Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, January 20, 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Iran Hossein Amir-Abdollahian
- Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken
- Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming participation in the Government Hour at the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation
- Ukraine update
- Happy Republic of Crimea Day
- NATO’s Overarching Space Policy
- Update on Afghanistan
- Life sentence handed down to a Syrian “refugee” in Germany
- The anniversary of breaking the siege of Leningrad
- The 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
- New Russian Ambassador to Belarus
- US Department of State statements on Belarus
- The situation at the Belarusian border
- International recognition of Crimea
- Turkey−Azerbaijan military cooperation
- The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs’ visit to Nagorno-Karabakh
- Ilham Aliyev’s statements about Valerie Pecresse
- GUAM transport corridor
- Russia’s stance on North Korea’s ballistic missile launches
- Sergey Lavrov’s possible visit to Japan
- Preparations for a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Fumio Kishida
- The CSTO’s joint operation to stabilise the situation in Kazakhstan
- Possibility of a new crisis in Central Asia
- Uzbekistan’s role in integration processes
- Turkey’s proposal to arrange a meeting between the presidents of Russia and Ukraine
- Developments in Afghanistan
- The EU’s strategy in defence, security, counterterrorism and other areas
- Ukraine’s European integration
- Russia’s diplomatic methods
- Stoking media speculation around the situation at the Russia−Ukraine border
- Possible expansion of the CSTO
Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Iran Hossein Amir-Abdollahian
On January 20, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who has come to Moscow as part of the first Russian visit by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi.
The ministers will discuss the current state and further development of Russian-Iranian relations, including various aspects of economic cooperation and primarily the implementation of major bilateral projects.
They will also exchange views on a number of current international issues, notably, the progress of the talks in Vienna on reviving the JCPOA and several regional matters.
Sergey Lavrov’s upcoming talks with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken
On January 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will meet with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Geneva to hold a detailed discussion on the drafts of two fundamental documents submitted by Russia on December 15, 2021: The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Security Guarantees and the Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
The sides are expected to assess the results of the talks between Russian and US interdepartmental delegations held in Geneva on January 10, 2022, and the talks with NATO (Brussels, January 12, 2022) and the OSCE (Vienna, January 13, 2022), as well as to coordinate the possible future steps on the earliest possible provision of written US responses to the Russian documents, with clause-by-clause comments.
During the Government Hour scheduled for January 26, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will deliver remarks on the current issues of Russian foreign policy and answer deputies’ questions during a plenary session of the State Duma.
As a reminder, the Foreign Minister’s annual meetings with members of parliament are held to enhance the level of interaction between the executive and legislative branches of authority, exchange views on the current international situation and map out approaches to a more efficient implementation of the country’s foreign policy.
The Western and Ukrainian media, as well as officials, have become even more active in peddling speculation on Russia’s imminent “invasion” of Ukraine. This is how they phrase it. We are confident that the purpose of this propaganda is to create an information cover for preparing their own large-scale provocations, including military provocations, which could have the most tragic consequences for regional and global security.
Unfortunately, the most recent media reports with reference to official agencies, sources, etc., confirm our fears. For several days now, the UK has been sending weapons to Ukraine in air force military transport aircraft. At least six flights have been made, each aircraft capable of carrying up to 77.5 tonnes of cargo, which is a total of about 460 tonnes of weapons. Reports indicate that portable anti-tank systems will be delivered for use in urban areas. By the way, as you know, Western instructors have been training the Ukrainian military precisely for these kinds of military operations at the Yavorov training ground in the Lvov Region.
Canada has sent more than 200 special forces soldiers under the pretext of guarding its embassy and evacuating diplomats in case of an emergency.
But the United States is providing the largest military “aid” package (as they call it). In the last few months alone, Washington has supplied Ukraine with 30 Javelin anti-tank missile systems and 180 missiles for them. Earlier, the media reported plans to send shipments of weapons worth $20 million in January. Overall, from 2014 through the end of 2021, according to Pentagon representatives, the United States has provided Ukraine with military assistance worth $2.5 billion. Before the New Year, CNN said Joe Biden had additionally allocated $200 million to Ukraine for these purposes. The US military budget for 2022 includes another $300 million to be spent in support of Ukraine.
Ukraine sees such assistance as carte blanche to launch a military operation in Donbass. The Armed Forces of Ukraine continue shelling the civilian population in the east of the country. According to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission, the number of ceasefire violations has already exceeded 3,000 since the New Year.
Once again, we have to bring up the topic of rampant neo-Nazism in Ukraine. The Kiev City Council recently renamed a public transport stop in honour of the leader of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists Roman Shukhevych, who served in SS troops; until then, it was named for General Nikolai Vatutin who liberated the Ukrainian capital from the Nazis. What other proof do you need? How much more evidence of what is happening there do you need? Eduard Dolinsky, a prominent anti-fascist and head of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, has reported threats to his life from ultranationalists. Nobody wants to hear or see this either. Unfortunately, the growth of neo-Nazi sentiment in Ukraine is of no concern to our Western partners or any relevant international organisations.
We call on Western countries to stop the aggressive anti-Russia propaganda campaign, to stop fanning the flames of Ukrainian militarisation by dragging it into NATO, and instead use their influence to encourage Kiev to comply with the Minsk agreements and other international obligations.
I would like to convey my greetings to all citizens of our country on Republic of Crimea Day.
Marked on January 20, the Republic of Crimea Day was established in 2009 and reaffirmed in 2014 under a law adopted by the Republic of Crimea. We offer our congratulations to the people living in this Russian region and wish them good health, peace and prosperity within Russia, our united homeland.
This date, as well as the approaching anniversary of the Crimean Spring, gives us a great opportunity to remind everyone that the people living on this peninsula spent more than 20 years fighting for self-determination and justice. They were fighting for the very democracy the West has been preaching, at least in theory, while turning out to be completely oblivious of its commitments and promises in real life. It is in Crimea that we witnessed the ultimate triumph of democracy. This 20-year effort led the people of Crimea back home in 2014. The chronicle of how this popular will and hope gathered momentum among the people of Crimea as they moved toward reunification marks the main milestones of this truly noble cause.
Crimea’s legal status as part of Ukraine (1990-2014) changed several times as a result of conflicts between the Republic of Crimea and the Kiev authorities. I would like to use this opportunity to remind you, as well as our Western partners and the international community, how it all happened.
On November 12, 1990, the Crimean Regional Council of People’s Deputies decided at its extraordinary session to hold a referendum on changing the Crimean Region into the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, as it existed until 1945. During the referendum on January 20, 1991 (which is the date for Republic of Crimea Day), more than 93 percent of voters supported recreating the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as an entity within the USSR.
However, Kiev sought to retake the initiative. On February 12, 1991, the Supreme Council of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic adopted a law reinstituting the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic within the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The corresponding amendments to the 1978 Constitution of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic were adopted just four months later. This distorted the will of Crimeans, but they kept on fighting for their noble cause.
