Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, November 2, 2022
Table of contents
- Sergey Lavrov's forthcoming working visit to the Middle East
- Sergey Lavrov's forthcoming talks with Minister of External Affairs of India Subrahmanyam Jaishankar
- The 39th Meeting of the Foreign Ministry’s Council of the Heads of Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation
- Ukraine crisis update
- US statements on curtailing cooperation with Russia on civilian uses of nuclear energy
- Norway puts its Armed Forces on high alert
- US sanctions imposed in connection with the developments in Moldova
- Anniversary of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
- International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists
- 85th anniversary of the 1937 Brussels Conference
- 27th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
- National Unity Day
- Pressuring Kiev to engage in talks
- Liz Truss’s phone hack
- Russia-Norway relations
- Meeting between Narendra Modi and Vladimir Putin
- Russian oil and gas supplies to India
- The Kosovo precedent for the accession of new regions to Russia
- Resuming the grain deal
- UK’s involvement in sabotaging the Nord Stream pipelines and attacking Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol
- Election in Israel
- The Foreign Ministry to summon the UK ambassador soon
- IAEA’s inspection at Ukrainian facilities
- Trilateral meeting of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan
- Prospects for renewing the grain deal
- Talks on Ukraine
- Korean Peninsula update
- The future of Russia’s frozen assets
- The Zangezur route
- World Thematic Conference of Russian Compatriots
Sergey Lavrov's forthcoming working visit to the
Today, on November 2, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov starts his visit to the
We will share the relevant information with you ahead of and following the events as soon as possible. Everything will be published on our internet resources.
Sergey Lavrov's forthcoming talks with Minister of External Affairs of India Subrahmanyam Jaishankar
As we said at our last briefing, on November 8 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Minister of External Affairs of the Republic of India Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, who will also meet in Moscow with Russian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry and Commerce Dmitry Manturov (as Co-Chairs of the Russian-Indian Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technical and Cultural Cooperation).
As for the talks between foreign ministers, they will focus on the state of bilateral relations and international issues.
On November 11, the
The main topic on the agenda is the particulars of international interregional cooperation of the constituent entities in the new geopolitical situation.
The challenges
The purpose of the event is to discuss and outline steps to bring international and foreign economic relations of the Federation's constituent entities in line with the reorientation of foreign policy priorities.
The meeting will produce recommendations aimed at achieving practical results.
Before moving on to the crisis in
At the time it would never have occurred to our forefathers that a time would come when their ancestors would have to fight, arms in hand, an ideology of human hatred, the ideological successors of Bandera and Shukhevich, who were Nazi henchmen and have thousands of innocent lives on their conscience. It would never occur to anyone at the time that people with swastika tattoos would be walking around
Today, the
This has been confirmed by the strikes carried out by the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the air and the sea on October 29, 2022, using unmanned vehicles against
The Russian Defence Ministry stated that in the wake of this attack we would find it impossible to guarantee the safe passage of civilian cargo ships carrying Ukrainian food. Therefore, we suspended our participation in the grain deal. Any further discussion on any matter related to this will only be possible if
Vladimir Zelensky’s regime persists in its attempts to destabilise the situation in
We are still hearing
Just the other day,
The same day, October 31, the European Union reported on how it has been contributing military assistance to
Governments and businesses in the
Sending foreign mercenaries to the hostilities is another method the West has been using to support
All this assistance from Western countries, including massive arms supplies, sending mercenaries, training Nazi fighters and funding the Kiev regime are just prolonging the hostilities, and these efforts increasingly expose them to the developments in Ukraine as parties to the conflict.
There are many facts that demonstrate the unacceptable war methods employed by Ukrainian Armed Forces, war crimes perpetrated by Ukrainian forces and Western support for the
US statements on curtailing cooperation with Russia on civilian uses of nuclear energy
During the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century, US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm urged the participants to give up cooperation with Russian companies that supply nuclear technology and fuel for nuclear power plants.
We explained what was happening around the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant and received absurd replies that we were all but shelling ourselves there. Nobody in the West is listening to our appeals to the international community to use the instruments of international organisations and its own potential to comprehend the scale of and prevent the disaster that may happen due to the nuclear blackmail by the Kiev regime. Meanwhile, this conference could have become a venue for discussing Russia’s appeals in this respect. But instead the opposite is done: the United States tells everyone that it is impossible to cooperate with Russia in civilian nuclear power engineering. This is a political appeal rather than scientific reasoning.
It is not for the first time that high-ranking US officials are making such statements. They are in no way a novelty of 2022. The Americans began making them much earlier.
The US strategy on regaining the lead in nuclear power engineering, announced in April 2020, set the goal of ousting Russian and Chinese nuclear products from the markets by political methods. Now Ms Granholm merely uses the special military operation to achieve the goal set a couple of years earlier. If it was formulated in a US doctrine in 2020, we understand that it took more than a month and not even half a year to draft it. This is manipulation with time and space.
The reasons for these actions are easy to understand. At one time, Washington was the absolute leader in the nuclear power industry. This is demonstrated by the number of nuclear energy units built in the US and the number of nuclear power plants made all over the world using American projects and technology. However, all this is in the past. At present, the United States looks more like an outsider in this area and has lost both the production technology and the engineering school.
Implementing the goal of decarbonising its power industry, the White House decided to restore the nuclear industry again. Naturally, this requires substantial financial injections. In conditions of normal market competition, it will take time for this investment to repay. Moreover, there are no firm guarantees that the funds will be recovered now that many rivals have moved far ahead. That said, fair economic competition is not for the US. It contradicts the spirit of American exclusivity.
I have a piece of advice for those who would like to develop the nuclear power industry in the US, but cannot find the necessary funds for this. Take a calculator and count how much of the US taxpayers’ money was spent to support the neo-Nazi Kiev regime. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars. Add to this sum (which is very impressive, putting it mildly) all the billions that were officially reported by the White House and the US Department of State as expenses incurred in the regime change in Ukraine. It is this change that led to the active phase of the confrontation in the domestic conflict in Ukraine and triggered the current situation. The sum will be mind-boggling. This money would be more than enough to bring a new lease of life into the US nuclear power industry and put it in the lead.
