in foreign and Russian media. Unfortunately, not all of the materials cover this issue accurately or rely on facts. Much of what made it to the media clearly distorted the original statements.
It may be a language issue, but there’s a difference in meanings of the words “justify” and “substantiate.” The word “substantiate” is the proper choice here.
The Defence Ministry substantiates the importance of revising direct baselines in the Baltic Sea that were established back in 1985, because the coastline and the position of the islands naturally changes over time. Moreover, the direct baselines in use today were drawn on the basis of hydrographic works conducted in mid-20th century and covered, among other things, the territories of the former Soviet republics of Latvia and Estonia, which fact is, understandably, at odds with the current political and geographical realities.
Updated large-scale nautical charts are used for this kind of technical work, which makes it possible to determine the terrain coordinates with great accuracy.
Question: Is the project of changing boundaries in the Baltic Sea a security policy project or is it designed to achieve other goals?
Maria Zakharova: The key phrase here is the technical nature of this project. The maritime borders in the Baltic Sea should be drawn in accordance with international law.
Question: Where exactly, does Russia think, the maritime borders in the Baltic Sea should be drawn?
Maria Zakharova: They should be drawn according to the international law. It’s not up to you and me to draw them right here and right now.
Question: The French government is sending troops to New Caledonia, where mass riots broke out on May 13. The French interior minister accused Azerbaijan of backing up proponents of independence. BBC reports that French security services mentioned Russia’s involvement. I would like to hear what you have to say about it.
Maria Zakharova: Since you represent an Azerbaijani media outlet, who do you think is on whose heels in New Caledonia matters? Is it Moscow on Baku’s heels, or Baku on Moscow’s heels?
Question: I think we are in lockstep...
Maria Zakharova: We are walking shoulder to shoulder.
We have commented on this situation earlier.
On the other hand, Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico was wounded by four bullets on live TV as the world was watching. The cameras captured the perpetrator, and he was detained immediately. Despite this, the Western media (I’m talking about The Times) still had the gall to accuse Russia. What are you talking about? One can come up with New Caledonia, some non-existent or existing galaxy, anything at all, since the incident was broadcast live and there is video footage made by ordinary citizens which clearly shows who shot Robert Fico. This person has been taken into custody, but despite this they still managed to utter the sacramental phrase we have often heard in recent years, “Russians did it.” That’s it.
There’s nothing surprising or disappointing about this. All you need to know is who spreads disinformation, who fabricates fake stories, and who does everything to send the world the way of the post-truth.
Question: May was a very difficult month. As we know, a coup was being prepared in Turkiye, Robert Fico was shot at, Aleksandar Vučić was threatened, and President of Iran Ebrahim Raisi died in a helicopter crash. Do you think this turbulence could affect the deadlines for the implementation of any regional projects and agreements?
Maria Zakharova: When you speak about the series of assassination attempts on world politicians that have achieved or failed to achieve their goal, you use this as an obviously irrefutable fact of some instability in world affairs. I want to tell you that despite all the horror of what we have seen, in recent years, tens of thousands of people (I don’t even know how to count if we consider Iraq, too), even millions, have been dying around the world, including becoming victims of Western manipulations, games and intrigues. Maybe we should think about them too. Think about people living in the Gaza Strip, victims of terrorist attacks in Israel, in Russia and in other countries, about the people of Donbass, who were begging the international community to see their problem and use their chance for a peaceful settlement by implementing the Minsk agreements for seven years, about the results of twenty-year-long experiments in Afghanistan, which took a huge number of lives and created a colossal number of problems for people living there and in neighbouring countries, as well as the region and the world as a whole.
Perhaps we should take a look at the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the many millions of lives destroyed there, as well as the central Europe where we can see Ukraine and recall Serbia with the shelling of peaceful cities 25 years ago, or the South Caucasus (a region close to me and you), where those who do not want to bring peace, but to once again unleash a bloody conflict are coming. This is the matter.
Peace is what the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia agreed on and reflected in documents (1,2,3,4), which were agreed upon by the three parties and represent a real road map not just for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, but for peace, stability and security in the region for decades to come. This has caused colossal envy and aggression on the part of those who do not see peace as a doctrine of international relations.