On May 5, 1992, Simferopol adopted the Act of State Independence for the Republic of Crimea, which stipulated the right to elect a president, government and supreme court independently, as well as introduced Crimean citizenship and state languages.
On May 13, 1992, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada recognised the resolutions of the Crimean parliament to promulgate the Act of State Independence and hold a new referendum, as unconstitutional and invalidated them.
On June 14, 1993, Crimea’s Supreme Council created the office of president of the Republic of Crimea. Supported by 72 percent of the voters, Yury Meshkov held this position from February 1994 through March 1995. On March 27, 1994, Crimea held a new referendum with the majority of voters backing the initiatives of the popularly elected president to promote closer integration with Russia.
Ukraine’s Central Election Commission and President called the March 27, 1994, referendum illegal, and in 1995 imposed a constitution on Crimea with both the presidential office and sovereignty missing from it.
The people of Crimea remember all too well how Ukraine trampled upon their rights and freedoms, attacked the Russian language, and sought to artificially impose alien historical views and values, as well as plans to deploy NATO forces, and military exercises openly declaring that Russia was their adversary. Everyone remembers the threats of invasion professed by the Maidan radicals. All this led the people of Crimea to choose, in all solidarity, reunification with Russia in the March 16, 2014, referendum.
Crimea and Sevastopol have changed over the past few years. I have travelled there many times on work assignments, as well as privately. Crimea has been buzzing with activity. Enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea, inter-ethnic accord is a condition for progress and development. Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean-Tatar are state languages there. Let me remind those who may not know this that Crimea guarantees cultural diversity, equality and mutual enrichment. Isn’t this a great example for the Kiev regime? If Crimea succeeded in this endeavour, Ukraine can also do it. Full steam ahead!
NATO’s Overarching Space Policy
On January 17, NATO released a document titled NATO’s Overarching Space Policy. Space, policy, overarching, NATO – what could be wrong? This document sets forth the alliance’s priority objectives and tracks regarding outer space. The average person or anyone lacking professional insight into these matters might not see any threat there. However, an in-depth look into this document reveals that the devil is in the details. This is a biased document. In fact, it is provocative, and is based on the destructive tenets preached by major NATO space powers led by the United States with a view to placing weapons in space, using force or threat of force against the space assets of other countries, and turning outer space into an arena for military confrontation. This is a telling example of how all the assurances of NATO’s peaceful aspirations do not hold water. I would like to pinpoint a small detail, which is not small at all, since we are discussing outer space.
This document provides for the possibility of invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty (collective defence) in response to attacks to, from, or within outer space. In fact, this provision gives NATO states the freedom to use kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities in outer space since it will be up to NATO to decide on a case-by-case basis whether something qualifies as an “attack.”
This is obviously yet another attempt to legitimise the use of force in outer space, which runs counter to the internationally approved goal of preventing an arms race in space. It seems that the NATO countries believe such behaviour to be a responsible approach to space.
NATO’s Overarching Space Policy demonstrates yet again that Russia’s proposals on binding security guarantees are relevant and timely, as are our initiatives, which benefit from wide-ranging support on behalf of like-minded countries, to prevent an arms race in outer space. This is a question of drafting a legally binding instrument banning the deployment of any kind of weapon in outer space, using force or threat of force to, from, or within space, as well as having the UN member states undertake a political commitment that they will not be the first to place weapons in outer space.
We note Kabul’s successful counterterrorist actions that led to the elimination of Amjad Farooqi, the former head of an ISIS Afghan terrorist cell, and the arrest of a number of members of the terrorist group Hizb ut-Tahrir in Takhar Province. We urge the Afghan authorities to intensify these efforts, paying attention to terrorist activities in the northern provinces that border our Central Asian neighbours.
We are concerned over the ethnic protests that broke out in the north of the country. They were sparked by the arrest of a Taliban field commander, an ethnic Uzbek, on charges of illegal actions. We hope the new authorities will not succumb to provocations staged by destructive elements, which are aimed at fuelling ethnic strife with a view to destabilising the situation during this difficult time for the country.
Life sentence handed down to a Syrian “refugee” in Germany
A German court sentenced Anwar Raslan, a Syrian “refugee,” to life in prison. The media reported that his trial ended on January 13. Earlier, the Syrian citizen had received refugee status in Germany. As it transpired, when Raslan was a Syrian intelligence officer in 2011-2012, he abused his position and murdered, tortured and raped inmates in the Al-Khatib prison in Damascus. Apparently, having sensed that he would not manage to conceal these crimes, Raslan betrayed his oath and sided with terrorist gangs. In December 2012, he, along with his family, was brought to Jordan and then, posing as a refugee, to Germany in 2014. The German authorities arrested him in 2019.
After an investigation and court hearings lasting over two years, a higher regional court of Germany sentenced him to life imprisonment based on numerous testimonies.
We did not thoroughly study this case, but we do not doubt the integrity of German justice. This butcher, rapist, traitor and terrorist accomplice got what he deserved.
We are convinced that if he happened to be in Syria, he would have to face a trial as well. However, in Syria he would have likely received a death sentence for such atrocities, which made his extradition impossible under the EU rules. Therefore, applying universal jurisdiction to this man, if he can still be called a human, saved his life.
Against the backdrop of this high-profile case that some irreconcilable enemies of Damascus try to politicise by saying that this criminal “served the Bashar al-Assad regime,” we can only wonder what other murderers the West has welcomed under the guise of opposition supporters. They are presented as obvious democracy proponents, defenders of human rights and freedoms, and promoters of liberal values. In the process, they receive all kinds of regalia only because they are described as opponents of the Syrian regime. It is easy to predict that terrorists, militants, extremists and simply criminals will continue to be granted refugee status although they have nothing to do with human rights issues.
It is necessary to restore normal interstate relations with the Syrian Arab Republic and develop constructive international cooperation with a view to resolving the refugee problem. It is important to make this cooperation civilised for the common good. This will help rule out the granting of refugee status, including financial and moral support, to such people or monsters.
The anniversary of breaking the siege of Leningrad
As you are aware, we pay special attention to historical memory. These days, we’d be remiss not to commemorate the Siege of Leningrad and the people who heroically withstood it and the soldiers who liberated them.
On January 12, 1943, Soviet troops launched an offensive which was later codenamed Iskra (Spark). The Red Army units were tasked to break the siege of Leningrad.
Starting on September 8, 1941, the second largest Soviet city was in the death grip of a harrowing siege that had been purposefully imposed by Nazi invaders which lasted 872 days and cost the lives of about one million people. The siege cannot be called anything other than one of the most vicious crimes against humanity. There is no and can be no forgiveness for the Nazis who decided to starve the city out and break it, purposefully exterminating hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process.