But they didn’t do this and decided to follow a crooked path. There appeared an idea to remove rivals from the market. This makes sense – some will profit from the arms supplies needed to destabilise the global situation while others will use political instruments to settle accounts with their competitors by using blackmail and pressure in full conformity with the principles of the American hegemony. However, the consumers will be left with no choice except using raw American technology. The story of the Fukushima-1 Nuclear Power Plant built with crude violations using an American project is common knowledge. We remember the outcome. Even if US efforts lead nowhere, as it already happened with the past US campaign on the renaissance of nuclear power engineering announced by George W. Bush in 2003, it is still possible to talk at length about new technology and big prospects while doing nothing in practical terms except impeding the development of the global nuclear power industry and destroying rivals politically in the process. To prevent everyone from impeding this idle talk, it is possible (in the opinion of the US administration) to deny access to the events on nuclear technology to the countries that are producing advanced equipment and building nuclear power plants. US officials advised all those who would like to meet Russian experts outside the US not to have any dealings with them. What do you think the US did to the Russian delegation that was going to arrive at that international forum? It denied them visas.
All this has become normal conduct for the US, which is shamelessly using any pretexts and methods to keep economic control wherever possible.
Russia invariably supports all countries’ equal access to peaceful nuclear energy. We are deeply concerned about the politicisation of this sphere by the collective West. We are one of the biggest suppliers of commercial nuclear technology to the world markets. We intend to continue developing international cooperation in nuclear technology and fuel, primarily dealing with the countries that are guided by common sense and their national interests. We are ready for equitable cooperation and do not recognise the US hegemony. That said, unlike Washington, we are not going to use black PR. We have highly competitive products in this industry, which are well known throughout the world.
Norway puts its Armed Forces on high alert
We have noted the fact that on November 1, 2022, the Norwegian government put its Armed Forces on high alert for a period of at least one year and adopted additional measures to strengthen national security. It would not have mattered to us, but there is an important distinction. This unprecedented step is justified, as it is not too difficult to guess, by the actions of the Russian Federation, which led, as Norway explains, to “the most severe security situation in Europe in decades.”
No, it was not our actions that led to this situation. It was your actions. You are the “collective West,” which is part of all the relevant blocs, alliances, etc. Even those who are not members of all these blocs still follow Washington’s instructions. It was you who destabilised the situation on the European continent. For many years, you changed regimes at your own discretion, dragged countries, contrary to all logic, traditions and interests, into these blocs or promised them bonuses for refusing to interact with our country.
At the same time, Oslo recognises “the absence of signs that Russia intends to expand its combat activity to other countries,” and explains the new measures by the need to send a signal of “its readiness to defend itself.” Such pronouncements are worthy of a poetic comparison.
We have to state that the Norwegian authorities are once again blowing “the Eastern threat” out of all proportion, denigrating Russia, and attributing to it actions and motives that do not exist in order to disguise their own military aspirations and justify the inflated military budget to the Norwegian people.
It is impossible to ignore the fact that over the past few years Oslo has been consistently pursuing a policy of abandoning self-restraint and building up its military presence in the northern regions adjacent to the Russian-Norwegian border. Amid declarations that the Norwegians do not threaten anyone and are forced to take these measures for their own security, foreign military bases are springing up in Norway on a permanent basis, military infrastructure is upgraded and modern equipment is purchased. Oslo is among the most active supporters of expanding NATO to the Arctic. We assess such developments near the Russian borders as Oslo’s conscious adherence to a destructive policy of escalating tensions in the Euro-Arctic region and the utter destruction of Russian-Norwegian relations.
This is not our choice. Russia is always open to an honest and mutually respectful dialogue, but any unfriendly actions will be met with a quick and commensurate reaction.
US sanctions imposed in connection with the developments in Moldova
We have taken note of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s statement of October 26 about including nine individuals and 12 legal entities on the US sanctions lists under the pretext of combating corruption and interference of the above individuals and entities in the elections in Moldova.
This kind of wording can only be sold to domestic US audiences which have no idea where the countries in question are located on the map and know absolutely nothing about their political structure or history. I wonder who in the post-Soviet space might take seriously these statements coming from the State Department.
This overtly politicised decision by the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control is notable in a number of ways (in addition to being politicised).
First, the decision was made at the height of major socioeconomic hardships in Moldova and public dissatisfaction with the actions of the government and protests in Moldovan society.
Second, the events that took place many years ago and were related to corruption scandals and electoral processes in the Republic of Moldova were chosen as a pretext.
Third, the list of individuals and corporations included in the sanctions lists looks utterly contradictory. On the one hand, these are people and companies that are working to reinforce Russian-Moldovan relations. On the other hand, Vladimir Plahotniuc, a fugitive Moldovan oligarch and a politician with anti-Russian views who acted in the interests of the United States, is among them as well. This is just another iteration of the Juan Guaido project. As soon as a person fails to live up to someone’s expectations or has become irrelevant, they immediately remove them from the picture and say these persons failed to cope with their assignments. Shall we expect sanctions lists that include Juan Guaido and Svetlana Tikhanovskaya? I think we will find out fairly soon.
What does the situation around Moldova mean at all? The conclusion suggests itself: the true goals behind the US decision were not to promote democracy or fight corruption. As a reminder, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Robert Menendez is a Russophobe and then some. He never stopped to come up with wild ideas and attempts to inflate conflicts around the world and was himself accused of corruption more than once. What we have here is an attempt to divert attention from the political and economic situation in Moldova.
That country’s leaders are fully reliant on the Western shoulder to back them up. But who will let them close to the Western shoulder? A knee or a thigh might be okay, though. So, there was a need to somehow save the Moldovan leadership, which, in the eyes of its people, associated its policy with the policy of the West and completely failed in trying to do so. Settling scores with objectionable members of the local opposition and stoking the anti-Russian sentiments in Moldovan society was another reason.