Perhaps we should have a look at the number of victims there and recall the experiments in North Caucasus, on how international terrorism found a breeding ground with Western money initiating bloody terrorist attacks both in the North Caucasus and in Russia. However, after that the Westerners accepted them into their embrace, calling them “fighters for democracy and freedom,” and sometime later they asked Russia to do something with them, because these clearly terrorist elements became a threat to their lives, establishing real terrorist cells on the territory of West European countries.
This is what we should talk about. Yes, famous people who are politicians and public figures accumulating the will of people via democratic procedures are always in sight, and special focus is placed on their fates, especially when their lives are interrupted by these vile and insidious crimes like it happened with Robert Fico and many others. I hope he will recover and get well soon. But an attempt took place. There were five shots. Four bullets reached their target.
We must never forget the millions of people who become victims. They also come into this world to live and create, and to continue the human race. All of them have their own mission and their own right to life. No one has the right to take this life just because it suits someone’s political situation and someone’s economic benefits. This is what I urge you to never forget.
Question: On May 20 of this year, London’s High Court ruled WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can appeal US extradition. You have already called this ruling “the continuation of the execution.” Could you comment on this in more detail, please?
Maria Zakharova: It is not the first time we are seeing this verbal casuistry. By using certain terminology, the West presents a ruling that obviously does not benefit a person as something made in his favour. This is exactly the case with Assange. Legal terms are one thing but the gist of what is happening is another.
The endless demonstrative trial of investigative reporter Julian Assange who has to suffer solely for his convictions is stunningly inhuman, hypocritical and illegal. For over five years, he has been languishing in solitary confinement at HM Prison Belmarsh in London. He has been through every circle of hell there. What did he have to go through before? The same imprisonment. He attempted to preserve freedom but the British law-enforcement bodies turned it into a real blockade. He spent many years on the territory of the Embassy of Ecuador. Being deprived of an opportunity to go out he could get fresh air only on a balcony. At the same time, he is constantly haunted by the realisation that at any moment, at the whim of the British judicial system, he could be extradited to the United States, where he would either be executed or put behind bars for a century and a half. But even this is not the worst thing. The most horrible thing is that this execution has been going on for many years. We don’t even mention at this point the bullying and attempts to completely demoralise him, his supporters, fans and associates, all people who believed him. We don’t even talk about this – we only mention his physical execution that has lasted for many years. This is reprisal in the worst traditions of the Inquisition just because he revealed to the world the truth about the crimes committed by the Anglo-Saxons. They have not refuted any of his materials about their crimes, including in Iraq. Do you understand what the matter is? The Westerners have not refuted a single one of his materials about their crimes, including in Iraq.
The ruling of the London High Court to allow the journalist to appeal his extradition to the US (this is yet another monstrous, hypocritical step) is being presented as all but a manifestation of generosity and humanism. Maybe a choice of a capital punishment method is also a manifestation of care for the person to be executed? Probably, I don’t know. But we are now in the 21st century and these are countries that are talking about human rights every day. In reality, even the Brits are not sure that the Americans won’t cheat them out of habit despite all of their guarantees and won’t execute him, putting the Brits into a very awkward position. On the other hand, they don’t consider 175 years in prison something cruel, unfair and unjustified.
Do you know what I am driving at? Recall how the Dima Yakovlev Law came into being. It was passed due to the absence of a legal response in the US. A small boy was left in a car and died of heatstroke. What was done to his guardians, new parents, new relatives? Nothing. They had to attend some court sessions for a couple of months. After a reprimand, they were told that they were free to go. The child was killed in a car. He was left there although they understood he was a kid who required care. And this happened in the US, a country where, as you know, children should not be left unattended even at home, even if they are completely independent. So, it went fine, and apparently so because the boy belonged to the wrong nationality, wrong ethnic origin – not those that require care under the US legislation. So, these people were allowed to go.
Whom did Assange kill? Maybe he shot someone? Maybe he created the conditions for some crime that led to death? Or did he commit a terrorist attack?
I will recall Anders Breivik who killed young people at the forum. So what? Is it possible to compare these cases? Probably, it is even necessary to compare them. Breivik who shot them did this deliberately, in cold blood and, apparently, refused to plead guilty. At any rate, he has not said anything about this. He lives in prison as in a hotel; moreover, no-one can violate his rights in terms of distorting information about him. As regards Assange, he simply published documents that correspond to facts but he is treated as a hunted animal.