Those years are history, but the tactics of targeting civilians in order to fulfil one’s goals and to break the people’s will has remained unchanged. Does it remind you of anything that is happening right now?
As you may be aware, several attempts were made to break the siege, but only in January 1943, when the main forces of the Wehrmacht were drawn to Stalingrad, did these efforts bring long-awaited success.
The Iskra offensive was carried out by the Leningrad and Volkhov fronts. On January 18, 1943, the two fronts linked up outside the workers’ settlement No. 1, which made it possible to create a corridor, which was used by the Soviet engineers to build, within a very short time, a makeshift railway to ship essential supplies to the city. Amid a harsh winter and unending shelling, a full-fledged railway was built from Polyana station to Shlisselburg literally in 17 days. The first trains with food and ammunition went to Leningrad. (It is very difficult for me to return to those times in memory, because every year, no matter how contradictory it may appear, the scale of the tragedy that our country went through is felt more acutely). The power supply to the city improved. Breaking the blockade improved the people’s situation and made it possible to ship supplies to the troops defending the city and the civilians.
By the way, there is the Breakthrough Panorama Museum outside St Petersburg, in the Kirovsky District of the Leningrad Region on the left bank of the Neva River near the Ladoga Bridge. It tells the history of the Battle for Leningrad and the fallen war heroes search movement in the region. It also offers an overview of the dramatic events of January 13, 1943, the second day of Operation Iskra. The giant diorama covers an area of 500 square metres.
We, as the Foreign Ministry, recommend visiting this museum, the Piskaryovskoye Memorial Cemetery and many other historical monuments and sites to all guests of our country, including the diplomatic corps and fellow diplomats. As you are aware, St Petersburg is home to foreign countries’ consulates. It is impossible to understand our country and our people without visiting these sites and understanding the tragedy of that time and the exploit of the Soviet people.
Unfortunately, today, in the era of rewriting the history of the great feat, we need to remind others of and retell even seemingly well-known facts. We will continue to do so. I am convinced that the people who get acquainted with the historical evidence of those times and learn about the horrors that Leningrad residents endured in the city besieged by the Nazis will no longer need anyone to convince them of anything.
The 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
January 25 will mark the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
Our countries have long been bound by friendly ties, the foundation of which was laid back in 1972, when the USSR supported the national liberation struggle of the people of Bangladesh and was among the first countries to recognise the independence of the new state. Bangladeshis remember the feat of Soviet military sailors, who cleared the waters of the port of Chittagong from mines and sunken ships in 1972-1974.
Today, our countries maintain an active political dialogue, which is built on the principles of equality and mutual respect. Let me remind you that Bangladesh is Russia’s major trading partner in South Asia, with bilateral trade exceeding $2.5 billion a year. Major economic projects are underway, including the construction of Rooppur, Bangladesh’s first nuclear power plant. The mechanism of the Intergovernmental Russian-Bangladesh Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, established in 2017, functions well. Its latest meeting was held on December 15, 2021.
Congratulations to our Bangladeshi friends on this milestone anniversary of our relations!
Question: What mission has the Foreign Ministry assigned to Russia’s new ambassador to Belarus, Boris Gryzlov? When will he go to Minsk?
Maria Zakharova: Boris Gryzlov intends to arrive in Minsk and take office by the end of this month.
As for the tasks set to the new ambassador, his main mission is to promote cooperation between our nations in all spheres.
There are additional tasks due to the special nature of our relationship with Belarus. The appointment of a prominent political figure to the post of ambassador to Belarus shows the Russian authorities’ special focus on relations with the fraternal republic. I would like to draw your attention to Boris Gryzlov’s interview with the TASS news agency, published on January 18 , where he speaks in detail about his vision of the goals set to him and the methods he plans to use to attain them.
Belarus is the main ally and strategic partner for Russia. We are working together to build the Union State, and we are actively cooperating in regional integration associations, such as the CIS, the CSTO and the EAEU. Our economies are closely intertwined. We are working energetically to boost mutual trade and interregional and border cooperation. We are implementing major joint projects in manufacturing, energy and science. Our states have a mutual obligation to protect the western borders of the Union State.
The foundation of our cooperation is relations between the citizens of Russia and Belarus, a common history and culture, and common traditions and values. Our task is to help strengthen them and to create equal opportunities for Russians and Belarusians throughout the Union State.
The key priority for the Russian Ambassador, Embassy and all other Russian offices in Belarus is to ensure that Russia and Belarus pursue a common foreign policy. It is a fact that our countries have similar approaches to the most important international and regional issues. Under the current conditions, it is doubly important to coordinate our countries’ foreign policy moves without fail.
I would like to use the opportunity offered by your question and congratulate our colleagues in the Belarusian diplomatic service, even though prematurely, on our upcoming professional holiday, which we mark on January 22.
Question: Could you comment on the recent statements by a US Department of State official on the Russian-Belarusian military drills in Belarus, the draft Constitution of Belarus, which they interpret as an opportunity for Russia to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus, and the destabilising role Belarus is allegedly playing in the region?
Maria Zakharova: US officials invariably mention the US education system as one of their achievements. But their statements cast doubts on this claim. They either don’t understand the reality, or don’t know facts or are unable to draw conclusions based on the available facts. It is impossible to accept what our US partners are saying because of their complete disregard for the situation in Belarus, its reality and everything that is taking place around it and on its border. Moreover, they are highlighting a certain political component and are citing “facts” that are not facts at all. It is impossible to go into detail on these issues.
However, I will provide an example to prove my point. The US President held a news conference yesterday. Just take a look at the questions about Ukraine the journalists asked. They said clearly (their words cannot be interpreted in any other way) that Russia is ready to attack Ukraine. They presented this assumption as a hard fact. Moreover, they used it to ask the US President about the US response and possible plans to repel Russia. But this assumption is not a fact. Planted in the US information space through leaks, sources and official statements, this assumption has proliferated, has become a subject for analysis in the media, and is now formulated as a question for the US politicians. There is a difference between reality and assumptions, but assumptions have been repeated so often that they are now presented as reality and facts.
Much of what Washington representatives are saying now is something even their American colleagues find hard to understand. They are out of touch with reality.
The other day, Victoria Nuland mentioned 18 response scenarios in case Russia attacks Ukraine. It looks as if this shocked everyone, including the US State Department, the White House and US security agencies. What 18 scenarios? Where did she get them? Nobody could answer this question when people started asking.
Such statements are cut from the same cloth.
Question: President Alexander Lukashenko said that 30,000 troops are concentrated at the Belarusian border in Poland and the Baltic states. How does Russia assess the situation on the Union State border? What measures are we ready to take to reduce tensions?