There are lessons to be learned from this state of affairs. The United States has imposed sanctions on Plahotniuc, who was their favourite political figure several years ago. Does the current Moldovan leadership have any guarantees that they will not be joining these lists next? They enjoy the support of the United States, but Plahotniuc received exactly the same support from Washington in his time. What are the chances of the current Moldovan leaders ending up in the same situation? Everyone is trying to convince themselves that this will not happen to them. And then something goes wrong.
We have made it clear on multiple occasions that US politicians and security services never hesitate to dump waste material as an unnecessary ballast that stands in their way or compromises them.
We regard this yet another US sanctions decision adopted under far-fetched pretexts as further gross interference in the internal affairs of the Republic of Moldova and an attempt to adversely affect Russian-Moldovan relations.
Anniversary of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Today, November 2, marks the 57th anniversary of a leading development organisation within the UN system, resulting from the merger of the UN Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance created in 1949, and the UN Special Fund founded in 1958.
The UNDP activities are carried out in more than 170 countries and territories. Today, its main areas of work include assisting countries in the structural transformation needed to achieve sustainable development, increase the resilience of such countries to crises and disasters, and support global efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Russia has a wealth of experience of cooperating with the UNDP. In 1997-2011, about 150 UNDP projects were implemented in Russia with the funding of more than $180 million in total. In 2011, Russia ceased to be a recipient of UN assistance, and in 2015 Russia and the UNDP signed a Framework Partnership Agreement that recorded the strategic foundations for Russia’s cooperation as an international development assistance donor. In this context, the Russia-UNDP Trust Fund for Development was established in order to finance technical assistance projects in developing countries.
The geography of our joint projects includes such countries as Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Cuba, Serbia, Laos, Cambodia, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Madagascar, and a number of Pacific small developing island states. In addition to this, initiatives were implemented in the sphere of emergency response (Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, Syria, the Philippines, and Vanuatu).
Russia-UNDP projects are aimed mainly at eradicating poverty, developing rural areas, adapting to climate changes, water management, reducing disaster risk, early recovery, expanding socioeconomic opportunities for women and young people, supporting integration processes in the Eurasian space, and spreading Russia’s expertise.
Our total portfolio of projects amounted to $151.5 million, of which $95 million came from the Trust Fund. Over $30 million was raised in cooperation with domestic and international partners, as well as with the UNDP itself. These initiatives have provided direct long-term assistance to more than 6.5 million people in need and indirectly improved the well-being of more than 21 million people in friendly countries.
We congratulate our UNDP partners on the organisation’s anniversary and look forward to continuing our fruitful cooperation with the Programme.
International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists
November 2 is International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists, established by the UN General Assembly in 2013 following the abduction and murder of two French journalists covering the armed conflict in Mali. This date was intended to remind the international community of its obligations to ensure the safety of journalists and other media professionals, many of whom, due to the specifics of their work, constantly face risks and threats to their health and lives.
Almost ten years have passed since the establishment of the International Day, and we have to admit that the global situation with regard to journalists’ safety is far from good, and even depressing in some places. The system of countries’ obligations to protect media workers they have been building for years and the architecture of multilateral institutions designed to facilitate their practical implementation have failed the universality and impartiality test.
The flawed logic professed by “true” democracies, which divides journalists into “good” and “bad”, where the former deserve protection, but the latter don’t, has penetrated the activities of many formally independent agencies, discrediting them, and in some cases, making them dysfunctional. Otherwise, we would have seen them condemn those who impose sanctions against the media or encourage pressure on correspondents; those who have been running the criminal website Mirotvorets for years; the masterminds and perpetrators of the brutal murder of Darya Dugina; those who fired American-made high-precision missiles at a group of reporters from the Tavria television and radio company, killing journalist Oleg Klokov. We have heard them say a lot, but we did no hear why (?) they do not consider representatives of certain media outlets to be journalists, or even humans. Any person who devotes their life to a profession aimed at informing the public, covering events for others (for society, or various social groups) should be able to count on compassion and on (at least) verbal censure of those who threatened their life and ultimately killed them. But we have not heard “civilised” countries or their representatives at international platforms say any of this in relation to a large number of journalists. We have not heard a single assessment from the relevant human rights agencies of the crimes I mentioned or any other deliberate atrocities against media workers. The reason is simple. Their point of view does not coincide with the one approved by the collective West. Sadly enough, the Kiev regime, for instance, views such selectivity in their assessments as tacit approval of its atrocities and crimes and encouragement to commit more and more cynical and inhuman crimes.
I remember how outraged the OSCE was over domestic crimes, sending immediate inquiries about the circumstances. And we had to report why this or that journalist fell victim to a domestic crime. And we duly fulfilled our obligations, unconditionally and professionally.
Now tell me, how many journalists, representatives of various old and new media outlets, have been killed or injured in the territory controlled by the Kiev regime? Don’t they deserve a mention by the OSCE or the Council of Europe? The latter still thinks Russia is their business, even after we left this organisation. Why aren’t these agencies saying anything? At least saying anything. They have specialised institutions that should deal with such issues.
For us, this day is primarily an occasion to once again commemorate all journalists who died young while performing their professional duty. It is our duty to ensure that those responsible for their deaths receive the punishment they deserve.
I would like to believe that the original meaning behind this International Day will be revived someday, and that the international community’s obligations to protect journalists from violence and create a safe working environment for them, regardless of their media outlet’s editorial policy, will cease to be empty words but become an imperative for action.
85th anniversary of the 1937 Brussels Conference
November 3 marks the 85th anniversary of the 1937 Brussels Conference convened in the wake of militaristic Japan’s invasion of China. This historical event is undeservedly overlooked by the academic community, because it is inconvenient for the West. Let's go over its lessons that are more relevant than ever today.