In practice, yet another delay in the final verdict on Assange will not improve his position. All this parody on justice in his case reminds one of an intricate torture – endless sessions and empty verdicts by the British pseudo-Themis only doom the Australian to more suffering, torture and continued execution. He has been and continues to be kept in prison under incredible pressure from the punitive system. His health has been undermined and his psychic and emotional condition has become much worse. Obviously, by keeping his case hanging in the air and under special control, British and US authorities are settling scores with him in cold blood, hoping the problem will be resolved “naturally.” How can nobody see and understand this?
The producers of this cannibalistic play have set one more goal – demonstrative mockery, a visual aid for those who can try to stand up for the cause of truth. London and Washington believe that everybody must know what awaits them if they contradict the West and publish objectionable facts. These capitals must realise that the world public will always consider this ongoing bullying of Assange, a man who fought for the truth, a disgraceful page in the history of these Anglo-Saxon pseudo democracies. In addition to being an eternal disgrace, it is a crime they will never wash off.
Question: The Japanese JBpress reported that Vietnam’s position on Ukraine has shifted from neutral to pro-Russian. Do you think this fabrication by Tokyo is related to Vladimir Putin’s upcoming visit to Vietnam and nothing else? Or, is it the aftermath of a genuine change in the balance of political power in Southeast Asia after Vladimir Putin’s landslide victory during the presidential election in Russia in March?
Maria Zakharova: Don’t read too much into what this Japanese media outlet had to say. Let’s discuss the facts.
Vietnam is our long-standing and reliable partner, and our relations are immune to external events. Our countries maintain a regular and substantive dialogue, primarily at the top level. We are committed to continuing it. The leadership of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has repeatedly advocated bringing a peaceful settlement to the Ukraine crisis, and continues to adhere to a balanced and responsible approach.
At the same time, Vladimir Putin’s thumping win during the presidential election was widely received as positive news in Southeast Asia, including the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Sure enough, someone may not like it. We even know who these people are. That’s their problem. This win was another compelling proof of the traditionally stable liking expressed by broad groups of people from the countries in that region for the Russian Federation and its leader.
Question: The conference on Ukraine will be held in Switzerland in mid-June. Western foreign ministries are working energetically to make it a high-profile event. Could you share with us the leading world countries’ reaction to this staged forum? Do any of them have a clear-headed stance on this anti-Russian gathering?
Maria Zakharova: A certain number of the Global Majority countries and some other states have an objective perspective on the fuss going on in the collective West. They are well aware of the underpinnings, the history, and Russia’s position which is communicated by our ambassadors abroad. This is also the result of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s regular meetings with the diplomatic corps and officials from Global Majority countries. Such meetings could have been held with the countries of the collective West, but they refused to do so thus hurting their own interests. Many countries’ attitude to this event is based on their knowledge of the facts.
We have kept saying, and said so today, that this Swiss-sponsored event is originally aimed not to achieve peace, but to continue the futile attempts to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia on the battlefield. Clearly, the meeting will fizzle out and come down to a get-together of Western and Ukrainian representatives. Holding it is pointless and doomed from the start; it represents an attempt to push back the political solution to the situation rather than come closer to discussing the peaceful settlement issues.
Why? The Kiev regime made it illegal to negotiate with Russia, arms deliveries to Ukraine continue unabated, and the Zelensky regime keeps committing terrorist attacks on our country’s territory with the use of Western weapons and with the political support of the collective West, which encourages it to commit increasingly more terrorist attacks on civilian infrastructure. The list of reasons goes on and on; I named just three most important ones. Considering this, everything within the context of the upcoming “conference” has nothing to do with peace. Those who want peace would be talking about peace, preventing arms deliveries, or issuing permissions to carry out terrorist attacks. Whoever does it has no business talking about peace. They are lying.
Question: Someone came forward with an idea at a Foreign Ministry briefing of setting up a display of trophy weapons in central Moscow similar to the one during the Great Patriotic War (it was held in the Gorky Park then). This exhibition is now open.
However, this exhibition is so important that people are wondering whether the Foreign Ministry could spearhead the idea of making it a permanent exhibition until at least the goals of the special military operation are achieved.
Maria Zakharova: It has been done. Diplomats are aware of it. It is an excellent exhibition. Please direct your question about changing its status to a permanent exhibition or replenishing it at its organiser, the Defence Ministry.