Maria Zakharova: This continues the topic that the Belarusian journalists have just raised. According to reports, Poland has pulled several tens of thousands of its military members towards the Belarusian border. I wonder when American journalists, politicians and government representatives will start talking about Poland’s plans to attack Belarus. Isn’t that their logic? When troops are moved towards a country’s border, even on their own territory, it is a clear signal that they are going to attack. When will this happen? Or is it different again? Is this okay for Poland, but not for everyone else? A NATO member country can redeploy its armed forces towards the border of a non-NATO country without explanation, doing it solely at its own discretion or, for example, on an instruction from Brussels. But the country on the other side, with foreign troops moving towards its border, is strictly forbidden to do the same. I mean, if a NATO country reconfigures its armed forces deployment, it is the normal and right thing to do, because NATO “promotes peace.” But when people on the other side see their manoeuvres and start thinking about their own security in response to what they see, it is a clear sign of aggression. This is at best a distorting mirror. It is about a complete lack of logic. Not hypocrisy, not double standards, but simply a lack of logic.
We share our Belarusian allies’ concern about the buildup of NATO's military presence along the borders of Belarus. It is also the common border of the Union State and the CSTO. Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine are deliberately pulling in their armed forces and military equipment towards the borders, and are building infrastructure there. At least they don't bother with explanations. It is obvious that their actions are provocative, but they do not consider it necessary to explain or justify themselves. We are well aware that those are provocations, deliberately staged one after another.
Russia and Belarus have no choice but to respond in kind, including by joint airspace patrolling and holding regular joint manoeuvres and exercises.
Where is the American media? Have they run out of paper or free internet space to add Poland's aggression into the mix, or to report manoeuvres that threaten Poland’s neighbours on their own territory? Is the word ‘Russia’ all they have room for?
I would also like to remind you that the decision to conduct an unscheduled inspection of the Union State rapid reaction force is part of our response. On January 18, Russian Deputy Minister of Defence Alexander Fomin explained the details of the planned activities, including the upcoming joint exercise, Allied Resolve 2022, scheduled for February 10-20. The relevant materials are available on the Russian Defence Ministry website and other resources.
I would like to note that, unlike our Western colleagues, we don’t hide our plans. We act openly, explain our actions, and answer questions. As part of this voluntary transparency, we openly talk about measures to strengthen the joint defences of the Union State.
I am also saying this now because our American colleagues have already released a new thriller about “Russia's offensive against Ukraine from the territory of Belarus.” There is no doubt that Western propaganda will be vigorously working to fulfil this directive from Washington in the coming weeks. They might also be doing this to create an information background for the preparation of their own large-scale provocations that they are planning; such provocations can lead to the most serious consequences.
Question: Today, on January 20, Russia is marking the Republic of Crimea Day. We would like to ask in this connection what we can do (possibly jointly with the federal agencies and primarily the Foreign Ministry of Russia) to make Crimea’s voice heard with greater frequency at international venues? What do you think is in store for our peninsula as regards its international recognition in the short and longer term?
Maria Zakharova: The Foreign Ministry of Russia is working persistently to ensure that members of the Crimean public participate [in the activities] at international venues. Last year, Crimeans addressed the United Nations in New York under the Arria Formula and took part in events held by the UN Human Rights Council and the OSCE. It is one of the possible methods. These practices have proved their value. We will continue to promote an active involvement of Crimean NGO’s and media in international activities.
As far as international recognition is concerned, we see the collective West’s Herculean efforts to erect veritable dams to prevent the truth about Crimea, its life, achievements, and problems from breaking into the information space. We see their designs collapse every day. Look at the number of books analysing the historical situation in light of the Crimean events, books published by Western authors in the countries of the collective West. I am referring to the events of the late 20th and the early 21st centuries, which I mentioned earlier today. It is not Russian authors who write, publish, and promote these books abroad. They were written by Western publicists, political scientists and experts who spent all these years studying the problem in depth and writing numerous works.
A great number of events, conferences and roundtables are held. Delegations come on visit. There are the pandemic-related restrictions, of course, but then they go online. These countries’ representatives attend the said events, even though their heavily pressurised governments are still disregarding reality. But the public and experts in these countries are increasingly keen to know more about the situation in this Russian region.
Let me remind you that both politicians and heads of a number of countries also speak in favour of accepting the reality, while preserving different approaches. They are increasingly conscious of the existing state of affairs. This work will be continued. Jointly – I mean different branches of government, civil society and the media – we will follow the “charted course” and bring the truth across to the people. Many people say, it is necessary to “win recognition.” That is certainly our objective. However, our goal is not only to win recognition but also to have the truth and the facts pave the way for themselves like a sunray shines through the darkness. In the same way, the truth will break through and promote better awareness of the situation in this Russian region.
The more we hear Western politicians utter words of negation, the more we are conscious of the fact that we are doing the right thing. They must not doubt that we shall never change our mind or deviate from the course we have mapped.
Question: Do Article 4 and Article 7 of the Agreement on Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which Russia is currently discussing with NATO, concern military cooperation between Turkey, which is a NATO member, and Azerbaijan? All the more so as NATO has stated that the Alliance is looking forward to continuing high-level political dialogue and broad practical cooperation with Azerbaijan in the future.
Maria Zakharova: Russia’s foreign policy is grounded in equal international cooperation that takes into account the interests of other countries, rather than leading to the predominance of “bloc thinking.” Security and stability must be ensured for everyone, not just a group of countries. It is known as indivisibility of security.
We believe that any actions, especially in the military sphere, should not contradict the fundamental principles of indivisibility of security in Europe or be at variance with the refusal to strengthen one’s security at the expense of the security of others, which were more than once reaffirmed in Russia-NATO and OSCE documents (including at the highest level).
This principled Russian position applies to any individual country or group of countries.
In recent decades, NATO has clearly decided to sacrifice these principles to its bloc and military plans. They continued to expand into our neighbour countries, including through partnership programmes. The Alliance has formalised the “containment” of Russia in its policy, force development and military activities. So, we regard it as policy directed against Russia and we used appropriate language regarding military activities and military cooperation in the texts of the Treaty and the Agreement.
Question: Russia is concerned about the fact that the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group are unable to go to Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich said on January 17. Earlier, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev conveyed that Baku would not allow the OSCE Minsk Group to be involved in the Karabakh settlement, since the matter had allegedly been closed. When might a visit to Nagorno-Karabakh by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group take place? What does Moscow think about claims that the Minsk Group will not be allowed to deal with the Karabakh settlement? Does Russia also believe that “the matter is closed”?
Maria Zakharova: As a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia supports the continued activities of this format in accordance with its mandate and with account taken of the new regional reality that has emerged after 2020. Our partners in the Minsk Group - the United States and France - fully share this position which was included in the joint statement by the foreign ministers of the Minsk Group’s co-chairing states, dated December 7, 2021.