The conference materials clearly show that the US-led Western international community pursued a policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan despite the fact that, as the guarantor of the 1922 Washington Treaty which contained the principles of maintaining peace in the Far East, the United States was supposed to provide a strong collective rebuttal to Tokyo's aggressive ambitions. As we know, Japan made a point of withdrawing from the League of Nations, and China’s appeal to the League of Nations to stop the Japanese invasion made it necessary to convene a separate international forum. The 1937 Brussels Conference became such a platform.
Initially, the United States was strongly opposed to inviting the Soviet Union. It rings a bell, does it not? Earlier today, I was talking about our experts on the peaceful atom not being allowed to attend a conference in Washington and the participants were urged not to have any dealings with them. The State Department may recall that 85 years ago the United States took strong action to prevent our country from participating in the Brussels Conference on Japan's militaristic aggression against China. You don't know your own history. I'm not even talking about world history. Those who do know it, though, are sparing no effort to make sure that the rest of the nation does not know it or only knows history in its perverted form laid out in American textbooks and promoted by government agencies.
At first, Washington was not going to let us attend this conference. Then the tactics changed. They began to cynically claim that the Soviet Union could have put an end to the aggression against China on its own by opposing Japan. The reasons behind this change of pace were not officially disclosed, but, as we know from the further events, at some point the United States decided to capitalise on the Far East conflict by pushing forward a large-scale military clash between Japan and our country.
The threat was quite real. To give you a sense, just think back to the conflicts near Lake Khasan (1938) and the Khalkhin-Gol River (1939).
With regard to the Brussels Conference itself, the Americans planned to assume the same position they assumed a year later in the notorious Munich, which was to solemnly declare the need to restore peace directly between the warring countries. In reality, they were focusing on other things. Clearly, this would be in the interest of imperial Japan, which, in its message to the conference participants, urged them not to interfere in its dealings with China.
Given these circumstances, the Soviet delegation led by People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov focused on upholding China’s territorial integrity and creating a collective security system to stave off the aggressor. Nothing but the consolidated actions of all members of the international community could have forced Tokyo to put an end to the conflict. Soviet representatives never stopped insisting on imposing sanctions on Japan. Even though these proposals were rejected, the US plans to “create Munich in Asia” failed. Four years later, this defeat turned on the Americans themselves when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
These history lessons should not be forgotten. The crimes committed by militaristic Japan, including the crimes the evidence of which remains hidden in the US archives, must be exposed.
27th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
On November 6-18, the 27th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will be held in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt, which will be attended by a Russian interdepartmental delegation headed by Ruslan Edelgeriyev, Adviser to the President of the Russian Federation and Special Presidential Representative on Climate Issues.
During the upcoming event, it is planned to pay close attention to adapting to the negative effects of climate change and also reducing the damage caused by this process. The urgency of invigorating efforts in these areas is obvious in view of increasingly devastating extreme natural phenomena, which primarily affect developing countries.
The Russian Federation notes the need for a substantive and non-politicised discussion on climate change, which is key to progress in achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.
On the sidelines of the conference, Russia will organise a special event with the participation of representatives of business and the research communities, where it will present national approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change.
On November 4, our country celebrates National Unity Day, in memory of the events of 1612, when the people's militia led by Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky liberated Moscow from the Polish invaders, demonstrating an example of courage and solidarity of the whole nation, regardless of origin, religions and classes.
According to the 2004 Federal Law, this day has been marked as a public holiday since 2005, and as a day of military glory – since 1995. It is a tribute to the glorious past of our Fatherland. It is intended to symbolise the stability of civil peace, as well as respect for the patriotism and courage of our ancestors, who united to defend the independence and statehood of Russia.
Those who advocate, among other things, the dialogue of cultures, should bear in mind that this day also celebrates an important Orthodox holiday, the day of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God. It was in front of this icon that the warriors prayed.
I cannot congratulate everyone in advance. I hope that on this day we will say to each other many important and necessary words of support and talk about what really unites us.
Maria Zakharova: Such a speculative attitude to what may happen is not appropriate in this situation. We rely on facts, on the situation on the ground, on the implementation of our demands rather than some potential scenarios of what may or may not happen.
If we are talking about inconsistencies in the Western countries’ approach to this issue, this is another matter. I am referring to the lack of unity or any cohesion in their ranks. We are seeing how the tone of the collective West is changing every day. One day, they talk about the need for talks, then they suggest resolving all problems on the battlefield, then they stand for the ultimate and unconditional victory, then they are all for talks again. One day they are for peace and the next day they are against it again.
We will proceed from the goals and tasks set by the Russian leadership and from facts. We are always open to any types of talks and contacts. We never shut our door.
Our experts support dialogue even in the most difficult and controversial situations with all those who express their desire and intention for it. In the process, we rely on the situation on the ground, on our goals and tasks and our national interests.
Maria Zakharova: The British tabloids have already become a meme. We have studied Britain’s information policy closely: there is no or almost no direct speech or direct answers by their officials to straight questions and endless manipulations with leaks through these British tabloids. The British media abound in rumours, fakes and gossip. This is where all the fuss started. They started linking this with other information.
To stop all this, to refute or confirm this, it is necessary to do one simple thing. Liz Truss should recall what happened in reality by returning to her official status of this time – on the date when her telephone was hacked according to the British media.
I think the British government should react to this. They have a cabinet of ministers, a press service and speakers. I think this is a decent excuse to appear in public and say something. Not to leak worthless information that only confirms this fraud. They should speak for themselves, to say honestly what is really going on.
All the questions are on the table: was the telephone hacked? Did the messages mentioned by tabloids exist? There are some other details that could be covered. In this case, there would be no speculations or fakes. Everything will be clear, plain and logical.
Why don’t the British do this? Their silence confirms that they have something to hide.