This document calls for Baku and Yerevan to accept co-chairs in the region in the near future for them to assess the situation directly on the ground and to achieve tangible progress in implementing humanitarian initiatives, which were discussed during the troika's meetings with the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Following the above contacts, which took place in September and November 2021 in New York and Paris, respectively, the co-chairs handed over to both ministers, on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Stockholm on December 2, 2021, realistic and balanced proposals regarding the agenda for further interaction in order to resolve pressing humanitarian, primarily socioeconomic, issues. We expect the parties to come up with an official response, including the possibility of resuming the troika's regional visits.
Question: On January 12, 2022, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev threatened to arrest Valerie Pecresse, who is running for president in France, on her return from Stepanakert for vising the Republic of Artsakh. What does Moscow think about these threats, and how is this even possible, from a technical perspective, within the area under the responsibility of the Russian peacekeepers?
Maria Zakharova: Azerbaijan and France, and nobody else, are the two countries that can comment on the relations between them. We must be clear about this.
As for me, I can share with you once again information on the gist of our approach to the developments on the ground and visits to these territories.
Let me remind you that Russia deployed its peacekeeping force along the line of contact and the Lachin Corridor as per the November 9, 2020, Statement by President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and President of the Russian Federation on a complete ceasefire and termination of all hostilities in the area of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. According to Paragraph 6 of this Statement, Russian peacekeepers control the Lachin Corridor, while the Republic of Azerbaijan guarantees the security of persons, vehicles and cargo moving along the Lachin Corridor in both directions.
The command of the Russian peacekeeping force has set forth procedures for vising the territory where the peacekeeping mission is being carried out, including for foreign nationals and staff of international organisations and missions. Azerbaijan and Armenia are aware of these procedures. In particular, there is a requirement to notify the Russian peacekeepers about trips of this kind in advance.
Question: During his visit to Kiev, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev has expressed his support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and also discussed with Vladimir Zelensky creating a transport corridor linking the GUAM countries. What is Russia’s perspective on this statement in terms of Azerbaijan’s support for Ukraine and attempts by Baku and Kiev to revitalise GUAM, which is essentially an anti-Russia project?
Maria Zakharova: We proceed from the premise that every state enjoys a sovereign right to proceed in its bilateral relations the way it deems fit. What matters here is that these ties are not directed against third countries. This approach guides us in our contacts with other countries, so we expect our partners to adopt the same attitude.
During the January 18 telephone conversation between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, held at the initiative of Azerbaijan, the two presidents had a detailed discussion on the January 14 visit by the President of Azerbaijan to Kiev.
Question: Over the past two or three months, North Korea has been actively launching ballistic missiles, which poses a serious threat to Japan. For me, this is clearly a violation of the UN Security Council resolution. What is the position of the Russian Federation on this matter?
Maria Zakharova: Russia’s principled position on the Korean settlement in all its aspects is well known. It has not changed.
We have been consistent in our efforts to promote a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the set of problems the Korean Peninsula is facing, with the involvement of all the interested parties and with the United Nations playing an active role. Building on this approach, Russia and China, as you are well aware, have submitted a new draft resolution to the UN Security Council. This draft seeks to revive political dialogue both bilaterally, as well as within the six-party talks. We believe that the international community and all the countries involved must focus on the political aspects of the settlement, which, among other things, will help ease military tension in North-East Asia. Russia does not simply share its assessments on the ongoing developments, but makes concrete proposals on ways to ease tension, while remaining true to our principled approaches.
Question: Will this issue be on the agenda of the talks between Russian and Japanese foreign ministers during Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Japan? He has said recently that he is planning to travel to Japan.
Maria Zakharova: I would like to refer to the answer by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov during his news conference to a question by your Japanese colleague on a possible visit. I think that the topics on the agenda of a specific visit can only be discussed once preparations for the visit or talks reach a practical stage. Our two countries have been discussing security in the Asia-Pacific region, including the challenges and threats caused by the efforts by Japan and the United States to step up their military and political cooperation, in a face-to-face format, primarily at the level of our respective security councils. For objective reasons, with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic these contacts have been suspended of late. Our embassies are also working on these matters. We do hope that these contacts will resume as we overcome the pandemic.
Of course, regional stability and security have a special place in our bilateral contacts and the talks between heads of the two foreign ministries.
Question: If Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Japan does take place, will the Russian and Japanese foreign ministers discuss preparations for a face-to-face meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida?
Maria Zakharova: We have several Russian sayings on the “what if” subject. The way you framed this hypothetical question is not justified. I suggest that we proceed from the notion that the parties agree on the agenda of the talks as they make practical arrangements for these talks. Let me assure you that as soon as this process gets underway, we will share information on the items on the agenda of these talks.
Question: It appears that the EAEU could be represented at the international level much better than it is now. Several years ago, when news conferences with Sergey Lavrov were live, I asked him about the international community’s reaction to this association. He said progress was slow. It is strange that they were surprised that the Russian troops had “moved into” Kazakhstan two weeks ago. Why that kind of response? Perhaps, we are not putting it right. Perhaps, we need to take it up a notch and say that we are together in it and we are a force to be reckoned with. If you choose not to, you will still have to reckon with it?
Maria Zakharova: Why was the joint operation by the CSTO forces to stabilise the situation in Kazakhstan at the request of that country’s leadership perceived like that? Everything else is perceived like that as well, that’s why. Take any issue, anything that is not even connected to Russia or the post-Soviet space, such as the situation in Africa or Asia. Is it portrayed in the media of the collective West any differently than in a way that benefits their politics? Of course, not. See what is going on now. Let's take sports, a subject that should unite everyone and is shining as a ray of hope in today's challenging circumstances. The Olympic Games in China are fast-approaching. What else can you think of other than how China will host them amid a new variant of coronavirus, how will countries cope with the challenge of complying with epidemiological requirements during training and participation in competitions, what can be expected from athletes in these circumstances? This is what the media should be covering. Look at what is happening now. Which members of the official delegation will join the boycott, and which ones will go anyway? This is 2022. The people are being tested by the pandemic, trying to answer the question of how to stay alive and to invent an effective means of combating new viruses. But, instead of using a positive agenda to give hope to many who are unable to find it, this moment is used to manufacture another dirty scheme around the Olympic Games. Is this anything new? Of course, not. It has always been that way. The Olympic Games that take place in the countries that are part of the bloc philosophy are more or less okay. No matter what difficulties the hosts may face, no matter what failures they may run into - everything will be fine there. There are no human rights problems, no humanitarian issues, and no corruption. Everything is fine. As soon as the issue is about holding the world's largest sporting events in the countries that are not part of any “bloc ring” or are not members of the collective West, issues and problems are simply hyperbolised, or just made up, or real problems are combined with mythical.