Maria Zakharova: We must recognise that the relations between Russia and Norway are currently at an all-time low, which is not our fault. It would be strange for us to take the initiative for remedying this situation. What can we do if the other side is to blame for this deterioration? All we can do is point to this fact, which we do regularly.
We have not seen any signals coming from Norway that would demonstrate Oslo’s desire to change the current situation, remedy it and put our relations on a more stable footing.
On the contrary, the Norwegian authorities instigated a far-reaching anti-Russia campaign in the country, targeting, among others, Russian tourists who have been detained in Norway. Three Russian citizens remain in custody, and our diplomatic missions are in touch with them and keep a close eye on whether their rights are respected.
We have commented many times on Norway stepping up military preparations on its territory, especially near the border with Russia. For Norway, this is yet another destructive step in this direction.
Maria Zakharova: Comments on the meetings at the highest level fall within the purview of the Presidential Executive Office.
All I can do is emphasise that Russia and India tend to proceed in their relations from mutual trust and respect, taking into account each other’s national interests as much as possible. Our countries remain proactive in their contacts at the high and the highest levels, including bilateral ties and interactions at the key international platforms. Trade has increased several-fold despite the illegal Western sanctions. The two countries are consistent in performing their agreements and contracts in the key areas, while continuing to promote effective contacts in culture, science and technology.
Maria Zakharova: Russia’s oil and gas supplies to India are an important aspect of bilateral energy cooperation.
We have a shared goal of making sure that both countries benefit from these interactions. The relevant agencies oversee and coordinate our actions in this sector. At the same time, we are not limited in our actions to the traditional capitalist paradigm of seeking to maximise profits. What matters for us is to preserve the spirit of friendship in relations between Russia and India, which is reflected in the fact that we describe our relations as a special privileged strategic partnership.
It is our firm belief that neither side would allow itself to infringe on the interests of the other. My advice to you would be not to give in to media speculation regarding the ceiling prices for our black gold. You can judge a country’s position only based on what it actually does.
Maria Zakharova: Regarding the referendums and their results, what matters is the way the principle of territorial integrity relates to the right to self-determination.
The right to self-determination is set forth, along with other fundamental principles of international law, in Article I of the UN Charter, and was reaffirmed in Article 1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as in Article 1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Adopted in 1970, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations highlights the principle of sovereign equality of states, which includes the inviolability of territorial integrity or political independence, as well as the principle of equal rights and self-determination. At the same time, the declaration emphasises that in their interpretation and application the above principles are interrelated and each principle should be construed in the context of the other principles. In other words, this is not like a buffet where people can choose anything they like or desire, while leaving aside anything they are not interested in or which does not bring them any added value. These principles must be viewed as interrelated.
The issue of the relationship between the principle of territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self-determination is formulated in the 1970 Declaration in the following way.
The declaration reaffirms the inviolability of “the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and therefore possessing “a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.”
This logic was reaffirmed in the 1993 Vienna Declaration of the UN World Conference on Human Rights. We are told that the 1960s and 1970s were a period of decolonisation, and that we should not pick and choose only the documents we like. But the Vienna Declaration, which was adopted in 1993 on the back of events that led to a change of borders in Europe, was certainly not connected with decolonisation.
Under it, the states that claim the right to protect their territorial integrity and political unity must be “possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind.”
The Kiev authorities obviously cannot be regarded as such a government. Does it represent the whole people without any distinction? All these years they have been emphasising distinctions and segregating people based on various principles. Who can be regarded as a national government representing all of the people in Ukraine? In a democratic state, which is what Ukraine is according to its documents, this is determined during elections. However, governments came to power in Ukraine as the result of anti-constitutional coups paid for by foreign states and with their powerful political and military support. These governments did not represent the people of Ukraine in its diversity, but the interests of foreign states, companies, organisations and firms. This contradicts the principles of international law. Moreover, instead of representing the interests of the whole people, the Ukrainian authorities have been waging a war against their own people since 2014, using military and economic measures aimed at smothering them.
The 1970 Declaration says that “the establishment of a sovereign and independent state, the free association or integration with an independent state or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”
The classification of the referendums in accordance with the Constitution and legislation of Ukraine cannot influence their classification under international law.
Practice shows that the implementation of the right of peoples to self-determination through secession and the subsequent association with another state cannot take place in accordance with a national legislation, for objective reasons. This was reaffirmed, in part, in the 2008 Advisory Opinion of the UN International Court of Justice on Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, under which “general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence.” In the context of Kosovo, we are citing international legal decisions adopted by relevant organisations. The Kosovo precedent has led to the application of a number of international legal decisions which we are citing. They provide a general definition that is applicable to other cases.
In accordance with the Written Statement of the United States submitted to the ICJ within the framework of this case, “declarations of independence may – and in their nature often do – violate domestic law. However, that does not mean that there has been a violation of international law.” Britain wrote in its statement that, in general, international law does not “prohibit secession or separation, or guarantee the unity of predecessor States against internal movements leading to separation or independence with the support of the peoples concerned.”
This is not the private opinion of British or American politicians, but the position of their states expressed within the framework of international law.
Unlike the case of the former Ukrainian territories, the February 17, 2008, unilateral declaration of Kosovo’s independence analysed by the international community was adopted by its parliament, which at that time was one of several provisional self-government institutions in the province. No referendum was held in Kosovo. How can a non-existent event be used as a precedent? Referendums were held in Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk and other Ukrainian territories. The relevant institutions and direct participants in that process provided their opinion on the case’s accordance with international law. This is something one can and should refer to.
The Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics were sovereign and independent states. Russia recognised them as such under the Executive Orders of the Russian President signed on February 21, 2022. They have been recognised by Syria (June 29, 2022), North Korea (July 13, 2022), Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics signed international agreements on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance, in particular, with Russia.
It is noteworthy that the first referendums on independence were held in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics in 2014. As far as I remember, the international media wondered if the results of those referendums would be used as a guide to action. These referendums were held after a violent state coup was held in Ukraine, following which the new authorities applied repressive measures against the people and governments that had been elected in these regions under domestic law and the Constitution. In that situation, the rights and freedoms of ethnic minorities were infringed upon throughout Ukraine, the Russian language was removed from all areas of life, civil activists were persecuted, freedom of religion was attacked, churches were seized, and political opponents were eliminated. All of that was done contrary to the provisions of international law on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of states, namely, the provision on the equal representation of peoples within one state.
The issue of international recognition of these republics’ independence was not raised for the next eight years, even though the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2202 (2015) provided for “carrying out constitutional reform in Ukraine with a new Constitution entering into force by the end of 2015, providing for decentralisation as a key element,” as well as “adopting permanent legislation on the special status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions,” which should stipulate, in part, the right to linguistic self-determination, the participation of organs of local self-government in the appointment of heads of public prosecution offices and courts in certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, and support by central government authorities of cross-border cooperation in certain areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions with districts of the Russian Federation. This is what the people in these regions have wanted for many years.
If Ukraine had implemented the above provisions of the Package of Measures, it would be at least possible to say that conditions were created in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics for implementing the right to self-determination within the boundaries of the state they were part of at the time. However, this did not happen because Kiev sabotaged the Package of Measure and instead opted to use military force to suppress the rights of people in Donbass.
Ukraine’s supreme authorities made no secret of their unwillingness to comply with the Minsk agreements. Former President Poroshenko has said on numerous occasions that he only approved the signing of the document to gain time to strengthen the army (read his interview with the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza posted on the European Solidarity Party website on February 15, 2020). That person signed the Minsk agreements.
A tragic part of the situation was the blockade of Donbass imposed by the Kiev regime with Western approval. They also stopped the payment of pension and social benefits and prevented the normal economic operation and humanitarian deliveries to the region, which made life unbearable for the people and precluded the implementation of their right to self-determination within the boundaries of the state of Ukraine.
Likewise, in 2022 people in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions were deprived of any chance for self-determination within Ukraine or access to basic rights, such as the right to live, as the result of the continued use of military force against them, including missile raids and the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
The questions people were asked to answer during the referendums in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions were: Do you support the secession of the Zaporozhye/Kherson Region from Ukraine, the declaration of the Zaporozhye/Kherson Region as an independent state and accession to the Russian Federation as a constituent entity of the Russian Federation?”
Therefore, the regions, based on the results of the referendums and the implementation of their right to self-determination, acquired international legal personality and could subsequently use its sovereign rights to initiate accession to the Russian Federation.
I would like to caution you against falling for simple formulas. The West loves memes, cliches and planted theses which are simplified to the extreme for use in their manipulations. I was trying to explain the facts from the viewpoint of international law. However, anything can be reduced to the absurd if we use the logic of tweets, memes and cartoons. But then, don’t be surprised when you come up against more problems.
Maria Zakharova: We fully trust the Russian Defence Ministry and the comments made by my colleague, Igor Konashenkov.
The Ministry of Defence has given detailed information on this issue. If you have any more questions, please send them. For our part, we will respond to them if we have any additional information.
Maria Zakharova: There is no doubt that we will respond to the British security services’ involvement in the terrorist attack on the Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol on October 29 and the sabotage of the Nord Streams. We spoke about this at the UN Security Council and stated this publicly. As I have already said, the British ambassador will be summoned and presented with the relevant materials. These basic materials will be handed over as evidence to the British side and will also be made available to the general public. We would prefer to follow the procedure in this case. We will share this information as soon as the meeting (with the ambassador summoned to Smolensk Square) takes place. It will be posted on our resources, including the Foreign Ministry website and its social media accounts.
We certainly noted the British Defence Ministry’s immediate reaction. They tried to shift responsibility for the terrorist attack, saying that they did not even know anything about it. It’s a strange reaction. They have communication channels with the Russian Ministry of Defence (as they always had). They could have asked (or they a priori know the answers to all the questions, which is strange). No one doubts that this attack took place. It’s a recorded and confirmed fact, given the abundance of American and British equipment in the region – drones, satellites, and more. They know everything perfectly well. The fact that the attack happened has not been denied or refuted. The British said that they had nothing to do with it. Before saying this, they might have asked what evidence we had. But since they compromised themselves by denying involvement so vehemently and hastily, I think this can be added to the evidence of the UK’s self-exposure.
We are polite people. Therefore, the materials that directly implicate British specialists in involvement in the preparation and implementation of this terrorist attack will be handed over to the British side. You will have a chance to read them as well.
The important point is that many people talk about this incident like you, using the phrase “so-called terrorist attack.” But it was in the zone of a humanitarian operation. Even if it sabotaged a commercial programme, or civilian infrastructure, even so, the attack with the use of such means would be classified as an act of terror. Here the situation is even worse. It happened in the zone of a humanitarian operation, with the whole world’s attention riveted to it and the United Nations acting as a guarantor.
We were outraged (our Permanent Representative to the UN, Vladimir Nebenzya, made a statement) by the lack of reaction from the UN leadership to this attack. It is important to remember that this was not about civilian infrastructure, or commercial cargo – it was a humanitarian mission, an operation that the West, including London, insisted on. We, for our part, gave our guarantees to secure this deal and ensured its observance. But the Armed Forces of Ukraine made every effort to destroy the entire infrastructure chain of this humanitarian project by attacking it and using the equipment that the Russian leadership mentioned. Their attempt failed, but they did make an attempt.
Maria Zakharova: I am sure that just as the Israeli media have their own sources that you cite, and you, like Reuters, have your own closed sources, but you also use open sources.
Without seeing any hidden meaning in the statements of unnamed sources, you can simply look at what the current Israeli leadership has said about its position on this. Here you are referring to sources in some Israeli media that the situation could change and the Israeli government’s position could become less pro-Ukrainian or more pro-Ukrainian. It doesn’t matter that much.