The same goes for Kazakhstan. In the midst of the dramatic events when, due to the actions of trained gun-toting extremists, peaceful protest turned into massacres and clashes, the collective West, human rights organisations and specialists in humanitarian issues did not see any of that. They did not call for calming the situation, they did not slam extremists with criticism, nor did they call the militants what they are. They either kept silent, or got away with vague statements. As soon as the leadership of Kazakhstan took the situation under control with the collective legitimate help of the CSTO, which was provided absolutely in keeping with international law, immediately, as if on cue, a media attack was unleashed with calls to calm the situation, although it had already calmed down by that time, and there were calls for restraint, although the situation did not require it. They immediately began to talk about the authorities (just imagine what they came up with) allegedly restricting media activities. That is, no one saw the extremists break into editorial offices, hold journalists hostage for many hours, demand to go on air, threaten their lives, and actually take the lives of some of their employees. But as soon as the situation regained a normal peaceful course, they came down on the authorities with direct or indirect criticism. It has always been that way and it will be this way forever and ever. Why? Because they can use these bogus activities and verbal froth to their advantage and cover up values that are nonexistent or exist only in words, or create circumstances that help them achieve their own opportunistic goals.
In fact, the CSTO is increasingly becoming a key entity for ensuring security and stability in the region. Clearly, amid ongoing global instability and spreading regional conflicts, the role and relevance of the CSTO's efforts will increase.
Just look at how the mainstream Western media forgot about Afghanistan during the developments in Kazakhstan, as if Afghanistan was not right across the border from Central Asia, but on another continent. It should have dawned even on the least educated Western journalists that a destabilised country coupled with an inflow of extremists and fighters disguised as Afghan migrants could pave the way to a global collapse and the emergence of terrorist cells and combat organisations that would be even more dreadful than those we have today. It was as if no one was able to see a link between these two obvious facts and understand that prompt, targeted, legitimate and effective actions by Kazakhstan itself (I mean, the country’s leadership), as well as the CSTO, averted an entire chain of large-scale calamities in this region. Not limited to Kazakhstan, this would have spilled over across the entire region. Astonishing as this may be, all Western experts turned a blind eye to this topic, even though they have been talking about Afghanistan every day for six months now. Let’s be honest and ask who among US nationals knows that Kazakhstan and its neighbouring countries are close to Afghanistan, as well as the challenges these countries and organisations like the CSTO and the SCO have been facing for many years now: drug trafficking and all the related issues, arms trafficking. Does anyone know that this entire region faces these challenges and our countries have been dealing with them for decades, not for years? Of course, they ignore this. If only there was a newspaper in the United States that would care to give this a thought, I think that everyone, not only in the United States but also in other NATO countries, would applaud the operation that was carried out. They would even call on their “masterminds” to avert threats that their countries are facing in the same high-quality, effective and legitimate manner. We have witnessed their attempts at carrying out “campaigns” along these lines in order to ensure their security, and the results they obtained. The CSTO’s efforts will play an increasingly important and relevant role amid persisting global instability and growing regional conflicts.
During the crisis in Kazakhstan, the CSTO demonstrated its ability to take swift, decisive action within the strict confines of the law. The results are there for everyone to see. Immediately, we saw messages planted both in the Western media, as if prompted by somebody, as well as coming from organisations in Central Asia controlled by the West or NATO structures alleging that “this will be a second Afghanistan,” “occupation,” or that “this would-be peacekeeping force is actually occupation force and will never leave.” Did anyone apologise or correct their earlier publications to acknowledge that they were wrong? They were mistaken, to say the least, but in fact they lied. Did anyone acknowledge this? Of course, not. This train of publicity falsehoods just keeps rolling along, symbolised by the vial Colin Powell waved during his remarks as US Secretary of State at the UN Security Council in early 2000s.
During the CSTO Summit on January 10, 2022,, Collective Security Treaty Organisation members agreed that without coordinated, effective and committed efforts by all member states it would have been impossible to achieve these results. The CSTO consistently builds up its capacity for countering various threats, including those posed by terrorists and extremists. The CSTO peacekeeping force holds annual exercises to improve their coordination, including with a view to contributing to the UN’s peacekeeping operations.
The CSTO demonstrated that it has an effective and relevant mechanism for countering terrorist threats coming from the outside, with all partners within the organisation taking coordinated and prompt action, which does not sit well with many of our Western partners and colleagues. We understand this.
The CSTO acquired valuable experience, and we will carefully analyse it with a view to enabling allies to step up their joint efforts to counter outside destructive instances of interference within the area under the organisation’s responsibility.
We have noted a growing interest in establishing contacts with the CSTO. The establishment of partner and observer statuses within the organisation opens new opportunities for building closer ties with the interested countries and international organisations.
As for the Eurasian Economic Union that you mentioned in your question, the EAEU participates responsibly in international trade and follows an open policy of non-confrontation and non-discrimination in keeping with the WTO norms. Membership in the EAEU is voluntary and equal.
We believe that the way to demonstrate the success story of Eurasian integration and its importance, including on the international scene, is through objective statistics and facts. The union has proven its ability to withstand and overcome major global challenges, including those that are not limited to the economy, like the Covid pandemic. In 2021, the five EAEU countries reported record-high macroeconomic results compared to 2020, as well as relative to the pre-pandemic levels of 2019.
The EAEU is an accomplished international regional economic integration organisation. Its international standing is supported by a broad network of contacts with foreign trade and business cooperation partners, as well as those working with it as observers.
Question: Do you think there could another flare-up in the region similar to Kazakhstan?
Maria Zakharova: This question should be addressed to the experts who deal with this matter. We focus on the possibility of collective efforts to prevent and curb similar threats.
Question: During the previous briefing, I asked a question about Uzbekistan and its role in integration.
Maria Zakharova: I remember your question. As concerns specific states joining integration associations, once again, this question should be addressed to Uzbekistan.
Uzbekistan today is successfully developing. It is engaged in fruitful cooperation with its neighbours on a bilateral basis and within regional associations such as the CIS and the SCO. It also cooperates with the EAEU as an observer.
As for our bilateral relations, Uzbekistan is a strategic partner and ally for Russia. Our bilateral relations are based on the 1992 Treaty on Inter-State Relations, Friendship and Cooperation. There are several more recent documents, including the 2004 Treaty on Strategic Partnership and the 2005 Treaty on the Alliance between Russia and Uzbekistan. Our countries enjoy large-scale and intensive bilateral cooperation with a trust-based political dialogue. This cooperation has been historically friendly and evolves consistently in different areas.
This year, we are marking the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries (March 20, 1992). But our historical and cultural ties are much richer and longer. We have agreed on an extensive programme of joint events to commemorate this date, as well as a number of cultural events in the capitals and regions of Russia and Uzbekistan.
Following the allied principles of friendship and mutual support, equality and respect for each other’s interests, Russia and Uzbekistan aim to further strengthen the entire scope of bilateral links in 2022, in politics, trade and the economy, cultural, humanitarian and other fields.