Current Israeli leadership has repeatedly said that they have a joint position, and it is pro-Western (i.e., pro-American). So let’s not beat around the bush with some unnamed source’s obscure analyses, but proceed from what has been said openly.
This is Israel’s internal matter. In my opinion, it would be more constructive for Israeli leadership to develop relations with our country from a pro-Israeli position. They have been doing this for many years in different areas. The same applies to their perception of Russia’s line of reasoning regarding the situation in Ukraine. Much of what caused the current phase of the conflict concerns international law, including in a context that is important and sensitive to Israel. It is the resurgence of neo-Nazism, a nationalist, misanthropic ideology and much more.
I don’t see anything that would be an obstacle to the understanding of our position by Israeli leadership (current or future). It is an open position. It is consonant with everything that Israel has stood for as a state for years and decades. In my opinion, much of the motivation for our country’s actions dovetails with Israel’s national interests. Unfortunately, much of this, for some reason, is apparently not comprehended.
As for the elections: yes, the elections took place on November 1. It is our understanding (and this is in accordance with local procedure) that the official results will be announced no later than November 9. And a government will be formed.
We expect that the new government, whatever it may be, will maintain a course of developing and strengthening multifaceted cooperation with Russia (which has been demonstrated for many years). For our part, we are ready for this.
As for their approach to the situation in Ukraine: I just commented on it. Our arguments are clearly stated. This is not a purely emotional position, not some historical reminiscences. It is a position based on international law. Even on the issue of referendums, I outlined everything in detail today.
Our relations with Israel should not be reduced to just one problem. They are wide-ranging. We respect Israel’s sovereign right to independently develop their policies (the key word being independently) and approaches to the most pressing issues on the agenda, which includes the Ukrainian issue.
We would like the Israeli side to consider our arguments, interests and concerns, just as we consider the concerns and interests of our partners.
Maria Zakharova: I have already commented on this issue, and we will certainly respond.
Today, we discussed the situation around the act of sabotage against the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. I would like to remind you that this also concerns the acts of sabotage against the Nord Stream pipelines. These are separate aspects. We will inform the British side about all this, and we will also discuss these matters at international venues.
Maria Zakharova: We are looking forward to reading the results from the visit by IAEA inspectors to Ukrainian facilities. It is necessary to study them, in the first place. We will analyse the relevant report following its publication. After that, we will make our own assessments, and we will speak our mind on this issue.
We are used to dealing with the facts and materials, and then commenting on them. I would like to note once again that the threat of nuclear terrorism on the part of the Kiev regime is quite real and extremely dangerous.
Maria Zakharova: Regarding your first question, I would like to draw your attention to a statement by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin that the discussion will continue. We don’t think it is right to publicly discuss some rather sensitive issues because this may hamper the negotiating process.
Regarding the meeting between the three foreign ministers on the sidelines of the meeting between the heads of state of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia in Sochi, these were private discussions. They took place in the context of talks between the leaders of our countries.
Maria Zakharova: The latest crisis was caused by the terrorist attack during the implementation of the humanitarian project. We demanded that the Ukrainian side provide clear security guarantees for implementing the deal still further. Today, the Russian Defence Ministry issued a statement that such guarantees had been received. Consequently, the media reported its resumption.
Regarding the extension of agreements after the completion of this deal, we have already commented on this at our previous briefing. We told that we will analyse the situation comprehensively.
We will monitor this issue. In my opinion, it is not quite appropriate to mix these two subjects because this would lead to all-out confusion in the media.
Maria Zakharova: I imagine that you are aware of the statements by the Kiev regime and Vladimir Zelensky. They have already formalised the ban on holding talks with the current President of the Russian Federation through a legislative act to this effect. It was the Kiev regime that blocked this process. They have prohibited themselves from holding talks by legislating the issue. So, we leave them to answer the question of how they intend to deal with this situation.
I would like to remind you that this ongoing and serious European security crisis resulted from the collective West’s complete failure to reach common ground, a phenomenon we have been facing for many years now. When the Cold War came to an end, our colleagues replaced traditional diplomatic skills and compromise with something else, by which I mean coercion, pressure, blackmail, threats, and sanctions. They armed themselves with disdain towards alternative points of view and the unshakable conviction of their exceptionalism and infallibility. For some reason, they assumed the right to rule the world’s destinies. This destructive line reached its peak with the refusal by the West to discuss the proposals on security guarantees we presented in late 2021.
We do understand that this genre has its rules. Diplomacy cannot remain suspended in a vacuum for too long. The world will realise the need to engage in talks in the foreseeable future and will turn to traditional methods for devising new rules of co-existence based on the principles of mutual respect and equality in keeping with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
We have said many times that if everyone wants to achieve the same outcome, which is to avert a global catastrophe, or a major war (Russia seeks to avoid measures of last resort in its efforts to defend its living space, and we have reaffirmed our readiness to engage in dialogue many times while defending our national interests), so if everyone shares the same objective (as far as we can see from what they are saying), if everyone wants the world to live in peace, and stands for peaceful coexistence, then they need to learn to listen, understand and take into account the interests of all parties, even if we do not like each other.
On October 31, 2022, Adviser to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Mikhail Podolyak mentioned the Russia-Ukraine dialogue by explicitly saying that “Russia deprived itself of the possibility to have peace talks with the civilised world and cannot go back to January 2022. The only option that is left for it is a tribunal.”
What kind of civilised world was he talking about? Was this yet another reference to the blossoming garden and the wild jungle? Who do they think is uncivilised? China, India, Africa and Asia? Do they think that their CIS neighbours who used to form a single nation with them are uncivilised? We maintain positive and stable contacts with all of them across the board as partners and sometimes as allies.
Who do they refer to as civilised? Did they refer to people who fail to honour the commitments they signed only yesterday? Or those who divide the world into those who are right and those who are wrong? Or those distorting the best concepts and principles humanity has developed over centuries? Or were they referring to people who commit terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructure as with Nord Stream and the humanitarian operation in the Black Sea?