Question: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that, in his opinion, the prospect of an alleged Russian invasion of Ukraine is unrealistic because Ukraine is a strong country, and for Russia to go ahead with it, it would need to review the situation in the entire world and in its own country. What does the Foreign Ministry think of this statement? Does Moscow see it possible that presidents Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky could meet in Ankara at President Erdogan’s invitation?
Maria Zakharova: It seems strange to comment on a statement made by a representative of another country regarding our own plans. We keep hearing other countries’ representatives speaking about Russia’s plans. I think it is more important to hear what Russia has to say about it. Russia has been very clear and straightforward, in line with our approaches that were chosen long time ago. We follow our own principled understanding of building our international relations and bilateral contacts. Therefore, Russia is the party to ask about Russia’s plans. Why should we comment on statements made by people who are not involved in Russia’s policy and are not Russian public servants?
We certainly understand that Turkey and Ukraine are developing their own bilateral relations. In my opinion, it is more important to speak about what has been done in that context. If Turkey wishes to contribute to Ukraine’s development as a state, its political institutions and settling the conflict, then Turkey should use its friendly links with Ukraine to encourage it to fulfil its international obligations under the Minsk package of measures that clearly has the purpose of improving the situation in Ukraine.
Question: According to media reports, the foreign ministers of Russia and Germany discussed Afghanistan during their recent meeting. What issues did they discuss? Did they talk about the possibility of recognising the Taliban government?
Maria Zakharova: I would like to mention two key points: security and the humanitarian aspect. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke about this during a news conference following the talks you have mentioned. Russia and Germany have overlapping approaches to the fundamental items on the Afghan agenda, such as suppressing the threat of the spread of terrorism and drug trafficking, the risks of increasing migration flows, and the need to provide humanitarian aid to the Afghan population. These issues were discussed at the bilateral level and in the context of contributing to international efforts.
Question: Brussels is preparing a document known as a Strategic Compass for the EU in defence, security, counterterrorism and other spheres. According to media reports, the latest version of the document has nothing good to say about Russia. How is the Russian Foreign Ministry planning to develop relations with the EU?
Maria Zakharova: It would be inappropriate to comment on a document that has not been adopted or published as an official draft. But we are aware of the leaks, comments and so on.
Brussels has announced this document as the forerunner of a military-political doctrine, which will provide a concise view on the threats the EU will face amid changes in the security environment. It will present an overview of current changes worldwide and will be likely used as the basis for the institutional distribution of the EU and its member states’ resources in the area of collective responses to new challenges.
Over the past few years, the EU has come face to face with the consequences of the geopolitical experiments launched by the US and its allies in the Middle East and North Africa, which have destabilised Europe and have changed the situation in the EU member states. These consequences include an unprecedented global migration crisis, increased terrorist and criminal activities, and a fundamentally new vision on organised crime, drug trafficking and other challenges and threats.
As for media reports according to which some sections of this EU document, which has not been published yet, present Russia as one of the main threats to the EU, I can only say that we don’t comment on leaks. This view on Russia has been presented by Josep Borrell and other minions, as well as media outlets catering to the EU and NATO authorities in Brussels. This sounds lame. What threat, let alone an existential threat, is coming from Russia? They claim that we are threatening their values, which they cannot even properly formulate, and their non-existent unity.
We will pursue our policy accurately, in a balanced manner and based on the EU’s practical actions. If Brussels continues to pander to its East European and Baltic flank, using the mythical “Russian threat” as the basis for its foreign policy and even military plans and adjusting its capabilities to this myth, we will not sit on our hands either. Nobody should have any illusions about this. But if we see that Brussels is resolved to revise its policy towards Russia in a pragmatic, prudent and mutually beneficial manner, we will respond accordingly and will gladly look for common ground. This is our position, and there is nothing new about it.
Question: Why don’t we suggest that Brussels review some interim results of Ukraine’s European integration process, as chance offers? One of the most prosperous republics of the former USSR has plummeted to the bottom on every metric. Kiev’s interest in rapprochement with Europe was mutual, as the EU openly demonstrated in 2013-2014 by making Ukraine choose between Europe and Russia at a time when Moscow offered an option of having both.
Maria Zakharova: You are stating the obvious. The misery and degradation in Ukraine is impossible to hide, no matter how hard they try to make it look good by holding summits, using “Crimea platforms” to divert the attention of their own population. No matter how many times they repeat “economic progress” and “Russian aggression,” the unseemly reality remains obvious to everyone. The last supporters of the Kiev regime, who were in solidarity with all its crimes, have lost patience. They realise how low this state has fallen. The state machine has totally lost control and gone into a nosedive. Everyone understands this.
There is a difference between flying and falling. There is also a clear boundary between freedom and chaos. For a long time, politicians in Ukraine have invoked “freedom” to justify the destruction of their own statehood. Have they been conscious of destroying the country and its institutions of governance all this time? Let history judge and prove it. The fact is still there. They hid behind freedom, the greatest value for every person, to pursue a policy that led to chaos in all spheres of society and destabilised the situation around Ukraine. They have lost control of the state – if it is still a state. The land and the people are there, but there are no valid institutions of governance. Even if they are called that, they are impotent. This situation is not limited to politics; it is everywhere, absurd at best, but in fact, it just shows the lack of a system-wide approach and management.
You are right in saying that Ukraine was one of the best developed Soviet republics when the USSR collapsed. It separated from the Soviet Union without any problems. Some of the journalists present here live and work in independent states that were former Soviet republics. They must remember how their countries faced colossal problems (clashes, border and internal conflicts). Ukraine left as a prosperous, rich and developed republic, now a state. We can see what is left of that state now. A fratricidal war has been going on in this territory for years. They are suggesting all kinds of causes for it, except for the lack of proper governance that the state should demonstrate.
The West is well aware that a corrupt, oligarchic and comprador regime has formed in Ukraine. They never say this publicly. But there are occasional “leaks” from unnamed “sources.” Following foreign visits, it becomes known that more Western emissaries have tried to persuade Ukraine or “adjust” its policy “in manual mode.” This is no longer possible. First, in many respects, chaos in Ukraine is convenient for them. Second, admitting their own mistake (of making Ukraine choose only one integration option) means acknowledging they have no potential for global leadership.
Going back to how things stood as of the collapse of the USSR, Ukrainian nationalists then used the country’s prosperity to push for secession from the Soviet Union. They claimed Ukrainians would have a better life and more opportunities if they stopped “feeding Moscow.” But, if they looked at Soviet interbudgetary transfers, in fact, the Ukrainian SSR was subsidised by the Soviet government – that is, largely at the expense of Russia, then the RSFSR. But who was interested in that?