They call countries and regimes who have destroyed so many states in the Middle East and North Africa civilised, right? But how civilised are the countries that bombed Yugoslavia, a European country, using low-yield nuclear weapons? Or those which sunk ships carrying migrants to European shores after having destroyed order and the traditional livelihoods in these migrants’ countries?
They believe that being a civilised country means decades of hand-picking heads of state, killing them in pursuit of their political and business interests, persecuting, bombing, etc. These are the countries that sponsored terrorism in the North Caucasus for many years, the very people (extremists and terrorists) who killed children in schools, theatres, and in their homes. How can they call them civilised?
We do not see them like this. For us, only those who follow international legal standards are civilised. I am referring to the standards of unity, based on mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests. This is what being civilised means. A person is civilised when they do not betray themselves or those to whom they promised something, or those they have tamed.
The situation in Afghanistan is a perfect demonstration of the finest achievements by these civilised nations and people. For 20 years, US-led NATO forces had been destroying the country, increasing drug crops and making huge money by poisoning and killing people with drugs. Having done that, they made a hasty decision to leave everything behind and abandon everyone who served them in good faith, packed up their things and staged a bloody and horrendous withdrawal, leaving it to their loyal servants to grab for the wings of planes and fall once they took off. After that, they stole money which belonged to the people of Afghanistan. Now they give these funds back in small instalments for creating Afghanistan support facilities. This is anti-civilisation at its finest.
To discuss these matters, you need to know the historical context. For starters, you do not need to know much, just a couple decades of history, although a couple of centuries would be better.
Back in February this year, Ukraine initiated negotiations and said that it was ready to compromise. However, the Anglo-Saxons told Ukraine to change its tack and ordered it to withdraw from negotiations with Russia. This could have been a tactic they devised on purpose.
We expect Kiev to signal its intention to resume the negotiating process in a clear and unambiguous manner, taking into consideration the new territorial reality and the situation on the ground. This could have worked if they had stuck to this logic, but they made it impossible for themselves to go down this road. We believe that discussing the positions of the parties would be wrong. They must make up their mind whether to block negotiations or not. Let them coordinate their position with Brussels, Washington and London.
We cannot keep hearing from the US Department of State the endless lamentations alleging that it is Russia who is not ready to talk, as if they cannot see that it was the Kiev regime that introduced the legal ban on talks with Russia.
As for your question on working with the United States and the EU, we know the methods they use all too well: double standards, lies, hypocrisy, fakes, blackmail, and failing to honour one’s obligations. There was a time when they brazenly violated their promise not to expand NATO, and to refrain from reinforcing their security at the expense of others. They rejected Russia’s proposals on security guarantees.
Today, the United States is subjecting countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America to crude blackmail to force them to join the illegitimate sanctions against our country. Washington and its NATO allies continue pumping weapons into Ukraine, spending tens of billions of dollars, which prolongs the conflict and makes it as bloody as possible. Is this the way they show their willingness to engage in talks? Of course not.
Let me reiterate that the Russian leadership has always been committed to resolving conflicts by diplomatic means. Today, we are ready to move along this path. However, we cannot fail to see reality and are compelled to respond to it.
Maria Zakharova: Indeed, the situation on the Korean Peninsula has substantially escalated recently. The reason is obvious: Washington’s attempts to force Pyongyang into unilateral disarmament using the pressure of sanctions, power and provocations, with its own strategic potential and the resources of US allies in the Asia-Pacific Region. On October 31, the air forces of the United States and South Korea started a military exercise of an unprecedented scale, involving around 240 aircraft. It is essentially a rehearsal for a massive strike at North Korean territory.
On our part, we believe that a lasting peace in Northeast Asia can only be ensured by establishing a system of multilateral indivisible security, with guarantees to all interested states, which is exactly the purpose of well-known Russia-China diplomatic initiatives.
Maria Zakharova: It should be stressed once again that we consider the freezing of Russia’s assets an illegitimate measure that violates all norms of international law and business relations.
We consider these acts by Western countries as an infringement on sovereign property. These acts have already prompted many countries to rethink the reliability of the US dollar and the euro as reserve currencies. There is also an issue of whether the Western financial architecture is suitable for stable trans-border payments.
Any use of funds belonging to Russia without our consent will be classified as blatant robbery and will call for a proper response. It will also seriously affect the stability of the global financial system.
As concerns our response, we are developing potential measures. I will not go into details, but I can assure you that we are working on this.
Maria Zakharova: We use the term “route.” The unblocking of transport connections in the region was discussed at the Sochi summit.
It was agreed that this work will continue within the Trilateral Working Group co-chaired by deputy prime ministers of the three countries, as it was specified in the statement by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia of January 11, 2021.
Maria Zakharova: The World Thematic Conference of Compatriots Abroad, titled Economic Cooperation: Compatriots and Regions of Russia. Responding to Challenges of the Time, began yesterday. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s welcome message was read out. Over 140 entrepreneurs, company leaders and activists of public associations of compatriot from 84 countries took part in the event, which was also attended by representatives of federal legislative and executive bodies, the Russian regions, Russian foundations and NGOs.
Please note that the conference was broadcast live. Everyone could see the speeches by the officials and delegates.
This year’s conference is devoted to economic cooperation between compatriot organisations and Russian regions. The conference participants discussed the possibility of combining the economic potential of small and medium-sized businesses in our country with that of compatriot organisations and improving the relevant legislation; the very relevant issue of protecting the rights and freedoms of Russian compatriots abroad, including entrepreneurs; and the exchange of best practices and coordinating efforts in this area.
The conference programme features a plenary discussion on cooperation with the regions, as well as sections on tourism, IT and small businesses, organised with support from the Moscow government. The meeting participants will also discuss the role of young compatriots. The forum aims to outline areas for interaction between compatriots’ businesses and Russian regions, and to facilitate the further consolidation of the Russian community abroad.
***
Happy holiday! And best wishes!
Additional materials
-
Video
-
Photos