Over the years of independence, the Ukrainian elite has never shown an understanding of the dangers of a policy aimed at chaos. There were few attempts to bring the country together, to integrate or harmonise its truly beneficial ties and contacts to be able to grow. And yet, for all those years of independence, none of the Ukrainian politicians has demonstrated true independence or determination to defend it. On the one hand, they left the USSR because they wanted to be independent; on the other hand, they immediately made themselves strongly dependent on a number of agencies and organisations. They showed a marked pro-Western attitude. Their policy was not an independent one, but dictated by the “big brother,” and they obediently fulfilled everything that was imposed on them, even contrary to the interests of the people.
The “orange” parties and movements were the result of deep self-doubt. On the outside, Ukrainian nationalists seemed to call for boosting the nation’s self-awareness, but at the same time, they obviously suffered from an inferiority complex and nurtured expectations that “the West will help.” A paradox, but a fait accompli.
The West does not see any inherent value in Ukraine. They just need it as a geopolitical bridgehead against Russia, and a source of economic profit for Western monopolies. The head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, again said in an interview with the BBC radio station on January 10 that Ukraine’s EU membership “is not on the agenda.” No one there treats the Kiev regime as equals. I’m not even talking about the people of Ukraine. The collective West is showing its true attitude by constantly inflaming the situation in that country instead of using its influence and opportunities to stabilise it.
Signed in 2014, the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement is unbalanced and disadvantageous for Ukraine. It seals the country’s specialisation within the international division of labour as a supplier of agricultural products and raw materials. It also fixes its dependent role as a source of cheap labour and a market for EU goods and services. Neither the EU, nor NATO, nor the West as a whole is willing or ready to see Ukraine’s unique character, identity, or inherent value.
In 2013-2014, the pipe dream of EU membership, as embodied in the EU Association Agreement, made the pro-Western (and Western-dominated) circles in Ukraine sacrifice internal stability, seize power by staging an unconstitutional coup d’etat, and provoke a civil conflict and split in the country. We saw Crimea and Donbass vote against this turn of events. But in other cities of southeastern Ukraine, the peaceful civil protests were crushed by both gangs of nationalists and the Security Service of Ukraine. No one in Kiev or the capitals of Ukraine’s Western patrons was thinking about human rights when the Trade Union House was ablaze in Odessa and 50 people burnt alive. Neither are they thinking about them today.
These steps were taken contrary to the calculations made by a number of economists according to which the positive economic effect for Ukraine from its participation in the Common Economic Space of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine (the relevant agreement was signed by the presidents of these countries in 2003) would have been far greater than for other participants. Incidentally, as distinct from the EU Association Agreement, which makes it incumbent on Kiev to share the EU’s foreign policy precepts, the Eurasian integration projects imposed no political obligations of this sort. They were about purely economic benefit.
Kiev’s pro-Western course has resulted in a complete disintegration of the established industrial, scientific and innovation ties with Russia and other participants in Eurasian integration. Russia-proposed hi-tech joint ventures with a synergistic effect in the nuclear industry and aircraft-manufacturing, for example, have remained on paper. In recent years, the Ukrainian authorities have reduced the freedom of movement between Ukraine and Russia to a minimum. Unlike the EU members, these countries speak the same language. Huge damage has been done to the humanitarian, family and friendly ties between people in the two countries.
In fairness, it must be said that in certain periods of its new history Ukraine attempted to implement a model of economic integration with both Russia and the EU. Guided, among other things, by the 2005 roadmaps on common Russia-EU spaces, Russia was ready to consider this option, because these spaces guaranteed the continued integrity of the historically existing ties amid an evolution of the integration processes. But the EU was unable to overcome its own political attitudes, ambitions and the distorted logic which demanded from countries in the region that we defined at the time as “a shared neighbourhood” to decide whether they were “with us or against us.” Ahead of the fateful Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius in November 2013, a characteristic comment came from Linas Linkevicius, foreign minister of Lithuania, the country that held the presidency of the EU Council at the time, who said that this was “Europe’s geopolitical battle and we must gain the upper hand in Ukraine.” Today we hear NATO and the EU say that there should be no zones of influence and that allegedly Moscow is seeking to divide Europe into zones of influence. This is the exact quote. Will they now claim that Linkevicius expressed his personal opinion? This is all cheap talk.
The outcome of this battle is that Ukraine is back at the bottom of the ladder, facing the closed doors, on the threshold (or in the backyard?) of Europe, and on the sidelines of the accelerating Eurasian integration processes. No one is willing to deal with its huge backlog of problems. They have driven themselves into this impasse of their own free will. I am referring to politicians, not the ordinary people.
Ukraine is not the only example of doubtful results brought about by the policy to install in high places individuals who pose as politicians concerned with national interests but in fact are following the Western agenda. Here I don’t mean to denounce the Western orientation as such. We are observing approximately the same processes that involve the disruption of cooperative ties with Russia, collapse of industries, and a mass-scale labour migration to the West in the Baltic countries, Moldova, and Georgia.
To understand the situation, you should read Nikolai Gogol’s immortal historical novella Taras Bulba, preferably in the original, for the author, unlike the Ukrainian translation, calls “Russians” Russians and not “Ukrainians” or “Cossacks.” This is a key work helping to understanding Ukraine’s tragedy and showing how the historical prerequisites described in the book have materialised in practice and what this has led to.
We hope that fraternal Ukraine will overcome its current difficulties and recall its true values. It should not be guided by imagined values, let alone by someone else’s interests.
Question: What other diplomatic methods does Russia have in store in its relations with the West?
Maria Zakharova: In addition to which ones? An entire encyclopedia could be published on this subject. The basic method is professionalism backed by a responsible attitude to international relations.
Question: Why do US media continue to stoke tensions around the situation at the Russian-Ukrainian border?
Maria Zakharova: They want to create a media environment for their own provocation staged by Ukrainian nationalists, militants, the Security Service of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Ukraine is being fed weapons; disguised as instructors, people are being sent to Ukraine who are clearly not interested in a peaceful resolution of the domestic Ukrainian crisis. They are doing everything to destabilise the situation in a region in close proximity to our country.
Remember how regional conflicts start. They always start with provocations. The way the collective West is currently behaving (specifically, in the context of Ukraine) once again demonstrates its provocative conduct.
Question: The CSTO marks 20 years this year. The CSTO’s brilliant operation in Kazakhstan compared to the United States fleeing from Afghanistan makes the CSTO more attractive and shows real effective capabilities in the current difficult circumstances. There has been speculation online about the possibility of expanding the CSTO. What are the prospects here? Are any talks in progress? Several countries have been named as potential candidates. For example, Cuba. Can you confirm or deny the speculation?
Maria Zakharova: You should separate analysis from entertainment.
The CSTO Charter clearly states that a country that wants to join the organisation must submit a request. In the past year and a half, the heads of member states have signed the Protocol amending the Charter. In addition to full-fledged members, there will be partners and observers. This information has been shared with interested countries. And the interest in the CSTO is huge.
Additional materials
-
Photos
